Early Buddhism critique

The Watercooler
42

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.

43

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
44

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.

45

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.

46

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).

47

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