[Buddha-l] Gandharan Buddhist Art at NY Asia Society

[Dan Lusthaus]

> I don't find any evidence in Lamotte of anything earlier than Vasumitra.

He devotes a lot of attention to alternate versions of sectarian lineages, 
the majority derived from early Chinese translations. Since the texts he is 
referencing are not available in English or western translations, they are 
not well known, but there is a substantial literature preserved in Chinese 
(much of it still in need of careful study).


>
>> To imagine that a Theravada canon and interpretive tradition was fully
>> codified prior to Buddhaghosa is also assuming too much. The degree of
>> flux -- and which portions of which texts are most or least affected
>> across the centuries is a question still not adequately addressed.

> If you mean that a few minor texts in the Khuddaka-nikāya were possibly
> not in their final form before or even after Buddhaghosa, then fine. But
> the vast bulk of the canonical texts were certainly fixed in content,
> but perhaps not in minute linguistic form, long before Buddhaghosa.

Again, the Agama materials preserved in Chinese give a much more active, 
dynamic picture of progressive versions and multiple redactions of the sutta 
material, most with Pali parallels (rarely exact) and some without parallel. 
After spending some time with this material -- where the flux and variance 
is oozing out of every syllable, it is hard to imagine that the Pali texts 
were, on the contrary, locked away and frozen while all this redactive 
activity was going on.

> Indispensable for this is:
> Lottermoser, Friedgard (1982), /Quoted verse passages in the works of
> Buddhaghosa: contributions towards the study of the lost Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā
> literature/ (Göttingen]: [s.n) xxviii, 630.

Thanks. I will look into this.

> The commentaries refer by name to a number of historical figures living
> in Ceylon before the first century A.D. No later ones are mentioned.
> That makes it clear that Buddhaghosa is doing exactly what he says he is
> doing: providing a tidied up recension of earlier commentaries.

That makes it clear that he is careful to reinforce the appearance of doing 
that. Let's, for instance, keep in mind, that especially for oral 
commentarial traditions, they followed a lineage from a head figure, and 
spoke in the name of their head figure -- giving their current opinion the 
authority of their founding figure. These are lineage traditions whose 
"authority" rests in their being able to claim the requisite antiquity. This 
is not evidence that the opinions expressed by the various proponents are 
actually as old as the founding lineage figure. This is a well-known feature 
of such traditions.

>
> "Influence from Asanga and Vasubandhu on Buddhaghosa": that is hard to
> believe. Can you provide specific examples ?

Someone who I suppose wants to remain anonymous wrote me offlist, 
suggesting:

"...point Lance to the appendix of Bhikkhu Bodhi's old translation of the 
Brahmajala-sutta with Commentary
where he too demonstrates this."

This same person also suggested the introduction of sabhaava (svabhaava) 
terminology and concepts also is a sign of later accretions.

>> Given the nature of religious art, and the intimate familiarity that
>> the artists did have with details of Buddha's life, etc., had there
>> been such a list in circulation that was being taken seriously in the
>> mainstream, it would have been hard from them to ignore it.
> That is just speculation.

Sure, but a reasonable premise.

Dan