The Very Idea of Buddhist History

[daverupa]

This is a very optimistic assessment,

It's quite middle-of-the-road, actually:

http://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015 ... ticity.pdf

There's a lot of wiggle-phrasing going on in your post, but I won't address it here, this is the wrong forum. Come over to the other DW if you'd like to hear about Early Buddhism.

[Zhen Li]

Dave, it would be helpful if you specify precisely where the "hundred year" figure argument is in this 158 page document. Or even better, you could present it in your own words.

I'm not sure what you meant by wiggle in what I say, and if you can be specific on this, that would also be of help; but deflecting a discussion is fairly wiggly.

[daverupa]

I've gotten into trouble on this forum many times; so, I've offered a venue for discussing these topics that doesn't come with that danger. That's not a wiggle, that's a maneuver for the sake of social lubrication.

[Zhen Li]

You're not going to offend me. I'm genuinely interested in the topic and every so often I discover something new that changed my perspective on what I thought was the case before.

[daverupa]

Then, read those 100+ pages, and comes visit me on the other side of the wheel.

[Aemilius]

Of course, the Pali canon was compiled hundreds of years after the Buddha (and Theravada emerged well after that and the Mahayana).

The Pali Canon is a compilation spanning a very long time, it's true; but the Nikayas from within that set, when compared with the Agamas, show a common baseline - the later Sthaviravada School that would become modern Theravada added a lot and commented on a lot, same as the other Schools, all of which pre-date Mahayana, which added a lot more & commented a lot more.

That's the thing with these early texts, and with Early Buddhism generally: the Nikayas/Agamas are the best sources we have, and most of what they convey is very likely from within a hundred years of the Buddha's final nibbana.

This cannot be said for any later text: nothing specifically Theravada, nothing specifically Mahayana.

Fundamentally, Buddhism is a method of attaining knowledge personally, through dhyana or the noble 8-fold path. Then you will know for your self, -according to Buddha Shakyamuni. But this method gives a totally different view of the history of Dharma.

The fact is that material universe is not real, it is not an independent reality. Therefore, and also because of various ancient and modern political reasons, the whole established version of Buddhist history is completely wrong.
The existing Buddhist history is a product of political compromises in the past and modern times. And it is equally a product of human imagination in the past and present. It is a projection of modern human consciousness into the past eras.

[Serenity509]

In my opinion, the Pali scriptures are closer to what the historical Buddha taught, while the Mahayana sutras are based on the samadhi experiences of Buddhists who came later. If Dharma-body is in everything, at all times, then one isn't necessarily more valid than the other.

[Zhen Li]

There are many variations in Pali manuscripts, and variations between the Pali and their Chinese Agama equivalents, some of which can be fairly certainly fixed in time at about the 2nd century CE, whereas the Pali manuscripts we can use are only from the past millennium.

I completely understand that some people want to follow the Śrāvakayāna ("other side of the wheel" if you will), that's not what is at issue, rather, what is at issue is how reliable a record for pre-sectarian Buddhism certain texts are. In this case, I'd say go with the Chinese translations. The reason for not doing so is forsaking desires for historical primacy, and simply going with the canon of your own school, which makes complete practical sense to me (especially since most Śrāvakayānists are Theravādins). In all cases, one should keep in mind that the canon one reads is particular to your school - even the earliest texts are not records of pre-sectarian Buddhism.

In the end, some of us need to come to terms with the fact that people do not hold as canon what they do because of historical accuracy. People hold as canon what they do because of a multitude of reasons - the practice works for them, the community is helpful, the texts are inspiring, funny, uplifting, they make sense, and so forth. Then there's simply a different view on what makes something the word of the Buddha - rather than history, this is usually expressed as being that which is not in contradiction with what has been said before, is spoken well, is praised, and so forth, or as the Asta says, what is said by the Buddha's disciples who know suchness for themselves, is to be known as the word of the Buddha, or one can certainly say that visionary or meditative experiences brought about knowledge directly from Buddhas, which was then written down, a view which might be more contingent upon the openness of the audience. Doug Osto is making a study on psychedelics and Buddhism, "Altered States," which might also be explanatory here - I have no experience with psychedelics, but people who do tend to have very different ways of viewing things, and it is possible that monks wrote sutras under their influence. Some people do, of course, believe the Buddha spoke the Mahayana sutras, and that they were kept secret or hidden, but there's just as little way to substantiate that as there is that any other text was spoken by the Buddha - both are a matter of faith.

[Serenity509]

I'm trying to avoid getting into an argument, but regarding how I understand the Mahayana sutras, I quote D.T. Suzuki:

If we take it to mean the lifeless preservation of the original, we should say that Mahayanism is not the genuine teaching of the Buddha, and we may add that Mahayanists would be proud of the tact, because being a living religious force it would never condescend to be the corpse of a by-gone faith...
Mahayanism is far from this; it is an ever-growing faith and ready in all times to cast off its old garments as soon as they are worn out. But its spirit originally inspired by the [the Buddha] is most jealously guarded against pollution and degeneration. Therefore, as far as its spirit is concerned, there is no room left to doubt its genuineness...
http://theendlessfurther.com/is-mahayan ... he-buddha/

The rest of the essay is definitely worth reading as well. Also, I quote the Dalai Lama:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama noted the following in the book 'The Heart Sutra':

"It is very important to understand that the core teachings of the Theravada tradition embodied in the Pali scriptures are the foundation of the Buddha's teachings. Beginning with these teachings, one can then draw on the insights contained in the detailed explanations of the Sanskrit Mahayana tradition. Finally, integrating techniques and perspectives from the Vajrayana texts can further enhance one's understanding. But without a foundation in the core teachings embodied in the Pali tradition, simply proclaiming oneself a follower of the Mahayana is meaningless.
If one has this kind of deeper understanding of various scriptures and their interpretation, one is spared from harboring mis-taken notions of conflicts between the "Greater" versus the "Lesser" Vehicle (Hinayana). Sometimes there is a regrettable tendency on the part of certain followers of the Mahayana to disparage the teachings of the Theravada, claiming that they are the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle, and thereby not suited to one's own personal practice. Similarly, on the part of followers of the Pali tradition, there is sometimes a tendency to reject the validity of the Mahayana teachings, claiming they are not actually the Buddha's teachings.
As we move into our examination of the Heart Sutra, what is important is to understand deeply how these traditions complement each other and to see how, at the individual level, each of us can integrate all these core teachings into our personal practice."
http://viewonbuddhism.org/vehicles.html

Mahayana and Theravada scholars, when they are honest, admit that their scriptures are equally valid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_poi ... 1y%C4%81na

The Buddha, after all, didn't even speak Pali.

[daverupa]

I'm trying to avoid getting into an argument... Mahayana and Theravada scholars, when they are honest...

Odd, really, since

...what is at issue is how reliable a record for pre-sectarian Buddhism certain texts are.

All y'all've already been given a paper on this; maybe read it, see what flaws or assumptions might need to be brought out, if any.

In this case, I'd say go with the Chinese translations.

The Buddha didn't speak Chinese, either, so that's just as flawed as sticking with the Pali - it's going with one school, or a set of them, instead of engaging in a fully comparative effort such as Analayo's comparison of MN/MA editions.

(especially since most Śrāvakayānists are Theravādins).

...so, we can notice that Mahayana folk aren't usually Śrāvakayānists vis-a-vis the Agamas in just the same way that Theravada folk are also usually not Śrāvakayānists vis-a-vis the Nikayas. In either case a given individual is already defined as having taken up a given scholastic set beyond the early material.

Fundamentally, Buddhism is a method of attaining knowledge personally, through dhyana or the noble 8-fold path. Then you will know for your self, -according to Buddha Shakyamuni. But this method gives a totally different view of the history of Dharma.

Ths other underlined portion is important to notice (btw, jhana isn't quite enough: it takes sammasamadhi, not just any ol' samadhi, and that's only one fold of the eight): but this indeed engaged with & known personally, yes; as it says in the early texts, "known individually by the wise". But citing this already assumes their primacy as sources of Buddhavacana; it doesn't render a new view of Buddhist history at all, as it remains within Buddhist history to use the texts in this way.

[Admin_PC]

No dave, it's a matter of respect.
You don't respect any viewpoints that disagree with your's.
You don't even have the required respect to make this a discussion.
Instead you come here to preach to us the "true" path of your "historical" Buddhism.
When we disagree, you just completely dismiss it.
When we present evidence from other academics, you completely dismiss it.
When we ask for evidence, you wave your hands and pretend like textual analysis is a smoking gun.
You insult us by calling us the "Mormonism of Buddhism".
Frankly, you don't need to be here.

I'm trying to avoid getting into an argument... Mahayana and Theravada scholars, when they are honest...

Odd, really, since

...what is at issue is how reliable a record for pre-sectarian Buddhism certain texts are.

All y'all've already been given a paper on this; maybe read it, see what flaws or assumptions might need to be brought out, if any.

Not so odd.
You've been calling our traditional histories lies and fabrications from the moment you stepped foot on this board.
Liars is an apt presentation for your views, and the views you try to push on here.
You've been presented counter arguments for this paper multiple times, yet you dismiss them.
Just to summarize:

1. Sujato & Analayo are THERAVADA MONKS NOT ACADEMICS. Nobody in Academia takes them seriously. It's like Roman Catholic priests writing papers to dismiss the teachings of Egyptian Coptic Christians. The sectarian bias is so strong it's laughable when presented as objective research.

2. Textual Analysis is not evidence. Sure, there are situations where clear anachronisms occur, but their method is basically "I don't like this passage", "the metre of this passage doesn't fit the rhythm of the rest of the passage perfectly", or "the teachings of this passage contradict what I'm comfortable with" - therefore said passage is a "late fabrication". This is not the smoking gun of evidence you claim it is.

3. Sujato claims that Thomas William Rhys Davids is a valid resource when it comes to commenting on non-Theravadan works. Yes, the same guy that started the Pali Text Society, the guy that repeated (verbatim) fabricated Theravada history & polemics as legitimate evidence of the invalidity of other, non-Theravadan Buddhist schools, and was the first person in the west to start Mahayana bashing. The guy hasn't been taken seriously in academia for nearly a century because of many of the same reasons that Sujato is not taken seriously - because the sectarian bias is too strong to be taken seriously.

4. You tout Gombrich as another academic who proves your case against us. Yet Gombrich has been chided by Gethin - another practitioner of Pali Buddhism & president of the Pali Text Society - for overstating his case against Mahayana and allowing his sectarian bias intrude into his writings. Even the academic Peter Harvey (yet another admitted practitioner of Pali Buddhism) doesn't go so far as Gombrich and makes many statements in his "An Introduction to Buddhism" that directly go against some of Gombrich's claims.

In this case, I'd say go with the Chinese translations.

The Buddha didn't speak Chinese, either, so that's just as flawed as sticking with the Pali - it's going with one school, or a set of them, instead of engaging in a fully comparative effort such as Analayo's comparison of MN/MA editions.

To use your favorite term, this is a "false equivalency" and therefore invalid. It's very obvious that the Chinese translations came from Prakrit(s) that was/were much closer to what the Buddha may have spoken. Furthermore, Analayo is completely invalid as a source on this issue. Beyond the fact that he's a sectarian monk from a competing tradition, he doesn't read Chinese. In the paper I sent you, he tried to refute the writings of Chinese academics on the contents of the Agamas by doing single character searches in CBETA - as if there were only a single character that could be used for a given term, which makes it obvious he has no idea what he's talking about. He has even gone so far as to lobby to have certain passages from the Chinese Agamas dismissed or removed outright, because they conflict with his Early Buddhism attempt at orthodoxy. His entire approach is so dishonest that "liar" is an apt description.

(especially since most Śrāvakayānists are Theravādins).

...so, we can notice that Mahayana folk aren't usually Śrāvakayānists vis-a-vis the Agamas in just the same way that Theravada folk are also usually not Śrāvakayānists vis-a-vis the Nikayas. In either case a given individual is already defined as having taken up a given scholastic set beyond the early material.

"Early Material" is pure fabrication based on no evidence. "Textual Analysis" is not a replacement for evidence.

Again, the reason you've been warned so many times is not to prevent your views so much as to keep you from hijacking this board. You refuse to accept the views of others who disagree with you. You act like you are speaking from a position of unchallenged authority when you're not. You're quoting "academics" who are really just sectarians pushing polemics as some sort of universally recognized authority, when they are hardly even taken seriously in academics.

I think at this point, all that has been said on this matter is all that needs to be said. You have been asked many times not to proselytize your "Early Buddhism" here. I know for myself I've about had enough. I find it extremely disruptive for this forum, which is to discuss Mahayana Buddhism, not to hear you repeat over and over again that it is all late, fabricated stuff akin to Mormonism (a very poor analogy by the way). You would not have lasted this long with your tactics on any other religious forum, the fact that you're still here is a statement to the open mindedness of the community here.

[Ayu]

This thread is ready for its cessation.