Re: MSV vs. Pali Canon

From: Balaji
Message: 4904
Date: 2017-03-07

Hi Dmytro,

Although it is true there is a difference between saying that Sanskrit was written and saying that Devanagari was written. The earliest epigraphical record of Devanagari comes from 1st century BCE Udayagiri inscriptions as you correctly point out. But the language that we call Sanskrit today was formalized in Panini's grammar, which was essentially a derivative of other grammar traditions that predated Panini, especially the grammar traditions of Vedic or Upanishadic language.

So I don't think it would be right to assume that Sanskrit did not exist at all. We don't have enough evidence to say that a particular language was not spoken, especially since Vedic and Upanishadic language are so similar to classical Sanskrit. But we can say with some degree of certainty that the Devanagari script was invented around 1st century BCE. And we can see that the reason for doing so, was rooted in the inadequacy of the Brahmi script in recording all middle-Indic sounds.

Thanks,
Balaji

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:22 AM Dmytro Ivakhnenko aavuso@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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:

https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Buddhism&month=0612&week=c&msg=siI5i%2BC/il8JXBV1DW/HFg&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-buddhism&month=0612&week=d&msg=%2BfS4L2WmvhEPEuuaEQI9HQ&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-buddhism&month=0612&week=d&msg=TxHxLAk5yHB7CL%2BzgCUvTQ&user=&pw=
https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Buddhism&month=0612&week=d&msg=cNpOwFTGhXD7KH7xfdq3Lw&user=&pw=

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."

https://books.google.com/books?id=XYrG07qQDxkC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://archive.org/stream/IndianEpigraphy/Indian%20Epigraphy#page/n107/mode/2up/

Best wishes, Dmytro





2017-03-06 18:25 GMT+02:00 petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@... [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@... [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















--
Balaji
Previous in thread: 4902
Next in thread: 4906
Previous message: 4903
Next message: 4905

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts