“The Original Bodhicāryavatāra” by Sam van Schaik. The most-used Mahayana commentary is not “authentic.” http://earlytibet.com/2014/02/04/the-original-bodhicaryavatara/ …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness That's not van Schaik's conclusion. His definition of "authenticity" is pragmatic. Popular version is not the *earliest*.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hokaisobol
@hokaisobol I took him as rejecting the notion of "authenticity" altogether—although his last sentence might contradict that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness yes, otherwise earlier "original" stuff is necessarily more authentic, which never works.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hokaisobol
@hokaisobol Right—although the traditional approach is “original = authentic,” which results in extensive fabricated history.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Meaningness yes, basically antedating, or making up a history of transmission - doesn't work anymore, but other methods may.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.