Some of the specific topics like the different ways Nirvana is described is on point. I’ve seen it myself that it’s sometimes treated as a place or state that is entered, and sometimes it’s the way @sujato explains it: A verb meaning to disappear, essentially. I see both readings in Chinese translations in roughly equal doses. I do wonder about the position that Nirvana is inconceivable. Pragmatically, it serves to tamp down assertions about it and the heated debates that would follow them. Maybe the real purpose to positions like that were to keep the peace.
The discussion of dharmadhatu is also very interesting. I’ve only seen it in Mahayana works like the Avatamsaka, which famously mentions it constantly, and it is indeed a mysterious term that doesn’t have the usual meaning. It does make sense as an alternative to the traditional tridhatu concept, but I’m not sure that it goes back to early Buddhism.
Also, maybe the purpose of the different ways to explain nirvana was also pragmatic in the sense that it is useful for certain individuals to see it one way, while for others it is not. One can see how the different types of people who entered the sangha, with different dispositions (brahmanical, jain, ajnana-agnostics) could interpret nirvana differently, and how the Buddha could have tolerated certain interpretations as long as they didn’t get too essentialistic. After all, if nirvana is an ultimate state that is beyond conceptuality, then you could use different kinds of metaphors and language to describe it. Of course, there were certain views the Buddha definitely did not accept (Sati’s heresy, Carvaka, determinism, etc), but he was also quite flexible with how he taught. So perhaps that flexibility allowed for different interpretations as long as they did not conflict with the Buddha’s key principles such as Dependent Origination.
@cdpatton@Javier Thanks for the discussion and the food for thought.
Yeah, the quasi-eternalism gives me pause, though: I am not familiar with the Saddhatu Sutra and where it’s cited, so I cannot really evaluate the conclusions he draws; and that seems to be a main pillar of a lot of his arguments. It kind of bleeds into the dharma-rupa juxtaposition which, at least based on what he cites, seems to be a lot of inference–the texts don’t really seem so explicit–though, as Charles said,
but
As far as it going back to early Buddhism, I’m not so sure, either. But, on a related note, regarding “early Buddhism”, I’m re-reading Alexander Wynne right now, and a big theme of his is the “departure” of Buddhism from (Upanisadic) Brahminical teachings. It goes back to the question I asked @sujato above regarding what is Brahminical versus what is Buddhist: Wynne revisits constantly the idea that many of the Buddha’s early disciples probably had a background in Brahminical thought and experience with Brahminical meditation. That is his go-to explanation for any Brahminical leanings we see in the canon. Obviously, it makes sense. But, according to Wynne’s own theories, wasn’t the Buddha himself one with such a background and such experience? Perhaps the leanings were his own. Speaking about particular teachings present in early Buddhism as not being in accord with early Buddhism seems like a bit of a catch-22. Matsumoto Shiro, the father of the Critical Buddhism movement in Japan in the 80’s argues similarly against Brahminical meditational teachings in the early canon. He says they are “not Buddhist” while, at the same time, saying they were introduced into Buddhism by the Buddha himself! which, in my estimation, should probably qualify them as being unequivocally Buddhist.
It’s funny how easily Pali Buddhist scholarship accepts all the Brahminical borrowings which have been obviously “appropriated,” “adopted,” and “reformulated.” Those aspects of mainstream thought which still resemble their original form a little more than we are comfortable with are, well,… uncomfortable to deal with. Again, where do we draw the line? I feel this to be one of Stanislaw’s biggest contributions: his methodology more than necessarily his conclusions (which he himself said were speculative). For me, it is an entirely new approach to the early teachings.
Thanks to the OP and all contributors for a stimulating thread. For anyone interested in a collection of this often overlooked scholar here a small pdf collection of Schayer’s articles – many of them, however, in German. I’ve included the English ones linked by @knotty36 and the ones he mentioned in post 19 from the two Polish publications in a more reasonable format. Schayer-Articles
