1/2
1. Still on ^that topic.
sites.google.com/site/brahmiscript/
(Just to state the obvious, but it's worth doing and isn't mere pedantry: the statement that the "[Brahmi script-family] was probably already in use during Buddha's lifetime" should actually be phrased as "[Brahmi script-family] was probably already in use before Buddha's lifetime". The latter is more accurate - as a description of the same (class of) data they base their statement on - and is inclusive of the former.)
It's a curious thing that it's long been general knowledge - as even seen in the Encarta extracts on Buddha/Buddhism posted on this or last page of the thread - that [color="#0000FF"]the early Buddhist development of the Buddhist canon was not written down and was consciously maintained as an oral tradition (even for some time after it became more formalised/fixed), and yet Buddhism has frequently been credited - directly else indirectly - with having been the architect of Brahmi in the subcontinent, even if not always in the world, all because of the attested existence and employ of "Asokan Brahmi".
Meanwhile ancient Vedic society (i.e. Hindus) - who only held that their *Vedic* rites/recitations were for performing and not for writing down - are considered forever mutually exclusive from being able to develop a writing system. And they are particularly rounded out to be censured in this for what's to all intents and purposes the same crime: for considering religious stuff not matter for writing down, but just meant for oral transmission instead (as well as oral/active performance in the Hindu case). And this biased assumption continues *even* after Brahmi in India is shown to predate Buddhism - and practically Jainism.[/color]
A strange partiality is always apparent in the two different treatments meted out. Essentially the enforced assumption is that Vedic society *could* not (and basta); whereas Buddhism etc surely *could* but chose not to "until later".
2. Speaking of oral traditions entering writing.
Briefly, but not a smallish matter, though it now seems to be no more than a footnote to Others' history. People probably know, but this is for those that don't:
[color="#0000FF"]The Tibetan ââ¬ÅBook of the Dead" is the name given to more than one collection.[/color] What's important is that, despite the title being impressed in the popular mind as "Buddhist", the original work that goes by the name is Bon. I.e. there's [color="#0000FF"]the Bon Book of the Dead[/color], based off an oral Bon tradition of unknown age (concerning their sacred death-related rites, as far as my poor understanding goes), which the Bon heathens eventually wrote down. [color="#0000FF"]And several centuries after this - after the Bon literature of this name was finally written down - Buddhists bauddhified the Bon original to produce the "Buddhist" version[/color], such plagiarism being a practice that usually goes hand-in-hand with the attempt by missionary religions at trying to extinguish the native religion (as is precisely what happened in Tibet, BTW).
So, even as the Buddhists there were actively trying to wipe out Tibet's native Bon religion, they were not above stealing/inculturating (whatever you want to call it) on Bon sacred religious works on Ritual Practices. [color="#0000FF"]Apparently the two works are quite alike that with the usual difference owing to typical Bauddhification: Bon Gods replaced by Buddhist placeholders (Buddhist characters if not the Bauddhified Gods of Others), as well as Buddhisms - Buddhist justifications for/interpretations of stolen rites - being spouted here and there.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"](So if anyone ever wondered why the Tibetan Book of the Dead is not present in other Bauddhified geographies, it's for the usual reason: because the so-called Buddhist Book of the Dead is hardly Buddhist, and is peculiarly Tibetan, being in fact Bon. Though perverted by the widely-applied process of bauddhification.)[/color] But hey, just 'cause Buddhism wasn't original in Tibet either - let alone "eternally true"- doesn't mean people should overlook such a grand accomplishment of plagiarism, another in a long line.
Gee, where did I see that before? Oh yeah. The Bauddification of Shinto Ritual Practices. And of Taoist Ritual Practices.
More excitingly for groupies, [color="#0000FF"]the alleged author of the celebrated Buddhist[/color] and more (internationally) popular work going by the name [color="#0000FF"]"Tibetan Book of the Dead"[/color] is one who's apparently famous for being a scourge of Bon religious beings: [color="#0000FF"]Padmasambhava[/color] (was that not his name?). So next to being credited with/fondly remembered for chasing off Bon beings/persons, he's also a famous Plagiarist, to put it secularly. [Though the actual crime is that Buddhism once more stole another religion's rituals/stuff and passes this of as Buddhist and forcefits it into Buddhist cosmology.] That makes *two* great achievements that Tibetan Buddhism crowned him with (though whether he was factually the plagiarist behind this particular work, or whether other, still later, Buddhists did the actual plagiarising and merely attributed it to his more famous and earlier personage, still seems to be somewhat of an uncertainty in academe). I guess that's the cue for the applause. But I'll sit this one out. Still, mustn't be too hard on Padmasambhava - after all, he's not even the least admirable among the most widely-respected Buddhists of yore. Besides, the Tibetan Bon Book of the Dead wasn't the only Bon thing Buddhism plagiarised/bauddhified, even while killing Bon off.
1. Still on ^that topic.
sites.google.com/site/brahmiscript/
Quote:What is Brahmi?
BrÃÂhmë refers to the pre-modern members of the Brahmic family of scripts. The best known inscriptions in BrÃÂhmë are the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka, dating to the 3rd century BC. These were long considered the earliest examples of Brahmi writing, but recent archeological evidence in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu (*) may push back the date for the earliest use of Brahmi to the 5th or 6th century BC. Thus, this script was probably already in use during Buddha's lifetime although religious dialogs were considered "too sacred" to write them down (they were memorized instead until 80 BC when they were written down for the first time in Sri Lanka based on the Sinhala script, itself a descendant of Brahmi).
(Just to state the obvious, but it's worth doing and isn't mere pedantry: the statement that the "[Brahmi script-family] was probably already in use during Buddha's lifetime" should actually be phrased as "[Brahmi script-family] was probably already in use before Buddha's lifetime". The latter is more accurate - as a description of the same (class of) data they base their statement on - and is inclusive of the former.)
It's a curious thing that it's long been general knowledge - as even seen in the Encarta extracts on Buddha/Buddhism posted on this or last page of the thread - that [color="#0000FF"]the early Buddhist development of the Buddhist canon was not written down and was consciously maintained as an oral tradition (even for some time after it became more formalised/fixed), and yet Buddhism has frequently been credited - directly else indirectly - with having been the architect of Brahmi in the subcontinent, even if not always in the world, all because of the attested existence and employ of "Asokan Brahmi".
Meanwhile ancient Vedic society (i.e. Hindus) - who only held that their *Vedic* rites/recitations were for performing and not for writing down - are considered forever mutually exclusive from being able to develop a writing system. And they are particularly rounded out to be censured in this for what's to all intents and purposes the same crime: for considering religious stuff not matter for writing down, but just meant for oral transmission instead (as well as oral/active performance in the Hindu case). And this biased assumption continues *even* after Brahmi in India is shown to predate Buddhism - and practically Jainism.[/color]
A strange partiality is always apparent in the two different treatments meted out. Essentially the enforced assumption is that Vedic society *could* not (and basta); whereas Buddhism etc surely *could* but chose not to "until later".
2. Speaking of oral traditions entering writing.
Briefly, but not a smallish matter, though it now seems to be no more than a footnote to Others' history. People probably know, but this is for those that don't:
[color="#0000FF"]The Tibetan ââ¬ÅBook of the Dead" is the name given to more than one collection.[/color] What's important is that, despite the title being impressed in the popular mind as "Buddhist", the original work that goes by the name is Bon. I.e. there's [color="#0000FF"]the Bon Book of the Dead[/color], based off an oral Bon tradition of unknown age (concerning their sacred death-related rites, as far as my poor understanding goes), which the Bon heathens eventually wrote down. [color="#0000FF"]And several centuries after this - after the Bon literature of this name was finally written down - Buddhists bauddhified the Bon original to produce the "Buddhist" version[/color], such plagiarism being a practice that usually goes hand-in-hand with the attempt by missionary religions at trying to extinguish the native religion (as is precisely what happened in Tibet, BTW).
So, even as the Buddhists there were actively trying to wipe out Tibet's native Bon religion, they were not above stealing/inculturating (whatever you want to call it) on Bon sacred religious works on Ritual Practices. [color="#0000FF"]Apparently the two works are quite alike that with the usual difference owing to typical Bauddhification: Bon Gods replaced by Buddhist placeholders (Buddhist characters if not the Bauddhified Gods of Others), as well as Buddhisms - Buddhist justifications for/interpretations of stolen rites - being spouted here and there.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"](So if anyone ever wondered why the Tibetan Book of the Dead is not present in other Bauddhified geographies, it's for the usual reason: because the so-called Buddhist Book of the Dead is hardly Buddhist, and is peculiarly Tibetan, being in fact Bon. Though perverted by the widely-applied process of bauddhification.)[/color] But hey, just 'cause Buddhism wasn't original in Tibet either - let alone "eternally true"- doesn't mean people should overlook such a grand accomplishment of plagiarism, another in a long line.
Gee, where did I see that before? Oh yeah. The Bauddification of Shinto Ritual Practices. And of Taoist Ritual Practices.
More excitingly for groupies, [color="#0000FF"]the alleged author of the celebrated Buddhist[/color] and more (internationally) popular work going by the name [color="#0000FF"]"Tibetan Book of the Dead"[/color] is one who's apparently famous for being a scourge of Bon religious beings: [color="#0000FF"]Padmasambhava[/color] (was that not his name?). So next to being credited with/fondly remembered for chasing off Bon beings/persons, he's also a famous Plagiarist, to put it secularly. [Though the actual crime is that Buddhism once more stole another religion's rituals/stuff and passes this of as Buddhist and forcefits it into Buddhist cosmology.] That makes *two* great achievements that Tibetan Buddhism crowned him with (though whether he was factually the plagiarist behind this particular work, or whether other, still later, Buddhists did the actual plagiarising and merely attributed it to his more famous and earlier personage, still seems to be somewhat of an uncertainty in academe). I guess that's the cue for the applause. But I'll sit this one out. Still, mustn't be too hard on Padmasambhava - after all, he's not even the least admirable among the most widely-respected Buddhists of yore. Besides, the Tibetan Bon Book of the Dead wasn't the only Bon thing Buddhism plagiarised/bauddhified, even while killing Bon off.