Abstract
The relationship between the earliest form of Buddhism and the various traditions that developed later has been a perennial problem in the history of Buddhist thought. As is well known to students of Buddhist philosophy, the different schools of the Abhidharma or scholastic tradition, in spite of rather significant doctrinal variations among themselves, all claimed to preserve the Buddha-word in its pristine purity. The Mahāyāna schools, adopting philosophical standpoints very different from those of scholasticism, upheld the view that theirs represent the true teachings of the Buddha. Many a modern scholar, after aligning himself with one or the other of these later philosophical developments, has endeavored to draw a close relationship between the school he has accepted and early Buddhism. In the present paper, I propose to show that early Buddhism, as embodied in the Pali Nikāyas and the Chinese Āgamas, which are recognized by all the different schools as representing the earliest sources for the study of Buddhism, is radically different from all these schools, at least as far as their philosophical content is concerned.
Paper version not known (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call