On the historical stratification of buddhist doctrine on the evidence of the early buddhist texts

[josephzizys]

@DonatorProponent

I see your case that the material in the SN is in a sense on average later than the DN. But I just don’t see an argument for how you overlay that relative timeline onto the relative timeline of the Buddha’s life.

This is a good point and reflects the weakest and most speculative component of my thesis.

I will update the OP to reflect

[josephzizys]

@Dhammanando

In a sense it does claim that, for both the Pali and the Chinese conclude with the Buddha giving his endorsement to Dhammadinnā’s teaching:

Absolutely, and I take this as evidence that Dhammadina is undoubtedly pre-sectarian, I just think she is probably scholatic.

My basic picture is that S is “matika” Buddhism and substantially pre-sectarian, but that it is definitely later than for example the silakhandhavagga of D on which it relies (by qoutation, by name, by having a superset of the named speakers, etc.

My futhur picture based on the chinese in comparison with the pali is that the “proto-sectarian” passages, especially the hardening of anatta rethoric in place of the earlier abayakata rethoric are readily identifiable in S.

So I think in terms of doctrinal interpretation we have good reason to, for example, interpret the aggregates in lightnof the more general and deeper principle of dependence and not the other way round, and similarly with our interpretation of anatta which should be in terms of abayakata and not the other way round.

This brings me joy because I have long felt that many of the (especially Therevadan influenced) presentation of the doctrine focuses almost exclusively on the posterior, derived concepts in S like anatta and aggregates without understanding the fundementality of abayakata and conditionality in any possible explination of those terms.

Perversly, the “younger” version of buddhism has a luminously comprehensive introduction to abayakata and conditionallity in Nagarjunas MMK, but seemingly almost none of them (as far as I have heard) have any idea that MMK is practically nothing more than an epitome of the examples given in DN1 and DN2, texts which, again perversly, the Therevadans themselves in thier Vinaya claim are the first 2 suttas spoken by Ananda after the parinibanna while at the same time, as I say, focusing on formulations of S (and worse, thier own abhidhamma ) do the detriment of the abayakata/samudayanirodhamagga idea, which is the topic of thier 2 holiest sermons as well as being in complete agreement with the foundational document of the mahayana in Nagarjunas MMK.

Buddhism, its a wild ride

[cdpatton]

@josephzizys

We can say that if one piece of doctrine is unambiguoisly shared between many specific suttas in all 4 collections of both the pali and the chinese then we can be MORE confident that specific doctrine is early, and by implication we should admit that we must be LESS sure of those elements of doctrine that show more diaagreement between pali amd chinese and between individual collections amongst the 4 principle collections.

Yeah, as a general principle, I agree, but I don’t see the distribution between the four collections as being very significant. There needs to be some sort of corroboration besides there being more references to the aggregates in SN than DN. Otherwise, we are just following our assumptions to form an opinion about it.

The basic problem, though, is the Chinese side of the equation. It still needs to translated and understood better before it can be analyzed alongside the Pali parallels holistically. And then there’s all the Vinaya and Abhidharma material sitting in Chinese that’s important to analyzing the Sutta Pitaka. Which is just a massive amount of material not even counting the Agamas. We really need more people to learn middle Chinese, not Sanskrit or Pali.

[stephen]

Yes, the range of texts needs to be much broader in order to draw meaningful statistical conclusions.

[josephzizys]

@cdpatton

The basic problem, though, is the Chinese side of the equation. It still needs to translated and understood better before it can be analyzed alongside the Pali parallels holistically.

This is very true. But you and this site are making it better step by step and I appreciate it!!

[thomaslaw]

@thomaslaw

saṃyukta-kathā (i.e. the synthesis of the three angas) came first, and then the four-fold Āgama/Nikāya distribution in the formation of EBTs in Early Buddhism.

Accordingly, there were two phases in Early Buddhism: 1. Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism based on saṃyukta-kathā 相應教, and 2. Nikaya/Agama Buddhism based on the principal four Nikayas/Agamas.

However, the extant Nikayas/Agamas are sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively. We also do not have the Mahāsāṅghika Saṃyukta-āgama; it is not likely to find out accurately what the original version of the Saṃyukta/Saṃyutta text would have been.

[josephzizys]

If that argument is that the Poetry of S is the first collection and D then M then prose S is the second leading to the third, protosectarian abbhidhamma then I have no opinion to offer as i am woefully ignorant of the poetry.

My argument is about prose S and prose D.

(I would also say that “matika S” is prior to the rest of prose S btw)

Do Yin Sun or Chong Mun Keat have anything to say on this?

[thomaslaw]

You may read:
Choong Mun-keat, “Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts ”, 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

E.g. regarding “the Poetry of S is the first collection”:
Pages 894-6 from SA Three Angas Choong MK.pdf (319.8 KB)