Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo

[Notez]

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

@DonatorProponent

I’d add that sources can be downgraded to secondary by factors other than time. An academic book on the Iraq War is a secondary source, and the Wikipedia article on it is a tertiary source. We don’t know exactly when Diogenes Laertius wrote, but even if he met your timeline criteria for proximity to Sextus Empiricus, he probably wouldn’t count as a primary source, since it seems his whole work is a secondary source based on (largely lost) primary sources. I.e. even if he was a contemporary, he likely didn’t base his statement that Sextus was a student of Herodotus on direct personal evidence, but rather based on reading it from a primary source (since he writes about it exactly the same way he does events that must have occurred centuries before his birth).

If we found a contemporary source from, say, China, which was a summary of a compendium on reports of foreign notables and mentioned something like the Buddha, that might move him from pre-history to proto-history, but it wouldn’t be a primary source for his life in the sense you’re discussing.

And even primary sources often come with limitations - for example, Aristophanes and Plato were contemporary to Socrates by the standards you’re suggesting, but both were writing in genres with primary concerns other than historical accuracy. And Xenophon doesn’t really clear things up. The Socratic problem is viewed as being definitively unsolvable. Certain broad details can be derived (e.g. he was executed) but a huge number of important questions are not solvable by historical methods (e.g. did he accept payment for teaching).

Even if we had three written sources from the time of the Buddha, it’s very likely, given the nature of his significance, they would not clearly and consistently describe his life course in the desired level of specificity.

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.