How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist

[knotty36]

@sujato

@prajnadeva

Namarupa

Later tradition define nama = vinnana, vedana, sanna, sankhara.

Right, yes, this one should be in there.

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.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@sujato

imbued with magical powers, be it of healing, protection against violence, and so on

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.

[sujato]

@knotty36

This is a discrepancy between the Āgamas and Nikāyas.

Yes, that’s true, I should acknowledge that. I think it’s one of the few instances of genuine divergence in an important doctrine.

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

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.

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 …

[AdrianMagno]

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

[sujato]

@AdrianMagno

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?

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.

[Subharo]

@sujato

only a coiuple of centuries

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/

[MattStL]

Yea, and it’s already being accused of being white washed pseudo-Protestant analysis.

Sigh.

[666tomanderson]

In the Suddhodana as king section:

@sujato

But the model of leadership was quite different from the idea off an absolute, inherited monarchy that is implied by the idea of a “king”.

… idea of an absolute …

[calliejustice]

@sujato

Jhanas are not an obstacle to get around. They are what happens when obstacles vanish. If the five hindrances have gone and you can’t get into jhana: why not? What is hindering you if not, you know, the hindrances? If you can’t get into jhanas, your problem is not “can I get enlightened without jhanas”, it’s “why am I not letting go of the hindrances?”

Thank you, Bhante, for once more coming through with a solid bit of clear thinking that cuts through to the essential!

[Pasanna]

Bhante, this is great. A little too long for me to read on screen though…

@UpasakaMichael

Sadhu! This is an important essay, and thank you for writing this. It should be required reading for those invested in Buddhism, and I might suggest that it be submitted for publication, or example, in Tricycle. Readers of Tricycle will likely push back out of need to protect their territories, but these words from Bhante are important to remember. What the Buddha Taught really does count for something, and much of both Eastern and Western ‘Buddhisms’ have conveniently forgotten the Dhamma, or chosen to ignore it, or willfully misappropriated and distorted it for commercial or other reasons.

I was thinking this would make a nice little free distribution booklet… and it does (freely distributed in the Dhammasara library anyway)

I have only spent a few hours typesetting this at this stage. However, if people are interested, then I am happy to collaborate.

At the moment the document is 40pp self covering - A5 (20 x A4 pages) as a pdf (setup in Indesign CS6)
ebt_v_thera.pdf (406.5 KB)
(last updated 6 Feb 2022)

I also made a ePub for ebook nerds.
bu_sujato_ebt_v_thera.epub (156.0 KB)

My feedback is that the US spelling hurts my eyes

[UpasakaMichael]

Wow, Ayya thanks for doing this! I am off to Thailand again this next week and will print out and distribute…this is wonderful that you took the time and effort to do this!

Michael

[thomaslaw]

@thomaslaw

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).

The following is the quotation, in Chapter 10, Section 4, from the book The Formation of Early Buddhist Texts by Ven Yinshun:

第四節 結說

經上來的比對研究，「四阿含」（「四部」）的成立，可得到幾點明確的認識。1.佛法的結集，起初是「修多羅」，次為「祇夜」、「記說」——「弟子所說」、「如來所說」。這三部分，為組成「雜阿含」（起初應泛稱「相應教」）的組成部分。「弟子所說」與「如來所說」，是附編於「蘊」、「處」、「因緣」、「菩提分法」——四類以下的。這是第一結集階段。在「雜阿含」三部分的集成過程中，集成以後，都可能因經文的傳出而編入，文句也逐漸長起來了。佛教界稟承佛法的宗本——「修多羅」，經「弟子所說」的學風，而展開法義的分別、抉擇、闡發、論定，形成了好多經典。結集者結集起來，就是「中阿含」；這是以僧伽、比丘為重的，對內的。將分別抉擇的成果，對外道、婆羅門，而表揚佛是正等覺者，法是善說者，適應天、魔、梵——世俗的宗教意識，與「祇夜」精神相呼應的，集為「長阿含」。「雜」、「中」、「長」，依文句的長短而得名。以（弟子所說）「如來所說」為主，以增一法而進行類集，《如是語》與《本事經》的形成，成為「九分教」之一，還在「中」、「長」——二部成立以前。但為了便於誦持，著重於一般信眾的教化，廢去「傳說」及「重頌」的形式，而進行擴大的「增壹阿含」的編集，應該比「長阿含」更遲一些。以「雜阿含」為本而次第形成四部阿含，《瑜伽師地論》的傳說，不失為正確的說明！近代的研究者，過分重視巴利文（Pāli）；依巴利文聖典，不能發見四部阿含集成的真相。即使以「雜阿含」的原形為最古，而不能理解為三部分（「修多羅」、「祇夜」、「記說」）的合成；不知三部分的特性，與三部阿含形成的關係，也就不能理解依「雜阿含」而次第形成四部的過程。

[sujato]

Awesome, thanks Ayya!

I have thought of doing something similar, maybe wait a little until it matures. I’ve recently been using pandoc, you can convert to PDF via LuaLaTeX and also to EPUB, super easy!

Oh, also, best take off the SuttaCentral branding, this is just my personal opinion!

[seniya]

Can you translate what the quotation said? Because I believe most of users here can’t read Chinese, including me

[thomaslaw]

The Chinese text, as stated previously, is about the formation of early Buddhist texts, from SN/SA (or 相應教 Saṃyukta-kathā) gradually developed and expanded to MN/MA, DN/DA, AN/EA. The SN/SA has three portions (Sutra, Geya, and Vyakarana angas); the Sutra-anga portion was the earliest of the three. The Sutra collections of Early Buddhism include SN/SA (originated at the first council) and MN/MA, DN/DA, and AN/EA (originated at the second council, one hundred years after the death of the Buddha). SN/SA represents the situation with regard to the compilation of the Buddhist teachings shortly after the death of the Buddha. MN/MA, DN/DA, and AN/EA represent the Buddhism of the period just before that second council. SN/SA was thus the foundation of the four nikayas/agamas, based on the Sarvastivada tradition of the Vastusangrahani of the Yogacarabhumi , according to Ven. Yinshun.

[Pasanna]

I’ve updated the files to not have SuttaCentral branding. Happy to work on this further when the time is right.
I’ll keep in mind Pandoc. It won’t be long until my 10 year old macbook air will not be supported by the world and I will then MacBunto it. However, that seems like way too much ‘letting go’ for me right now!

[sujato]

see pandoc’d version above! Thanks for the inspiration.

[Raftafarian]

@sujato

If we were to frame this difference in terms used by the later tradition, reading Analayo one would think this refers to vipassanā samādhi (the state of mind of one doing vipassanā meditation), whereas in fact it refers to lokuttara samādhi (the state of mind of one who attains the Dhamma). These phrases are, once more, talking about a level of absorption that is not before jhāna but beyond jhāna.

I may be being a little thick here, but does this imply that the formless attainments were not included in the EBTs?

[sujato]

@Raftafarian

does this imply that the formless attainments were not included in the EBTs?

It’s not at all a thick question, and there are indeed those who would argue that the formless attainments are not included in the earliest teachings. To be clear, they are found, very widely, in the EBTs, and I disagree with the arguments that they are a later addition. Still, there is no doubt that the four jhanas are the central aspect of samadhi in the EBTs.

In the case, however, the distinction was made with lokuttara samādhi, which is quite different from the formless attainments.

The lokuttara jhanas are not really described as such in the EBTs, although there are a number of passages and references on which they are based. It seems that originally the idea was simple, and was established to distinguish between Buddhist and non-Buddhist practitioners of jhana.

Someone practicing jhana without right view (from the Buddhist perspective) has an experience of bliss and freedom, and after death will likely abide in a dimension of corresponding bliss. However this is not permanent and after some time they will return to this world or even to lower realms. This kind of samādhi is therefore regarded as lokiya “worldly” or “mundane”, but what it really means is “bound to the world”, i.e. “subject to rebirth”.

In contrast, one who, grounded on right view, realizes that same state of mind that we call jhana, will, due to the combined power of their samadhi and wisdom, break free of the chains of rebirth and find freedom. This is called lokuttara “beyond the world” or “transcendent” samādhi.

Over time, this distinction became more tightly constrained, as is the wont of the Abhidhamma, and the lokuttara samādhi was felt to be confined to, not just any jhana practiced by one of right view, but certain specific “mind moments” that occur on the occasion of realizing the noble paths and fruits. The path moments occur only once, as their function is to destroy the fetters, but the fruition moments may be re-entered in meditation by a practitioner. Certain descriptions of mysterious states of samādhi in the Suttas are said to be about such fruition attainments, especially for the arahant.

[Raftafarian]

@sujato

Someone practicing jhana without right view (from the Buddhist perspective) has an experience of bliss and freedom, and after death will likely abide in a dimension of corresponding bliss.

This sounds a lot like:

The end of the world can never
be reached by traveling.
But without reaching the end of the world,
there’s no release from suffering.

Is the fourth jhana reaching the end of the world? The world we construct in our heads, that is.