Jetavan wrote:Interesting that they seem date the death of the Buddha to around 400 BCE when discussing Ctesias' Indika (p. 17), but to around 470 when discussing the Mauryan Empire (p. 7).
daverupa wrote:Jetavan wrote:Interesting that they seem date the death of the Buddha to around 400 BCE when discussing Ctesias' Indika (p. 17), but to around 470 when discussing the Mauryan Empire (p. 7).
The p.7 reference is "And from the Mauryan empire of Asoka, starting around 130 years after the Buddha..."
The p.17 reference ...does not date the Indika.
I'm not sure how you've come to make such comments...
Unrul3r wrote:Hello Dhamma Wheelers,
I found out a few minutes ago that Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali published their most recent book, Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts, a few days ago and so I thought I'd share this with those who didn't know and are interested in it. You can find the direct link to the book here.
There is a talk on it, if you are also interested:...
The [Early Buddhist Texts] also depict many deities and practices that are found neither
in the ancient Vedas, nor in the later Hinduism. In addition, they fail to
mention many practices common to the later Brahmanical tradition, such
as the worship of the Śiva-liṅgaṁ and deities such as Krishna,
Ganesh, Kali and Skanda.
gavesako wrote:The locus classicus for various deities and non-human beings mentioned in the earliest stata of the Suttas are the Mahasamaya Sutta and Atanatiya Sutta (DN). It was an assumption of "protestant" Buddhist scholars that all such references were later additions.
BuddhaSoup wrote:This is one area that confuses me (among many). I have not studied the Atanatiya Sutta, for example, and am not familiar with the references to deities. Do we assume, as we review the most ancient Suttas, that these references were later additions, or was there an element among the original Sangha that paid attention to deities? I am aware that there are some teachings of the Buddha that reference certain nonhuman beings, and have assumed they were part of the teaching as a metaphor, or as part of a (Vedic or Brahmanic) cultural reference. So, my question is, what relevance do these deity references have as we study the early suttas? Do we ignore them as being largely irrelevant to the Buddha's core Dhamma?
BuddhaSoup wrote:Do we ignore them as being largely irrelevant to the Buddha's core Dhamma?
Freelance ExBuddhist wrote:To answer the direct question ("So, are they authentic or not?") that, frankly, the video seems to dance around, but not really answer:
(1) Here's a substantive explanation in the form of a long essay (in both Chinese and English, parallel), contrasting the extant texts we've got from various traditions, and explaining that the Sutta material fom the Pali canon is, indeed, the best (extant) material we've got to work with (contrary to a lot of innuendo about Sanskrit and Chinese sources during the last hundred years, some of which seemed reasonable at an earlier stage of research, but now must be discarded).
(2) And, by contrast, here's a lightweight youtube video that only lasts a few minutes, and will answer the same question (without too much depth, and geared, partly, to as a reply the type of hostililty that Mahayanists frequently present, i.e., in refusing to accept that there is any historical validity to the Pali Canon):
by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali
This text is presented as a supplement to Volume 5 of the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 4 guests