//honeypot demagogic

 Forum DhammaCitta. Forum Diskusi Buddhis Indonesia

Author Topic: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber  (Read 27309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« on: 09 January 2014, 12:54:16 AM »
darimana tahu tidak 100% murni lagi ?

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
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #1 on: 09 January 2014, 08:13:01 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


Terjemahan buku A History of Mindfulness oleh Bhikkhu Sujato (blm selesai) ada di http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,23972.0.html

Spoiler: ShowHide
Maaf, promosi ;D
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline dilbert

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.935
  • Reputasi: 90
  • Gender: Male
  • "vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha"
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #2 on: 09 January 2014, 01:40:49 PM »
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


Emang Suttanta dan Vinaya ditulis sejak kapan ?
VAYADHAMMA SANKHARA APPAMADENA SAMPADETHA
Semua yang berkondisi tdak kekal adanya, berjuanglah dengan penuh kewaspadaan

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #3 on: 18 January 2014, 05:33:13 PM »
Emang Suttanta dan Vinaya ditulis sejak kapan ?

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
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #4 on: 19 January 2014, 05:20:27 PM »
Emang Suttanta dan Vinaya ditulis sejak kapan ?

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/
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline dilbert

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.935
  • Reputasi: 90
  • Gender: Male
  • "vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha"
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #5 on: 20 January 2014, 02:20:45 PM »
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/

maka-nya kalau gw gak masalah mau kata-kan Mahayana itu bukan ajaran dari Buddha. wkwkwkwkw
VAYADHAMMA SANKHARA APPAMADENA SAMPADETHA
Semua yang berkondisi tdak kekal adanya, berjuanglah dengan penuh kewaspadaan

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #6 on: 21 January 2014, 10:23:07 PM »
Ini ada satu bacaan bagus, SOME PALI DISCOURSES IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR CHINESE PARALLELS
oleh bhikkhu Analayo

dimana dengan memeriksa versi chinese nya, beberapa sutta menjadi lebih masuk akal.

http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/SomePaliDis1.pdf
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline kullatiro

  • Sebelumnya: Daimond
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.153
  • Reputasi: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • Ehmm, Selamat mencapai Nibbana
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #7 on: 23 January 2014, 11:19:01 AM »
sangat di sayangkan banyak dari Gandhari text masih di tangan beberapa pihak (baik museum dan privat) dan susah untuk diakses bagi umat Buddha pada umumnya.

yang sangat di sayangkan adalah gandhari text yang di tangan private kondisi text nya sangat memprihatinkan tidak seperti museum yang menjaga text aslinya dengan baik hingga kadang setelah di peroleh pihak museum memerlukan renovasi dan pemulihan media dan text yang sangat lama (x-ray, dll) untuk membaca text gabdhari tersebut.

Yang lebih di sayangkan lagi penemuan gandhara text ini seperti maling kuburan kuno yang menjarah makam kuno hingga menemukan penyimpanan perpustakaan kuno (mungkin dari sebuah arama), dan baru di ketahui belakangan sesudah text tersebut di jarah dan di jual belikan kemudian.
« Last Edit: 23 January 2014, 11:51:40 AM by kullatiro »

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #8 on: 23 January 2014, 12:36:55 PM »
Sebagai bahan tambahan yg berkaitan dg topik ini, berikut ada artikel menarik dari Bhikkhu Sujato:

Below I list some of the reasons supporting the claim that the Nikayas/Agamas are pre-sectarian Buddhism, while other texts belong to the sectarian period.

Nikayas/Agamas

1.       The doctrinal content of the Nikayas and Agamas is nearly identical, and the actual texts are very close. The simplest explanation for this is that they both derive from the same stock of pre-sectarian teachings.

2.       There is archeological evidence dating perhaps 200 years after the Buddha that mentions some suttas by name; refers to such collections as the ‘Pitakas’; and depicts scenes, titles, and a fragment of verse from the Jatakas.

3.        All schools of Buddhism accepted the Nikayas/Agamas and the Vinaya as authentic.

4.       The suttas and vinaya refer to themselves and to each other, but not to the abhidhamma or to any other literature.

Abhidhamma

1.       The language, style, and doctrine of the abhidhamma clearly presuppose the suttas.

2.       The abhidhammas of the schools are almost totally different. Not only did other schools reject the Theravada abhidhamma, but some schools rejected the whole abhidhamma movement.

3.       The early sources, both textual and archeological, know nothing of the texts, the special doctrines, or the mythic origins of the abhidhamma.

4.       The sutta passages that have been invoked by abhidhammikas past and present to authorize the abhidhamma are either late or irrelevant.

5.       The Abhidhamma Pitaka itself does not claim to be the words of the Buddha. This claim originated in the chronicles and commentaries.

Mahayana Sutras

1.       The Mahayana sutras were composed in Sanskrit, which was not invented until about 500 years after the Buddha. Note that, while the Mahayana sutras were composed in Sanskrit, the early suttas of some schools (including those preserved as the Chinese Agamas) were translated around the same period from a sort of Pali into Sanskrit.

2.       The literary style, geographical knowledge, social conditions, technology, etc. portrayed in the Mahayana sutras also attest a similar date.

3.       The teachings of the Mahayana sutras can be shown to emerge from a historical process of doctrinal evolution among the early schools.

4.       The myth of the Mahayana asserts that the sutras were preserved for 500 years in the dragon realm, which assumes the existence of written texts in the Buddha’s time. There are also references to written texts within the Mahayana sutras themselves. Unfortunately, scholars are agreed that no suttas were written down until about 400 years later.

5.       The Mahayana sutras were rejected by the early schools as later inventions.

These conclusions are now firmly established. But it is still normal in traditional Buddhist circles to regard all the Buddhist scriptures as having sprung full-blown from the Master’s lips. Recently a bright, learned young monk told me that it is ‘evil’ to even question whether the Abhidhamma was spoken by the Buddha. This is fundamentalism. Behind this defensiveness lies fear: fear disguised as faith, fear that our cherished religious convictions will be undermined. And if our Buddhism is identified with the teachings and institutions of modern dogmatic schools, the end products of 2500 years of evolution whose claim to represent the original teachings is buttressed only by flimsy fables, our fears may well be justified. But if we seek the truth, we need fear no inquiry. The sincere application of critical methodology can only take us closer to the Buddha’s message, clarify the process of textual formulation, and reveal how that message was adapted by the schools.

In the application of historico-critical methodology Buddhism lags way behind Christianity. Although the history of Christianity has been often marred by severe, violent repression of heresy and a refusal to subject its dogmas to scrutiny, in modern times the scientific study of the Bible has made great strides. My own historical study of Buddhist teachings has been substantially informed by my interest in contemporary Bible studies. The fundamentalists and some of the mainline churches are still suspicious of such methods; yet their sceptical findings have reached a wide general audience and acceptance. It is past time for Buddhism to do the same. We need less courage than they. We have never relied so heavily on our myths, and so we have less to lose as the myths crumble away, like ancient forgotten monuments to a past that is no more.

Historical criticism is always uncertain, its findings ranging between ‘possible’ and ‘probable’. But we have no choice. The only alternative is blind adherence to tradition. I regard this as a refusal to accept our responsibility as custodians of the Dhamma, the stifling of the living spirit of inquiry by the dead hand of orthodoxy. I believe it would be wrong to urge a ‘moderate’ application of these criteria. After 2500 years of myth-making, moderation would be immoderate. Traditional Buddhist institutions are increasingly irrelevant even in their own countries, and have never been relevant outside. Authenticity to the core of the Buddha’s revelation will surely prove a more solid foundation for a new, global Buddhism than adherence to nationalistic traditions. The other extreme is where ‘Buddhism’ becomes so vacuous as to lose all meaning. A bit of hard-headed rational criticism is a good antidote to both these extremes. When the dust settles we should have a clearer view of what ‘Buddhism’ means in the new millenium. And when we make mistakes along the way, as we must, we can consider them as offerings to the traditionalists, who will surely derive much joy from pointing them out!

Below I list a number of criteria that I have found useful. Obviously each criterion taken individually is a highly imperfect tool. But they are synergistic: where several criteria agree, the concurrence multiplies our confidence in our conclusions – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. So in these studies it is imperative to use as wide a variety of criteria as possible, sensitively appraise the reliability of each criterion in the relevent context, remain alive to any contrary indications, and make our conclusions no more certain than the evidence warrants.

Simplicity: Shorter, more basic teachings are likely to have appeared earlier than complex, scholastic elaborations. This is one of the fundamentals of historical criticism.

Multiple Attestation: Teachings appearing more often are likely to be more authentic than those less frequent. This of course only applies to independent attestation, not mere repetition.

Similarity: Teachings congruent in style, form, or content with known early teachings are more likely to be authentic than heterodox passages.

Dissimilarity: Teachings dissimilar to other traditions, whether pre-Buddhist or later Buddhism, are unlikely to have appeared through assimilation or revision and thus are likely to be authentic. Notice that this principle does not say that teachings held in common with other traditions are inauthentic; it simply can’t tell.

Concordance between Nikayas and Agamas: The essential congruence of the Nikayas and the Agamas is probably the most important finding of modern Buddhist studies, and should become a standard criterion in all matters concerning early Buddhism. Although the basic findings are in, there remains much work to be done in sorting out the finer details.

Unfavourability: some passages reflect badly on the Sangha (eg. the quarrel at Kosambi), individual monks (eg. when they are admonished by the Buddha), or even on the Buddha himself (notably the bizarre story of the murdered monks, which raises serious doubts as to the Buddha’s omniscience even in a limited sense). These are unlikely to be later inventions.

Reading out, not in: We should not assume that we already understand the Dhamma when reading the suttas, and feel that the suttas need ‘readjusting’ to accord with our ideas (or the ideas of our school). We should approach the suttas as humble students, as empty vessels open for the Dhamma to pour in. It is of course one of the basics of Dhamma to realize that our preconceptions distort our view of reality; yet this is what commentators do time and again. The ideas of commentators dating centuries later become buried almost invisibly in the dictionaries, translations, footnotes, explanations, and from there into our Dhamma consciousness. In this predicament, the reasonable course is to adopt, as a temporary corrective, a negative criterion. When the commentaries offer an explanation that is not clearly supported by the text, we should assume as a working hypothesis that it is probably wrong.

Internal Attestation: This is the most basic reason for even raising the possibility that the suttas are the Buddha’s words – they say so. Obviously not everything that claims to come from the Buddha is genuine. But it is safe enough to assume the reverse: if a text does not claim to be the Buddha’s words it is probably not. 

Extracting meaning from variation: Typically the traditions ascribe variations in the Buddha’s teaching to the Buddha’s undoubted skill in suiting his teaching to the proclivities of individuals. But often this is not so much an explaining as an explaining away. Most of the suttas seem to have been delivered to large, general audiences, so unless the text specifically indicates that it is targeted for a particular individual or group we can assume they were meant to be generally applicable. Variation, therefore, should be analysed in terms of textual or doctrinal development. We should not assume that the suttas are internally consistent; this is another hypothesis to be tested. After 2500 years of interpreters who assumed consistency without question, we may well arrive at more interesting results by adopting a very literal hypothesis that surface variations do indeed imply deep level contradictions. If such analysis produces meaningful results the argument from the ‘proclivities of individuals’ becomes redundant.

Form over content: Although formal analysis of textual matters often appears pedantic and irrelevant, it is actually very useful. We have less deeply ingrained bias and emotional investment in formal matters than in Dhamma issues, so for the sake of objectivity it is useful to rely primarily on formal criteria, and then infer to doctrinal matters.

Doctrines of the schools: Each of the schools evolved its own doctrinal peculiarities. Where these trends are discernable in the suttas it can indicate lateness.

Sources: The suttas (that is, the literary texts known by that title today) were assembled from the mass of oral teachings floating about in the early Sangha. The process of systematically organizing them only really got going after the Buddha’s passing away. The source material would have included: basic doctrinal statements (eg. the four noble truths); frameworks organizing such statements (eg. the gradual training); miscellaneous verses and sayings; dialogues and discourses uttered on specific occasions; analytical elaborations of basic teachings; background, anecdotal, and historical data. Obviously there is a hierachy of authenticity here. Since the develeloped literary forms commencing with the words ‘thus have I heard’ post-date the Buddha, it is legitmate to enquire how they came to their present form. In some cases, following the pecedent of Biblical criticism, we may reconstruct ‘source’ texts no longer extant. It is useful to consider these sources as manifesting in the final ‘suttas’ in three main levels. I give examples from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

Level 1 –  Pericopes: Basic doctrinal statements (eg ‘It is just this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi.’)

Level 2 – Discourses: The assemblage of doctrinal statements in a particular form as a teaching attributed to the Buddha. (eg from ‘There are these two extremes…’ to ‘My deliverance is unshakeble. This is my last birth. Now there is no repeated existence.’)

Level 3 – Final text: The completed literary entity. (eg from ‘Thus have I heard’ to ‘And that is how Aññā Koṇḍañña received his name.’)

Although I reluctantly follow contemporary usage and refer to level 3 as ‘suttas’, this is very misleading, as the Buddha had obviously never heard of the level 3 texts. The term ‘sutta’, when used self-referently in the suttas, can refer only to level 1 or 2. The methods of historical criticism generally will penetrate to levels 2 and 3 only, leaving the key doctrines untouched.

Language: Vocabulary and style are key criteria. There is a move from the more natural language of the early suttas to the repetitive and artificial forms of the Abhdhamma period. Later Pali was characterized by long compounds. The evolution of metrical forms provides some basis for dating verses, and might possibly be carried over into prose, too. As an example of vocabulary changing from level 2 to level 3 we can note that bhikkhave (monks!) and bhante (venerable sir) of level 2 often become formalized into bhikkhavo and the slightly pompous bhadante in level 3. Bhikkhave is not standard Pali, so it is likely that it was a colloquial word so closely associated with the Buddha himself that it resisted standardization into bhikkhavo.

Formation of the Nikayas: It seems that usually monks would specialize in studying one or the other of the four Nikayas, so the Nikayas are arranged so that key teachings are found in each Nikaya. Teachings found in only one or two Nikayas, therefore, should not be regarded as central. Each of the four Nikayas, however, has its own flavour. It seems that each was designed to fulfill a certain function within the emerging religion, and this should be seen to reflect the personalities of those who chose to specialize in a particular field. The Digha emphasizes legendary and anti-brahmanical material, and was likely used for propoganda and conversion. The Majjhima contains a deep and broad doctrinal range, and probably served as the main monastic syllabus. The Samyutta is more technical and would have been the domain of the intellectuals and doctrinal specialists. The Anguttara is simpler and more lay-orientated, and would have been used for preaching. Each Nikaya also includes much material contrasting with its overall flavour.

Contexts: Any religious, spiritual, or philosophical movement must inevitably emerge in a certain historical/cultural/ideological/linguistic context. Early Buddhism maintained a close, conscious interchange with the many other religious schools in the vibrant intellectual culture of the time. The teachings can best be appreciated as a response to these conditions. The Buddha knew the Vedic and Jain traditions, but he had never heard of the Abhidhamma, the Visuddhimagga, or the Mahayana sutras. 

https://sites.google.com/site/santipada/it%27stime
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline dilbert

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.935
  • Reputasi: 90
  • Gender: Male
  • "vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha"
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #9 on: 23 January 2014, 01:17:01 PM »
Sebagai bahan tambahan yg berkaitan dg topik ini, berikut ada artikel menarik dari Bhikkhu Sujato:

4.       The suttas and vinaya refer to themselves and to each other, but not to the abhidhamma or to any other literature.


Bhikkhuni Vibhanga, Vinaya Pitaka :

…PAÑHAM PUCCHEYYÂTI SUTTANTE OKÂSAM KÂRÂPETVÂ VINAYAM VÂ ABHIDHAMMAM VÂ PUCCHATI ÂPATTI PÂCITTIYASSA, VINAYE OKÂSAM KÂRÂPETVA SUTTANTAM VÂ ABHIDHAMMAM VÂ PUCCHATI ÂPATTI PÂCITTIYASSA, ABHIDHAMME OKÂSAM KÂRÂPETVA SUTTANTAM VÂ VINAYAM VÂ PUCCHATI ÂPATTI PÂCITTIYASSA...

Seorang bhikkhuni yang mengajukan suatu pertanyaan kepada bhikkhu haruslah sesuai dengan kesempatan yang dimohonkan. Apabila memohon kesempatan untuk mengajukan pertanyaan tentang Sutta tetapi kemudian berbalik mempertanyakan Vinaya atau Abhidhamma; bhikkhuni tersebut melanggar Pâcittiya.

Apabila memohon kesempatan untuk mengajukan pertanyaan tentang Vinaya tetapi kemudian berbalik mempertanyakan Sutta atau Abhidhamma; bhikkhuni tersebut melanggar Pâcittiya.

Apabila memohon kesempatan untuk mengajukan pertanyaan tentang Abhidhamma tetapi kemudian berbalik mempertanyakan Sutta atau Vinaya; bhikkhuni tersebut melangar Pâcittiya...
VAYADHAMMA SANKHARA APPAMADENA SAMPADETHA
Semua yang berkondisi tdak kekal adanya, berjuanglah dengan penuh kewaspadaan

Offline kullatiro

  • Sebelumnya: Daimond
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.153
  • Reputasi: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • Ehmm, Selamat mencapai Nibbana
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #10 on: 23 January 2014, 01:51:23 PM »
What is myth? In my opinion, all the
old myths – and here I’m speaking
primarily of those originating before
the 1 st millenium BCE – were
originally inspired by true events.
They were the news, the gossip, the
family sagas of the day. They came
to life in the hands of the
storytellers and bards. The stories
that survived were those that struck
a chord in consciousness. Each time
they were retold, the tellers would
embellish or alter a little; and when
the changes resonated with the
audience they would be passed on,
and so the myths evolved by a sort
of natural selection of thought, a
little bird of story soaring in the sky
of the mind. There was no question
of any individual deliberately
creating their own stories. The myths
were communal creations. This is
why they offer such wonderfully
direct insight into the consciousness
of the times. There seems to not yet
have been the idea of an objective
standard of truth; no distiction
between how things could be, or
should be, and how they really are.
There was, therefore, no question of
the myths being taken as literal,
objective truth – the tellers of the
stories would not have understood
what that meant. The myths were
projections of the people’s fears,
desires, hopes, joys, and anguishes
into the world outside.
But in the ‘axial age’ around the
middle of the 1st millenium BCE a
new idea began to be born.
Knowledge became something that
was not just inherited, but reflected
upon and consciously revised. A new
rational consciousness emerged,
supplanting the old mythic
consciousness. The most brilliant of
the rational cultures were the
Greeks, specializing in external
science, and the Indians,
specializing in inner science. Both
realized that truth is an elusive
thing and so they devised special
techniques for its apprehension; in
Greece, reason and logic; and in
India the science of meditative
insight. Either way, myth would
never be the same again.
The fields of cultural endeavour in
the West became split in two. One
branch, loosely called ‘science’, dealt
with the objective investigation into
the external, material world. The
second branch, loosely called ‘the
arts’, dealt with the expression of
inner feelings and perspectives.
‘Fiction’ was born, the deliberate
creation of stories that both the
author and the reader realize are
not true. Fiction is a private
undertaking. It can never be free
from irony, self-consciousness, and
personal quirks; thus its usefulness
as a psychological record is of a
different order than myth.
But now that the original domain of
myth became split in two, it became
possible to investigate myth with
science, to inquire as to what extent
myths were literal, objective history.
Again, the field split in two. For
those commited to the search for the
real, it soon became obvious that
the myths are highly unreliable
quides to history, and that new, non-
literal, symbolic methods of
interpretation must be developed in
order to tease out the truth. This
process started early; by the 5 th
century BCE in both Greece and
India the old myths were being
questioned, denied, or even
ridiculed. In fact, the history of
humanity is almost by definition the
history of the ending of the myths,
the slow and agonizing death of
God.
Inevitably the reaction set in.
Threatened and fearful, some
insisted that the myths were literal
objective reality – a claim that I
believe would have been
incomprehensible in the age the
myths were born. So came the great
reversal. After the axial age
witnessed the flowering of the spirit
of reason in humanity’s most
brilliant cultural inflourescence, we
fell into the Dark Ages. Across both
Europe and Asia the medieval period
saw the transformation of democratic
experiments into absolute
autocracies; the spirit of inquiry into
dogmatic orthodoxies; freedom of
speech and thought into creedal
conformity; the experience of
liberation into the rote learning of
scholastic curricula; spiritual life as
a ‘calling out’ to transcend petty
boundaries of self, of tribe, of nation
into religion as bureaucratic,
patriachal, hierachical institutions
for the buttressing of national
identity and state power.
As time goes on, and the events portrayed in the myths recede
further into the conveniently mysterious past, the myths become more and more incongruous. They must be maintained by an ever shriller incantation. Exclusivity gives way to intolerance; intolerance leads to alienation and tribal prejudice;then comes hostility, blind hatred, and ultimately murderous fury. The mythic consciousness becomes so out of touch with reality that it is not merely dysfunctional, but actually insane.


A well documented case of this in Buddhism is Japanese Zen. The hierachy evolved a myth that identified the Emperor, the Sun-god, as an emanation of the primordial Buddha. The bulk of the
Zen establishment for a hundred years encouraged the notion that to kill or die for the Emperor was a sacred act. This was a key support for the warrior culture that erupted in the barbarism of the Pacific theatre of the Second World War, leaving tens of millions dead, probably more than the crusades or jihad, amid some of the worst atrocities imaginable.

https://sites.google.com/site/santipada/it'stime

Selain cerita Abhidahamma yang terlalu berlebihan,  juga ada perjanjian antara Sang Buddha Gautama dan YA Ananda ketika mengangkar YA Ananda menjadi pelayan dari Sang Buddha Gautama.
« Last Edit: 23 January 2014, 02:24:57 PM by kullatiro »

Offline kullatiro

  • Sebelumnya: Daimond
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.153
  • Reputasi: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • Ehmm, Selamat mencapai Nibbana
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #11 on: 23 January 2014, 02:43:56 PM »
pernyataan kotbah abhidhamma selama berhari hari dan Sang Buddha turun setiap hari untuk makan dsb kemudian kembali ke surga terang terang untuk mengesampingkan YA Ananda yang belum mencapai kesucian pertama dan tidak memiliki kesaktian kecuali ingatan nya yang sangat kuat diantara siswa sang Buddha.


Pertanyaan wa, apakah pra syarat yang di.ajukan YA Ananda dan diterima oleh Sang.Buddha Gautama dapat dengan mudah di kesampingkan dan di Ingkari oleh Sang.Buddha Gautama? tentu tidak bukan.

Offline The Ronald

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 2.231
  • Reputasi: 89
  • Gender: Male
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #12 on: 23 January 2014, 03:16:29 PM »
pernyataan kotbah abhidhamma selama berhari hari dan Sang Buddha turun setiap hari untuk makan dsb kemudian kembali ke surga terang terang untuk mengesampingkan YA Ananda yang belum mencapai kesucian pertama dan tidak memiliki kesaktian kecuali ingatan nya yang sangat kuat diantara siswa sang Buddha.


Pertanyaan wa, apakah pra syarat yang di.ajukan YA Ananda dan diterima oleh Sang.Buddha Gautama dapat dengan mudah di kesampingkan dan di Ingkari oleh Sang.Buddha Gautama? tentu tidak bukan.

ini menarik krn menurut kisahnya yg diulangi Ananda..sudah tertuang di sutta pitaka...
...

Offline kullatiro

  • Sebelumnya: Daimond
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.153
  • Reputasi: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • Ehmm, Selamat mencapai Nibbana
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #13 on: 23 January 2014, 03:24:52 PM »
yah!, gitu dah ada yang melakukan tempering antara kisah asli + tambahan jadi lah aspal.

Offline dilbert

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.935
  • Reputasi: 90
  • Gender: Male
  • "vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha"
Re: Perbandingan Teks Berbagai Sumber
« Reply #14 on: 23 January 2014, 03:25:40 PM »

Selain cerita Abhidahamma yang terlalu berlebihan,  juga ada perjanjian antara Sang Buddha Gautama dan YA Ananda ketika mengangkar YA Ananda menjadi pelayan dari Sang Buddha Gautama.


Cerita abhidhamma-nya berlebihan dimana ?
VAYADHAMMA SANKHARA APPAMADENA SAMPADETHA
Semua yang berkondisi tdak kekal adanya, berjuanglah dengan penuh kewaspadaan

 

anything