Another curious point of the Lotus Sūtra, pointing to antiquity, is this explanation given for the term "pratyekabuddhaḥ", from the Nepalese LS, it can be found in Ch 3, the Aupamyaparivartaḥ:Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:57 pmMinobu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:23 pm There are scholars that have ....{i am no expert in this and this is like foggy layman interpretation from stuff i read}....written that it is impossible for Sakyamuni buddha to have taught the Lotus sutra for it is in a language , pali or sanskrit or something that was not of the buddha...Some say it was written totally by some Persian dude....
I don't think any serious scholars would ever argue, knowing it is a foolhardy thesis, that the Lotus Sūtra is the fabrication of a single man, be he Buddhist, a Persian Buddhist, or a Persian Non-Buddhist, or any woman for that matter. It is definitely a Buddhist text. It is definitely a Mahāyāna sūtra. It also shows signs of extreme antiquity. It has dhāraṇī in Māgadhī Prākrit, a very old layer of language.
It also shows signs of elaboration. Things like descriptions of the Buddha's Pure Land and descriptions of places, locales, etc., for instance, become lengthened over time. This is only one thing that pops to mind, as I can look for the source immediately I think.
It's ultimately up to us to determine if it is plausible that the Buddha gave some sermon like this towards the end of his life. Some people think it is completely implausible that the 'historical' Buddha ever taught bodhisattvayāna at all.
It also begs the question: who is the Buddha, what is the Buddha? Once that is established, then "what is the Buddha's word" can be asked.
IMO
It seems to loosely correspond with 樂獨善寂深知諸法因緣 in the Chinese, but I am looking closer.ātmaparinirvāṇahetorhetupratyayānubodhāya tathāgataśāsane ‘bhiyujyante, ta ucyante pratyekabuddhayānam ākāṅkṣamāṇās
those who apply themselves to the Tathāgata’s teachings in order to understand causes and conditions to reach
complete extinction of the self
Notice the little hetupratyaya in the explanation. This is in reference to the very old ambiguities between pratyekabuddhaḥ (lone buddha) and pratyayabuddhaḥ (cause buddha).