Fruit of the Contemplative Life
Fruit of the contemplative life: => Ecstatic Buddhism => : Michel January 11, 2014, 09:32:00 PM
-
I am interested in understanding the history of the Pali Canon. Before I start going into depth on the subject, I think I should begin with the sources of the Canon.
I'm am especially interested in Ananda. He is the historical key figure, since he is the author/source of the Pali Canon, and all that we know about Siddhartha and his dhamma comes from Ananda, I believe. We should know everything about this fellow. According to the authors of the book mentioned below, Ananda was enlightened the day before the 1st Council. True or not? If it's true, then he must have understood Siddhartha Gautama's Dhamma when he recited it before 500 Arahants. Therefore his words should be taken seriously. Does the Pali Canon, as written in its original Pali, provide us with an accurate reflection of Ananda's words?
There's a ton of disagreement about the origins of the Pali Canon. I don't know if we can ever arrive at the truth of the matter by reading the history books, unless we test out the teachings for ourselves, and then we'll see if they are correct. I believe that's the route we should follow. But the books may provide some insight and clues, and point us in the right direction along the way.
What do you think are historically accurate books on Ananda, and the Canon?
-
I am interested in understanding the history of the Pali Canon. Before I start going into depth on the subject, I think I should begin with the sources of the Canon.
I think spending some time understanding the sources of the Pali Canon is useful; however, it might not breed confidence.
I'm especially interested in Ananda. He is the historical key figure, since he is the author/source of the Pali Canon, and all that we know about Siddhartha and his dhamma comes from Ananda, I believe. We should know everything about this fellow. According to the authors of the book mentioned below, Ananda was enlightened the day before the 1st Council. True or not? If it's true, then he must have understood Siddhartha Gautama's Dhamma when he recited it before 500 Arahants. Therefore his words should be taken seriously. Does the Pali Canon, as written in its original Pali, provide us with an accurate reflection of Ananda's words?
This is the story present by the Pali Canon, if that is true, and I think it is reasonable, then why was Ananda not enlightened during the time period that he served his teacher? Why is it that Siddhartha Gautama put so much emphasis upon Sariputa and Mugallona. And, why did Siddhartha Gautama frequently chide Ananda for wasting his time with the social aspects of the sangha, such as sewing robes for new initiates?
I have a very popular book on the disciples of Siddhartha Gautama, which I don't intend to read:
Thera, Nyanaponika; Hecker, Hellmuth; Edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (2012-01-30). Great Disciples of the Buddha: Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy (Teachings of the Buddha) Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.
I read a critique on the book, and it points out that "Bhikkhu Bodhi, the editor, makes clear at the beginning that the purpose of the book is not to try to find the historical “truth” of these people, but to present them as the Buddhist world has known and revered them." So this book is useless. Be warned fellow students, don't waste your time and money on this book, unless you're interested in legend.
There's a ton of disagreement about the origins of the Pali Canon. I don't know if we can ever arrive at the truth of the matter by reading the history books, unless we test out the teachings for ourselves, and then we'll see if they are correct. I believe that's the route we should follow. But the books may provide some insight and clues, and point us in the right direction along the way.
What do you think are historically accurate books on Ananda, and the Canon?
The Pali Canon was oral, as most religious books were, until the first century BC. For some reason all of the religious books of the major religions of the time got written down at about the same time. At the same time it is pretty clear that the Sutta Pitaka was the first collection, and the authorship might well be Ananda, but even the Sutta Pitaka appears to have evolved over time. The volumes that I find most compelling are the DN, MN and SN. I believe the SN is the source rough draft for the DN and MN, which appear more polished.
The Abbhidhamma appears to have been the last volume, and apparently it came in the 1st century BC as well.
While I find much to admire in the Pali Canon it is not without its questionable suttas, questionable origins, multiple authorship, etc. so I think it is wise advice to test it by practicing it, and check the translation, and keep critical thinking active.
-
The Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago, so I think what knowledge we can have about his character, or that of his disciples, is sketchy at best. Jhananda's implication above that Ananda may not have even been a Noble Person, I think is accurate. The two names we generally see mentioned, of Sariputta and Moggallana, tend to say that the Buddha appreciated them the most, as those were his followers who attained the Siddhis.
An analogous situation probably exists in the West. For example, in Christianity we have a number of figures like "James, the brother of Jesus" (probably his real brother), or the different apostles, each who went his separate way proselytizing, with us having very weak written sources about any of them.
-
The Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago, so I think what knowledge we can have about his character, or that of his disciples, is sketchy at best. Jhananda's implication above that Ananda may not have even been a Noble Person, I think is accurate. The two names we generally see mentioned, of Sariputta and Moggallana, tend to say that the Buddha appreciated them the most, as those were his followers who attained the Siddhis.
Thanks, aglorincz. I'll keep this in mind as I read the suttas.
An analogous situation probably exists in the West. For example, in Christianity we have a number of figures like "James, the brother of Jesus" (probably his real brother), or the different apostles, each who went his separate way proselytizing, with us having very weak written sources about any of them.
That's quite interesting. Hopefully scholars will find out more.
Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD.[29] Gregory Schopen argues[30] 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 was criticized by A. Wynne.
The scholars are at each others' throat claiming all sorts of things. It's discouraging at times for one to reach a conclusion. I can already see that much of this speculation leads nowhere. It's quite the giant jigsaw puzzle, but it's all very fascinating.
While I find much to admire in the Pali Canon it is not without its questionable suttas, questionable origins, multiple authorship, etc. so I think it is wise advice to test it by practicing it, and check the translation, and keep critical thinking active.
That's it. We must test it out for ourselves. If 'A' doesn't work, try 'B', etc. Throughout time all the mystics have done the same, no doubt.
-
The Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago, so I think what knowledge we can have about his character, or that of his disciples, is sketchy at best.
I happen to agree
An analogous situation probably exists in the West. For example, in Christianity we have a number of figures like "James, the brother of Jesus" (probably his real brother), or the different apostles, each who went his separate way proselytizing, with us having very weak written sources about any of them.
This is how I read the Gospels. It is more about 4 perspectives on the same person and events, not additive, as many of the devout want to take the Gospels.
Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD.[29] Gregory Schopen argues[30] 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 was criticized by A. Wynne.
This is based upon very superficial scholarship. The Abbhidhamma is 1st century BC, the suttas are much earlier, while Buddhaghosa is 5th century AD. Buddhaghosa's job was to support the Abbhidhamma, which makes them both deeply flawed versions of the Buddha dhamma.
The scholars are at each others' throat claiming all sorts of things. It's discouraging at times for one to reach a conclusion. I can already see that much of this speculation leads nowhere. It's quite the giant jigsaw puzzle, but it's all very fascinating.
Just keep your critical thinking sharpened, and your daily practice of meditation, so that insight will emerge, then you will know without a doubt what is true and what is false.
That's it. We must test it out for ourselves. If 'A' doesn't work, try 'B', etc. Throughout time all the mystics have done the same, no doubt.
I agree