Let us recall the thesis of the excellent Bh. Brahmali’s & Bh. Sujato’s ‘The Authenticity of the early Buddhist Texts’ a text which also gives us a good orientation for the arguments to follow.
THESIS:
-
That most of the EBTs are authentic.
-
That the EBTSs were edited and arranged over a few centuries follow-
ing the Buddha’s demise. The texts as we have them now are not a
verbatim record of the Buddha’s utterances, but the changes are in
almost all cases details of editing and arrangement, not of doctrine
or substance. -
That the inauthentic portions of these texts are generally identifi-
able. -
That the above points are supported by a substantial and varied body
of empirical evidence. -
That the denial of authenticity is a product of excessive and unrea-
sonable scepticism, not evidence.
We shall agree with all 5 of these assertions, however we will make a simple observation about “2(b)”:
2.(b) “the changes are in almost all cases details of editing and arrangement, not of doctrine or substance.”
which we will shall amend with:
-
(c) within the 4 princple collections of the prose teachings, S and E (the Samyutta/Samyukta and the Anguttra/Ekottra) depend in large part on an identifiable more archaic presentation of the substantive doctrinal content in D (and to some extent M).
-
(d) these archaic parts present a buddhism that does not feature the five aggregates trope, nor the 12 link conditionality trope, nor many other tropes which are identifiable especially in the S collection.
These clauses c and d have a great deal of evidence that I will present below. I wish to stress fro the outset that I have no problem with S as an exposition of buddhism, except in as much as people misinterpret it by wrongly thinking that the substantive material in D is posterior to it rather than the correct understanding that it is anterior.
To bracket our conversation the other way in terms oh doctirnal development there is also the excellent
which should be consulted to clarify what we are talking about here.
FIrst off what we are talking about is clear and persuasive evidence that pushes our knowlege of the teachings of the historical buddha forward, that is we can better understand the meaning of the 12 links when we understand that the buddha did not use 12 links in the examples he gave, but almost certainly various shorter formulations to illustrate the same argument.
knowing that there is nothing particularly special about “12” links, helps us follow the path.
similarly openly acknowleding that the “8” fold path and the “5” aggregates and the “12” links are not much evidenced in the earliest prose ebts (essentially D, but more on establishing that later) in no way invalidates them as genuine and legitimate practices, just that we have evidence of what buddhism means from before those where things! isnt that great?
So I guess what I am saying is that swallowing the bitter pill of realizing that S probably originates after the death of the buddha is more than compensated by the realisation that in D we have “pre-historic” evidence of very detailed doctrinal and philosphical content that it really seems we should agree that the buddha and his contemporary generation of buddhists all agreed he actually said!
So. where to start?
- That most of the EBTs are authentic.
How do we identify an inauthentic text in the EBT?
This is very difficult, but in some limited cases we may be nearly certain that a given piece of text is not original, for example where there is a sutta preserved in multiple languages with different additions or deletions we may again while not being certain of which edits where the original doctrine, we may be certain that the doctrine left unedited by the different examples was original in most cases.
We can fruitfully apply this principle to the subsection of the material I am primarily concerned with, the prose suttas.
assuming that while we don’t know for certain if any given piece of prose is original to buddhism we may be most confident of those parts where the examples in different languages like pali, chinese, sanskrit, etc, match.
Applying this principle again to the collections of the prose, D, M, S and E, we may again say (echoing Rhys Davids) that while we cannot know for certain that any given piece of prose occurring in a given collection is original or not, the words most likely to be authentic are those that are repeated in all 4 collections, rather than occurring in just one.
In what follows I will confine myself to what I can examine with a high degree of confidence as the original doctrine by defining an idealised “canon” of high confidence material by the following procedure:
I take the chinese and the pali collections of the 4 major prose collections.
I take as “authentic” (i.e more likely to be original) any sutta that occurs in both collections.
I take as “inauthentic” (i.e more likely to be scholastic/sectarian) any portion of that sutta where the pali and the chinese disagree.
with this idealised version of a canon, where every sutta has a chinese and a pali exemplar, and only “authentic” material (i.e in both exemplars) in any sutta we require a way to determine if the sutta is in D, M, S or E, to do this we will repeat our methadology, taking it to be the case that the authentic suttas most likely to be in thier authentic collection are those suttas whos chinese exemplar occurs in the equivilent collection to the occurance of the pali example.
We now have by induction an idealized canon of prose suttas about which we can say a great deal with high confidence:
-
we can claim pretty convincingly that everything we are reading in this idealized canon is pre-secatrian at the very least.
-
we can interrogate the differences between for example, the pali by iteslf, or the pali by way of comparison with the idealised pre sectarian version. this is almost always immensely fruitful.
SO perhaps we will reformulate @sujato and @Brahmali 's thesis;
NEW THESIS:
-
That all of the prose suttas of D M S E where the pali agrees with the chinese in chapter and verse are authentic.
-
That the DMSE was edited and arranged over a few centuries follow-
ing the Buddha’s demise. The texts as we have them now are not a
verbatim record of the Buddha’s utterances, but the changes are in
almost all cases details of editing and arrangement, not of doctrine
or substance. -
That the inauthentic portions of these texts are generally identifi-
able. -
That there is a clearly identifiable origin of shcolastic as opposed to original buddhism that is exemplified in S and gives good grounds to accept DMSE as the order of composition with materials in D more likely to be closer tto the Buddhas lifeltime than material in S.
-
That this makes D, and the sekka within it, the ur-text of DMSE and therefore the ur-text of Buddhist prose.
-
There is every reason to believe that the sekkha was the Buddhas “stump speach” and that we have in it as good a candidate for “composed in the lifetime of the buddha” as any piece of substantive prose wed have.
-
That the above points are supported by a substantial and varied body
of empirical evidence. -
That the denial of authenticity is a product of excessive and unrea-
sonable scepticism, not evidence. -
That the denial of the identifiable strata in the DMSE is a product of excessive and unrea-
sonable scepticism, not evidence.
So what can we say about the buddhism revealed by our “ideal authentic canon”?
in another thread I compiled an example of how we can say with great confidence that the meditation instruction on the 4 jhana was a part of the presectarian canon, by showing that it was present in the idealized canon DMSE as in here where we take all the examples of the trope in the pali and find those suttas that occur in both canons in the same volumes and have the trope:
So to start our comparison; paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ in the pali occurs at:
THE TRIPITAKA:
(cattāro satipaṭṭhānā)
VN: 46 (3)
DN: 24 (10)
MN: 52 (11)
SN: 24 (48)
AN: 61 (18)
KN: 61 (44)
AB: 313 (7)
VM: 26 (7)
THE PALI:
DN: DN1 DN2 DN3 DN4 DN5 DN6 DN7 DN8 DN9 DN10 DN11 DN12 DN16 DN17 DN22 DN26 DN29 DN33 DN34
MN: MN4 MN8 MN10 MN13 MN19 MN25 MN26 MN27 MN30 MN31 MN36 MN38 MN39 MN43 MN44 MN45 MN51 MN52 MN53 MN59 MN60 MN64 MN65 MN66 MN76 MN77 MN78 MN79 MN85 MN94 MN99 MN100 MN101 MN107 MN108 MN111 MN112 MN113 MN119 MN122 MN138 MN139 MN141
SN: SN6.15 SN16.9 SN16.10 SN16.11 SN28.1 SN36.11 SN36.15 SN36.17 SN36.19 SN36.31 SN40.1 SN41.8 SN41.9 SN45.8 SN48.10 SN53.1 SN54.8
AN: AN1.382 AN2.11 AN3.59 AN3.64 AN3.75 AN3.95 AN4.123 AN4.124 AN4.163 AN4.169 AN4.190 AN4.200 AN5.14 AN5.28 AN5.94 AN5.256 AN5.264 AN6.60 AN6.73 AN6.74 AN7.53 AN7.67 AN7.69 AN8.11 AN8.30 AN9.31 AN9.32 AN 9.33 AN9.34 AN9.35 AN9.36 AN9.38 AN9.39 AN9.40 AN9.41 AN9.42 AN9.43 AN9.44 AN9.45 AN9.46 AN9.47 AN9.51 AN9.52 AN9.61 AN9.93 AN10.85 AN10.99 AN11.16 AN11.502
THE IDEAL CANON:
DN1 DA21 (both contain the jhana sequence)
DN2 DA27 (the parallel elides the jhanas but has the sekkha passage)
DN3 DA20 (both contain the jhana sequence)
DN4 DA22 (parallel employs the elison " attains the rapture of the four dhyānas in the present life)
DN5 DA23 (parallel contains the sekkha passage, elides the jhana part)
DN8 DA25 (parallel refers to the four jhanas)
DN9 DA28 (parallel contains the full sequence)
DN11 DA24 (contains the sekkha with elison)
DN12 DA29 (omits the sequence)
DN16 DA2 (contains the full sequnce and adds jhana to the wings)
DN26 DA6 (contains the full sequence)
DN29 DA17 (contains the full sequence and adds jhana to the wings)
DN33 DA9 DA10 (sariputta)
DN34 DA10 DA11 (sariputta)
So our idealised canon is where there is the jhana teaching in both the Pali and the Chinese:
DN1 DA21
DN2 DA27
DN3 DA20
DN4 DA22
DN5 DA23
DN8 DA25
DN9 DA28
DN11 DA24
DN16 DA2
DN26 DA6
DN29 DA17
powering on to MN;
MN8 MA91 (the parallel mentions the jhanas in elided form)
MN13 MA99 (the parallel mentions the jhanas in elided form)
MN19 MA102 (parallel has the full jhana sequence)
MN25 MA178 (jhanas in elided form)
MN26 MA204 (jhanas in elided form)
MN27 MA146 (full jhana sequence, omits past lives etc)
MN31 MA185 (mentions jhana)
MN38 MA201 (omits the jhana)
MN39 MA182 (mentions jhana)
MN43 MA211 (sariputta)
MN44 MA210 (dhammadina)
MN45 MA174 (parallel omits jahnas)
MN52 MA217 (ananda)
MN64 MA205 (parallel has full jhana sequence)
MN65 MA194 (parallel contains full jhana sequence)
MN66 MA192 (parallel contains the full jhana formula)
MN77 MA207
MN78 MA179
MN79 MA208
MN85 MA204
MN99 MA152 MA170
MN101 MA19
MN107 MA144
MN108 MA145
MN112 MA187
MN113 MA85
MN119 MA81 MA98
MN122 MA191
MN138 MA164
MN139 MA169
MN141 MA31 MA98
[/quote]
so a core for (partial) M is
MN8 MA91 (the parallel mentions the jhanas in elided form)
MN13 MA99 (the parallel mentions the jhanas in elided form)
MN19 MA102 (parallel has the full jhana sequence)
MN25 MA178 (jhanas in elided form)
MN26 MA204 (jhanas in elided form)
MN27 MA146 (full jhana sequence, omits past lives etc)
MN31 MA185 (mentions jhana)
MN38 MA201 (omits the jhana)
MN39 MA182 (mentions jhana)
MN64 MA205 (parallel has full jhana sequence)
MN65 MA194 (parallel contains full jhana sequence)
MN66 MA192 (parallel contains the full jhana formula)
and for S we take:
SN6.15 SA1197 (omits jhana)
SN16.9 SA1142 (both contain the jhana sequence)
SN16.10 SA1143 (Mahākāśyapa)
SN16.11 SA1144 (Mahākāśyapa)
SN36.11 SA473 (both contain jhana)
SN36.17 SA474 (both contain jhana)
SN36.19 SA485 (both contain the jhana sequence)
SN36.31 SA483 (both contain the jhana sequence)
SN41.8 SA574 (Citta, tho both parallels mention jhana)
SN41.9 SA573 (Citta)
SN45.8 SA784 (omits jhana, is actually very interesting)
SN48.10 SA658 (parallel contains 謂四禪。, the four jhanas)
SN54.8 SA814 (both contain jhana)
So our “common core” for SN is:
SN16.9 SA1142
SN36.11 SA473
SN36.17 SA473
SN36.19 SA485
SN36.31 SA483
SN41.9 SA573
SN48.10 SA658
SN54.8 SA814
So we can take our idealised canon of:
DN1 DA21
DN2 DA27
DN3 DA20
DN4 DA22
DN5 DA23
DN8 DA25
DN9 DA28
DN11 DA24
DN16 DA2
DN26 DA6
DN29 DA17
MN8 MA91
MN13 MA99
MN19 MA102
MN25 MA178
MN26 MA204
MN27 MA146
MN31 MA185
MN38 MA201
MN39 MA182
MN64 MA205
MN65 MA194
MN66 MA192
SN16.9 SA1142
SN36.11 SA473
SN36.17 SA473
SN36.19 SA485
SN36.31 SA483
SN41.9 SA573
SN48.10 SA658
SN54.8 SA814
Theorem 1. Jhana is clearly presectarian and represented in our canon by ALL of DMS.
Because we can demonstrate with high confidence that the prose about this subject is preserved in at least 2 canonical languages, and because they both agree on what “type” of sutta (DMSE) they are we can also say with high confidence that all of the reciters agreed that jhana was part of the original teaching.
This standard, that we should accept as authentic what is in both the chinese and the pali, as well as what is in all of the 4 volumes as more authentic than anything occuring only in 1 or 2, implies not just that we should accept the jhana teaching as the most likey to be authentic, it also tells us we should think that aggregates are less likely to be authentic than jhana because, as explored in this thread:
this thread very long thread, from which the above jhana example is taken; Is actually about the aggregates and asking the questions above. we find that once the “idealised canon” methadology is applied to the aggregates we must admit that they do not appear to meet the standard of being universally acknowledged by the volumes.
Let us start by constructing our “idealised” canon fr the aggregates:
where we had the 2 pali words “paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ” for our idealised jhana caonon, we will use the 2 words “rūpaṁ attato” for idealised aggregates canon.
10 times in MN, at MN44, MN109, MN131, MN132 and MN138
MN44 MA210
MN109 parallel in SA not MA
MN131 no direct parallel
MN132 MA167
MN138 MA164
so our common core so far is;
D:
NONE.
M:
MN44 MA210
MN132 MA167
MN138 MA164
S:
SN22.1 (parallel in E not S) so
SN22.7 SA43 SA66
SN22.43 SA36
SN22.44 SA69
SN41.3 SA570
SN44.8 SA9599
etc
E:
AN4.200 (paralell in S not in E)
So
NONE:
in summary there is no teaching about “regarding form as self” in D, or E, however it is attested in M,and S.
I would also point out that if we are talking about teachings by the Buddha, we must remove MN44 MA210 on the grounds that both sources identiy Dhammadina as the teacher, not the Buddha, so even the canon does not claim that the Buddha taught “rūpaṁ attato” in MN44.
just on this basis alone we can say that we should be less confident of the aggregates trope than the jhana trope because the jhana trope is presentin all of DSME while the aggregates trope is not.