Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by sphairos »

thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:58 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:38 am
thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:30 am

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". :reading: :buddha1:
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.
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. :twothumbsup:
1) In the same volume there is the paper on the same subject by ven. Anālayo and S. Travagnin, with an alternative view. Have you read it?

2) Could you please share the paper by Dr Choong?
Last edited by sphairos on Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by sphairos »

Assaji wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:25 am
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
Parayana and Atthaka chapters of the Sutta-nipata are indeed one of the oldest. Samyutta Nikaya isn't so early:
The 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.
https://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/chron.htm

:anjali:
Unfortunately, unreliable. :(
In sum, although we cannot date the texts translated in this volume
with any final certainty, we can say that they are likely to date in something
close to their present form to the third or second century BCE.
We cannot claim that the Pali version of the suttas translated here
represent the oldest version or are closer than other surviving versions
to some ideal original. Yet this is equally true of these other surviving
versions. Certainly there have been some attempts to compare versions
and date them relatively, and also attempts to distinguish earlier from
later strata within the collections of Pali suttas themselves, yet the
exercise is fraught with uncertainties, and the results of such attempts
have proved inconclusive and not been universally accepted by
scholars.
26
26 As an example of a sustained attempt to distinguish between early and late in the Pali
Nikāyas, see G. C. Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, 2nd edn. (Delhi, 1974).

Rupert Gethin. Sayings of the Buddha. 2008. p. XXV
And I would, personally, put these two:
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.
at the very end, because these are results of late editorial systematization and homogenization.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by sphairos »

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?
Well, "EBT" is a term coined by ven. Sujato, and most scholars don't accept it and wouldn't agree to look at the problem in that way at all.

Theravāda canon is "EBTs", the earliest ones, as in all other versions we find the material which is in the Pāli commentaries in the sūtras themselves.

In this earliest canon we already find a lot of differences, diverging views and contradictions:
“Take a case where mendicants who practice discernment of principles rebuke mendicants who practice absorption meditation...

Now, take a case where mendicants who practice absorption meditation rebuke mendicants who practice discernment of principles...

So you should train like this: ‘As mendicants who practice discernment of principles, we will praise mendicants who practice absorption meditation.’...

So you should train like this: ‘As mendicants who practice absorption meditation, we will praise mendicants who practice discernment of principles.’...

https://suttacentral.net/an6.46/en/sujato
Or, early Buddhism of the Sutta-nipāta and early Buddhism of the four Nikāyas are two different early Buddhisms.

Likewise, Theravāda, which is the teaching of these EBTs, represents differences, diverging opinions and practices etc., like early Buddhism itself.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by sphairos »

sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:57 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:58 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:38 am

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.
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. :twothumbsup:
1) In the same volume there is the paper on the same subject by ven. Anālayo and S. Travagnin, with an alternative view. Have you read it?

2) Could you please share the paper by Dr Choong?
Nevermind, already found the paper on his academia.edu page.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by thomaslaw »

sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:57 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:58 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:38 am

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.
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. :twothumbsup:
1) In the same volume there is the paper on the same subject by ven. Anālayo and S. Travagnin, with an alternative view. Have you read it?
Yes, I have. The response to Choong Mun-keat by Analayo in the paper is just like a restatement of similar style or opinion of him. It is in fact just to present another evidence to support what Choong's criticism has provided: "obviously ignores the relevant findings of Master Yinshun and the Ceylonese/Burmese version's reading in MN 122" (see note 24, p. 903).

I think it is possible Analayo cannot read the Chinese writings by Yinshun. Secondly, it is just his face-saving response, which Analayo does not realise his response in fact provides another evidence to support what Choong has presented in his paper. :jumping:
Last edited by thomaslaw on Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:52 pm
sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:57 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:58 am

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. :twothumbsup:
1) In the same volume there is the paper on the same subject by ven. Anālayo and S. Travagnin, with an alternative view. Have you read it?
Yes, I have. The response to Choong Mun-keat by Analayo in the paper is just like a restatement of similar style or opinion of him. It is in fact just to present another evidence to support what Choong's criticism has provided: "obviously ignores the relevant findings of Master Yinshun and the Ceylonese/Burmese version's reading in MN 122" (see note 24, p. 903).

I think it is possible Analayo cannot read the Chinese writings by Yinshun. Secondly, it is just his face-saving response, which Analayo does not realise his response in fact provides another evidence to support what Choong has presented in his paper. :jumping:
In reading the paper it seems Choong doesn't understand what circular reasoning is.
“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.”
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by thomaslaw »

It will be very good if Analayo directly responds to the relevant findings of Yinshun critically. But, I really consider he is unable to read the Chinese works by Yinshun. :thinking:
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by sphairos »

thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:52 pm
sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:57 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:58 am

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. :twothumbsup:
1) In the same volume there is the paper on the same subject by ven. Anālayo and S. Travagnin, with an alternative view. Have you read it?
Yes, I have. The response to Choong Mun-keat by Analayo in the paper is just like a restatement of similar style or opinion of him. It is in fact just to present another evidence to support what Choong's criticism has provided: "obviously ignores the relevant findings of Master Yinshun and the Ceylonese/Burmese version's reading in MN 122" (see note 24, p. 903).

I think it is possible Analayo cannot read the Chinese writings by Yinshun. Secondly, it is just his face-saving response, which Analayo does not realise his response in fact provides another evidence to support what Choong has presented in his paper. :jumping:
Are you sure that you read this paper: "The three-aṅga theory in Master Yinshun’s 印順 scholarship: Assessing the state of Āgama studies in twentieth-century China"? (2020). There are many relevant arguments in it.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by thomaslaw »

sphairos wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:03 am
thomaslaw wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:52 pm
sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:57 pm

1) In the same volume there is the paper on the same subject by ven. Anālayo and S. Travagnin, with an alternative view. Have you read it?
Yes, I have. The response to Choong Mun-keat by Analayo in the paper is just like a restatement of similar style or opinion of him. It is in fact just to present another evidence to support what Choong's criticism has provided: "obviously ignores the relevant findings of Master Yinshun and the Ceylonese/Burmese version's reading in MN 122" (see note 24, p. 903).

I think it is possible Analayo cannot read the Chinese writings by Yinshun. Secondly, it is just his face-saving response, which Analayo does not realise his response in fact provides another evidence to support what Choong has presented in his paper. :jumping:
Are you sure that you read this paper: "The three-aṅga theory in Master Yinshun’s 印順 scholarship: Assessing the state of Āgama studies in twentieth-century China"? (2020). There are many relevant arguments in it.
Yes, I am sure. :reading: :buddha1:
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by Assaji »

sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:02 pm Unfortunately, unreliable. :(
In sum, although we cannot date the texts translated in this volume
with any final certainty, we can say that they are likely to date in something
close to their present form to the third or second century BCE.
We cannot claim that the Pali version of the suttas translated here
represent the oldest version or are closer than other surviving versions
to some ideal original. Yet this is equally true of these other surviving
versions. Certainly there have been some attempts to compare versions
and date them relatively, and also attempts to distinguish earlier from
later strata within the collections of Pali suttas themselves, yet the
exercise is fraught with uncertainties, and the results of such attempts
have proved inconclusive and not been universally accepted by
scholars.
26
26 As an example of a sustained attempt to distinguish between early and late in the Pali
Nikāyas, see G. C. Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, 2nd edn. (Delhi, 1974).

Rupert Gethin. Sayings of the Buddha. 2008. p. XXV
Surely Pande's attempt is conjectural. In contrast, Dr. Bimala Churn Law presents convincing arguments, and his chronology had a significant impact in the scholarly community.

For example, regarding the dating of the Suttanipāta, Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:
Linguistic and doctrinal evidence suggests that the Suttanipāta took shape through a gradual process of accretion spread out over three or four centuries. The anthology is unique to the Pāli Canon, though it contains discourses with parallels in other transmission lines among the schools of Early Buddhism. This implies that the Suttanipāta itself was compiled within the Pāli school from preexisting, material. Several of its texts are considered to be among the most ancient specimens of Buddhist literature. Among these are two chapters, the Aṭṭhakavagga (chap. IV) and the Pārāyanavagga (chap. V), that are quoted in the Saṃyutta and Aṅguttara Nikāyas. These two chapters are, moreover, the subjects of a two-part expository text, the Niddesa, so old that it was included in the Khuddaka Nikāya.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ftnADQAAQBAJ&pg=PA13
sphairos wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:02 pmAnd I would, personally, put these two:
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.
at the very end, because these are results of late editorial systematization and homogenization.
Can you present convincing arguments for such a placement? Do you really imply that, for example, the inclusion of the Anattalakkhana Sutta in both Vinaya and Saṃyutta Nikāya is evidence of its lateness?
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by thomaslaw »

Assaji wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:29 am
Can you present convincing arguments for such a placement? Do you really imply that, for example, the inclusion of the Anattalakkhana Sutta in both Vinaya and Saṃyutta Nikāya is evidence of its lateness?
Sutta-nipāta collection is relevant to gāthā, but "compiled in the Khuddaka-nikāya rather than being made part of the four basic Āgamas/Nikāyas" (see p. 10, note 34 in Choong Mun-keat’s Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). In terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts, Sutta-nipāta collection is not earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by Assaji »

thomaslaw wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:52 pm Sutta-nipāta collection is relevant to gāthā, but "compiled in the Khuddaka-nikāya rather than being made part of the four basic Āgamas/Nikāyas" (see p. 10, note 34 in Choong Mun-keat’s Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). In terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts, Sutta-nipāta collection is not earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama.
Sutta-nipāta collection is earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama. Dr. Bimala Churn Law writes:
The modern exegesis of Mahakaccana forming the cornerstone of the Mahaniddesa can be traced as a separate sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, Vol. III., p.9, where the Sutta commented upon by Mahakaccana is expressly counted as a sutta of the Aṭṭhakavagga (Atthakavaggike Magandiya panhe).
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/chron.htm
Seated thus at one side, the houselord Hāliddakāni said this to the venerable Mahā Kaccāna:“Bhante, this was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Māgandiya’ of the Aṭṭhaka Vagga [the Chapter of Eights]: ...
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmaf ... 3-piya.pdf
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by thomaslaw »

Assaji wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:43 am
thomaslaw wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:52 pm Sutta-nipāta collection is relevant to gāthā, but "compiled in the Khuddaka-nikāya rather than being made part of the four basic Āgamas/Nikāyas" (see p. 10, note 34 in Choong Mun-keat’s Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). In terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts, Sutta-nipāta collection is not earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama.
Sutta-nipāta collection is earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama. Dr. Bimala Churn Law writes:
The modern exegesis of Mahakaccana forming the cornerstone of the Mahaniddesa can be traced as a separate sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, Vol. III., p.9, where the Sutta commented upon by Mahakaccana is expressly counted as a sutta of the Aṭṭhakavagga (Atthakavaggike Magandiya panhe).
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/chron.htm
Seated thus at one side, the houselord Hāliddakāni said this to the venerable Mahā Kaccāna:“Bhante, this was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Māgandiya’ of the Aṭṭhaka Vagga [the Chapter of Eights]: ...
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmaf ... 3-piya.pdf
It seems the quotations provided do not indicate clearly Sutta-nipāta is earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama in terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts. Note: Sutta-nipāta is compiled, edited in the Khuddaka-nikāya rather than being made part of the four basic Āgamas/Nikāya.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by Assaji »

thomaslaw wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:22 am
Assaji wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:43 am
thomaslaw wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:52 pm Sutta-nipāta collection is relevant to gāthā, but "compiled in the Khuddaka-nikāya rather than being made part of the four basic Āgamas/Nikāyas" (see p. 10, note 34 in Choong Mun-keat’s Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). In terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts, Sutta-nipāta collection is not earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama.
Sutta-nipāta collection is earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama. Dr. Bimala Churn Law writes:
The modern exegesis of Mahakaccana forming the cornerstone of the Mahaniddesa can be traced as a separate sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, Vol. III., p.9, where the Sutta commented upon by Mahakaccana is expressly counted as a sutta of the Aṭṭhakavagga (Atthakavaggike Magandiya panhe).
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/chron.htm
Seated thus at one side, the houselord Hāliddakāni said this to the venerable Mahā Kaccāna:“Bhante, this was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Māgandiya’ of the Aṭṭhaka Vagga [the Chapter of Eights]: ...
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmaf ... 3-piya.pdf
It seems the quotations provided do not indicate clearly Sutta-nipāta is earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama in terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts. Note: Sutta-nipāta is compiled, edited in the Khuddaka-nikāya rather than being made part of the four basic Āgamas/Nikāya.
You formulated it very well: the quotations provided do indicate clearly that Sutta-nipāta is earlier than Saṃyutta-nikāya/Saṃyuktāgama in terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which Theravada school is the closest to early Buddhism?

Post by thomaslaw »

Verse always tends to be linguistically conservative in language (archaic words). The Sutta-nipāta, Dhammapada (both edited in Khuddaka-Nikāya), and Sagātha-vagga (in Samyutta-Nikāya/Samyukta-āgama) were composed in verse. These texts in verse were considered by some scholars an earlier compilation, which is mainly based on their relatively archaic language.

But this reasoning is unsound, because, as stated above, verse always tends to be linguistically conservative in language. This relatively archaic language is not regarded as the formation of early Buddhist texts, according to Ven. Yinshun.

See The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism pp. 7-11. The author, Choong Mun-keat, indicates that Ven. Yinshun has demonstrated the historical important of Samyutta-Nikāya/Samyukta-āgama in Early Buddhism in two books: The Formation of Early Buddhist Texts 原始佛教聖典之集成 (1971), and Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of Saṃyukta-āgama 雜阿含經論會編 (1983).

See also the same author provides further useful information on this topic/issue in the following recent paper:

“Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts” in Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts, Research Series 8; edited by Dhammadinnā), Taiwan: Dharma Drum Corporation, August 2020, pp. 883-932.

:reading: :buddha1:
Post Reply