[gvataler]

what is your view and understanding of Mahànidàna sutta

hi thinker

for me, this is a controversial sutta. in my opinion, it was not spoken by buddha

buddha taught the Great Standards, for scrutinising teachings, as follows:

In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

Maha-parinibbana Sutta in the Discourses, there are possibly hundreds of teachings about Dependent Origination and none of them have the form of the Mahanidana Sutta. the Mahanidana Sutta is definitely a 'one-off' sutta. no others like it can be found

the Mahanidana Sutta differs from the hundreds of other suttas as follows:

(1) it does not describe the six-fold consciousness, which functions in dependence on the six-fold sense base. instead, it seems to describe consciousness as something that descends into a womb

(2) it does not describe nama-rupa (name-&-form; body-&-mind) as the four great elements and mental factors of perception, feeling, contact, intention & attention. instead, it describes nama-rupa in the manner of the Hindu Vedas, namely, 'naming' & 'describing'

(3) it omits the six-fold sense base, which for a Buddha seems impossible because in many places (eg. MN 115; AN 3.61) he taught the sense bases were one of his core teachings

(4) it refers to 'birth' as the physical birth of various creatures, including quadrupeds, birds, snakes, etc. it does not refer to 'birth' as the appropriation & taking ownership of aggregates & sense objects or the making of various kammas

various scholars have commented on the Digha Nikaya, forming the opinion much of it was composed after the Buddha

i recall the monk Sujato commenting it served the purpose to propagate Buddhism to Brahmins (Hindus) for the purpose of conversion

kind regards

element


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.

Bhikkhu Sujato