[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines [Lusthaus IV]

[Bradley Clough]

On Mar 28, 2005, at 3:50 AM, Stephen Hodge wrote:

> Bradley Clough wrote:
>
>> I, and I imagine others, would be interested in knowing which 
>> scholars in which works make this case. I'm mostly aware of Tilmann 
>> Vetter making this argument. Who else?
>
> Actually, reviewing materials to hand, I perhaps overstated the case 
> to speak of a broad consensus, perhaps tendency would be a better word 
> to have used  -- many seem to play safe and avoid the issue, possibly 
> because of the implicit, rather dire consequences for Buddhist 
> doctrines as well as because of the difficulties involved in making a 
> determination.  However, other scholars who discuss the problem 
> include:
>
> L. Schmidthausen: On some aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 
> "Liberating Insight" in Early Buddhism, in Studien zum Jainismus und 
> Buddhismus (1981)
>
> J. Bronkhort, "The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India" 
> (1986)
>
> R. Gombrich, Retracing an Ancient Debate: How Insight Worsted 
> Concentration in the Pali Canon, in How Buddhism Began (1996)
>
> L. de la Valle e Poussin, Musila et Narada: Le Chemin de Nirvana, in 
> Melanges chinoises et bouddhiques 5 (1936)


  	Well, perhaps not a consensus, but a pretty formidable list of 
leading scholars! I think there is something to the argument of 
separate dhyana-centered and vipassana-centered paths being present in 
the Pali "canon," although it's tough to show that one came before the 
other. But of course I should reexamine these four arguments (and 
Vetter's, in The Ideas and Meditative Practices in Early Buddhism 
[Brill]) before drawing any conclusions.

Thanks,
Brad
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1654 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050328/bae66aff/attachment.bin