Jechbi wrote:Could you expand on that?
appicchato wrote:...whether this sutta is a forgery or not is unimportant to me, and where would the benefit be knowing (which doesn't seem possible, definitively, one way or another) if it is, or isn't?...it's helped me tackle my monkey mind... [/i]
Jechbi wrote:I sometimes come away with a better understanding that actually strengthens practice. I hope that occurs here.
my personal theory is that the satipatthana suttas of MN & DN may of been a combination of smaller suttas as a training aid for new monks who may not of been able to remember the whole collection so langer discourses were made using short discourses and verses from other longer texts to enable the students to practice properly without needing to carry around or memorise vast amounts of teachings.
Dmytro wrote:There are two main valid methods for establishing the relative dating of a sutta:
- comparison with Chinese counterparts;
- linguistic analysis of the words and grammatical forms used.
Anything else is at best a hypothesis, and at worst an empty speculation.
Since the Chinese versions of this sutta are pretty much similar to Pali sutta, all this pathologic anatomy doesn't matter.
This is identical to the second link in the OP, thanks. I'm only skimmed it, though.retrofuturist wrote:Have you read this?
'A History of Mindfulness: How Insight Worsted Tranquillity in the Satipatthana Sutta' by Ajahn Sujato
Jechbi wrote:Having re-read the responses to this thread, I wanted to say thanks for all the insightful comments here. I think the term "forgery" probably is too harsh, simply because in common usage it implies "completely fake." But even Ajahn Sujato appears to agree that the contents of the sutta reflect important elements of Dhamma teaching as they were passed down in this particular tradition. I believe he's using the term "forgery" in a narrower sense and with regards to precise origin.
Best wishes for your practice ...