While traditional accounts fix the origins of the Vinaya during the lifetime of the Buddha, all of the existing manuscript traditions are from significantly later- most around the 5th Century CE.[2]<\/a><\/sup> While the early Buddhist community seems to have lived primarily as wandering monks who begged for alms, many Vinaya rules in every tradition assumes settled monasticism to be the norm, along with regular collective meals organized by lay donors or funded by monastic wealth.[2]<\/a><\/sup> The earliest dates that can be established for most Vinaya texts is their translation into Chinese around the 5th Century CE.[2]<\/a><\/sup> The earliest established dates of the Theravada Vinaya stem from the composition of Buddhaghosa<\/a>‘s commentaries in the 5th Century, and became known to Western scholarship through 17th and 18th Century manuscripts.[2]<\/a><\/sup> The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya was translated into Chinese in the 8th Century and Tibetan in the 9th Century but Sanskrit manuscripts exist from the 5th – 7th Century.[2]<\/a><\/sup> Scholarly consensus places the composition of the M\u016blasarv\u0101stiv\u0101da<\/a> Vinaya<\/em> in the early centuries of the first millennium, though all the manuscripts and translations are relatively late.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Vinaya#Origins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Modern Western scholarship, however, generally dates the origin of the Abhidhamma Pitaka to some time around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the death of the Buddha.[12]<\/a><\/sup>[13]<\/a><\/sup> Therefore, the seven Abhidhamma works are generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha himself, but those of disciples and scholars.[14]<\/a><\/sup> Abhidharma literature likely originated as elaboration and interpretation of the suttas, but later developed independent doctrines.[15]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The earliest texts of the Pali Canon have no mention of the texts of the Abhidhamma Pi\u1e6daka.[16]<\/a><\/sup> The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned in some reports of the First Buddhist Council<\/a>, which do mention the existence of the texts of the Vinaya<\/a> and either the five Nikayas<\/a>[17]<\/a><\/sup> or the four Agamas<\/a>.[18]<\/a><\/sup> Other accounts do include the Abhidhamma.[19]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Abhidhamma_Pi%E1%B9%ADaka#cite_ref-19<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.letraskairos.com\/sabiduria\/sobre-la-importancia-del-canon-pali-en-el-buddhismo<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/www.ahandfulofleaves.org\/documents\/Indian%20Buddhism_Warder_1970-2004.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n El t\u00e9rmino ”’budismo temprano”’ hace referencia a:<\/p>\n\n\n\n El per\u00edodo de budismo anterior a las corrientes dur\u00f3 alrededor de 100 a\u00f1os tras la muerte de Gautama. Las divisiones que se produjeron despu\u00e9s fueron consecuencia de la introducci\u00f3n de diferentes puntos de vista acerca de la introducci\u00f3n del \u00e9nfasis en la [[Abhidharma|literatura abhid\u00e1rmica]]. Esta literatura era espec\u00edfica para cada escuela y los argumentos y disputas entre escuelas se basaban frecuentemente en estos escritos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Los cismas se basaron originalmente en desacuerdos respecto al [[Vinaya]] (disciplina mon\u00e1stica), aunque m\u00e1s tarde, alrededor del a\u00f1o 100, estos cismas pudieron tambi\u00e9n basarse en desacuerdos doctrinales.Harvey,”Introduction to Buddhism”, [[Cambridge University Press]], 1990, page 74 El budismo presectario no ten\u00eda escrituras abhid\u00e1rmicas, excepto, quiz\u00e1, alg\u00fan marco b\u00e1sico.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Muchos siglos despu\u00e9s de la aparici\u00f3n del budismo [[Mah\u0101y\u0101na]], hacia el siglo V, las escuelas budistas primigenias entraron en un per\u00edodo de declive en la India, mientras el budismo mahayana se hac\u00eda m\u00e1s y m\u00e1s fuerte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be said that each early buddist school had its own version of pi\u1e6dakas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each of the Early Buddhist Schools<\/a> likely had their own recensions of the Tripi\u1e6daka<\/em>. According to some sources, there were some Indian schools of Buddhism that had five or seven pi\u1e6dakas.[15]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n The works of the 5th-century scholar Buddhagho\u1e63a for example have been essential for the understanding of Therav\u0101da Buddhist scriptures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Buddhists have proved adept at preserving their writings over the centuries. However, as we have seen, the idea of a Buddhist \u2018canon\u2019 is vast, complex and difficult to define. In fact, the English term may give a misleading impression of a set of writings that all followers of the tradition are expected to know, and clearly the Buddhist case is not like that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.bl.uk\/sacred-texts\/articles\/the-buddhist-canon#<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n During the First Buddhist Council<\/a>, thirty years after the parinibbana<\/a> of Gautama Buddha<\/a> in Rajgir<\/a>, Ananda<\/a> recited the Sutta Pitaka, and Upali<\/a> recited the Vinaya Pitaka. The Arhats<\/a> present accepted the recitations and henceforth the teachings were preserved orally by the Sangha<\/a>. The Tipitaka<\/a> that was transmitted to Sri Lanka<\/a> during the reign of King Asoka<\/a> were initially preserved orally and were later written down during the Fourth Buddhist Council<\/a> in 29-17 BCE<\/a>, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha<\/a>.[a]<\/a>[6]<\/a><\/sup> Textual fragments of similar teachings have been found in the agama<\/a> of other major Buddhist schools in India. They were however written down in various Prakrits<\/a> other than Pali as well as Sanskrit. Some of those were later translated into Chinese (earliest dating to the late 4th century CE). The surviving Sri Lankan version is the most complete,[7]<\/a><\/sup> but one that was extensively redacted about 1,000 years after Buddha’s death, in the 5th or 6th century CE.[8]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/P%C4%81li_Canon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Debido a esto el pali canon no es aceptado en su totalidad si algo en absoluto como aut\u00e9ntico. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus.[37]<\/a><\/sup> Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha’s teachings dates from (long) after his death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some scholars of later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Ronald Davidson[38]<\/a><\/sup> has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.[36]<\/a><\/sup> Geoffrey Samuel[39]<\/a><\/sup> says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century CE.[40]<\/a><\/sup> Gregory Schopen<\/a> argues[41]<\/a><\/sup> that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pudo haber sucedido algo parecido con el nuevo testamento? No. Mira el siguiente art\u00edculo para entender que la escritura del nuevo testamento fue totalmente distinta https:\/\/bible.org\/seriespage\/4-manuscripts-tell-story-new-testament-reliable<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Referencias: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Early_Buddhist_texts<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scholars generally agree that the early books include some later additions.[51]<\/a><\/sup> Aspects of these late additions are or may be from a much earlier period.[52]<\/a>[53]<\/a>[54]<\/a><\/sup> Other aspects of the Pali Canon, such as the information about society and South Asian history, are in doubt because the Pali Canon was extensively redacted in the 5th- or 6th-century CE, nearly a thousand years after the death of the Buddha.[8]<\/a><\/sup> Further, this redacted Pali Canon of Sri Lanka itself mentions that the compilation had previously been redacted towards the end of 1st-century BCE. According to the Early Buddhism scholar Lars Fogelin, the Pali Canon of Sri Lanka is a modified Canon and “there is no good reason to assume that Sri Lankan Buddhism resembles Early Buddhism in the mainland, and there are numerous reasons to argue that it does not.”[55]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nonetheless, in the earliest texts, the three disciplines are still independent and follow their own traditions separately. They are not as yet qualified as “baskets” (pitaka), and there is no question of the “three Para estudiar. No todas las traducciones tienen el mismo sentido. Mirar: https:\/\/suttacentral.net\/dn26\/en\/sujato#dn26:24.6 http:\/\/www.buddhasutra.com\/files\/cakkavattisihananda_sutta.htm https:\/\/buddhism.redzambala.com\/digha-nikaya\/cakkavatti-sihanada-sutta-the-lions-roar-on-the-turning-of-the-wheel.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n Diccionario: http:\/\/www.palikanon.com\/english\/pali_names\/maha\/mahapanaada.htm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Vinaya While traditional accounts fix the origins of the Vinaya during the lifetime of the Buddha, all of the existing manuscript traditions are from significantly later- most around the 5th Century CE.[2] … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\nAbhidamma<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Clasificacion del canon pali<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Budismo temprano<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Dates<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Tripitaka<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
baskets” (tripitaka). These terms were to appear for the first time on
Brahmi inscriptions the oldest of which date back to the second century
B.C.
These inscriptions continue to use the old vocabulary : it is always
a matter of Reciters (bhiinaka, bhanaka or bhiinaka) as at Bharhut
(LCJDERS, 738, 762, 773, 789, 804, 833), Saiici (602) and Karli (1094,
1095); of “Knowers of the Siitras” (sutamtika, sutiitika, sutiitikini,
sutiitikinf) as at Bharhut (797) and Saiici (319, 352, 635); of “Memorizers of the Vinaya” (vinayadhara, vinayamdhara and possibly, viniiyaka) as at Bodh-Giiyii (949), Amariivati (1286) and Siiiici (654).
However, alongside these traditional terms, new ones appear which
bear witness to the existence of one or even of three baskets of texts. At
165 Bhiirhut (856), we find the epithet Petakin “versed in a (?) Pi~ka”. This concerns Trepitaka monks or Trepitikii nuns in Siimiith (925, 926, 927), Sriivasti (918) and Mathura (38). Finally, Kiinheri (989) mentions a Traipitikopiidhyiiya “Master of three baskets”.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTraducciones<\/h2>\n\n\n\n