Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The point is, a split in the sangha occured during Buddha's lifetime. That means the ideas held by the monks who left Buddha were contrary to Buddha's. As pointed out by many Buddhist scholars, many ideas contained in mahayana sutras are contrary to the pali suttas. Sure, you can be very liberal and accept everything as Buddhism. But the crux of the issue is how do we differentiate what is Buddha's teaching and what is not.
The split in the sangha occured during Buddha's lifetime. Why do the mahayana schools acknowledge and accept the pali suttas? The only difference is, in addition to the pali suttas, the mahayanas have found it necessary to add other sutras which has dubious origin.
As my article points out the pali canon was composed by someone. And it is unlikely that 500 monks agreed on 45 years of buddhas teachings. You acknowledge that the split in the sangha occured.
Why are the prajnaparamita sutras dubious? Because they were not personally composed by shakyamuni? The pali sutras also were not composed by shakyamuni. The author of the pali canon is unknown.
The prajna paramita sutras should be evaluated based on their content first. We do not assume that something is wise due to date written. Appeals to antiquity (old) and novelty (young) are both logical fallacies. Since you agree there was a split in the sangha obviously a group of monks had a different insight in to buddhas message. As Dakini said we may find earlier scriptures as their thoughts evolved. As my article stated the mahayana scriptures in the ghandhari scrolls could not have been the first writings:
These first-century mahayana texts in the new collections are already highly developed in terms of narrative complexity and mahayana doctrine. The couldn't be the first mahayana sutras, Harrison says. "The earlier stages of the mahayana go far back. The mahayana has longer and older roots than we thought before."
As you say a split occured. There must have been a different insight or vision of buddha's teachings. The thought evolved and was set down as the prajna paramitra sutras. These sutras should be judged by the content. Same goes for the pali canon. Judge it by it's content.
@nigelart should be concerned with how the content of the pali canon can benefit himself and his students. Not by the fact that Buddha said it or that it was earlier. Focus on the content not the 'hype'.
Because what people want to hear is that they are already enlightened, just as Eckhart Tolle says they are: That they are already perfected, that they merely need to accept their own perfection and let go of the idea that there is work to do or expectations that are placed on them.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I've never met or chatted with a single person who expressed that they were already enlightened or perfected. In fact, quite the opposite.
@Jll For instance if two people read a sutra. And then the first one writes a paragraph about what they understand. Next a second person reads that and says they disagree and they write their own paragraph of their understanding.
You are assuming that the first one's understanding of the sutra invalidates the second person's understanding.
And that's a static text. Let alone memories over 45 years. Of a person.
The point is, a split in the sangha occured during Buddha's lifetime. That means the ideas held by the monks who left Buddha were contrary to Buddha's. As pointed out by many Buddhist scholars, many ideas contained in mahayana sutras are contrary to the pali suttas. Sure, you can be very liberal and accept everything as Buddhism. But the crux of the issue is how do we differentiate what is Buddha's teaching and what is not.
Well...maybe not. Maybe what we ought to do is differentiate between what is conceptually Buddhist in nature, and what is not conceptually Buddhist in nature. Is it important that Buddha himself actually said it? I mean, if that's true, then we really have nothing since Buddhist scriptures were written a hundred or more years after Buddha's departure, and then only from word of mouth of monks.
It's sort of like Freudian psychology. That doesn't just include actual books by Freud. It includes extensions of Freud's writings and teachings.
Heck, under your definition, we're wasting time reading a single book about Buddhism, since all we should go back to are the semi-original teachings.
Again, the mahayana sutras contradict the pali suttas. So, take your pick.
@Jll For instance if two people read a sutra. And then the first one writes a paragraph about what they understand. Next a second person reads that and says they disagree and they write their own paragraph of their understanding.
You are assuming that the first one's understanding of the sutra invalidates the second person's understanding.
And that's a static text. Let alone memories over 45 years. Of a person.
Again, the mahayana sutras contradict the pali suttas. So, take your pick.
@Jll For instance if two people read a sutra. And then the first one writes a paragraph about what they understand. Next a second person reads that and says they disagree and they write their own paragraph of their understanding.
You are assuming that the first one's understanding of the sutra invalidates the second person's understanding.
And that's a static text. Let alone memories over 45 years. Of a person.
If you find a contradiction then you should think about both sources and use reasoning.
You shouldn't presume one or the other is correct.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think you are forgetting the absolutely vital craft of learning the teachings by heart. if you read the suttas, they are extremely repetitive and can be monotonous. This was to aid memorising them - and this passing teaching form one monk to another, was an essential skill, which had to be applied diligently and accurately. So if you want authenticity, there is no question in my mind that the Pali Suttas are accurate and verbatim to what was taught the monks in the Buddha's Sangha...
I'm 100% certain @Jason could definitely bear this out with reference to a discourse. but given that verbal repetition and learning was of such paramount importance, it seems crazy to me to think that the moment his teachings began to be consigned to written records, people would start indiscriminately changing stuff on a whim.....
Again, the mahayana sutras contradict the pali suttas. So, take your pick.
@Jll For instance if two people read a sutra. And then the first one writes a paragraph about what they understand. Next a second person reads that and says they disagree and they write their own paragraph of their understanding.
You are assuming that the first one's understanding of the sutra invalidates the second person's understanding.
And that's a static text. Let alone memories over 45 years. Of a person.
that's interesting.
but maybe the contradiction isn't in the teaching, but rather the individuals mind who looks at such teaching from afar.
validity of a teaching is dependent on the student who follows such teaching.
the teachings exist for a reason and they have been around for quite a while.
if they did not work, then wouldn't such teachings die off?
or maybe i am really not a buddhist. then i guess i'm not a buddhist.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2012
@federica, you are presuming that the Pali Canon was chanted in Buddha's lifetime. That would follow that Buddha was the author of the Pali Canon.
Are you saying that you think Buddha was the author of the Pali Canon?
Absolutely not. What i am saying is that the origins of the Pali canon lie in monks taking his teachings verbatim and creating a Dhamma out of them. I am of course open to contradiction, but i know that many traditions place a massive amount of worth in not only memorising the teachings, but in ensuring their continuity.
The schism occured for a reason. Maybe it did not involve a disagreement over the factuality of the PC being verbatim. In that case both sanghas agreed at one point in time. And then there would be a question of whether the later evolutions of mahayana thought contradict. And if so why and what implications on practice.
So I think that's what you believe.
But there is also a possibility that the sangha did not agree what represented budddha's verbatim teachings.
From one of my links:
Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha's teachigns, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha's discourses and would continue to remember them as he had heard them.
"This is a very important story," says von Hinuber, "because it shows that Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact of diverging traditions."
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I take your point, but if the qu'ran has been written and re-written over hundreds of years, and the words in the newest versions do not differ one iota from the much older qu'rans (granted, we're talking writing here) I think it equally possible that just as much importance was placed on authentic oral transmission. Once a script has been accepted as an original, it's quite a difficult thing, during oral transmission, to diversify and alter the course of the text.... there has to be a long-term consensus of opinion, and a general agreement to change the spoken word. something which i would image is actually more difficult to do than with the written word....
and fortunately, it is up to our discernment to evaluate what we read and hear, and decide for ourselves whether it resonates as honesty, or smells suspiciously of tampering....
You are assuming that there was verbatim oral transmission? So lets say there is information content. Just like a CD has content. There can't be an eventual hardcopy without content going into that eventual hardcopy.
You are saying the content was an oral tradition AND it was agreed upon. So if they orally chanted the content in order to complete their chants in one day they would have to chant it in a more concise form.
Or perhaps they had a schedule. You know X on monday Y on tuesday. And then maybe in a month they could review all of that content.
Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha's teachigns, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha's discourses and would continue to remember them as he had heard them.
"This is a very important story," says von Hinuber, "because it shows that Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact of diverging traditions."
Now why did this monk not agree? He said that he had also heard the discourses and yet he disagreed.
So lets try to see if this is all doable. How much time did the monks have. What did they do ieach day? Did they have enough time to meditate and so forth. Was the content more concise in their chants?
And then that still leaves the question of the schism.
From what I understand, the first schism was during the Buddha's lifetime, when his cousin, Devadatta, tried to take over the monastic sangha. This particular schism only lasted a short time, however, and the sangha was reunified. The second major occurred sometime around the Second Great Councils between what became known as the Sthaviravada (Theravada) and the Mahasanghika schools, most likely over issues of discipline (vinaya) and not doctrine (dhamma). There were differences in doctrine between the two schools, however; the two major ones being the transcendental nature of buddhas and bodhisattvas and the fallibility of arahants. The Mahasamghika affirmed the former and suggested the latter. The Sthaviravada school, on the other hand, vigorously denied the latter, and probably wasn't as keen on the former, either.
This addresses the question of a schism. But it doesn't address the logistics of maintaining a verbatim oral tradition of the entire content of the Pali Canon.
It also doesn't adress the story of the first council:
Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha's teachigns, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha's discourses and would continue to remember them as he had heard them.
"This is a very important story," says von Hinuber, "because it shows that Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact of diverging traditions.
The Canon is traditionally described by the Theravada as the Word of the Buddha (Buddhavacana), though this is obviously not intended in a literal sense, since it includes teachings by disciples.[9]
Much of the material in the Canon is not specifically Theravādin, but is instead the collection of teachings that this school preserved from the early, non-sectarian body of teachings. He states that "the Theravādins, then, may have added texts to the Canon for some time, but they do not appear to have tampered with what they already had from an earlier period."[18] A variety of factors suggest that the early Sri Lankan Buddhists regarded canonical literature as such and transmitted it conservatively.[19]
Attribution according to scholars
The views of scholars concerning the attribution of the Pali Canon can be grouped into three categories:
Attribution to the Buddha himself. Attribution to the period of pre-sectarian Buddhism. Agnosticism.
Scholars have both supported and opposed the various existing views.
Views concerning attribution to the Buddha himself
Various scholars have voiced that some of the contents of the Pali Canon (and its main teachings) can be attributed to Gautama Buddha. Richard Gombrich argues that the main preachings of the Buddha (as in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka) probably go back to the Buddha individually.[20] Some scholars argue that the teachings are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius: the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death.[21][22]
J.W. de Jong has stated that parts of the Pali Canon could very well have been proclaimed by the Buddha, and subsequently transmitted and developed by his disciples and, finally, codified in fixed formulas.[23] A. Wynne has said that the Pali Canon includes texts which go back to the very beginning of Buddhism, which perhaps include the substance of the Buddha’s teaching, and in some cases, maybe even his words.[24]
A.K. Warder has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the shared teaching of the early schools was formulated by anyone else than the Buddha and his immediate followers.[25]
Some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha.[26] Prof. Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha[27] Some of these scholars argue that[28] some passages contradict the main teachings, and that the Buddha must have been consistent. Some believe[who?] only one of the variant teachings can have been the teaching of the Buddha, and that if the Buddha had taught the main teachings, contradictory teachings would never have got in[citation needed]. Some believe[who?] that because of this, the Buddha must have taught the divergent teachings, and that the main teachings were elaborated by his followers after his death[citation needed]. [edit] Views concerning attribution to the period of pre-sectarian Buddhism
Most scholars do agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature that a relatively early community maintained and transmitted[29] Much of the Pali Canon is found also in the scriptures of other early schools of Buddhism, parts of whose versions are preserved, mainly in Chinese. Many scholars have argued that this shared material can be attributed to the period of Pre-sectarian Buddhism. This is the period before the early schools separated in about the fourth or third century BCE. [edit] Views concerning agnosticism
Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus.[30] Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha's teachings dates from (long) after his death.
Some scholars have said that the application of text-critical methods derived from Biblical criticism is invalidated by the fact that the Bible was a written text while the Pali Canon was oral.[31]
Some scholars have stated that it would be hypocritical to assert that nothing can be said about the doctrine of earliest Buddhism.[32]
Dr Gregory Schopen, Professor of Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, argues[33] that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon. This position did not attract much support, and was criticized by A. Wynne.[34]
This addresses the question of a schism. But it doesn't address the logistics of maintaining a verbatim oral tradition of the entire content of the Pali Canon.
It also doesn't adress the story of the first council:
Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha's teachigns, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha's discourses and would continue to remember them as he had heard them.
"This is a very important story," says von Hinuber, "because it shows that Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact of diverging traditions.
Not really sure what the issue is here. Most scholars generally agree that the core of the Pali Canon most likely originated with the Buddha based upon a number of factors and utilizing a variety of methods of analysis and comparison. It's also well-known that oral transmissions of sacred knowledge and texts were common during that time in India, and that the method of oral transmission itself can be quite reliable. Moreover, Mahayana schools had a similar collection of teachings comparable to those in the Pali Canon in the from of the Agamas (only partially preserved in the original Sanskrit and fully preserved in Chinese), which suggests that these teachings at least predate the schism between the Sthaviravada and Mahasanghika schools. None of this means that later teachings and texts aren't as valuable or useful, though.
You are assuming that there was verbatim oral transmission?
I think this is a very good point. Has anyone here actually observed "verbatim oral transmission" of extended anything over a multi-year period? I doubt it is possible.
You are assuming that there was verbatim oral transmission?
I think this is a very good point. Has anyone here actually observed "verbatim oral transmission" of extended anything over a multi-year period? I doubt it is possible.
Yes, or at least relatively close to it. Anthropologists have been studying oral traditions for many years. It's not necessarily as unreliable of a method as many assume, particularly when it's highly structured and many individuals in a given community participate in the memorization and recitation. Of course, distortions can certain occur, especially over longs periods of time; but the same is true for any medium. Misprints in printing and mistakes in translation can lead to the same thing when it comes to texts, for example.
You are assuming that there was verbatim oral transmission?
I think this is a very good point. Has anyone here actually observed "verbatim oral transmission" of extended anything over a multi-year period? I doubt it is possible.
Yes, or relatively close to it. Anthropologists have been studying oral traditions for many years. It's not as unreliable as many assume, particularly when many individuals in a given community participate in the memorization and recitation. Of course, distortions can certain occur, especially over longs periods of time; but the same is true for any medium. Misprints in printing and mistakes in translation can lead to the same thing when it comes to texts, for example.
But when one says that the texts are the exact and verbatim words of Buddha, that's what I don't believe. In fact, not only do we have to deal with that unlikelihood, unless you are reading them in their original language (and how many who are involved in this forum are doing that), you are also adding in translational differences between languages.
I can buy into oral traditions. American-Indian cultures relied on that for, for example. But, that is not the same as being verbatim.
But, go ahead, prove it to me. Begin by memorizing the entire Pali canon...verbatim.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
So apparently there are mahayana agamas. The nikayas are generally pali. Though the reason western mahayanists don't study the agamas is that they only exist in Chinese, some in Tibetan and some in Sanskrit. So in order to study them one would have to be able to read those languages.
But when one says that the texts are the exact and verbatim words of Buddha, that's what I don't believe. In fact, not only do we have to deal with that unlikelihood, unless you are reading them in their original language (and how many who are involved in this forum are doing that), you are also adding in translational differences between languages.
And you don't have to. I certainly don't. But I do believe they are about as close to the Buddha's words as we're ever going to get.
I can buy into oral traditions. American-Indian cultures relied on that for, for example. But, that is not the same as being verbatim.
But, go ahead, prove it to me. Begin by memorizing the entire Pali canon...verbatim.
I don't have the time, but others have. Also, monks didn't generally memorize the entire Canon, only sections of it. One group, for example, would be in charge of committing the Majjhima Nikaya to memory, etc.
@conradcook, Then ask her in a PM or if you think it's a question worthy of general consideration, open a thread. Please try not to derail the current discussion.
thank you!
NO! NO! Please DO NOT encourage this person to PM me! You haven't seen his posts about me the last few days! Ducking for cover, now:hiding:
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The point is, a split in the sangha occured during Buddha's lifetime. That means the ideas held by the monks who left Buddha were contrary to Buddha's. As pointed out by many Buddhist scholars, many ideas contained in mahayana sutras are contrary to the pali suttas.
The Pali sutras are no longer the standard. Scholarship is changing. Some scholars now saw that the Mahayana developed from certain aspects of the Buddha's teachings that those recording in Pali chose not to emphasize. Further studies in the future will tell us more about this fascinating topic.
Here's an interesting example of the above point, from S. Dhammika's "The Broken Buddha", pg. 4, "What Is Theravada?"
The Pali Tipitika contains a truly amazing variety of material from ethics to epistemology, from psychology to practical wisdom. It would be very difficult to encompass all this material into a single school or system, and indeed, Theravadans have certainly not done this. Rather, they have emphasized some of the Buddha's doctrines and ideas, and de-emphasized or even ignored others.
For example, the Four Expressions of Sympathy are frequently mentioned by the Buddha, and could have important implications for a deeper understanding of love and compassion, particularly their social application. Mahayana used them to develop a whole philosophy of practical altruism, but they are given almost no attention in Theravada.
This is a great example of how Mahayana and Theravada developed in a parallel fashion, based on different choices of the Buddha's teachings as their basis.
This is a great example of how Mahayana and Theravada developed in a parallel fashion, based on different choices of the Buddha's teachings as their basis.
I'm sure you're right, but isn't this an argument for those who are serious about Buddhsim to read both sutras and suttas?
Sure, why not? The thing is, no one is presenting an "argument" for why not to study the sutras, as if that's a thing to be avoided. We've been explaining why (Pali) sutra study doesn't happen for Mahayana students. After being exposed to them, after joining this forum, for example, an interest in them naturally develops. They're certainly a useful reference. My point was more about the fact that the Mahayana texts are in fact based on the Buddha's teachings, not some fanciful later inventions.
Mahayana students are very serious about their Buddhism. If no one informs them that there is a canon that has recorded the Buddha's words, it's not somehow a personal failing of theirs that they don't study something they don't know exists.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Since joining this forum I've become more aquainted with Therevada teaching and found the teachings on various mental states to be very helpful in my own understanding. These concepts exist in TB but are generally glossed over for development of bodhicitta, study of emptiness or some kind of deity practice.
The Buddha saw parinirvana 2500 years ago. No one knows what he said. All that remains is his legacy. Figure it out on your own, or take what you can from the teachings that remain. Who cares what tradition someone follows? I agree that at least a partial understanding of the teachings of the pali suttas can be very benefitial, one must remember that such teachings were originally intended specifically for monks and not for lay practitioners and so many of them cannot be applied to lay life.
What did the Buddha teach lay people? The 5 precepts, the 4 noble truths, and in some rare instances the 8 fold path. That's it.
Since joining this forum I've become more aquainted with Therevada teaching and found the teachings on various mental states to be very helpful in my own understanding. These concepts exist in TB but are generally glossed over for development of bodhicitta, study of emptiness or some kind of deity practice.
Did you receive the lamrim teachings? They go into the workings of karma in similar detail to what jll presented earlier.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Since joining this forum I've become more aquainted with Therevada teaching and found the teachings on various mental states to be very helpful in my own understanding. These concepts exist in TB but are generally glossed over for development of bodhicitta, study of emptiness or some kind of deity practice.
Did you receive the lamrim teachings? They go into the workings of karma in similar detail to what jll presented earlier.
Yeah, they do talk about karma, impermanence, death, dukkha, etc. I was referring specifically to the classification of mental states and the functioning of the skhanda's. Like I said, they do exist, but they aren't emphasised or talked about very much like they are in Therevada.
I was referring specifically to the classification of mental states and the functioning of the skhanda's. Like I said, they do exist, but they aren't emphasised or talked about very much like they are in Therevada.
You're right about this. This aspect was something I noticed is often discussed on this board, but I don't recall learning about it in the lamrim or in any other teachings.
Since joining this forum I've become more aquainted with Therevada teaching and found the teachings on various mental states to be very helpful in my own understanding.
Yes, the forum is great that way, isn't it? Educational.
This is oversimplification. What you mentioned was taught by the Buddha in his 1st sermon. He continued to teach for another 45 yrs.
The Buddha saw parinirvana 2500 years ago. No one knows what he said. All that remains is his legacy. Figure it out on your own, or take what you can from the teachings that remain. Who cares what tradition someone follows? I agree that at least a partial understanding of the teachings of the pali suttas can be very benefitial, one must remember that such teachings were originally intended specifically for monks and not for lay practitioners and so many of them cannot be applied to lay life.
What did the Buddha teach lay people? The 5 precepts, the 4 noble truths, and in some rare instances the 8 fold path. That's it.
Mahayana students are very serious about their Buddhism. If no one informs them that there is a canon that has recorded the Buddha's words, it's not somehow a personal failing of theirs that they don't study something they don't know exists.
For sure, but it seems odd to me that Mahayana teachers wouldn't tell their students about something as important as the Pali Canon. And do Mahayana Buddhists only read what they are told?
There is a weird phenomena that I do not understand. Of all the different streams of Buddhism, uniquely (in my experience) there are two distinct Theravadin Buddhisms, an off-line one, and an on-line one.
Hi Richard ... seems a long time that I not see your posts here - pleasant surprise.
I would agree with your thought here - not something that I would hold onto though, of course.
Comments
Buddha's lifetime.
That means the ideas held by the monks
who left Buddha were contrary to Buddha's.
As pointed out by many Buddhist scholars,
many ideas contained in mahayana sutras
are contrary to the pali suttas.
Sure, you can be very liberal and accept everything
as Buddhism.
But the crux of the issue is how do we differentiate
what is Buddha's teaching and what is not.
You are assuming that the first one's understanding of the sutra invalidates the second person's understanding.
And that's a static text. Let alone memories over 45 years. Of a person.
It's sort of like Freudian psychology. That doesn't just include actual books by Freud. It includes extensions of Freud's writings and teachings.
Heck, under your definition, we're wasting time reading a single book about Buddhism, since all we should go back to are the semi-original teachings.
the pali suttas.
So, take your pick.
You shouldn't presume one or the other is correct.
if you read the suttas, they are extremely repetitive and can be monotonous.
This was to aid memorising them - and this passing teaching form one monk to another, was an essential skill, which had to be applied diligently and accurately.
So if you want authenticity, there is no question in my mind that the Pali Suttas are accurate and verbatim to what was taught the monks in the Buddha's Sangha...
I'm 100% certain @Jason could definitely bear this out with reference to a discourse.
but given that verbal repetition and learning was of such paramount importance, it seems crazy to me to think that the moment his teachings began to be consigned to written records, people would start indiscriminately changing stuff on a whim.....
Are you saying that you think Buddha was the author of the Pali Canon?
but maybe the contradiction isn't in the teaching, but rather the individuals mind who looks at such teaching from afar.
validity of a teaching is dependent on the student who follows such teaching.
the teachings exist for a reason and they have been around for quite a while.
if they did not work, then wouldn't such teachings die off?
or maybe i am really not a buddhist. then i guess i'm not a buddhist.
What i am saying is that the origins of the Pali canon lie in monks taking his teachings verbatim and creating a Dhamma out of them.
I am of course open to contradiction, but i know that many traditions place a massive amount of worth in not only memorising the teachings, but in ensuring their continuity.
So I think that's what you believe.
But there is also a possibility that the sangha did not agree what represented budddha's verbatim teachings.
From one of my links:
I think it equally possible that just as much importance was placed on authentic oral transmission.
Once a script has been accepted as an original, it's quite a difficult thing, during oral transmission, to diversify and alter the course of the text....
there has to be a long-term consensus of opinion, and a general agreement to change the spoken word.
something which i would image is actually more difficult to do than with the written word....
and fortunately, it is up to our discernment to evaluate what we read and hear, and decide for ourselves whether it resonates as honesty, or smells suspiciously of tampering....
You are saying the content was an oral tradition AND it was agreed upon. So if they orally chanted the content in order to complete their chants in one day they would have to chant it in a more concise form.
Or perhaps they had a schedule. You know X on monday Y on tuesday. And then maybe in a month they could review all of that content. Now why did this monk not agree? He said that he had also heard the discourses and yet he disagreed.
So lets try to see if this is all doable. How much time did the monks have. What did they do ieach day? Did they have enough time to meditate and so forth. Was the content more concise in their chants?
And then that still leaves the question of the schism.
It also doesn't adress the story of the first council:
I can buy into oral traditions. American-Indian cultures relied on that for, for example. But, that is not the same as being verbatim.
But, go ahead, prove it to me. Begin by memorizing the entire Pali canon...verbatim.
I can buy into oral traditions. American-Indian cultures relied on that for, for example. But, that is not the same as being verbatim. I don't have the time, but others have. Also, monks didn't generally memorize the entire Canon, only sections of it. One group, for example, would be in charge of committing the Majjhima Nikaya to memory, etc.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/11990/recent-bannings#Item_6
The Pali Tipitika contains a truly amazing variety of material from ethics to epistemology, from psychology to practical wisdom. It would be very difficult to encompass all this material into a single school or system, and indeed, Theravadans have certainly not done this. Rather, they have emphasized some of the Buddha's doctrines and ideas, and de-emphasized or even ignored others.
For example, the Four Expressions of Sympathy are frequently mentioned by the Buddha, and could have important implications for a deeper understanding of love and compassion, particularly their social application. Mahayana used them to develop a whole philosophy of practical altruism, but they are given almost no attention in Theravada.
This is a great example of how Mahayana and Theravada developed in a parallel fashion, based on different choices of the Buddha's teachings as their basis.
http://www.buddhistische-gesellshcaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf
I'm sure you're right, but isn't this an argument for those who are serious about Buddhsim to read both sutras and suttas?
Spiny
Mahayana students are very serious about their Buddhism. If no one informs them that there is a canon that has recorded the Buddha's words, it's not somehow a personal failing of theirs that they don't study something they don't know exists.
What did the Buddha teach lay people? The 5 precepts, the 4 noble truths, and in some rare instances the 8 fold path. That's it.
What you mentioned was taught by the Buddha in his 1st sermon.
He continued to teach for another 45 yrs.
Spiny
I would agree with your thought here - not something that I would hold onto though, of course.