A Review of "Kosalan Philosophy in the Kāṇva Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Suttanipāta"

[Raftafarian]

@Vaddha

I only warn those interested to watch out for some of the author’s pitfalls, in my opinion—namely, not applying the same standards of comparison and “turning the sword” on her own ideologies with the same methodology to dig out some latent ideas she may have re-planted in the Buddhadhamma that the Buddha had already done away with from his former teachers.

If all we knew of Buddhism was the Atthakavagga, would you still have this criticism?

I think the author implicitly assumes the Snp includes the oldest layers of Buddhism. If you consider the Atthakavagga alone, I think her thesis holds. The Atthakavagga appears to be closer to the version of Brahmanism considered. The Parayanavagga appears to be a big step further away, but reachable with the Atthakavagga as a stepping stone. Just expand the scope of what is sanna to include discernment and drop no views. In light of this, which would you be inclined to say is earlier the Atthakavagga or the Parayanavagga and why?

I think we need to be open to the possibility that Buddhism may have started small and grown as a tradition in subsequent generations. I don’t think we can just say the EBTs as what made it to China is the best we can do. I think we have to consider evolutionary steps in doctrine. That requires a suspension of our attachment to our own ideologies.