whose Buddhism is truest?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by thomaslaw »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:02 am
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:34 amAlso, funny how most non-academic folks that praise the Gāndhārī fragments ignore the Asoka pillar inscriptions altogether, more often than not the five nikayas as well. They usually side with Mahayana or Vajrayana too. How convenient.
The whole article is like "The Gandhari fragments are so earth shattering they change everything. Except they don't really say anything new at all which is why scholars are too bored to even publish a translation. But they change EvErYtHiNg!!!"
The Gandhari fragments are definitely sectarian texts. But the fragmentary could be useful to confirm certain Indic terms for the comparative study in early Buddhist texts, particularly for the studies of "Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism".

:reading: :buddha1:
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by thomaslaw »

thomaslaw wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:13 am
josaphatbarlaam wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:02 am
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:34 amAlso, funny how most non-academic folks that praise the Gāndhārī fragments ignore the Asoka pillar inscriptions altogether, more often than not the five nikayas as well. They usually side with Mahayana or Vajrayana too. How convenient.
The whole article is like "The Gandhari fragments are so earth shattering they change everything. Except they don't really say anything new at all which is why scholars are too bored to even publish a translation. But they change EvErYtHiNg!!!"
The Gandhari fragments are definitely sectarian texts. But the fragmentary could be useful to confirm certain Indic terms for the comparative study in early Buddhist texts, particularly for the studies of "Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism".

:reading: :buddha1:
But it seems very limited material/information relevant to the Samyutta/Samyukta texts, and other early Buddhist texts. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4% ... hist_texts

The Buddha in fact did not speak Gandhari (or Pali) Prakrit, though being relevant to the Indic language.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by samseva »

The author instantly jumps from "there are early Buddhist schools" to "we can't know the early Buddhist schools, so... that means all the early and later schools like Mahāyāna are all equal and true!"
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by thomaslaw »

samseva wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:53 am The author instantly jumps from "there are early Buddhist schools" to "we can't know the early Buddhist schools, so... that means all the early and later schools like Mahāyāna are all equal and true!"
which author?
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by Ontheway »

Safest bet would be using Suttas such as a definite guide.

1) Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Sutta Nipata)
(for knowing the 4NT and 8FP)

2) Saccavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya)
(for knowing the details of 4NT and 8 FP)

3) Sammaditthi Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya)
(for gaining Right View)

4) Pathamabhava Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya)
(to clear the doubts and confusion on modes of rebirth)

5) Brahmajala Sutta (Digha Nikaya)
(for abolishing Wrong Views)

6) Okkantasamyutta ten Suttas (Samyutta Nikaya)
(for straightening one's understanding of Dhamma, and at least achieving Sotapanna Sainthood in this very life)

Any modern teachings from different denomination of so-called Buddhist groups that are in contradiction with the above Suttas can be discarded or dismissed at once.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by thomaslaw »

thomaslaw wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:54 pm According to Ven. Yinshun, Saṃyukta-āgama/Saṃyutta-nikāya was not, at first, being termed as nikāya or āgama, but generally named the ‘Connected Discourses’ 相應教 Saṃyukta-kathā. About the term Saṃyukta-kathā, see p. 899, note 21 in the above-mentioned paper (2020) by Choong Mun-keat.

Calling the Saṃyukta/Saṃyutta as āgama/nikāya 'collection' was until when the other three nikāyas/āgamas (MN/MA, DN/DA, AN/EA) were gradually developed and expanded from it. Cf. pp. 10-11 in Choong Mun-keat's Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism (2000).

The extant SA and SN (and also other āgamas/nikāyas) are sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively (p. 11).

It is likely the term nikāya was first being used in early Buddhism for all the four āgamas/nikāyas.
See also the words of Ven. Yinshun about the historical importance of Saṃyukta-āgama/Saṃyutta-nikāya in early Buddhist texts
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=38443
rajitha7
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:14 am

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by rajitha7 »

It's all -> here
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by Ontheway »

rajitha7 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:01 pm
Lord Buddha was born in Lumbini Park, during the time of Ancient Republic of Sakyan, currently the place located within Nepal.

Not Sri Lanka.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by thomaslaw »

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666/

Lumbini was made a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1997.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/180
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by Assaji »

bpallister wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:59 am Salomon described what happened when he compared the Gandhari version of one well-known Buddhist poem, the Rhinoceros Sutra, to its Pali and Sanskrit versions. He found that the sequence of verses and their arrangement were similar to the Pali. The specific wording of the poem, however, was much closer to the Sanskrit.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/whose-buddhism-truest/
The same Salomon explains why Gāndhārī was influenced by Sanskrit:

https://books.google.com/books?id=phk8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95

Professor Salomon also wrote:
All in all, the Aśokan inscriptions give a broad view of the dialect spectrum of MIA vernaculars in the third century B.C. But it must also be understood that they do not provide anything like a real dialectal map of the time. For the geographical distribution of the dialects - especially of the eastern dialect - can hardly correspond with linguistic reality; the eastern dialect was obviously not the mother tongue of residents of the far north and the central south, though it was used for inscriptions (Kālsī, Eṛṛaguḍi, etc.) in those regions. Moreover, the languages as they are presented in the inscriptions are surely not exact renditions of the contemporary vernaculars.

...

After the Mauryan period there is a major shift in the linguistic features of the inscriptional Prakrits. The predominance of the eastern dialect of the Aśokan and other inscriptions of the Mauryan period ends abruptly; in fact, not a single inscriptional record in eastern dialect has been found from the post-Mauryan era. The dominant role in all regions except the northwest and Sri Lanka falls hereafter to a variety of Prakrit which most resembles, among the Aśokan dialects, the western dialect of the Girnār rock edicts, and which among literary languages has the most in common with Pāli and archaic forms of Śauraseni. In other words, this dialect partakes of the typical characteristics of the western and central MIA languages: nominative singular masculine in -o, retention of Sanskrit r and l, predominance of the sibilant s, and so on. Like the Aśokan Prakrits, this central-western epigraphic Prakrit is still relatively archaic, with only occasional intervocalic voicing of unvoiced stops and elision of voiced stops. But unlike some of the Aśokan inscriptions, consonant groups from Sanskrit are nearly always assimilated.

The causes of the abrupt dialectal shift from east to west undoubtedly lie in political and historical developments, that is, the decline of Magadha as the center of power in northern India after the collapse of the Mauryan empire and the movement of the center of political power in the following centuries toward the west and northwest. Like the eastern dialect under Aśoka, the central-western dialect of the post-Mauryan era was used far beyond what must have been its original homeland. Thus we find inscriptions in this standard epigraphic Prakrit as far afield as Orissa in the east, for instance, in the Hāthīgumphā inscription (SI 1.213-21), while in the south it is abundantly attested in inscriptions from such sites as Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and Amarāvatī. This central-western MIA dialect was, in fact, virtually the sole language in epigraphic use in the period in question, and therefore seems, like Pāli, to have developed into something like a northern Indian lingua franca, at least for epigraphic purposes, in the last two centuries B.C.

This is not to say that the inscriptions in this dialect, which Senart called "Monumental Prakrit", are totally devoid of local variations. ... But all in all, the standard epigraphic or "Monumental" Prakrit can be treated as essentially a single language whose use spread far beyond its place of origin, and which should not be taken to represent the local vernacular of every region and period where it appears.

R. Salomon - Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages
https://books.google.com/books?id=XYrG0 ... 6&lpg=PA76
https://archive.org/stream/IndianEpigra ... /mode/2up/
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by Dhammanando »

rajitha7 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:01 pm
I wonder, are you yourself acquainted with this alleged monk ("Ven. Ariyamagga Ariyakammattana") who is allegedly suing the British Foreign Secretary at some fictional legal institution called the "Royal High Court of London" ?

A week ago this matter was reported in a Sri Lankan newspaper by Dr. Upul Wijayawardhana. He writes:

Recently, a friend of mine forwarded what appeared to be a clip of a news item, titled “The lawsuit uncovering the world’s biggest colonial scandal – Rediscovery of Bhudha’s true home land”.

It stated that a lawsuit had been filed in the UK courts, by a Buddhist monk living in Norway, requesting that Sri Lanka be declared the place of birth of the Buddha and compensation be paid for British archaeologists distorting facts. This took me completely by surprise as I had not heard of any such action and my suspicions were aroused because there was no indication what the news channel was. I sent the following message to my friend:

“Did you forward this because you believe in what is stated?” and I got a vague reply.

Fortunately, another friend forwarded the same message with additional information in the form of an audio clip, addressed to a Nayaka Priest in Sri Lanka, by a Bhikkhu living in London wherein he states that there is no such action pending and the person referred to is a person connected to the LTTE, living in Norway, pretending to be a Buddhist priest! When I googled to get details of the organisation this Norwegian Bhikkhu represents, there was no information about the person concerned, but there was a page seeking contributions!

https://island.lk/distorting-buddhism/
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by Assaji »

Dhammanando wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:01 am A week ago this matter was reported in a Sri Lankan newspaper by Dr. Upul Wijayawardhana.
Thank you, Bhante. There's also a hilarious article:

Buddhist Group Files Lawsuit in High Court of Justice Claiming British Colonialists Spread Misinformation About the Buddha

https://www.sinhalanet.net/buddhist-gro ... the-buddha
rajitha7
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:14 am

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by rajitha7 »

Dhammanando wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:01 am allegedly suing the British Foreign Secretary at some fictional legal institution called the "Royal High Court of London" ?
Yes, so the case is apparently with the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division in London. The link is here.

Do you know if there is a way to search for current cases?
It's all -> here
User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: whose Buddhism is truest?

Post by Nicolas »

Superficial research on my part yields the following website to look up cases: https://www.iclr.co.uk/ -- but this may only be the judicial opinions/rulings on the cases, i.e. the closed cases and not the open ones. (Searching the website for "Ariyakammattana", "Sri Lanka", "Buddha" doesn't yield anything relevant.)

This seems to be off-topic, though, and could be moved to another one of rajitha7's pre-existing topics.
Post Reply