Basically my thesis is around 1. the 10 link dependant origination being earlier than the 12 link version, 2. the sekkha patipada clearly describing the path but not mentioning it being “8 fold”, 3. the SN referring to DN suttas by name and quoting them but not the other way round, 4. the absence of the aggregates and Satipatthana relative to their frequency in SN, 5. The absence of the monk kottika from DN contrasted with thier prominence in SN, and a few other things, as for sources the research is my own but I am always looking for any materials that address stratification in the Nikayas, so if you have any recommendations send them my way!
With appreciation and thanks for your help with this. I readily accept 'evolved’ for it transcends yet incorporates both ‘self’ & 'not-self’.
The vocabulary words you asked about do not have anything to do with the ideas of self/non-self.
Just to clarify, do you mean that the -atta part of the two words …
Has no etymological connection with the attā in anattā, or…
Is etymologically identical but semantically doesn’t denote the same referent?
It seems to me that #2 would be correct, while #1 would be rather doubtful, for the BHS cognates of the two words are prahitātmān and bhāvitātmān.
Oh it’s your personal thesis so no official evidence, please make that more clear in your original comment.
No no! It’s “officially” my research.
- just to make it clear: there is no such thing as “official evidence”. No one is “officiating” the religion of Buddhism for you. You have to understand it for yourself.
Is that clear enough for you?
No not really, usually there is some scientific backing when dating texts like archeologists from the British Public Library dating the Ghandharan fragments with the help of accredited professionals like Richard Salomon. The same goes for dating Udana and other such texts, it’s not merely just a personal opinion but actual dating of texts by using some form of archeological evidence like Ashoka’s edicts.
It’s one thing to interpret the dhamma, it’s another to make archeological based claims such as dating texts.
Ummm… you are confusing texts with manuscripts.
Good luck with your journey.
Actually, the original comment you responded was probably referring to dating when they said "the earliest strata of the cannon ", then you implied that DN was older, I was hoping you had actual evidence beyond personal opinion.
See the section “Dating of texts” for Udana
But it turns out you don’t have any evidence that DN is older than Udana, and just pushing a pet theory as fact.
That official Wikipedia page literally just says that the Udana is part of the Pali discourses and that the Pali discourses are early (presumably in relation to Mahayana material)
Again, if you don’t understand the difference between a text and it’s manuscript or between textual evidence and archaeological evidence I struggle to see the point of a discussion with you.
I will not respond any more to these posts @Thito
Did you willfully ignore the second paragraph?
Hinüber identifies this type of discourse (although not necessarily the existing collection itself) as being part of the pre-canonical navaṅga (Pali for “nine-fold”) which classified discourses according to their form and style, such as geyya (mixed prose and verse), gāthā (four-lined couplets), udāna (utterances) and jātaka (birth story).
von Hinüber suggests that the Udana formed the original core of the Sanskrit Udānavarga, to which verses from the Dhammapada were added.
In terms of non-Buddhist texts, some Udana concepts can be found in the Vedantic Upanishads and in Jain texts.
Analyzing texts in order to date them still require some form of archeological evidence (or any objective evidence like cross referencing parallels) to be able to assert something as pre-canonical for example.
Which suttas? Thank you
the 1st & 2nd sermons (SN 56.11 & SN 22.59) refer to the aggregates. Are you saying these are not really the 1st & 2nd sermons?
And with regards to SN56.11 and SN22.59 what I am saying as that these texts as we have them are late relative to other parts of the suttas (such as the atthakavagga in Sn and the sekkha patipada in DN) in their language and terminology- I think the aggregates are a later development than the 10 link dependant origination for example.
Just because old language is used, it does not necessarily mean they are older. Its like if I wrote poetry in Old English. Its simply language for poetry vs language for systematic teachings. Sujato has the same view.
DN 15 uses the term ‘mātukucchismiṁ’, which is found in Jataka style text, such as MN 123. Personally, I would regard DN 15 as a later text rather than an earlier text. Plus DN 15 is unclear; which, for me, makes it questionable as Buddha words. Sujato has suggested DN was for propagation to Brahmins. DN 15 does not define ‘marana’, has a different definition of ‘jati’, does not refer to the ayatana, has a different definition of namarupa & consciousness, excludes sankhara & avicca. If DN 15 is the earliest text, it denies discovery texts such as SN 12.10 & SN 12.65.
Do you write poetry in Old English @CurlyCarl ?
Perhaps you will like this:
“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur
Of which vertú engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye”
When would you guess that was written?
Do you think it would be difficult for an English major to give a rough estimate?
Or might they think that it could be written in the 20th century?
“i carry your heart with me(i carry it in
my heart)i am never without it(anywhere
i go you go,my dear;and whatever is done
by only me is your doing,my darling)
no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)i want
no world(for beautiful you are my world,my true)
and it’s you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you”
Again, do you think that students of English would mistake this for poetry from the mid 1300’s?
No offence to @sujato or yourself but the “Poetry is often “old” sounding is honestly one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen put forward in Buddhist Studies.
I’m sorry but I don’t know what you mean by “discovery texts”.
If you read the links I posted, they are the texts about the Bodhisatta discovering the Dhamma, such as SN 12.10, SN 12.65, MN 19, etc.
Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought:
Oh I see, but I have already explained to you that I do not think there is any relationship between the events described in the suttas and the time the suttas where composed.
So I am saying to you that a sutta about the Buddhas first sermon could have been composed last, while a sutta about an event very late in the Buddhas life could have been composed first, do you see the distinction I am trying to make?
Also “things you find unclear” is not really much of a standard by which to determine the relative earliness or lateness of texts.
So you ignore DN 15 is spoken to Ananda, a later attendant?
So things that have no relationship to enlightenment or direct insight, such as consciousness descending into a womb & the features, attributes, signs and details by which the categories of mental or physical phenomena are found, are genuine? So consciousness descending into a womb was an object of enlightenment, i.e., perception of impermanence, unpleasurableness & not-self leading to dispassion & Nibbana for the early enlightened Sanhga?
Sorry @CurlyCarl but it has been a very long day of trying to explain my ideas to people who seem pretty committed to not understanding them. I will not be continuing this conversation with you.
Good luck with your journey.
Its hard going 15 rounds with someone of @Thito’s endurance.