[Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16

[Stephen Hodge]

Andrew Skilton wrote:

> I think the problem includes the limitations of the methodologies that
> can be employed to create a stratification.  Typically each involves big 
> effort
> for an outcome that on its own can often be easily undermined by some 
> smart
> alec. The best solution would be the application of a broad range of
> methodologies, but who has the time and the skills?

Hi Andrew,
Those interested in the feasibility of stratification could look at "The 
Original Confucius" by E B Brooks and A T Brooks (Columbia Uni Press 1998) 
which attempts to do this with the Analects.  The question of stratification 
of early Chinese material is also one of the purposes of the Warring States 
Project.  They seem to be making some good progress there, but the nature of 
the materials differs somewhat from that available for early Buddhism.

Though a big fan of stratification myself, I do acknowledge that many of the 
individual methodologies are often subjective, nevertheless I still think it 
is worth an attempt.  As Stefan suggests, I too get the impression that the 
phobia certain people have towards stratification is linked to a fear that 
the whole edifice of "what the Buddha taught" will come tumbling down.  It 
may well do -- I have had a gut feeling for a while that what the historical 
Buddha actually taught was a lot simpler than tradition holds and that it 
was his successors who "unpacked" and considerably expanded what he said in 
terms and formulae that he never actually used.  But that's just my view and 
others, especially the smart alecs, will no doubt disagree.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge