Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo

[SDC]

Hi Adutiya,

I understand what he’s proposing, but the question remains: why is each practitioner responsible for regarding the teaching in this way? Yes, there has been tremendous accumulation of both time and culture over the last 2500 years, but it is optional as to how much of that scope is our responsibility to sort out and reconcile. And if a full reconciliation is made mandatory, we may never reach the point where the practice is even feasible.

This is not about debating what is the most authentic interpretation, which I agree is not necessarily helpful. This is about having enough of a reason to make the decision to alter our lifestyles and begin to live a different way - of reconciling our own accumulation of defilements and ignorance, not those of history and scholarship. If we make the issue an external problem, we will end up making corrections where they don’t necessarily have any effect on our understanding of the four noble truths.

Again, this is a tremendously uncomfortable position to be in, but I don’t understand the alternative of going through the painstaking process of finding a fresh way to apply the teaching according to a modern mindset. It doesn’t seem like a reasonable solution.

[Dogen]

@Dhammanando

Those involved in Christian analogues to EBT are variously known as Restorationists, Restitutionists or Christian Primitivists. As far as I know none have taken to calling themselves “Primitive Christians”. Still less, “Christian Primitives”.

Perhaps Pālipathibhāga movement is needed to differentiate Early BuddhismTM with Restorationist Buddhist movement then?

But then we run into the problem of do we take the whole Tipitaka or do we leave out Abhidhamma, and there’s our first sectarian division already… Tipiṭakadhārakas vs Suttavinayasravaṇas

Sectarians, sectarians everywhere!

[Johan]

@DhammaWiki

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

Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo (November 2023)

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.”

Based on my though

It is not important for someone to be called ‘early Buddhist’. The important thing is the way he thinks. Because there will be someone who calls himself an ‘early Buddhist’ but he also studies, tries to understand and practices what is not taught in ‘early Buddhism’. This applies to other schools of Buddhism.

But what needs to be known is that one should not be too rigid with early buddhism, nor should one accept excessive, unreasonable changes to ‘late buddhism’, (if that is what they mean after the word early buddhism).

What we need to do is study, try tounderstand and practice what we learn. Another way to understand, apart from direct practice and getting the results, is to find out based on research or discussion. That way our confidence and wisdom will increase. In fact, we will no longer care about the words ‘early Buddhism’ or ‘late Buddhism’, what we care about is ‘real Buddhism’ based on our empirical experience based on the teachings we have obtained.

[DhammaWiki]

@Dhammanando

Those involved in Christian analogues to EBT are variously known as Restorationists, Restitutionists or Christian Primitivists. As far as I know none have taken to calling themselves “Primitive Christians”. Still less, “Christian Primitives”.

Hi Bhante, Nor have I heard of any Buddhists referring to themselves as “Primitive Buddhists” etc.

But I have heard labels such as “EBT Buddhist” or “follower of early Buddhism” or student / follower of EBTs. Or follower of “original Buddhism” (which of course is very subjective, open to interpretation).

Some of the followers of Bhante Punnaji referred to his teachings as “original Buddhism” or “Proto Buddhism”:

Proto Buddhism - The Original Teachings of the Buddha :

[knigarian]

@Dogen

But then we run into the problem of do we take the whole Tipitaka or do we leave out Abhidhamma, and there’s our first sectarian division already… Tipiṭakadhārakas vs Suttavinayasravaṇas

Sectarians, sectarians everywhere!

I agree that there is problem with Abhidhamma, and in my practice I treat Abhidhamma as non-existent. But it is my personal choice and it doesn’t automatically classify me as a member of certain sect.

I was told that most of monks in Sri Lanka who admire Abhidhamma actually admire it out of respect for tradition, and in fact do not read it and do not study it, apart certain abbreviated manual of it. So if you really insist, such attitude could be described as sectarian.

But my rejection of Abhidhamma has nothing in common with religious divagations what texts should be worshipped, but it is much more down to earth.

As I understand Dhamma, by one’s own effort without guidance of right view, one cannot arrive at the right view, we need certain standard and based on it, out of faith, abandon all our ideas which contradict it, in other words it is the attitude: Lord Buddha is right, I am wrong.

But since Lord Buddha isn’t presently available, we have to decide for ourselves, which texts are trustworthy.

But such decision is in fact on the first place personal, and does not make one a member of the sect. After all even the two people are in agreement that only Suttas are trustworthy it is very unlikely that they have the same understanding of Suttas.

[mikenz66]

@SDC

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?

Sure. The purpose, to me, is to learn a new way of understanding life and death. But in making use of the texts we have not only the problem of the cultural context of the texts themselves, but the modern cultural context. Modern translations and interpretations are inevitably influenced by modern cultural accretion: Science, Existential Philosophy, Psychology, and so on.

For example, when you speak about “timeless” I presume you are referring to the term alkalika. [as in Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhīti.]
Akalika has been variously translated as “immediate”, “immediately effective”, “timeless”, “outside of time”, “not subject to time”. The latter three translations imply, at least in my mind, that the translator is, consciously or unconsciously, referencing modern physics concepts of time and space. This is very explicit when some interpreters speak of nibbana as being “outside of space and time”.

I don’t see how we can possibly be “Early Buddhists”. Our understanding of the ancient texts is influenced not only by the culture at the time of their creation but also our current culture.

Ven Analyo published the following book three years ago: Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions, A Historical Perspective, Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2021.

@Analayo

The material presented in the four chapters of this book is meant to highlight the need to recognize superiority conceit in its androcentric, Mahāyāna, Theravāda, and Secular Buddhist manifestations. It is simply a form of bondage for men to look down on women as not fit to take monastic leadership roles or be advanced bodhisattvas, for those who intend to become future Buddhas to look down on those not aspiring for Buddhahood as inferior, for Theravādins to look down on others as deviant from the original true teaching, or for Secular Buddhists to look down on traditional Buddhists as stagnant dogmatists caught up in rituals who lack a proper understanding of the teachings of the historical Buddha.

There was some discussion here and elsewhere when the book came out:
Ven Anālayo's book ~ Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions, A Historical Perspective
Some wondered why there was not a fifth chapter on EBT Buddhists:

This brings us to what I think is the core flaw of the book, which is that a view of Buddhism built exclusively on EBT doctrines (EBT-ism) is never brought up in any shape or form. Yet, this current exists among Buddhists, and is an equally strong force of superiority conceit as one assumes that their practices go back to the Buddha himself and are scientifically/academically proven to be so. EBT-ism rests on the axioms that 1) EBTs are without a doubt early and are to be privileged to know the heart of Buddhism as taught by the Historical Buddha; and that 2) whatever the EBTs do not include has definitely not been taught by the Buddha (this is effectively an inversion of the infamous Iraq War proclamation on absence and evidence; in this case “the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence”). These are rather significant axioms to accept given that there is no unanimous agreement over what texts are EBTs, nor is there a single narrative of the formation of Buddhist Canons that is indisputably the correct one. Furthermore, EBT-ism is not traditional Buddhism by any means. A side effect of the book therefore is that it can act as a box of ammunition for those EBT-ists who do not accept or appreciate traditional Buddhism. A fifth chapter in which this current is critiqued would be a very welcome and beneficial addition. As it is, one is tempted to wonder whether it would be more accurate to change the A Historical Perspective sub-title to From the Perspective of Early Buddhist Doctrines .
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/lgjw3m/a_review_of_superiority_conceit_in_buddhist/

Perhaps the OP article can be thought of as that fifth chapter:

@Analayo

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.

[DhammaWiki]

@mikenz66

I don’t see how we can possibly be “Early Buddhists”.

I agree, it would be very hard to find a time machine and go back 2500 years in time and become “Early Buddhists”

However, we can be followers of EBTs and followers of early Buddhism and we can do so without superiority conceit which Bhikkhu Analayo referred to.

[mikenz66]

@DhammaWiki

However, we can be followers of EBTs and followers of early Buddhism and we can do so without superiority conceit which Bhikkhu Analayo referred to.

Sure, this should be possible. EBT interpreters such as Vens Analayo and @Sujato certainly make a considerable efforts to avoid such conceit. However, a lack of conceit is not universal, particularly in some online Forums.

[SDC]

@mikenz66

The purpose, to me, is to learn a new way of understanding life and death.

Not freedom from suffering? So, now each of us is immediately qualified to redefine the message repeated thousands of times in the suttas? Not only is it now being redefined as something that is essentially impossible to understand, but as a backup we can just use it for whatever?

@mikenz66

I don’t see how we can possibly be “Early Buddhists”. Our understanding of the ancient texts is influenced not only by the culture at the time of their creation but also our current culture.

At best we are “here and now Buddhists”. There is literally no point in trying to adhere to any criteria of any “type” of Buddhist. The effort will speak for itself. Once again: change your lifestyle. That’s where it all starts.

@mikenz66

The latter three translations imply, at least in my mind, that the translator is, consciously or unconsciously, referencing modern physics concepts of time and space.

So, the Buddha was so primitive that he couldn’t fathom the idea of a truth enduring whether or not it has been realized? I’m of the belief that not only did the Buddha understand these concepts thoroughly, but he would have been aware of just how badly we would grow to misunderstand what he taught.

I feel like I’m entering the twilight zone…

[Hasantha]

Serious question…is there even a word for ‘Buddhist’ in Buddhism? I know there is ‘uninstructed worldling’, and ‘puthujjana’ and words for the Noble Ones (the 8 levels) and people aspiring to spiritual development (whichever tradition) but I am not sure there is a specific word for ‘Buddhist’ (interested to know if the scholars here agree or not).

So, it is probably correct to state that we shouldn’t call ourselves “Early Buddhists” or any other form of Buddhist, but I dont agree with B.Analayo that just because things are impermanent, one shouldn’t seek, to the best of our abilities, to look for the Buddhavacana. It is possible there is something in later learnings that was lost from what we called the EBT, so you cant either accept everything in the EBT or reject everything in the later texts IMO.

[sujato]

Fwiw, one of the earliest terms is savaka, literally a hearkener, one who hears what the Buddha taught. Often Buddhists are referred as Buddha savaka if we need to distinguish. That seems pretty good to me.

The Sanskrit word for Buddhist is bauddha, but I’m not sure if we find an equivalent in pali.

[Hasantha]

@sujato

Buddha savaka

Thanks Bhante, I assume that is as per “sāvaka-sangha” in the Itipiso chant? So is that both layfollowers and bhikkhus/bhikkunis?

[thomaslaw]

It seems the expressions: followers/Buddhists of EBTs, followers of early Buddhism, or followers of early Buddhism based on EBTs (particularly based on Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism) are clear and useful for today’s Buddhism. It fits in well with the term Nikaya/Agama Buddhism (based on the four principal Nikayas/Agamas) for Early Buddhism:

Earliest use of the English phrase "early Buddhism"?

Also, Early Buddhism (pp. 3, 5: the first and second councils) refers to the two phases:

[Dhammanando]

@Hasantha

Serious question…is there even a word for ‘Buddhist’ in Buddhism?

The Pali commentators used buddhamāmaka (lit. “one who takes the Buddha as ‘mine’”; “one devoted to the Buddha”), a term that first appears in the Apadāna and in the Niddesa to the Suttanipāta’s Jarā and Tuvaṭṭaka Suttas.

Sutvā nesaṁ suvacanaṁ,
sakkaritvāna vāṇije.

Pahāya rajjaṁ sāmacco,
nikkhamiṁ buddhamāmako;
Nadiṁ disvā mahācandaṁ,
pūritaṁ samatittikaṁ.

Appatiṭṭhaṁ anālambaṁ,
duttaraṁ sīghavāhiniṁ;
Guṇaṁ saritvā buddhassa,
sotthinā samatikkamiṁ.

After hearing that good word, and
paying respect to the merchants,
quitting kingship, with ministers,
I left, one devoted to the Buddha.
Seeing the great Canda River—
full of water with level banks,
a little rough, without supports,
a rushing current hard to cross—
recalling the Buddha’s virtue,
I got across it in safety.

Mahākappina Apadāna

In Thailand there’s been an effort (via the official textbooks for teaching Buddhism in Thai state schools) to promote the use of buddhamāmaka and buddhamāmikā as terms for male and female Buddhists. But though these textbooks have been in use for many decades, my impression is that they haven’t had much impact. In everyday Thai speech neither term seems to have any currency at all.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@Dhammanando

everyday Thai speech

The one I’ve heard (not sure if formal or everyday) is พุทธศาสนิกชน (buddha-sāsanika jana). Any ideas where that one is from?

[mikenz66]

@SDC

@mikenz66

The purpose, to me, is to learn a new way of understanding life and death.

Not freedom from suffering? So, now each of us is immediately qualified to redefine the message repeated thousands of times in the suttas? Not only is it now being redefined as something that is essentially impossible to understand, but as a backup we can just use it for whatever?

I didn’t say that freedom from suffering wasn’t the goal. However , as I
understand the texts, freedom comes from developing understanding.

@SDC

@mikenz66

I don’t see how we can possibly be “Early Buddhists”. Our understanding of the ancient texts is influenced not only by the culture at the time of their creation but also our current culture.

At best we are “here and now Buddhists”. There is literally no point in trying to adhere to any criteria of any “type” of Buddhist. The effort will speak for itself. Once again: change your lifestyle. That’s where it all starts.

Again, my understanding is that that changing one’s lifestyle is critical.

@SDC

@mikenz66

The latter three translations imply, at least in my mind, that the translator is, consciously or unconsciously, referencing modern physics concepts of time and space.

So, the Buddha was so primitive that he couldn’t fathom the idea of a truth enduring whether or not it has been realized? I’m of the belief that not only did the Buddha understand these concepts thoroughly, but he would have been aware of just how badly we would grow to misunderstand what he taught.

I feel like I’m entering the twilight zone…

Well, again, my view is that the Dhamma is enduring. However, as you (and the Buddha) said, the understanding of the Dhamma is not enduring. The point of the article is that none of the texts we have are literal recordings of the Buddha and that:

@Analayo

This historical perspective enables situating different (and at times dissonant) Buddhist teaching traditions along the trajectory of time, enabling an understanding of the particular set of conditions that led to each of these positions, without feeling compelled to accept or reject on the spot. The overall aim is then not the construction of a strong sense of identity but rather the growth of understanding.

My suggestion was that the translation of akaliko as “timeless” and the interpretation that nibbana is “outside of space and time” may well be a modern example of “Buddhist teaching traditions along the trajectory of time”. My point is not to argue about whether those interpretations accurately reflect what the Buddha taught. It is simply to point out that the terminology is firmly rooted in modern culture.

[Jayarava]

@DhammaWiki

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?

The irony here is that all Buddhists abandoned so-called “early Buddhism” over 2000 years ago. That’s why we have to reconstruct it from texts. “Early Buddhism” didn’t exist as a category until we invented it. The real question here is, why did you all feel the need to invent it. What was so very dissatisfying with modern Buddhism that necessitated this project?

The other irony is that those texts you rely on to reconstruct “early Buddhism” don’t actually reflect early Buddhism. Early Buddhism died out before writing was used in India. Pali texts are the Mahavihāra version of Theravāda Buddhism from the 5th century. The oldest Pali manuscript in existence is also from the 5th century. And the idea that Pali was written down earlier is also first attested in the 5th century.

The Gāndhārī corpus is not a canon, and includes numerous Mahāyāna texts. The oldest Prajñāpāramitā manuscript is from the 1st century CE, some 300-400 years older than the oldest Pali text. Similarly for the oldest translations into Chinese: a mixed bag (often poorly distinguished in terms of well known Buddhist categories), not a canon, and not consistent with the views of the Mahāvihāra.

“Early Buddhism” as we know it now, is an invention of 19th century Europe. Before this, no oriental Buddhists were concerned with or interested in “Early Buddhism” because all Buddhists believed themselves to already be practicing the most authentic form of Buddhism available. Oriental Buddhists had faith. It’s Europeans who lack faith and constantly seek out more authentic teachings.

Think about what question “neo-early-Buddhism” is an answer to. Since it is a doctrine of authenticity and authority, neo-early Buddhism, has to be seen as the answer to a perceived lack of authenticity amongst modern Buddhists and a perceived lack of authority in modern Buddhist teaching.

The desire to reconstruct neo-early Buddhism and to adapt one’s practice in the light of what one reconstructs, is an admission that Buddhism as presented doesn’t make sense or doesn’t work for you. At least not enough to make you content with your practice.

I mean, if you were making any kind of progress on the path, you would not be falling over yourselves to reinvent Buddhism. Right? You would be like an oriental Buddhist, content to get on with your practice, rather than arguing about what words mean. I note there is no consensus on most of the issues raised in this forum.

It would be more interesting to see people offering up their personal rationales for why we need neo-early Buddhism at all. What is wrong with modern Buddhism that we feel the need to abandon it for something else? Or is it simply that the grass is always greener on the other side?

[SDC]

@mikenz66

The point of the article is that none of the texts we have are literal recordings of the Buddha…

Mike…why would we want it to be prevalent and acceptable to permanently call into question, not only the work of the ancient grammarians, but of the success of the oral tradition? Didn’t some monastics during the time of the Buddha also not hear directly from him either? Sure, we are more disadvantaged because things are less fresh, but are we just completely shut out?

I don’t why it is so wrong to be open to the possibility that the Sangha was more or less successful in protecting the Pali, and that while we must contend with a more complicated a gray area, there is a high degree of solidity and consistency in the texts that is worthy of acknowledgment, and is grounds for hope. I don’t know why people are so contented to place this whole thing out of reach, and pick up an alternative plan. It’s hypocritical to believe we are by default qualified to make that choice. Hey, we don’t have the Buddha’s exact words so let’s just empower ourselves to make use of the instructions to as a tool to manage our contemporary world. Again: the texts talk about “future generations”, “future times”, and “future perils”. If he expected us to reapply what he taught to meet with contemporary circumstances, wouldn’t he have addressed that? What makes anyone here and now think they are qualified to declare with certainty that the texts we have can’t possibly contain the meanings the Buddha intended when the oral tradition began? That is as arrogant as those who blindly declare that they do contain them.

Look, I don’t disagree that the entire translation process inevitably introduces a contemporary tone into the texts, but that doesn’t mean that a more accurate meaning is inaccessible as things are clarified - as we grow less bound to the sways of circumstances. The idea is to start in range of an accurate meaning, which even if we had the best of them, would still require us to clarify what it actually means in our direct experience. The corruption is ultimately on the level of view, which means that if we can adopt the efforts of virtue and restraint, purification is still possible, and will allow for a higher degree of precision when it comes to clarifying the meanings described in the suttas.

It seems as though you are suggesting that since we can’t be sure what the Buddha actually said, we have little to no chance of ever accessing the four noble truths. But if that is not your position, I don’t think you or Ven. Analayo is introducing anything new as far as uncertainty is concerned. Even if we were in front of the Buddha we would still have to do the work after we walked away. We would still be unsure what the instructions mean prior to applying them and seeing them through. Why take the extra step of trying to redefine the challenge, completely disconnecting it from the one we read about in the suttas?

So, what I really want to know is, why does anyone here and now think they are qualified to ascertain the degree to which the Dhamma remains accessible prior to having accessed it? Many are doing it from a purely objective position, having little to do with any development in Dhamma. Why is that a reasonable position to hold? Why is this the smart way to approach the practice? What happened to simply saying, “I don’t know”? Should we use our intelligence? Yes. Are we inevitably bound by a baseline degree of doubt? Absolutely. But why do we think that is enough to make decisions about accessibility?

I know I put a lot more here than is necessary, but you know that is how I like to have these discussions. I’m not ignoring anything you’ve said, but I don’t think you are taking into consideration just how much subtext is packed into what you’ve said.

[DhammaWiki]

@Jayarava

It would be more interesting to see people offering up their personal rationales for why we need neo-early Buddhism at all. What is wrong with modern Buddhism that we feel the need to abandon it for something else?

What is “modern Buddhism?” Is it Vajrayana, Pure Land, Ch’an, Zen or something else? Most of us here (I assume) are converts, that is, we chose Buddhism. As we chose Buddhism, we studied various schools of Buddhism and eventually decided on Theravada or EBTs or some other form of Buddhism. Since we were not born into it, there had to be some analysis and choice made.

Why not choose or look for what appears to be the most authentic? Why would we want to follow something very far removed from the original teacher (of this Dispensation)? This can be done with analysis but without disparaging other schools of Buddhism and without conceit.

Or maybe some of us are prone to orthodoxy, to looking for authenticity; it could be a personality trait. When I was in the Jewish religion (by birth) I also looked for authenticity. I wondered why I had to spend hours with my debate partner discussing oral law (talmud) instead of just going to the original texts in the torah and bible. I had an affinity for the Samaritans because that is what they did and had no oral law or talmud. Similarly in all other religions people look for getting back to the original teachings and of course have different interpretations of what those original teachings are.

[Notez]

I consider myself an analyst and i consider the pali suttas to be worth analyzing as to infer the intended meaning.

I ponder this meaning and do as i inferred.

To me the texts are not art, fiction, it’s not an ancient self-help manual, an inspiring bio, suggestions on moral guidelines, nor a historical record.

Therein are described results of an experiment, to be performed here & now, propositions inviting verification, come & see they say.

This is about shaping one’s mind to do as teacher intends. He really is a trainer of tamable men. A wise person would submit like a throughbred horse to a skilled trainer.

There are guidelines on how to study the texts in cross-reference, this way one can isolate things which are missing or do not fit in with the rest.