Sagatha Vagga, of the Samyutta Nikaya, is derived from Samyukta Agama. It is the earliest Buddhism I find in the Pali canon. Those who are interested in the earliest Buddhism will find it worthwhile to explore this section found in the Pali canon.
I spent a couple of months immersed in its gathas, I have not found a single teaching in there, that is influenced by Abhidhamma. Has anyone else? If so, I would love to hear. VBB an Abhidhamma scholar has openly admitted that Abhidhamma teachings are later inventions, that they are not Buddha's teachings.
Gathas in Sagatha Vagga reflect the gathas of Sariarthagatha, sometimes. The latter contains fragments of Buddha's words. Please restrict the discussion to gathas in Sagatha Vagga or gathas in Sariarthagatha, a similar set of poetry (more brief) of the earliest Buddhism. Your help on this topic will be greatly appreciated.
With love
Hi,
I'm curious to know how you were able to determine that the Sagatha Vagga of SN is "derived from Samyukta Agama" and that it's
the earliest Buddhism in the Pali canon. Is this through linguistic analysis?
I'm curious to know how you were able to determine that the Sagatha Vagga of SN is "derived from Samyukta Agama" and that it's
the earliest Buddhism in the Pali canon. Is this through linguistic analysis?
it might help if you follow the discussion on viewtopic.php?t=41910. This has been discussed on Sutta central. You probably know that the Samyutta Nikaya contains the least corrupted early Buddhism if you read the Introduction to VBB's Samyutta Nikaya.
I have absolutely no ability at linguistic analysis. My intention of the thread was an exploration of Sagatha Vagga.
Has anyone detected influence of abhidhamma on these Gathas?
How I determined that Samyutta nikaya was derived from Samyukta agama, will have to be another thread.
Regards
ok....
"least corrupted early Buddhism" is certainly a very loaded statement, but I will have another look at Ven. Bodhi's introduction.
I know Ven. Bodhi has said the Pali version of the Samyutta has reordered the sections, and that the Sarvastivadin order would represent the original order. (This would put the sagatha section last)
By "least corrupted" do you mean closest to the Buddha's actual statements?
That the Pali version of a text would be derived from the Chinese agama version would be pretty interesting.
Last edited by ssasny on Tue Mar 08, 2022 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By "least corrupted" do you mean closest to the Buddha's actual statements?
Yes that is what I meant. Suttas were derived from fragments of Buddha's teachings floating! I assumed it was common knowledge.
Hence I prefer it when a sutta is brief, such as SN 47.42 explanation of Satipatthana. Now this is off topic. My intention is to point out that a Briefer a sutta is, closer it stays to Buddha, since they are derived from fragments of his words.
This is why I brought in Sariarthagatha into the discussion, which has been called "Ashes of the Buddha" by some scholars. Some gathas of Dhammapada (of Theravada and Tibetan), imitate these.
With love
Forgive me for not knowing commonly understood things, but how can one know that just because a sutta text is brief, it represents the Buddha's own words? Couldn't anyone create a short, pithy text?
Forgive me for not knowing commonly understood things, but how can one know that just because a sutta text is brief, it represents the Buddha's own words? Couldn't anyone create a short, pithy text?
Forgive me for my bold assumption.
It is true that anyone can create a short, pithy text. But when those short, pithy texts are founded on a true understanding of suffering, (meaning Dependent Origination) and when they are based on 8-fold path, that combination indicates that it is not bogus.
For instance when you read the verses of Dhammapada, is there a single verse there, that you feel were influenced by Abhidhamma, or influenced by other Indian religions?
With love
I would not put my own feelings about the Dhammapada's authenticity forward as any authority, since I'm not an indologist nor have I read widely in non-Buddhist ancient Indian texts. But KR Norman is such an authority and he writes:
KR Norman, Pāli Literature (1983) pp. 58-59:
"More than half the verses [of the Dhammapada] occur elsewhere in the canon, although it is difficult to be certain whether they were collected together from those sources, or whether both took them from a third source. The existence of some of these verses in Jain or brahmanical texts suggests that they were taken from the general store of floating verses which seems to have existed in Northern India in early times."
I asked you whether you can point to a single verse in Dhammapada that you personally felt was influenced by abhidhamma, or other Indian religions.
You bring me another scholar's viewpoint.
KR Norman, Pāli Literature (1983) pp. 58-59:
"More than half the verses [of the Dhammapada] occur elsewhere in the canon, although it is difficult to be certain whether they were collected together from those sources, or whether both took them from a third source. The existence of some of these verses in Jain or brahmanical texts suggests that they were taken from the general store of floating verses which seems to have existed in Northern India in early times."
Of course it is true that they are found elsewhere in the canon. Why should it not be so? Both were derived from floating fragments of the Buddha.
If Norman thinks so, based on the following
"The existence of some of these verses in Jain or brahmanical texts suggests that they were taken from the general store of floating verses which seems to have existed in Northern India in early times."
that is his problem. Could not other religions have copied from the Buddha? Now there are a few verses in Sutta nipata that were found in some Jain literature? and I remember that one scholar stated, therefore it was derived from the Jains.
If these scholars could not figure out the origins of the verse in Dependent Origination, I rest my case.
My intention here was to get some help in exploring Sagatha Vagga. My intention is not to malign scholars who have contributed to Buddhist studies, but as to Norman's personal opinion, I am disappointed.
With love
Personally, I'm fine with texts being shared between different religions. And I certainly do not have the discernment to tell whether what I read in the Canon was actually spoken by the Buddha. (I would also differentiate between "personal opinion" and scholarly assessment based on a review of the extant texts)
Besides, there have been many who's statements accurately represent the Dhamma. See mention of Ayyā Dhammadinnā below:
Valerie Roebuck, in the Introduction to her translation of the Dhammapada :
"Study of the Dharmapada literature raises many questions about the nature and history of the oral tradition in Buddhism. What, for example, does all this variation tell us about its traditional attribution to the Buddha himself? Clearly, it does not rule it out, since the Buddha must have spoken a great many verses over the course of his forty-five years of teaching. (At that period, verse would have been thought at least as natural as prose as a way of conveying information that needed to be memorized.) It would not be surprising if sometimes he used or adapted verses that already existed in popular lore, or reused ones that he had previously composed, with variations to suit a new context; nor if some of those verses then returned to the folk tradition, and turned up again elsewhere.
But of course it is highly probable that verses spoken by others have ended up being attributed to the Buddha. Indeed, there are traditional
precedents for such attributions; for example, in the commentary on Dhammapada v. 421, the Buddha hears a report of a teaching given by the Arahat nun Dhammadinnā, on which he comments, ‘My daughter Dhammadinnā has explained it well: if I myself were to answer this question I would answer in just the same way.’ As a result, Dhammadinnā’s words are accounted ‘Buddha’s teaching’ rather than ‘Arahat’s teaching'. Such traditions would perhaps have made it acceptable up to a certain point to add new verses to the Dharmapada literature, so long as they were felt to have the authentic flavour of the Buddha’s teaching."
In the earliest Buddhism, some scholars call it primitive Buddhism, several things were different.
Arahants were also called Buddhas then, and Buddha was an Arahant. I still prefer a discussion on Sagatha Vagga and Sariarthagatha.
S wrote
But of course it is highly probable that verses spoken by others have ended up being attributed to the Buddha. Indeed, there are traditional
precedents for such attributions; for example, in the commentary on Dhammapada v. 421, the Buddha hears a report of a teaching given by the Arahat nun Dhammadinnā, on which he comments, ‘My daughter Dhammadinnā has explained it well: if I myself were to answer this question I would answer in just the same way.’ As a result, Dhammadinnā’s words are accounted ‘Buddha’s teaching’ rather than ‘Arahat’s teaching'. Such traditions would perhaps have made it acceptable up to a certain point to add new verses to the Dharmapada literature, so long as they were felt to have the authentic flavour of the Buddha’s teaching."
They mean "Śarīrārthagāthā." It's a section of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra that has extensive Aṭṭhakavagga parallels.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:09 pm
They mean "Śarīrārthagāthā." It's a section of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra that has extensive Aṭṭhakavagga parallels.
Thanks.
Is this a Chinese, or Sanskrit version of the text, Śarīrārthagāthā?
