arhat wrote:Keeping the issue of PTS dictionary's accuracy aside, what makes you think Citaka and Pitaka are the same word?
Besides, what exactly is your point? Pitaka was never used in the Buddha's era to imply bucketing or sub-categorizing a collection. It only had a literal meaning, and that points to the non existence of an oral tradition in pre-sectarian Buddhism for the canon as a whole.
Ti-pitaka: ' The Three Baskets', is the name for the 3 main divisions of the Pāli Canon: the Basket of Discipline Vinaya Pitaka, the Basket of Discourses Sutta Pitaka and the Basket ot Philosophy Abhidhamma Pitaka.
The word "pitaka" appears nowhere in the PTS Dictionary. It asked if I meant "citaka", which means pile. Which led me to conclude that we sort things into piles, such as when we wash clothing for folding and storage.: shirts, pants, underwear, etc. Ti-pitaka. Three Baskets or Three Piles...same difference.....or, not!
I was mostly curious about the similarity of the words. I am sure that even Pali has changed in 2500 years.
ancientbuddhism wrote:In the lecture I cited above, Norman presents a well argued theory
ancientbuddhism wrote:do you have evidence for your claim?
ancientbuddhism wrote:Lecture VIII – Buddhism and Canonicity – of the same series cited above, discusses tipiṭaka and the idea of a pāli-canon in general. That the tipiṭaka would be considered as representing a physical collection of texts originally, was not mentioned, although the nearest equivalent to ‘canon’ he comes up with is “…Buddhavacana “the words of the Buddha””.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Thanks. I wonder why your version has it and mine doesn't?
arhat wrote:Ron-The-Elder wrote:Thanks. I wonder why your version has it and mine doesn't?
The t in Piṭaka has a dot under it, i.e. it is a retroflexed t (that doesn't exist in English), not the dental t which does. You were trying to query with the dental t.
पिटक ; piṭaka ; a basket ; a container ; one of the three main division of Pāli Canon .
arhat wrote:Norman also says "The word bhāṇaka means speaker, from the root bhaṇ “to speak”, and is another of the items of vocabulary which suggest that the early Buddhists used an oral tradition."
However there are no bhāṇakas mentioned either in the canon itself or anytime within the first 10 centuries of Buddhism. Even Buddhaghosa who is the first to mention a bhāṇaka uses it only once in relevance to the sutta pitaka and does not mention that bhāṇakas followed an independent oral tradition. So to use a single occurence of this word virtually a millenium after the buddha's time (and by redefining it) to argue for a great oral tradition in the Buddha's era is kind of odd..
Then the venerable Dabba, the Mallian, being so chosen, assigned one lodging in the same place for those monks who belonged to the same company. For those monks who knew the Suttantas he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: “These will be able to chant over the Suttantas to one another.” For those monks versed in the Vinaya rules, he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: “They will decide upon the Vinaya with one another.” For those monks teaching dhamma he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: “They will discuss dhamma with one another.” For those monks who were musers he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: “They will not disturb one another.”..who lived indulging in low talk and who were athletic...who came in late at night..
Sammato saṃghena āyasmā dabbo mallaputto senāsanapaññāpako ca bhattuddesako ca. Khamati saṃghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī’”ti.
Sammato ca panāyasmā dabbo mallaputto sabhāgānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ekajjhaṃ senāsanaṃ paññapeti. Ye te bhikkhū suttantikā tesaṃ ekajjhaṃ senāsanaṃ paññapeti—“te aññamaññaṃ suttantaṃ saṅgāyissantī”ti. Ye te bhikkhū vinayadharā tesaṃ ekajjhaṃ senāsanaṃ paññapeti—“te aññamaññaṃ vinayaṃ vinicchinissantī”ti. Ye te bhikkhū dhammakathikā tesaṃ ekajjhaṃ senāsanaṃ paññapeti—“te aññamaññaṃ dhammaṃ sākacchissantī”ti. Ye te bhikkhū jhāyino tesaṃ ekajjhaṃ senāsanaṃ paññapeti— “te aññamaññaṃ na byābādhissantī”ti. Ye te bhikkhū tiracchānakathikā kāyadaḷhibahulā viharanti tesampi ekajjhaṃ senāsanaṃ paññapeti—“imāyapime āyasmanto ratiyā acchissantī”ti. Yepi te bhikkhū vikāle āgacchanti tesampi tejodhātuṃ samāpajjitvā teneva ālokena senāsanaṃ paññapeti. Apisu bhikkhū sañcicca vikāle āgacchanti—“mayaṃ āyasmato dabbassa mallaputtassa iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ passissāmā”ti.
Qianxi wrote:'bhāṇaka' is found on 2nd century bce - 1st century ce Prakrit donative inscriptions in Sri Lanka and on a couple of 2nd century bce inscriptions in India. Interestingly I think the Sri Lankan inscriptions imply that the bhāṇakas specialise in one Nikaya (Dighabhanaka, Majjhimabhanaka etc.), but in the Indian inscriptions they are just bhāṇakas without a specialisation.
EDIT: In MN 33 and its Chinese parallels http://suttacentral.net/mn33 there's reference to 'those who know the agamas, memorise the dhamma, memorise the vinaya and memorise the matikas' "āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā" (I may well be wrong with that translation, please correct me.)
I don't think so. His arguments are shaky and one sided. Here are his principal arguments and why I think they are shaky. ...
ancientbuddhism wrote:The use of writing during this period is not so critical as whether the saṅgha used it. Is there any real evidence to suggest they did?
Are there any real evidences you know of that indicate the use of dhara or piṭaka with reference to physically bearing and storing these texts? Otherwise your claim, although interesting, is truly as you say 'one sided'.
In fact all the earliest manuscripts of India have some relevance to Buddhism or the other (and some are suttas)... can you explain that?
Dhara can be used both for physical (literal) and non-physical "bearing". Piṭaka was never used in a non-physical sense in BCE India, can you prove otherwise?
Here are some quotes from Indian literature for your benefit...
ancientbuddhism wrote:You would have to explain which of this ‘all’ and what relevance. There is relevance, I have argued as much myself, but that is another topic. The context of the question is evidence of the saṅgha using writing during the period discussed, which if I am understanding you would have been in use already by the First Council?
Actually piṭaka has little relevance (citing non-Buddhist texts does not make that either) to your claim, unless you can show where there is evidence in the EBT's, or paracanonical Buddhist texts referencing that period, that baskets of texts were being stored during the Tathāgata’s career (or just after his parinibbāna and before the first recitation), or hauled to Sri Lanka prior to the written canon we know of .
The use of dhara, with reference to doctrine is within the context of memory e.g.
58. <10> One should cultivate one of great learning, expert in the doctrine (dhammadharaṃ), a noble friend possessed of intelligence. Knowing one’s goals, having dispelled doubt, one chould wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn.” [Norman – The Group of Discourses (Suttanipāta 1.3) p. 7)
The idiom “Bahussutaṃ dhammadharaṃ …” is also at Th. 1035
And unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise, there is no reason to claim this is not with reference to an oral memory.
The practice of catechetical instruction was already known in the Nikāyas e.g. Samiddhi Sutta AN. 9.14, and many of the Tathāgata’s discourses likewise were interrogatory in style.
bharadwhatever wrote:As I have said, all, if not most of the earliest manuscripts of India are Buddhist (and Buddhists, in the context of BCE India, means the monastic tradition). But it appears to me you are not familiar with early Indian epigraphy, so you are asking me which of this "all"? That the buddhists used written texts in the time of Ashoka does not necessarily have to mean they wrote/copied those texts themselves.
bharadwhatever wrote:In fact all the earliest manuscripts of India have some relevance to Buddhism or the other (and some are suttas)... can you explain that?
bharadwhatever wrote:Bhanakas were not reciters from memory but readers from texts. In the early centuries of Buddhism not many could read aloud (i.e. recite) since most were illiterate, and those who could were held in high regard.
In the Vinaya I think, there is a story of Ananda correcting a bhanaka who reads out wrongly by mistake.
ancientbuddhism wrote:if it is the earliest “Buddhist” manuscripts you are referring to as having relevance (to themselves?), what is your point?
Can you show how ‘Buddhist’ manuscripts circa 1st century CE make your claim (see your post below) that the bhāṇakas were reciting from written texts
Also, are you indicating a 'Buddhist' written tradition prior to the parinibbāna of the Tathāgata and the recitations at the First Council?
No that is not what I said. The earliest extant writings from India (from circa the era of Ashoka) are all (or mostly) Buddhist. What this means is that the Buddhists were the pioneers in the adoption of writing in India.
I didn't say that there were no buddhist manuscripts before the 1st century CE, but that seems to be your assumption. I simply said the bhāṇakas were not reciters from memory but rather literates who could (& did) read from manuscripts.
I dont know if there was such a thing as the first council, because the canon itself is silent about it as far as I know.
If the vast majority of the canonical suttas were composed & recited at such a council for preserving them for posterity, they must have been immediately written down (by specialist scribes) in any script that was known/available.
But no I don't claim that there may have been a written tradition in the Buddha's lifetime.
ancientbuddhism wrote:◦ If the bhāṇakas were reciting from manuscripts, what evidence can you provide other than to surmise that because a system of writing was in use during the ‘era of Ashoka’ that the early canon was preserved by the saṅgha in this way?
◦ Can you show that a writing system was introduced by the saṅgha (or 'Buddhists' on their behalf) for any purpose?
◦ When did the saṅgha begin using it?
◦ Did the saṅgha never use a mnemonic system with preference to a written one?
◦ I think you mentioned that others (not bhikkhus) were doing the work of recording and storing the materials for the bhikkhus to refer to; is there any evidence that shows this.
The canon is also silent about scribes and rubric manuscripts, but you seem convinced that this is the only way the canon was transmitted. I am not always satisfied with what tradition has given us, but this matter has adequate academic support, and you have not shown anything other than an interesting opinion thus far.
Users browsing this forum: Nicolas and 4 guests