[Y-Indology] On Mr. Malaiya's comments

[Guest guest]

Stephen Hodge writes:

 

>OK. Let me reword my point. I think we are agreed that not all suttas /

>sutras preserved in the surviving nikaayas and aagamas were literally

>Buddha-vacana. You may have a better idea of the percentage than me but

>does a minimum of 25% sounds reasonable ?

 

For all sorts of reasons, I wouldn't put it quite like that. It

depends in part what sort of theory of oral literature one has. It is

the content i.e. the basic teachings that they were trying to

preserve, not the literal words. But I certainly agree that some of

the preserved suttas are probably of a later date than others.

 

> In other words, there are

>portions of the surviving nikaayas / aagamas (and Vinayas) that were

>composed by later Buddhists and some of them introduce what are, in effect,

>doctrinal / practical innovations. Some of this must have happened at an

>early stage before sectarian divisions arose and some subsequently. Since

>these texts were composed by people, it seems reasonable that they had

>specific reasons for doing so -- a purpose, or, as I would say, an agenda.

 

I have no problem with this. It is the theory that existing texts

were revised at a later date that I am objecting to.

 

>One small later example here. While the Pali texts regularly speak of

>"anicca, dukkha, anattaa", the Sarvastivadin and Mahasanghika equivalents

>regularly speak of "anitya, duhkha, *'suunya*, anatman". Would you prefer

>to see the inclusion of "'suunya" here as "doctrinal creep" ? To me, it

>suggests a doctrinal purpose.

 

Not to me. What do you think that doctrinal purpose is ?

 

>Regarding the Vinaya, one can see that the Pratimok.sa probably originated

>as a single set of rules but, as you know, the later schools differ in the

>precise number.

 

My own view would be that a basic original set of around 150 rules is

subsequently added to by particular monastic groups for specific

reasons, perhaps mostly casuistic. Of course, the Buddha is described

as giving explicit permission to the monks to modify the minor rules.

 

> Why should there be variant rules ? Were the additions or

>deletions made consciously or are they again an example of your "doctrinal

>creep" line of thinking ? If they were, as I would maintain, generally

>made consciously, there must have been some purpose (= agenda) for doing so.

>Outside the Pratimok.sa, the content of the various Vinayas do differ

>considerably -- just compare the length of the Pali Vinaya with that of the

>Muula-sarvaastivaadins. Why is the latter so much longer ? By accident ?

 

I would go for: 'because it is later'.

 

>Thus, the upshot of this is that there are additions, delections and

>amendments. If I understand you correctly, you would maintain that these

>are largely a product of unconscious or evolutionary "doctrinal creep" while

>I see them, in many cases, as conscious changes -- surely we are both

>evaluating the situation subjectively according to our tastes and

>prejudices.

 

It's the idea that substantial changes were made retrospectively that

I doubt. At least I doubt that it occurred for the Pali texts. I am

open to the possibility that recensions of the sutta and vinaya texts

preserved in Mahaayaana-oriented regions might have been subject to

greater revision. That would make sense, since that is precisely how

they constantly created new Mahaayaana scriptures, etc. But I am not

fully committed to that view as yet.

 

Lance Cousins

 

--

HEADINGTON, UK