By email subscription
By RSS feed
Follow me on TwitterFrom my other sites
- Dharmakirti (and Panini)
- Influence
- Reinventing Buddhist Tantra
- New Research: Tantric Buddhism, the Dark Age, and Their Relevance to Contemporary Tibet and the West
- One Dharma, Zero Tantra
- One Dharma. Whose?
- Eating an entire epistemologist
- Buddhist Geeks podcast II, and coming attractions
- Preventing holy wars, by consensus
- How not to argue about Buddhism
Comments
The basic point stands, with
24 Oct 2008
The basic point stands, with a minor correction.
The bit about the earliest texts being exclusively in Pali is Theravada propaganda that has become received wisdom. The truth is the early texts were written in a number of Middle-Indic vernaculars (prakrits). The Sarvastivadin texts (and those few that remain from the other early schools) are of just as ancient a providence as the Theravada texts, despite having been translated into Sanskrit at some point. Further, the Pali in which the Theravadin texts are now preserved is a literary recension of one particular early prakrit and are in a sense translated no less than the Sanskrit one are.
Just sayin.
Thanks for the correction
24 Oct 2008
Thanks for the correction! I haven’t studied that period at all.
The one thing I have gathered about the pre-Mahayana period is that Buddhists have been arguing about which texts are valid for pretty much as long as there have been Buddhists.
All good fun, so long as it is done in a cheerful and friendly way. Unfortunately, that is not always the case . . .
David
Post new comment