It works all right for me. But you will find a link to the article on this page:
https://ocbs.org/lance-cousins/
It works all right for me. But you will find a link to the article on this page:
Are you sure about that? The 66 in the username might be for something else.
Seniority. If we were both bhikkhus, Mike could order me around.
I think only the textual tradition of the Samyutta suttas in the Pali schools is closest to the earliest EBTs (of early Buddhism), according to the Sarvastivada and Yogacara traditions, and also early Abhidharma Buddhism and Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Samyutta-nikaya. See pp. 900-902 in Choong Mun-keat's "Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts".Quantum Foam wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:42 pm Hi,
The question is above. Perhaps it should be added that it is generally said that the Abhidhamma is a construct of Theravada, perhaps that would be a good criterion to judge from. Many Burmese schools that rely heavily on the Abhidhamma would be ruled out, but the Thai forest tradition, which is the main focus on the suttas, would rather score. So what do you think Which school or tradition is closest to EBT texts?
Ok this one works . Thks .Dhammanando wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:34 pm
It works all right for me. But you will find a link to the article on this page:
https://ocbs.org/lance-cousins/
Obviously incorrect understanding! Why Sutta-nipata is "counted most flawlessly and oldest in the early Buddhist context"?Quantum Foam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:43 pm Thank you for your answers and your efforts. I have a question if I understand it correctly, the Samyutta Nikaya and the Sutta-nipata are the two collections of texts that are counted most flawlessly and oldest in the early Buddhist context. If so, why is that? THANK YOU
Doesn’t Ven. Analayo disagree with that hypothesis? I’ll see if I can dig it out. It would certainly be strange for the SN to be the original, yet all traditions agree on there being 4 Nikayas/Agamas.thomaslaw wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:46 amI think only the textual tradition of the Samyutta suttas in the Pali schools is closest to the earliest EBTs (of early Buddhism), according to the Sarvastivada and Yogacara traditions, and also early Abhidharma Buddhism and Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Samyutta-nikaya. See pp. 900-902 in Choong Mun-keat's "Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts".Quantum Foam wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:42 pm Hi,
The question is above. Perhaps it should be added that it is generally said that the Abhidhamma is a construct of Theravada, perhaps that would be a good criterion to judge from. Many Burmese schools that rely heavily on the Abhidhamma would be ruled out, but the Thai forest tradition, which is the main focus on the suttas, would rather score. So what do you think Which school or tradition is closest to EBT texts?
A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya vol. 2 page 179 footnote 69Yìnshùn 1971/1983: 788 considers the three angas of discourse, verses, and exposition, 修多羅, 祇夜, 記說, to be the earliest organizing principle in the evolution of the early Buddhist canon. Choong 2010: 56-57 explains that according to this hypothesis these three angas underlie the structure of the Samyukta-agama, considered to be “the foundation of all four agamas (nikayas) in the formation of early Buddhist texts”, which then “subsequently expanded and yielded the other agamas in the sequence Madhyama-agama, Dirgha-agama, Ekottarika-agama. Therefore, the … SA [Samyukta-agama] is the foundation of all four agamas”, in contrast to “the secondary nature of [the] Madhyamagama/Majjhima-nikaya, Dirghagama/Digha-nikaya, and Ekottarikagama/Anguttara-nikaya”. This hypothesis is based on the description of the Agamas given in the Vastusamgrahani of the Yogacarabhumi.
Although the indications made in the Vastusamgrahani have indubitably been of great importance for reconstructing the order of the Samyukta-agama (T 99), which in the Taisho edition is in disarray (cf. also Bucknell 2006: 685), from a methodological viewpoint it would not be possible to use the reconstructed Samyukta-agama in turn to prove that the indications given in the Vastusamgrahani are correct, since this would become a circular argument. Besides, it is also not clear if the description of the Agamas in the Vastusamgrahani has to be read as positing the Samyukta-agama as a kind of ‘Urkanon’ in its own right. It might just intend to explain why the Samyukta-agama is given pride of place in its listings of the four Agamas. In the corresponding passage in the (Mula-)Sarvastivada Vinaya, T 1451 at T XXIV 407b27, cf. also Lévi 1916: 36, the point at stake does in fact not seem to be a temporal priority of the formation of the Samyukta-agama, but only a temporal priority of it being recited by Ananda at the so-called first council, before he recited the other Agamas.
Although the idea that the early Buddhist oral transmission began by assembling discourses according to topics in a manner similar to what is not found in the Samyukta-agama and the Samyutta-nikaya is certainly appealing, there seems to be no reason why a numerical organisation could not have been in use as well, similar to what underlies the Ekottarika-agama and the Anguttara-nikaya. The introduction to the Ekottarika-agama in fact emphasizes this numerical arrangement, T II 550b24, and hence gives pride of place among the four collections to the Ekottarika-agama, with the Samyukta-agama relegated to the last position in its list, cf. T II 549c29 (other listings that place the Ekottarika-agama in first position and the Samyukta-agama last can be found, e.g., in the (presumably) Haimavata Vinaya, T 1463 at T XXIV 820a23, the *Mahaprajñaparamita-(upadesa-)sastra, T 1509 at T XXV 69c5, and the 入大乘論 , T 1634 at T XXXII 36c15; for still other listings cf. below p. 864 note 46). Perhaps more than one organizing principle was in use from the outset, since otherwise it would be difficult to explain what happened to those discourses that do not neatly fit into the topic-wise arrangement now found in the Samyukta-agama/Samyutta-nikaya.
It seems improbable that these were just left to float around without being in any way organized at a time when other discourses were formally assembled according to topic. Alternatively, all such discourses must be considered to be of later origin, resulting in a presumption about the nature of earliest Buddhism that would be difficult to substantiate. The Samyukta-agama (T 99) itself contains a number of passages and tales that in the Theravada tradition are found only in commentarial literature. This makes it improbable that the Samyukta-agama, at least in the form we have it now, should be assigned to a textual strata that is distinctively earlier than the other discourse collections (cf. also Choong 2010: 63, who notes that the discourse material found in this collection does not “all actually belong to the teachings of Early Buddhism”).
Regarding the angas, the description of the Agamas in the passage under discussion from the Vastusamgrahani does not explicitly refer to the set of three angas. The only tri-partite analysis found in the present passage distinguishes the Samyukta-agama discourses from the viewpoint of speaker, topic, and audience, T 1579 at T XXX 772c17: 一是能說, 二是所說, 三是所為說 and D (4039) sems tsam, zi 128a1 or Q (5540) ’i 143b6: su ston pa dang, ci ston pa dang, gang la ston pa dang (cf. also Bucknell 2007: 19 and 32 note 78). This division does not naturally evoke the three angas of sutta, geyya, and veyyakarana (on the significance of the last of these three cf. also Analayo 2009l). In fact, had this been the original intention, the three angas could have been directly mentioned.
Another argument in support of the significance of the threefold listing is presented by Sujato 2005: 62, who notes that in a reference to the twelve angas in a Mahaparinirvana-sutra fragment, cf. SN 362 folio 173R6-7 in Waldschmidt 1950: 62, “the twelve angas are listed with the first three members declined as individual words, while the remaining members occur grouped together as one long compound”, which he takes to point to a special emphasis on the first three. Although in the case of another Mahaparinirva0a-sutra version, fragment 1024R5 in Waldschmidt 1968: 5, the remainder of the listing does not form a compound: sutram geyam vyakaranam gath-oddana nidanavadana itivr(ttkajataka)v[ai]pulyadbhutadharmopa(desas), Sujato notes that in the Sravakabhumi listings of the angas also follow the above pattern, cf., e.g., Shukla 1973: 100,18 or SSG 1998: 154,3. Yet, this form of presentation need not be interpreted as reflecting some underlying awareness of an ancient use of the three angas at the time of the formation of the canonical collections, otherwise forgotten.
It could just be the result of a standard procedure in Buddhist texts, where the first three members of listing are always mentioned, even when the rest is abbreviated (cf. also note 70 below). This pattern can in fact be observed in the same Sravakabhumi, cf., e.g., Shukla 1973: 101,20 or SSG 1998: 154,25: sutram geyan vyakaranam iti vistarena purvavat, a formulation that could easily have influenced the pattern noticed by Sujato. In sum, it seems that the evidence brought forward so far in support of a special significance of the three angas is not conclusive. Hence, the present passage in MA 191 (and presumably also in MN 122) might, after all, be just the result of a transmission error
For "Critique and Response" to Analayo's wrong view, see pp. 903-911, note 24 in Choong Mun-keat's "Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts".Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:01 am Here it is:
A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya vol. 2 page 179 footnote 69Yìnshùn 1971/1983: 788 considers the three angas of discourse, verses, and exposition, 修多羅, 祇夜, 記說, to be the earliest organizing principle in the evolution of the early Buddhist canon. Choong 2010: 56-57 explains that according to this hypothesis these three angas underlie the structure of the Samyukta-agama, considered to be “the foundation of all four agamas (nikayas) in the formation of early Buddhist texts”, which then “subsequently expanded and yielded the other agamas in the sequence Madhyama-agama, Dirgha-agama, Ekottarika-agama. Therefore, the … SA [Samyukta-agama] is the foundation of all four agamas”, in contrast to “the secondary nature of [the] Madhyamagama/Majjhima-nikaya, Dirghagama/Digha-nikaya, and Ekottarikagama/Anguttara-nikaya”. This hypothesis is based on the description of the Agamas given in the Vastusamgrahani of the Yogacarabhumi. ...
... be just the result of a transmission error
He does have a point though. The evidence in favour is rather scanty at best. It can be tempting to latch onto it though I suppose. It seems to offer a way to the pre-sectarian period, which is tempting.thomaslaw wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:30 amFor "Critique and Response" to Analayo's wrong view, see pp. 903-911, note 24 in Choong Mun-keat's "Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts".Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:01 am Here it is:
A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya vol. 2 page 179 footnote 69Yìnshùn 1971/1983: 788 considers the three angas of discourse, verses, and exposition, 修多羅, 祇夜, 記說, to be the earliest organizing principle in the evolution of the early Buddhist canon. Choong 2010: 56-57 explains that according to this hypothesis these three angas underlie the structure of the Samyukta-agama, considered to be “the foundation of all four agamas (nikayas) in the formation of early Buddhist texts”, which then “subsequently expanded and yielded the other agamas in the sequence Madhyama-agama, Dirgha-agama, Ekottarika-agama. Therefore, the … SA [Samyukta-agama] is the foundation of all four agamas”, in contrast to “the secondary nature of [the] Madhyamagama/Majjhima-nikaya, Dirghagama/Digha-nikaya, and Ekottarikagama/Anguttara-nikaya”. This hypothesis is based on the description of the Agamas given in the Vastusamgrahani of the Yogacarabhumi. ...
... be just the result of a transmission error
I think the findings on the three-aṅga structure and content of SA/SN in early Buddhist texts by Ven. Yinshun, and the English explanations and responses provided by Choong Mun-keat are very logical.
I’m not saying it’s wrong. It’s definitely a good hypothesis, but research into early Buddhism is still in its early stages. I think more needs to be done before we can say anything with greater certainty.thomaslaw wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:58 amI think the findings on the three-aṅga structure and content of SA/SN in early Buddhist texts by Ven. Yinshun, and the English explanations and responses provided by Choong Mun-keat are very logical.
Parayana and Atthaka chapters of the Sutta-nipata are indeed one of the oldest. Samyutta Nikaya isn't so early:Quantum Foam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:43 pm Thank you for your answers and your efforts. I have a question if I understand it correctly, the Samyutta Nikaya and the Sutta-nipata are the two collections of texts that are counted most flawlessly and oldest in the early Buddhist context. If so, why is that? THANK YOU
https://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/chron.htmThe results arrived at concerning the chronology of the Pali canonical listerature are preseented in the subjoined table.
1 The simple statements of Buddhist doctrines now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
2 Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
3 The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the sikkhapadas.
4 The Digha, Vol. l, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.
5 The Digha, Vols. II & III, the Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the Suttavibhanga, the Patisambhidamagga, the Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.
6 The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada and the Kathavatthu.
7 The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Suttanipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka and the Patthana.
8 The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka and the Apadana.
9 The Parivarapatha.
10 The Khuddakapatha.