According to Wikipedia on Nibbana, the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism states the following:
The Buddha is believed in the Buddhist scholastic tradition to have realized two types of nirvana, one at awakening, and another at his death.[47] The first is called sopadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana with a remainder), the second parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder, or final nirvana).[47]
Does anybody know of a good, concise source to learn about the key doctrinal interpretations of the scholastic tradition? Thanks
There is no “scholastic tradition” separate from the rest of Buddhism. Even self-avowed anti-scholastic traditions like Chan Buddhism have extensive literature and, yes, a distinction between Nirvana in this life and Parinirvana. That distinction goes back to the earliest texts.
I understand “scholastic” to mean the internal coherence of a set of doctrines. There must have been many such doctrinal systems in the past, and I am looking for a concise overview.
Like when I start tinkering with the above definition of Nibbana, it will most likely lead to a contradiction in another related area of doctrine. I’d like to learn more about these relations.
Abhidharma/Abhidhamma Buddhism, for example, is doctrinal systems of Buddhism. But it is not scholastic, academic, or scholarly in the sense of ‘critical textual studies of Buddhism’. So, there is no “scholastic tradition” in Buddhism.
Some parts of contemporary Buddhist studies are very interested in determining the ‘original teachings’ of the Buddha,²⁴ and separating them from the historical overlay that later generations have added as embellishment, distinguishing supposedly earlier hard conceptual substance from later fluffy pious fiction.²⁵
This is not an approach the Buddhist tradition itself adopted, and although not every Buddhist thinker would consider every text as genuine, the conception of the later development of Buddhism as an obscuring force that is somehow clouding the original clarity of the Buddha’s teachings is not one we find in ancient Indian texts.²⁶
For the purpose of discussing the history of Buddhist philosophy, attempting to distinguish which philosophical positions form part of the ‘original thinking of the Buddha’ and which are later scholastic developments that depart from his original message is not very helpful.
This distinction is therefore not one we are attempting to draw in the following pages. It is in fact questionable whether this distinction makes sense at all. As will be seen from various examples in our following discussion, the Buddha’s teachings contain a variety of conceptual seeds that later germinate in the development of different philosophical traditions, with different traditions placing different emphases on specific concepts.²⁷
Each tradition creates its own image of ‘what the Buddha really taught’ by focusing on those concepts that feature prominently in the philosophical approach the tradition under consideration develops. The different emphases of the different traditions were shaped by the intellectual needs and circumstances of the times in which these traditions developed, and given the importance the Buddha accorded to teachings being suitable for the time, place, and audience that receives them, arguing against the authenticity of later teachings because they go beyond the discussions found in the early sūtras is hardly satisfactory.
This approach overlooks how much the exposition of the dharma needs to be shaped by the beliefs and preconceptions of the audience in order to be soteriologically effective.
The sūtras therefore form the basis on which the activity of doing philosophy in the Buddhist context took place. It is worthwhile to spend some time considering the different forms of intellectual presentation that shaped both the outward appearance and the contents of the activity that constituted ancient Indian philosophical works. …
Anything about Abhidharma Buddhism would apply, as I expect that’s what they mean by “scholastic” tradition - the doctrinal and philosophy works that developed from the early Abhidharma texts. There are translations of the Abhidharma Kosa by Vasubandhu (to French by Poussin and then to English). That was basically the endpoint of Sarvastivada Abhidharma, summarized in a digestible size and format.
Dhammajoti has written a few books summarizing Sarvastivada canonical Abhidharma. Then there are books about Theravada Abhidhamma.
A survey of the whole genre can be found in Frauwallner’s Studies in Abhidharma Literature. He’s focused on the relationships between the texts and traditions, but he gives an overview of all the extant canonical texts in the process.
Yes, it is what they mean by “scholastic”. But I find the term, scholastic, is misleading, giving the wrong idea or impression, for the doctrinal and philosophical works of Buddhism in history (from early Abhidharma texts to various teachings of Mahayana Buddhism).
Regarding the early Abhidharma texts, these are particularly the Pali Vibhanga, the Abhidharma-dharmaskandha-pada-sastra of the Sarvastivada, and the Sariputra-abhidharma of the Dharmaguptaka school.
As pointed out by Choong Mun-keat, the structure of the so-called “Sutra-anga” portion of SN and SA bears certain resemblances to the structure of these three early Abhidharma books (p. 242 in The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).
However, the Sutra-anga portion is one of the three portions (Sutra, Geya, and Vyakarana) of SN/SA, though it is the main part of the collection.
