whose Buddhism is truest?

[bpallister]

https://tricycle.org/magazine/whose-buddhism-truest/

[Mr. Seek]

A bunch of folks with an agenda. They wouldn't know true Buddhism even if it hit them in the face. They'd say or do whatever is necessary to get their agenda in neutral or positive standing, out of any possible negative limelight."Whose Buddhism is Truest? No one’s—and everyone’s." Yeah, okay. I don't really mind them. Such people have always existed. It's just sad that they go to such an extent to try and legitimize their doctrines and practices, or lack thereof, what with all that scientific mumbo-jumbo newspeak. Also, 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.

[bpallister]

tell me about the Asoka pillar inscriptions and the five nikayas, friend

[SarathW]

Whose Buddhism is truest?
Your Buddhism, you practice and realised yourself.

[BrokenBones]

Not very convincing. A molehill into mountain has more credibility. If they can't see that the Pali suttas have for the most part a unified message that emanated from one individual then there's not much hope for them.

[thomaslaw]

https://tricycle.org/magazine/whose-buddhism-truest/

This is in fact a historical question about which collections of early Buddhist texts are earlier compiled, closer to the original teachings of Buddhism. You may read the following works by Choong Mun-keat:

In the book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism (2000) pp. 7-11, the author (Choong Mun-keat) indicates that the Chinese scholar-monk 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) (Cf. also pp. 2-7: "1. Historical background").

In the following recent article, the same author provides further useful information on this topic/issue:

“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.

https://www.academia.edu/44055729/%C4%8 ... hist_Texts

https://www.academia.edu/39352226/The_F ... ukta_agama

[un8-]

tell me about the Asoka pillar inscriptions and the five nikayas, friend

This PDF explains it https://vbgnet.org/Articles/Liberation- ... vuddho.pdf

[bpallister]

Thank you, friends

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

A bunch of folks with an agenda. They wouldn't know true Buddhism even if it hit them in the face. They'd say or do whatever is necessary to get their agenda in neutral or positive standing, out of any possible negative limelight."Whose Buddhism is Truest? No one’s—and everyone’s." Yeah, okay. I don't really mind them. Such people have always existed. It's just sad that they go to such an extent to try and legitimize their doctrines and practices, or lack thereof, what with all that scientific mumbo-jumbo newspeak. Also, 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.

[TRobinson465]

Only one way to find out.

[Dweller]

https://tricycle.org/magazine/whose-buddhism-truest/

This is in fact a historical question about which collections of early Buddhist texts are earlier compiled, closer to the original teachings of Buddhism. You may read the following works by Choong Mun-keat:

In the book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism (2000) pp. 7-11, the author (Choong Mun-keat) indicates that the Chinese scholar-monk 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) (Cf. also pp. 2-7: "1. Historical background").

In the following recent article, the same author provides further useful information on this topic/issue:

“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.

https://www.academia.edu/44055729/%C4%8 ... hist_Texts

https://www.academia.edu/39352226/The_F ... ukta_agama

So, what buddhism is based on these earliest non-theravadin sutras?

I mean, if the question is whose buddhism is truest.

Is any modern mahayana school closer to these agama teachings than theravada?

Also, there can be a silly case of pointing out how few specifically mahayanist sutras could be first written before Pali Canon, which doesn't even mean they are older.

Even if none of the schools are defined by these sutras, not to mention that on the other side of comparison is the whole canon, surely much older than canons of other modern candidates for truest buddhism.

[thomaslaw]

So, what buddhism is based on these earliest non-theravadin sutras?

I mean, if the question is whose buddhism is truest.

Is any modern mahayana school closer to these agama teachings than theravada?

Also, there can be a silly case of pointing out how few specifically mahayanist sutras could be first written before Pali Canon, which doesn't even mean they are older.

Even if none of the schools are defined by these sutras, not to mention that on the other side of comparison is the whole canon, surely much older than canons of other modern candidates for truest buddhism.

It is Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism

[thomaslaw]

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.

[josaphatbarlaam]

Also, 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!!!"

[mikenz66]

Here's some previous discussions:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10218&hilit=truest&start=45
viewtopic.php?t=24586


Mike