While studying / learning the EBTs definitely makes sense from the perspective of getting as close to the source as possible.
A question I have is how much does it actually matter regarding the actual path to liberation.
Of course right view is paramount, but for instance if one were to study orthodox Theravada, which Bhante Sujato has created a checklist detailing the difference between that and Early Buddhism (Theravada vs EBT checklist) or if one were to study Buddhadhamma by (P. A. Payutto) and there were parts that conflicted with the EBTs would these ultimately matter to someone walking on the path?
Presumably there have been numerous people who’ve attained various stages without proper EBT understanding given the study EBTs are a relatively new and still evolving phenomenon in the history of Buddhism.
In Bhikku Analayo’s Sattiphatana practice guide he mentions coming across various practioners of Mahasi, Goenka, and Pa Auk who’ve attained different stages. Presumably, those practitioners would have been studying according to those lineages which would have some differences to the EBTs.
I ask this especially in light of experts in the EBTs disagreeing on certain issues.
I guess my ultimate question is to the extent one gets the big rocks of gradual path, N8FP, 7 factors, 5 Kandas, meditation, 3 marks, DO, and a few others down, do the finer details where the differences arise matter?
Good point. Sometimes I like to put myself in the shoes of an average person who was alive at the time and place when the Buddha was, heard the Dhamma from the Buddha or the Sangha, developed faith in the Triple Gem, went on to practice the teachings as a monastic or layperson, and achieved a stage of enlightenment. Many of them likely didn’t know how to read, let alone have access to the mountains of words we have access to. Most of them probably received teachings exclusively via speech. They didn’t have suttas, abhidhamma, or commentaries. They didn’t have books or the internet or forums. They didn’t have a modern education with a mind full of complex philosophical, psychological, logical, scientific and what-have-you frameworks that are often unconscious and uninvestigated. Yet they still succeeded. Why? That’s a question worth investigating.
Personally, I love the suttas and will probably continue reading/listening to them for a long time to come. But I don’t think doing so is necessary at this point. I have enough knowledge that meditation or mindfulness is usually more fruitful than reading or listening. But that’s all a tentative assessment of my current situation and may change later—I strongly suspect that learning Pali will make my reading/listening more fruitful. Some will be in a similar situation. Others should probably be doing more reading and studying. Others are well-balanced. And needs may change as the practice changes. Each person has to continually self-assess and/or find a wise teacher. Regardless, concepts should be used as tools to enhance the practice, not the other way around where the practice is forced into a Procrustean bed of concepts.
Much though they may recite scripture,
if a negligent person does not apply them,
then, like a cowherd who counts the cattle of others,
they miss out on the blessings of the ascetic life.
Little though they may recite scripture,
if they live in line with the teaching,
having given up greed, hate, and delusion,
with deep understanding and heart well freed,
not grasping to this life or the next,
they share in the blessings of the ascetic life.
-Dhp 19-20
Also, as long as I have capacity, I feel that learning the dhamma from the source is a natural progression after learning it from teachers. I greatly appreciate my past teachers and wouldn’t be here without them.
But the dhamma has become much clearer to me and less “heavy” as I study the suttas directly. I gain more dexterity or fluency in framing the path in my own mind. It increases my faith.
Thank you both for the thoughtful responses and they both make sense.
I definitely will continue my studies of the Suttas and EBTs but where I struggle sometimes is when prominent scholars/teachers/monks of the EBTs come to vastly different conclusions regarding some of the concepts then how am I as a person with much less context history and background knowledge supposed to interpret the Suttas and how to determine which of the prominent scholars/teachers/monks interpretations should I follow?
That’s where my source of confusion comes from, is that while I see value in studying I find myself vacillating from one interpretation to another and without the proper tools/knowledge to identify which is correct (obviously there isn’t one given the differences themselves are arising). Hence my attempt to put the source of confusion to rest and reconcile with the idea that perhaps a perfect understanding isn’t required to advance on the path and even if one comes into contact with slightly off center EBT views that’s ok. Otherwise I can see myself on an eternal quest to validate and question what I’m learning.
Lastly in addition to studying the Suttas part of the appeal of a book like Buddhadhamma by PA Payutto or other modern teachers for instance is the placing of the Dhamma in broader more accessible context and my concern was that if studying that would potentially lead to some conflict with the EBTs would that ultimately matter.
AN 6.88 has advice on the 6 ways of how to best listen to Dhamma. Below are translations of the relevant excerpt.
When the teaching and practice proclaimed by the Realized One is being taught they want to listen. They actively listen and try to understand. They learn the correct meaning and neglect the incorrect meaning. They accept views that conform with the teaching.
-Bhante Sujato
When the Doctrine & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, he listens well, gives ear, applies his mind to gnosis, rejects what is worthless, grabs hold of what is worthwhile, and is endowed with the patience to conform with the teaching.
-Ajahn Thanissaro
When the Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata is being taught, (1) one wishes to listen; (2) one lends an ear; (3) one sets one’s mind on understanding; (4) one grasps the meaning; (5) one discards what is not the meaning; and (6) one has adopted a conviction that is in conformity [with the teaching].
-Venerable Bodhi
Points #4 and #5 are relevant to concerns about conflicting information given by different teachers. I read them as saying to take up the information that is useful and set aside what is not. Even very wise teachers may sometimes have a slip of the tongue or may be caught up in a defilement for a few moments while they are speaking. Or the words they use to express their understanding sound unorthodox, but if you were able to have an in-depth conversation with them and drill down to the meaning behind the unorthodox phrasing, you may find out that the meaning is in conformity with the Dhamma. Or you may misunderstand. Or they may simply be wrong, at least in that respect. And many more possibilities. The bottom line is that there are always going to be differing and even contradictory interpretations, so the best approach is to use what’s useful and set aside what’s not.
I’ve certainly seen a tendency in myself to become enamored with a certain teacher’s approach to Dhamma practice, follow it for awhile, then lose enthusiasm, only for the pattern to repeat itself with another teacher’s approach. Part of what explains this phenomenon is my character (read: kammic tendencies) as well as my life circumstances as a layperson living far from IRL Sangha and without a singular teacher. In the end, I have to develop confidence and skill in the Dhamma understanding and approach that works for me—and that’s always a work in progress.
I understand that (these forums, and many EBTists / Theravadin) consider Nikayas to have more or less kept perfectly the word of the Buddha. I do not share that belief, personally.
It isn’t s that I’m here to debunk Buddhism, or the EBT Nikayas. I’m deeply inspired with the bulk of the material, mostly the dialogues, similes, the “big picture” if you will. I even translate Nikayas, to practice Dharma and serve the community.
However, I also find that there are many self-conflicting points within the Nikayas, that I feel like are flattened in discussions. Thus, I find it sometimes difficult to answer “How to practice according to EBTs” because I think there are different, sometimes conflicting paths if we are to cling to every sutta and every sentence.
To me, the bulk of my inspiration comes from the idea that a person can find freedom from suffering if only they’re truly dedicated, ethical, and sincere in their approach. Everything else, all other formulas and ideas are secondary to me, taken with a grain of salt, a fertile ground for discussion but not a source of authority.
In the very suttas, Buddha foresees that Dharma could’ve lasted at best 500 to 1000 years. We’re well into 2000. If we are to take Buddhas word on it, the Dharma should be corrupted already? How do we tell which is what?
Also, Buddha again says not to rely on scriptures or teachers or such in Kesamutti sutta.
Also again the same Buddha, says there are no theories that are worth clinging to. Same Buddha says no Dharma is worth clung to. Same Buddha says to use Dharma as a raft and leave it behind.
These are ideas that Dharma is not an absolute external truth, but a utilitarian approach, a useful approximation. A convention if you will. Already there are other suttas that position Dharma as an absolute unchanging truth to be discovered. So, which one is which? Can these two ideas be even reconciled? I find it hard to do so.
So, I still consider my practice deeply aligned with the Dharma, but to what extent it fits to EBT or not, doesn’t really concern me. I have been called a heterodox and a fundamentalist both at some point ! To me, what matters if it works or not. We all have to carve our own path at some point.
I do not wish to throw the baby with the bathwater. And I appreciate the community of people discussing wholesome, functional texts to better their lives and the lives of others. I just don’t expect a perfect answer to be found anywhere elsewhere other than the very practice of questioning and analysing for ourselves like so, rather than subscribing mot-a-mot to something someone else transcribed. And to me, that’s the heart of the EBTs, even if someone else might see it differently.
Dhamma as the Absolute = Nibbana, what the Buddha realized when he became enlightened, what the Noble Sangha realize when they become enlightened, the ineffable Dhamma that is beyond all conceptions and conventions
Those are two conceptions of what Dhamma can mean, they’re not mutually exclusive. Dhamma can also mean “phenomena”. There are many other meanings of Dhamma. If Dhamma were a word in a dictionary, it would have plenty of different meanings. Lots of words have alternative or even contradictory meanings. Dhamma is one of those words. The meaning of these kinds of words has to be inferred through the context they are used in, or the person using them can be asked about which meaning they intended.
So there’s no need for conflict, only clarification.
Regarding “how much” in terms of EBTs studies for “the actual path to liberation”, I suggest at least one should study completely and carefully the fundamental or essential teachings of Samyutta-nikaya/Samyukta-agama (SN/SA) (the so-called sutra-anga portion of SA/SN).
Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sūtrāṅga portion of the Pāli Saṃyutta-Nikāya and the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama (Series: Beitrage zur Indologie Band 32; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000).
Early Buddhism resources (section 10) Dhamma Wheel
I think we’re potentially getting off topic into the conversation. But I’ll elaborate on what my example was in my original post, just to give an idea.
TL;DR
The kind of absolute truth dharma I’m talking about is this: SA 296 / SF 163 / SN12.20 all describe a sort of an objective reality of DO:
And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be’: whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. And he says: ‘See! With birth as condition, bhikkhus, aging-and-death.’
Now, this is quite a radical, strong statement. Dharma here refers to the function of DO.
Even with Sabbe dhammā anicca, we have a tension here: How can a dhamma be stable, fixed, persistent, and impermanent at the same time?
Furthermore, if this stability of Dharma is dependably so, why is that dukkha again?
To understand this sutta better, we might be served well with Sarvastivadin Abhidharma a little bit - I’m going to paint it in rough brushstrokes only just to illustrate an idea.
Sarvastivadins handled the “the problem of karma” (that is, how can past actions affect future outcomes?) by positing that there are ever-abiding (Sarva-asti - All-existing) Dharmas. This sutta seems to be of such an origin.
It seems, Theravadins were much more embracive in the early days, collecting many materials from different traditions. Sarvastivadins were the obvious powerhouse, so quite a bit of their theories and ideas are found easily. It’s also easy to notice how Bodhisatva ideal has developped in response to Mahayana sutras, something Venerable Analayo tackles in his latest Prajnaparamita book.
Monastics on Late / Inauthentic Suttas within Nikayas
Wrapping it up, many venerable monastics have already noted the lateness or inauthentic nature of certain specific suttas.
After I studied Buddhism seriously and critically, it happens that many things taught by the tradition have to be discarded. I do not want to make myself in trouble by rejecting the tradition. But rather my integrity does not allow inconsistency happens. When we really understand things critically, we cannot help rejecting things not conforming to what we hold as true.
Still, many things in Buddhism survive the bomb of critical thinking, and we can apply them to our contemporary life.
He notes, on the longevity of the Dharma:
I will show an example of a critical reading of a Pāli passage. In the Vinaya, this passage is written:
If, Ānanda, a woman had not obtained the going forth from home into homelessness in the Dhamma and Vinaya declared by the Thus-Gone, Ānanda, the religion [brahmacariya] would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted for a thousand years. But since, Ānanda, a woman has gone forth from home to homelessness in the Dhamma and Vinaya declared by the Thus-Gone, now, Ānanda, the religion will not last long. Now, only five hundred years, Ānanda, the true Dhamma will last. (my translation)
This instance asserts that, by the Buddha himself, the true teaching had already vanished, regardless of the Bhikkhuṇī ordination. How should we do with this kind of statement? Here are my suggestions:
You have to read it by Pāli as I show you above. Various translations can be your guideline, but you have to understand every word of it. This passage is relatively easy to read, and we cannot translate otherwise. The message is clear as stated.
You have to accept the evidence that The Buddha once prophesied the longevity of the religion, the true teaching. And the textual evidence suggests that what we have today as Buddhism is not the original version. If you deny this evidence, you fall victim to the post-truth condition.
You have to check your presumptions related to the issue. For example, according to the reliability of the canon, you have two choices: the passage is authentic, or it is a later addition. By my assessment, the former case is possible because it is less likely that later generations would kill their religion this way.
If the authenticity of the passage is the case, you have another two choices to decide: whether what the Buddha said always is true or not. If you hold that the Buddha was always right, you accept that Buddhism you know is not the real one. Otherwise, you have to accept that the Buddha was wrong sometimes. The consequence of this decision is significant and can shape our view on the religion.
From the example above, we can see that the most important aspect of the reader is honesty. We have to accept things as they are, not as the way we want them to be. And this is the very spirit of critical thinkers.
Venerables Sujatos & Brahmali have started a word on “Inauthentic Passages”:
Both have also commented on the late nature of for example, one of the most critical parts of the EBT practice, that is Satipatthana.
Venerable Analayo in his Daughters of the Buddha has noted the problems on Garudhamma suttas across different traditions, making a strong case that the story of Bhikkhuni Formation we have today might be a Theravadin invention.
Bhikkhu Dukil notes how Atthakavagga represents both a pre-institutionalised and early stages of institutional Buddhism:
I suggest the content of this rich textual composite spans several centuries and can be broadly divided into two contrasting chronological layers: verses composed during the pre-institutional phase of Buddhist traditions and those crafted during the incipient stages of Buddhist institutionalization. I argue that the composers of the earlier verses did not yet possess an acute sense of a distinctive Buddhist identity. Even during the early institutionalization process, multiple contradicting ideas coexisted with minimal overt conflict among the compilers who canonized this ancient text.
Bhikkhu Anālayo – Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research (2018), and other writings (on the 32 Marks legend)en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.
Bhikkhu Sujato – A History of Mindfulness (Santipada, 2011)archive.orgarchive.org. (On the construction of the Satipaṭṭhāna Suttas and evidence of editorial interpolation)
Bhikkhu Brahmāli – Comments in “Is this Sutta true?” (Sujato’s blog, 2012)sujato.wordpress.com. (On the Brahmā plea episode as a likely later addition)
Bhikkhu Bodhi – “A Look at the Kālāma Sutta” (BPS Newsletter essay, 1998)accesstoinsight.org. (Discusses the context of the Kālāma Sutta’s advice on free inquiry)
Bhikkhu Bodhi & Bhikkhu Anālayo – Research on bhikkhunī ordination and canonical passages (e.g., garudhamma rules)reddit.com.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu – “When You Know for Yourself: Authenticity of the Pali Suttas” (Access to Insight, 2010)accesstoinsight.orgaccesstoinsight.org. (Citing AN 8.53 / AN 7.79 on testing Dhamma by results)
Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu – Handbook for Mankind and various talks (see e.g. Buddhadasa: Interpretation of the Pali Canonwebdoc.sub.gwdg.de).
Wikipedia – “Physical characteristics of the Buddha”en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org (summarizing scholarly consensus on the late origin of the 32 marks legend).
Now, I wanna balance all these critical views with something else:
To emphasise this point, again from Venerable Bhaddacak:
Still, many things in Buddhism survive the bomb of critical thinking, and we can apply them to our contemporary life. Here I will show the most realistic use of Buddhism that has withstood tests for more than two millennia. But to make it applicable to the world today, we have to interpret it with new light.
As the big picture tells us, Buddhism emerged into the world to solve the problem of suffering. The main question the Buddha tried to answer was how to do away with suffering and be happy. And the solution is not the doing upon the world, but to make ourselves more capable to be happy. To develop oneself is the key to be happy, so to speak.
That may sound familiar to those who know the ethics of Aristotle. In short, we have to train ourselves until we possess dispositions that make us happy.1 Scholars generally call this system virtue ethics. And many see Buddhism in the same way, but with its own framework.
There’s a few things that inspire me with the suttas, regarding the big picture:
Cool suttas
“Not to do any evil,
To embrace the good,
To purify one’s mind:
This is the teaching of Buddhas.” DHP 183
AN 3.65 “Do not go merely by hearsay, or tradition, or what is in scripture, nor by pure logic or another’s seeming competence, nor thinking, ‘This recluse is our teacher.’ When you yourselves know, ‘These things are unwholesome and blameworthy…lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them. And when you know, ‘These things are wholesome and blameless…conducive to welfare and happiness,’ then you should accept and practice them.”
UD 5.5 Just as the great sea only has the taste of salt; likewise this principle and discipline only has the taste of freedom.
AN 8.53 "You might know that certain things lead to passion, not dispassion; to yoking, not unyoking; to accumulation, not dispersal; to more desires, not fewer; to discontent, not contentment; to crowding, not seclusion; to laziness, not energy; to being burdensome, not unburdensome. These should be remembered as not dharma, not the discipline, and not the Teacher’s instruction.
You might know that certain things lead to dispassion, not passion; to unyoking, not yoking; to dispersal, not accumulation; to fewer desires, not more; to contentment, not discontent; to seclusion, not crowding; to energy, not laziness; to being unburdensome, not burdensome. These should be remembered as dharma, the discipline, and the Teacher’s instruction.”
I know this post has been rather long and arduous; however, it’s an important question that should require a thoughtful answer.
Everyone will and do define what “exactly in line with EBT” means, differently. I’m afraid, we don’t have a Buddha available to us to answer our questions.
And even the suttas warn us about clinging to views (one of the fetters that prevents one from attaining stream-entry), or thinking that there’s such a thing as there’s “a best view” somewhere.
Whoever should take to himself certain views,
thinking them best, supreme in the world,
and hence he proclaims all others as low—
by this he does not become free from disputes. SNP 4.5
If one follows this verse exactly, then it seems ideas like following EBT exactly is not an absolute necessity, and such an approach stands in opposition to pluralism of Early Buddhist texts.
(And if someone else were to quote a different sutta to challenge this idea, well… They’d only prove my point! )
That Suttanipāta is surely the oldest part of the canon. I mean, Kāḷigodhā, a sotāpanna and mother to Ven. Bhaddiya would recite the Aṭṭhakavagga as part of her daily devotion.
The Suttanipāta portrays a setting before the reification of Buddhism as a religion. In those days it was just a 30-something year old black-haired sammāsambuddha speaking the Dhamma without titles, lists, rituals and chantings, and grand monasteries. The monks back then were just ordinary, meek, unassuming people roaming the wildernesses seeing escencelessness in everything that is capable of arising, lasting for a moment, and vanishing. It was kind of a mystical thing where the Buddha simply spoke and those who were listening had to draw out the meaning of what was spoken in order to win themselves Nibbāna. The Dhamma remained to be something quite as simple as just letting things be the way they are without interfering, a.k.a tathatā. A mystery whose solution lies in plain sight, only to be demystified by those who dared. That’s what early Buddhism looked like.
Of course the canonization of the teaching was inevitable as literary communication evolved in the world but now we have an ocean of lists, prescriptions, and procedures from different Buddhist schools, all deemed necessary to learn in order to realize Nibbāna. Concepts upon concepts to demystify and doctrines to indoctrinate ourselves with. Accumulating knowledge making us more and more ravenous.
Point is: whether you learn what is considered EBTs or not, the words therein don’t contain an ounce of direct experience. Direct experience only comes from within the one who has fully investigated the one Dhamma to abandon all dhammas. This is not the language used to teach Dhamna in Theravāda but there you have it.
Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. We encourage you to use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in.
We also ask you to please take a moment now to familiarize yourself with the forum guidelines: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.
If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.
)