Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexmingoia | Hacker News Reader

When I say myth, I mean in the sense that it’s not actually supported by the Tripitaka, which is the first complete written account of Buddha’s teachings by a lineage of his original monastic order (mostly confirmed by historical evidence where it exists) to survive as written to the present day, and considered canonical Buddhist teaching.

It is most definitely quantifiable whether something is or is not written in the Tripitaka. That is why it remains important and historically significant.

View on HN

One also has to bear in mind that the Tripitakha was compiled several centuries after the Buddha is said to have lived and has several divergent versions according to the ideological predilections of its editors. Also Pali was probably not the native language of the Buddha. The vernacular of the area where he lived and taught was call Magadhi. (The Jain Agamas are transmitted in a related language called Ardhamagadhi “half Magadhi”) Pali was prevalent in Avanti in West India (the geographical base of Sthaviravadins) not Magadha. The Sarvastivadins used Sanskrit, and Mahasanghikas used yet another language for their version. All of them claimed to have “The Original Teachings of the Buddha.”

So I think attempts to find “fundamental” Buddhism are ultimately futile.

I believe that some scholars actually believe that Pali is an artificial language, a mixture between different dialects that was intelligible to people from different regions.

There is no question that there are some later additions. There are even some contradictions. But by comparing different passages and comparing with the Chinese Agamas, we can get a pretty good idea of what the Buddha actually thought.

Yes I have read that Pali could have been a trade language.

Interestingly this method of textual comparison has also proven useful in tracing the history of the “Hindu” Samkhya school; one of whose early works, lost in Sanskrit, is preserved in the Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhist canon.

I’m interested in the Sankhyans! Any reference?

Sorry for the late reply but as an introduction I suggest “Encyclopedia of Indian Philosopies Volume IV: Samkhya A Dualistic Tradition in Indian Philosophy” Gerald James Larson & Ramshankar Bhattacharya (editors), Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.

The "divergent versions" you refer to are really not so divergent as to exclude the discovery of a fundamental Buddhism. The Chinese collections and the Theravadin are remarkably similar and this despite being worlds apart in language of composition.

So its not supported by the canonical text makes it mythic. Ok, I get it now. Apocryphal.

Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com