Hi all - I posted this in the newcomers question pinned post as one of several and it was a cross post from the lengthy Theravada vs EBT checklist post and was told to break out my series of questions into individual posts hence why I’m now creating a third post about this. Apologies if it seems like I’ve spammed this question.
To the extent someone is practicing according to a traditional Theravada style vs EBTs style do these differences highlighted lead to materially different outcomes?
IE does practicing in a Theravada path with its corresponding beliefs that differ from the EBTs impact right view? Or as long as 4NT, N8FP, DO, Kamma are understood at a macro level these finer details don’t make that much of a difference in progressing on the path and attaining.
To be clear, I’m a big fan of the EBTs and have consumed a large amount of Bhikku Analayo’s books and articles as well as works / talks by Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali, but I’m wondering while getting as close to the word of the Buddha that we can is great does it lead to meaningfully different outcomes if someone were to study traditional Theravada vs EBTs.
Additionally, considering the EBTs are a relatively recent phenomenon would the implications be then that Theravada practitioners for centuries have been practicing incorrectly?
This is purely a personal opinion but from what I’ve read from comparisons of the core sutta text’s transmitted in Chinese, Pali, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tibetan and others, is that the core teachings were preserved in all of the four main nikaya, that is Sthavira (including Theravada), Sarvastivada, mahasanghika, puggalavadin.
So if you relied on the vast store of the Buddha’s preserved Sutta (similarly transmitted in each tradition) rather than limiting yourself to those that most affirmed the view of a particular school or dogmatic treatises seeking to show the superiority of your school, then the outcome would be the same.
To answer this, I think the differences between the EBTs and Theravāda listed in the above essay should be categorized into the following three categories:
Pointers that are supported by, or are in line with, the EBTs
Pointers that are neither explicitly supported nor contradicted by the EBTs
Pointers that are contradicted by the EBTs
For example, consider the case of meditation retreats.
The essay states that “the EBTs contain no notion of such an intensive meditation retreat for layfolk.” In my opinion, this point can be placed under Category 1. While formal meditation retreats for lay practitioners may not be explicitly mentioned in the EBTs, they are in principle in line with the EBTs. The Buddha encouraged lay followers to practice the Dhamma diligently and to strive for higher attainments, and there are many examples in the EBTs of lay disciples attaining advanced stages of realization.
Similarly, if all the listed differences are categorized in this manner, it may help in better answering your question.
In my opinion, the pointers that fall under Category 3—those that appear to be contradicted by the EBTs—require further careful reflection and examination.
If right view is aligned with the core EBT themes which are → Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, dependent origination, kamma and its results → then most differences between “EBT-style” and traditional Theravada style rarely produce materially different outcomes. What matters most is integrity of sila (ethics/morality), steady samadhi, and penetrating panna (wisdom) into the three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) and the four noble truths. So however framed those differences are, i don’t think there will be different outcomes.
