Re: MSV vs. Pali Canon

From: Bryan Levman
Message: 4903
Date: 2017-03-07

Dear Dmytro,

Sanskrit has existed in its present form since Panini and it was derived from Vedic which as we all know, took its final form in the second millennium BCE. Sanskrit co-existed along with Pali and the Prakrits for centuries, but from what we know did not come into being as a canonical language until the first or second century BCE in the Prajñapāramitā writings (at least they are the earliest records we have, which doesn't mean it wasn't used by some schools earlier and the records lost). Up until then the transmission was in the Prakrits.

The word sthavira itself is extant in the Rig Veda and other pre-Buddhist writings with the meaning of "old, ancient, venerable". I am not quite sure I understand your argument that it was a "Buddhological legend", as it was used as a label even in ancient times for the group that the Mahāsāṃghikas split away from. If one looks in Lamotte's History, for example, he gives  examples:

e.g. the Śāriputraparipṛccha (extant only in Chinese sometime in the fourth or early fifth century) which called the Sthaviras shang zuo (上座 (founding fathers, elders) and transliterated their name  them as 他俾羅, Tā pì luo (T24n1465_p0900b28) . According to Pulleyblank (Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in early Middle Chinese, late Middle Chinese, and early Mandarin ), this was pronounced in Middle Chinese tha-pji- la, that is thavira, as Chinese has no -v- sound and -l- and -r- are interchangeable. The stha- of sthavira, is also not a permitted initial in Chinese so could only be rendered with two characters, but the first was usually dropped in Middle Chinese transliterations (at least of Kumārajīva's time, around the fourth century CE). So this sutra is evidence that sthavira was used to refer to the original non-Mahāsāṃghikas at least from the fourth century. Since the schism is supposed to have happened about a century after the Buddha's parinibbāna and the Sarvāstivādins were a sub-group of the Sthaviras, perhaps they used this name to refer to those who didn't join the "Great Assembly."   In the Dīpavaṃsa (3rd to 4th century BCE?) theravādin is named as the school from which the Mahāsāṃghikas separated and seems to be used in the sense of sthaviravādin (Chaper 5, v. 16), as the "Theravādins" of the Second Council were not the Theravādins of today, but the old school which opposed the Mahāsāṃghikas, that is the Sthaviras. This is also the term the MSV uses for "elder" in the Gilgit manuscripts, like the Sanghabhedavastu.

The earliest record we have of the Prakrit change is the Asokan edicts (RE 14) where we find thaira-susrusā ("obedience to the elders"), indicating that the phonological change was sthavira > thavira > thaira > thera. This is third century BCE. I think that one could argue that the word existed (sthavira and thera)  at the second council (and earlier) and monks understood it to mean "old, ancient, venerable"  and it was co-opted to be used for opponents of the "new" Mahāsāṃghikas (as thera, and then later re-Sanskritized to sthavira, as were many Prakrit words). Of course it can't be proven, but it does not look like a modern back-formation for me, it that is what you (or Warder) is suggesting.  But perhaps I am misunderstanding you, as I find the whole argument and labelling a little bit anachronistic and confusing,

Best wishes,

Bryan





From: "Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] MSV vs. Pali Canon

 
Hi Petra,

As evidenced by inscriptions, Sanskrit began to be used only in the first century B.C. So no Buddhist school before that could have used a sanskritized name, since Sanskrit didn't yet exist. Only several centuries after the Mahāsāṃghika split, due to sanskritization, Sanskrit names began to be used.

The "Sthaviras" are just a buddhological legend, which, similarly to "Sthaviravada" legend, originated from the erroneous assumption that Sanskrit somehow existed earlier that Pali.

The "Sthaviravada" legend has been discussed at:


Best wishes, Dmytro


2017-03-06 20:18 GMT+02:00 petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:


 
The first split in the Buddhist community is the one leading to the two branches of Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviras. Except for the Vinayas of the Mahāsāmghikas and of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādas all other extant Vinayas go back to the Sthavira branch, who naturally is not the Theravāda (i.e. the Pāli tradition), but comprises Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda, Mūlasarvāstivāda, Mahīśāsaka, Theravāda, etc. Some of these schools used Sanskrit from the beginning, others used Gandhārī or other Middle Indian languages.

Kind regards,
Petra Kieffer-Pülz

Am 06.03.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:


Dear Pali friends,

Shayne Clarke's article can be read fo free at https://www.jstor.org/ stable/24663789 , by adding it to the "shelf".

I'm a dilettante in this matter, yet I would say that IMHO, confusion here is caused largely by the popular buddhological myth about the mythical "Sthavira" school (quite different from Thera), which has parted ways with Mahasanghika school.

No "Sthavira" school could have existed at the time of the split, since Sanskrit wasn't yet invented, and the sanskitized name "Sthavira" couldn't have been used:

https://dhammawheel.com/ viewtopic.php?f=13&t=28943

As Richard Salomon wtites,

 "Sanskrit began to come into epigraphic use only in the first century B.C."


Best wishes, Dmytro





2017-03-06 18:25 GMT+02:00 petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@... de [palistudy] <palistudy@ yahoogroups.com>:
 
I think you got something wrong. It is the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya which is so different in structure form all the Sthavira Vinayas.
The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is special because of its length, and the many details it contains, which to a large extent reflect the reaction
of  the Buddhist community on the environment in which they settled.

Kind regards,
Petra

Am 06.03.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@...  [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:


After reading through Clarke's article, it sounds like the MSV is quite different from the other five Vinayas, which are quite similar to each other... And yet at one point he suggests that the MSV may have had an influence on the others, which seems counterintuitive. Given that the MSV is such an oddball, why give it such importance?

On Mar 6, 2017 9:52 AM, "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@...  [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Thanks for the reference, Petra. And yes, Schopen was Shayne's supervisor,

Metta, Bryan


From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@...  [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] MSV vs. Pali Canon

 
Thank you both, that helps. Shayne Clarke is at our university, and i think a student of Schopen. I'll read his article. 


On Mar 6, 2017 5:04 AM, "petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@... e [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Dear Bryan and Ven Yuttadhammo,

with regard to the theory of the origin of the Vinayas you should read Shayne Clarke’s article, "VINAYA Mātṛkā – MOTHER OF THE MONASTIC CODES, OR JUST ANOTHER SET OF LISTS? A RESPONSE TO FRAUWALLNER’S HANDLING OF THE MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA“, Indo Iranain Journal 47 (2004), 77–120.

Best,
Petra




Am 06.03.2017 um 04:55 schrieb Bryan Levman bryan.levman@...[ palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:


Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
 
I don't think it's a question of the Mulasarvastivadin (MSV) Vinaya being closer to the original, but being derived from the same source as the Pali and other Vinayas extant, of which we have six different schools (Theravādin, Sarvāstivādin, Dharmaguptaka, Mahīśāsaka, Mahāsāṃghika and MSV). This is Frauwallner's thesis in his monograph The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (1953), where he specifically examines the Khandhaka(Mahavagga and Cu lavagga) of the different schools and concludes that they all derive from a common source. Of course the language of the MSV is Sanksrit and much later than the Pali, but that doesn't necessarily mean the content is not as early, simply that it has been translated from an earlier Prakrit.
 
Lamotte in his History of Indian Buddhism, rejects Frauwallner's claim (p. 178) and says the MSV  is much later than the Pali and probably from Kashmir (Frauwallner argues against this), so there are obviously two different views as to the antiquity of the MSV; and Lamotte, as you know, is often very reliable – that would account for your intuition about the latteness of the MSV. I don't know enough about it to offer an informed opinion, and there must be further discussion since Lamotte's work in 1958. Schopen, as you have pointed out, does a lot of work on the MSV stories and what they indicate about the customs and practices of the Sangha in MSV communities and has published I think at least three anthologies of articles: Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks,  Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, Figments and Fragments of Mahayana Buddhism in India - many of the articles are based on texts from the MSV Vinaya. He may in fact discuss the relation between the MSV and the other Vinayas in terms of time line, and if you do find anything further on it, I would appreciate knowing (or if anyone else in the group knows),
 
Metta,
 
Bryan
 
 
 
For Frauwallner’s work: http://www. ahandfulofleaves.org/ documents/The%20Earliest% 20Vinaya%20and%20the% 20Beginnings%20of%20Buddhist% 20Literature_Frauwallner.pdf
 
For Lamotte's; http://www. ahandfulofleaves.org/ documents/History%20of% 20Indian%20Buddhism_Lamotte. pdf


From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@...   [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 11:43 AM
Subject: [palistudy] MSV vs. Pali Canon

 
Dear Friends,

I've been hearing more about the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya at our university... Apparently, there is some work by people like Gregory Schopen to show that it is more likely to have been closer to the original teachings than the Pali Vinaya. I'm just trying to piece together what evidence there is for the origins and alterations of the various texts... I always thought the MSV was clearly later with procedures surrounding money, etc. Anyone can point me in the right direction here? Thank you.

Metta,

Yuttadhammo

















Next in thread: 4905
Previous message: 4902
Next message: 4904

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts