Thanks! I loved the way you stated it. I would add as a minor side note that the Vimanavatthu has all sorts of “mercenary” (ruthless focus on short-term personal profit, never mind morality) shortcuts to heaven in it as well.
1 Like
I’m not familiar, can you give an example?
Most of the Vimanavatthu suttas center around how generosity to Buddhist monks leads to heaven. It can come across as really self-serving, to the monks who teach it. That strong emphasis on giving to the very monks teaching these suttas can make the monks look too eager to receive offerings.
I got the word “mercenary” from (I’m pretty sure) the introduction to I.B. Horner’s translation of the Vimanavatthu (see "Minor Anthologies (Vol IV) — Vimanavatthu: Stories of the Mansions, and Petavatthu, I.B. Horner).
Edit: it’s not quite as “ruthless” as I recall it being, when I take a second look. But definitely strongly weighted to generosity to monks, over, say, developing sila. I don’t want to discourage generosity to the Sangha, BTW! It’s just that the shift in weightiness is interesting, the later the texts get.
1 Like
This is kind of a side topic, but I will disagree. A common theme is that even the slightest offering to the sangha provides emense results. I’m thinking of the needle offering and the burnt rice crust offering. So the idea is not that you should offer huge amounts of things but that the offering should be placed in the sangha, which is the canonical definition of the supreme field of merit. I have only ever heard this “self serving” argument from westerners. In practice these suttas are frequently taught as a part of the meal anumodana when it is fully appropriate to remind people that the action they just did will have great results.
Unless, of course, a monk is for some reason particularly greedy for the burnt rice on the bottom of the cooking pot. 
If we look at the flip side where we assume that the cannon is correct when it tells us of the importance of gifts to the sangha, then a monk who did not teach this would be shirking his responsibilities.
Of course monks can teach the Dhamma in a self serving way. But that is not limited to these suttas.
And regarding the amisa puja thing, does anyone see a place where the Buddha told people to not make these kinds of offerings? I’m looking for something explicit, not simply the passage quoted above where someone could infer things that aren’t in the text. It is indeed explicit that things like meditation and right view are far more fruitful than material offerings. But material offerings as good karma are quite frequently mentioned in the EBTs. So to somehow say that it is a later/Theravada thing… that’s what I’m not seeing.
2 Likes
You’re right, my quotation above would be Buddhagosa speaking, condemning “Amisa puja”.
I think “Amisa puja” there refers to making merit by worshipping material objects which are not living, breathing people, like monks and nuns. So worshipping stupas, statues, etc. With respect to worshipping those inanimate objects, Buddhagosa says “The deed done belongs to the doer alone”. So (my understanding is that) there is some merit in the act of amisa puja, but when there is no living, breathing recipient of the gift, then there is no “merit amplification bonus”, as it were, like when the recipient “purifies the gift” (owing to their right view, good sila, and good meditation practice). So merit-making is always more fruitful when giving to a living person (to get the “merit amplification bonus”), rather than an inanimate object, which cannot “purify the gift”.
Can I back up these views from the EBTs? I have a couple of EBT references for you:
In MN 142, there are 7 kinds of offerings made to the Sangha (see verse 7).
- “There are seven kinds of offerings made to the Sangha, Ānanda.
One gives a gift to a Sangha of both [bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs] headed by the Buddha; this is the first kind of offering made to the Sangha.
One gives a gift to a Sangha of both [bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs] after the Tathāgata has attained final Nibbāna; this is the second kind of offering made to the Sangha.
One gives a gift to a Sangha of bhikkhus; this is the third kind of offering made to the Sangha. One gives a gift to a Sangha of bhikkhunīs; this is the fourth kind of offering made to the Sangha.
One gives a gift, saying: ‘Appoint so many bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs for me from the Sangha’; this is the fifth kind of offering made to the Sangha.
One gives a gift, saying: ‘Appoint so many bhikkhus for me from the Sangha’; this is the sixth kind of offering made to the Sangha.
One gives a gift, saying: ‘Appoint so many bhikkhunīs for me from the Sangha’; this is the seventh kind of offering made to the Sangha.
Note how once the Buddha parinibbanas, he drops out of appearing anywhere the list of recipients, in a straightforward manner. The Buddha says nothing like “keep making offerings to me (in statue format or not), once I’m dead and gone”. It’s the remaining living recipients in the Sangha who keep being the recipients he refers to.
Also note (same sutta, verse 9-12) that in order for an offering to be purified (beyond the deed done/merit belonging just to the doer), there needs to be a living, breathing recipient each time (who is a being, who is an existing person of some sort, as opposed to an inanimate object):
“There are, Ānanda, four kinds of purification of offering. What four? There is the offering that is purified by the giver, not by the receiver. There is the offering that is purified by the receiver, not by the giver. There is the offering that is purified neither by the giver nor by the receiver. There is the offering that is purified both by the giver and by the receiver.
“And how is the offering purified by the giver, not by the receiver? Here the giver is virtuous, of good character, and the receiver is immoral, of evil character. Thus the offering is purified by the giver, not by the receiver.
“And how is the offering purified by the receiver, not by the giver? Here the giver is immoral, of evil character, and the receiver is virtuous, of good character. Thus the offering is purified by the receiver, not by the giver.
“And how is the offering purified neither by the giver nor by the receiver? Here the giver is immoral, of evil character, and the receiver is immoral, of evil character. Thus the offering is purified neither by the giver nor by the receiver.
Amisa puja doesn’t warrant mention anywhere in these lists!
I think Westerners have a cultural common sense that they would far rather bestow generosity on living beings, not inanimate objects. Meticulous metaphysics about how inanimate objects don’t make all that good of a recipient of a gift, sort of goes without saying, for Westerners.
1 Like
You refer to “Early Buddhism is the teachings of the “early Buddhist texts” (EBTs), that is, the canonical discourses in Pali, Chinese, Tibetan, and Sanskrit that were codified in the Buddha’s lifetime or shortly thereafter.”
That “shortly thereafter” could refer to the first council, if according to Ven. Yinshun:
The Sutra collections of Early Buddhism include SA/SN (originated at the first council) and MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN (originated at the second council, one hundred years after the death of the Buddha).
SA/SN represents the situation with regard to the compilation of the Buddhist teachings shortly after the death of the Buddha.
MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN represent the Buddhism of the period just before that second council.
I have to say, Bhante S., I was a bit thrown by that line. Would it be more correct to say
the canonical discourses in Pali, Chinese, Tibetan, and Sanskrit whose original texts were codified in the Buddha’s lifetime or shortly thereafter.
I’m not trying to debate things. But were any of the Tibetan texts codified shortly after the Buddha’s lifetime?
2 Likes
is deliberately vague. I’m not propounding any particular theory of the formation of the texts, merely specifying that I am talking about the canonical texts.
This is too categorical, and I personally disagree with the historical framing. Yes, SN probably represents the earliest structural form of the canon, but it’s not like everything else simply didn’t exist. It’s just a process of organizing things. Sure, there are occasional phrases suggestive of sectarian influence in the various agamas, but there are in SN/SA too. All these texts are primarily pre-sectarian, and sectarian influence is secondary and usually readily identified.
Let me rephrase. I’m trying to be as non-specific as possible.
4 Likes
Would “origin” or “root” texts be better than “original”? Original can have many meanings, like “before something was revised” whereas I think root text is what you are talking about.
See my rephrasing, I have avoided this issue.
1 Like
Yes, all the four nikāyas/āgamas are indeed primarily pre-sectarian.
According to Ven. Yinshun, SN/SA was not at first being termed as nikāya or āgama ‘collection’, but generally named the ‘Connected Discourses’ 相應教 Saṃyukta-kathā , based on the Sarvastivada tradition of the Vastusangrahani of the Yogacarabhumi.
Calling the SN/SA as nikāyas/āgamas was until when the other three nikāyas/āgamas (MN/MA, DN/DA, AN/EA) were gradually developed and expanded from it (相應教 Saṃyukta-kathā).
2 Likes
Added sections:
- buddha images
- relics
- jatakas
3 Likes
Perhaps this one should be looked into a little more deeply first. SĀ 298, the parallel to SN 12.2, gives
「緣識名色者，云何名？謂四無色陰：受陰、想陰、行陰、識陰。」
basically: “Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ. Katamaṃ nāmaṃ? Cattāro arūpakhandhā: vedanākkhandho, saññākkhandho, saṅkhārakkhandho, viññāṇakkhandho.”
This is a discrepancy between the Āgamas and Nikāyas.
1 Like
Oh even weirder is that Buddha statues are said to travel of their own free will. The Emerald Buddha wasn’t stolen from Laos! It decided to come to Thailand all on its own.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s true, I should acknowledge that. I think it’s one of the few instances of genuine divergence in an important doctrine.
There’s so many stories! I like the one about the big Buddha image that would speak to people, especially giving soldiers rousing speeches before going off the war. Funny thing is, there was a hatch in the back, big enough for a small monk to hide …
6 Likes
Thank you bhante for this excellent essay 
It’s suprising how much I learnt when I first started learning & practicing Buddhism is part of the Theravada doctrine and not from the EBT. Thank you for clarifying these things, I’m very grateful.
I was quite struck by the section on ‘reductionist not-self’. I think you’ve spoken about this before in some of your talks from the past but it’s only now when I’ve read it a couple of times that I understood what you mean, at least on an intellectual level.
Do you think this is why some people don’t progess on the path? Because the teaching is wrongly grasped? Like grasping a snake by it’s tail and not holding on to the head so you don’t get bitten?
Thanks again bhante
2 Likes
I’m honestly not sure. Obviously it’s best to have the clearest idea of what the Dhamma is, but at the same time, progress in Dhamma is affected by a myriad of factors, and theoretical understanding is only one of them.
In this case, the Theravadin understanding is not wrong per se, it’s just one-sided. I tend to be more worried about when things become overly dogmatic and rigid. So long as we recognize that our theories are frameworks that serve to support us in the right direction, we should be good. Our understanding will deepen as our progress goes.
6 Likes
Typo in Jataka section ^ “coiuple”
PS: I posted about this essay in Reddit, consider upvoting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/s51zwc/great_essay_how_early_buddhism_differs_from/
1 Like
Yea, and it’s already being accused of being white washed pseudo-Protestant analysis.
Sigh.
In the Suddhodana as king section:
… idea of an absolute …
1 Like