Re: L.S. Cousins & the dating of texts

Dear Jim,

Cousins mada some funny mistakes in that list like not agree about migadayo as a dear park but people have been there to prove that it is a dear park.
He put dhammapala as later in an article but only waited Masefield from udana com gave texts that udana com already  mentioned anutika .


Jim Anderson <jimanderson_on@...> wrote:

Dear All (especially Nina),

I very seldom write to Buddha-L but yesterday I decided to respond to
some point in a discussion between L.S. Cousins and Stephen Hodge.
I'm forwarding this response from L.S. Cousins who doesn't think that
the doctrine of the 3 parinibbaanas could be pre-Asokan for the
reasons he gives. The response is also interesting because it relates
to the discussion we had earlier on the dating of Pali texts. This is
how a well-respected modern scholar views it. Also worth noting is his
earlier dating of Buddhaghosa (4th cent.).

Jim

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:23:32 +0100
From: "L.S. Cousins"
Subject: Re: Tathagata-garbha

Jim Anderson writes:
>Could not the commentary on the three parinibbaanas in the Pali
>a.t.thakathas possibly be pre-Asokan? References: Sv III 899; Ps IV
>116; Mp I 91; Vibh-a 433. Even though these commentaries are
>Buddhaghosa's (5th cent. CE), I believe they contain a great deal
from
>pre-Asokan times. The three parinibbaanas are:
>kilesaparinibbaana, khandhaparinibbaana, dhaatuparinibbaana.

This commentarial account is given in the Agama.t.thakathaa of
Buddhaghosa (probably fourth century A.D.) and in the Abhidhamma
commentary (probably the work of a contemporary). I have no problem
in supposing that this derives from earlier commentaries. There is
good reason to believe that these earlier commentaries were closed by
the second century A.D. at the latest; so dating the account of the
three parinibbānas to the first century A.D. is not problematic for
me. I doubt that they could be much earlier than that. Earlier texts
never mention the story of the parinibbāna of the relics when the
devas will say: 'today the Teacher parinibbānas. Today the
Dispensation comes to an end. Now we have the last sight (dassana)'.
If this story had been known, it would have been mentioned in the
last canonical texts or in such works as Milindapañha.

More generally, the term dhaatu in the sense of relic is probably not
found in the first four Nikaayas. The term we do meet is sariirani =
bodily remains (after cremation). But this is mainly in the
Mahaaparinibbaanasutta which itself must be post Asoka in its present
form because it knows the redistribution of the relics (under
Asoka?). In fact, this suttanta is obviously an anthology of mostly
pre-existent material; so some of it may well be pre-Asokan. Even so,
there is no reason to think that the small number of sections where
the bodily remains are mentioned are especially early. Rather they
are particularly likely to have been added.

Otherwise the first evidence for even the worship of stuupas is in
the inscriptions of Asoka who mentions the enlarging of the stuupa of
a past Buddha. So it is there then and presumably at least a
generation earlier. But there is no reason to suppose that it
predates the commemorative cult, utilizing what we might call
symbols. I mean such things as the wheel, the aasana (seat) or the
bodhi tree. I see no reason to suppose that any of these were
considered to contain any ongoing presence of the Buddha.

Lance Cousins






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]