Early Buddhism critique

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.

:slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

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

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

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

4 Likes

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

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

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

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

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

I’m reminded of Ācariya Yoda :smile:

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

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:

The notion of EBTs or Early Buddhism based on Ven. YinShun’s The Formation of Early Buddhist Texts does not reject entirely Abhidhamma and Mahayana teachings. But one needs to see clearly EBTs (such as the four Nikayas/Agamas) were just texts, gradually developed and expanded. EBTs were not established at once in complete form (structure) and content in the first Buddhist council.

It seems you may have answered your own question.

Mettā

1 Like

In Vinaya, Cullavagga (Vin. II, PTS, p. 139), the Buddha advises bhikkhus not to use Vedic language (Chanda; i.e. Vedic Sanskrit) for the Buddha’s language/teachings (buddhavacana ), but use your own language (sakāya niruttiyā ‘based on your own language’) for the Buddha’s teachings.

As a result, there are now different textual languages for the teachings and stories in Early Buddhism.

Pali, literally ‘text’, is based on a dialect (a Prakrit) from the region of Ujjeni/Ujjayani/Ujjain, capital of Avanti, in western India. According to the Sinhalese Buddhist tradition, Mahinda and Saṅghamittā, who preached Buddhism in modern Sri Lanka, were born in Ujjeni.

As stated previously, early Buddhist texts, such as the principal four Nikayas/Agamas, were in fact not established at once in complete structure (form) and content at the first Buddhist council.

According to Ven. YinShun, the principal four Nikayas/Agamas were gradually developed and expanded from Samyutta-nikaya (SN)/Samyukta-agama (SA). https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ve … hism/22540

The extant SA and SN, and also other Agamas/Nikayas, are sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively.

Nevertheless, the major early Buddhist teachings are shared in common in the extant SA and SN; e.g. see the following book by Choong Mun-keat:

The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sūtrāṅga portion of the Pāli Saṃyutta-Nikāya and the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama (Series: Beitrage zur Indologie Band 32; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000).

The particular collection of the Pali SN and the Chinese SA is mainly about knowing and seeing the four noble truths, the notion of anicca, dukkha, suñña (empty), anatta, and the middle way, which all are the core teachings of Early Buddhism.

So, Early Buddhism (regarding EBTs), historically, may have two phases: (1) Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism (i.e. based on the so-called ‘Connected Discourses’ 相應教, Saṃyukta-kathā) and (2) Nikayas/Agamas Buddhism (i.e. mainly based on the principal four Nikayas/Agamas).

However, as mentioned above, the extant four Nikayas/Agamas are sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively.

Interesting discussion, here’s my 2 cents from someone who considers himself a Mahayanist.

Let’s go back to first principles here. Mahayanists are, of course, people who have a deep respect for the teachings found in Mahayana sources. EBT people likewise have deep respect for the teachings in the EBTs. Notice how, on this level, none of this has anything to do with historical arguments or the historical Buddha - instead it has to do with one’s response to the textual sources, and in this case, that is something we all share. We read certain texts, absorbed certain teachings, put them into practice and then grew to appreciate them.

Now, what is the main difference between Mahayanists and EBT folks? EBT folks don’t feel the same way about Mahayana doctrines and texts, if they did they would be Mahayanists in some way. Meanwhile, Mahayanists think that the Mahayana sources contain things which are in some way indispensable. For them, the foundational Buddhist teachings of the EBTs would seem incomplete in some way without the Mahayana doctrines.

Now, when EBT folks make use of historical arguments to argue for why the EBTs are the closest texts we have to what the historical Buddha said, there are two ways that this is done: (1) in a neutral fashion, without also arguing that non-EBT teachings are useless or pointless, (2) in a sectarian fashion, arguing that only EBT is good, and other teachings go off the rails and are worthless.

Likewise, Mahayanists also often will argue in favor of their teachings in two ways: (1) sectarian mode: Mahayana is superior and forms of Buddhism that are not Mahayana are inferior, (2) in a more neutral tone, defending the value of Mahayana teachings.

So, what I often see on these debates is that, sometimes one side will argue for something (say, the historicity of the EBTs or why Mahayana teachings are valuable), and the other side will have a knee jerk reaction, thinking that they are arguing in a sectarian fashion or preemptively arguing against the sectarian version of the argument. I’ve seen this a lot online.

I am in a slightly weird position because, while being a Mahayanist, I don’t really accept that most Mahayana teachings go back to the historical Buddha. And that’s fine for me, since I don’t think of Buddhadharma as a fixed project that ended when the Buddha died, rather I see it as a constantly evolving project in which many beings have been a part of and contributed to. The way I see it, the Buddha was a person who discovered some very important truths. But there have been other people who followed his method and also discovered important truths, and that’s where we get most of Mahayana from. Also, I think that many Mahayana ideas are just natural developments of themes that are already found in the EBTs. That being said, I think its certainly possible that some Mahayana ideas are older than the texts which we do have, or that there is some of it which comes from another realm (just like, in the EBTs, devas and other beings sometimes come and give teachings to people). So either way, its not problematic to me that they were not literally taught by the Buddha.

But like I said, this is just one view and many Mahayanists I’ve met do think that the historical Buddha taught Mahayana teachings. IMO I think this is just as historically unfounded as the people who think that the historical Buddha taught the Theravada Abhidhamma.

10 Likes

Though there is some historical disagreement on this, I tend to follow people like Bryan Levman, who argue that chandasas is not Vedic Sanskrit per se, but specifically Vedic meters, chanting forms, and Vedic terminology, rather than the forms and terminology taught by the Buddha, i.e. his “own terminology” (sakāya niruttiyā). But I’ll let more knowledgeable people weight in on this, since it is not my area of expertise.

Speaking of this stuff, I have been looking at the Jāṇussoṇibrāhmaṇasutta (SN 45.4), for instance, wondering if it is not a source text for the Lotus Sutra.

According to the SN/SA suttas, it seems the Buddha did not really have his own terminology for his teachings. He used the language at that time the person could understand and respond to him (e.g. regarding the conversation or instruction on knowing (jānāti) and seeing (passati) the four noble truths, the notion of anicca, dukkha, suñña (empty), anatta, and the middle way).

The following viewpoints by DooDoot in DhammaWheel on the structure and content of the Pali texts to some extent fit in closely with Ven. YinShun on the formation of EBTs:

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=727919#p727919