Early Buddhism critique

The Watercooler
20

Yeah. The Lotus Sutra spends a long time on that concept. Then, it says everyone who thinks they are an arhat is really a bodhisattva, and there isn’t actually a Nirvana. That was the Buddha using skillful means.

It just depends on which Mahayanist we’re talking about. Asanga and Nagarjuna were probably fans of the EBTs. Kumarajiva says that a bodhisattva practices all the Buddha’s teachings, including the EBTs. Basic Mahayana sutras (like the Diamond Sutra) say that a bodhisattva doesn’t actually liberate all sentient beings because it’s impossible to liberate an infinite number of beings. And, anyway, if someone really thinks they are a bodhisattva, then they aren’t. My take is that a lot of the trouble in modern Buddhism was the early popularity of certain sutras in East Asia that advocated throwing the EBTs out and starting over. They were probably marginal texts outside of China, but then took off in a foreign culture that didn’t understand their context. So, there’s this unthinking prejudice in place. And then we get the oversimplifying reactions from the other side that don’t really help.

The result is a playground for trolls to gather great heaps of lolz. Posts like this are designed to flush out reasonable people for a good flame session or two, I would say.

7 Likes
21

And that’s the important part: The mind has a protective layer that avoids and prevents disorientation and depression - it’s all-too-human. If I don’t deactivate it before I interact then the consequential “But I am right!” guides my actions.

For a discussion to “be” (or better: to be perceived as) healthy, I need to
a) remove the self-protective coating of convictions and of “I am right”
b) be able to communicate or let transpire this openness successfully

I would add that for perceived kindness the use of formally correct kindness is necessary but not sufficient. Communications about spirituality are prone to passive aggressiveness, and this repels people for whom participation is not that important. Even if they continue to engage the discussion easily deteriorates to a show of ego and, again, “I am right”.

2 Likes
22

I had not come across that fallacy before. Fascinating reading about it!

Also, fascinating essay you linked to.

Thank you, Bhante. Sadhu! :pray:

3 Likes
23

Just to second that, great article on an important topic. As it happens, I met Rita at Dharma Drum around the time of the events she speaks of here and we discussed the issues somewhat.

3 Likes
24

Actually proper EBT study would be the very opposite of all these. You then don’t start with the assumption (or “fundamental belief”) about what is late and early, or about what is the Buddha’s words. You actually drop all those and base your conclusions on analytical comparison. Some passages in “early” texts (e.g. Pali Canon) may then well prove to be “late”. I don’t think this person really understands this, they just assume that early = a certain body of text. (Which is of course a view that exists quite widely as well, but is not really what “Early Buddhism” would be, as most people using that term understand it. Instead it would be “Pali Canon Buddhism” or whatever.)

2 Likes
25

Yes, EBT is not secular Buddhism at all. EBT is just text (s), not the word of the Buddha. Some EBTs are edited early, some later, and all are sectarian texts. But according Ven. YinShun, SN/SA is the earliest collection of the four Nikayas/Agamas in Early Buddhism.
Cf.:

Pages 2-7 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (440.2 KB)

26

Why do you feel the need to debate? Let others do their own work

2 Likes
27

I’m often reminded of something that the late Dr. Gross said once to one of her classes, reminding them that the Heart Sutra was not spoken by the Buddha, and that much of Mahayana was later invention and storytelling painted as the Buddha’s historical teachings ( I am paraphrasing). She called this experience the “Heart (Attack) Sutra,” as so many of her students were disappointed to learn this. See also True & False: Dharma After the Western Enlightenment

3 Likes
28

That article you linked can easily be used by secular Buddhists to justify their position.

Let’s try to do it halfway, we already have rebirth evidences, by verification of kids recalling past lives. However, there’s no easily available evidences akin to rebirth evidences for say spontaneously reborn beings or kamma across lifetimes or supernormal powers.

So if we take this halfway standpoint of admitting rebirth and literal, but devas are myths, stories, not factual. Then it still also breaks Buddhism apart.

For when there’s rebirth, there’s no beginning to it which is seen.

Thus, before humans evolved on earth, we must have been reborn in some beings. Maybe animals, go back to before life evolved on earth then. Maybe we were in other planets. Go back to before the sun and planets were formed. Which realm were we in back then?

We are forced to posit spontaneously reborn beings, that is gods, asuras, hell or ghost beings. And only certain Brahma gods survives the contraction of the universe, to live on to the next cycle.

In many suttas, the Buddha also mentioned directly he has many supernormal powers, able to use divine eye to see unbelievable things. And in some of them, the statement was so short that it doesn’t seem to leave much room for mythological readings of the sutta.

Anyway, with the existence of gods, comes the notion of supernormal powers, which then can be used to see kamma as pattern of many people’s rebirth.

So although indeed, people tend to be more literal reading now and we can enjoy some mythological readings sometimes, Buddhism still does require the literal reading of rebirth, kamma, supernormal powers, spontaneously reborn beings. As defined in right view.

29

:slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
30

FWIW I was inspired by this topic to give a talk on the history of Buddhism, so if anyone wants a 30 minute summary of 2500 years, it will be up here soon.

https://lokanta.live/

9 Likes
31

You’re right, if one can’t make headway in groups, they’re better off going at it alone. That’s why one shouldn’t get too involved in online communities in the first place. Or a better option, speak to those who share your beliefs privately in direct messages, you’ll make headway faster, which imho is the biggest utility of online communities: to find people you can learn from.

1 Like
32

Bhante’s talk is now up on https://lokanta.live.

4 Likes
33

I think it’s worth noting though that the Sautrantika never fully rejected the Abhidharma. They rejected parts of it, or some interpretations of it. Other parts of the Abhidharma they accepted. Momentariness is one example. In the history of Buddhism, at least from the 2nd council onwards, relying solely on the suttas/sutras and rejecting completely the Abhidharma is quite new.

1 Like
34

I certainly agree with this, as quoted in the OP.

35

I am not sure this has actually happened yet though re complete rejection of the Abhidhamma. The EBT I have been exposed to has so far been more of a hermeneutic movement which is taking on the nascent characteristics of a school. However, the canon which is currently hosted on Sutta Central, including the Abhidhamma, is the same canon that everyone else uses.

I taught monastic education in a sutta based program, and the rationale for choosing to educate monastics primarily in sutta is quite obvious to me: due to the time and effort involved, it isn’t really possible to educate to a high level in both sutta and abhidhamma anyway. You have to make a value judgement to prioritise one or the other. The important hermeneutical shift (to me, anyway) is mostly just that Buddha’s authorship of the Abhidhamma is not taken for granted, and we are more free to engage in questions around authorship and historical evolution of ideas. By contrast, if you were educated at one of our more traditional local Theravada centres, you would not be introduced to the notion of historical change, and would likely be left with the impression that the Abhidhamma came straight from the mouth of the Buddha. The concept of the Abhidharma having authors is also precedented, I think the Sarvastivadins identify the authors of their Abhidhamma texts. Which is not to say that everything which has been called EBT is an exact replica of earlier movements, but that some of the themes involved are really not that new.

If OP was proposing just completely removing Abhidhamma as a canonical category, that would in fact be more radical than any of the major monastic sutta based movements today. In that case, I could understand better the negative reaction to the OP.

It’s also possible that posters are not familiar with the exact ahistorical beliefs that many/most Theravadins hold about Abhidhamma*, or the impact this has on traditional Theravada education, which has been based on commentary like the Abhidhammatthasangaha and Dhammapada Atthakatha for a long time. Which may be why a certain respondent is referencing Chan and Je Tsongkhapa, rather than the actual traditional alternatives we have to sutta based education.

In very concrete terms, it’s not really sutta vs traditional Buddhism, it’s sutta vs Abhidhammattha Sangaha. The latter text is so late that even the commentaries don’t know about it, the themes are so convoluted that students are left with the impression that the teachers are gods, and I am completely delighted that I do not have to teach that text (or any of the 40 volumes of Abhidhamma commentary, really).

*I also know people who hold pretty well informed traditional beliefs about these texts, too

5 Likes
36

I have noticed a tendency amongst EBT folk to just reject completely anything that comes from the Abhidhamma. That doesn’t mean of course to be an EBT enthusiast you have to reject it. It’s possible to accept both IMO, or some of the Abhidhamma (like the Sautrāntika of old did). For example, I think it’s possible to follow an EBT approach and to accept momentariness, because certain suttas/sutras lend themselves to that interpretation. Drawing out the meaning of course being part of the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma enterprise.

I taught monastic education in a sutta based program, and the rationale for choosing to educate monastics primarily in sutta is quite obvious to me: due to the time and effort involved, it isn’t really possible to educate to a high level in both sutta and abhidhamma anyway. You have to make a value judgement to prioritise one or the other. The important hermeneutical shift (to me, anyway) is mostly just that Buddha’s authorship of the Abhidhamma is not taken for granted, and we are more free to engage in questions around authorship and historical evolution of ideas. By contrast, if you were educated at one of our more traditional local Theravada centres, you would not be introduced to the notion of historical change, and would likely be left with the impression that the Abhidhamma came straight from the mouth of the Buddha. The concept of the Abhidharma having authors is also precedented, I think the Sarvastivadins identify the authors of their Abhidhamma texts. Which is not to say that everything which has been called EBT is an exact replica of earlier movements, but that some of the themes involved are really not that new.

That sounds reasonable. I know that today a lot of Theravādin Buddhists start with the Abhidhamma, sometimes only ever reading that, but I get the impression that in the past a student started with the vinaya and suttas whilst the Abhidhamma was for more advanced students. You are correct that Theravādin education today involves the idea that the Buddha directly taught the Abhidhamma. That is part of our tradition, but it would be good if they were made aware of other theories as to how the Abhidhamma formed. Personally I can’t accept the traditional account, but I still find the Abhidhamma very useful. Of course, its ok if someone wishes to believe the traditional account too. On the Sarvāstivādins, they did indeed state that their Abhidharma was composed by later monks. They still considered it to be the word of the Buddha however, because to them Buddhavachana meant not just the direct words of the Buddha but also anything which corresponds with the meaning of the Dhamma. They saw the Abhidharma as being pregnant in the sutras, which learned and wise monks from their tradition extracted. They saw it as an explanation of the neyyattha teachings. Venerable Saṃghabhadra outlines the Vaibhāṣika position here

a. As the abhidharma [texts] were compiled by the great disciples on the basis of the Buddha’s teaching, they are approved by the Buddha; they are also buddha-vacana. As they are in accord with the knowledge which knows fully (pari-√jñā) the causes and effects of defilement and purification, they are like the sūtra‑s. If what has been approved by the Buddha is not called buddha-vacana, then innumerable sūtra‑s would have to be abandoned!

b. If you say that what the Buddha has not mentioned as a pratiśaraṇa is not buddha-vacana, then the vinaya would not be buddha-vacana. … Moreover, the abhidharma should definitely be accepted as sūtraviśeṣa, and thus constituting a pratiśaraṇa. Or, it should be the case that the gāthā‑s, etc., do not constitute pratiśaraṇa, for the Buddha only exhorted us to take the sūtra‑s as pratiśaraṇa…. Furthermore, when the Buddha exhorted Ānanda to take the sūtra‑s as pratiśaraṇa, He was in actual fact exhorting him to take the abhidharma as pratiśaraṇa; for the latter is the authority (pramāṇa) of the sūtra‑s, hence it is the sūtra-pramāṇa, that is, it comprises the definitive meanings of the sūtra‑s; for the abhidharma can ascertain as to which sūtra‑s are nītārtha, which ones are neyārtha. The name, ‘abhidharma’, can subsume all words which do not contradict any of the noble doctrines; based on this principle, it is known as a nītārtha-sūtra. Whatever contradicts this principle is said to be neyārtha.

c. As to your assertion that the abhidharma is not buddha-vacana on account of the fact that the tenets of the different abhidharma schools vary — in that case, the same should apply to the sūtra‑s, for differences in wording and meaning do exist in the extant sūtra‑s of the various schools; on account of these differences, their tenets become different.

  • Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma by Bhikkhu KL Dhammjoti

In very concrete terms, it’s not really sutta vs traditional Buddhism, it’s sutta vs Abhidhammattha Sangaha. The latter text is so late that even the commentaries don’t know about it, the themes are so convoluted that students are left with the impression that the teachers are gods, and I am completely delighted that I do not have to teach that text (or any of the 40 volumes of Abhidhamma commentary, really).

It is late, but I don’t think it diverges wildly from the Abhidhamma itself. That said, I prefer Ācariya Anuruddha’s Nāmarūpapariccheda.

1 Like
37

Yeah, this is my experience as well. Of course, as @Ceisiwr mentioned, there are EBT folks who reject the Abhidhamma—but there are all kinds of pockets of individual Buddhists who reject or add all kinds of things. This does not characterize the EBT movement in my experience. The main characteristic is the authority of certain documents or textual traditions, like the commentaries, Abhidhamma, or extra-canonical works. In other words, it is about a kind of pre-sectarian ideal. This also allows us to be inclusive of other early schools’ ideas. For instance, @Sunyo recently shared a passage from the Sarvāstivādins on their understanding of bhava as not involving kamma production but as the continued existence produced from craving, which he found to be helpful in validating this understanding of the term from early sects of Buddhism.

We can also look at things like Āgama parallels that contradict Nikāya parallel-readings and do comparative study, assess the authenticity of particular suttas themselves, etc. What this amounts to often is not flat out rejecting the texts with less well-grounded authenticity, but rather being able to weigh them and their authority on doctrine in comparison to other suttas. It produces a gradient rather than a black-and-white, allowing us to freely assess the value of teachings. Momentariness is an example. I don’t find it very useful, but someone else might. It becomes a tool rather than a necessity. On the other hand, we have a ground-floor for authentic doctrine: consciousness is impermanent; Nibbāna is not a formless realm of consciousness, etc., helping weed out ideas.

Mettā

1 Like
38

I’m reminded of Ācariya Yoda :smile:

“In a dark place we find ourselves, and a little more knowledge lights our way.”

39

What exactly is the “EBT movement”? Did not Bhikkhu Sujato write somewhere on this very forum there was a time Bhikkhu Buddhadasa was basically the only monk in Thailand relying on the EBTs for guidance? This being so, it seems, similar to the label “Thai Forest Tradition”, there is no fixed “EBT Doctrine”. EBT seems simply another diverse movement based on the idiosyncratic interpretations or ‘commentaries’ of EBTs by various individual monks. In other words, what essentially makes the interpretations/commentaries of Buddhadasa or Sujato different to the interpretations/commentaries of Buddhaghosa? :saluting_face:

“Rejection of the Abhidhamma” is an easy & common allegation to make. However, I started a topic here: What is the Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅga (Abhidhamma) teaching? To date, I have not read any answers by Abhidhamma acolytes. :saluting_face: