I wonder which scholar or text first states clearly that ‘Early Buddhism’ in history is not Pali or Theravada Buddhism?
Most of scholars or Theravada Buddhists will simply consider Pali/Theravada Buddhism is or represents Early Buddhism.
Good question. It’d be from the 19th century Indologists, but not sure exactly where.
Your work is awesome, Doug, keep it up. There’s an art to making a good YT video!
Thanks!
2 Likes
With the Buddhist model of transient consciousness, then presumably there would be intermittent awareness of Nibbana, which itself is unchanging.
I raised a question about consciousness and Nibbana in the Q&A section a couple of months ago and there’s a long and intersting thread on it, including repsonses from Ven. Sunyo.
Also here are links about this topic from Bhante Sujato’s blog:
Hope this is helpful! 
3 Likes
“Honestly, I find the constant bringing up of this issue so spiritually decadent. When did we start treating jhanas as a problem? When did we start defining our spiritual path by what we can get away with instead of what we can aspire to ?”
so… much… this
1 Like
Hi Bhante! Long-time!
predictably, I >99% agree and only two very minor things-
‘Ontology’ doesn’t necessarily mean a substantialist type of ontology, there are also a range of relational ontologies. I think it’s just a difference in words not a real disagreement on meaning, but I tend to say that paticcasamuppada is a type of relational ontology. This also relates to your point about interpretation of puggalavada not necessarily contradicting anatta. For example, one of my favorite philosophers now, who died in February, John/ Ioannis Zizioulas, he uses the term personalism to sum up his variety of humanism, but the way he explains the existence of a person is quite consistent with no substantial independent existence apart from the web of relations. One of his slogans is ‘the person is Otherness in communion’ (where the universal, infinite “Other” is a term for God). (You might like him more if you know he also advocated for women’s ordination, long before that was a more popular opinion, while being a Greek Orthodox metropolitan bishop, professor, and leading envoy of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Orthodox-Catholic theological discussions. Specifically he derived that conclusion from his eschatological ecclesiology, where he argued that “remembering the future”, or growing into the purpose of our existence, is ultimately even more important than remembering the past and conserving the best of historical traditions. Of course he also based his theory on the earliest sources , but about women’s ordination he concluded that there is no good enough reason not to, even if it’s really never been done before (which is also historically doubtful), and it’s necessary now for the fulfilment of the purpose given to us.)
Light behaves as both wave and particle- Is It a Wave or a Particle? It's Both, Sort Of. | Space I still remember the physics class at 17-18 when we did the slit interference experiment/ demonstration. It’s quite mindblowing when you actually see it behaving as both a wave and a particle, with such simple apparatus. It doesn’t affect your conclusion, just that metaphor doesn’t exactly work, and incidentally it’s fascinating. 
Even more weirdly - all matter behaves as both wave and particle if your measurement instruments are big enough to match.
I’m anumodana’ing that you included the points about how the monastic community law vs. actual norms in practice now about hierarchy and abbots differ. (You may also be anumodana to know that since we last met I did a sh*ttonne of psychotherapy, and I am now able to observe that fact without emotionally overreacting. 
)
Mettaya,
Kester (formerly bhikkhu santi)
p.s. I first looked up what you’re up to now because I want to ask you whether you think non-verbal working memory is a synonym for sati/smrti. I’m dealing with primarily inattentive type ADHD now, it got much worse than before when you knew me, but I think the regular meditation practice was helping and a large part of why it didn’t show up before. I was looking at some brain training apps with working memory exercises, but I think those seem to mostly target verbal working memory, and my problem is mostly non-verbal procedural working memory. My hunch is that body-based mindfulness practices, walking and breathing foci, would help more than those brain training apps. Any clues or advice for me? Also it’d be nice to catch up sometime on the phone if you like.
5 Likes
Hello and welcome @kester . On behalf of the moderators, we hope that this forum is of benefit to you on your path. Should you need any assistance, please don’t hesitate to ask by sending a PM to @moderators.
With metta.
2 Likes
Hey Kester, good to hear from you!
Good point, I’ll specify “substantialist ontology”.
1 Like
Oh, Bhante Sujato!!
Had i read this first thing upon stumbling on to this site, it would have indeed answered so many of the questions i have had!! I have the UTMOST respect for one who has spent so much of their life researching like you have. You are an amazing human.
I will read this more than once.
Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!
1 Like
@sabbamitta
Thank you, also for directing me here. I should have read this days ago when you suggested it.
2 Likes
I’m working on a French one!
2 Likes
Thanks @sujato it was a wonderful read!
A few things I noticed:
Page 13 (5 from bottom): “there there”
Page 17 “Relics worship” or “Relic worship”??? I’m not sure but pass it on for your review
Page 20 para 2: I found this sentence long and a bit hard to get my head around
Page 32 para 3: you use “which” and “that” in the exact way I was taught except here! Shouldnt it be “that” instead of “which”?
Page 37: I think many would argue with your statement that photons are accepted as particles. They have no mass and quantum physics describes them as behaving a bit like particles and a bit like waves, depending on whether they are observed or not…which is fascinating given the Buddha’s “the mind is the forerunner of all things” (is matter derived from consciousness then???
As I have mentioned before on one of the Wednesday talks, I do not think “nun” is the right word for bhikkhuni but I guess that is a bigger discussion !
And a few potential missing commas:
However (missing comma): page 15, 17(para2), page 43 (para 4), page 44 (para 1), page 46 (para 3)
Page 43 obviously (missing comma)
I found nama rupa (page 31) fascinating but confusing. Does that mean in the 12-fold nexus of conditioned origination the “nama rupa” doesnt refer to the 5 khandas but just the ones other than consciousness?
Also, was fascinated to hear of the Buddha relics in the Delhi Museum and Chief Disciple relics in the Maha Bodhi Society. Would love to hear about their provenance in one of your talks!
Thanks again
2 Likes
Thanks, I’ll look at these suggestions.
Indeed, it is explicitly defined to exclude consciousness in the suttas (eg. SN 12.2.)
3 Likes
i was enjoying reading until we got down to the part about meat eating. having an appreciation of EBTs and a critical eye to theravāda orthodoxy does not mean you have to become vegan. this is your personal opinion
"
Blockquote
saṅkhāra: choices
In the EBTs we find the word saṅkhāra used in many senses, among which the following are the most doctrinally significant:
- volition or intention (i.e. kamma)
- conditioned phenomena (i.e. everything except for Nibbana)
Theravada acknowledges these two senses; for example, in the phrase “all saṅkhāras are impermanent” it means “conditioned phenomena”, while in dependent origination it means volition.
However, in the important context of the five aggregates, Theravada gives saṅkhāra a rather odd scope. There, it is said to mean “all conditioned phenomena apart from the things covered in the other aggregates”. Once more, this stems from an attempt to retro-fit the aggregates to suit the systematic needs of the Abhidhamma.
The aggregates were never intended to be a comprehensive classification of all phenomena; notably, the word “all” is used of the six senses, not the aggregates. Rather, the aggregates were a handy scheme for classifying theories of self. Some people took the self to be material, others to be a feeling, and so on, while others took it as a combination of these things.
Contemplation of the aggregates reveals that the various candidates for a self do not live up to the expectations we have for a self, as they inevitably change and fail to provide the satisfaction we crave.
Thus saṅkhāra in the five aggregates has the same meaning it does in dependent origination and elsewhere: volition. It is the identification of the self with the will: “I am the decider”. Nowhere do the EBTs suggest that the sense is broader than this.
In modern English, a morally relevant act of will is usually described as a “choice”. One can make good choices and bad choices, but not good volitions or bad volitions; and “good intentions” while idiomatic, has a rather different connotation."
Blockquote
The Goenka tradition, as communicated in his 10-day instructions and discourses, conveys sankhara as a stockpile of accumulated kamma of the past based on mental reactions of craving and aversion over lifetimes, manifesting at present in the meditator as different types of vedana, translated by Goenka as physical sensations. Annually, hundreds of thousands of meditators at his nearly 200 worldwide centers are taught that by observing the impermanence of physical sensations with equanimity, they will be eradicating progressively deep-rooted, at first gross, then more subtle, “layers” of accumulated sankhara, resulting ultimately in liberation. How accurate is Goenka’s interpretation of sankhara?
Seems like a pretty accurate representation of the Jain view to me, to which the Buddha is reported to have responded:
Kiṁ pana tumhe, āvuso nigaṇṭhā, jānātha ettakaṁ vā dukkhaṁ nijjiṇṇaṁ, ettakaṁ vā dukkhaṁ nijjīretabbaṁ, ettakamhi vā dukkhe nijjiṇṇe sabbaṁ dukkhaṁ nijjiṇṇaṁ bhavissatī’ti?
But reverends, do you know that so much suffering has already been worn away? Or that so much suffering still remains to be worn away? Or that when so much suffering is worn away all suffering will have been worn away?
~ MN 14
He went on to contrast this view with his own by further asking:
But reverends, do you know about giving up unskillful qualities in the present life and embracing skillful qualities?
Kiṁ pana tumhe, āvuso nigaṇṭhā, jānātha diṭṭheva dhamme akusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ pahānaṁ, kusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ upasampadan’ti?
2 Likes
Not very accurate at all, and in fact I think this type of interpretation can have harmful consequences. The exclusive focus on equanimity is also misguided - meditation is not just about equanimity. Unfortunately, a lot of people attend these courses with no prior knowledge and so they have no idea that what they are being taught is not very Buddhist. Another example: it is forbidden by the monastic code of discipline for monks to take a vow of silence. What Goenka centers call “Noble Silence” is something the Buddha specifically laid down a rule against. (Noble Silence in Buddhism refers to the second jhana).
You can maybe tell that I had a bad personal experience at a Goenka retreat center 
. And I understand why this criticism would be difficult to hear for those who have had positive experiences with the organization. Some noise has been made about the bad things, but I do not think it has been enough. To reiterate, I think some apects of the organization can be harmful, and so should be spoken out against.
3 Likes
@sujato Bhante,
A number of the points you refer to are in contradiction to the teaching of the Thai forest tradition. I don’t wish to itemise such points as I am sure you are well aware of them.
Teachers in that tradition, such as Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Tate, Ajahn Maha Boowa , Ajahn Char, Ajahn Lee and Ajahn Sim, generally express their teachings as descriptions of real experiences. All the teachers that I have listened to, read and spoken to also like to link/reference their experiences to the text.
Are you, through the medium of this book, discounting the collective teaching of these Ajahns? What is your view of the Thai Forest Tradition? Do you consider these teachers to be misguided on these points of difference?
PS. It is not my intention to start an argument about this. I am genuinely interested in understanding where you see the Thai Forest Tradition fitting into what you refer to as the teachings of the EBT. If these teachers are genuinely Arahants, then surely their interpretation of the text must be correct? Thanks.