Jump to content

User talk:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirakawa claims that Mahayana is partly derived from lay traditions handed down from early times independently of the monastic transmission. This is probably maintained by many/most Japanese scholars, so Mahayana will have to be included here, making the quantity of material much larger, & my alphabetical arrangement impractical. My current thought is that we'll have to arrange by texts/schools. Any thoughts? Peter jackson 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, with claims like this one has to mention the evidence, which is non-existent, and the traditional account of the Mahayana Tradition itself, that nagas were involved, not lay-people. And your statement that 'probably all japanese scholars accept that is' is not acceptable without proof. I had some nice quotes on the origin of Mahayana -by warder and the Macmillan encyclopedia, where monks are said to be the origin of the Mahayana sutras. getting complicated...
Why don't you include more info on scholars like AK Warder, too? You can find it on Mahayana Sutras. And the reference to De Jong's paper of 1993 or 1997? I didn't see it. But you know it exists since you deleted the information from the main buddhism page. Peter, I wish you happy deletions, Greetings, Sacca 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here's the Jong's:

^ It would be hypocritical to assert that nothing can be said about the doctrine of earliest Buddhism ... the basic ideas of Buddhism found in the canonical writings could very well have been proclaimed by him [the Buddha], transmitted and developed by his disciples and, finally, codified in fixed formulas. J.W. De Jong, 1993: The Beginnings of Buddhism, in The Eastern Buddhist, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 25

And more warder:

Some of our sources maintain the authenticity of certain other texts not found in the canons of these schools (the early schools). These texts are those held genuine by the later school, not one of the eighteen, which arrogated to itself the title of Mahayana, 'Great Vehicle '. According to the Mahayana historians these texts were admittedly unknown to the early schools of Buddhists. However, they had all been promulgated by the Buddha. [The Buddha’s] followers on earth, the sravakas ('pupils'), had not been sufficiently advanced to understand them, and hence were not given them to remember, but they were taught to various supernatural beings and then preserved in such places as the Dragon World. … With the best will in the world we cannot accept this or similar accounts as historical facts. – Indian Buddhism, 3rd edition, page 4


And:

  1. It is a curious aspersion on the powers of the Buddha that he failed to do what others were able to accomplish 600 years later.
  2. Linguistically and stylistically the Mahayana texts belong to a later stratum of Indian literature than the Tripitaka known to the early schools.
  3. Everything about early Buddhism, and even the Mahayana itself (with the exception of the Mantrayana), suggests that it was a teaching not meant to be kept secret but intended to be published to all the world, to spread enlightenment.
  4. We are on safe ground only with those texts the authenticity of which is admitted by all schools of Buddhism (including the Mahayana, who admit the authenticity of the early canons as well as their own texts), not with texts accepted only by certain schools.
  5. Mahayana developed gradually out of one, or a group, of the eighteen early schools, and originally it took its stand not primarily on any new texts but on its own interpretations of the universally recognised Tripitaka.<ref>Indian Buddhism, A.K. Warder, 3rd edition, page 4-5

~~~~

One doesn't in general have to mention the evidence, though here it might be helpful. Can't you copy on your computer? You've misquoted what I said immediately above. Williams (Mahayana Buddhism, p 22) says this view is widespead among Japanese scholars.

The de jong quote is there. I don't konw whether he goes under D or J. Add Warder, or I'll get round to it. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Peter jackson|2=12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)}}

Correction: the above ref should be p20, not p22. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Peter jackson|2=09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)}}

As you say above, "getting complicated". That's why I've set thsi up. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Peter jackson|2=11:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)}}

OK, I've copied your Warder in now, but you can just put material in yourself. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Peter jackson|2=11:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)}}

Run out of time mid-reorganization. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Peter jackson|2=09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_jackson/Sources_for_early_Buddhism&oldid=168915910"