[Buddha-l] Age of the Sutta Nipata

[L.S. Cousins]

Dear Franz,

There are four main reasons:

1. The Pali is in verse of an apparently more archaic form.

2. There are references to texts included in the Pali Suttanipaata 
contained in texts of the Pali Canon such as the Sa.myutta and 
Anguttara Nikaayas.

3. It is possible but not certain that the Emperor Asoka refers to 
one or more such texts.

4. There is a canonical commentary - the Niddesa - on parts of the 
Suttanipaata.

All four arguments, although widely adopted, are fallacious, if 
thought to establish 'the earliest stratum of the Pali Canon'.

Taking them point by point:

1.
a) The archaic language is better accounted for by supposing that 
they were not part of the oral tradition recited by monks but were 
written down much earlier than the discourses of the four Nikaayas 
(no doubt considered more important ).
b) Some of the verses contained in the Suttanipaata (Sn) are probably 
inherited from earlier ascetic traditions, quite probably 
pre-Buddhist. We have no way of telling at what date they were 
included.

2. There are similar references to other texts e.g. to  the 
Sakkapañha Sutta of the Diighanikaaya (describing the visit of Sakka 
and other deities to the Buddha). It does not seem very likely that 
this Sutta belongs to 'the earliest stratum', but views might differ 
on that. So this proves only a relatively early date, not certainly 
and perhaps not even probably, belonging to the life-time of the 
Buddha.

3. It is possible (and even more certain) that the Emperor Asoka also 
refers to a discourse in the Majjhimanikaaya. But in any case his 
Edict is probably around two centuries after the date when the Buddha 
commenced his teaching career. There is no reason to think he would 
have known what was the earliest stratum and no special reason to 
think he would be citing the oldest texts known at the time.

4. The existence of a canonical commentary - one of the latest texts 
in the Canon - proves only that the text was popular and of 
recognized authority in the late canonical period. Note that other 
works can also be viewed as types of old commentary, notably portions 
of the Abhidhamma and Vinaya Pi.takas. These cite or quote other 
relatively early texts.

We should note too that most of the above arguments apply to the last 
two sections of the  Suttanipaata only. These seem to have been 
separate texts in the North West (it is not quite certain, since we 
do not know how the relevant portion of the Canon was arranged by the 
NW schools).

Two further arguments have already been mentioned by Hazy Dick. I 
also think that the arguments based on the evolution of metre are 
suspect and would in any case not necessarily take us back to the 
earliest stratum. And of course some verses may be of non-Buddhist 
origin - who knows what their date would be.

Many people seem to have been attracted to versions of the argument 
that Sn "should be considered very early because it is relatively 
free of formulaic dogmas such as the 4 noble truths, the 8-fold path 
and the various formulae for precepts and types of meditation 
practice".

I consider this too to be entirely fallacious. This is hardly the 
sort of thing you would expect to find frequently in verses. So it 
proves nothing as to whether these ideas were known at the time. To 
me it seems likely that after a long teaching career the Buddha and 
his disciples would be likely to have formulated many of the basic 
teachings. And some may have been taught from the beginning.

Much of what is said here seems to me to be circular argument. If you 
start with the assumption that Sn represents an earlier pre-dogmatic 
form of Buddhism, then you translate and interpret on this basis. 
Then use the result  to prove the existence of such an early form of 
Buddhism. K.R. Norman in particular does this as a point of principle 
and his translations are often very insightful as a result. But 
sometimes he is clearly wrong to do this. Or, so it seems to me. I 
would read e.g. the Question of Posaala (Sn 1112-15)  as containing 
very clear references to meditation stages.

My own view would be that the internal evidence of some of the 
Majjhimanikaaya discourses strongly suggests that they are likely to 
belong to the earliest stratum, but views are likely to differ on 
this.

Lance Cousins

>Richard et al.,
>
>I vaguely recall reading that the Sutta Nipata was likely to be from 
>the earliest stratum of the Pali canon. Or am I making that up? Do 
>you recall something similar, and, if so, why it is thought to be 
>so? (Sorry to be asking you to think like a historian. Perhaps 
>someone else knows...)
>
>Franz