lpetrich

I wonder if anyone has ever taken the sort of textual analysis commonly applied to the Judeo-Xian Bible and applied it to the sacred books of various other religions.

Hinduism?
Buddhism?
Confucianism?
Taoism?

I was motivated to ask this by the discussion of Buddhism's Heart Sutra here -- there are some here who claim that the Heart Sutra differs from other Buddhist doctrine.

bagong

I wonder if anyone has ever taken the sort of textual analysis commonly applied to the Judeo-Xian Bible and applied it to the sacred books of various other religions.

Speaking for Buddhism, yes - a vast amount of textual criticism has been done. Buddhist textual criticism is a truly monumental task because the Buddhist scriptures (i.e. texts claiming to be the authoritative word of the Buddha) run into the many tens of thousands of pages, preserved in dozens of languages, but rarely in the original language.

The best summaries of the research are:

Etienne Lamotte "History of Indian Buddhism" - deals only with the early Tripi.takas of the 18 Schools; doesn't cover later Mahaayaana suutras and tantras. Somewhat outdated, but still the standard reference.

Hirakawa Akira "A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana"

A. K. Warder "Indian Buddhism" - covers the entire history of Indian Buddhist literature from the early Tripi.taka (5th century BCE) to the Kaalacakra tantra literature (11ct century CE), but in much less detail than the other 2.

These books aim to provide complete social and philosophical histories of Buddhism; they only incidentally deal with textual criticism. Still, it's the best we've got. And since on the whole Buddhists are more interested in the philosophical accuracy than the historical accuracy of the scriptures, I doubt there ever will be enough demand for books focused exclusively on textual criticism.

I was motivated to ask this by the discussion of Buddhism's Heart Sutra here -- there are some here who claim that the Heart Sutra differs from other Buddhist doctrine.

This gets into the question of what is considered "authentic" doctrine in the many Buddhist traditions. In the Mahaayaana tradition, the Canon was never closed: it was accepted that new texts continued to be revealed either by supernatural guardians entrusted with sermons of the historical Buddha, or transcendant Buddhas appearing in meditation. If the doctine expounded by these new texts superficially contradicted older texts, this meant that the older texts taught only a conventional truth for the benefit of less sophisticated listeners, whereas the new texts taught a deeper meaning.

This process of open revelation continued for over a millenium, accounting for the absolutely staggering size of the Mahaayaana scriptures. It only arbitrarily came to an end in India with the Muslim destruction of the great monastic universities. In Tibet, the tradition has continued to this day in the form of Termas, "Treasures" discovered either physically or mentally by mystic specialists called Terton "Treasure Finders" although the validity of these terma are not accepted by all Tibetan sects.

Answerer

Sorry, I was busy lately. So, I could only answer the Buddhism part right now. The main Buddhism conflicts and textual criticism usually evolved around the two different schools of Mahayana and Hinayana since the second Buddhist council. Here are some links that may give you some details on the conflict.

http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netc...a/backgrnd.htm

http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductE...CatNumber=9109

http://home.istar.ca/~bar/Mahayana.PDF


Two key points made in the controversy is: 1) Hinayana supporters believed that Mahayana sutras are not the direct words of Buddha and thus, they are the false teachings of Buddhism. 2) Mahayana believers feel that they carried the true essense of Buddhism while Hinayana is only the path for "self-enlightenment" and is incapable of reaching direct enlightment.

No, not only the Heart sutras, all Mahayana sutras are different from the Hinayana sutras on the appearance. But let not the superficial differences and historical conflicts blind you. If you follow deep into the controversy, you will discover that now there is a general consensus among most Buddhist scholars and monks which claims that even though Mahayana sutras may not be the records of (or inherit) the actual words of Buddha, Himself. They do share the essense as Hinayana teachings and Buddha's original teachings.

As stated in the lotus sutra, even though the Buddhism teachings might seem diverse and carried different forms, it is essential toward the spreading and acceptance of Buddhism among people of varying personalites and intellectual abilites. Leading them eventually towards the same and common goal, Enlightenment.

Sadly, not all Buddhists see or agree with the above view and some of them even waste their whole lives arguing on the superiority of Mahayana over Hinayana or verus vice.

A similiar conflicts happens between Taoism and Confucianism where the latter criticize the former's text of being too 'selfish inclined'. I will get to it if I have more time.

bagong

Sorry, but a slight correction. The Schism at the Second Council produced the Mahaasa^mghika and Theravaada schools. Both these schools are considered by adherents of Mahaayaana to be "Hiinayaana". Later sects broke off from these two root schools to form the eventual "18 Schools" of Hiinayaana. Mahaayaana only arose many centuries after the Second Council, and most scholars now agree that it's impossible to link the new movement with any single Hiinayaana school.

You're correct that a lot of textual criticism is based on tracing the common oral transmission through the various schisms that occured and the variant secterian recensions of the Tripi.taka they produced, but it should be noted that this involves only Hiinayaana schools like the Theravaada, Mahaasa^mghika, Sarvaastivaada, Dharmaguptaka - to name the most important. Tthe suutras of the Mahaayaana stand completely outside of this shared oral tradition.

P.S. It should be noted that the word "Hiinayaana" is an epithet coined by Mahaayaana polemicists, and should be avoided. It doesn't just mean "Small Vehicle"; "Inferior Vehicle" is a more accurate translation. 'Sraavakayaana (everyday spelling Shravakayana) meaning "Vehicle of the Hearers" (i.e. the original disciples of the historical Buddha) is a more neutral phrase used in Mahaayaana texts, and is IMO preferable - although it still imposes on the early schools a label of "selfish motivation" that only makes sense from a Mahaayaana perspective. A less Mahaayaana-centric label would be just plain "Early Buddhism."

andy_d

Have they not got better things to do?

Seraphim

by andy_d

Have they not got better things to do?

They could stop arguing who is right and who is wrong and simply find answers for themselves. That's what Buddha did ... why can't they who supposed to follow him do that as well?

andy_d

"Us and Them" syndrome.

I guess some people need to find a "them" to feel they have an "us"

If you have to tear someone else down to build yourself up, then what you have can't be much, IMHO. Sad

Seraphim

by andy_d

"Us and Them" syndrome.

I guess some people need to find a "them" to feel they have an "us"

If you have to tear someone else down to build yourself up, then what you have can't be much, IMHO. Sad

Sounds like this people still haven't get over their own egos. They need to know that they are on the right path before they could proceed and they seems to forget that seeking the right path by following what written in a book is just the opposite of what Buddha did.

Oh well ... no use talking about it .... after a few fights (physical and mental), they should get back into the track.

Answerer

Not when they believed that they are doing the right and good thing.

Opera Nut

The library at my local Chinese Mahayana Temple has books & magazines on all branches -- Tibetan, Zen, Theravada, Vajrayana, Pure Land, Tantra, yada yada. Of course Tibetan seems to be popular now, at least the kind with the Dalai Lama lineage, because he is a popular and plain-speaking person.