Talk:Udāna
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Dating of text
The chapter 'Dating of text' doesn't really say anything about the dating of the text, except that some consider it one of the earliest texts and others consider the text to be somewhat later. But on a timeline, around what year was this text written? Can anyone add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.209.106 (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably no book of the Pali Canon was actually composed at some specific time, known or unknown. Rather, they evolved over extensive periods, in ways that are not at all clear. Most scholars would probably agree that a good deal of the Udana dates back to the 3rd century BC or before, tho' it might be difficult to find a citation to say so explicitly. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another issue here is that neither of the claims about dating is supported by the referred literature. The idea that Udana represents 'earliest' layer of Pali Canon is not accounted by Nakamura or von Hinuber, they just say that it's an earlier or old collection. A more grave concern comes from the other claim - about supposedly differing opinion by Cousins. His paper doesn't even mention Udana (which is in fact only mentioned by E. Lamotte, but without any attempts at dating it). Karlo Mikić90.137.137.210 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I found a scholarly analysis of this question that presents a solidly sourced and reasoned answer (basically fixed by the first century BCE while probably going back further). It looks at the Pali discourses in general, including the Udana.
- "In sum, it seems to me reasonable to consider the Pâli discourses as fairly closed, in doctrinal terms, by the time of the ist century bce, obviously with small variations of the type characteristic of written transmission still taking place. That is, I would assume that from that time onwards they were in existence in a form that roughly resembles what we currently have at our disposition. In terms of geographical awareness and in terms of doctrinal development, they seem to go back even further into the past, allowing us to catch a glimpse of Buddhist thought predominantly from the pre-Asokan period." -- Anālayo, "The Historical Value of the Pāli Discourse", Indo-Iranian Journal, (published by Brill) 2012, Vol. 55, No. 3 (2012), pp. 223-253, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24665100
- I will update the very unsatisfactory current language to match. Msalt (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I found a scholarly analysis of this question that presents a solidly sourced and reasoned answer (basically fixed by the first century BCE while probably going back further). It looks at the Pali discourses in general, including the Udana.
- Another issue here is that neither of the claims about dating is supported by the referred literature. The idea that Udana represents 'earliest' layer of Pali Canon is not accounted by Nakamura or von Hinuber, they just say that it's an earlier or old collection. A more grave concern comes from the other claim - about supposedly differing opinion by Cousins. His paper doesn't even mention Udana (which is in fact only mentioned by E. Lamotte, but without any attempts at dating it). Karlo Mikić90.137.137.210 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)