![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article " Pali literature" is redirected here so, instead of overwriting that redirection, I thought it best for now to include in this article on the "Pali canon" a paragraph on non-canonical Pali texts. If however someone wants to move this information to a different article, etc., feel free! And I apologize ahead of time if my inclusion of this material here offends anyone. LarryR 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
hello, some parts of the article are now almost only composed of short quotes from scholars. Generally short sentences with a reference. It doesn't give a natural impression, it's just fact after fact after fact, there's no flow to the text... I think we need to look at this, and try to make the sentences a bit longer, combine sentences, make it nice to read.Greetings, Sacca 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This material should probably be a separate article, with just a brief reference here. Any suggestions for a suitable title? Peter jackson 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't express properly what I was meaning to say here. what I mean is that we should probably have a separate article for suggestions, whether by Mahayanists, Theravadins or independent scholars, that things widely supposed to be specifically Mahayana are rooted in the Pali Canon (or early Buddhism). Peter jackson 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines say avoid links in summary section. Peter jackson 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Is what I say above wrong? The last edits ignore it. Peter jackson 09:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
i just reinserted some basic links, mainly because the pali canon article is on the theravada template, having thus an important place in the template, it should make access to other articles relatively easy. So many articles have links in the introduction, it's part of culture almost. I think a few link are actually necessary. Greetings, Sacca 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
For example the reference after Rupert Gethins' name, just has a page number. This is not enough: it should be a proper listing of exactly which book teh page number refers to, no matter if it was mentioned somewhere above already, or not. I see these kinds of notes a lot, could teh one making these notes prlease insert the missing information?
also, one note actually has op. cit.. I mean, what are we to do with this? It's not very helpful.Greetings, Sacca 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's (probably) true that the Canon hasn't been completely translated, but it's very difficult to prove a negative. The Yamaka translation is very obscure & there might be others. The statement would have difficulty satisfying verifiability criteria, which is why I prefer simply mentioning the PTS. Peter jackson 15:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the info of Pali Canon in Mahayanais is superfluous information for this article, although we could mention some similar suttas found in the agamas, but these suttas are of course not mahayana suttas.
The Mahayana opinion on teachings found in the Pali Canon is a bit out of place, there are many opinions, even within theravada. For example also a christian opinion on the pali canon could be given, hindu, modern, this teacher, that teacher, etcetera. This is not about the pali canon any more, but about differing religious views. They could be put in a seperate article - differing religious views on the teachings in pali canon. Greetings, Sacca 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain why the words "now lost," appear in the edit text but not the article, & preferably what to do about it? Peter jackson 10:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(In the tradition section) Peter jackson 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There's probably a template for this as there's one for requesting a page number, but I can't find it so I'll mention it here. The second source cited in note 3 is a journal ref but no vol no is given. While I'm on the subject, I'm not sure what this citation is for. The first one states that the Canon was written on palm leaves so is the 2nd to say they were specifically ola leaves? If so we still need a citation for the statement about Sinhalese script. Peter jackson 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the remark about Sinhalese script for the time being. It wasn't clear whether there was acitation for it, & JPTS IX 45 n4 says Buddhaghosa used MSS in Brahmi. Peter jackson 09:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Peter, please make all the unacceptable references acceptable, or else remove them. I think they're all made by you. so please correct them, too. Greetings, Sacca 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sacca & I have ben discussing this on our talk pages, but I now think the position is more complicated than I thought, so I'm bringing it here hoping for other contributions. There seem to me on reflection to be quite a few different scholarly opinions.
1st, Schopen is in a category of his own, questioning what everyone else seems to accept, namely that a large proportion of the vinaya & sutta goes back to before the schisms. Even he doesn't positively deny it, maintaining an agnostic position. For the rest, who do accept that, here are some positions i can think of:
There are probably others. Peter jackson 17:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. the following book supports gimbrich and Harvey too. [1] It's for undergraduates in USA, very solid.Greetings, Sacca 07:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter Jackson had been deleting much properly referenced material from the section of 'Origins'. The total effect of all his additions has been to delete most authors who have views which say that it is very well possible that the canon originated with the Buddha, and he has at the same time been adding authors with opposing views. I find the result of it just much too POV, and many times Peters' writing style isn't clear. So I have moved that section back to the version of februay 23, this year. Peter has been deleting and adding to this section during the last month, when I was away a lot from Wikipedia. Greetings, Sacca 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, a brief message for Peter: the Macmillan encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004) is a collection of articles by Buddhist scholars. Their opinions have not been standardized across the work. Any one article professes ONE scholarly view, not THE scholarly view. Greetings, Sacca 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't. I've been deleting piles of extra scholars you've selected all pointing in the same direction.
I've now tagged your version. Anyone can look at my version in the history & see it's far more neutral than yours.
For ease of refernce, here's some material from WP:NPOV:
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.
All Wikipedia articles ... must be written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views ... This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles ..."
"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
This last quote is paraphrased from Mr Wales himself.
So I think the procedure we should be following in cases of difference of opinion is something like this.
This is what I've been trying to do.
To clarify my response to your remarks about the Encyclopedia, I should perhaps make clear that all reference works are unreliable & contradictory.
There are a variety of degrees of detail this article might go into on this question:
I should add that my version is work in progress. I want to improve it, but it's not on the face of the article at present. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll update my version here:
Most of the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas purports to give actual words of the Buddha, and the Parivara [1] says that he taught the Abhidhamma Pitaka as well.
According to the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), [2] while tradition holds that the Buddha's teachings were collected together in the First Council shortly after his death, scholars see them as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include
Some scholars say that the main teachings go back to the Buddha [3] They argue that the teachings are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius, i.e. the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death.
Some say that little goes back to the Buddha [4] They argue that
Some of these scholars think the Suttanipata is the earliest book of the Canon, followed by the Itivuttaka and Udana. [5].
The previous group of scholars reply that apparent contradiction is common in religious teachings, and that the Buddha's teachings may have developed during his teaching career. They also point out that the other scholars have produced a great variety of different theories of what the original teachings of the Buddha were.
The second group reply that the differences between teachings found in the scriptures are too great for development during his career.
Some scholars adopt intermediate positions, saying that some of the main teachings go back to the Buddha but some are later additions.
A few scholars, including a former President of the Pali Text Society, say that much of the Pali Canon can (probably) be attributed to the Buddha. [6].
Many scholars have argued that much of the Pali Canon, being found also in the scriptures of other early schools of Buddhism, parts of whose versions are preserved, mainly in Chinese, can be attributed to the period before the separation between Theravada and the other schools: in the case of the Vinaya, and probably the Anguttara, this is the Mahasanghika, whose split with Theravada is recognized by most scholars as the first split in Buddhism, variously dated to the 4th or 3rd century BCE; for the Digha, Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas, later splits are involved. Many of these scholars think these are the earliest books of the Canon, [7], perhaps along with some short verse works [8] such as the Suttanipata. [9]
However, Professor Gregory Schopen [10] has questioned these arguments. He argues that shared material could indicate borrowing between schools rather than a common origin, and that no evidence confirms the existence of these schools prior to the second century CE. Further, Schopen says that the assumption that Buddhism started off unified and later split contradicts nearly all research in the history and sociology of religion, which he says indicates that religious traditions are marked by early diversity and may later develop some uniformity.
In response, Tillmann Vetter has said that this method is better than nothing, and Gethin has said that the conclusions of it fit in with the natural development of Buddhist ideas.
The Canon was written down in the last century BCE. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2007), it is impossible to know the extent to which the Canon then written down resembles the present Canon. However, the Handbook of Pali Literature by Professor von Hinüber [11] says that the texts in the Canon, though much later than the Buddha, are the earliest Buddhist texts surviving, and some scholars, including the now President of the Pali Text Society, say little or nothing was added to the Canon after it was written down. [12]
Now here's the option 3 version:
Most of the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas purports to give actual words of the Buddha, and the Parivara [13] says that he taught the Abhidhamma Pitaka as well.
Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
Note that we can't actually say these are the most extreme views because we haven't got a reliable source that says so.
As this is only a talk page I'll leave some of the refs out for now. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
While neither version is perfect, the version by Peter jackson is the better of the two. The prior version both inaccurately used sources and used sources that contradict the assertion that it is a majority view that the canon is directly connected to Siddhartha Gautama. (As one example, one of the quotes given in the prior refs states (emphasis added): "I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things.") While Peter's version is an improvement, better and additional sourcing is still needed. For example, it may be extremely helpful if a few textbooks and/or articles from review literature were cited to establish the mainline within the topic. Vassyana ( talk) 04:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices!
Now here's my latest revision:
Most of the Vinaya Pitaka and much of the Sutta Pitaka purports to give actual words of the Buddha, and the Parivara [14] says that he taught the Abhidhamma Pitaka as well.
According to an article in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), [15] while tradition holds that the Buddha's teachings were collected together in the First Council shortly after his death, scholars see them as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include
Some scholars say that the main teachings go back to the Buddha [17] (A few of them, including a former President of the Pali Text Society, say that much of the detailed teachings probably do so, not just the main points. [18]They argue that the teachings are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius, i.e. the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death. [19]
Some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha [20] Some of these argue that [21]
Some of these scholars think the Suttanipata is the earliest book of the Canon, followed by the Itivuttaka and Udana. [22].
The previous group of scholars reply that apparent contradiction is common in religious teachings, [23] and/or that the Buddha's teachings may have developed during his teaching career. [24] They also point out that the other scholars have produced a great variety of different theories of what the original teachings of the Buddha were. [25]
The second group reply that the differences between teachings found in the scriptures are too great for development during his career.
[26]
Some scholars adopt intermediate positions, saying that some of the main teachings go back to the Buddha but some are later additions.
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 before the separation between Theravada and the other schools: in the case of the Vinaya, and probably the Anguttara, this is the Mahasanghika, whose split with Theravada is recognized by most scholars as the first split in Buddhism, variously dated to the 4th or 3rd century BCE; for the Digha, Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas, later splits are involved. Many of these scholars think these are the earliest books of the Canon, [27], perhaps along with some short verse works [28] such as the Suttanipata. [29]
However, Professor Gregory Schopen [30] has questioned these arguments. He argues that shared material could indicate borrowing between schools rather than a common origin, [31] and that no evidence confirms the existence of these schools prior to the second century CE. [32] Further, Schopen says that the assumption that Buddhism started off unified and later split contradicts nearly all research in the history and sociology of religion, which he says indicates that religious traditions are marked by early diversity and may later develop some uniformity. [33]
In response, Tillmann Vetter has said that this method is better than nothing, [34] and Gethin has said that the conclusions of it fit in with the natural development of Buddhist ideas. [35]
References
The Canon was written down in the last century BCE. According to the article on the Pali Canon in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2007), it is impossible to know the extent to which the Canon then written down resembles the present Canon. However, the Handbook of Pali Literature by Professor von Hinüber [1] says that the texts in the Canon, though much later than the Buddha, are the earliest Buddhist texts surviving, and some scholars, including the now President of the Pali Text Society, say little or nothing was added to the Canon after it was written down. [2]
The option 3 version remains unchanged. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just added another ref. They're visible in the edit text. Put a section at bottom of page if you like. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
References
Hello, I have now integrated the two versions. I have taken the references and text from Peters' above version (which was an improvement to his old version), and supplied these to the article. Since I believe the structure of the previous version was much better than the later version, I have started from that earlier version. The result is a much more balanced and clear section than both previous versions. Greetings, Sacca 08:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
One criticism Vassyana makes of you in particular, tho' it probably applies to me to some extent too, given the call to improve citations, is that of mismatch between article & source. We need to be more careful to ensure that the article says only what is said in the sources, with no interpretation on our part.
This has all sorts of implications. In particular, we mustn't say "some scholars" unless we have 1 of the following:
Now consider the last possibilty. Since we must say exactly what the sources say, this can only apply where the 2 sources say exactly the same thing. More precisely, it must be clear to anyone who looks them up that they're both saying that, in different words. Now you might like to have a good look thro' my subpage to see how many examples you can find of this. Very few I think. (If scholars say the same thing they're liable to be considered redundant.) This makes it very difficult to put scholars together into schools of thought. This in turn makes it very difficult to do this sort of summary. In addition we have the fact that we don't know what most scholars say. Even if I've found most of the English-speaking ones, that still leaves French, German, Russian &c before we even get to the Japanese majority.
So I'm wondering whether we should approach the matter from the other end. Instead of trying to jump straight to the answer to a very complicated question, we might start an article called Origins of the Pali Canon, Sources for early Buddhism or whatever, in which we collect together everything we can find, with no question of having to delete anything for lack of space. If we can get that article into some sort of order, which is likely to take a lot of time, we might eventually be able to work out how to summarize it here. Meanwhile, I suggest this article return to option 3. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It'd look something like this:
Main article: whatever
According to the Canon itself [1] the Sakyan seer, i.e. the Buddha, taught the three pitakas. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
There'd also be an invisible comment asking people not to upset the apple cart. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
alternative, needs some better references which I can add at a later time:
According to the Canon itself the Buddha taught two pitakas [4]. Later commentators (notably Buddhaghosa) have stated that the Abhidhamma was also taught by the Buddha. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
On the question of attribution to persons or groups other than the Buddha and his direct disciples, 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 [9].
Greetings, Sacca 15:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Main article: whatever
According to the Canon itself [10] the Sakyan seer, i.e. the Buddha, taught the three pitakas. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
Peter jackson (
talk)
11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See comments at end of previous section. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
References
I've followed the link from WP:NPOV, & copy the full source text here for convenience.
'Roy Royce wrote: > I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were > indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR > article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will > post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales.
The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my business. My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed and respected. Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it misses the point.
> You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the > WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.
What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?
If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
Remember, I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this context. We could talk about that forever and get nowhere. I'm only interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and NPOV or not"? And this question can be answered in the fashion I outlined above.'
The switch from "mainstream ... texts" to "commonly accepted reference texts" suggests he is using terms rather loosely & broadly. That is, the mention of "reference texts" in the policy page is to be interpreted as covering other things as well as actual reference texts. This would be consistent with Vassyana's reference to textbooks & review literature, if likewise interpreted loosely & broadly. It seems reasonable to assume an administrator is familiar with how things are meant to be done, & is not saying something inconsistent with Mr Wales & the policy page.
Therefore, the question of majority view is to be determined by looking at a variety of reputable sources. To interpret "reference texts" in such a way as to exclude reference texts would be perverse, the sort of things some religious groups do with their scriptures.
Now if we apply this to our present case, we find that (nearly) all the views we've been discussing can be found in just such reputable sources. That is, there's no clear evidence that there is a majority view at all. We have to assume there are only various minority views, & present them fairly.
Conclusion: my approach of giving priority (tho' only by putting them 1st; I never gave them extra space) to views found in reference texts in the literal sense is wrong; your approach of giving extra space to some views is also wrong. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting quote from Gombrich (Skorupski, Buddhist Forum, vol 1, p5):
"It is obvious that the positions taken by some of us are incompatible; one can either politely ignore the fact ... or try to address the issues and hope to progress by argument. ... the latter course is unusual in such intellectual backwaters as Indology and Buddhist Studies ..."
Might this suggest that standard procedures may not apply? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
On consideration, I think the model being intended here must be something like this:
So what we should be doing 1st is collect together what is said in books, as opposed to research papers. Not all books should be included. The following categories should be omitted:
So what I want to try now is to put together what's said in the following & see where it gets us:
Other possibilities:
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the easiest way to sandbox this is at User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On further consideration, I think the classification of scholarly literature must be as follows:
I assume it must be the latter category we're supposed to use to determine the main views. As to which such authorities are to be included, there are probably 3 criteria:
I think therefore that Warder should be included, & the Penguin Handbook if it has anything to add. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Some bullshit about Aleph a.k.a Aum Shinrikyou is the only gropu to have performed translation into modern language. Firstly, Pali Text Society has done entire translation though they have not published all of it in books format due to financial reason. Secondly, Japanese translation was done waaaaaaaay before. The title is "南伝大蔵経". FWBOarticle 06:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If a text has been translated but hasn't been published then it is essentially not available and regardless of the reasons, that transaction hasn't happened since no one's been a beneficiary of it. Stevenmitchell 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case it's not true. PTS has published, and keeps in print, translations of about 3/4 of the Canon. It has no translations unpublished for financial reasons. Peter jackson 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is this "myth" about manuscripts kept in baskets? Is it a purely western myth or does it actually occur in the tradition? The term pitaka in an obviously scriptural sense is found in inscriptions of the second century BC, i.e. before the writing down of the texts. Peter jackson 17:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I just found an article about the tripitaka --- this is exactly the same thing as the tipitaka. Shouldn't the two pages be murged? 86.143.22.237 ( talk) 10:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thripitaka meen three(3) pitaka(books) in general . so these articals shoud merge. becase tipitaka and thripitaka meens the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.92.4 ( talk) 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For convenience I copy here some citations I've already posted to Esteban's talk page:
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 111: "There is no such thing as the Buddhist canon."
page 112: "The tripiṭaka of one school, as far as scholars know, was never the same as that of the next."
page 113: "... the Chinese Buddhist canon ... was a far more comprehensive collection" [than the Pali Canon}
page 114: "... "the Chinese Buddhist canon" is itself an abstraction of many highly variable collections."
(Volume Two), page 755: "... the scriptural portions of the Chinese and Tibetan canons are over twice that size." [ie twice as long as the Pali Canon]
page 756: "... the Pāli, the Tibetan, and the Chinese canons ... are quite different, even if there is some overlap between the three. ... both the Chinese and the Tibetan canons include Mahāyāna sūtras that are absent from the Pāli canon, and the Tibetan canon in addition includes many tantras that are not found in any other collection. ... This is important to point out, lest it be thought that there is consensus among different Buddhists concerning what constitutes scripture. ... there is in reality no such thing as a single "Buddhist Bible"."
Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 765: "Although almost all schools of Buddhism agree on the use of the term Tripiṭaka ... to refer to their scriptures, the schools do not agree on the contents of the Tripiṭaka."
To respond more directly to Esteban's question, I would start with the obvious point that Buddhists speak different languages. Therefore they call their scriptures different things. It so happens that all/most use, among other names, translations of Tripitaka. As it's standard convention among Western scholars to use Sanskrit for Buddhism in general, that's the usual term. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a very rough draft based on the approach explained in the section above on Mr Wales' remarks. It is an alternative to my previous proposal, or a step towards one, & does not replace it.
According to the Canon itself, [1] the Sakyan Sage, i.e. the Buddha, taught the three pitakas. Scholars have presented a variety of views. The majority of scholarship in the field of Buddhist studies is Japanese, most of it unknown to western scholars except through two major sources: the late Professor Hirakawa Akira's History of Indian Buddhism (volume 1, 1974; English translation, University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1990) and the late Professor Nakamura Hajime's Indian Buddhism ( Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Hirakata, Japan, 1980); these take much more account of sources in Chinese and Tibetan than most English-language scholarship, which tends to be based mainly on Pali and Sanskrit sources. [2]
Hirakawa's account of the evolution of the Canon is as follows. At the First Council shortly after the Buddha's death, some short expositions of doctrine and verses were collected together. [3] Scholars have been unable to distinguish between the Buddha's teachings and those of his immediate disciples. [4] Progressively over the generations, explanations and stories were added, and material connected into longer discourses. [5] The development over the next century cannot be described in much detail, [6] but by a century after the Buddha's death a Vinaya Pitaka and Sutra (Sutta) Pitaka existed. [7] After this, Buddhism started to split up into schools, and each continued to add material to their versions. [8] The similarities between the Vinaya and Sutra Pitakas of different schools indicate that their basic contents were determined before these schisms. [9] The (first) four Agamas (nikayas) contain much more than the historical Buddha's teachings, but much of their content is closely related to those teachings, and any attempt to determine the Buddha's original teachings must be based on them. [10] The Pratimoksha (Patimokkha) and Skandhaka (Khandhaka) were probably composed a century after the Buddha's death. [11] The Khuddaka Nikaya represents a transitional phase, though it includes some very old texts such as the Dhammapada, Suttanipata, Theragatha and Therigatha; the Niddesa and Patisambhidamagga date from about 250 BCE. [12] The Abhidhamma is later than these, though some examples of its methods can be found in sutras and the Niddesa and Patisambhidamagga are forerunners. [13] The Kathavatthu probably dates from the last half of the second century BCE. [14]
Nakamura's account is as follows. The Canon must include some sayings or phrases going back to the Buddha, but which ones they are is open to question. [15] The oldest book of the Canon is the Suttanipata, [16] whose earliest parts are likely to date back to the Buddha's lifetime. [17] The Itivuttaka and Udana are early, [18] at least in part. [19] The (first) four nikayas are likely to have been compiled simultaneously after the reign of Asoka [20] (he also mentions a view that the oldest teachings are found in the Digha Nikaya). These represent early Buddhist teachings, but consist of different layers. [21] The Dhammapada is fairly old. [22] The Mahaniddesa must not have been composed before the second century CE (though a view is mentioned dating it to about the time of Asoka), so the Pali Canon must have been composed after this. [23] Some passages from Buddhist Sanskrit literature have been inserted into the Apadana and Netti. [24] The Abhidhamma Pitaka is much later than the others. [25]
K. R. Norman (Pali Literature, Otto Harrassowitz, 1983) says that the first four nikayas had begun to develop before the separation of Buddhism into schools. [26] The Vimanavatthu, [27] Petavatthu, [28] Patisambhidamagga, [29], Apadana, Buddhavamsa, Cariyapitaka, Khuddakapatha [30] and Abhidhamma Pitaka [31] are late.
According to Dr Peter Harvey of Sunderland University (Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990), although parts of the Canon are later than the Buddha, much must derive from his teachings. [32] He also says the Abhidhamma was added to the Canon in the third century BCE, developed from matikas that may go back to the Buddha, [33] and that probably little if anything was added to the Canon after it was written down. [34]
Professor Oskar von Hinüber of the Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg (Handbook of Pali Literature, Walter de Gruyter, 1996) says that the texts of the Canon, though the earliest Buddhist texts surviving, are much later than the Buddha, the result of a long and complicated development, [35] which needs much more research. [36] The Canon is anonymous literature. [37] The Parivara is most probably 1st century CE or later. [38] The Patisambhidamagga perhaps dates from around 200 CE. [39] The Apadana is one of the last books to be added to the Canon. [40]
Dr Rupert Gethin (Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998) says that significant portions of the Canon must go back to the third century BCE; specifically, the Vinaya and (first) four nikayas are relatively early, being shared by different schools. He also says something of the Abhidhamma method must go back to the Buddha's lifetime, [41] and that there was a tacit understanding from very early times that calling something the word of the Buddha was not exactly the same as saying that he actually said it; rather, what counted was whether it conformed to the structure and pattern of the teaching. [42]
A. K. Warder (Indian Buddhism, 3rd edn, Motilal Banarsidass, 2000) says there is a central body of sutras (suttas) so similar in all known versions that they must be different recensions of the same original texts. [43] The order of the five nikayas is their order of authenticity. [44] The average date of the Jataka is 4th century BCE. [45] The Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu and Apadana are later than 200 BCE, perhaps a century later, the Cariyapitaka later still, the Buddhavamsa 2nd century BCE. [46] The Patisambhidamagga can be dated between 237 and c. 100 BCE. [47] An Abhidhamma Pitaka probably existed within two centuries of the Buddha's death, but not consisting of the seven books we have now. [48]
In the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), the article on Vinaya, by Dr Gregory Schopen of the University of California, Los Angeles, says the contents cannot be established before the commentary in the fifth century, and even then we have only eighteenth and nineteenth century manuscripts to go on. [49] It also mentions two alternative theories to explain common material in different schools' versions of the Vinaya: that the common material is inherited from the period before the separation of the schools; and that it was borrowed between schools at later periods. [50] The article on Agamas/Nikayas, by Jens-Uwe Hartmann of the University of Munich, says that, while tradition says the teachings were collected at the First Council shortly after the Buddha's death, scholars see it as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. [51] The article on Abhidharma (Abhidhamma), by Collett Cox of the University of Washington, says it developed in the centuries after the Buddha's death. [52]
Dr Richard Gombrich (Theravada Buddhism, 2nd edn, Routledge, 2006) says that the content, as opposed to the precise form, of the main body of discourses in the first four nikayas, and of the main body of monastic rules in the Vinaya, must be the work of a single genius, i.e. the Buddha himself. [53] He also says the Canon was written down in the last century BCE, and its language slightly changed after that.
According to the article on the Pali Canon, by Karen C. Lang of the University of Virginia, in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2007), there is no way of knowing how closely the Canon written down in the last century BCE resmbles that of the present day. [54]
Excellent work, Peter.— Nat Krause( Talk!· What have I done?) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
hello Peter, It's a good effort but I think it's too cluttered and therefore difficult to read and unconfused. It's a list of various people and what they think. But it should not be about the people but about the positions. That's what the article is about, it's about opinions of the origins, not about the people who wrote about the origins and what they wrote. But obviously your work is quite detailed and you could add some of the content to supply the existing section on the origins wherever it's needed.
I propose we delete the NPOV label now, because your objections to it have been repaired a long time ago, and this is just about how to move on from the current position which is balanced.
Greetings, Sacca 04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes the arrangement is important, it should be arranged according to the positions/opinions, not according to persons. If you've got sources, why not add them to the article?
The Canon never says that it was completely taught by the Buddha. For examples many suttas say they are taught by f.e. sariputta or mogallana, and some parts are reports of f.e. the first buddhist council. Parivara doesn't say it was taught by the Buddha. The Abhidhamma doesn't say that. So there are large parts of the canon which do not say they are taught by Buddha. I have now moved the tag back to the 'disputed' area. Greetings, Sacca 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Isn't this later than the Nikayas? What are the references people have on this, if they are easy to get to? Besides what's in the Vinaya article. Mitsube ( talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I object to the new title. It's not the normal English usage. I don't know enough about WP technicalities to revert it. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's not even the correct native spelling. It can aslo be spelt pāḷi. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it a Buddhist scripture??
an anonymous use added: No early scool of Buddhism is known not to have had an Abhidhamma Pitaka As far as I understand, the Mahasanghikas did not have a Abhidhamma, or at least that is what user:Stephen Hodge told me if I remember correctly. Any opinions on this? Greetings, Sacca 02:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, a sharp distinction cannot be established, but: a distinction can be established. I read the 2004 Macmillan encyclopedia of Buddhism on its abhidharma entry, and it mentions this information also:
In the centuries after the death of the Buddha, with the advent of settled monastic communities, there emerged new forms of religious praxis and modes of transmitting and interpreting the teaching... ...Although begun as a pragmatic method of elaborating the received teachings, this scholastic enterprise soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life... ...The products of this scholarship became revered tradition in their own right, eventually eclipsing the dialogues of the Buddha and of his disciples as the arbiter of the true teaching In the next paragraph the writer says this enterprise was called abhidharma.
These sentences are not to be included in the article, I copied two small parts of the introduction to the article (by COLLETT COX), just to show that this information is an accepted viewpoint according to the Macmillan 2004 enyclopedia of Buddhism. I would like some mention of this information to remain, as I believe it's quite fundamental knowledge, relevant to people who want to know about the Pali Canon or the Tipitaka.
By the way, the entry on Abhidharma in this Macmillan encyclopedia takes 7 (A4) pages. The encyclopedia itself is well done I believe, and it gives some very detailed maps also. It's a pdf-file. Greetings, Sacca 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Sacca 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If I understand right, Wikipedia policy is that entries should be under the commonest form used in English. Here are the results of Google search for divisions of the Canon.
Vinaya-Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, Abhidhamma Pitaka.
Digha-Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Khuddaka Nikaya/Khuddaka-Nikaya (equal).
These are standard names for Buddhism scriptures and it can't be changed no matter how people try to change it. and it's pretty much universal just like Dinosaurs names in Latin and Greek. //A Theravada Buddhist Avaloan —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC).
What are we supposed to do about this? Peter jackson 09:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings to Peter, Sacca, and other creators of the Pali Canon origins section,
I've been reviewing this page as part of my own research into origins, and I notice a few problems (despite the work that you've put into this, as I can see from the talk page). I would like to make some changes, but I thought I'd mention it here first before going ahead.
The first thing is the selection of scholastic opinions for and against the authenticity of the Pali canon. I notice that you have a range of experts who cautiously side for the authenticity of the canon, and then three names as skeptics. But none of the skeptics are experts in early Buddhism. "Prof. Ronald Davidson", who unaccountably gets a title while most others do without, is an expert on tantra. Likewise, "Dr Gregory Schopen", also dignified with a title and a job description, is an expert on the middle period of Buddhism and the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. Similarly, Skorupski, cited in note 26, is a scholar of tantra, not Early Buddhism. (In addition, I have looked for his statement in the Buddhist Forum, but cannot find it. Also note 28 is not a proper reference. It should be completed or deleted.)
May I suggest:
1. Remove titles and job descriptions, or give them for all. (Better: link to their wikipedia pages.)
2. Find experts on the skeptical side who are actual scholars of Early Buddhism. I think this will be difficult, as i believe that the skeptical voices are, in fact, by people who do not understand the field on which they are commenting. So,
3. If the existing skeptical voices are to be retained (and I do think Schopen deserves to be mentioned, if only because of the influence his ideas have had), then it should be stated that they are not experts in the field.
4. I also question the point of Nakamura's quote. It is a straw man argument, saying nothing can be accepted as "unquestionable", which is simply not what anyone is saying. Better to find something more meaningful.
Bhikkhu Sujato ( talk) 05:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there has been no objection I will make a start with some changes, namely:
1. remove titles for scholars and add links to wiki pages, or to biodata where there is no wiki page.
2. I do not know of any skeptical statements by scholars in the field, so I cannot add these. I have added a reference to Geoffery samuel, taken from Peter Jackson's Wiki info page.
3. Remove the reference to Skorupski. This seems to be a confused reference to Gombrich's article in the Buddhist Forum vol. 1, where he actually launches a defence of authenticity, and says that: "On reading the papers of my colleagues, I realized that, like me, they all (except Professor Aramaki?) assumed that the main body of soteriological teaching found in the Pāli Canon does go back to the Buddha himself." And this is a citation for skeptical voices! Incidentally, there is no paper by Aramaki in that or other published volumes of the Buddhist Forum, perhaps the conference schedule changed.
4. deleted the sentence "Some of these scholars argue that some passages contradict the main teachings, and that the Buddha must have been consistent." and its note, an unclear reference without mentioning content or authorship.
5. Rearranged content so that views are represented in the proper section.
6. Edited sentence about Nakamura.
7. In section on agnostic views, removed reference to scholars disagreeing with application of biblical text-critical methods. This is not relevant here, or at least needs more context to make it meaningful. Also the reference does not make authorship clear.
8. Clarified reference to Peter Harvey: previously his statement was only in a note, next to Gombrich; but the quote did not really relate to the relevant sentence. So i have separated it.
9. Adjusted paragraphing.
10. Removed "did not attract much support" from comment re Schopen, as it is vague and unsupported. It is also, I think, not really true: it has indeed attracted support in fields outside of early Buddhist studies, just not among experts.
11. Smoothed various details, including sentence on Gombrich.
I hope these changes are acceptable. I think the result is a more concise, clearer representation of the situation. There is still much to be done!
Bhikkhu Sujato ( talk) 08:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Tengu, I hope I can find some time to do some more. Bhikkhu Sujato ( talk) 07:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The RfC by Dorje108 states that:
"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
Robert Walker ( talk) 02:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the section The earliest books of the Pali Canon because of possible original research. The second paragraph states "Most of the above scholars would probably agree that their early books include some later additions.". Most of the above scholars would probably agree... is written in a surmising way with no proof, so is a guess at best. Even with a source this would need rewording. Otr500 ( talk) 14:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pāli Canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede?
Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
I've posted here since it is closely connected to questions about how to interpret the four noble truths in the Pali Canon. So editors of this article may have a valuable perspective on the debate.
Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This is to suggest that the excellent section on attribution due to scholars should mention two other views, at the far extremes of the debate.
First, if I understand it right Carol Anderson in her book Pain and its Ending argues that even the four noble truths were introduced at a later date, and were not in the original sutras (in this I'm going by Lance Cousin's summary of her book as I don't have access to the complete book myself).
Her book is reviewed by Lance Cousins here: Lance Cousins critical review of Carol Anderson's book, in particular he says that she misunderstood some of the scholars she cited such as Norman, who according to Cousins just says that the four noble truths were expressed in a simpler form originally.
At the other extreme Prayudh Payutto - argues that the Pali Canon represents the teachings of the Buddha essentially unchanged apart from minor modifications - while also incorporating teachings that precede the Buddha, and that the later teachings were memorized by the Buddha's followers while he was still alive. His thesis is based on study of the processes of the first great council, and the methods for memorization used by the monks, which started during the Buddha's lifetime - and the capability of a few monks, to this day, to memorize the entire canon. For the details see The Pali Canon - What a Buddhist must know.
Perhaps other editors here might like to review these sources and include a sentence or two about their views in this section?
Also I wonder if it should also mention Stephen Batchelor's views, which are somewhat intermediate - he attributes teachings on the four noble truths to the Buddha, but not the teachings on karma if I understand it right, but I am not sure about the details there. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article " Pali literature" is redirected here so, instead of overwriting that redirection, I thought it best for now to include in this article on the "Pali canon" a paragraph on non-canonical Pali texts. If however someone wants to move this information to a different article, etc., feel free! And I apologize ahead of time if my inclusion of this material here offends anyone. LarryR 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
hello, some parts of the article are now almost only composed of short quotes from scholars. Generally short sentences with a reference. It doesn't give a natural impression, it's just fact after fact after fact, there's no flow to the text... I think we need to look at this, and try to make the sentences a bit longer, combine sentences, make it nice to read.Greetings, Sacca 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This material should probably be a separate article, with just a brief reference here. Any suggestions for a suitable title? Peter jackson 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't express properly what I was meaning to say here. what I mean is that we should probably have a separate article for suggestions, whether by Mahayanists, Theravadins or independent scholars, that things widely supposed to be specifically Mahayana are rooted in the Pali Canon (or early Buddhism). Peter jackson 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines say avoid links in summary section. Peter jackson 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Is what I say above wrong? The last edits ignore it. Peter jackson 09:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
i just reinserted some basic links, mainly because the pali canon article is on the theravada template, having thus an important place in the template, it should make access to other articles relatively easy. So many articles have links in the introduction, it's part of culture almost. I think a few link are actually necessary. Greetings, Sacca 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
For example the reference after Rupert Gethins' name, just has a page number. This is not enough: it should be a proper listing of exactly which book teh page number refers to, no matter if it was mentioned somewhere above already, or not. I see these kinds of notes a lot, could teh one making these notes prlease insert the missing information?
also, one note actually has op. cit.. I mean, what are we to do with this? It's not very helpful.Greetings, Sacca 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's (probably) true that the Canon hasn't been completely translated, but it's very difficult to prove a negative. The Yamaka translation is very obscure & there might be others. The statement would have difficulty satisfying verifiability criteria, which is why I prefer simply mentioning the PTS. Peter jackson 15:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the info of Pali Canon in Mahayanais is superfluous information for this article, although we could mention some similar suttas found in the agamas, but these suttas are of course not mahayana suttas.
The Mahayana opinion on teachings found in the Pali Canon is a bit out of place, there are many opinions, even within theravada. For example also a christian opinion on the pali canon could be given, hindu, modern, this teacher, that teacher, etcetera. This is not about the pali canon any more, but about differing religious views. They could be put in a seperate article - differing religious views on the teachings in pali canon. Greetings, Sacca 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain why the words "now lost," appear in the edit text but not the article, & preferably what to do about it? Peter jackson 10:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(In the tradition section) Peter jackson 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There's probably a template for this as there's one for requesting a page number, but I can't find it so I'll mention it here. The second source cited in note 3 is a journal ref but no vol no is given. While I'm on the subject, I'm not sure what this citation is for. The first one states that the Canon was written on palm leaves so is the 2nd to say they were specifically ola leaves? If so we still need a citation for the statement about Sinhalese script. Peter jackson 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the remark about Sinhalese script for the time being. It wasn't clear whether there was acitation for it, & JPTS IX 45 n4 says Buddhaghosa used MSS in Brahmi. Peter jackson 09:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Peter, please make all the unacceptable references acceptable, or else remove them. I think they're all made by you. so please correct them, too. Greetings, Sacca 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sacca & I have ben discussing this on our talk pages, but I now think the position is more complicated than I thought, so I'm bringing it here hoping for other contributions. There seem to me on reflection to be quite a few different scholarly opinions.
1st, Schopen is in a category of his own, questioning what everyone else seems to accept, namely that a large proportion of the vinaya & sutta goes back to before the schisms. Even he doesn't positively deny it, maintaining an agnostic position. For the rest, who do accept that, here are some positions i can think of:
There are probably others. Peter jackson 17:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. the following book supports gimbrich and Harvey too. [1] It's for undergraduates in USA, very solid.Greetings, Sacca 07:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter Jackson had been deleting much properly referenced material from the section of 'Origins'. The total effect of all his additions has been to delete most authors who have views which say that it is very well possible that the canon originated with the Buddha, and he has at the same time been adding authors with opposing views. I find the result of it just much too POV, and many times Peters' writing style isn't clear. So I have moved that section back to the version of februay 23, this year. Peter has been deleting and adding to this section during the last month, when I was away a lot from Wikipedia. Greetings, Sacca 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, a brief message for Peter: the Macmillan encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004) is a collection of articles by Buddhist scholars. Their opinions have not been standardized across the work. Any one article professes ONE scholarly view, not THE scholarly view. Greetings, Sacca 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't. I've been deleting piles of extra scholars you've selected all pointing in the same direction.
I've now tagged your version. Anyone can look at my version in the history & see it's far more neutral than yours.
For ease of refernce, here's some material from WP:NPOV:
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.
All Wikipedia articles ... must be written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views ... This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles ..."
"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
This last quote is paraphrased from Mr Wales himself.
So I think the procedure we should be following in cases of difference of opinion is something like this.
This is what I've been trying to do.
To clarify my response to your remarks about the Encyclopedia, I should perhaps make clear that all reference works are unreliable & contradictory.
There are a variety of degrees of detail this article might go into on this question:
I should add that my version is work in progress. I want to improve it, but it's not on the face of the article at present. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll update my version here:
Most of the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas purports to give actual words of the Buddha, and the Parivara [1] says that he taught the Abhidhamma Pitaka as well.
According to the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), [2] while tradition holds that the Buddha's teachings were collected together in the First Council shortly after his death, scholars see them as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include
Some scholars say that the main teachings go back to the Buddha [3] They argue that the teachings are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius, i.e. the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death.
Some say that little goes back to the Buddha [4] They argue that
Some of these scholars think the Suttanipata is the earliest book of the Canon, followed by the Itivuttaka and Udana. [5].
The previous group of scholars reply that apparent contradiction is common in religious teachings, and that the Buddha's teachings may have developed during his teaching career. They also point out that the other scholars have produced a great variety of different theories of what the original teachings of the Buddha were.
The second group reply that the differences between teachings found in the scriptures are too great for development during his career.
Some scholars adopt intermediate positions, saying that some of the main teachings go back to the Buddha but some are later additions.
A few scholars, including a former President of the Pali Text Society, say that much of the Pali Canon can (probably) be attributed to the Buddha. [6].
Many scholars have argued that much of the Pali Canon, being found also in the scriptures of other early schools of Buddhism, parts of whose versions are preserved, mainly in Chinese, can be attributed to the period before the separation between Theravada and the other schools: in the case of the Vinaya, and probably the Anguttara, this is the Mahasanghika, whose split with Theravada is recognized by most scholars as the first split in Buddhism, variously dated to the 4th or 3rd century BCE; for the Digha, Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas, later splits are involved. Many of these scholars think these are the earliest books of the Canon, [7], perhaps along with some short verse works [8] such as the Suttanipata. [9]
However, Professor Gregory Schopen [10] has questioned these arguments. He argues that shared material could indicate borrowing between schools rather than a common origin, and that no evidence confirms the existence of these schools prior to the second century CE. Further, Schopen says that the assumption that Buddhism started off unified and later split contradicts nearly all research in the history and sociology of religion, which he says indicates that religious traditions are marked by early diversity and may later develop some uniformity.
In response, Tillmann Vetter has said that this method is better than nothing, and Gethin has said that the conclusions of it fit in with the natural development of Buddhist ideas.
The Canon was written down in the last century BCE. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2007), it is impossible to know the extent to which the Canon then written down resembles the present Canon. However, the Handbook of Pali Literature by Professor von Hinüber [11] says that the texts in the Canon, though much later than the Buddha, are the earliest Buddhist texts surviving, and some scholars, including the now President of the Pali Text Society, say little or nothing was added to the Canon after it was written down. [12]
Now here's the option 3 version:
Most of the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas purports to give actual words of the Buddha, and the Parivara [13] says that he taught the Abhidhamma Pitaka as well.
Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
Note that we can't actually say these are the most extreme views because we haven't got a reliable source that says so.
As this is only a talk page I'll leave some of the refs out for now. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
While neither version is perfect, the version by Peter jackson is the better of the two. The prior version both inaccurately used sources and used sources that contradict the assertion that it is a majority view that the canon is directly connected to Siddhartha Gautama. (As one example, one of the quotes given in the prior refs states (emphasis added): "I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things.") While Peter's version is an improvement, better and additional sourcing is still needed. For example, it may be extremely helpful if a few textbooks and/or articles from review literature were cited to establish the mainline within the topic. Vassyana ( talk) 04:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices!
Now here's my latest revision:
Most of the Vinaya Pitaka and much of the Sutta Pitaka purports to give actual words of the Buddha, and the Parivara [14] says that he taught the Abhidhamma Pitaka as well.
According to an article in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), [15] while tradition holds that the Buddha's teachings were collected together in the First Council shortly after his death, scholars see them as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include
Some scholars say that the main teachings go back to the Buddha [17] (A few of them, including a former President of the Pali Text Society, say that much of the detailed teachings probably do so, not just the main points. [18]They argue that the teachings are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius, i.e. the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death. [19]
Some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha [20] Some of these argue that [21]
Some of these scholars think the Suttanipata is the earliest book of the Canon, followed by the Itivuttaka and Udana. [22].
The previous group of scholars reply that apparent contradiction is common in religious teachings, [23] and/or that the Buddha's teachings may have developed during his teaching career. [24] They also point out that the other scholars have produced a great variety of different theories of what the original teachings of the Buddha were. [25]
The second group reply that the differences between teachings found in the scriptures are too great for development during his career.
[26]
Some scholars adopt intermediate positions, saying that some of the main teachings go back to the Buddha but some are later additions.
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 before the separation between Theravada and the other schools: in the case of the Vinaya, and probably the Anguttara, this is the Mahasanghika, whose split with Theravada is recognized by most scholars as the first split in Buddhism, variously dated to the 4th or 3rd century BCE; for the Digha, Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas, later splits are involved. Many of these scholars think these are the earliest books of the Canon, [27], perhaps along with some short verse works [28] such as the Suttanipata. [29]
However, Professor Gregory Schopen [30] has questioned these arguments. He argues that shared material could indicate borrowing between schools rather than a common origin, [31] and that no evidence confirms the existence of these schools prior to the second century CE. [32] Further, Schopen says that the assumption that Buddhism started off unified and later split contradicts nearly all research in the history and sociology of religion, which he says indicates that religious traditions are marked by early diversity and may later develop some uniformity. [33]
In response, Tillmann Vetter has said that this method is better than nothing, [34] and Gethin has said that the conclusions of it fit in with the natural development of Buddhist ideas. [35]
References
The Canon was written down in the last century BCE. According to the article on the Pali Canon in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2007), it is impossible to know the extent to which the Canon then written down resembles the present Canon. However, the Handbook of Pali Literature by Professor von Hinüber [1] says that the texts in the Canon, though much later than the Buddha, are the earliest Buddhist texts surviving, and some scholars, including the now President of the Pali Text Society, say little or nothing was added to the Canon after it was written down. [2]
The option 3 version remains unchanged. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just added another ref. They're visible in the edit text. Put a section at bottom of page if you like. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
References
Hello, I have now integrated the two versions. I have taken the references and text from Peters' above version (which was an improvement to his old version), and supplied these to the article. Since I believe the structure of the previous version was much better than the later version, I have started from that earlier version. The result is a much more balanced and clear section than both previous versions. Greetings, Sacca 08:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
One criticism Vassyana makes of you in particular, tho' it probably applies to me to some extent too, given the call to improve citations, is that of mismatch between article & source. We need to be more careful to ensure that the article says only what is said in the sources, with no interpretation on our part.
This has all sorts of implications. In particular, we mustn't say "some scholars" unless we have 1 of the following:
Now consider the last possibilty. Since we must say exactly what the sources say, this can only apply where the 2 sources say exactly the same thing. More precisely, it must be clear to anyone who looks them up that they're both saying that, in different words. Now you might like to have a good look thro' my subpage to see how many examples you can find of this. Very few I think. (If scholars say the same thing they're liable to be considered redundant.) This makes it very difficult to put scholars together into schools of thought. This in turn makes it very difficult to do this sort of summary. In addition we have the fact that we don't know what most scholars say. Even if I've found most of the English-speaking ones, that still leaves French, German, Russian &c before we even get to the Japanese majority.
So I'm wondering whether we should approach the matter from the other end. Instead of trying to jump straight to the answer to a very complicated question, we might start an article called Origins of the Pali Canon, Sources for early Buddhism or whatever, in which we collect together everything we can find, with no question of having to delete anything for lack of space. If we can get that article into some sort of order, which is likely to take a lot of time, we might eventually be able to work out how to summarize it here. Meanwhile, I suggest this article return to option 3. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It'd look something like this:
Main article: whatever
According to the Canon itself [1] the Sakyan seer, i.e. the Buddha, taught the three pitakas. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
There'd also be an invisible comment asking people not to upset the apple cart. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
alternative, needs some better references which I can add at a later time:
According to the Canon itself the Buddha taught two pitakas [4]. Later commentators (notably Buddhaghosa) have stated that the Abhidhamma was also taught by the Buddha. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
On the question of attribution to persons or groups other than the Buddha and his direct disciples, 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 [9].
Greetings, Sacca 15:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Main article: whatever
According to the Canon itself [10] the Sakyan seer, i.e. the Buddha, taught the three pitakas. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of views, for example:
Peter jackson (
talk)
11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See comments at end of previous section. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
References
I've followed the link from WP:NPOV, & copy the full source text here for convenience.
'Roy Royce wrote: > I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were > indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR > article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will > post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales.
The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my business. My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed and respected. Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it misses the point.
> You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the > WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.
What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?
If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
Remember, I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this context. We could talk about that forever and get nowhere. I'm only interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and NPOV or not"? And this question can be answered in the fashion I outlined above.'
The switch from "mainstream ... texts" to "commonly accepted reference texts" suggests he is using terms rather loosely & broadly. That is, the mention of "reference texts" in the policy page is to be interpreted as covering other things as well as actual reference texts. This would be consistent with Vassyana's reference to textbooks & review literature, if likewise interpreted loosely & broadly. It seems reasonable to assume an administrator is familiar with how things are meant to be done, & is not saying something inconsistent with Mr Wales & the policy page.
Therefore, the question of majority view is to be determined by looking at a variety of reputable sources. To interpret "reference texts" in such a way as to exclude reference texts would be perverse, the sort of things some religious groups do with their scriptures.
Now if we apply this to our present case, we find that (nearly) all the views we've been discussing can be found in just such reputable sources. That is, there's no clear evidence that there is a majority view at all. We have to assume there are only various minority views, & present them fairly.
Conclusion: my approach of giving priority (tho' only by putting them 1st; I never gave them extra space) to views found in reference texts in the literal sense is wrong; your approach of giving extra space to some views is also wrong. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting quote from Gombrich (Skorupski, Buddhist Forum, vol 1, p5):
"It is obvious that the positions taken by some of us are incompatible; one can either politely ignore the fact ... or try to address the issues and hope to progress by argument. ... the latter course is unusual in such intellectual backwaters as Indology and Buddhist Studies ..."
Might this suggest that standard procedures may not apply? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
On consideration, I think the model being intended here must be something like this:
So what we should be doing 1st is collect together what is said in books, as opposed to research papers. Not all books should be included. The following categories should be omitted:
So what I want to try now is to put together what's said in the following & see where it gets us:
Other possibilities:
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the easiest way to sandbox this is at User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On further consideration, I think the classification of scholarly literature must be as follows:
I assume it must be the latter category we're supposed to use to determine the main views. As to which such authorities are to be included, there are probably 3 criteria:
I think therefore that Warder should be included, & the Penguin Handbook if it has anything to add. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Some bullshit about Aleph a.k.a Aum Shinrikyou is the only gropu to have performed translation into modern language. Firstly, Pali Text Society has done entire translation though they have not published all of it in books format due to financial reason. Secondly, Japanese translation was done waaaaaaaay before. The title is "南伝大蔵経". FWBOarticle 06:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If a text has been translated but hasn't been published then it is essentially not available and regardless of the reasons, that transaction hasn't happened since no one's been a beneficiary of it. Stevenmitchell 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case it's not true. PTS has published, and keeps in print, translations of about 3/4 of the Canon. It has no translations unpublished for financial reasons. Peter jackson 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is this "myth" about manuscripts kept in baskets? Is it a purely western myth or does it actually occur in the tradition? The term pitaka in an obviously scriptural sense is found in inscriptions of the second century BC, i.e. before the writing down of the texts. Peter jackson 17:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I just found an article about the tripitaka --- this is exactly the same thing as the tipitaka. Shouldn't the two pages be murged? 86.143.22.237 ( talk) 10:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thripitaka meen three(3) pitaka(books) in general . so these articals shoud merge. becase tipitaka and thripitaka meens the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.92.4 ( talk) 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For convenience I copy here some citations I've already posted to Esteban's talk page:
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 111: "There is no such thing as the Buddhist canon."
page 112: "The tripiṭaka of one school, as far as scholars know, was never the same as that of the next."
page 113: "... the Chinese Buddhist canon ... was a far more comprehensive collection" [than the Pali Canon}
page 114: "... "the Chinese Buddhist canon" is itself an abstraction of many highly variable collections."
(Volume Two), page 755: "... the scriptural portions of the Chinese and Tibetan canons are over twice that size." [ie twice as long as the Pali Canon]
page 756: "... the Pāli, the Tibetan, and the Chinese canons ... are quite different, even if there is some overlap between the three. ... both the Chinese and the Tibetan canons include Mahāyāna sūtras that are absent from the Pāli canon, and the Tibetan canon in addition includes many tantras that are not found in any other collection. ... This is important to point out, lest it be thought that there is consensus among different Buddhists concerning what constitutes scripture. ... there is in reality no such thing as a single "Buddhist Bible"."
Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 765: "Although almost all schools of Buddhism agree on the use of the term Tripiṭaka ... to refer to their scriptures, the schools do not agree on the contents of the Tripiṭaka."
To respond more directly to Esteban's question, I would start with the obvious point that Buddhists speak different languages. Therefore they call their scriptures different things. It so happens that all/most use, among other names, translations of Tripitaka. As it's standard convention among Western scholars to use Sanskrit for Buddhism in general, that's the usual term. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a very rough draft based on the approach explained in the section above on Mr Wales' remarks. It is an alternative to my previous proposal, or a step towards one, & does not replace it.
According to the Canon itself, [1] the Sakyan Sage, i.e. the Buddha, taught the three pitakas. Scholars have presented a variety of views. The majority of scholarship in the field of Buddhist studies is Japanese, most of it unknown to western scholars except through two major sources: the late Professor Hirakawa Akira's History of Indian Buddhism (volume 1, 1974; English translation, University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1990) and the late Professor Nakamura Hajime's Indian Buddhism ( Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Hirakata, Japan, 1980); these take much more account of sources in Chinese and Tibetan than most English-language scholarship, which tends to be based mainly on Pali and Sanskrit sources. [2]
Hirakawa's account of the evolution of the Canon is as follows. At the First Council shortly after the Buddha's death, some short expositions of doctrine and verses were collected together. [3] Scholars have been unable to distinguish between the Buddha's teachings and those of his immediate disciples. [4] Progressively over the generations, explanations and stories were added, and material connected into longer discourses. [5] The development over the next century cannot be described in much detail, [6] but by a century after the Buddha's death a Vinaya Pitaka and Sutra (Sutta) Pitaka existed. [7] After this, Buddhism started to split up into schools, and each continued to add material to their versions. [8] The similarities between the Vinaya and Sutra Pitakas of different schools indicate that their basic contents were determined before these schisms. [9] The (first) four Agamas (nikayas) contain much more than the historical Buddha's teachings, but much of their content is closely related to those teachings, and any attempt to determine the Buddha's original teachings must be based on them. [10] The Pratimoksha (Patimokkha) and Skandhaka (Khandhaka) were probably composed a century after the Buddha's death. [11] The Khuddaka Nikaya represents a transitional phase, though it includes some very old texts such as the Dhammapada, Suttanipata, Theragatha and Therigatha; the Niddesa and Patisambhidamagga date from about 250 BCE. [12] The Abhidhamma is later than these, though some examples of its methods can be found in sutras and the Niddesa and Patisambhidamagga are forerunners. [13] The Kathavatthu probably dates from the last half of the second century BCE. [14]
Nakamura's account is as follows. The Canon must include some sayings or phrases going back to the Buddha, but which ones they are is open to question. [15] The oldest book of the Canon is the Suttanipata, [16] whose earliest parts are likely to date back to the Buddha's lifetime. [17] The Itivuttaka and Udana are early, [18] at least in part. [19] The (first) four nikayas are likely to have been compiled simultaneously after the reign of Asoka [20] (he also mentions a view that the oldest teachings are found in the Digha Nikaya). These represent early Buddhist teachings, but consist of different layers. [21] The Dhammapada is fairly old. [22] The Mahaniddesa must not have been composed before the second century CE (though a view is mentioned dating it to about the time of Asoka), so the Pali Canon must have been composed after this. [23] Some passages from Buddhist Sanskrit literature have been inserted into the Apadana and Netti. [24] The Abhidhamma Pitaka is much later than the others. [25]
K. R. Norman (Pali Literature, Otto Harrassowitz, 1983) says that the first four nikayas had begun to develop before the separation of Buddhism into schools. [26] The Vimanavatthu, [27] Petavatthu, [28] Patisambhidamagga, [29], Apadana, Buddhavamsa, Cariyapitaka, Khuddakapatha [30] and Abhidhamma Pitaka [31] are late.
According to Dr Peter Harvey of Sunderland University (Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990), although parts of the Canon are later than the Buddha, much must derive from his teachings. [32] He also says the Abhidhamma was added to the Canon in the third century BCE, developed from matikas that may go back to the Buddha, [33] and that probably little if anything was added to the Canon after it was written down. [34]
Professor Oskar von Hinüber of the Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg (Handbook of Pali Literature, Walter de Gruyter, 1996) says that the texts of the Canon, though the earliest Buddhist texts surviving, are much later than the Buddha, the result of a long and complicated development, [35] which needs much more research. [36] The Canon is anonymous literature. [37] The Parivara is most probably 1st century CE or later. [38] The Patisambhidamagga perhaps dates from around 200 CE. [39] The Apadana is one of the last books to be added to the Canon. [40]
Dr Rupert Gethin (Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998) says that significant portions of the Canon must go back to the third century BCE; specifically, the Vinaya and (first) four nikayas are relatively early, being shared by different schools. He also says something of the Abhidhamma method must go back to the Buddha's lifetime, [41] and that there was a tacit understanding from very early times that calling something the word of the Buddha was not exactly the same as saying that he actually said it; rather, what counted was whether it conformed to the structure and pattern of the teaching. [42]
A. K. Warder (Indian Buddhism, 3rd edn, Motilal Banarsidass, 2000) says there is a central body of sutras (suttas) so similar in all known versions that they must be different recensions of the same original texts. [43] The order of the five nikayas is their order of authenticity. [44] The average date of the Jataka is 4th century BCE. [45] The Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu and Apadana are later than 200 BCE, perhaps a century later, the Cariyapitaka later still, the Buddhavamsa 2nd century BCE. [46] The Patisambhidamagga can be dated between 237 and c. 100 BCE. [47] An Abhidhamma Pitaka probably existed within two centuries of the Buddha's death, but not consisting of the seven books we have now. [48]
In the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), the article on Vinaya, by Dr Gregory Schopen of the University of California, Los Angeles, says the contents cannot be established before the commentary in the fifth century, and even then we have only eighteenth and nineteenth century manuscripts to go on. [49] It also mentions two alternative theories to explain common material in different schools' versions of the Vinaya: that the common material is inherited from the period before the separation of the schools; and that it was borrowed between schools at later periods. [50] The article on Agamas/Nikayas, by Jens-Uwe Hartmann of the University of Munich, says that, while tradition says the teachings were collected at the First Council shortly after the Buddha's death, scholars see it as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. [51] The article on Abhidharma (Abhidhamma), by Collett Cox of the University of Washington, says it developed in the centuries after the Buddha's death. [52]
Dr Richard Gombrich (Theravada Buddhism, 2nd edn, Routledge, 2006) says that the content, as opposed to the precise form, of the main body of discourses in the first four nikayas, and of the main body of monastic rules in the Vinaya, must be the work of a single genius, i.e. the Buddha himself. [53] He also says the Canon was written down in the last century BCE, and its language slightly changed after that.
According to the article on the Pali Canon, by Karen C. Lang of the University of Virginia, in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2007), there is no way of knowing how closely the Canon written down in the last century BCE resmbles that of the present day. [54]
Excellent work, Peter.— Nat Krause( Talk!· What have I done?) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
hello Peter, It's a good effort but I think it's too cluttered and therefore difficult to read and unconfused. It's a list of various people and what they think. But it should not be about the people but about the positions. That's what the article is about, it's about opinions of the origins, not about the people who wrote about the origins and what they wrote. But obviously your work is quite detailed and you could add some of the content to supply the existing section on the origins wherever it's needed.
I propose we delete the NPOV label now, because your objections to it have been repaired a long time ago, and this is just about how to move on from the current position which is balanced.
Greetings, Sacca 04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes the arrangement is important, it should be arranged according to the positions/opinions, not according to persons. If you've got sources, why not add them to the article?
The Canon never says that it was completely taught by the Buddha. For examples many suttas say they are taught by f.e. sariputta or mogallana, and some parts are reports of f.e. the first buddhist council. Parivara doesn't say it was taught by the Buddha. The Abhidhamma doesn't say that. So there are large parts of the canon which do not say they are taught by Buddha. I have now moved the tag back to the 'disputed' area. Greetings, Sacca 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Isn't this later than the Nikayas? What are the references people have on this, if they are easy to get to? Besides what's in the Vinaya article. Mitsube ( talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I object to the new title. It's not the normal English usage. I don't know enough about WP technicalities to revert it. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's not even the correct native spelling. It can aslo be spelt pāḷi. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it a Buddhist scripture??
an anonymous use added: No early scool of Buddhism is known not to have had an Abhidhamma Pitaka As far as I understand, the Mahasanghikas did not have a Abhidhamma, or at least that is what user:Stephen Hodge told me if I remember correctly. Any opinions on this? Greetings, Sacca 02:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, a sharp distinction cannot be established, but: a distinction can be established. I read the 2004 Macmillan encyclopedia of Buddhism on its abhidharma entry, and it mentions this information also:
In the centuries after the death of the Buddha, with the advent of settled monastic communities, there emerged new forms of religious praxis and modes of transmitting and interpreting the teaching... ...Although begun as a pragmatic method of elaborating the received teachings, this scholastic enterprise soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life... ...The products of this scholarship became revered tradition in their own right, eventually eclipsing the dialogues of the Buddha and of his disciples as the arbiter of the true teaching In the next paragraph the writer says this enterprise was called abhidharma.
These sentences are not to be included in the article, I copied two small parts of the introduction to the article (by COLLETT COX), just to show that this information is an accepted viewpoint according to the Macmillan 2004 enyclopedia of Buddhism. I would like some mention of this information to remain, as I believe it's quite fundamental knowledge, relevant to people who want to know about the Pali Canon or the Tipitaka.
By the way, the entry on Abhidharma in this Macmillan encyclopedia takes 7 (A4) pages. The encyclopedia itself is well done I believe, and it gives some very detailed maps also. It's a pdf-file. Greetings, Sacca 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Sacca 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If I understand right, Wikipedia policy is that entries should be under the commonest form used in English. Here are the results of Google search for divisions of the Canon.
Vinaya-Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, Abhidhamma Pitaka.
Digha-Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Khuddaka Nikaya/Khuddaka-Nikaya (equal).
These are standard names for Buddhism scriptures and it can't be changed no matter how people try to change it. and it's pretty much universal just like Dinosaurs names in Latin and Greek. //A Theravada Buddhist Avaloan —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC).
What are we supposed to do about this? Peter jackson 09:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings to Peter, Sacca, and other creators of the Pali Canon origins section,
I've been reviewing this page as part of my own research into origins, and I notice a few problems (despite the work that you've put into this, as I can see from the talk page). I would like to make some changes, but I thought I'd mention it here first before going ahead.
The first thing is the selection of scholastic opinions for and against the authenticity of the Pali canon. I notice that you have a range of experts who cautiously side for the authenticity of the canon, and then three names as skeptics. But none of the skeptics are experts in early Buddhism. "Prof. Ronald Davidson", who unaccountably gets a title while most others do without, is an expert on tantra. Likewise, "Dr Gregory Schopen", also dignified with a title and a job description, is an expert on the middle period of Buddhism and the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. Similarly, Skorupski, cited in note 26, is a scholar of tantra, not Early Buddhism. (In addition, I have looked for his statement in the Buddhist Forum, but cannot find it. Also note 28 is not a proper reference. It should be completed or deleted.)
May I suggest:
1. Remove titles and job descriptions, or give them for all. (Better: link to their wikipedia pages.)
2. Find experts on the skeptical side who are actual scholars of Early Buddhism. I think this will be difficult, as i believe that the skeptical voices are, in fact, by people who do not understand the field on which they are commenting. So,
3. If the existing skeptical voices are to be retained (and I do think Schopen deserves to be mentioned, if only because of the influence his ideas have had), then it should be stated that they are not experts in the field.
4. I also question the point of Nakamura's quote. It is a straw man argument, saying nothing can be accepted as "unquestionable", which is simply not what anyone is saying. Better to find something more meaningful.
Bhikkhu Sujato ( talk) 05:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there has been no objection I will make a start with some changes, namely:
1. remove titles for scholars and add links to wiki pages, or to biodata where there is no wiki page.
2. I do not know of any skeptical statements by scholars in the field, so I cannot add these. I have added a reference to Geoffery samuel, taken from Peter Jackson's Wiki info page.
3. Remove the reference to Skorupski. This seems to be a confused reference to Gombrich's article in the Buddhist Forum vol. 1, where he actually launches a defence of authenticity, and says that: "On reading the papers of my colleagues, I realized that, like me, they all (except Professor Aramaki?) assumed that the main body of soteriological teaching found in the Pāli Canon does go back to the Buddha himself." And this is a citation for skeptical voices! Incidentally, there is no paper by Aramaki in that or other published volumes of the Buddhist Forum, perhaps the conference schedule changed.
4. deleted the sentence "Some of these scholars argue that some passages contradict the main teachings, and that the Buddha must have been consistent." and its note, an unclear reference without mentioning content or authorship.
5. Rearranged content so that views are represented in the proper section.
6. Edited sentence about Nakamura.
7. In section on agnostic views, removed reference to scholars disagreeing with application of biblical text-critical methods. This is not relevant here, or at least needs more context to make it meaningful. Also the reference does not make authorship clear.
8. Clarified reference to Peter Harvey: previously his statement was only in a note, next to Gombrich; but the quote did not really relate to the relevant sentence. So i have separated it.
9. Adjusted paragraphing.
10. Removed "did not attract much support" from comment re Schopen, as it is vague and unsupported. It is also, I think, not really true: it has indeed attracted support in fields outside of early Buddhist studies, just not among experts.
11. Smoothed various details, including sentence on Gombrich.
I hope these changes are acceptable. I think the result is a more concise, clearer representation of the situation. There is still much to be done!
Bhikkhu Sujato ( talk) 08:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Tengu, I hope I can find some time to do some more. Bhikkhu Sujato ( talk) 07:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The RfC by Dorje108 states that:
"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
Robert Walker ( talk) 02:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the section The earliest books of the Pali Canon because of possible original research. The second paragraph states "Most of the above scholars would probably agree that their early books include some later additions.". Most of the above scholars would probably agree... is written in a surmising way with no proof, so is a guess at best. Even with a source this would need rewording. Otr500 ( talk) 14:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pāli Canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede?
Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
I've posted here since it is closely connected to questions about how to interpret the four noble truths in the Pali Canon. So editors of this article may have a valuable perspective on the debate.
Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This is to suggest that the excellent section on attribution due to scholars should mention two other views, at the far extremes of the debate.
First, if I understand it right Carol Anderson in her book Pain and its Ending argues that even the four noble truths were introduced at a later date, and were not in the original sutras (in this I'm going by Lance Cousin's summary of her book as I don't have access to the complete book myself).
Her book is reviewed by Lance Cousins here: Lance Cousins critical review of Carol Anderson's book, in particular he says that she misunderstood some of the scholars she cited such as Norman, who according to Cousins just says that the four noble truths were expressed in a simpler form originally.
At the other extreme Prayudh Payutto - argues that the Pali Canon represents the teachings of the Buddha essentially unchanged apart from minor modifications - while also incorporating teachings that precede the Buddha, and that the later teachings were memorized by the Buddha's followers while he was still alive. His thesis is based on study of the processes of the first great council, and the methods for memorization used by the monks, which started during the Buddha's lifetime - and the capability of a few monks, to this day, to memorize the entire canon. For the details see The Pali Canon - What a Buddhist must know.
Perhaps other editors here might like to review these sources and include a sentence or two about their views in this section?
Also I wonder if it should also mention Stephen Batchelor's views, which are somewhat intermediate - he attributes teachings on the four noble truths to the Buddha, but not the teachings on karma if I understand it right, but I am not sure about the details there. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)