DOCSLIB.ORG

The Date and Cause of the First Schism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Date and Cause of the First Schism Buddhist Studies Review 25(2) 2008, 210–31 ISSN (print): 0256–2897 doi: 10.1558/bsrv.v25i2.210 ISSN (online): 1747–9681 The Date and Cause of the First Schism Bhikkhu Sujato Santi Forest Monastery 100 Coalmines Road, (PO Box 132), Bundanoon, NSW 2578 Australia [email protected] ABSTRACT: The texts and inscriptions dating from the early period – roughly the fi rst 500 years after the Buddha’s passing away – do not support the conclusion that fully-fl edged sects existed at that time. Rather, we should think in terms of ‘sectar- ian tendencies’ that emerged as actual sects towards the end of the early period. The available sources that speak of the First Schism are best read as sectarian accounts de- picting the situation in the Buddhism of their own time – roughly 100–500 CE – rather than as historical records of the pre-Aśokan era. All of the Sthavira sources mention the so-called ‘fi ve theses’ of the Mahāsaṅghika (later ascribed to a certain ‘Mahādeva’) as either the cause of the First Schism or as important doctrinal issues. And a review of relevant Vinaya sources demonstrates that the ‘fi ve theses’ were probably accepted within the Mahāsaṅghika, which con- fi rms that this was likely the principal cause of the First Schism.1 INTRODUCTION Early Buddhist history pivots around the date of the First Schism, which forever divided the Buddhist community into separate schools. Virtually all our ancient accounts agree that this schism resulted in the formation of the Mahāsaṅghikas and the Sthaviras, which formed the basis for the subsequent emergence of the ‘18 schools’.2 But here the agreement ends. Both the date and the cause of the First Schism are presented in very diff erent ways in the ancient sources. Hence 1. This paper is essentially a summary of some of the main arguments in my Sects & Sectarianism. This book, together with several additional papers, is available at http://sectsandsectarianism. googlepages.com. 2. I use the Sanskrit form sthavira rather than the Pali theriya to avoid giving the unwarranted impression that this school is identical with the Theravāda of the present day, whose ances- tors I call the Mahāvihāravāsins. The Mahāvihāravāsins are of course just one of many schools descended from the Sthaviras. As has been often pointed out, the number ‘18’ is conventional, and does not represent the exact number of schools. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008, Unit 6, The Village, 101 Amies Street, London SW11 2JW SUJATO THE DATE AND CAUSE OF THE FIRST SCHISM 211 one of our tasks is to examine these sources to determine whether the diff erences may be reconciled. If they cannot, we must look to indirect evidence. In this paper, I fi rst consider the four main accounts of the First Schism, which are our direct evidence for its date. Then I briefl y survey the overall fi eld of indi- rect evidence. Finally I consider the likely cause of the schism. While my discus- sion of the date of the schism is largely based on a negative method – criticizing the sources that have been used to fi x the date – the discussion of the cause of the schism is based on a positive method, using sources that I believe have so far remained unnoticed. I think this evidence is suffi ciently compelling to make it unnecessary to discuss the various proposals that have been made in the past for the cause of the schism. For the purposes of this paper, I adopt a broad distinction between the ‘early period’ – roughly the 500 years from the Buddha’s birth until the start of the Common Era – and the ‘middle period’, ending around 500 CE. I try to avoid false precision by expressing dates in the most general way that is compatible with the context. While one aspect of historical inquiry must be to specify dates as closely as possible, such attempts in this fi eld are so tenuous that I prefer not to use them as the basis for further arguments.3 Nevertheless, for the purposes of clarity I accept the ‘median chronology’ for the Buddha: thus the Parinibbāna and the First Council were roughly 413 BCE, the Second Council was around 313 BCE, and Aśoka around 277–246 BCE (Cousins 1996, 109). Acceptance of a diff erent chronology for the Buddha would not aff ect my main arguments. For the most part I will express dates as ‘After Nibbāna’ (AN); thus, for example, 100 AN = 313 BCE. Bechert has established that the emergence of sects (nikāya-bheda) is not syn- onymous with a schism in the narrow legal sense of the word (saṅgha-bheda) (Bechert 1982). I agree with this aspect of his analysis,4 and further believe that there is no evidence that any of the sects emerged due to formal saṅgha-bheda. Throughout my article, therefore, I use ‘schism’ in the general sense of a division of groups of Saṅgha, without implying a formal saṅgha-bheda. PART 1: THE DATE The state of play Modern scholars typically place the First Schism between the Second Council and Aśoka. Thus Bechert refers to: ‘the fi rst schism, which must be placed before Aśoka’ (Bechert 2005b, 66). Prebish concurs: ‘Now we all know that a schism did take place around this time’ (Prebish 2005a, 237). Cousins lends his voice: ‘Even if 3. See my remarks at http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com (12 May 2008) > Names & Dates at Vedisa: http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/names%26datesatvedisa. 4. But see http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com (12 May 2008) > Sanghabheda vs. Nikay- abheda: http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/sanghabhedavs.nikayabheda. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008 212 BUDDHIST STUDIES REVIEW it is now clear that the schism between the Mahāsaṅghikas and the Sthaviravāda is not connected with the Second Council, it cannot have been long after’ (Cousins 2005a, 104). Nakamura, citing Midzuno, Gokhale, Basham, and Ingalls, also agrees: ‘Diff erent sects were already in existence during the reign of King Aśoka’ (Nakamura 1996, 100). Lamotte is more cautious, saying: ‘The date of the schism has not been precisely established, but everything leads to the belief that it had been prepared over a long period and only came to a head in Aśoka’s era’ (Lamotte 1976, 292). Despite this mass of authority, I think the First Schism must be placed after Aśoka. If I am correct, a major redraft of our map of early Buddhist history is needed. We cannot cast away such a consensus of authority lightly, and so I would like to start by explaining in detail exactly why our authorities believe the fi rst schism must have been before Aśoka. But unfortunately I have yet to discover explicit and detailed justifi cation for this view. Every account I have read, dating back to Oldenberg in 1879 (Oldenberg 1879, xxxii), assumes this is the case, with sketchy if any attempt at justifi cation. But such a conclusion must be based on the direct accounts of the schisms, so we should briefl y survey these fi rst. There are, of course, many other sources that we might refer to, but four in particular are central to any account. This is because, while the traditions speak of ‘18’ early schools, in fact there were four major groups of schools, which I refer to as Mahāsaṅghika, Vibhajjavāda,5 Sarvāstivāda, and Puggalavāda. The goddess Lakṣmī has seen fi t to bestow one of her rare graces upon us by making available at least one source representing each of these four major groups of schools. The Pali Dīpavaṁsa represents the Mahāvihāra (Theravāda/Vibhajjavāda); the Sarvāstivādin Vasumitra’s6 Samayabhedoparacanacakra is available in three Chinese translations (T no. 2031, T no. 2032, T no. 2033) and one Tibetan (see Lamotte 1976, 529–31 for details); the third list of Bhavya’s Tarkajvala (‘Bhavya III’), preserved in Tibetan, stems from the Puggalavādins (trans. Rockhill, pp. 186ff . See Lamotte 1976, 535); and the Mahāsaṅghika Śāriputraparipṛcchā survives in Chinese (T no. 1465). Each of these sources contains two parts: a ‘head’ (detailing the First Schism, when, where, why, who, etc.); and a ‘tail’ (describing the subsequent evolution of the ‘18 schools’). In each case the ‘tail’ is fairly similar, allowing for a few sectarian adjustments and the odd confusion, while the ‘heads’ are for the most part radically diff erent. Now, an obvious initial historical thesis would be that the ‘tails’ record the sectarian situation at the period the texts were composed, while the ‘heads’ record the attempts by the sects to authorize their own school within this context. Later on I will try to show how the texts confi rm this, but fi rst we must examine the 5. See Cousins (2001). I use this as a convenient term for the schools closely related to the Mahāvihāravāsins, but it should be noted that there is no evidence that the Mahāvihāravāsins themselves used this term to denote a group of schools. The Dīpavaṁsa shows their sense of radical isolation, and by ‘Vibhajjavāda’ they meant themselves alone (as shown in the texts quoted at Cousins (2001, 134–5, 136, 139, 141, etc.)). See Sects & Sectarianism, chapters 6 & 7. 6. Cousins (2005b, 53) is too sceptical in dismissing Vasumitra’s authorship. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008 SUJATO THE DATE AND CAUSE OF THE FIRST SCHISM 213 opposite thesis, upon which our authorities apparently rely: that the ‘heads’ sup- ply genuine historical information regarding the date of the First Schism. Since I can’t fi nd any serious argument in favour of the pre-Aśokan dating of the First Schism, it seems I must play Māra’s advocate and try to imagine what such an argument might look like.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Withdrawal from the Monastic Community and Re-Ordination of Former Monastics in the Dharmaguptaka Tradition
    WITHDRAWAL FROM THE MONASTIC COMMUNITY AND RE-ORDINATION OF FORMER MONASTICS IN THE DHARMAGUPTAKA TRADITION ANN HEIRMAN Centre for Buddhist Studies, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Ghent University, [email protected] Abstract: At the apex of Buddhist monasticism are its fully ordained members—Buddhist monks (bhikṣu) and nuns (bhikṣuṇī). The texts on monastic discipline (vinayas) indicate that some monks and nuns, at certain points in their lives, may choose to withdraw from the saṃgha (monastic community). The vinaya texts from every tradition attempt to regulate such decisions, as well as the re-ordination of former monastics. In this paper, I focus on the Dharmaguptaka tradition, the vinaya of which has become standard in China and neighboring regions. My intention is to answer intriguing questions raised by Petra Kieffer-Pülz in her study on the re-ordination of nuns in the Theravāda tradition, which appeared in the first volume of this journal (2015–2016): which options are available to monks and nuns who wish to withdraw from the monastic community; and is it possible for them to gain readmission to the saṃgha? I also address a third question: what does this imply for the Dharmaguptaka tradition? My research focuses on the Dharmaguptaka vinaya, and on the commentaries of the most prominent Chinese vinaya master, Daoxuan (596–667 CE), whose work lies at the heart of standard—and contemporary—under- standing of vinayas in China. Keywords: formal and informal withdrawal; re-ordination; Buddhist monks; Buddhist nuns; Dharmaguptaka 159 160 BUDDHISM, LAW & SOCIETY [Vol. 2 1. Introduction The so–called pārājika rules comprise the first category of regulations in the prātimokṣa—a list of rules for monks (bhikṣu) and nuns (bhikṣuṇī).
    [Show full text]
  • Withdrawal from the Monastic Community and Re-Ordination of Former Monastics in the Dharmaguptaka Tradition
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography WITHDRAWAL FROM THE MONASTIC COMMUNITY AND RE-ORDINATION OF FORMER MONASTICS IN THE DHARMAGUPTAKA TRADITION ANN HEIRMAN Centre for Buddhist Studies, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Ghent University, [email protected] Abstract: At the apex of Buddhist monasticism are its fully ordained members—Buddhist monks (bhikṣu) and nuns (bhikṣuṇī). The texts on monastic discipline (vinayas) indicate that some monks and nuns, at certain points in their lives, may choose to withdraw from the saṃgha (monastic community). The vinaya texts from every tradition attempt to regulate such decisions, as well as the re-ordination of former monastics. In this paper, I focus on the Dharmaguptaka tradition, the vinaya of which has become standard in China and neighboring regions. My intention is to answer intriguing questions raised by Petra Kieffer-Pülz in her study on the re-ordination of nuns in the Theravāda tradition, which appeared in the first volume of this journal (2015–2016): which options are available to monks and nuns who wish to withdraw from the monastic community; and is it possible for them to gain readmission to the saṃgha? I also address a third question: what does this imply for the Dharmaguptaka tradition? My research focuses on the Dharmaguptaka vinaya, and on the commentaries of the most prominent Chinese vinaya master, Daoxuan (596–667 CE), whose work lies at the heart of standard—and contemporary—under- standing of vinayas in China. Keywords: formal and informal withdrawal; re-ordination; Buddhist monks; Buddhist nuns; Dharmaguptaka 159 160 BUDDHISM, LAW & SOCIETY [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 39 Schism We Next Have to Consider the Vices That Are Opposed to Peace and That Involve Deeds: Schism (Schisma) (Quest
    QUESTION 39 Schism We next have to consider the vices that are opposed to peace and that involve deeds: schism (schisma) (question 39); strife (rixa) (question 41); sedition (seditio) (question 42); and war (bellum) (question 40). On the first topic there are four questions: (1) Is schism a special sin? (2) Is schism a more serious sin than unbelief? (3) Do schismatics have any power? (4) Are schismatics appropriately punished with excommunication? Article 1 Is schism a special sin? It seems that schism is not a special sin: Objection 1: As Pope Pelagius says, “Schism (schisma) sounds like scissor (scissura).” But every sin effects some sort of cutting off—this according to Isaiah 59:2 (“Your sins have cut you off from your God”). Therefore, schism is not a special sin. Objection 2: Schismatics seem to be individuals who do not obey the Church. But a man becomes disobedient to the precepts of the Church through every sin, since sin, according to Ambrose, “is disobedience with respect to the celestial commandments.” Therefore, every sin is an instance of schism. Objection 3: Heresy likewise cuts a man off from the unity of the Faith. Therefore, if the name ‘schism’ implies being cut off, then schism does not seem to differ as a special sin from the sin of unbelief. But contrary to this: In Contra Faustum Augustine distinguishes schism from heresy as follows: “Schism is believing the same things as the others and worshiping with the same rites, but being content merely to split the congregation, whereas heresy is believing things that are diverse from what the Catholic Church believes.” Therefore, schism is not a general sin.
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks About the History of the Sarvāstivāda Buddhism
    ROCZNIK ORIENTALISTYCZNY, T. LXVII, Z. 1, 2014, (s. 255–268) CHARLES WILLEMEN Remarks about the History of the Sarvāstivāda Buddhism Abstract Study about the history of a specific Buddhist monastic lineage known as “Sarvāstivāda” based on an overview of the history of its literature. Keywords: Sarvāstivāda, Buddhism, schism, Mahāyāna, Abhidharma, India, Gandhāra All scholars agree that the Sarvāstivāda (“Proclaiming that Everything Exists”) Buddhism was strong in India’s north-western cultural area. All agree that there was the first and seminal schism between the Sthaviravāda and the Mahāsāṅghika. However, many questions still remain to be answered. For instance, when did the first schism take place? Where exactly in India’s north-western area? We know what the Theravāda tradition has to say, but this is the voice of just one Buddhist tradition. Jibin 罽賓 The Chinese term Jibin is used to designate the north-western cultural area of India. For many years it has been maintained by Buddhist scholars that it is a phonetic rendering of a Prakrit word for Kaśmīra. In 2009 Seishi Karashima wrote that Jibin is a Chinese phonetic rendering of Kaśpīr, a Gāndhārī form of Kaśmīra.1 In 1993 Fumio Enomoto postulated that Jibin is a phonetic rendering of Kapiśa (Kāpiśī, Bagram).2 Historians have long held a different view. In his article of 1996 János Harmatta said that in the seventh century Jibin denoted the Kapiśa-Gandhāra area.3 For this opinion he relied on 1 Karashima 2009: 56–57. 2 Enomoto 1993: 265–266. 3 Harmatta (1996) 1999: 371, 373–379. 256 CHARLES WILLEMEN Édouard Chavannes’s work published in 1903.
    [Show full text]
  • Mahayana Buddhism: the Doctrinal Foundations, Second Edition
    9780203428474_4_001.qxd 16/6/08 11:55 AM Page 1 1 Introduction Buddhism: doctrinal diversity and (relative) moral unity There is a Tibetan saying that just as every valley has its own language so every teacher has his own doctrine. This is an exaggeration on both counts, but it does indicate the diversity to be found within Buddhism and the important role of a teacher in mediating a received tradition and adapting it to the needs, the personal transformation, of the pupil. This divers- ity prevents, or strongly hinders, generalization about Buddhism as a whole. Nevertheless it is a diversity which Mahayana Buddhists have rather gloried in, seen not as a scandal but as something to be proud of, indicating a richness and multifaceted ability to aid the spiritual quest of all sentient, and not just human, beings. It is important to emphasize this lack of unanimity at the outset. We are dealing with a religion with some 2,500 years of doctrinal development in an environment where scho- lastic precision and subtlety was at a premium. There are no Buddhist popes, no creeds, and, although there were councils in the early years, no attempts to impose uniformity of doctrine over the entire monastic, let alone lay, establishment. Buddhism spread widely across Central, South, South-East, and East Asia. It played an important role in aiding the cultural and spiritual development of nomads and tribesmen, but it also encountered peoples already very culturally and spiritually developed, most notably those of China, where it interacted with the indigenous civilization, modifying its doctrine and behaviour in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Thought and Practice in Mahayana Buddhism in India (1St Century B.C. to 6Th Century A.D.)
    International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. ISSN 2250-3226 Volume 7, Number 2 (2017), pp. 149-152 © Research India Publications http://www.ripublication.com Thought and Practice in Mahayana Buddhism in India (1st Century B.C. to 6th Century A.D.) Vaishali Bhagwatkar Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M.P.) India Abstract Buddhism is a world religion, which arose in and around the ancient Kingdom of Magadha (now in Bihar, India), and is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama who was deemed a "Buddha" ("Awakened One"). Buddhism spread outside of Magadha starting in the Buddha's lifetime. With the reign of the Buddhist Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, the Buddhist community split into two branches: the Mahasaṃghika and the Sthaviravada, each of which spread throughout India and split into numerous sub-sects. In modern times, two major branches of Buddhism exist: the Theravada in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, and the Mahayana throughout the Himalayas and East Asia. INTRODUCTION Buddhism remains the primary or a major religion in the Himalayan areas such as Sikkim, Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, the Darjeeling hills in West Bengal, and the Lahaul and Spiti areas of upper Himachal Pradesh. Remains have also been found in Andhra Pradesh, the origin of Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhism has been reemerging in India since the past century, due to its adoption by many Indian intellectuals, the migration of Buddhist Tibetan exiles, and the mass conversion of hundreds of thousands of Hindu Dalits. According to the 2001 census, Buddhists make up 0.8% of India's population, or 7.95 million individuals. Buddha was born in Lumbini, in Nepal, to a Kapilvastu King of the Shakya Kingdom named Suddhodana.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Buddhism in India
    The Decline of Buddhism in India It is almost impossible to provide a continuous account of the near disappearance of Buddhism from the plains of India. This is primarily so because of the dearth of archaeological material and the stunning silence of the indigenous literature on this subject. Interestingly, the subject itself has remained one of the most neglected topics in the history of India. In this book apart from the history of the decline of Buddhism in India, various issues relating to this decline have been critically examined. Following this methodology, an attempt has been made at a region-wise survey of the decline in Sind, Kashmir, northwestern India, central India, the Deccan, western India, Bengal, Orissa, and Assam, followed by a detailed analysis of the different hypotheses that propose to explain this decline. This is followed by author’s proposed model of decline of Buddhism in India. K.T.S. Sarao is currently Professor and Head of the Department of Buddhist Studies at the University of Delhi. He holds doctoral degrees from the universities of Delhi and Cambridge and an honorary doctorate from the P.S.R. Buddhist University, Phnom Penh. The Decline of Buddhism in India A Fresh Perspective K.T.S. Sarao Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 978-81-215-1241-1 First published 2012 © 2012, Sarao, K.T.S. All rights reserved including those of translation into other languages. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gandavyuha-Sutra : a Study of Wealth, Gender and Power in an Indian Buddhist Narrative
    The Gandavyuha-sutra : a Study of Wealth, Gender and Power in an Indian Buddhist Narrative Douglas Edward Osto Thesis for a Doctor of Philosophy Degree School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 2004 1 ProQuest Number: 10673053 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10673053 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Abstract The Gandavyuha-sutra: a Study of Wealth, Gender and Power in an Indian Buddhist Narrative In this thesis, I examine the roles of wealth, gender and power in the Mahay ana Buddhist scripture known as the Gandavyuha-sutra, using contemporary textual theory, narratology and worldview analysis. I argue that the wealth, gender and power of the spiritual guides (kalyanamitras , literally ‘good friends’) in this narrative reflect the social and political hierarchies and patterns of Buddhist patronage in ancient Indian during the time of its compilation. In order to do this, I divide the study into three parts. In part I, ‘Text and Context’, I first investigate what is currently known about the origins and development of the Gandavyuha, its extant manuscripts, translations and modern scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Buddhist Concept of “Time” and Its Possibilities for Modernity
    DOI: 10.4312/as.2016.4.1.11-33 11 Progress and Free Will: On the Buddhist Concept of “Time” and Its Possibilities for Modernity Bart DESSEIN*1 Abstract An even only cursory glance at the way Buddhism is experienced, interpreted, and lived in the contemporary world––both Western and Oriental––reveals Buddhism’s multiple “modern faces”. This paper does not intend to describe all or even a selected group of these many faces, but attempts to contribute to our understanding of how peculiar developments within Buddhist philosophy have made it possible that such a variety of “Buddhist modernities” could develop. It is shown that it is the peculiar Buddhist interpretation of the concept of time that has provided the basis on which the various modern features of Buddhism could build, because the Buddhist interpretation of time contains an aspect of progress and free will. It is suggested that these two aspects in- creased the prominence given to the individual adept in the Mahāyāna. The article then claims that it precisely are the ideas of rationality, progress and individualism that are also characteristic for the modern world that contain the possibility for Buddhism to develop its multitude of modern faces. Keywords: time, karmic retribution, knowledge, meditation, Buddhist modernity Izvleček Že bežen pogled na to, kako ljudje v sodobnem svetu (tako na Zahodu kot na Vzhodu) doživljajo, interpretirajo in tolmačijo budizem, razkrije, da so zanj značilni številni »obrazi sodobnosti«. V članku ne bom popisoval vseh ali le izbranih vidikov teh različnih obrazov, temveč bom poskušal osvetliti, kako so specifične spremembe znotraj budistične filozofije omogočile, da je nastalo toliko različnih »budističnih sodobnosti«.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oral Transmission of the Early Buddhist Literature
    JIABS Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 27 Number 1 2004 David SEYFORT RUEGG Aspects of the Investigation of the (earlier) Indian Mahayana....... 3 Giulio AGOSTINI Buddhist Sources on Feticide as Distinct from Homicide ............... 63 Alexander WYNNE The Oral Transmission of the Early Buddhist Literature ................ 97 Robert MAYER Pelliot tibétain 349: A Dunhuang Tibetan Text on rDo rje Phur pa 129 Sam VAN SCHAIK The Early Days of the Great Perfection........................................... 165 Charles MÜLLER The Yogacara Two Hindrances and their Reinterpretations in East Asia.................................................................................................... 207 Book Review Kurt A. BEHRENDT, The Buddhist Architecture of Gandhara. Handbuch der Orientalistik, section II, India, volume seventeen, Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2004 by Gérard FUSSMAN............................................................................. 237 Notes on the Contributors............................................................................ 251 THE ORAL TRANSMISSION OF EARLY BUDDHIST LITERATURE1 ALEXANDER WYNNE Two theories have been proposed to explain the oral transmission of early Buddhist literature. Some scholars have argued that the early literature was not rigidly fixed because it was improvised in recitation, whereas others have claimed that word for word accuracy was required when it was recited. This paper examines these different theories and shows that the internal evi- dence of the Pali canon supports the theory of a relatively fixed oral trans- mission of the early Buddhist literature. 1. Introduction Our knowledge of early Buddhism depends entirely upon the canoni- cal texts which claim to go back to the Buddha’s life and soon afterwards. But these texts, contained primarily in the Sutra and Vinaya collections of the various sects, are of questionable historical worth, for their most basic claim cannot be entirely true — all of these texts, or even most of them, cannot go back to the Buddha’s life.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Buddhist Metaphysics: the Making of a Philosophical Tradition
    EARLY BUDDHIST METAPHYSICS This book provides a philosophical account of the major doctrinal shift in the history of early Theravada tradition in India: the transition from the earliest stratum of Buddhist thought to the systematic and allegedly scholastic philosophy of the Pali Abhidhamma movement. Conceptual investigation into the development of Buddhist ideas is pursued, thus rendering the Buddha’s philosophical position more explicit and showing how and why his successors changed it. Entwining comparative philosophy and Buddhology, the author probes the Abhidhamma’s shift from an epistemologically oriented conceptual scheme to a metaphysical worldview that is based on the concept of dhamma. She does so in terms of the Aristotelian tradition and vis-à-vis modern philosophy, exploiting Western philo- sophical literature from Plato to contemporary texts in the fields of philosophy of mind and cultural criticism. This book not only demonstrates that a philosophical inquiry into the conceptual foundations of early Buddhism can enhance our understanding of what philosophy and religion are qua thought and religion; it also shows the value of fresh perspectives for traditional Buddhology. Combining philosophically rigorous investigation and Buddhological research criteria, Early Buddhist Metaphysics fills a significant gap in Buddhist scholar- ship’s treatment of the conceptual development of the Abhidhamma. Noa Ronkin received her PhD from the University of Oxford. She is currently a lecturer in the Introduction to the Humanities Programme and a Research Fellow at the Center for Buddhist Studies, Stanford University. Her research interests include a range of issues associated with Indian Theravada Buddhist philosophy and psychology, the Abhidhamma tradition and comparative Indian philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdfeast-West-Schism.Pdf 97 KB
    Outline the events that lead to an overall schism between the church of the East and the West. Was such a schism inevitable given the social, political and ecclesiastical circumstances? Name: Iain A. Emberson Module: Introducing Church History Essay Number: 1 Tutor: Richard Arding Date: 11 November 2009 1 Outline 1. Introduction 2. Greek and Latin Cultural Differences 3. Rome and Constantinople 4. The Filioque 5. The Iconoclastic Controversy 6. The Photian Schism 7. Excommunication and Final Schism 8. Aftermath and Reflection 9. Conclusion 10. Bibliography 2 1. Introduction The East-West Schism (also known as the Great Schism) resulted in the division of Christianity into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches. The mutual excommunications in 1054 marked the climax to a long period of tension between the two streams of Christianity and resulted from, amongst other things, cultural, linguistic, political and theological differences that had built up over time. Here we examine a number of these differences and their ultimate culmination in dividing East from West. 2. Greek and Latin Cultural Differences In his work 'Turning Points', Noll argues that “As early as the first century, it was possible to perceive pointed differences between the representatives of what would one day be called East and West.” 1 The Eastern Orthodox theologian Timothy Ware expands on this: From the start, Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian mystery in their own way. At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was influenced by judicial ideas...while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy..
    [Show full text]