Why did other early schools alter the Canon?

[TRobinson465]

Yes there's many accounts that tell very different stories about the same people. Uppalavanna being a prostitute b4 a Bhikkhuni in dharmaguptika texts and literally being a virgin b4 becoming a Bhikkhuni in Theravada texts for instance.

Could there have been multiple nuns (or monks) with the same name?

Sure. That happened even within the texts of the same school. People have the same name all the time. That's probably another reason some texts differ from another as compilers simply got confused. Although there was only one uppalavanna who was the chief nun of the buddha. In Theravada the prostitute story exists as well, but uppalavanna merely tells the story, there's no indication of it being autobiographical. In that case I'd just say it was a confusion on the part of the dharmaguptika canon compilers that they wrongly classified the story uppalavanna told as being about her. That or Theravada wrongly classified the story of her life as merely being a story she told

Apologies. It was the mūlasarvāstivāda that had that story not the dharmaguptaka school.

[Eko Care]

I was reading a bit of Agamas. I wonder, why did they have different suttas with sometimes different stories?
Why didn't all/most of early schools use the SAME sutta-pitaka that was formed during 1st council?

How can the hard to follow True teachings can be accepted by everyone? So it is predictable that the unwise ones would create different suttas or at least dismiss some parts of the Tipitaka.

As for creating different suttas, how do you know they created different suttas? maybe it was a real sutta and theravada was the one who lost it.

Same question can be asked back. How do you know they did not created different suttas?
At the end all of such opinions can only be accepted as assumptions that new comers make, before choosing a path.

What if one of those other early buddhist schools had it right and it's Theravada that got it wrong?

What if unEBTized Theravada is correct and people are just showing the lack of confidence?

In Vinaya, Cullavagga (Vin. II, PTS, p. 139), the Buddha advises bhikkhus not to use Vedic language (Chanda; i.e. Vedic Sanskrit) for the Buddha’s language/teachings (buddhavacana), but use your own language (sakāya niruttiyā 'based on your own language') for the Buddha’s teachings.

So, there are now different textual languages for the teachings and stories in Early Buddhism.

What if sakāya niruttiyā is Pali and not your own language?

[TRobinson465]

Same question can be asked back. How do you know they did not created different suttas?
At the end all of such opinions can only be accepted as assumptions that new comers make, before choosing a path.

Correct. The answer is we simply dont know. If it happened with Mahayana Sutras its perfectly possible to have happened with some of the early Buddhist schools as well, but early Buddhist school suttas tend to be much more ideologically consistent with Theravada than Mahayana Sutras. Which is why i think there is value in reading texts from all the early Buddhist schools, but also not to take them as flawless dogma. Historians read whatever manuscripts they can find and try to decipher the different accounts to get an idea of what happened in the past and dont pretend they know exactly what went on or that the manuscripts were perfect records. In this day and age we must do the same or rely on those who have if we dont have the time or access to every schools texts, such as historians, scholars, and the ancient commentators. and even then, we can only get an idea of what "original Buddhism" was. We must practice and attain enlightenment for ourselves to truly know it.

[Alex123]

re: about creation of new suttas

As I understand it, that would be lying (breaking of the precepts) toward the Highest Thing (Dhamma) thus being really really bad Kamma, and creating a Schism (heinous kamma).

I can understand if some sutta was forgotten, and the school that didn't forget it had that sutta in, so it wasn't created.

What if sakāya niruttiyā is Pali and not your own language?

It would be crucial to know: What was Buddha's language? What was Ananda's, Sariputta's native languages?
I hope it is Pali.
Is there any non-partisan research into that question?

[TRobinson465]

re: about creation of new suttas

As I understand it, that would be lying (breaking of the precepts) toward the Highest Thing (Dhamma) thus being really really bad Kamma, and creating a Schism (heinous kamma).

I can understand if some sutta was forgotten, and the school that didn't forget it had that sutta in, so it wasn't created.

Yes thats why i think there's probably more cases of texts being lost or unintentionally altered than flat out fabricated additions.

[TRobinson465]

It would be crucial to know: What was Buddha's language? What was Ananda's, Sariputta's native languages?
I hope it is Pali.
Is there any non-partisan research into that question?

Theres been a few discussions on this already.

viewtopic.php?t=37292

There is no scholarly consensus as to what language the Buddha taught in, it is possible it was Pali since it existed back in his time, but its hard to say. At the very least, it was probably something similar to Pali. Personally i think he probably did speak Pali, as i dont see how it would be practical to translate the massive canon orally before writing it down in Pali, which was done in sri lanka where they dont even speak Pali. It kinda makes sense they would just recite it in the same language before writing it down rather than translating it, memorizing the translated recitations, and then writing it down in the translated version.

[thomaslaw]

Pali, literally 'text', is based on a dialect (a Prakrit) from the region of Ujjeni/Ujjayani/Ujjain, capital of Avanti, in western India.

According to the Sinhalese Buddhist tradition, Mahinda and Saṅghamittā, who preached Buddhism in modern Sri Lanka, were born in Ujjeni.