[Buddha-l] Re: Chronology of Pali texts

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 12:42 +0100, Stefan Detrez wrote:

> I wonder why so few scholars deal with the issue of
> chronology/stratigraphy of the suttas, as the establishment thereof
> would have tremendous implications for the reconstruction of the
> 'evolution' of doctrinal history within the suttas.

Two possible explanations spring to mind. First, I think there is a
fairly widespread feeling among historians that most attempts to
stratify the suttas rest on assumptions that do not bear up very well
under scrutiny. Second, and here I speak mostly about scholars in North
America, I get the impression that most Buddhologists are more
interested in philosophical coherence than in historical sequence. To
someone interested primarily in what is true (or at least coherent), it
simply does not matter very much in what sequence various ideas came
forward. In other words, synchronic concerns seem to predominate over
diachronic concerns. I think that is the case. Whether it should be the
case is, of course, a different question.

>  As for now, I'm inclined to think that a synchronical approach (where
> all texts are regarded as having emerged simultaneously, and should
> therefore be seen as coherent) is fallacious. 

What is fallacious about it? Can you be a little more explicit in
spelling out just where the fallacy lies?

> A diachronical approach, based on stratigraphy, would help to clarify
> a lot of 'contradictions' within the suttas (not to mention 'upaya'
> being an erroneous explanation for inconsistencies between suttas). 

A diachronic study might offer some interesting speculations as to the
sequence in which contradictory (or apparently contradictory) doctrines
arose, but how does that help to resolve (or clarify) the contradictions
themselves? 

Surely we have to do something more sophisticated than say "earlier is
better" (since that rests on the unwarranted assumption that the Buddha
was infallible and therefore got it all right the first time and any
change from the original must be a degeneration) or "later is
better" (since that rests on the equally unwarranted assumption that
doctrines invariably become more refined as more and more minds think
about them). But what exactly is that more sophisticated somewhat we
have to do?

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico