Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo

[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.