Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo

Discussion
104

Oh. Because the search for an Early Buddhism is to me a very natural phenomena, seeing how Pāli Canon mentions there will be counterfeit dhamma in the future, seeing how mahayana suttas explain why they’re a later addition, so EBT is going to be searched and people will attribute various texts to this name; someone being upset with this phenomena is like someone being upset at rainfall, saying “You’re not supposed to fall down!” when in fact, rain drops.

A mere morbid curiosity of why people would be upset at such an obvious and unstoppable occurrence, that’s all. But I guess we all can get obsessed with some stuff or another.

105

Well I find it intriguing that you profess to know the minds of the people at the time. All I said was that those things are found in the EBT. Confirmation bias is not stating that something that is in the EBT is in the EBT…although saying that you know the mind of another, and it confirms your view, might be confirmation bias.
Women’s rights: Buddha ordained women with the exact words he ordained men in the EBT (“Ehu Bhikkhu” and “Ehu Bhikkhuni”). He had two Chief female disciples as well as two Chief male disciples. He had a list of the 10 foremost Bhikkhus in x, y, z and in the adjacent passage, there is a list of the 10 foremost Bhikkhunis for the same x, y, z. He sang the praises of laywomen in certain stanzas and in others laymen. He taught multiple women (lay and bhikkhuni) who achieved all 4 stages of enlightenment. There is passage after passage of the Buddha, and others, stating that it is by the thoughts, speech and actions that one should be measured, not by birth, or wealth, or anything else. That is all there. All I am saying is that it is possible to be an academic reader of the EBT translations and get an idea of the broad teachings that came, as best as we can determine, from the Buddha. Then when there is a single line that says women cannot be Buddhas, an intelligent reader will question whether that is consistent with the broad EBT or ‘stands out’. That isnt confirmation bias, that is analytical thinking, looking for bias external to the core teaching.

(BTW: not that it matters but I am a man, so I am not reading the texts trying to find something promoting my view of my gender)

You can go through this exercise re homophobia. The Buddha was very clear on what was considered sexual misconduct. How that differed for laypeople vs. Bhikkhus/unis and explained why that was the case (the mind is the forerunner not the genitalia). All I am saying is that there is no mention of homosexual sex being part of the various types of misconduct. That took the west over two thousand years to ‘discover’. Yes, ‘iron age’ stuff is often wrong and needing updating, but my point was just because something was said two thousand years ago does NOT mean that it is wrong by definition…just as it is NOT RIGHT by definition just because the Buddha said it, was said to have said it or because it is in some ancient language scripture.

Im not required to say anything actually. The Buddha’s advice was to think for yourself, look to see if one teaching is consistent with the body of the teaching, whether it aligns with your experience and decide for yourself.

What I have done is read the EBT, argued with monks (yes argued…even in primary school my parents encouraged me to question everything, and I certainly did), and decided that the core Buddhist teachings are the best explanation, and so I’m happy to go with that. Examining various theories and adopting the one that best fits the available data is not confirmation bias, it is actually the scientific method.

What I said was that I read the EBT and think for myself. I don’t accept everything in the texts as you can see from my posts about the discussion about women in the texts. I also dont think you can transfer merit to others (an absolutely ‘core’ belief in my Sri Lankan version of Buddhism!) as that doesn’t fit with the description of karma in the EBT broadly from my perspective (and sounds suspiciously like something that monks might inject into the teachings as they benefit from performing rights and rituals…but might be just my sceptical mind, I dont know).

Also, not sure giving to an arahat or any monk, is as meritorious as they say, as my reading of the EBT is the repeated message that it is the individual’s mind that thinks/speaks or acts that matters in the generation of the karma-vipaka dyad…so I dont see how the other person matters (this is in the case the person doesnt know the attainments of the receiver). Anyway, there are multiple examples where I dont accept the Theravadan teaching at face value, as it doesn’t make sense to me. That was exactly what the Buddha advised people to do. If someone can convince me there is a better explanation than my understanding of karma and rebirth Ill drop it and take theirs!

No, ‘core’ is what is said again and again and again in the suttas. Yes, I am not referring to the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma (as I haven’t read those). That core is 4 Noble Truths, Rebirth, Karma, 12-fold nexus of conditioned origination and 8-fold path.
PS: I plan to develop a diagrammatic representation of the sutta pitaka highlighting how often those are mentioned and happy to share that when Im done but it will take years probably as I didnt take many notes when reading the EBTs alas, so have to start from scratch and need to work out the best software to do this…

That does NOT mean I am saying that we have everything the Buddha taught (yes I know there are references to texts we dont have), nor am I saying that the bits we do have are DEFINITELY Buddha vacana. I am just saying that the earliest texts are a good place to start if you want to get an idea of what is most likely to be Buddha vacana. FWIW I am not particulary worried even if the Buddha is conclusively proven to have been a charicature created by someone centuries later. What matters to me is whether the teaching is right or not, and its working a treat so far, and better than the alternatives, so the wise choice is to press on…

106

You know so many enlightened beings walking around and none of them believe in karma and rebirth?

I also know enlightened beings walking around who do believe in karma and rebirth.

So then what?

Until I read this stance refuting karma and rebirth, I’d been enthusiastically following your argument. Agreeing that keeping an ancient tradition alive doesn’t mean that we’re practicing what they practiced but it also doesn’t mean that we are not practicing what they practiced. The monks in the Mahavihara may well have chosen more or less correctly what to include in the Tipitaka and what to discard. Awakened beings may know such things. I’d think there would be a lot of tension trying to walk a line between tradition that has gone astray as such things do, and a truth which can be relied on.

Agreeing that not being allowed to speak of personal experience when speaking of, for example, a Jhana (if we can agree on what that is) is an unnecessary and burdensome imposition on teaching. It allows people to sit around and teach things like Metta, for example, who have never experienced Metta. It’s almost as if one has to be a Pali/Chinese/ Tibetan language/history scholar/ rhetorician to enable a comparative authoritative study. But even then there is disagreement. Not knocking Pali/Chinese/Tibetan language/history scholars and rhetoricians; I’m indebted to their work. But for my part I can believe the Earth actually shook when the Buddha roared his lion’s roar. It inspires me.

Finally, none of this is rigorously presented. Thank you for reading and …

Thank you for your scholarship. I now understand a little better the whitewashing of the Buddha Dhamma. It has caused a shift in understanding which I’m very grateful for despite the words above. Just one more thing to add here which you know but will include for anyone reading. Society doesn’t move linearly forward. It doesn’t even necessarily move forward -always toward clearer understanding. It moves backward too.

3 Likes
107

No. I never made any statement on what they believe on this score. This is you putting words in my mouth. A standard rhetorical technique in these parts.

And I don’t understand how your other remarks relate to this discussion.

Now you are justy flinging shit. And all based on something you imagined I said.

108

Settle down there sir. The statement you quoted was part of a sincere expression of gratitude for your work. I wish you well.

Wrong conclusion noted. Thank you. It wasn’t intentional. So if I understand correctly then, your assertion of non belief in karma and rebirth is a personal statement which has nothing to do with what enlightened beings know and understand.

Speaking of rhetorical devices, we can avoid ad hominem attacks here. There was / is absolutely no offense intended from this side.

2 Likes
109

Just a note: @Jayarava’s personal beliefs about kamma and rebirth are not germane to this thread and/or topic. Not sure how they came up, but can we drop them now? :pray:

5 Likes
110

Please keep the discussion respectful and on-topic going forward. While we don’t want to overly rigidly police the off-topic rule (there must be some scope for users to respond to non-germane points by other users as long as it doesn’t derail a topic), this thread is indeed starting to veer significantly off-topic.
Regards,
suaimhneas

1 Like
111

At the same time, whilst going through this discussion, I find the document “The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts”, extremely useful for the Buddhist world. So, thank you to Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali for the paper. I don’t call myself an “early Buddhist”. I simply think myself as a follower of the Buddha Dhamma as in the Tipițaka.

Just to also find out if there is an update to the paper?

112

“I’m perplexed why Ven. Analayo would want people to think that the Dhamma is there to solve their worldly problems.”

I have found the teaching of the Buddha Dhamma – the four Noble Truths and the Middle Way – extremely useful when negotiating between difficult nations concerning inter-governmental environmental treaties to good effect. It has worked with some. As a former diplomat, with a background in environmental science, I find that are a large body of texts in the Tipițaka relevant to conflicts and wars that are on-going.

113

It can be used to solve worldly problems, but the implication in the article is that we should be considering why or why not it is relevant for contemporary issues. The crux of my argument is that such an implication overlooks the concept of suffering in that most general sense, which would be present in the most primitive and modern civilizations alike.

114

Now, the Four Noble Truths can be stated in the following terms:

  1. To be person (sakkaya) = suffering
  2. Person is dependently arisen
  3. Cessation of personal existence = cessation of suffering
  4. There is the way leading to the cessation of the person.

My question is: what is a direct relation between this knowledge and the social problems? Because, unlike you I don’t perceive any such direct relationships.

For the most part, Dhamma deals with the ethics on individual level, which is connected with question: “what should I do”. It is quite different problem than question: “what should be done, to mentain society in more or less helthy state?”

In fact, there are Suttss which deal with that question, but the Four Noble Truths offer the escape from suffering “merely” for this rare individuals, who are intelligent enough to understand them.

Even 5 precepts you do not keep in order to build better society, but on the first place in order to avoid unnecessary personal suffering usually associated with breaking precepts.

Of course society will be in better state if most of its member kept moral precepts, but it is rather “side effect” of practicing Dhamma on individual level.

Dhamma is for wise, not unwise. By practicing Dhamma properly you can realize your own immortality now and here. While on the level of society, even if one is able to improve something, such improvement is temporal and will not last forever.

Also, by arrival at right view, one immediately improves the state of society. Yes, that improvement may not be perceived by the society, but that is a different story.

115

Just to say that you need to look at the comprehensive and forensic definition, which the Buddha gave explaining dukkha. It is not just “suffering”. When I face a difficulty or an obstacle, from a very down-to-earth and practical way, I attempt to understand the problem (dukkha). Then look into what are the causes or origins of the problem (samudaya). What is the answer or what are the answers to the problem? Nirodha. Finally, implement the magga or the path leading to a solution to the problem. Works for me. In counselling, works with conflicting parties, when they come with an slightly open mind. Also, can very easily apply this simple process to issues like climate change. Not a big polemic deal.

116

The point is that down-to-earth way of seeing dukkha, is not dukkha of the first noble truth, puthujjana doesn’t understand it.

So without “I” there is no one who could face a difficulty.

So as long as you understand, that you don’t understand the meaning of the first noble truth, you are free to use the structure of the four noble truth to solve some minor and nor related to Dhamma problems.

In order to solve a problem or cure the sickness it is good to know:

  1. right diagnosis - this is the problem
  2. arising of the problem
  3. that there is such thing as total absence of the problem
  4. treatment which leads to the cessation of the problem.

I think you are talking about that structure.

That’s fine, we are in agreement. I only like to point out, that as far as the first noble truth goes
You are the problem, your very existence, conceit “I am” is the state of dukkha.

117

Thank you. I leave these discussions to you to continue.

118

I agree with everything you said. And yet, didn’t the Buddha give advice to lay people such as husbands, wives, business people, kings etc. on how to deal with their worldly issues, issues that may have had more to do with kamma than awakening?

119

True, but the core of Teaching is suffering and cessation of suffering:

“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. MN 22

So we have to hierarchise importance of truths. And indeed, there are truths which are good to know for king if he wants to be a good king, or for wife if she wants to be happy in married life, also there are general rules for society.

But most of teaching is directed to monastic and these layman who treat Dhamma seriously, as the set of instructions, which help us realize un-born.

In other words the main aim of Dhamma is to free us from space and time, and I think it is dishonest to describe Buddha as a social reformer on the first place. Also when we see society holistically it is very likely that meditating monk in forest really puts positive input to it.

120

Again, I completely agree! My Buddhist practice is not to feel better, but to put an end to dukkha in this life or in as few lives as possible! :wink:

“I’m perplexed why Ven. Analayo would want people to think that the Dhamma is there to solve their worldly problems.”

I certainly don’t know the Venerable’s mind, but I find it hard to believe that he thinks that the Dhamma is there merely to solve people’s worldly problems. And @Don 's comments seem to indicate a point that he approaches the world’s problems with the lens of the Dhamma, nothing wrong with that.

In conversations with ordinary people where issues come up like ethics, harming people, lying, taking what isn’t offered, sexual impropriety, right speech, etc., I’ve said many times that I keep specific precepts for abstaining from actions like that and that the world would be a better place if more people did the same. I’m not boasting, in a way just standing up for what is best for myself and others.

:pray:

1 Like
121

I am glad that we are in agreement here :smiling_face: but you are discussing with me, so please do note that

I have never said anything like that, you are quoting someone else. Not that I agree with Venerable Analayo statement

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.

Because what Ven Analayo define as an absurd, is in fact the core of my understanding of Dhamma. As I see wordly problems (at least wordly problems of one particular person) indeed can be solved by him, and it is an absurd to think that it is not so - at least for a Buddhists monk.

The point is whatever our wordly problems are, they are merely epiphenomenon of more fundamental problem, namely sakkayadithi.

We are here, because from the infinite time we have tried to solve our problems independently from the Dhamma.

So if a bhikkhu want to help others, he should put emphasis on most important aspects of Dhamma: morality, concentration and understanding, and I am not at all sure wether exactly this kind of help Venerable Analayo has in mind, I only can hope that he sees the attitude described as below as mistaken:

This view, of course, is quite familiar to us—it is the socialist argument we sometimes hear, that since one cannot practise the Dhamma if one is starving, therefore food comes first; and therefore food is more important than the Damma; and therefore it is more important to pro­duce food than it is to behave well; and therefore any of violence or deceit is justified if it helps to increase food production.

As Sartre puts it, it seems plausible—it is bet­ter to feed the poor than to entertain the rich. But when we look at it more closely we see that certain difficulties arise. To begin with, it assumes (as all socialists, Sartre included, do assume) that this life is the only one, that we did not exist before we were born, and shall not exist after we die. On this assump­tion it is fairly easy to divide mankind into two groups: the rich oppressors, and the poor oppressed, and the choice which to support seems easy. But if this is not the only life, how can we be sure that a man who is now poor and oppressed is not suffering the unpleasant effects of having been a rich oppressor in his past life? And, if we take the principle to its logical con­clusion, should we not choose to be on the side of the “oppressed” inhabitants of the hells, suffering retribution for their evil ways, and to condemn the fortunate ones in the heavens, a privileged class enjoying the reward of virtue, as the “idle rich”? And then this view ignores the fact that our destiny at death depends on how we behave in this life. If bad behaviour in this life leads to poverty and hunger in the next, can we be sure that bread is more important than books? What use is it providing the hungry with bread if you don’t tell them the difference between right and wrong? Is meta­physics so unimportant if it leads men—rich and poor, no matter—to adopt right view and to behave accord­ingly?

Of course, the very fact that Sartre’s philosophy does not have anything to say about the hungry and op­pressed is a blemish on his philosophy; and it might be argued that Sartre is therefore better occupied standing up for the hungry and oppressed than in propagating his metaphysical views; but that still does not justify the principle. And, in the last analysis, the Buddha’s Teaching is for a privileged class—those who are for­tunate enough to have the intelligence to grasp it (the Dhamma is paccattam veditabbo vittuuhi (MN 38/M I 265)—“to be known by the wise, each for himself”), and they are most certainly not the majority! But Sartre’s at­titude is symptomatic of a general inadequacy in modern European thought the growing view that the majority must be right, that truth is to be decided by appeal to the ballot-box. (I read somewhere that, in one of the Western Communist countries, it was decided by a show of hands that angels do not exist.)

Nanavira Thera

122

May I ask why do you think it is mistaken ?
I mean the reasoning is sound, the conclusion bitter to eat but the whole Buddha dhamma is going against the grain, isn’t it ?