Buddhism at the beginning of the prose suttas

Essays
1

INTRODUCTION:

What did Buddhism look like at the beginning of the period when the prose suttas began to be composed and collected? What was the fundamental theory? what the fundamental practice? What where the ideas that this phase of Buddhism distinguished itself from?

Below is a paraphrase or free translation or whatever you might like to call it, with sutta refrences and the originating pali, of what I take to be the fundamental position at the start of the period of the composition and collection of the prose suttas.

I think it is a presentation that is distinguishable both from the fundamental presentation of the oldest poetry of Buddhism and form the later prose as it developed in the later parts of the middle, connected and numerical prose collections.

I think the three presentations of the earliest poetry, the earliest prose, and (most) of the later prose are all consistent with each other, differing in emphasis and presentation, but fundamentally agreeing in the core principle.

I think these three phases of early poetry, early prose, and late poetry and prose, are all also clearly distinguishable from the bulk of the material in both the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma, and also the Mahayana, and represent the shared heritage of all these and of the early schools.

I think that a certain line of thought, prominent in the current Theravada, about real aggregates really suffering and an unreal person who can become free from real suffering by the complete ceasing of real aggregates and therefore the complete ceasing of real suffering, is not coherent or defensible as a reading of this material overall, and relies on misreadings of rare texts, taken almost exclusively from the “late poetry and prose” presentation.

Correctly seeing exactly what the earliest prose teaching is, and correctly seeing how the later aggregates teaching can be understood in a way that is consistent with the earlier layer, goes a long way to showing how the real aggregates misconception comes to be, and why it should end.

Here without further ado is a reconstruction of the earliest prose Buddhism:

TEXT:

  1. abyākata (Or: What Buddhism Isn’t.)

Now, these things are only the perceptions of those who do not know or see, the anxiety and evasiveness of those under the sway of craving. Namely, when those ascetics and brahmins assert that …

Tatra, bhikkhave, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi, tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ ajānataṁ apassataṁ vedayitaṁ taṇhāgatānaṁ paritassitavipphanditameva.
DN1

Buddhism isn’t that: BEING IS ETERNAL:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā, sassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi.
DN1

By dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right application of mind—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya padhānamanvāya anuyogamanvāya appamādamanvāya sammāmanasikāramanvāya tathārūpaṁ cetosamādhiṁ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte (…) anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarati.
DN1

They say: ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.

‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito;
DN1

They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.

te ca sattā sandhāvanti saṁsaranti cavanti upapajjanti, atthi tveva sassatisamaṁ.
DN1

Buddhism isn’t that: BEING IS ANNIHILATED:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists, who assert the self is temporary.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṁvādī hoti evaṁdiṭṭhi:
DN1

They say: ‘This self has form, made up of the four principal states, and produced by mother and father. Since it’s annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’

‘yato kho, bho, ayaṁ attā rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṁ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti.
DN1

Buddhism isn’t that: BEING IS BOTH:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who are partial eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal and partially not eternal.

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ekaccasassatikā ekaccaasassatikā ekaccaṁ sassataṁ ekaccaṁ asassataṁ attānañca lokañca paññapenti catūhi vatthūhi.
DN1

They say: ‘That which is called “the eye”, “the ear”, “the nose”, “the tongue”, and also “the body”: that self is impermanent, not lasting, transient, perishable.

‘yaṁ kho idaṁ vuccati cakkhuṁ itipi sotaṁ itipi ghānaṁ itipi jivhā itipi kāyo itipi, ayaṁ attā anicco addhuvo asassato vipariṇāmadhammo.

That which is called “mind” or “sentience” or “consciousness”: that self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.’

Yañca kho idaṁ vuccati cittanti vā manoti vā viññāṇanti vā ayaṁ attā nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassatī’ti.

Buddhism isn’t that: BEING IS NEITHER:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who are skeptics. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to skepticism.

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā amarāvikkhepikā, tattha tattha pañhaṁ puṭṭhā samānā vācāvikkhepaṁ āpajjanti amarāvikkhepaṁ catūhi vatthūhi.
DN1

They say ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’

‘evantipi me no; tathātipi me no; aññathātipi me no; notipi me no; no notipi me no’ti.
DN1

  1. nissaraṇa (Or: What Buddhism Is.)

There is a teaching/principle—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which one who has realized it makes known. Those who genuinely praise the one who has realized would rightly speak of this teaching/principle.

Atthi, bhikkhave, aññeva dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ.
DN1

And what is this teaching/principle?

Katame ca te, bhikkhave, dhammā
DN1

One who has realized, realizes this:

Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti:
DN1

‘If you hold on to and attach to the thing/idea, (it’s negation, it’s conjunction or the negation of the conjunction,) then the thing/idea, (it’s negation, it’s conjunction or the negation of the conjunction) will have whatever consequences are implied by what you have held onto.’

‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti,
DN1

Understanding this and what goes beyond this, and not misapprehending that understanding, complete understanding is achieved.

tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti; tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā.
DN1

So understanding the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from any thing/idea, (it’s negation, it’s conjunction, it’s negation of conjunction) one who has realized the truth is freed through not grasping at these things/ideas, (negations etc).

Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato.
DN1

  1. paṭipada (Or: How Is Buddhism Done?)

“Consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.

“idha, mahārāja, tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṁ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṁ buddho bhagavā.
DN2

A householder hears that teaching.

Taṁ dhammaṁ suṇāti gahapati vā gahapatiputto vā aññatarasmiṁ vā kule paccājāto.
DN2

and reflects:

So tena saddhāpaṭilābhena samannāgato iti paṭisañcikkhati:
DN2

Why don’t I shave off my hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?’

Yannūnāhaṁ kesamassuṁ ohāretvā kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajeyyan’ti.
DN2

Once they’ve gone forth, they live restrained in behavior, conducting themselves well and seeking alms in suitable places. They guard the sense doors, have mindfulness, and are content.

So evaṁ pabbajito samāno pātimokkhasaṁvarasaṁvuto viharati ācāragocarasampanno, aṇumattesu vajjesu bhayadassāvī, samādāya sikkhati sikkhāpadesu, kāyakammavacīkammena samannāgato kusalena, parisuddhājīvo sīlasampanno, indriyesu guttadvāro, satisampajaññena samannāgato, santuṭṭho.
DN2

they frequent a secluded lodging—a wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw.

vivittaṁ senāsanaṁ bhajati araññaṁ rukkhamūlaṁ pabbataṁ kandaraṁ giriguhaṁ susānaṁ vanapatthaṁ abbhokāsaṁ palālapuñjaṁ.
DN2

After the meal, they return, sit down cross-legged, set their body straight, and establish their mindfulness.

So pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkanto nisīdati pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā.
DN2

Giving up covetousness (etc) for the world, they meditate with a heart rid of covetousness, cleansing the mind of covetousness (etc).

So abhijjhaṁ loke pahāya vigatābhijjhena cetasā viharati, abhijjhāya cittaṁ parisodheti.
DN2

Furthermore, giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and sadness, a mendicant enters and remains in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness.

Puna caparaṁ, mahārāja, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā, pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṁ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṁ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṁ catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.
DN2

When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they project it and extend it toward knowledge and vision.

So evaṁ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte ñāṇadassanāya cittaṁ abhinīharati abhininnāmeti.
DN2

(So Why is Buddhism Done?: )

They understand:

So evaṁ pajānāti:
DN2

‘This body of mine is physical. It’s made up of the four principal states, produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and destruction.

‘ayaṁ kho me kāyo rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo odanakummāsūpacayo aniccucchādanaparimaddanabhedanaviddhaṁsanadhammo;
DN2

And this consciousness of mine is attached to it, tied to it.’

idañca pana me viññāṇaṁ ettha sitaṁ ettha paṭibaddhan’ti.
DN2

They truly understand: ‘These are defilements’ (attachments) … ‘This is the origin of defilements’ … ‘This is the cessation of defilements’ … (these are the appeal of the attachments, these are the drawbacks of the attachments) …‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of defilements (attachments)’.

Ime āsavāti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti, ayaṁ āsavasamudayoti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti, ayaṁ āsavanirodhoti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti, ayaṁ āsavanirodhagāminī paṭipadāti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti.
DN2

Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements (attachments) of desire to experience, desire for meaning, and desire to know.

Tassa evaṁ jānato evaṁ passato kāmāsavāpi cittaṁ vimuccati, bhavāsavāpi cittaṁ vimuccati, avijjāsavāpi cittaṁ vimuccati,
DN2

When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

vimuttasmiṁ ‘vimuttam’iti ñāṇaṁ hoti
DN2

END OF TEXT.

DISCUSSION:

The above is I think more or less a fair rewording of the teaching at DN1 and DN2 and is, I think, a fair representation of Buddhism at the beginning of the period that the prose suttas where composed and compiled.

I see nothing in this reconstruction that needs to be modified by anything* that came subsequently, i.e the 4 noble truths formulation, the 8 fold path formulation, the 5 aggregates, the 3 marks, the 12 steps of dependant origination, the 37 wings of enlightenment or basically any of what I call “numerical buddhism” that grows across the prose from here to the end of AN/EA and beyond.

*There is a reading of Numerical Buddhism that makes a great deal of Channa, Vajira and Yamaka that makes the case of an explanation of the Buddha teachings that explains an unreal self experiencing real suffering, but I maintain that this reading is not consistent with almost everything outside these three suttas and perhaps a half dozen others.

CONCORDANCE OF SUTTAS:

In order to see how the 3 teachings presented above in DN1 and DN2, that is the teaching of what Buddhism is not, which we will call the abyākata, of what Buddhism is, which we will call the nissaraṇa, and how buddhism is therefore done, which we will call the paṭipada, we attach here a concordance of where the three teachings are reproduced, commented on, elaborated on , or referred to in the 4 main prose collections:

abyākata

At:
DN1 DN2 DN9 DN15 DN24 DN28 DN29
MN25 MN43 MN63 MN72 MN74 MN102 MN126
SN12.17 SN12.18 SN12.24 SN12.25 SN12.26 SN12.46 SN12.67 SN16.12 SN22.86 SN22.86 SN24 entire and particularly SN24.18 SN33 entire and particularly SN33.1 SN41.3 SN44 entire and particularly SN44.1 SN44.3 SN44.6 SN44.7 SN44.10 SN44.11 SN56.8 SN56.41
AN4.24 AN4.38 AN4.173 AN6.95 AN7.54 AN10.20 AN10.93 AN10.95 AN10.96
Ud6.4 Ud6.5 Ud6.6

See the discussion at:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/to-be-or-not-to-be-the-undeclared-points-in-the-4-principle-nikayas/

nissaraṇa

At:
DN1 DN13 DN14 DN15 DN33 DN34
MN7 MN11 MN13 MN26 MN49 MN55 MN64 MN75 MN99 MN102 MN108 MN109 MN111 MN148
SN5.1 SN6.4SN12.4 SN20.9 SN22.26 SN22.27 SN22.28 SN22.57 SN35.103 SN36.3 SN36.6 SN36.15 SN36.28
AN4.10 (list to be completed)

See the discussion at:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-great-escape/

paṭipada

VN1 (by which I mean Bu Pj 1)
DN2 DN3 DN4 DN5 DN6 DN7 DN8 DN9 DN10 DN11 DN12 DN13
MN4 MN6 MN19 MN27 MN36 MN38 MN39 MN51 MN53 MN60 MN65 MN73 MN76 MN77 MN79 MN85 MN94 MN100 MN101 MN107 MN112 MN119 MN125
SN6.3 SN12.70 SN16.9 SN16.11 SN51.11
AN3.58 AN4.198 AN5.75 AN5.76 AN10.99

See discussion at:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/compiling-a-list-of-occurrences-of-the-sekkha-patipada

FURTHUR READING:

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/are-khandhas-early-or-late-ebt/
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/jhana-and-satipa-hana-in-the-pali-nikayas/
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/i-am-researching-sabbe-dhamma-anatta/
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/whats-bound-to-be-another-wildly-popular-observation-around-here/
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a-short-note-on-the-buddha-in-blind-mans-grove/
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/fork-authenticity-of-the-suttas-on-suicide/

2 Likes
2

Is it meaningful, Joe, to look into the Suttas for an answer to this question? It seems that their origin is exactly what is in question.

The Wikipedia page on pre Sectarian Buddhism has alot of very credible answers, including my favorite fact that the mere term the middle way is possibly the oldest traceable bit of Buddhism.

2 Likes
3

Pretty sure @Javier and maybe other from here are responsible for that wikipedia page :slight_smile:

In terms of the possibility of getting answers from the suttas themselves, well, the title started out as a sort of pun, indicating the “beginning of the suttas” i.e numerically, at DN1, DN2 etc, and also the tacit claim that these are indeed probably the closest things we have to “ur-texts” of sutta buddhism.

Obviously any argument to the effect that these two suttas really are a good picture of the “state of play” at the beginning of the period of sutta composition would require evidence and reasons, and so far I havent really done that in a comprehensive way.

My intention though is to try and synthesise a lot of the arguments and evidence in the “furthur readings” sections to show why it might be reasonable to think that the picture discernable in DN1 and DN2 really does predate the “Numerical Buddhism” that dominated SN/SA and why.

Much of the argument comes down to the frequency and evenness of the distribution of these teaching tropes in the four collections.

My claim is that we can see the patipada, abyakata, nissarana teaching tropes smeared out all the way from DN1 to AN11, while the aggregates trope and the satipathanna trope appear to smear out from SN, and don’t seem to reach all the way to DN1 to DN13.

The argument is more nuanced than that, and involves systematic comparison with the chinese parallels, and many more tropes and terms, and it remains an ongoing project with much still to do.

However I do think that a clear summary of the picture so far can be fruitfully done at this point so I am trying to do it.

I thought i could do it by just telling the story of the development of jhana into satipathanna in the 4 collections but that got top heavy and bogged down in MN stuff because MN is so rich with mediation suttas, many of them seemingly produced quite lose to each othet at a time of rapid development.

So i ended up despairing of that and deciding to start a new thread that gets the basic pocture down first, then compares that picture to “Numerical Buddhism”.

I think that regardless of what answers I come up with its been worth it for the richness in understanding the research has brought me.

1 Like
4

It is found in the prose suttas of SN/SA (i.e. the sutra-anga portion of SN/SA).

1 Like
5

I think this is a bit misleading. The idea in the wikipedia article is to acknowledge the tradition that holds the dharmachakravarta to be the first teaching, I like many scholars, think it is more or less impossible for this to be the case, as the sutta has all sorts of eccentric technical vocabulary like the “modes” and “aspects” that occur nowhere else in the nikayas/agamas. (The agama parallel btw is preceded by an identical sutta given just to “monks” rather than the 5, and the subsequent sutta given to “the 5” “accidentily” keeps the “delighted with what they heard” trope at the end, I wonder why that would be?).
Sans the actual content of the sutta, the excersise in rescuing the “middle way” is really just an excersise in compromise of the worst sort, ala “you insist because it says in its opening that its the first teaching, ok, so we will just erase the subsequent paragraphs, insert one similar replacement paragraph which we think might represent “the earliest reconstruction” of the first teaching, and the everyone is happy!”.
Count me out.
The oldest Buddhism may or may not be recoverable, certainly the oldest Buddhism in the Pali appears to me to obviously be the parts of the poetry that have that simple archaic flavour that so much of it does, the atthakavagga, the parayanavagga, the Urgavagga etc, several vaggas in SN, all appear to have no notion of the doctrinal subtleties amd technical vocabulary of much of the suttas.

But leaving that aside, what i think is a much simpler and more straightforward, though still quite laborious task, is actually looking at the combined pali amd chinese (and where possible sanskrit etc) prose collections D M S E, and actually quantitativly measuring just how often technical terms occur, are absent, diverge (between languages) and so on, and thus reconstruct what is most likely the universal (shared between D M S and E in all languages) and what might be secondary (concentrated in one volume, shared into the other volumes differently depending on language, etc etc).

This sort of work eas done by Vetter in his Khandhas book, but was only just becoming possible at the time, when “cd-roms” where the state of the art and it was hand counting all the way.

Now, with suttacentral.net, DPR, Cbeta etc this sort of systematic work is much more feasable.

And I have done some.

And my results are in line with Vetters.

The earliest and most evenly amd deeply distributed parts of the prose are the parts I identify above.

There is a secondary diffusion of newer tropes, emanating from S (especially apperant in SA), that spreads out from S into the other collections, but does not reach the (i assume by then closed) silakhandhavagga, and reaches the rest of D and M in a contested way (i.e is inserted into different collections and different suttas across languages).

Theres a lot to present, this thread will hopefully present Numerical Buddhism, as I call this secondary presentation of the pedagogical, scholastic Buddhism of the urban pre Ashokan monasteries, in detail with a similar collection of tropes (aggregates, satipathana, etc), and then do a thorough and systematic comparison of the distribution of the two types in the parallel canon.

I think this will be sufficient to establish a descisive difference and thus demonstrate and temporal and docrinal development in the prose of the nikayas/agamas, and thus move Buddhist Studies forward in a real way.

The next step would be to somehow work out a way to show the same sort of distinction between the early poetey and the early prose.

But thats for another day.

6

I also think that SN56.11 is a great example of precisely when we should be the least convinced that what we have is something like the word for word teaching of the Buddha. After all, there where exactly 5 Buddhists at that point, and one Buddha, so a total of 5 people heard exactly what was said. We have very little idea of the culture at the time, but the idea that these people, devoted as they where to living in a wilderness where nobody else went, and really only talking to people they considered “awakened” beings, would be patiently reciting word for word performances of the Buddhas “first sermon” like primary school teachers with the little monks at their feet, seems to me to be patently ridiculous.

Whatever the Buddha was saying at the actual start of his dispensation was precisely when there where the fewest people to hear him, and when the people who did hear him where least likely to care about word for word reportage.

Conversely the teachings given to large groups of monastics, in the hundreds, many of whom where trying to remember exactly what was said so that when they went back to their empty hut or forest dwelling they could meditate over it, are exactly what we might expect would be most accurately recorded when that cohort of people met to recall it after the death of the founder. (how many of the 5 where even alive at that time?)

Even the situation in SN56.11 makes it impossible that what is said in it is what was said at the time it purports to be about, the description says they where talking for days! did the Buddha just repeat himself like a broken record? I think, again, it takes a kind of religious, and very willful, naivety to believe that SN56.11 is anything more than a just so story, telling of the imagined time when the Buddha started teaching, and inserting whatever the current doctrine was at the time of composition into the mouth of the newly hatched Buddha.

This allows us, IMO, to date 56.11 to very near the end of the pre-sectarian period, precisely due to the “modes and aspects” language that is so obviously foreign and then later contested in the material.

7

My reference was to later in the article under the subtile of the eightfold path:

According to Tilmann Vetter, the description of the Buddhist path may initially have been as simple as the term “the middle way”.[52] In time, this short description was elaborated, resulting in the description of the eightfold path.

Unfortunately the article does not have any of Vetter’s elaborations. His 150 page book is out of print and single copies are selling at the price of a small family home.

But I think this makes sense. The sramanic teachers would all have held the truth of Dukkha and Samsara and the need for asceticism to escape it. The suggestion of the “middle way” (something similar to the simile of the flood in SN 1.1) could then have been the historical Buddha’s original contribution, with Jhana as its culmination.

1 Like
8

majjhimā paṭipadā

I mean “majjhimā paṭipadā” is an extremely rare phrase in the EBT.
It occurs about 20 times, including all the late books of KN and the Vism.
It never occurs in DN.
It occurs in MN only at MN3 and MN139

MN3 is a sariputta sutta that simply anthologises the same text as at SN56.11
MN139 is a vibangha style sutta on SN56.11 (i.e That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ?)

The only other occurance in SN is at SN42.12 which is another commentary on the same trope at SN56.11

AN mentions it only once and says it is another name for the four right efforts:

Mendicants, there are three practices.
Tisso imā, bhikkhave, paṭipadā.
What three?
Katamā tisso?
The addicted practice, the scorching practice, the middle practice.
Āgāḷhā paṭipadā, nijjhāmā paṭipadā, majjhimā paṭipadā.

And what’s the addicted practice? …
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, āgāḷhā paṭipadā …pe…
This is called the addicted practice.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, āgāḷhā paṭipadā.

And what is the scorching practice? …
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, nijjhāmā paṭipadā …pe…
This is called the scorching practice.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, nijjhāmā paṭipadā.

And what’s the middle practice?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, majjhimā paṭipadā?
It’s when a mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu anuppannānaṁ pāpakānaṁ akusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ anuppādāya chandaṁ janeti vāyamati vīriyaṁ ārabhati cittaṁ paggaṇhāti padahati;
They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen are given up.
uppannānaṁ pāpakānaṁ akusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ pahānāya chandaṁ janeti vāyamati vīriyaṁ ārabhati cittaṁ paggaṇhāti padahati;
They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities arise.
anuppannānaṁ kusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ uppādāya chandaṁ janeti vāyamati vīriyaṁ ārabhati cittaṁ paggaṇhāti padahati;
They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are completed by development. …
uppannānaṁ kusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ ṭhitiyā asammosāya bhiyyobhāvāya vepullāya bhāvanāya pāripūriyā chandaṁ janeti vāyamati vīriyaṁ ārabhati cittaṁ paggaṇhāti padahati ….
AN3.157

It is absent from the entirety of the early books of KN and the poetry, anywhere, appearing only in Patis, Nett and Vism.

It appears nowhere in the abhidhamma.

The text at SN56.11 appears to come directly from the Mahākhandhaka of the Theravāda Vinayapiṭaka, and majjhimā paṭipadā is not even a common term there, occuring only in this passage.

In short the chances of it being the original teaching are nil.

Compare with

āsavanirodhagāminī paṭipadā

Which occurs in DN2, DN3, DN4, DN5, DN6, DN7 etc
Occurs in MN4 , MN9, MN19, MN27, MN36, MN39, MN51, etc, etc
Occurs in several places in AN
It occurs twice in the puggalapaññatti

In short, it is far more common and far more evenly distributed in the early material.

Except in SN, it is completely absent from SN, even though we can tell that SN is familiar with the teaching trope of DN2. very interesting.

9

Oh whoops, just on this, I misremembered, thats the anattalakkhanasutta, so SN22.59 and SA33 SA 34 to see what I mean there.

10

You are presupposing the authority of the Canon (which is fine for an EBT forum, I guess).

But if the original Sangha’s teaching was indeed very simple, most of EBT would of course have to be seen as representing a later stage of development.

1 Like
11

Yes. Exactly, I have absolutely no interest in trying to reconstruct a “pre-canonical” Buddhism. I in fact think that such a thing is absolutely impossible, and even if it where possible, would be absolutely useless.

I think that it is useful to work out how this literature developed across the corpus we have, and I think very basic, systematic work is still wanting in this area.

I think at the time of the early poetry you already reach a strata where if you didn’t already know you would not be able to tell if the poem was Jain, or Buddhist, or, for example in the case of the athakkvagga, belaṭṭhaputto skepticism.

The prose is nice because there are identifiable bits of doctrine that are clearly distinct from the Jains etc.

I am not sure this is as obviously the case in the earliest poetry.

So positing something “Pre-canonical” for me kind of implies positing some sort of primordial, jainish, buddhish, upanishadish, rustic wisdom literature probably made up of simple rhymes and wise proverbs.

Not sure what is to be gained from inventing such a thing, as you would have basically zero evidence for it’s actual existence, and not sure what it could really tell you anyway, since it would almost certainly lack any distinctive features that might be analysable as being distinctly (proto)buddhist.

With the prose, at least theres a chance a solid textual case can be made for the primacy of DN1 and DN2 and the fallacy of taking SN56.11, SN22.59, and SN47.1 to be “the earliest teachings”.

12

As a student of philosphy, my quest is for truth and, if it cannot be established without a doubt, a relative way of life that I can lead with sincerity. Buddhism helps me with the second: I believe that a certain coherent philosophical core can be identified in EBT. The question of its origin then becomes of second importance to me personally.

1 Like
13

With poetry, one can still witness a sort of evolution clearly.

Let’s assume that for the early times, Buddha / Buddhists didn’t compose many novel poems, but just reused some of the earlier teachings (because why not? If a piece of dhamma is good, it’s good, there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel). He was a sramana, after all.

This would be earliest strata of SNP as well as generic portions of DHP that is common with Jains.

From that, we start to have bits in DHP that is clearly Buddhist in tone - parts of DHP with references to Buddhas’ teachings, basic doctrinal elements, sramanas, brahmins, etc. Verse of Udana fits here as well.

Then there’s a few divergences:

  • There’s Thig/Thag, which is curiously missing in Northern schools, but still, it shares so much with the verses of S and so (a lot of Thig/Thag is liked a remix of verses).
  • There’s the narrative driven parts of SNP about Buddha’s conversations with others, which definitely seems like later compositions of monastics.
  • There’s the verse section of Itivuttaka which is some of the most clearly Buddhist / Sthaviradin verses in presentation and doctrine. Plenty of talk about social life between monastics and lay people, virtues of making merit, practical information, 4NT, 8NP, etc, all found in verse. These bits are very common to AN/EA & SN/SA doctrine.
  • Then we have Apadana/ Peta / Jataka etc literature which is inspired with the latest bits of Thag/Thig, expanding on monastics’ lives, getting quite fantastic in places, a shift in doctrinal priorities and presentation.

So I think a general outline of verse adoption & creation can be made somehow. :slight_smile:

1 Like
14

I mean of course! But in terms of study of the texts, this is as productive as I’ve ever been. My practice, as I have often said here, is my own private business, and really has very little to do with my passion/hobby, that is EBT research.

15

Yes! I am sure of it too, just probably not by me :slight_smile:

1 Like
16

Verse in any languages always tents to be linguistically conservative in language. It does not make the verse was composed earliest mainly based on its relatively archaic language.

17

This is completely false of verse in english. Maybe it’s true of Pali verse.
I have yet to see anyone attempt to seriously mount that argument for the Pali.
The attempts i have seen that make appeals to english are farcical (Thanissaro for example).

18

True, Shaxespare has invented more English words than anyone else, and linguistic inventions usually come from poetic wordplays / Bob Rossian “happy little accidents” due to trying to fit a narrative into metre and such.

Poetry is often the vanguard of linguistic evolution.

Irony of poetic analysis is that what we consider today as archaic is usually quite novel and extraordinary by the time of their composition. In fact, using an archaic language anachronistically as a sign of rebellion against modern times (Baudelaire, Lovecraft) is a very recent phenomena.

1 Like
19

Not sure I understand. Would your findings in EBT not necessarily have an influence on your practice?

1 Like
20

This is completely false.