Re: Mahāyāna Sutras?

[CedarTree]

Difference is....

We took it to a whole 'nother level....! Lol

That might be true. I don't know. Is that what Theravadins say about it?

The joke may not translate well in text

[Santi253]

I'd be really interested in seeing what the historical evidence is that the Pali scriptures are more authentic than the Mahayana scriptures.

One cannot read the Pali scriptures and Mahayana scriptures side by side, and then decide based solely on their apparent differences that one is more historical than the other. I'd wish for a higher standard of evidence than that.

Even in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha taught in different ways to different people from different circumstances, so it's possible that both the Pali scriptures and the Mahayana scriptures were taught by the historical Buddha. It just so happens that different communities transmitted different scriptures.

Ancient India was an oral culture, and important religious texts like the Rigveda were passed down for hundreds of years before taking a written form:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_cha ... ansmission

[CedarTree]

I'd be really interested in seeing what the historical evidence is that the Pali scriptures are more authentic than the Mahayana scriptures.

One cannot read the Pali scriptures and Mahayana scriptures side by side, and then decide based solely on their apparent differences that one is more historical than the other. I'd wish for a higher standard of evidence than that.

Even in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha taught in different ways to different people from different circumstances, so it's possible that both the Pali scriptures and the Mahayana scriptures were taught by the historical Buddha. It just so happens that different communities transmitted different scriptures.

Ancient India was an oral culture, and important religious texts like the Rigveda were passed down for hundreds of years before taking a written form:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_cha ... ansmission

I think there is quite a bit of evidence that The Pali Canon and in particular parts of the Pali canon are much earlier in date than the Mahayana Sutras.

The Mahayana Sutras can not even really be talked about as one category as many belong to different time periods all together.

This however doesn't mean they are not Buddha Dharma.

And this is coming from a guy that use to be ultra orthodox about Pali Canon Only

The Heart Sutra is an example of Buddha Dharma that is not of the Pali Canon time period.

[Santi253]

I think there is quite a bit of evidence that The Pali Canon and in particular parts of the Pali canon are much earlier in date than the Mahayana Sutras.

I've never actually seen physical evidence to support this claim. The oldest available Buddhist manuscripts are, as far as I know, of Mahayana sutras.

[chownah]

I'd be really interested in seeing what the historical evidence is that the Pali scriptures are more authentic than the Mahayana scriptures.

Authentic in what way?
chownah

[Santi253]

I'd be really interested in seeing what the historical evidence is that the Pali scriptures are more authentic than the Mahayana scriptures.

Authentic in what way?
chownah

Historically authentic, historically reliable, historically accurate, etc.

[Santi253]

This is from Richard Gombrich:

The leaves are inscribed with eight excerpts from the Pali Canon.
Professor Harry Falk has now dated them, on paleographic
grounds, to the second half of the fifth century A.D., which
makes them by far the earliest physical evidence for the Pali
canonical texts (Stargardt, 1995).

I am glad to make this correction. However, the survival of a
few short extracts is not important for the overall picture I am
trying to present. The gross fact remains that almost all our
evidence for the texts of the Buddhist Canon comes from
manuscripts and that hardly any Pali manuscripts are more than
about five hundred years old. The vast majority are less than
three hundred years old...

During centuries of transmission
both oral and written they were inevitably subject to corruption.
And I think that anyone who reads the texts while keeping this
simple fact in mind rapidly becomes aware that plenty of
passages do indeed appear to be corrupt.
http://elibrary.ibc.ac.th/files/private ... egan_0.pdf

The Gilgit and Ghandaran manuscripts are impressive compared to the manuscript evidence for the Pali suttas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4% ... hist_texts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgit#Gilgit_manuscripts

[Myotai]

Just thinking of Mahayana Sutras makes me want to read the Heart Sutra.

So incredible.

The Heart Sutra is a concise summary of the Prajnaparamita literature. As such it contains the 4 noble truths, the skandhas, and rhe essence of Mahayana teachings. Deeply understand it and you probably don't need anything else

So very true!

[Santi253]

Here is a simple way of describing the difference between Mahayana and Theravada scriptures.

While the Theravada scriptures are written from the perspective of a disciple, witnessing the Buddha speak and act, the Mahayana scriptures are instead intended to help us see reality from the perspective of the Buddha's enlightenment.

When I read the Theravada scriptures, I feel like I am witnessing the Buddha as a separate person, but while I read the Mahayana scriptures, I feel like I am witnessing reality through his eyes, the world of his enlightenment.