Welcome to the forum.I don't know if the following ideas will be useful for your studies, but the problems that I encountered with my own philosophical contemplation of the Buddhist teachings were partly due to the realization that writing did not exist during the times of the Buddha. At least, I think that's the case.
Quote from: VincentRJ on April 26, 2018, 06:09:45 pmWelcome to the forum.I don't know if the following ideas will be useful for your studies, but the problems that I encountered with my own philosophical contemplation of the Buddhist teachings were partly due to the realization that writing did not exist during the times of the Buddha. At least, I think that's the case.It's not.The earliest forms of writing were around before 3000 BCE (Sumeria & Egypt).Writing forms are found in the Indus Valley about 500 years after that.There was writing at the time of the Buddha and it most likey had found it's way to the Gangeatic Plain, where the Buddha spent most of his time, by then
Quote from: IdleChater on May 01, 2018, 11:14:31 amQuote from: VincentRJ on April 26, 2018, 06:09:45 pmWelcome to the forum.I don't know if the following ideas will be useful for your studies, but the problems that I encountered with my own philosophical contemplation of the Buddhist teachings were partly due to the realization that writing did not exist during the times of the Buddha. At least, I think that's the case.It's not.The earliest forms of writing were around before 3000 BCE (Sumeria & Egypt).Writing forms are found in the Indus Valley about 500 years after that.There was writing at the time of the Buddha and it most likey had found it's way to the Gangeatic Plain, where the Buddha spent most of his time, by thenOkay! I'll clarify what I wrote. I should have been more precise.There is no evidence that writing existed, at the time, in that part of the world that Gautama Buddha inhabited.One can speculate as much as one likes, but there is no existing ancient manuscript, or inscription on stone, from that era in India and Nepal, about 2,500 years ago, which indicates that anyone was using a written script.Of course, writing existed in other parts of the world at that time and much earlier. Egyptian hieroglyphs and the Sumerian script go back possibly as far as 3100 BCE, or maybe even 3400 BCE. The Indus Valley civilization, which flourished from about 3300 to 1300 BCE in the region which is now Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India, much further west than the Buddha's birth place, and a considerable time earlier, appears to have had a written language, but no-one has yet deciphered it. In fact, there's a difference of opinion among scholars as to whether it really is a language, because there are far too many different symbols for a written language, between 400 and 600, and inscriptions are usually no longer than 4 or 5 characters in length, hardly long enough to describe any Buddhist Suttas. It is thought by some scholars that those characters simply symbolize certain objects, like deities, cattle and various objects for trade.As a Buddhist I pay great attention to the Kalama Sutta. Don't accept speculation and rumour as truth.
A good forum you guys got cooking here. This might be the wrong thread to post this, but I could not find a more appropriate place to put it.I am a 24 year old Norwegian student studying religion @ The Norwegian University of Science and Technology. By studying religion, it has made me more self aware, and I've become more self aware. And it is mainly by discussing religion with fellow classmates or persons in general. And I've come to learn more, to extend my views. But first I need your help.Well, to be quite frank, I'm on the lookout for someone who can help me answering a termpaper, or rather get me on my way answering it. The subject is South Asian Religions, and this one is about Buddhism. The task, freely translated from Norwegian, goes something like this:"Modern day scholars often differ between Theravada/Hinayana and Mahayana as different schools or areas of Buddhsim. Discuss why this distinction may be problematic. Consider also the history of Southeast Asian Buddhism as the premise of modern research." I've read about them both, but by the life of me, I cannot get this wheel rolling.. The problem is of course Western distinctions often suffer to historical bias, but that's not enough at all.Appreciate any help I can get here!Thank you
The task, freely translated from Norwegian, goes something like this:"Modern day scholars often differ between Theravada/Hinayana and Mahayana as different schools or areas of Buddhsim. Discuss why this distinction may be problematic. Consider also the history of Southeast Asian Buddhism as the premise of modern research." I've read about them both, but by the life of me, I cannot get this wheel rolling.. The problem is of course Western distinctions often suffer to historical bias, but that's not enough at all.
If anyone, when speaking rightly, were to say, 'A being not subject to delusion has appeared in the world for the benefit & happiness of many, out of sympathy for the world, for the welfare, benefit, & happiness of human & divine beings,' he would rightly be speaking of me.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.004.than.html
Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html
Quote from: Buddhiststudent321 on April 25, 2018, 10:28:59 amThe task, freely translated from Norwegian, goes something like this:"Modern day scholars often differ between Theravada/Hinayana and Mahayana as different schools or areas of Buddhsim. Discuss why this distinction may be problematic. Consider also the history of Southeast Asian Buddhism as the premise of modern research." I've read about them both, but by the life of me, I cannot get this wheel rolling.. The problem is of course Western distinctions often suffer to historical bias, but that's not enough at all.Possibly my reply is too late to help you but to answer this question requires a lot of knowledge of cultural Southeast Asian Buddhism. Firstly, you should address the similarities of Theravada & Mahayana and how Mahayana evolved out of Theravada, which occurred as follows: 1. In the early discourses of the Buddha, called Theravada "sutta", the Buddha taught about "birth" ("jati"), which means the arising of self-identity or social-identity, exactly the same as the word "jati" means today in modern India.
2. However, the Buddha spoke in a language which lent to words, such as "jati", being interpreted by unenlightened people in physical or material ways.
3. Therefore, the idea of life-to-life "rebirth" became strong in Theravada Buddhism.
4. A few hundreds years after the Buddha, this idea of life to life "rebirth" resulted in the writing of the Theravada Jataka Tales, which are children's fables about the many former lifetimes of the "Bodhisatta", who became the Buddha. 5. In addition, as Theravada sought to convert Brahmans (Hindus) & other to Buddhism, it included many suttas with a cosmology of Brahman gods.
6. Mahayana, who were slack people who did not want to follow the rules of discipline, created their core doctrine around the idea of the former lifetimes of the "Bodhisatta", who became the Buddha; however the Mahayana twist was the Bodhisattva would postpone final enlightenment until they save all sentient beings.
7. In addition, Mahayana borrowed more gods from the new Hinduism, such as Tara, Jambhala, Bhaiṣajyaguru, Avalokiteśvara, etc.
8. Also, Mahayana borrowed the Hindu practises of Tantra & Non-Duality (Advaita).
10. Importantly, Mahayana still considers the Theravada suttas to be completely valid however the Mahayana believe they have an additional, higher & secret path for Bodhisatvahood to save all sentient beings. Thus Mahayana breaks Buddhism up into Hinayana (Theravada; liberating oneself); Mahayana (Bodhicitta; wish to save all sentient beings); and Vajrayana (Tantra; developing the beautiful qualities of a deity; to save sentient beings). In short, Mahayana does not reject the Theravada suttas.
Interesting. I wonder how the mening of a word can mean "exactly the same" today as it was 2500 years ago and how we know what it meant then?