For those who do not have a Tricycle account:Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whose Buddhism is Truest – Linda Heuman
For those who do not have a Tricycle account:Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sadly; however, this is not a very good article. Its author is rather selective of the most recent scholarship and in turn the article becomes something of an apologetic for the authenticity of the Mahayana.ancientbuddhism wrote:For those who do not have a Tricycle account:Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whose Buddhism is Truest – Linda Heuman
Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.tiltbillings wrote:Sadly; however, this is not a very good article. Its author is rather selective of the most recent scholarship and in turn the article becomes something of an apologetic for the authenticity of the Mahayana.ancientbuddhism wrote:For those who do not have a Tricycle account:Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whose Buddhism is Truest – Linda Heuman
The article is probably worth looking at in some detail.
A good part of the article is the question of the origin of the Mahayana. For that I'd point you to Paul Wiilliams book, BUDDHIST THOUGHT, chapter three.Sherab wrote:Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
Lighten up:)tiltbillings wrote:It was a serious question I asked, and your response and your 2 part claim seems to reflect a serious lack of understanding of early Buddhist history. So, it is seriousness all around.alexbunardzic wrote:Ah, gotcha! My source is some Gypsy woman (at least she looked like she could be Gypsy, but my sources on that are shaky, so let's just leave it at that for now). I ran into her many moons ago at a country fair and she ended up reading my palm (for a nominal fee, of course).
In other words, you are just blowing hot air.alexbunardzic wrote:Lighten up:)tiltbillings wrote:It was a serious question I asked, and your response and your 2 part claim seems to reflect a serious lack of understanding of early Buddhist history. So, it is seriousness all around.alexbunardzic wrote:Ah, gotcha! My source is some Gypsy woman (at least she looked like she could be Gypsy, but my sources on that are shaky, so let's just leave it at that for now). I ran into her many moons ago at a country fair and she ended up reading my palm (for a nominal fee, of course).
No, not in other words, in the self same words.tiltbillings wrote:In other words, you are just blowing hot air.
You are unwilling tp discuss anything in your "book" when politely asked. You are blowing hot air.alexbunardzic wrote:No, not in other words, in the self same words.tiltbillings wrote:In other words, you are just blowing hot air.
Huh? A book published in 2000 and reprinted in 2002 and 2003 is recent? Perhaps you are referring to a 2011 revision of the book?tiltbillings wrote:A good part of the article is the question of the origin of the Mahayana. For that I'd point you to Paul Wiilliams book, BUDDHIST THOUGHT, chapter three.Sherab wrote:Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
You think this a balanced article?
Actually, in terms of historical studies, yes.Sherab wrote:Huh? A book published in 2000 and reprinted in 2002 and 2003 is recent?tiltbillings wrote:A good part of the article is the question of the origin of the Mahayana. For that I'd point you to Paul Wiilliams book, BUDDHIST THOUGHT, chapter three.Sherab wrote:Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
You think this a balanced article?
Perhaps you did not notice that the article I linked was a 2011 article which would appear to have information not available in a book that is published in 2000.tiltbillings wrote:Actually, in terms of historical studies, yes.
But you did not answer the question:You think this a balanced article?
Absolutely.Sherab wrote:... the article I linked was a 2011 article which would appear to have information not available in a book that is published in 2000.
I can't see any lack of balance there. Its basic argument is clear and seems absolutely fair and reasonable in the light of the evidence presented: that a definitive 'pure' 'original' canon does not exist now, that the idea of (re)constructing one is foredoomed to failure, and that we must therefore learn to live with multiplicity and uncertainty.Sherab wrote:As for the contents of the article, I am taking it as it is until someone else who thinks it is unbalanced refutes it with some other pieces of evidence/data/information.
I am working on it.Kim O'Hara wrote:What elements of it do you object to, Tilt?
It's been quite a while since I read the article, but if I remember correctly the author seems to imply that since there were multiple streams of transmission of the early discourses evolving into different redactions in different Indic languages, that therefore, the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras should be considered just as ancient as the Gāndhārī and other Indic language discourses that are similar in style and content to the Pāli discourses. But this is too much of a leap. All of the earliest discourses (Pāli, Gāndhārī, etc.) differ considerably in both style and content from the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras. For these and other reasons, the latter simply can't be placed in the mouth of the historical samaṇa Gotama.tiltbillings wrote:I am working on it.Kim O'Hara wrote:What elements of it do you object to, Tilt?