I think, this is maybe what people think I think. but I am not saying that at all, in fact I think that much of what is important philosophically about Buddhism is recaptured in Mahayana materials that are unquestionably late.
My issue is not that SN is late and therefore “shouldn’t be considered” my issue is that parts of SN alter (what I take to be) the traditional language of the Buddha’s philosophy to make it more open to misinterpretation as essentialist and “substantialist” (that is that the aggregates are “real” and the “self” is “unreal”)
I then think this becomes more pronounced in abbhidhamma materials and the inevitable and necessary reaction to that gives rise to the Mahayana.
So I am happy to “consider” ALL the materials, INCLUDING Mahayana materials, as representing both valid and sometimes invalid developments in Buddhism.
My assessment that SN is (by and large) later than the “core” of DN is merely that, an assessment, based on doctrinal development, which is based on textual evidence. It is not meant to discredit SN in it’s entirety, merely to identify the parts of it that show a divergance from (what I take to be) earlier ways of expressing the dhamma, and highlight how these innovations can lead to misinterpretation.
SO anyway, my argument is NOT that “late suttas should not be considered”.
it is just that “some suttas ARE late, and this explains why their appears to be development in (at least the expression of) the doctrine across the Nikayas.”
I think a lot of people hear excuse themselves form having to deeply engage with Mahayana material because by their standards they shouldn’t be considered because they’re late, this is not my position.
Anyway, thank you for providing the sutta reference, I think it is the one I was thinking of, though I had mis-remembered it as occurring in MN (don’t worry I think parts of MN are late too).
Oh, and one last thing, I have probably used less than careful language in expressing myself here, so for the record I acknowledge that there is late material in DN, as I understand it, it has some of the most ornate and “late” verse forms in the canon, and the mahaparinibanna sutta is widely thought to have been “open” for a long time, perhaps longer than any part of SN was open, it’s just that I take parts of DN (for e.g the sekkha patipada) to represent an earlier strata than the bulk of SN. I also acknowledge that many of the “formula” of SN are undoubtedly very early and probably predate any of the nikayas as settled texts, my contention tho is that SOME of the formulas, like the aggregates, like the phrase “all dhammas are without self”, are late, based on their doctrinal development (the aggregates appearing to me to be a simplification and obfuscation of DO and the “all dhammas” phrase being too open to the "there is no self"interpretation which is a “wrong view” in the earlier material), the relative frequency with which they are found in SN versus the other NIkayas, and that SN has a more “artificial” mode of textual production based on permutations of stock phrases that I find likely to be late when compared to the more narrative based structures in DN and MN.
(oh, and the similarity of the structure of SN to the structure of abbhidahmma matikas is another piece of evidence suggestive of that nikaya being intermediate in age between the narrative nikayas of DN and MN and the (universally agreed to be ) late abbhidhamma texts)
Again, to imply that I am using lateness as a reason to dismiss content is to misrepresent my position, I am identifying arguments that appear to contradict other material in the nikayas, finding that they cluster in SN, and using that as evidence for the relative lateness of SN, however I also absolutely agree that plenty of material in SN does NOT contradict other material and is perfectly legitimate, regardless of it’s lateness or otherwise.
anyway, thanks again for the citation.
Metta.
Although by your standard this sutta should be taken with a grain of salt for it is part of the later SN. Though afaik scholars tend to lean towards the assumption that the DN has more of the the later texts, and SN contains some of the earlier.