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.
There are lots of different Sutras (or books) for certain sects/schools of Buddhism, but one of the main principles of Buddhism is to not to over attach to symbols or objects, so no one book has greater emphasis over another.
The reason that so many different sutras of teachings exist, can be summed up as this; enlightenment is simple, people are complicated that is why Buddha created a thousand ways to enlightenment.
You can take your pick of any which sutra; Lotus, Diamond, Avatamsaka, Abhasita - the list goes on. Any one of them can lead you on to enlightenment.
3
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Padmini42 said:
enlightenment is simple, people are complicated
@SpinyNorman said:
I was questioning your comment: "Buddhism did not exist before the written word"
The only problem is that you have taken one sentence out of context.
What I said was: "How many Buddhas do some people believe existed before Gotama? If you do believe that (which I don't), then yes, Buddhism existed before the written word.
One source indicates that, "The first Indian script, developed in the Indus Valley around 2600 B.C." Even with the new interpretation of the age of an early Buddhist temple -- if that is correct -- that only puts Buddha's birth back to 550 B.C. Based on that interpretation of historical Buddhism, Buddhism did not exist before the written word.
So perhaps the question comes down to which version you go by."
So let me rephrase:
If you believe there were multiple Buddhas before Gotama, then Buddhism did exist before the written word.
If you believe Gotama was the first Buddha, then Buddhism did not exist before the written word.
Which does not alter the fact that the Buddha's teachings were not recorded in written form until almost 600 years after his, Shakyamuni Buddha's, lifetime. His language Maghadi had no written format that time. It later ' borrowed ' the Brahmi script..
@Citta said:
Which does not alter the fact that the Buddha's teachings were not recorded in written form until almost 600 years after his, Shakyamuni Buddha's, lifetime. His language Maghadi had no written format that time. It later ' borrowed ' the Brahmi script.
I wonder, did all the monks passing on this verbal history speak Maghadi, or some other language...after all, most languages at that time were quite regional.
At a very early stage various closely related languages including Maghadi were forged into Pali..which was in a sense artificially created for the purpose of having a ' Lingua Franca ' a language would could become a second language they all held in common.
In the same way that the Church used Latin to unite those with dozens of different languages.
Initially Pali had no written form..that was devised hundreds of years later in Sri Lanka.
BTW, I'm not arguing with you. I took several linguistics classes a while back...nothing about that particular region, and just find the general topic interesting.
Comments
There are lots of different Sutras (or books) for certain sects/schools of Buddhism, but one of the main principles of Buddhism is to not to over attach to symbols or objects, so no one book has greater emphasis over another.
The reason that so many different sutras of teachings exist, can be summed up as this; enlightenment is simple, people are complicated that is why Buddha created a thousand ways to enlightenment.
You can take your pick of any which sutra; Lotus, Diamond, Avatamsaka, Abhasita - the list goes on. Any one of them can lead you on to enlightenment.
This.
Wheres @jII @federica?
I was questioning your comment: "Buddhism did not exist before the written word"
The only problem is that you have taken one sentence out of context.
What I said was: "How many Buddhas do some people believe existed before Gotama? If you do believe that (which I don't), then yes, Buddhism existed before the written word.
One source indicates that, "The first Indian script, developed in the Indus Valley around 2600 B.C." Even with the new interpretation of the age of an early Buddhist temple -- if that is correct -- that only puts Buddha's birth back to 550 B.C. Based on that interpretation of historical Buddhism, Buddhism did not exist before the written word.
So perhaps the question comes down to which version you go by."
So let me rephrase:
If you believe there were multiple Buddhas before Gotama, then Buddhism did exist before the written word.
If you believe Gotama was the first Buddha, then Buddhism did not exist before the written word.
Which does not alter the fact that the Buddha's teachings were not recorded in written form until almost 600 years after his, Shakyamuni Buddha's, lifetime.
His language Maghadi had no written format that time. It later ' borrowed ' the Brahmi script..
I wonder, did all the monks passing on this verbal history speak Maghadi, or some other language...after all, most languages at that time were quite regional.
At a very early stage various closely related languages including Maghadi were forged into Pali..which was in a sense artificially created for the purpose of having a ' Lingua Franca ' a language would could become a second language they all held in common.
In the same way that the Church used Latin to unite those with dozens of different languages.
Initially Pali had no written form..that was devised hundreds of years later in Sri Lanka.
And yet there was written language in the Hindi valley as early as 2600 BC.
Unfortunately no one seems to have told the Sakyas Vinlyn.
BTW, I'm not arguing with you. I took several linguistics classes a while back...nothing about that particular region, and just find the general topic interesting.