[Buddha-l] Re: Chronology of Pali texts

[Stefan Detrez]

Richard Hayes wrote

<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.


With regard to the first explanation, if these assumptions are clarified and
accepted, one can carry on with one endeavours. I am aware of the highly
speculative nature of such project, yet I do believe a great deal of
questions can be answered when a stratigraphy/chronology is advanced. The
question of truth is -here, too- very speculative, but we can work with what
we have and see what pops out.

>  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?

For example, the issue of laymen attaining enlightenment in the Pali suttas.
Maintaining a synchronical approach, one can state that laymen are capable
of attaining enlightenment and thus, there would be no compulsive necessity
to enter a monastery with such aspirations, as it is attested in the Pali
suttas that a layman/some laymen have attained enlightenment, without having
been monk.
Sould we maintain a diachronical approach, one is urged to make a nuance in
such a sense that the idea of laymen attaining enlightenment is actually a
later development within the suttas and that 'earlier' strata of the Canon
do not mention this.
The same reasoning can be applied to the question of the transference of
merit. Earlier portions state that the transference of merit is impossible,
whereas later texts state that this IS possible (see McDermott's
'Development in the Early Buddhist Concept of Kamma/Karma').
The fallacy in the synchronical approach would then be that one would
exclude one of the possibilities, claiming only one of them is correct.

Richard wrote

<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?

We have suttas giving all the nidanas, and we have suttas giving some of
them. Explaining this as upaya is too easy as monks and nuns (and maybe even
laymen/women) studying the texts were well aware of how the doctrine as a
complete system (I think). THe contradictions would be solved when we know
in what stratum a certain aspect of the doctrine is situated. Also, this
diachronical approach would allow for a better understanding of other
Hinayana schools and especially the continuity with early Mahayana.

<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?


My aim has nothing to do with more valid or less valid . The evolution of
the doctrine can be reconstructed - as far as possible - and 'currents' of
thoughts would be seen streaming into 'ponds' of later philosophical
thought.

Stefan


Born, never asked.

- Laurie Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060206/4df6d60b/attachment-0001.htm