EBTs & Problem of Inauthentic Texts
I think the existence of texts cast as “Inauthentic & fictional” in the Pāli Canon by the EBT Scholars creates a problem that I haven’t seen adequately handled by the EBT camp that I’ll be calling Preservationists, a position that is explained by Bhantes @Sujato & @Brahmali in their Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts.
That problem is, of course (If the suttas were meant as a historical accurate account of Buddha’s ministry) Why did the Sangha make up obviously fictional & inauthentic texts and include them in the Canon?
In their work, they argue that:
- That most of the EBTs are authentic.
An authentic text is one whose provenance is what it says it is. In this case this means that texts that purport to be the words of the historical Buddha and his immediate disciples were in fact spoken by them.Early Buddhist Texts: Texts spoken by the historical Buddha and his contemporary disciples. These are the bulk of the Suttas in the main four Pali Nikāyas and parallel Āgama literature in Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, and other Indian dialects; the pātimokkhas, and some Vinaya material from the khandhakas; a small portion of the Khuddaka Nikāya, consisting of significant parts of the Sutta Nipāta, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, and Thera- and Therī Gāthā. The “Suttas” in a narrow sense are those passages that are directly attributed to the Buddha himself (and to a lesser extent his direct disciples).
- That the EBTs were edited and arranged over a few centuries following the Buddha’s demise. The texts as we have them now are not a verbatim record of the Buddha’s utterances, but the changes are in almost all cases details of editing and arrangement, not of doctrine or substance.
With this view, they’re already in tension with the Theravada Mainline view, which of course holds that entire Pāli Canon are Buddhavacana.
For the sake of this discussion, I’ll be reformulating their view for a theory of how Sutta-Tradition began:
For Preservationists, suttas are born as detailed historical records of the Shakyamuni Buddha’s insight & doctrine.
EBT Preservationists posit that the canon is corrupted, as they declare “That the inauthentic portions of these texts are generally identifiable.” ibid, therefore accusing the Sangha of composing and passing along fictional texts.
This is a delicate issue, and it’s hard to handle it with care and respect.
I do not know a way to explain their position and how they explain that Pāli Canon contains Inauthentic suttas, without casting Sangha as liars.
I’m positioning myself in the (Historical-)Fictionalist camp, that Buddhism likely began with indeed a historical Buddha, who did inspire a lot of followers, but in the early days it’s likely that the Sangha was less interested in preserving a verbatim doctrine or an extensive historical record, than they were inspiring with colourful similes to talk about the virtues and bliss of renunciation.
This is not to say the entire thing is a fiction, and that nothing can be traced to Shakyamuni at all. Perhaps some (a lot) of verses could be traced to him. Perhaps, the main doctrine really belongs to him.
I’d like to have a little more faith in the people who took effort to memorise and pass on these texts. The most generous (and honestly, the simplest) explanation I have is that Shakyamuni probably did live, and he was so inspirational that people couldn’t stop making stories about him.
But who Buddha was and what he did would’ve been second to the kind of bon-mots and pratice he taught. Indeed, there are many suttas where “The Buddha” could’ve been any other sage, and the text doesn’t make it obvious that it is Shakyamuni itself. So perhaps people simply just made up stories saying “So spoke the sage, or so I’ve heard”, with a wink and a smirk.
It’s easy to contemplate how such a movement, as it grew larger and more numerous, had to unify their doctrine at some point, and also fill in the blanks about this mysterious sage that so many were inspired by.
I think this is more generous explanation for the evolution of the Canon, without accusing elders of being liars. But this obviously fictional element might’ve been over time taken more and more literally, to the point that we think that it was always a literal history.
After all, if it was always mostly a fiction, then writing another fictional story about how Shakyamuni died, how Council got together, so on and so forth, would not really be a lie. It’s just another story in the fantastic stories.
Morever, this perspective doesn’t discredit the importance of the obviously fantastical and fictional elements in the Canon. Indeed, those fantastic and fictional elements then are seen not as bug, but a feature.
Therefore, we’re not in a hurry to read over the parts where peoples’ heads explode, where monks shake buildings with their toes, where monks fly up in the air and burst into flame. For an EBT Preservationist, these sections are necessarily problems, the unfortunate corruptions of folk who had to make up exaggrations (a rather condescending attitude, if I may!).
For a Fictionalist, those are the very treasures of the Canon, carrying the spirit of the Community that shaped these stories.
In their work above, Bhantes Suajto & Brahmali create a “Denialist” which they find unreasonable given the ‘evidence’ they present.
But then, if Buddhism indeed began as a historical & doctrinal factual preservation movement, then how come the Sangha wrote such Extensive amount of fictional works? If the implicit assumption in Councils was that they were to preserve “The word of the Buddha & Nothing But the Word of the Buddha”, how could they convince so many monks to include so many inauthentic texts in the Canon?
How could the Sangha, who should be upholding Right Speech, create such a monumental lie? Is this a charitable view of the tradition?
The simplest explanation I can think of, is then: That these stories weren’t originally meant to be taken literally, as historical records. That’s the only way I can reconcile a group of monks who swear by Right View, to expand on the Canon so generously and creatively.
My argument, then, is not a Denialist, because perhaps it’s unreasonable to expect Buddhism to meet the “Historical Preservation” goals that we think it should.
Such developments (that is, how the meta story evolved to include those elements of preservation) can be explained with Socio-Political pressures without casting Ancient Sangha as liars, coupled with actual preservation methods and practices.
Phew. That was a mouthful, and I hope I managed to stay in line respectfully, without offending any parties involved. 
I do sincerely believe that my approach (which I’m building on, with the works of Gregory Schopen, Steven Collins, Richard Gombrich, John Strong, Jonathan Walters, and so on) treats a careful line, that:
- Doesn’t discredit the importance of materials because they’re late.
- Doesn’t discredit the monks who transmit these texts as “liars”.
- Doesn’t discredit the fictional and fantastical elements of the Canon.
- Meets myth sincerely for what it is, cherishing it for what it functions as.
I welcome everyone to criticise my ideas as I present them, and even more importantly, if you find yourself in the Sujato / Brahmali camp (or are those Venerables themselves!), then I do invite you to explain why and how the Sangha managed to create and transmit inauthentic texts without causing a stirrup in the Sangha, how such a conspiracy might’ve occurred without a single note in the history.
“Artists use lies to tell the truth.” Alan Moore
Closing off, I’d rather see the ancient Sangha as artists who told the truth using fiction, rather than as corrupt historians.
After all, imagine I give you an apple jam I’ve made with 99 good apples, and a single rotten, worm infested apple. Would you eat that jam?
Respectfully, with love.
Generally though, from a rough overview of Venerables Analayo, Sujato, Brahmali, they do entertain the idea that not all of fantastical elements may be factual. I’m thinking about Aggañña Sutta, for example, which they entertain as a satire of Brahmanical views.
Hello Bhante 
.