[Buddha-l] Are the Pali Sutta's really ancient?

[JKirkpatrick]

 On Behalf Of Zelders.YH
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:29 PM



Ah, Puraana !
A couple of years ago I played with the idea that he and his 500
followers possibly stood for some major schism in the sangha,
right after the Buddha's demise.
I brought it up as a question on this list but never got a
reaction.
A little later I stumbled upon an old 'Monist' article from 1904,
on the internet, by young (not yet Daisetz) Teitaro Suzuki, who
quotes from Chinese sources, from which one might conclude that
the difference of opinion between Mahaakassapa and Puraana
probably concerned some very minor vinaya rules : 
http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/www.sacr
ed-texts.com/journals/mon/1stbudcn.htm
.
The last line of the article ('Incident of Puraana') goes like
this (original diacritics) :

[....]These indulgences, said he, were not against the rule that
forbids the taking of the remnant of food. Mahâkâçyapa told him
that he was correct in saying so, but that Buddha permitted them
only on account of a scarcity of food, when the Bhikshus could
not get a sufficient supply of it by going their rounds, and that
therefore when this circumstance was removed, Buddha again bade
them to abstain from these eight indulgences. Purâ.na, however,
protested, declaring that Buddha, who was all-wise, would not
permit what otherwise was forbidden, nor would he forbid what
otherwise was permitted. To this Mahâkâçyapa replied: "The very
reason of his being all-wise has enabled him to permit what
otherwise was forbidden, and to forbid what otherwise was
permitted. Purâ.na, we will now make this decision: That whatever
Buddha did not forbid shall not be forbidden, and whatever Buddha
forbade shall not be disregarded. 
Let us train ourselves in accordance with the disciplinary rules
established by Buddha."

The Pañcavarga-Vinaya mentions, instead of the eight above
enumerated, seven indulgences which, however, may be taken for
eight, according to how we punctuate the passage, though the text
apparently states "these seven things." They are slightly
different from those in the Caturvarga-vinaya, to-wit: (1)
Keeping food indoors; (2) Cooking indoors; (3) Cooking of one's
own accord; (4) Receiving food in compliance with the wish of
another; (5) Taking fruit of one's own accord; (6) Receiving
things coming out of a pond; (7) Eating fruit with its seeds (or
stone) removed, when received from one who is not a regular
attendant in the Samgha.
According to the Vinaya-mâtrikâ Sûtra, the first of the eight
indulgences is the keeping of food indoors, and the last is the
eating of sundry grasses and roots (or roots of grass) growing by
a pond, but the six intermediate ones are not mentioned."


Isn't it disappointing ?
Herman Zelders
_______________________________________________

This whole story situation reminds me of when in the sixties
hippies and counterculture people tried to form functioning
communes, and had to figure out rules (at least those who thought
they needed rules; not all of them did, but that's another
disappointing story). This rule - making concern is a losing
proposition.

Thanks for cluing us about these suttas. Highly instructive.

Joanna