This is to discuss the current debate (which has gotten a little heated it seems, with calls of ad hominem) between Analayo and Alexander Wynne. The crux of the debate is the “two paths theory” (TPT), the idea that:
“Early Buddhist texts reflect a tension between two contrasting accounts of progress to liberating insight, one that just requires an intellectual understanding of the four noble truth, whereas the other envisions absorption attainment on its own as productive of such insight.”
Anyways, Analayo published a critique of this theory (which goes back to La Vallee Poussin and is defended by Wynne), in 2016: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/briefcriticism.pdf
Recently, Wynne responded strongly arguing in favor of TPT, accusing Analayo of being uncritical and of doing religious exegesis instead of critical scholarship (as well as of ad hominem against Poussin):
And now Analayo’s response in defense of himself:
I think that while it makes sense that there were various “camps” within early buddhist sangha who preferred different practices and that there are different ways to approach the buddhadharma, I don’t think that the texts support the idea that there were two totally different ways to reach liberation.
Anyways, I’m surprised Wynne was so prickly in his paper.