[Buddha-l] Back to the core values? -- and origins

[Isidoros]

Lance,

two points, please:

(a) how certain is the generally said first century D.C. date for the 
writing down / composition of the earlier Nikayas? On what is this 
dating based; how has it been determined?  Re this, what is the 
assumed date of the earliest extant manuscripts that bear the early 
Theravada sutras? I have heard, too, of much later dates for their 
composition, centuries later.

(b) you wrote

> The Pali texts were transmitted orally for several centuries before 
>the first century B.C. or so. So naturally there are no early 
>Buddhist manuscripts. There is no reason to suggest that Mahaayaana 
>texts were transmitted this way. The claim is rather that they were 
>preserved in other realms by non-human beings.
>
Lance Cousins

Now, I understand what you mean by *naturally", that "there are no 
early Buddhists manuscripts" as per the point you make vis-a-vis 
Curt's comment. Yet, in addition, I take you to mean that we have no 
(nearly) contemporary to the Buddha records. Given this, and the 
"fantastic" and credulous atmosphere extant (to my mind) during those 
times, and especially in India, how certain and accurate would you 
say are the earliest extant records for the birth and developing 
events of the person named Buddha?

And, while I do not wish to take any off the above stated question, 
what, indeed, do you mean by that "naturally" there are no early 
manuscripts *because* (my emphasis) there was then in place the oral 
transmission process. So, the written record did not come into being 
*because* there was an oral process?. I think not. Rather the oral 
transmission process existed *because* there was no written 
tradition. Or, isn't it so?!

With appreciation,

Isidoros


>Curt,
>
>>As far as the earliest known texts are concerned, isn't it true 
>>that there are Mahayana texts that are just as early as the 
>>earliest Pali texts? Here I am speaking of actual physical texts, 
>>ie, manuscripts. This would suggest that there IS a possible 
>>parallel to the Gospel of Thomas.
>
>At the moment I am not aware of any Mahaayaana texts as old as the 
>first century A.D. There are a number of non-Mahaayaana fragments of 
>texts from that century. However, scholarly rumour suggests that 
>there may be one fragment of an early Mahaayaanist text about to 
>surface. We shall have to see.
>
>But this misses the point. The Pali texts were transmitted orally 
>for several centuries before the first century B.C. or so. So 
>naturally there are no early Buddhist manuscripts. There is no 
>reason to suggest that Mahaayaana texts were transmitted this way. 
>The claim is rather that they were preserved in other realms by 
>non-human beings.
>
>Lance Cousins
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l