Re: Pyu / earliest Buddhism in Burma

responding further to Eisel:

>Branching off as a separate subject, in reply to L.C.:
>
>>  4. There is no doubt that a form of Buddhism using a type of Pali is
>>  very old among the Pyu speakers in Burma, among the Mon speakers in
>>  Southern Burma and among Mon speakers in North, Central and even
>>  Southern Thailand ...
>
>Although I do not disagree with this vague statement,

Well, I thought it was rather precise :-)

>  what I was
>specifically arguing against was the article's abuse of such generalities
>(e.g., using terms like "very early" to gloss over a gap of many hundreds of
>years) support the claim that (1) Theravada Buddhism pre-dates Mahayana
>Buddhism in the region, and

On the contrary, I think that is likely to prove correct for the
lands ruled by Pyu and Mon aristocracies. (I do not know about the
southern parts of present-day Thailand, however.) But as I pointed
out, it depends on your definition of 'Theravaada'.

>  (2) the history of Pali literature (i.e., the
>Pali canon) in Thailand dates from the arrival of missionaries sent by
>Ashoka (i.e., contemporary with Ashoka).

What Dr Saddhatissa suggested was that missionaries sent by Asoka
would have carried an oral version of the scriptures. So, if one
accepts that missionaries were sent to S.E. Asia, they would
certainly have carried some of the texts in some form.

>  I would expect that everyone on
>the list will disagree with these two points; the question of exactly how
>early Theravada Buddhism was among the Mon & Pyu (or what kind of canon they
>might have had) is a very good question --but the answer (if it shall ever
>be known) will have nothing to do with Ashoka or his missionaries.
>
>E.M.
>

Surely the passages from texts inscribed on gold plates that have
been recovered from Pyu sites are quite sufficient to establish that.
I personally believe that the spread of Buddhism up the river valleys
of Burma and Thailand is likely to predate the existence of
Mahaayaana Buddhism (even in India). But the archaeological evidence
is not sufficient at present to establish that with certainty. We
cannot excavate in many of the places which are most likely to be old.

Lance