Chula wrote:I've heard that the Vimānavatthu and Petavatthu are considered later additions to the canon by scholars.
Does anyone know on what basis this judgment is made? Is it a matter of doctrine because these tales seemingly trivialize the workings of kamma?
Also, regarding the Jātakas, I've heard that sections of them are considered to be later additions. Is there any consensus on what those are? I've read some jātakas referenced in the four nikāyas, and the earliest classifications of the teachings in the suttas have the jātakas included:
"suttaṃ, geyyaṃ, veyyākaraṇaṃ, gāthaṃ, udānaṃ, itivuttakaṃ, jātakaṃ, abbhutadhammaṃ, vedallaṃ"
"dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions"
from MN 22: Alagaddūpamasutta -
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Paññāsikhara wrote:Also, there is good evidence that at first, it is basically just the first three types.
I don't think that "trivialize" is the best word, maybe "give a more simplistic picture", may be more apt.
May I ask what the evidence is that only the first three types were the the first classifications?
Paññāsikhara wrote:The nine-limb system for the teachings are not very clear classifications. For a start, they are not mutually exclusive categories. Also, there is good evidence that at first, it is basically just the first three types. The other ones slowly get added on later. The further down the list they appear, we could say the later they are.
Registered users: Bakmoon, Bing [Bot], BubbaBuddhist, cooran, diptych4, Feathers, fig tree, fivebells, gavesako, Google [Bot], jonno, kiwi, Lazy_eye, Majjhima Patipada, mettafuture, perkele, Peter_S, reflection