[Buddha-l] Fw: BAU or Buddha's life ... which came first?

[jkirk]

Thanks Lance, I also heard off list that most scholars have never really 
settled this issue to everyone's agreement. But I learned more about the 
issue from your reply.
Joanna
============



> Joanna,
>
> I don't think anyone wants to take this on - it's just too difficult.
>
> In short,
> 1. if the Majjhima discourses (or rather some of them) are something close 
> to the actual words of the Buddha and you accept that they are critiquing 
> certain of the earliest Upani.sads, then the oldest two or four Upani.sads 
> are contemporary with or earlier than the Buddha.
>
> 2. If you think the Majjhima discourses (or the relevant passages in 
> them), took something like their present form some time after the life of 
> the `Buddha or you don't think they critique the Upani.sads, then the 
> Upani.sads could have developed after the time of the Buddha.
>
> 3. The Upani.sads were originally dated on the basis of the dates of the 
> Buddha and Mahaaviira. That would seem to imply that they should be later 
> now that most Buddhologists accept a later date for the Buddha. I am not 
> sure how far they can be dated on the internal evidence of brahmanical 
> literature alone.
>
> Lance
>
>>Since our Buddhologers are so busy with pudgalavada,
>>perhaps one among you might be sufficently energized
>>to consider a reply to this query from another list,
>>which interests me as well (on this list, and might
>>interest a few others folks).
>>
>>Do y'all agree with Goto, Toshifumi?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Joanna
>>===========================
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006 
> 11:50 AM
>
>