There is a categorical difference between the assumption that the expression & apprehension of meaning is altered by circumstances, and being open to the possibility that the exptession remains sufficiently intact so that meaning can be right inferred from it. That is why I always talk about progressive distortion.
I guess this is close to the meaning you intended and if true, a demonstration of how alteration does not imply miscommunication.
Even if op was to make several logical mistakes in an otherwise comprehensive expression, it might still be possible to more or less draw out the true meaning from that expression.
As I see it, the Ven. is not at all minimizing any part of the Dhamma, he’s saying that being a “Buddhist” is quite different across schools, traditions, social and cultural interpretations. How we interpret and relate to “Buddhism” and “The Dhamma” is not cut and dried, not one size fits all. Just here on D&D there are plenty of monastics and lay people with widely varying interpretations and leanings depending on a host of factors.
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”.
Restorationism, also known as Restitutionism or Christian primitivism, is a religious perspective according to which the early beliefs and practices of the followers of Jesus were either lost or adulterated after his death and required a “restoration”. It is a view that often “seeks to correct faults or deficiencies (in other branches of Christianity) by appealing to the primitive church as normative model”.
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.
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
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.
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”:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t say that freedom from suffering wasn’t the goal. However , as I
understand the texts, freedom comes from developing understanding.
Again, my understanding is that that changing one’s lifestyle is critical.
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:
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.
