Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo

Discussion
1

Has this been discussed here? I did a search and didn’t find one.

In contrast, “early Buddhism” is no longer a living tradition, simply because it refers to an early stage in the development of Buddhism that by now is long over. It would not be meaningful for anyone nowadays to call themselves “early Buddhists,” just as it would not be meaningful for anyone nowadays to call themselves “ancient Greek philosophers.”

I like Bhikkhu Analayo and his writings, but disagree with this. It might be meaningful for some to call themselves “early Buddhists” and what harm is there in that?

I can see how calling oneself “early Buddhist” wouldn’t make sense grammatically speaking, similar to saying one is an “ancient Greek philosopher” if that is what he means. But what about saying one is a follower of “early Buddhism” or EBT, i.e., not an “early Buddhist.”

1 Like
2

To suggest 2500 years of growth implies “development” is pretty much everything that’s wrong with how people approach the practice nowadays.

It would be absurd to expect that 2,500 years ago a solution to all our contemporary problems was discovered once and for all, which we now should just adopt. At the same time, however, ancient wisdom should not be discarded even if its relevance may not immediately be clear at first sight. - Ven. Analayo

I’m perplexed why Ven. Analayo would want people to think that the Dhamma is there to solve their worldly problems. :man_facepalming: Perhaps I’m just unfamiliar with his views, and this has been his position for years.

5 Likes
3

Didn’t someone suggest “Neo-early Buddhist”?

I do think there is a “harm”, at least to the truth, if someone today calls themself an early Buddhist. Even if we believe that the EBTs we have today are 100% accurate, I don’t think that someone can assert that they are the same as the people who lived 2500 years ago.

1 Like
4

From article:

“Buddhism has never been and will never be a static and solid entity existing in the abstract. Instead, it is a continuous process of responding to changing circumstances and various challenges from a Dharmic perspective. Early Buddhism does so from within the cultural and social context of its ancient Indian setting. Even though this particular response is particularly close to the time of the historical Buddha, it is at the same time particularly distant from our own times. This makes it challenging to interpret it correctly and to relate it meaningfully to this postmodern world. It would be absurd to expect that 2,500 years ago a solution to all our contemporary problems was discovered once and for all, which we now should just adopt. At the same time, however, ancient wisdom should not be discarded even if its relevance may not immediately be clear at first sight.”

I think this is pure water objective scholarship, in subjective approach one even has no notion of Early Buddhism, there are only Suttas and someone who wants to improve ones own existential situation by doing things which Suttas suggest to do. Presently cultural background may differ from that of Buddha’s time, still essentially teaching about suffering and cessation of suffering is as much actual now as it was 2500 years ago.

And this is very important for the way of the crowd is the way of samsara, and cultural, political, social constructions of society can never lead from samsara, for samsara is their origin, their meaning and goal. Cultures are particular to time and space, there are “Buddhist” cultures but these are not Dhamma, though inspired by, for culture is within time – the residue of the historic process – the Dhamma is akaliko, not involving time. One does not obtain sila (the ethical) let alone Dhamma, from the historical process, from majority opinions. The Dhamma is approachable by the wise (pandita) and each for himself (paccatam), separately, individually, that is in solitude).

Therefore the Dhamma is not “progressive” within the historical process, within the mass of human kind. Real progress (of the individual) is linear, but samsara is a revolving about a repetition, the wheel of birth and death, that merely reflects the inner revolving (vatta) – the centripetal vortex of name-and-form (namarupa) about consciousness (vinniana).

The Dhamma is not involved in the illusory “progress” of samsara – the politico-economic ideals of linear advancement within samsara, there is no progress in samsara, this straight line of “progress” is a result of myopia, a viewing to closely a particular section of curvature of the historical cycle. Real progress is against the centripetal attraction of samsara – against the stream – a tangent directed away from enveloping vortex into calm and this is kayaviveka.

Cittaviveka is that gradual journey from the samsara within that fules the outher – the revolving about of namarupa (feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, and matter) with vinniana (consciousness) – the progress through nibbida (estrangement) to nibbana. These two vortices are two tangles within and tangles without (antojata, bahijata) SI, 13, the solution and unraveling of what is the Buddha’s teaching and the two tools for this progress are kaya and cittaviveka.

This progress is only to the individual in his subjective solitude cut of from the crowd and the process of history – for between the historic process and the ideal of social progress the individual is dissipated and confused. Only by solitude, a cut of, an estrangement , can one truly approach the Dhamma in its immediacy as having meaning only to the individual, who has become subjective – and thus aware of anguish (dukkha) as personal, an existential and the problem of existence as an individualization of the process of tanha (lack/need). Only within this subjective solitude does one recognizing the problem and start toward ultimate solitude – Nibbana, cutting of all factors of existence. Malcolm Hudson

All human problems are derived from the most fundamental problem: that I am, and that I exist. And it is absurd to assume that Dhamma isn’t timeless, that cessation of asmimana which is nibbana here and now is somehow outdated solution, and presently we need a new approach.

Nisargadatta Maharaj:

You are welcome. There is nothing new you will find here. The work we are doing is timeless. It was the same ten thousand years ago. Centuries roll on, but the human problem does not change — the problem of suffering and the ending of suffering.

All hangs on the idea ‘I am’. Examine it very thoroughly. It lies at the root of every trouble. It is a sort of skin that separates you from the reality. The real is both within and without the skin, but the skin itself is not real. This ‘I am’ idea was not born with you. You could have lived very well without it. It came later due to your self-identification with the body. It created an illusion of separation where there was none. It made you a stranger in your own world and made the world alien and inimical.

5

There is certainly an issue if one grasps at an idea of creating a pristine “Early Buddhism” that is the “One True Interpretation of Dhamma”.

I hasten to add that I don’t see that tendency in most people who work on EBTs.

4 Likes
6

Namo Buddhaya!

Great minds think alike.

When one sees the dhamma one sees the Buddha and this dhamma is timeless.

People can now learn how the ariyas spoke, in penetrating the meaning of the words one learns how they thought, in coming to agreement one starts to act, speak & think, as the old did.

At some point, one becomes ariya himself, then he is truly part of the sangha, a gem, and his culture & tradition are that of the noble ones.

7

Not this exact article, but the idea was discussed a bit here:

I think that’s a good analogy. One could say they’re “into” ancient Greek philosophy, or perhaps “a student of” which is my preferred wording…

5 Likes
8

i think that the thing is to call ourselves just “buddhists” (?)

or “pre-sectarian buddhist” (?) like pre-socratic philosopher, I don’t know…

9

Hi Bhante,

How are we to reconcile this when we read the following?

“Whatever ascetics and brahmins in the future will regard that in the world with a pleasant and agreeable nature as permanent, as happiness, as self, as healthy, as secure: they will nurture craving. In nurturing craving they will nurture acquisition. In nurturing acquisition they will nurture suffering. In nurturing suffering they will not be freed from birth, aging, and death; they will not be freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; they will not be freed from suffering, I say.” -SN 12.66

When I read a passage like this - and there are others with a similar description - I take it that the Buddha was trying to emphasize that the diversity and extent of worldly circumstances would never undercut how the four noble truths apply.

“Whatever ascetics or brahmins in the future will abandon the three discriminations, all will do so because they will have developed and cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment.” -SN 46.41

Whatever ascetics or brahmins in the future will fully awaken to things as they really are, all will fully awaken to the Four Noble Truths as they really are. -SN 56.5

The concern I have when we are encouraged to see ourselves as incomparable in any meaningful way to the people of ancient India, is where does it start and end? Are we similar in some ways, but not others? What level should we be looking at for comparison? Technological advancement? Happiness? Suffering? I just think it introduces a wide berth for insurmountable doubt, and I’m not sure what people are supposed to do about it at that point.

2 Likes
10

Oh, that wasn’t what I was saying or implying at all. Sorry. My point is that saying we are identical to the people who lived in the time of the Buddha, or more importantly, we are practicing in an identical way, or that we believe the same things, is problematic. Of course we need to take the teaching to heart and try to apply it knowing that it is akāliko.

My issue is with the social construct. For example, I think many people who call themselves “EBT” actually don’t follow everything in the EBT’s. For example some EBT people will say that things like psychic powers are a later edition and therefore not EBT. But of course this is circular reasoning. No true Scottsman, etc.

1 Like
11

Yes and that is what I was getting at. I agree with Bhikkhu Analayo that saying that one is an “early Buddhist” wouldn’t be proper; but I think it is okay to say that one is a student of EBTs or even “early Buddhism” or “pre-sectarian Buddhism.” And then one need not be dogmatic about it saying that they have the one and only correct interpretation.

3 Likes
12

Hi Bhante,

Thank you for clarifying.

I agree with what you said about the EBT label. Some of what we hear from those circles tends not to emphasize the valuable connection that the Buddha was describing in the aforementioned suttas, which I do believe is a useful way to literally find ourselves in those ancient texts. So, while it is not possible to simplify things to the extent that our circumstances and worldview are the same as those from ancient India, there remains that level of liability to suffering and wandering on, and from that point of view, we can immediately relate to the themes described in the suttas.

The reason I disagree so vehemently with the sentiment of Ven. Analayo’s article is that it puts this insurmountable option on the table whereby each person who gets involved with Buddhism is somehow responsible for how the superficial circumstances of the world have changed, but considering that such a level was not the emphasis in ancient times, I don’t think there is much justification in taking on the view that the problem the Buddha solved 2500 years ago is inapplicable today. I find it tremendously shocking.

1 Like
14

This would be incorrect, as we were born post sectarianism. We cannot simply pretend the last 2000 years of history hasn’t happened or that it doesn’t affect us.

The proper term would be “pan-sectarian” (or perhaps “non-sectarian”?) which indeed seems to be the approach Ven Analayo is advocating.

I agree, and I don’t think (?) that the Venerable would disagree here His essay actually is encouraging more people to become scholars of early Buddhism.

I don’t think this is what Ven Analayo was saying at all. He explicitly balances this perspective with the view that:

ancient wisdom should not be discarded even if its relevance may not immediately be clear at first sight.

In effect what we’re talking about here is the problem of translation.

The Pāḷi Canon is in a language and culture none of us grew up with. So we (contemporary people) must (by necessity) do some scholarship to interpret these writings. Sure, you can just read the sutta translations done by e.g. Bhikkhu Bodhi and try to practice that, but you should be at least aware that when you do, you’re relying on Bhikkhu Bodhi’s scholarship (and, implicitly, all the scholarship that came before him which he relied on when writing his translations)

2 Likes
15

Hi Bhante,

Here is the full paragraph:

“Buddhism has never been and will never be a static and solid entity existing in the abstract. Instead, it is a continuous process of responding to changing circumstances and various challenges from a Dharmic perspective. Early Buddhism does so from within the cultural and social context of its ancient Indian setting. Even though this particular response is particularly close to the time of the historical Buddha, it is at the same time particularly distant from our own times. This makes it challenging to interpret it correctly and to relate it meaningfully to this postmodern world. It would be absurd to expect that 2,500 years ago a solution to all our contemporary problems was discovered once and for all, which we now should just adopt. At the same time, however, ancient wisdom should not be discarded even if its relevance may not immediately be clear at first sight.”

The four noble truths are timeless in that they will always be applicable for anyone who penetrates them. To that extent, the truth of the Dhamma persists no matter the circumstances, and it is misleading to suggest that, “a continuous process of responding to changing circumstances”, should be the prevailing way to proceed. As far as his summation on wisdom is concerned, it seems the implication is to use only what is emerges as relevant after a certain period of consideration, which comes back to the questions I posed in previous post. Where does that assessment start and end? What are we allowed to draw from in the suttas and what should we avoid? What’s the criteria? Do I decide or does someone else? The themes in suttas are so general and apply anywhere, so I’m not sure how we should be dividing them up in order to interpret them correctly for use in contemporary times. If that was always the goal I wonder why all the suttas about future times and future perils failed to address it at all.

16

It seems no one call themselves “early Buddhists” yet. But if the term being used, it could just mean a follower of “early Buddhism” based on EBT.

I think Early Buddhism is still a living tradition based on EBT (particularly based on the essential teachings of SN/SA suttas).

17

Namo Buddhaya!

Certainly, we can take inspiration from early Buddhist thought or else from the teachings of ancient Greek philosophers, but this will invariably be influenced by the context set by our present worldview and cultural-social conditioning, which needs to be clearly acknowledged.

This reminds me of some things

For example, Stuart Hall wrote about cultural identity, highlighting the indeterminate nature of identity construction. In that, acknowledging the role of media & art in shaping and expressing identity. In this sect, identity is not static but is constantly debated. It’s construction is performed through various forms of cultural conditioning, including media & scripture.

There is a book called ‘Simulacra and Simulation’. It entertains the proposition that media expression is more real than what is being expressed. The author calls it “hyperreality” suggestin that our lives are affected by the expressions of reality presented by media, art, scripture, rather than reality that is being presented.

This then ties to critical theory and gender critical theory, Judith Butler’s ‘Gender Trouble’ for example.

Further as tonthe authenticity of the texts

Besides not being identifiable with—let alone being the sole property of—any extant Buddhist tradition, “early Buddhism” is also not identical with the “word of the Buddha,” in the sense of the words spoken verbatim by the founder at some time in the fifth century BCE in India. The situation is similar to the so-called “Socratic problem,” in that we do not have direct access to the teachings of Socrates, who also lived in the fifth century BCE. All we know about his teachings stems from reports by others, namely Aristophanes, Plato, and Xenophon. Similarly, we do not have direct access to the teachings of the historical Buddha, as all we know about his teachings stems from texts that are the final result of centuries of oral transmission, with all its strengths and with all its challenges and vicissitudes.

It follows from the above that the question of authoritativeness cannot be tied exclusively to derivation from the historical Buddha’s mouth.

I’ll quote another member

I didn’t read the rest, maybe later

I want to note that from the postmodernist critical theory doctrines, which i briefly explained, it follows that no person can know how reality actually is because no person can ever have direct access to it, there is only access to the media which represents the truth.

18

Why not neo-Sautrāntika or neo-Suttavāda or neo-sutravadin? :thinking:

1 Like
19

I am sure Ven Analyo would agree. However, you seem to be discounting his entire argument - that we have no texts that are literal recordings of the Buddha. They are all filtered through hundreds of years of retelling and are inevitably affected by the cultural and social context. Hopefully, disentangling the timeless aspects is possible.

20

But we have them! At least I do believe it☺️

Now, if you say, I may be wrong placing my faith in Suttas, I agree with you. Unfortunately it works the other way round, ven Analayo may be wrong in his scepticism.

I do recollect exchange between Nanamoli and Nanavira Theras on Dhamma, it is rather copious and I have never encountered any doubts about Suttas in it, so you see not all bhikhus share such scepticism.

21

I don’t mean to discount his argument, but it is not very sound. We don’t read texts with the sole intention of making a reasoned decision about whether or not they are true, and neither did the seekers of ancient India when they went to listen. We all seek out teachers to perhaps learn a new way of understanding experience, often with the expectation that development will take time and effort. Right? There’s no promise that our worldly, uninformed understanding is sufficient to decide that the Buddha was right. That is a timeless certainty: that if you want to know whether or not the eightfold path is real, you have to walk it yourself. You certainly must make use of faith and inspiration to drive your effort, but neither is enough to support a choice as to whether or not it is going to work out in the end.

The decision to make changes is barely the beginning of developing the path, and the texts could not be more clear about that. Again, I could see having these concerns if they were not thoroughly addressed in the texts, but they are in a myriad of different ways. How often do we read accounts of those who went forth with nothing other than hope? They had no assurance that giving up their life would amount to anything, but the risk was worth it to them. That same risk exists today for anyone who ventures into the suttas. And you know what? Most will fail. Most will not make it. But that doesn’t justify - from a position of having not completed the work - altering the application of the instructions to make use of them to combat modern circumstances. Again, the practice didn’t set out to do that in ancient India, so it doesn’t make much sense to try it now.

There is a categorical difference between the assumption that the texts are filtered through time and culture (and may be lacking), and being open to the possibility that they are intact at the center of the result of time and culture. That is why I always talk about accumulation. Yes, there is a lot to contend with, but the suttas don’t over complicate how to approach, and they don’t suggest starting anywhere else other than at the level of your day to day life. Change your life. Plain and simple. While it may not get rid of displeasing circumstances, it will certainly give you the opportunity to understand that those circumstances don’t necessarily have to retain the same significance they did prior to any development in Dhamma. And that is the point where we can start to see that how we behave and think - how the mind is inclined - shapes the experience.

The message is not opaque or obscure. The only thing that is unclear for those at the outset of practice is whether or not it is going to work, but that was an issue for the Buddha prior to his awakening, and it will continue to be an issue for everyone who attempts to do the same. Yeah, it’s hard and we have no assurances, and this piece of writing by Ven. Analayo is simply rebranding this extremely uncomfortable position, which we all must start from.