Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Ian,
IanAnd wrote:
SarathW wrote: So the crux of Buddha's teaching is Anatta.
The rest of the teaching is found in other religions as well.
Are you certain of that? In what other doctrine of truth/reality (your word "religion") is there found a teaching the same as paticca samuppada (dependent co-arising) or pancakkhanda (the five aggregates)?
Yes, perhaps "anatta" is too narrow, but I think we could classify DO and the aggregates as detailed expansions of the basic anicca, dukkha, anatta wisdom. I think Sarath's point is that the practise of generosity, sila, and some kind of meditative development are common. It's the wisdom teachings where the differentiation lies.

:anjali:
Mike
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by SarathW »

There is a Sutta to support what I said.
I do not remember where it is.
It compare all the other teachings and finally Buddha mention, that the teaching of Anatta is the main difference.
Five Aggregate, Dependent origination, Abhidhamma etc are all about understanding Anatta.
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by mikenz66 »

Yes, in MN 11 there is this:
“Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance…therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.
http://suttacentral.net/mn11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But I think that "the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self" would include DO, etc...

:anjali:
Mike
rohana
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by rohana »

Sati1 wrote:Hello,

I was wondering when the Chinese Agamas diverged from the Pali Canon and if there are still Buddhists who lead their practice by them. Is there somehing equivalent to Theravada Buddhism but for the Agamas?

Many thanks,
The Āgamas did not diverge from the Pāli canon. The Āgamas are Chinese translations of texts that are from multiple Indian schools such as Sarvastivāda and Dharmaguptaka. The Pāli canon is the only remaining complete sūtra piṭaka out of all the 18 early schools. So it would be more appropriate to say that the Āgamas and the Pāli Nikāyas are both descended from a common textual ancestor. So the main divergence would have been during the period of the division into different schools, mostly starting around the second counil and ending up with many schools (traditionally counted as 18 schools) by Ashoka's time. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that each school had their doctrinal differences, the difference may have been due to vinaya issues or simply geographical separation/isolation.
Zom wrote:There is one more thing which I always keep in mind when dealing with this topic. It is ...well... the absense of texts but achieving arahantship by earliest disciples. What this means - is that if you understand the main idea of Dhamma and if you understand the main idea of right practice - you can become an arahant even without knowing that much.
:coffee:
You make a very good point. Usually it's just a few instructions and a simile or two that a new disciple receives - and off they go to meditate. I think sometimes practitioners can get stuck looking for hidden secrets in the Suttas thinking that some crucial instruction is missing in their practice, which is preventing their awakening. Or one might think that if they can find an arahant they'll be provided with said missing piece of information.
"Delighting in existence, O monks, are gods and men; they are attached to existence, they revel in existence. When the Dhamma for the cessation of existence is being preached to them, their minds do not leap towards it, do not get pleased with it, do not get settled in it, do not find confidence in it. That is how, monks, some lag behind."
- It. p 43
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by Zom »

Oh, and I forgot to mention one more thing that fits this topic. In MN 76 Ananda explains Buddha's teaching about different variants when holy life is either useless at all (when your view, for example, is materialism, it will be useless for you) or when it is "without consolation". And there are 4 cases when holy life is "without consolation". One of the cases is when you fully rely on "tradition" (textual tradition in the first place). In this case holy life becomes "a problem" for you, because you rely on texts only, while in reality some texts may be transmitted well, but some may be transmitted bad, some texts tell the truth and give right information, others - lie or wrong information. So, as Buddha says, right holy life should not be based solely on the sacred texts. Obviously, personal experience, personal practice, personal discerning and observation is an important thing as well when leading a holy life. To say it short: reading and studying texts is good, but think with your own head.
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by IanAnd »

SarathW wrote:I think even a good Christian or any other can become an Arahant if he eliminate the personality view.
(Understanding Anatta)
So the crux of Buddha's teaching is Anatta.
The rest of the teaching is found in other religions as well.
Five Aggregate, Dependent origination, Abhidhamma etc are all about understanding Anatta.
And with that I have no disagreement. Apparently, I misread your statement. I retract my question.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Zom wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:25 pm
Thank you very much for your replies. I dont understand how there can be parallel versions of dozens (or hundreds?) of suttas, without them having diverged from each other at some point. Is the First Council considered to be the time when the agamas and Pali suttas arose separately? I am looking for evidence that points to the historical dates when the core messages in the suttas arose. The latest date when messages present in both sets of suttas arose would be the date when the two sets of suttas diverged from each other. Or am I missing something?
If you want to know my opinion: From the very start Buddha gave instructions (probably detailed) to his monks, but these texts were not memorized yet. Some time after, probably, either Buddha or his students suggested that texts should be memorized, and, probably, the first memorized text was Suttanipana's Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga (because there is no specific buddhist terminology there). Some time after that more texts started to be memorized, but different people remembered them a bit differently, though, learning them by heart. Buddha gave lectures in different areas/locations, and people (mostly monks) memorized texts in all those places but they didn't communicate with each other too often. I mean, there could be a group of monks in Savatthi, in Kuru lands, in Kasi and so on - these groups rarely met each other, though, ofc, ancient monks travelled much - and if they met each other, they, probably, taught each other new suttas (heard from the Buddha). In this way canonical texts were "accumulated" over time all over India, but *not* in some 1 place. If there was a misunderstanding or debates (on the text), monks went to the Buddha or famous disciples and asked them whose version is correct. Also, as it seems to me - though it is rarely mentioned in the suttas themselves - most of time monks spent not in meditation, but in learning suttas by heart and repeating them over and over again. This itself was a strong practice which lead to both concentration and mindfulness-non-forgetfulness and, ofc, wisdom/dhamma-understanding. Passing the texts down to new monks was a practice of dana (actually, the highest and most valuable form of dana), so merits were accumulated as well. After Buddha's final nibbana best monks decided to make a council where all Dhamma texts were standardized and - very probable - many texual formulas (which we now see in numerous suttas) were composed just on this massive and lenghthy meeting and, probably, this version of texts was considered as, well, "the best one". However, there were still some suttas which were remembered a bit differently and maybe even with different words used. Also, some texts could be missed on the first council, and they were added later when heard and collected. Probably, for during the next 50-100 years all monks were forced to remember "council" version but this didn't went smoothly and some texts became a mixture of 2 versions or maybe even 3 versions (this depended on a particular area where monks resided). As a result, different local sanghas had a bit different versions and when these local sanghas were formed into "schools" over time, it turned out that different schools had slightly different texts. Together with that there were some intentional distortions when certain teachers considered themselves authoritative/clever/wise enough to make changes (but at first it happened rarely and probably during Asoka reign - and ofc later - this became em... a tendency so to call). And, ofc, there were groups/teachers which were strict traditionalists and tried to minimize this effect, but they couldn't not exclude it altogether, and so even in their own collections there appeared some distortions or texts not spoken by the Buddha or chief disciples. In any case, when Mahayana and Abhidhamma-vada appeared, this to some extent helped to preserve old texts from further distortion - simply because no one really read them but studied "high/better" teachings (mayahana/abhidhamma/vajrayana (later) - and so these texts were forgotten by the majority of buddhists for a long time. Luckily, they survived up till now and so we have a rare and fortunate opportunity to read and study them.
Very interesting. 4 years later but I’ve just read this.

:)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Zom wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:23 pm There is one more thing which I always keep in mind when dealing with this topic. It is ...well... the absense of texts but achieving arahantship by earliest disciples. What this means - is that if you understand the main idea of Dhamma and if you understand the main idea of right practice - you can become an arahant even without knowing that much. Just think: Did Moggallana or Sariputta or Kondannya or Mahakassapa learn all 5 Nikayas to become an arahant? No. They heard short instructions and practised jhana for some days (or weeks). After that - an arahant. Same with many other people. I think this fact is important to remember if you see that you are becoming too anxious about that there (maybe) some textual distortions, or lack of details, or later additions and so on. Knowing that common core (which is one and the same everywhere) in all early buddhist texts is enough to stop digging in order to reveal some hypothetically hidden "True Teaching". Some people attach too much to details and suffer because of that.
:coffee:
I agree
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Zom wrote:
Major teachings are repeated many times in many suttas - so no need to worry - you (can) know enough to practise efficiently. We cannot be certain only when it comes down to some (often unnecessary) details.
:goodpost:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
beanyan
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by beanyan »

Dhammanando wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:54 am
Sati1 wrote:... and if there are still Buddhists who lead their practice by them. Is there something equivalent to Theravada Buddhism but for the Agamas?
Yes to the former and no to the latter. There is the odd individual or two —like the Mahayana monk Thích Minh Châu and the Theravadin one Anālayo— who make it their business to study the Āgamas and whose outlook and practice are no doubt informed by them, but there isn't any living tradition based upon them.
Do you mean to say something like Mahayanans don't go by the agamas but rather by one off sutras from later like Lotus Sutra or Lankavatura, etc. and therefore the agamas are only of interest to Theravadans who are curious about the differences between them and the nikayas?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by Dhammanando »

beanyan wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:24 amDo you mean to say something like Mahayanans don't go by the agamas but rather by one off sutras from later like Lotus Sutra or Lankavatura, etc. and therefore the agamas are only of interest to Theravadans who are curious about the differences between them and the nikayas?
No, I didn't mean that. Nor do I see how this could be inferable from anything I said in reply to Sati1. Since I stated that there ARE Mahayanists who make a point of studying the Āgamas, how could I possibly have meant that the said Āgamas are of interest only to Theravādins?
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
simsapa
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by simsapa »

Are there any Agama texts that contain valuable material not found in the Tipitaka? I'm referring to anything that would enhance meditation practice or deepen understanding of major concepts. Otherwise, feel free to define "valuable" as you'd like to.
ronnymarsh
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:11 am

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by ronnymarsh »

The Agonkyo (Sutra Agama) is a collection of Sutras analogous to the Nikayas, but which do not come from the same source. The themes that exist in the Agamas almost always exist in the Nikayas, but other subjects are unparalleled.

One example is the Agamas Sutras that talk about the Ten Remembrances (or Ten Elements of Mindfulness).

While in the Pali Canon the practice of Mindfulness is primarily based on the Four Bases expounded in the Satipatthanasutta, the third volume of the Chinese canon's Ekkotarikagama attempts to enumerate Buddhist meditative practice in terms of the Ten Remembrances, which begin as the "Remembrance of the Buddha" ( in Chinese: Nienfo; in Japanese: Nembutsu), and concludes with the "remembrance of death".

The text teaches that one should start with remembering the Buddha, then remembering the Dharma, then remembering the Sangha, then remembering the precepts, generosity, the devas, serenity, breathing, impermanence, until concluding with the memory of death. And the whole set of practice in that sequence would lead to enlightenment, or even choosing just one practice would be enough.

In the Pali canon there is no text that explores this practice as much, and he prefers to focus on the Four Fundamentals, which also exist in the Chinese canon.

When looking at this text, it is understood that Chinese Buddhism has not fully abandoned the Agamas. The most popular practice in Sino-Japanese Buddhism is Buddha Remembrance, particularly of a Buddha in cosmic terms like Amitabha or Mahavairocana, and although these terms do not appear in the Agamas, the content of Buddha meditation in this text is what underlies this practice. .

Thus, it is not possible to say that they were totally abandoned by Sino-Japanese Buddhism, as the Mahayana texts are generally expansions and commentaries that arise from the Agamas.

A great example of this is the main Mahayana text (and one of the oldest) dealing with dependent origination, the "Shalistambasutra".

This text presents the bikkhu Sariputta asking bodhisatta Maitreya about the meaning of the words of a Sutta when the Buddha says, "Whoever sees the Buddha, sees the Dharma; whoever sees the Dharma, sees the Buddha." And from that Maitreya develops the whole explanation.

In terms of textual criticism, what we can say is that this Mahayana text is mainly an "abidhamma" type document, a commentary on a Sutta/Sutra of the original and common canon.

Even most Mahayana texts have this structure: It is not the Buddha who preaches (few are like that), it is usually a bodhisattva or lay person who gives a teaching, which is often intended for the bikkhus. And when we go to see the basis of that teaching, they are in the Agamas.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by asahi »

simsapa wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:52 am Are there any Agama texts that contain valuable material not found in the Tipitaka? I'm referring to anything that would enhance meditation practice or deepen understanding of major concepts. Otherwise, feel free to define "valuable" as you'd like to.
It seems in this forum very few are interested in agama . Mostly are close minded . Theravadins think all contents in nikaya are authentic and self sufficient . Therefore , even if there are many Valuable material in the agama , to them it doesnt adduce to something noteworthy in the field .
No bashing No gossiping
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Agamas divergence from Pali Canon, still practiced?

Post by un8- »

asahi wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:49 pm
simsapa wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:52 am Are there any Agama texts that contain valuable material not found in the Tipitaka? I'm referring to anything that would enhance meditation practice or deepen understanding of major concepts. Otherwise, feel free to define "valuable" as you'd like to.
It seems in this forum very few are interested in agama . Mostly are close minded . Theravadins think all contents in nikaya are authentic and self sufficient . Therefore , even if there are many Valuable material in the agama , to them it doesnt adduce to something noteworthy in the field .
Why would it provide something new? The Nikayas are so repetitive, you could probably cut half of them and still not discover something inherently different. Most of the 4 Nikayas is the same concepts repeated in different ways.

If there was something new and different in the Agamas, it would probably be in the Nikayas as well.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Post Reply