Buddhisme Awal, Sekte dan Tradisi > Buddhisme Awal
Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
xenocross:
--- Quote from: dilbert on 08 January 2014, 06:03:57 PM ---darimana tahu tidak 100% murni lagi ?
--- End quote ---
The Pali Satipatthana Sutta includes a number of sections that are not shared with other texts on satipatthana, and which are later additions.
One of the additions is the inclusion of the awareness of postures and daily activities among its meditation exercizes. The awareness of postures is, in every other text, part of the preparation for meditation, not a kind of meditation itself.
Another late addition to the Pali Satipatthana Sutta is a ‘refrain’ following each meditation, which says one practices contemplating ‘rise and fall’. This is a vipassana practice, which originally belonged to only the final of the four satipatthanas, contemplation of dhammas.
The contemplation of dhammas has also undergone large scale expansion. The original text included just the five hindrances and the seven awakening factors. The five aggregates, six sense media, and four noble truths were added later.
Each version of the Satipatthana Sutta is based on a shared ancestor, which has been expanded in different ways by the schools. This process continued for several centuries following the Buddha’s death. Of the texts we have today, the closest to the ancestral version is that contained in the Pali Abhidhamma Vibhanga, if we leave aside the Abhidhammic elaborations.
Tracing the development of texts on satipatthana in later Buddhism, there is a gradual tendency to emphasize the vipassana aspect at the expense of the samatha side. This happened across various schools, although there is some variation from text to text, and perhaps some differences in sectarian emphasis. This led to various contradictions and problems in interpretation.
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-history-of-mindfulness/
=================================================================
Semua teks lainnya, termasuk Jātaka, Abhidhamma dari berbagai aliran, sūtra-sūtra Mahāyāna, dan seterusnya, dituliskan kemudian. Relatif sedikit dari ajaran-ajaran ini dianut sama antara aliran-aliran; yaitu, mereka adalah Buddhisme sektarian. Walaupun lensa kritik historis, gambar besar dari kemunculan dan perkembangan ajaran-ajaran ini dapat ditelusuri dengan sangat jelas, dalam dinamika internal dari evolusi ajaran dan dalam tanggapan Buddhisme pada lingkungan budaya, sosial, dan religius yang berubah-ubah. Tidak ada bukti bahwa ajaran-ajaran khusus dari teks-teks ini – yaitu, ajaran-ajaran yang tidak juga ditemukan dalam Sutta-Sutta awal – berasal dari Sang Buddha. Alih-alih, teks-teks ini seharusnya dianggap sebagai jawaban yang diberikan para guru dari masa kuno atas pertanyaan: “Apakah makna Buddhisme bagi kami?” Setiap generasi berikutnya pasti melakukan tugas sulit dalam prinsip penafsiran, akulturasi kembali Dhamma pada waktu dan tempat. Dan kita, dalam masa-masa kita yang menggemparkan, yang demikian berbeda dari mereka dari masa atau budaya Buddhis masa lampau, harus menemukan jawaban kita sendiri. Dari perspektif ini, ajaran-ajaran aliran-aliran memberikan pelajaran-pelajaran yang tidak ternilai, suatu kekayaan teladan yang telah diwariskan kepada kita oleh para nenek moyang kita dalam keyakinan.
http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,24689.0.html
seniya:
--- Quote from: xenocross on 09 January 2014, 12:54:16 AM ---The Pali Satipatthana Sutta includes a number of sections that are not shared with other texts on satipatthana, and which are later additions.
One of the additions is the inclusion of the awareness of postures and daily activities among its meditation exercizes. The awareness of postures is, in every other text, part of the preparation for meditation, not a kind of meditation itself.
Another late addition to the Pali Satipatthana Sutta is a ‘refrain’ following each meditation, which says one practices contemplating ‘rise and fall’. This is a vipassana practice, which originally belonged to only the final of the four satipatthanas, contemplation of dhammas.
The contemplation of dhammas has also undergone large scale expansion. The original text included just the five hindrances and the seven awakening factors. The five aggregates, six sense media, and four noble truths were added later.
Each version of the Satipatthana Sutta is based on a shared ancestor, which has been expanded in different ways by the schools. This process continued for several centuries following the Buddha’s death. Of the texts we have today, the closest to the ancestral version is that contained in the Pali Abhidhamma Vibhanga, if we leave aside the Abhidhammic elaborations.
Tracing the development of texts on satipatthana in later Buddhism, there is a gradual tendency to emphasize the vipassana aspect at the expense of the samatha side. This happened across various schools, although there is some variation from text to text, and perhaps some differences in sectarian emphasis. This led to various contradictions and problems in interpretation.
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-history-of-mindfulness/
=================================================================
Semua teks lainnya, termasuk Jātaka, Abhidhamma dari berbagai aliran, sūtra-sūtra Mahāyāna, dan seterusnya, dituliskan kemudian. Relatif sedikit dari ajaran-ajaran ini dianut sama antara aliran-aliran; yaitu, mereka adalah Buddhisme sektarian. Walaupun lensa kritik historis, gambar besar dari kemunculan dan perkembangan ajaran-ajaran ini dapat ditelusuri dengan sangat jelas, dalam dinamika internal dari evolusi ajaran dan dalam tanggapan Buddhisme pada lingkungan budaya, sosial, dan religius yang berubah-ubah. Tidak ada bukti bahwa ajaran-ajaran khusus dari teks-teks ini – yaitu, ajaran-ajaran yang tidak juga ditemukan dalam Sutta-Sutta awal – berasal dari Sang Buddha. Alih-alih, teks-teks ini seharusnya dianggap sebagai jawaban yang diberikan para guru dari masa kuno atas pertanyaan: “Apakah makna Buddhisme bagi kami?” Setiap generasi berikutnya pasti melakukan tugas sulit dalam prinsip penafsiran, akulturasi kembali Dhamma pada waktu dan tempat. Dan kita, dalam masa-masa kita yang menggemparkan, yang demikian berbeda dari mereka dari masa atau budaya Buddhis masa lampau, harus menemukan jawaban kita sendiri. Dari perspektif ini, ajaran-ajaran aliran-aliran memberikan pelajaran-pelajaran yang tidak ternilai, suatu kekayaan teladan yang telah diwariskan kepada kita oleh para nenek moyang kita dalam keyakinan.
http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,24689.0.html
--- End quote ---
Terjemahan buku A History of Mindfulness oleh Bhikkhu Sujato (blm selesai) ada di http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,23972.0.html
Spoiler: ShowHideMaaf, promosi ;D
dilbert:
--- Quote from: xenocross on 09 January 2014, 12:54:16 AM ---The Pali Satipatthana Sutta includes a number of sections that are not shared with other texts on satipatthana, and which are later additions.
One of the additions is the inclusion of the awareness of postures and daily activities among its meditation exercizes. The awareness of postures is, in every other text, part of the preparation for meditation, not a kind of meditation itself.
Another late addition to the Pali Satipatthana Sutta is a ‘refrain’ following each meditation, which says one practices contemplating ‘rise and fall’. This is a vipassana practice, which originally belonged to only the final of the four satipatthanas, contemplation of dhammas.
The contemplation of dhammas has also undergone large scale expansion. The original text included just the five hindrances and the seven awakening factors. The five aggregates, six sense media, and four noble truths were added later.
Each version of the Satipatthana Sutta is based on a shared ancestor, which has been expanded in different ways by the schools. This process continued for several centuries following the Buddha’s death. Of the texts we have today, the closest to the ancestral version is that contained in the Pali Abhidhamma Vibhanga, if we leave aside the Abhidhammic elaborations.
Tracing the development of texts on satipatthana in later Buddhism, there is a gradual tendency to emphasize the vipassana aspect at the expense of the samatha side. This happened across various schools, although there is some variation from text to text, and perhaps some differences in sectarian emphasis. This led to various contradictions and problems in interpretation.
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-history-of-mindfulness/
=================================================================
Semua teks lainnya, termasuk Jātaka, Abhidhamma dari berbagai aliran, sūtra-sūtra Mahāyāna, dan seterusnya, dituliskan kemudian. Relatif sedikit dari ajaran-ajaran ini dianut sama antara aliran-aliran; yaitu, mereka adalah Buddhisme sektarian. Walaupun lensa kritik historis, gambar besar dari kemunculan dan perkembangan ajaran-ajaran ini dapat ditelusuri dengan sangat jelas, dalam dinamika internal dari evolusi ajaran dan dalam tanggapan Buddhisme pada lingkungan budaya, sosial, dan religius yang berubah-ubah. Tidak ada bukti bahwa ajaran-ajaran khusus dari teks-teks ini – yaitu, ajaran-ajaran yang tidak juga ditemukan dalam Sutta-Sutta awal – berasal dari Sang Buddha. Alih-alih, teks-teks ini seharusnya dianggap sebagai jawaban yang diberikan para guru dari masa kuno atas pertanyaan: “Apakah makna Buddhisme bagi kami?” Setiap generasi berikutnya pasti melakukan tugas sulit dalam prinsip penafsiran, akulturasi kembali Dhamma pada waktu dan tempat. Dan kita, dalam masa-masa kita yang menggemparkan, yang demikian berbeda dari mereka dari masa atau budaya Buddhis masa lampau, harus menemukan jawaban kita sendiri. Dari perspektif ini, ajaran-ajaran aliran-aliran memberikan pelajaran-pelajaran yang tidak ternilai, suatu kekayaan teladan yang telah diwariskan kepada kita oleh para nenek moyang kita dalam keyakinan.
http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,24689.0.html
--- End quote ---
Emang Suttanta dan Vinaya ditulis sejak kapan ?
xenocross:
--- Quote from: dilbert on 09 January 2014, 01:40:49 PM ---Emang Suttanta dan Vinaya ditulis sejak kapan ?
--- End quote ---
Such partisan manipulation of sacred scriptures has only one good consequence: no-one can reasonably insist that the Tipitaka must have remained unchanged for all time.
The Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta is the only significant discourse in the Dīgha Nikāya that is not found in the Dharmaguptaka Dīrgha Āgama. This is no mere oversight, for it is also absent from the Sarvāstivāda Dīrgha. I would therefore consider the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta as a leading contender for the title of the latest discourse in the four Nikāyas, a lost waif straying over from the early abhidhamma. It is worth noting that this is the only discourse in all the existing collections to be duplicated in both the Majjhima and the Dīgha, further evidence of its anomalous character. It is obviously just the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta padded out with further material, and again, the increase is not small.
The Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta treats the four noble truths by merely stating them. In the Suttas this kind of formulation often indicates, not vipassanā, but the realization of stream entry; thus it could have been originally intended to express the results of the practice of the previous sections. But the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta gathers much material from elsewhere in the Suttas, ending up with the longest of all expositions of the truths, virtually doubling the length of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, and clearly presenting the four noble truths section as an extended course in vipassanā.
The new material is mainly identical with the Saccavibhaṅga Sutta.398 The Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta adds a lengthy analysis of the second and third noble truths to the Saccavibhaṅga Sutta material. This is structured around the following series of dhammas, spelled out for each of the sense media: external sense media, internal sense media, cognition, contact, feeling, perception, volition, craving, initial application, sustained application. The Saṁyutta Nikāya includes a similar list, although it has the elements and the aggregates for the final two members of the list, rather than initial & sustained application. Several of the Saṁyuttas containing this series are missing from the Sarvāstivāda Saṁyukta.399 Nevertheless, a similar list, again omitting the final two members, is found in the Sarvāstivāda Satyavibhaṅga Sūtra. The only place where the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna list occurs verbatim in the four Nikāyas is in the ‘repetition series’ appended to the Aṅguttara sevens.400 Such sections are late, and in the present case the whole passage is ignored by the commentary.
This list is an expanded form of the psychological analysis of the cognitive process first enunciated in the third discourse, the Ādittapariyāya Sutta, and repeated countless times subsequently. Eventually, this series would evolve into the cittavīthi, the final, definitive exposition of psychological processes worked out in great detail by the later ābhidhammikas. Thus the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta stands as an important bridge to the Abhidhamma. We have already discussed the fact that almost all this four noble truths material is found in the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga exposition of the truths.
Needless to say, most of the new material in the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta is vipassanā oriented, continuing the trend we have consistently observed in the development of the satipaṭṭhāna texts within the Pali canon. Nevertheless, the exposition of the truths, and therefore the Sutta as a whole, ends with the four jhānas as right samādhi, restating the basic function of satipaṭṭhāna to lead to jhāna in the eightfold path.
The significance of the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta can best be understood in light of the structure of the Dīgha Nikāya as a whole. The most authentic and often repeated teaching in the Dīgha sets out the very heart of Dhamma practice. In the discussion of the GIST we saw that, leaving aside the Brahmajāla Sutta, the Dīgha Nikāya starts off with a series of twelve discourses expounding the gradual training in detail, including the four jhānas. This would be pounded into the heads of the Dīgha students over and again as the way of training. In fact the GIST says that this section was the original core around which the Dīgha was formed. Thus the whole of the Dīgha may well have started out as a jhāna-manual.
There is little vipassanā material in the Dīgha. A striking example of this is the rarity of the five aggregates. Leaving aside the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, meditation on the aggregates is mentioned only in the legendary context of the Mahāpadāna Sutta. Elsewhere the aggregates receive but a bare enunciation in the proto-abhidhamma compilations such as the Saṅgīti and Dasuttara Suttas.
The compilers of the Theravāda Dīgha Nikāya wished to include more vipassanā material to balance the strong samādhi emphasis. Now, there are three texts treating mindfulness practice in detail in the Majjhima: the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the Ānāpānasati Sutta, and the Kāyagatāsati Sutta. The latter two clearly emphasize samādhi, so in choosing which of the three to ‘promote’ to the Dīgha the compilers chose the most vipassanā oriented text and padded it out with further vipassanā material to redress the imbalance of the Dīgha Nikāya as a whole. And in context, this was most reasonable. But when the discourse is divorced from its context and treated as a blueprint for a meditation technique different from, even superior to, the mainstream samādhi practice, a shift of emphasis becomes a radical distortion of meaning.
We can pin down a little more precisely the date of the formation of the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. We have already noted that it is absent from both the Sarvāstivāda and Dharmaguptaka Dīrghas. These schools split after the time of Aśoka. The Sri Lankan mission arrived in the Aśokan period, and the Theravāda were based on the island from that time.401 Given their doctrinal and textual closeness, the Theravāda and the Dharmaguptaka are really just the Northern and Southern, or Gandhāri and Sinhalese, branches of the same school.
This raises the possibility that the final editing of the Pali Nikāyas was carried out on Sri Lankan soil. This case was put by Oliver Abeynayake in his article ‘Sri Lanka’s Contribution to the Development of the Pali Canon.’402 To summarize a few of his points, much of the Vinaya Parivāra was composed in Sri Lanka. In addition, the restructuring of the Vinaya Piṭaka, from the early form of the Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga and Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga which is attested in all schools including the Theravāda Vinaya Culavagga itself, to the current division along the lines of the ‘Pārājika Pali’ and ‘Pācittiya Pali’ is unique to Sri Lanka, and may plausibly be regarded as a Sinhalese development. Several sections of the Khuddaka Nikāya, including the Khuddakapāṭha, are Sri Lankan. In the four major Nikāyas, Yakkaduwe Sri Pragnarama, the late principal of the Vidyalankara Pirivena in Sri Lanka, has identified, in the Theravāda Majjhima, eight sentences of the Mūlapariyāya Sutta and four verses of the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta that are in Sinhalese Prakrit, not Pali. The Theravāda commentaries themselves assert that some of the material in the Dīgha was added by the Sinhalese elders, namely the closing verses of the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, starting with ‘There were eight measures of the relics…’. This is plausible, since the verses are in a late metre; also they include, not merely worship of relics, but specifically the teeth relics, which is one of the most distinctive features of Sinhalese Buddhism. Moreover, the line preceding them is a catch-phrase in Pali (evam’etaṁ bhūtapubbaṁ, ‘that is how it was’) that refers to far-off events in the legendary past, like the English ‘Once upon a time…’. The commentary even admits that this phrase was inserted in the Third Council, at the time of Aśoka.
However, despite this strong evidence, some of the verses are included in the Sanskrit version. This contains the verse ‘There were eight measures of the relics…’ and that on the teeth relics. It is most unlikely that a Sinhalese composition found its way into a Sanskrit text in the north of India, so perhaps these verses were added in India after all. But the later verses, starting with ‘By their power this fruitful earth…’, are absent from the Sanskrit, and may well have been added in Sri Lanka.
This last point may indirectly bear on the date of the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. The closing verses of the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta are predominately late metres such as vaṁsattha. One of the few other places in the canon that contains vaṁsattha and other similarly late, elaborate verse styles is the Lakkhaṇa Sutta.403 This hagiographical text is found in the Sarvāstivādin Majjhima and in the Theravāda, but not the Dharmaguptaka or Sarvāstivāda, Dīgha. It therefore must have been transferred from the Majjhima to the Dīgha after the Dharmaguptaka schism, at around the same time as the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta was created. This shift was prompted by the large-scale expansion of the text. The Sarvāstivāda Madhyama version merely speaks of the two careers open to a Great Man, and lists the 32 marks. The Theravāda Dīgha version adds detailed prose explanations and verse elaborations of the workings of kamma and its fruits regarding the 32 marks.404 The commentary says the verses were added by Venerable Ānanda. Although this cannot be accepted as literally true, it implies the commentators were aware that the verses were added later and by a different hand. They should be ascribed to monks following Ānanda’s devotional tradition. These verses are similar in style to the closing verses of the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, which the commentary says were added in Sri Lanka. Given this, as well as the verses’ evident lateness and omission from the Sarvāstivāda, it is likely that they were also added in Sri Lanka. The verses were probably added to the Lakkhaṇa Sutta around the same time as the extra four noble truths material was added to the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, and so we suggest that the resulting Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta was composed in Sri Lanka.
We may then ask when these additions may have occurred. There is no direct evidence, but we can seek a convenient peg on which to hang them. After the introduction of Buddhist texts in the time of Aśoka, the first literary activity of major importance in Sri Lanka is during the reign of Vaṭṭagāminī. At that time, due to war with the Tamils, the lineage of oral transmission of the Tipitaka was nearly broken. The Sangha made the momentous decision to write down the Tipitaka, asserting that study and preservation of the texts was more important than practice of their contents (a decision that has set the agenda for the Theravāda until the present day). According to recent scholarly opinion this was around 20 BCE. I suggest that this was when the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta was created.
There is an unfortunate side-effect of this kind of textual analysis. It’s not hard to deconstruct ancient, heavily edited texts like the Buddhist scriptures. There are plenty of fault-lines, anomalies, and obscurities if one wishes to look. But what are we to do—demolish the palace and leave a pile of rubble? This too is not authentic to the texts, for, despite everything, the Nikāyas/Āgamas offer us a vast body of teachings springing from a remarkably uniform vision, a clarity and harmony of perspective that is unparalleled in any comparably large and ancient body of writings. To give the impression that the situation is hopelessly confused and problematic is to deny this extraordinary fact. While it is naïve and untenable to pretend there are no problems, throwing our hands up in the air in despair shows an excess of what the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta calls ‘spiritual depression’ (nirāmisa domanassa). I think the lines of unity and consistency in satipaṭṭhāna are far more significant and powerful than the fractures. But in this book so far, the threads of connection and continuity are buried in the pages of analysis. The question is, how to make this unity vivid?
14.4 Theravāda Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta
http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A_History_of_Mindfulness_Bhikkhu_Sujato.html
xenocross:
--- Quote from: dilbert on 09 January 2014, 01:40:49 PM ---Emang Suttanta dan Vinaya ditulis sejak kapan ?
--- End quote ---
These] scrolls and scroll fragments are a stunning find: an entirely new strand of Buddhist literature.
[Scholars traditionally thought] that if they traced the various branches of the tree of Buddhist textual history back far enough, they would arrive at the single ancestral root . . .
As scholars scrutinized the Gandhari texts, however, they saw that history didn’t work that way at all . . . It was a mistake to assume that the foundation of Buddhist textual tradition was singular, that if you followed the genealogical branches back far enough into the past they would eventually converge. Traced back in time, the genealogical branches diverged and intertwined in such complex relationships that [the model] broke down completely . . .
It is now clear that none of the existing Buddhist collections of early Indian scriptures—not the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, nor even the Gandhari—‘can be privileged as the most authentic or original words of the Buddha.”
These scrolls are incontrovertible proof that as early as the first century B.C.E., there was another significant living Buddhist tradition in a separate region of India and in an entirely different language from the tradition preserved in Pali.
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/22375578/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version