SuttaCentral
Well, I am sure they don’t want to offend any of their readers, many of whom I would bet are in one of those two camps.
This is where I really like the “x-buddhism” kind of idea. There are essentially limitless possible iterations of “Buddhism.”
I have yet to read the article, so I may be interloping a bit. But, I shall rectify that now.
well, at least not alone
metta 
Here is an article that mentions the article in the OP.
I didn’t see Tricycle mentioned by name, just references to “the magazine”. 
The Buddhism that the author of the Slate Magazine describes isn’t what I would consider Buddhism per se. I have a friend who attends a Tibetan “Sangha” group led by a Geshe. When he talks about what goes on there, what is taught, what they focus on, the advice he gets from the Geshe, it’s like another world from what is discussed here at D&D. For instance, if I mention any of the 37 Wings to Awakening, he has no idea what I’m talking about. I can certainly understand a person shying away from “Buddhism” when what they’re presented with isn’t a fair representation of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Even solid mindfulness practices run out of steam pretty fast if the 4NT, the Noble Eightfold Path, etc. isn’t known and practiced. It’s sad to see someone reject Buddhism as a whole because they get an incomplete or skewed rendition from popular magazines, meditation centers and such.
The link in the article I just posted goes directly to the article in the OP. You are correct, though, that the article I posted was strangely silent on the magazine name. Similar to the way that Tricycle edited the article in the OP to not include the groups @Bernat was talking about, LOL. Perhaps the Buddhist world is so small and it feels somehow disloyal to actually talk about the things you are talking about. Funny.
Well, that’s kind of the whole point of the discussion in this thread, eh?
Yes, it certainly is. Touché!
Hello Bernat. The excerpt below (with SN 38.14 origin) seems Commentary rather than Sutta based:
Buddhism calls negative affect dukkha, a word meaning “pain, suffering, discomfort.” Life is filled with dukkha in three ways: as experiences that are painful or unpleasant (dukkha dukkha, felt dukkha), as the transiency and inevitable ending of pleasant experiences (viparinama dukkha, anticipatory dukkha), and as the structure of what it means to be a living thing (sankhara dukkha, potential dukkha). The first sense of dukkha is self-evident. The second refers to how good things often end badly or, more simply, that they end, which hurts or leaves one empty. And the third and the most abstract reflects how transiency, unreliability, and dependence are baked into the recipe of living things—not something that will sustain complete satisfaction. The best-case scenario for a date, for example, is that two true soulmates find each other and live in absolute bliss until one of them dies, leaving the other one heartbroken.
Again, the following excerpt seems contrary to the suttas, such as AN 3.136:
With this reinterpretation, the doctrine that “whatever is conditioned or impermanent is dukkha” sounds like a fact. But it is not a fact: it is a judgment.
It seems the article has the common inflexibility of Western scholars in relation to Pali words such as ‘dukkha’. The statement “whatever is conditioned or impermanent is dukkha”, according to the suttas, is a fixed fact.
Now, because in the first excerpt quoted above (of referring to three types of dukkha that seem do not exist in the suttas because the suttas seem to summarize all dukkha as ‘upadana’), the article then says:
With the scope set to one lifetime, the amount of what can be done about dukkha dwindles greatly. There is little we can do about much of the felt dukkha that life allots us, a bit more we can do about anticipatory dukkha, and there is nothing whatsoever we can do about potential dukkha. That is because dukkha is only completely eradicated by not being (re)born. We can reduce felt dukkha to its bare minimum: the pain of illness, death, unpleasant sensory stimuli; in dharmic jargon, we can keep it to the first arrow. And through insight, we can decrease the suffering of change, of good things ending; but the extreme of completely eradicating it entails not caring—or a similar stance, one that I doubt neo-early Buddhists would cherish as an ideal.
It seems there is only one Path in the suttas, which is the 1st Arrow Path. What path is there in the suttas to stop being (re)born that is different to the 1st Arrow Path? How does believing in countless lifetimes change the amount of dukkha to be quenched via The Path? 
The article continues with another unsubstantiated statement:
Since certain forms of dukkha are perceived as just part of this one life, the problem of dukkha mutates.
The article then creates a novel type of dukkha that must be overcome where as, in reality, it cannot be overcome nor do the suttas prescribe any path for it to be overcome:
Any such “natural dukkha” is no longer on the list of what one’s practice aims to overcome.
Iti 44 says the Arahant continues to experience painful feelings. SN 22.59, Dhp 278, etc, say enlightenment is gained from experiencing the dukkha (unsatisfactory; non-happiness-giving-nature) of impermanent conditioned things; which generates dispassion. It seems the only ‘dukkha’ that can be overcome, according to the suttas, is the dukkha of ‘upadana’. Even if it is held a future life will be ‘dukkha’, the only Path in the suttas for ending any ‘future lives’ is the Path of ending upadana-causing-craving.
I think I have posted enough to apply the following excerpt from the article to the article itself:
Nevertheless, this outlook is something new that draws from early Buddhist texts while replacing the whole frame—it is not early Buddhism.
The article seems to continue to ignore the various teachings given to laypeople in the suttas, such as AN 10.91:
A life-affirming dharma has no reason to maintain that everything conditioned and impermanent is dukkha; for the latter doctrine makes full sense only when we aspire to leave cyclic existence.
The article concludes:
The recent trend in dharma circles that we may call “neo-early Buddhism” differs in fundamental respects from the early Buddhist texts it claims as basis, and it should be more open about that. Chiefly, it is life- or world-affirming, which early Buddhism is not. I have argued that the doctrine that “everything conditioned and impermanent is dukkha,” one element of the rationale for wanting to leave the world, is a renunciant doctrine. Since in affirming life neo- early Buddhism affirms the impermanent and conditioned rather than attempting to get away from it, it is senseless for it to maintain that everything conditioned and impermanent is dukkha. I have suggested that this inconsistency stems from two things: from not instinctively regarding life as cyclical and from an emotional difficulty in disagreeing with the Buddha. The latter facilitates relating to those teachings that create cognitive dissonance in a way that is dishonest and unhelpful, planting the seeds of future confusion, stuckness, or even crises of faith, and that does not help to harmonize our values, our goals, and our means to reach them. I hope I am exaggerating.
Fortunately, imo, the article is exaggerating because:
There are university scholars earning probably $$$,$$$ per year peddling their verbose essays & books about Buddhism. Are these university scholars renunciates with students who are renunciates?
In the spirit of the above, there are Pali translators translating suttas for public consumption that seem were never intended (by the Buddha) to be studied by the general public. It seems the Buddha made a very clear distinction between the Path for a renunciate (SN 56.11) and the path to heaven (DN 31) for the average Buddhist layperson.
The doctrine of ‘life-cycle’ seems to have little relevance to the quenching of dukkha because dukkha can only be quenched in the here & now. Even if there is a belief in “my” future life cycle, this idea of “my future life cycle” cannot end the dukkha of regarding life as “me” & “mine” and thus cannot end life cycles.
Fortunately, the following are exaggerations: “emotional difficulty”, “cognitive dissonance”, “dishonest”, etc. Instead, I imagine any genuine difficulties a layperson may have with the core message of the EBTs naturally arises from the career $cholar$ who are peddling the EBT$ onto the general public. 
Hi Sean, thanks for your interesting perspective. As a teacher of the Dhamma, it is useful for me to get some insight into how these matters are playing out in the US. As so often, however, it is what I disagree with that prompts me to respond. Here is what I find problematic in your otherwise fascinating contribution:
To start with, we know that this does not sit well with the Buddha’s own advice as we find it in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN16):
“Now, Ānanda, some of you might think: ‘The teacher’s dispensation has passed. Now we have no Teacher.’ But you should not see it like this. The teaching and training that I have taught and pointed out for you shall be your Teacher after my passing."
“So, mendicants, having carefully memorized those things I have taught you from my direct knowledge, you should cultivate, develop, and make much of them so that this spiritual practice may last for a long time. That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans. And what are those things I have taught from my direct knowledge? They are: the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven awakening factors, and the noble eightfold path."
In fact, the word of the Buddha is always the standards by which any teaching should be measured:
“Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, having carefully memorized those words and phrases, you should make sure they fit in the discourse and are exhibited in the training. If they do not fit in the discourse and are not exhibited in the training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is not the word of the Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ And so you should reject it. If they do fit in the discourse and are exhibited in the training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’ You should remember it."
It seems to me that these statements need to be taken seriously. And indeed most of the Buddhist tradition, especially Theravada, has done so for 2,500 years. The word of the Buddha is preeminent, and everything else is really just commentary.
But can we know that these words were spoken by the Buddha? To me the more interesting question is whether we have any reason to think they were not. I don’t think so. Yet even if we admit to some degree of doubt, we can be sure that this was the attitude of the early Buddhist community. And where would such an attitude have originated if not with the Buddha himself? In other words, even if he did not speak those very words, it seems reasonable to think he would said something like them. The sentiment that the word of the Buddha is preeminent would have come from the Buddha himself.
Indeed, we don’t need to hear this from the Buddha to arrive at a similar conclusion. All of Buddhist history only makes sense in so far as it refers back to the Buddha’s teachings. Anything that has been said in the name of Buddhism has value only because of the Buddha’s utterances. Later teachings build on what was said before, mostly by commenting on earlier teachings. The word of the Buddha is what holds all of Buddhism together and is the lens through which everything must ultimately be understood. All of Buddhist history assumes that the Buddha had a profound insight into the nature of reality. If he didn’t, the rest of Buddhism falls flat.
The Buddha is the only person for whom we are obliged to make such an assumption. Buddhist history is full of all sorts of characters, some with a high reputation for their insight. Some of these existed in the very earliest period, such as Sāriputta and Khemā. Yet even these monastics, who were more or less certified as fully awakened by the Buddha himself, were never on par with the Buddha. To the extent that their teachings were recorded at all - and for the most part they were not - they were always subsidiary to the Buddha’s discourses. Sāriputta’s teachings, for instance, are generally detailed expositions of teachings previously given by the Buddha.
With later Buddhist teachers we have far greater reasons to be even more careful. Although they sometimes have a big reputation, the reality is that we normally know very little about them. The little we do know are stories and legends that are impossible to verify. It would be unwise to place too much faith in the sayings of such teachers, such as elevating them to the same position as the sayings of the Buddha, as is sometimes done. Our lack of knowledge should make us very careful. In practice this means always giving preference to the word of the Buddha.
Much of Buddhist literature does not even have known authors. The Pali Abhidhamma, for instance, which was probably compiled in the centuries after the Buddha passed away, is not attributed to any specific person (apart from legends that cannot be taken literally). In spite of this, the Abhidhamma is often considered the pinnacle of the Theravada tradition, supposedly expressing the Dhamma from the perspective of ultimate reality. It is astonishing and little bit frightening that the tradition accepts the word of anonymous authors over the word of the Buddha. Yet this is exactly what is happening. And the Abhidhamma is just the beginning. Most of Theravada and Mahayana literature is not attributed to specific authors. It is a measure of our own lack of proper reflection that we give such literature such a preeminent position within Buddhism, sometimes eclipsing the word of the Buddha himself.
In the end, the only literature that we are compelled to regard as expressing true insight into the nature of reality is the word of the Buddha. With all other Buddhist literature, there is always going to be a degree of uncertainty, which needs to be reflected in its relative position vis a vis the Buddha’s own discourses. It follows from this that early Buddhism - provided we define it as the word of the Buddha - is indeed more authentic. To me the real delusion is that Buddhist literature cannot be stratified in this manner. Indeed, a lack of such stratification is almost certainly going to lead us astray. The Dhamma as envisioned by the Buddha is too often at odds with the teachings of later generations.
I think that has some truth to it. As a married householder with kids, my goal is to one day be a renunciate, but that’s probably not that common.
Another thing to consider is that America has some of the features of a low-level heaven making it less conducive to practice the dhamma. Copious intoxicants (alcohol, drugs, television, internet, etc) and relative comfort for most people (air conditioning, nice beds, easy transportation).
Its because they see it as being the word of the Buddha, directly. On Buddhavacana, does that mean only the words the Buddha spoke directly or also that which accords with the meaning or spirit of what he taught? Personally I think it’s the latter. If something leads to less greed, hatred and delusion then its Buddhavacana. For example if someone sees things in terms of the arising and falling of the 4 elements or the rising and falling of rūpa-kalāpas what does it matter, as long as either leads to less greed, hate and delusion? Someone might say that rūpa-kalāpas don’t exist, but neither does the “earth element” really. Its an outdated way of looking at matter, but it can still be useful.
But that’s just their opinion.
Of course there are truths stated in the Abhidhamma and other commentaries that accord with the Buddha’s teachings in the suttas. The issue is that there are other points that don’t, and relying on the latter works can potentially lead a practitioner into spiritual cul-de-sacs.
Many, if not most, people cannot differentiate many of the teachings of the later works from the teachings of the Buddha in the suttas – which is as close as we can come to the Buddhavacana.
Technically, just teaching the dhamma directly from a sutta, explaining what the Buddha was saying in the sutta is commentary. However, there’s a difference between teaching say, anapanasati and Buddha Nature. Anapanasati is from the suttas and might be interpreted in somewhat different ways, but I think that Buddha Nature as a universal consciousness or spirit doesn’t fit with EBTs and the Buddha’s teaching as a whole.
Of course. It’s their faith.
Of course there are truths stated in the Abhidhamma and other commentaries that accord with the Buddha’s teachings in the suttas. The issue is that there are other points that don’t, and relying on the latter works can potentially lead a practitioner into spiritual cul-de-sacs.
Many, if not most, people cannot differentiate many of the teachings of the later works from the teachings of the Buddha in the suttas – which is as close as we can come to the Buddhavacana.
The point I was making was that if there is a practice within the framing of the NEFP which leads to less greed, hate and delusion what does it matter if it’s early or late, EBT or Abhidhamma or Mahayana? All would be the word of the Buddha.
Thanks. I see what you’re saying.
I guess we may understand “the word of the Buddha” differently. The words of the Buddha in the suttas is as close as we can come to what he actually said and taught, whereas those in commentaries are not directly his words, or his words at all, although they may, as you wrote, help to reduce the defilements.
I don’t think Buddhavacana has just a literal meaning of “words the Buddha directly spoke”. We don’t see that in the suttas, where the words of disciples are also said to be Buddhavacana. What they said is Buddhavacana, because it agrees with the meaning or spirit of the Dhamma. So, to give a modern example, it matters less if we focus our attention at the nose tip, abdomen or just the breath and more if by doing that we get closer to Jhāna and nibbāna. If there are people who have done that via all those different methods, then all those methods of meditating are Buddhavacana. Likewise if there is a rapture and pleasure apart from sensual pleasures when meditating, what matter is it if its absorbed into a nimitta or not? I can’t see that it does matter, as long as they lead to wisdom. Again, what does it matter if one meditates on the 4 elements or the Abhidhammic rūpa-kalāpas if via both delusion is given up?
Yes, this is the typical Buddhist outlook. At the same time, I suspect lots of Buddhists throughout history have felt uneasy about this, especially the educated ones. I mean, it just doesn’t stack up. But then the forces of culture have stifled these alternative voices. What this means is that I don’t think it is impossible to change the narrative. Once the case has been properly made, I expect the floodgates to open. The message just needs to be repeated until people get used to the different perspective. Standing outside of traditional Buddhist societies, we have the luxury of not being subject to the same cultural forces. This means we have a responsibility of saying unpopular but necessary truths.
I prefer the former understanding. The latter view seems to be rooted in suttas such as AN8.8, which has been shown by Bhante @Sujato, here, to be late. As I have shown above, the Buddha seems not to have agreed with this.
In theory, I agree that anything that agrees with the word of the Buddha could be considered Buddhavacana. The problem is that it is often hard to judge whether there is real agreement or not. The discussions found in the Kathāvatthu are enough to remind us how hard it can be to discern the authentic from the inauthentic. The easiest solution is often to leave aside anything that is even remotely problematic. There is plenty enough to reflect on in the early suttas.
It is perfectly possible to reduce defilements through the wrong means. For instance, indulging in sensual pleasures will lead to a temporary reduction in craving. But I am sure we can agree that this is not the path recommended by the Buddha. Similarly, powerful faith in a creator god may reduce the defilements, but will block you further down the path. And so a reduction in defilements is not a sufficient criterion to decide what is Buddhavacana. (It is interesting to note how we are already disagreeing. Sticking to the word of the Buddha will minimize such problems.)
Only when the Buddha gives his stamp of approval. Then, of course, it is as if it was spoken by the Buddha himself.
Thank you for the reply Bhante
Yes, this is the typical Buddhist outlook. At the same time, I suspect lots of Buddhists throughout history have felt uneasy about this, especially the educated ones. I mean, it just doesn’t stack up. But then the forces of culture have stifled these alternative voices. What this means is that I don’t think it is impossible to change the narrative. Once the case has been properly made, I expect the floodgates to open. The message just needs to be repeated until people get used to the different perspective. Standing outside of traditional Buddhist societies, we have the luxury of not being subject to the same cultural forces. This means we have a responsibility of saying unpopular but necessary truths.
As you probably know the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika taught that the Abhidharma was produced by later monks (and likely nuns). They also taught that all the later Theras did was extract it from their sutras. Since their Abhidharma accords with the meaning, it is Buddhavacana. It might have been in response to this view that the Theravādins claimed their Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha himself.
I prefer the former understanding. The latter view seems to be rooted in suttas such as AN8.8, which has been shown by Bhante @Sujato, here , to be late. As I have shown above, the Buddha seems not to have agreed with this.
In theory, I agree that anything that agrees with the word of the Buddha could be considered Buddhavacana. The problem is that it is often hard to judge whether there is real agreement or not. The discussions found in the Kathāvatthu are enough to remind us how hard it can be to discern the authentic from the inauthentic. The easiest solution is often to leave aside anything that is even remotely problematic. There is plenty enough to reflect on in the early suttas.
I had more in mind AN 8.53
“Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”
“Gotamī, you might know that certain things lead to passion, not dispassion; to yoking, not to unyoking; to accumulation, not dispersal; to more desires, not fewer; to lack of contentment, not contentment; to crowding, not seclusion; to laziness, not energy; to being burdensome, not being unburdensome. You should definitely bear in mind that these things are not the teaching, not the training, and not the Teacher’s instructions.
You might know that certain things lead to dispassion, not passion; to unyoking, not to yoking; to dispersal, not accumulation; to fewer desires, not more; to contentment, not lack of contentment; to seclusion, not crowding; to energy, not laziness; to being unburdensome, not being burdensome. You should definitely bear in mind that these things are the teaching, the training, and the Teacher’s instructions.”
Combined with the 4 Great References (or even if i take them alone), which Sujato has shown is referring to fitting within the 4NT and training, we can say that if a teaching leads to the diminishing of greed, hatred and delusion then it is Buddhavacana. I find this quite liberating, as it puts an end to all the squabbling about Bodhisattvas (I quite like Tsongkhapa’s argument that the Bodhisattva and the Arahant both have the same awakening, and so end up meeting each other), absorbed Jhāna vs non-absorbed, momentariness and so on.
It is perfectly possible to reduce defilements through the wrong means. For instance, indulging in sensual pleasures will lead to a temporary reduction in craving. But I am sure we can agree that this is not the path recommended by the Buddha. Similarly, powerful faith in a creator god may reduce the defilements, but will block you further down the path. And so a reduction in defilements is not a sufficient criterion to decide what is Buddhavacana. (It is interesting to note how we are already disagreeing. Sticking to the word of the Buddha will minimize such problems.)
I did say within the framework of the NEFP Bhante. That would exclude indulging in sensual pleasures. As for practicing with a view of a creator God, the Buddha did teach the brahmavihārās and discussed Great Brahma with people. It wouldn’t lead to a total cessation of greed etc no, but it would lead to Jhāna and a good rebirth. That is also an aspect of Buddhadhamma, and so Buddhavacana.
Only when the Buddha gives his stamp of approval. Then, of course, it is as if it was spoken by the Buddha himself.
That would then rule out a literalist reading of Buddhavacana, as it means Buddhavacana is also that which is in accordance with the Dhamma. I have already mentioned the case of the 4 elements vs rūpa-kalāpas. Now I don’t think the Buddha taught rūpa-kalāpas. I think he taught people to meditate via the 4 elements scheme. The 4 elements here being the material stuff out of which we and the physical world are made (rather than being forces or whatnot like “cohesion” which i hear often from both EBT folk and Ābhidhammikas). Now the aim of both is to undo attachment to the body, by seeing its emptiness. Does it really matter then if someone does this via the 4 elements or by way of rūpa-kalāpas, as long as the end result is the same (I would even argue that one could do it via the modern theory of atoms too)? I have heard Sujato say before, and many EBT people too, that rūpa-kalāpas don’t really exist, but neither do the 4 elements! There is, in our modern understanding, no such thing as an “earth element”. Its an outdated ancient theory of matter. From my point of view though it doesn’t matter. The Buddha wasn’t teaching a correct proto-science, or science or ontology or whatever. He was teaching concepts which we use as a means to let go. You mentioned the Kathāvatthu earlier. The problem there, the problem with the early schools, was in grasping the doctrine instead of using it as a raft.
Right. And of course this is exactly the problem since the Sarvāsivādin view was controversial and contested.
Fair enough.
Err … I really cannot agree with this. The idea of a creator god is wrong view. The path doesn’t even start if one holds to this idea. Each factor becomes wrong, including the samādhi. Sammāsamādhi is precisely defined as one-pointedness of mind supported by the remainder of the path (MN117).
It obviously matters whether the Buddha gives his approval or not. At the same time, I am not really proposing that it is possible to practice the Dhamma purely based on Buddhavacana. Interpretation is always going to be necessary, and this by definition is commentary. The point is more that not all commentary is equally useful or accurate. Moreover, the Dhamma - as is true for all religion - sometimes moves in a scholastic direction. What this means to my mind is that there is a need to restate the primacy of the Buddhavacana at regular intervals, which is indeed what has happened throughout Buddhist history. There is a see-sawing back and forth. In the end, we need a mixture of Buddhavacana, experience through practice, and common sense. Much of this is fraught. The most reliable and stable things in all this is the word of the Buddha, and thus its preeminence.
Hi Venerable, thank you for your extensive response to that parenthetical aside! I had to go back and read its context to remember why I said it.
I generally share your strongly worded assessment of the preeminence of the early Buddhist texts over later commentarial and sectarian literature. I included that aside not actually to suggest otherwise, but to point to a romantic ideology in my community in general, in which older cultural artifacts are often uncritically thought of as better in a way that communicates aversion to modernity, technology, and complexity of thought. As you said in another comment above, commentary is needed to explain the early texts, but even good commentary is sometimes rejected by folks who express this romanticism.
Thanks for this. This is reassuring. We are much closer than I had thought.
Good luck with the Dhamma in the US!