[cubibobi]

Hello,

A couple of questions regarding latest wonderful post:

“Elephant in the Room” – Direct Translation of the Tipiṭaka”

#2
“Deep concepts in those suttas were explained to the general public in their native languages by bhikkhus. Furthermore, three commentaries were written in Pāli during the time of the Buddha.”

(1) Does the phrase “saka nirutti” mean “in their native languages”?

(2) Can we speculate that the Buddha himself may have read these three commentaries and approved of them?

This is fascinating; I’ve always thought that everything was oral during the time to the Buddha.

Best,
Lang

[cubibobi]

One follow up question:

#3
They were convinced that Dhamma required new re-formulations to meet the needs of new ages, new populations, and new social circumstances. So they set out to produce new literature, which ultimately came to be known as Mahāyāna Buddhism.

#4
Within those heydays of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it corrupted Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka and other Asian countries.

These actions by early Mahayanists would be anantariya kamma, wouldn’t they? Creating schism in the Sangha.

[Lal]

Lang’s (cubibobi) questions:

(1) Yes.

(2) I am not certain that those commentaries were actually written or just composed (just like the rest of the Tipitaka). I have revised that in the post as:
“.. Furthermore, three commentaries were composed in Pāli during the time of the Buddha. Per the Sinhala version of those three commentaries, one was the work of Ven. Sariputta and the other two attributed to Ven. Mahākaccāna (or Mahākaccāyana.)

#3, #4: Yes. Those certainly qualify as “distorting Buddha Dhamma.”
– I am not sure whether they qualify as anantariya kamma. But it is a serious offense.
For example, “AN 2.25” is a short sutta that says: “Dveme, bhikkhave, tathāgataṃ ­nābbhā­cik­khanti. Katame dve? Yo ca neyyatthaṃ suttantaṃ neyyattho suttantoti dīpeti, yo ca nītatthaṃ suttantaṃ nītattho suttantoti dīpeti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve tathāgataṃ ­nābbhā­cik­khantī” ti.
Translation (to provide the idea): “Monks, these two people slander the Tathagata. Which two? One who briefly explains a deep discourse when it needs a detailed explanation. The other explains a discourse in detail whose meaning is already clear. These are two who slander the Tathāgata.”
– Two perfect examples of the first type of slander say that the words anicca and anatta are fully explained by “impermanence” and “no-self.” Those two concepts require detailed explanations.

[Author]

Posts