I am reading “Similes of the Buddha” by Hellmuth Hecker and I was intrigued by the Introduction, where he talks about the significance of similes for the authenticity of Buddhist texts. The book is freely available at the Open Buddhist University, https://buddhistuniversity.net/content/monographs/similes-of-the-buddha_hecker, I am pasting a few relevant paragraphs (all emphases are mine) and questions related to them.
… That is why the similes are not just embellishments or interesting folkloristic additions or concessions to human superficiality, but one of the principal means to show the unity of the inner and the outer, of the world and the psyche. Viewed from this perspective, similes turn out to be one of the core teaching elements for the understanding of the mental character of phenomena.
The authenticity of the texts can be measured by the quantity and significance of similes. One of the characteristics of many post-classic Buddhist texts is the total absence of similes. This absence contributes to the dryness and dullness of the Abhidhamma works. Studying these texts, one could get the impression that, in contrast to the discourses (suttas), the authors had no understanding of the unity of the inner and outer and therefore were unable to create similes.
One exception seems to be the Milindapañhá (“Questions ofKing Milinda”), written in about 100 CE, which almost flows over with new similes. These similes, however, are not always of high quality. Sometimes shallow or unclear images are used, obscuring problems that were explained by the Buddha with
clear and powerful similes. There are few gold-nuggets, comparable to the original rich similes in the suttas, for example, the Simile of the Archer, which is Simile 42 in this book. Nevertheless, the Milindapañhá shows that an abundance of similes is not a guarantee for the profoundness of a later Buddhist text, though the absence of similes is a sure indication for being distant from the Buddha.
In the Buddhist literature of even later times the content of similes is meagre. Where they appear, especially in the colourful, long Maháyána texts, they mostly disappoint in comparison with the original canonical texts. They are rather playful and more literary ornaments than guides to the realization of reality. Nevertheless, wherever the knowledge of the simile-like nature of things is taken seriously, substantial similes can be found again here and there, for example in the early Chinese Chan tradition. Later, however, this tradition froze the similes into lifeless koans.
What do forum members who are interested in such issues make of this argument?
Are there any counter examples anyone knows?
Is it possible that similes were created and used more often mostly in the early period, until the teachings were not that widespread, and eventually when they were common knowledge, there wasn’t much need to keep inventing and inserting similes?
Just throwing some questions and ideas out there.
I looked at Bhante Sujato and Venerable Brahmali’s Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts and it does mention this book but I am looking to see if there are other studies or arguments about similes.