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

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,
>> 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).
I've studied everything Lamotte says quite carefully. I don't see any 
early evidence for accounts of the evolution of the nikāyas that don't 
derive from Vasumitra or something similar. There are variant accounts 
of the second communal recitation and the events immediately following, 
but that is a very different matter.

> 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.

But you cannot date the Chinese sutta materials to the time of 
translation into Chinese. The more aberrant materials may well have been 
preserved for many centuries in the literature of a particular school. I 
have no problem with a dynamic view of the evolution of the sutta 
materials. I just think that all happened much earlier than you are 
allowing.

> 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.

This doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to anything we find in 
Buddhaghosa.

> "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.

I think your informant is getting confused about the difference between 
Dhammapāla and Buddhaghosa. Dhammapāla is post-sixth century and 
certainly incorporates material from Mahāyāna sources, although its 
precise origin is unclear.

The introduction of sabhāva notions is indeed something that is found 
only in the commentaries with stray passages in very late canonical 
texts. It is never complete — the Vaibhāṣika notions are only partially 
accepted in Theravāda. But the likely date for this is somewhere around 
the second or third century A.D., around the same time that the vibhāṣā 
literature has developed in the north. So it would be in the earlier 
commentaries which Buddhaghosa is editing.

I do not believe you can cite even one example of the influence of 
Asanga or Vasubandhu on Buddhaghosa.

For myself, since I prefer a fourth century date for Buddhaghosa, such 
influence is unlikely.

Lance