The historic buddha

The Watercooler
1

Hello everyone

Here I am once again seeking critical opinions and evidence. The more Im viewing buddhism through a critical lens the more I see its faulty as in that history and humanity does leave its mark.

I have been getting interested in the nikayas, going back to the root so to say. But alot of texts and like introductions from theravada and EBT material seem to insinuate carefully that even those teachings might not be fully how the buddha taught it. In one way thats quite logical 100 years passed, ofc there may have been adjustments made to remember and order the teachings easier. But Im a very black and white thinker and the speculations are driving me nuts and its not quite clear to me.

So please explain to me simply how I need to relate towards that material. Do the nikayas contain how the buddha actually spoke the teaching or is the core there but more like a paraphrased version? With how much certainty can we claim the nikayas contain the teachings of the buddha? Are the historic details real? Did the buddha want his teachings to be pondered about so much that we now have lots of different options? Does this mean he failed to teach clear enough what IS his word, dhamma, vision and clearly what IS NOT

I just sometimes sit awake thinking: “suppose the buddha taught something more simpeler or different” im curious to hear the explanations here because im still green behind my ears when it comes to the EBTS but looking to it from a historic lens the buddhist traditions are a mess so to say. History never leaves something untouched

2

Many views can be expressed here, to varying degrees of certainty and speculation.

Personally, I do not trouble myself (anymore) with the question “Did the Buddha actually say that?” To me, that question is a dead-end. The Sangha and the suttas are the only reason I speak of a Buddha to begin with. The stories are all we have of whatever Buddha we might speak of.

Nor do I trouble myself speculating whether it was historically acurate or not. Something can be entirely historically accurate and be unskillfil. Something can be completely fictional and skillful. I’m not really interested in the suttas as a historian who needs to worry about these things. I read the suttas because I find that they’re a valuable literature of ethical conduct.

I read the suttas because I can discern there’s insight in its composition, its message, and the Sangha it built that also carried its message across.

It doesn’t mean I accept everything (or anything, really) without consideration. But it means I respect the tradition to assume goodfaith in the presentation, and to take it seriously as a study.

Even if I do find myself disagreeing with a point made somewhere, hey — at least I’ve spent my time thinking about ethical conduct, weighing things, coming to a conclusion that makes me sleep better at night. What more can I ask of? :slight_smile:

10 Likes
4

Perhaps the Kalama Sutta can help you..

With the Kālāmas of Kesamutta
Kesamuttisutta
AN 3.65

How to navigate among different spiritual opinions.

SuttaCentral

“Bhante, there are some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta. They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. But then some other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. We are perplexed and in doubt, Bhante, as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak falsehood.”

“It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Kālāmas, fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them.

…

“Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are wholesome; these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to welfare and happiness,’ then you should live in accordance with them.

SuttaCentral

:anjal:

3 Likes
5

If you only want one version, Classical Theravada is consistent which is to trust the commentaries. Of course, by seeing the inconsistency between some commentaries and suttas, out comes the EBT movement.

When we go to EBT, there’s ambiguity introduced because different people might regard different suttas as earlier or later, and even amongst those considered as early, some may, due to seeing no strong parallel support, regard some suttas in MN as late. The doctrinal stance can be different enough that there are groups of EBT teachers to support either side of the Jhana debate and either side of the parinibbana debate.

One way is to just place trust only in this EBT teacher, and you can ignore the rest. Then you’ll have to be familiar with the ins and outs of why this teacher believes this sutta to be early and so on, etc.

So I will roughly answer based on what I had learned.

Due to the nature of oral transmission, there can be stock phrases and repetition to make it easier to memorise orally. So possible that some things are simplified and standardised, like a lot of kids are just seven years old, 500 monks, the same stock formula for Jhanas. Does it mean the suttas are unreliable? No. This standardisation doesn’t change the essence of the Dhamma. It’s not that the teaching of the Buddha becomes false if you one day can time travel back and count 534 monks accompanying the Buddha to go here or there. Or that the Buddha uses different ways of speaking, but the meaning is the same for the Jhanas.

One can also just choose to believe that, indeed, repetition is a good way to teach orally in the first place, that the Buddha can speak in such a way first time already suitable for chanting and memorisation. And that, for different audiences for different talks, he can be consistent in using the same formulas for the Jhanas, for it’s new to this particular audience and so on…

Does it matter either way in terms of practice? No. The practice is the same either way.

By seeing the parallels and considering that there are no earlier versions, and that the scriptures and living traditions still produce results, just mix with Pa Auk lay groups, you’ll hear lots of things; it’s pretty certain that the true Dhamma is still in the world.

Really, what else is there to compete with the Nikayas to claim that the nikayas are not the words of the Buddha?

Ok, I see you have Mahayana background, and Mahayana affirms the Agamas. And agamas are mostly very compatible with the nikayas. Just see that the view of parinibbana not being total cessation that some mahayana texts would imply means that their dhamma is contaminated.

There’s also sources for how Mahayana ideas developed over time. The more one reads the Nikayas and compare with some Mahayana ideas, the more clear one sees where are the differences, and why later developed teachings in order to legitimize themselves, cannot say earlier teachings trumps the later developed ones, but they will have to resort to later teachings to explain away any possible inconsistencies.

Earlier is closer to truth is a taken for granted assumption we are working with here.

Does it matter to the practice if a certain rule is formulated here or there? Or that a certain samanera is 7 or 8 years old?

I think the Buddha meant for his teachings to be as pure as possible, but what are the options you’re talking about? The profileration of options from Classical Theravada to EBT?

If in doubt, I would tend to side with classical Theravada on the positions of Jhanas and Nibbanas. That’s a safe bet. Indeed, the Dhamma is meant to be reflected.

Just understanding Parinibbana is total cessation of all existence, of everything, you can see the flaws in many Mahayana teachings already.

How about you read the 4 nikayas first, then you judge? I think he is clear enough, but how later people distort the teachings can be questionable. Maybe some areas he is vague on purpose, but then that’s the value of commentaries.

2 Likes
6

I will always strongly oppose to any truth claim that this can be uttered; since I would expect the Venerable to be speaking from faith rather than knowledge. :slight_smile:

Feel free to point out disrepencies and your personal leanings, bhante; truth claims imply a level of attainment that is neither possible, nor indeed allowed (since you would need to be a sotapanna to make such declarations, and it’s not allowed to on these forums). :wink:

1 Like
7

So how should I phrase that? I believe… ? At some point, it’s hard to discern which part I should put I believe… vs which part I can just speak normally.

I don’t see that statement as a claim of attainment. Just teaching Dhamma.

One would expect to say rebirth as a matter of fact can be frown upon in an atheist forum. However, stating things about nibbana in a Buddhist forum, I don’t expect that to be frowned upon.

8

Maybe for the parts where you’re sharing your beliefs?

Is that really appropriate on this forum?

And anyway, the layman is correct. This is indeed the Sutta’s standard for right speech:

If a person has faith, they preserve truth by saying, ‘Such is my faith.’ But they don’t yet come to the categorical conclusion: ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’
… or has accepted a view after deliberation, they preserve truth by saying, ‘Such is the view I have accepted after deliberation.’ But they don’t yet come to the categorical conclusion: ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’

MN 95

I think some Buddhists would take offense at the suggestion that it is impossible to know nibbāna directly! Did you really mean to say that? Are you not also here making a categorical claim beyond what you can know? :wink:

That’s not how I read the Venerable’s sentence. I read it as “When [I] understand nibbāna in this way, the result of holding that view is that many Mahāyāna teachings look flawed [to me].” Which is, of course, something the Venerable can have first-hand knowledge of. Of course, he worded his sentence erroneously in the general second person rather than the first person singular, but this is a common mistake! :wink:

2 Likes
9

What’s this forum for then? In terms of relationship between in general laity and monks, its in general for monks to be in the teaching position.

I believe in the Buddha’s Dhamma. So that’s not really helpful to discern which ones to be more careful about and which ones is more casual, like is 5 precepts more casual. Do I have to say I believe if one observes the 5 precepts properly, one would be happy? If the line is what can be quoted in suttas, then do everyone also have to be so careful in saying I believe whenever there’s a part of the sentence which cannot be quoted in suttas?

In a sense, this can reveal subtly when a person has attainments. Before, he speaks like this, after he speaks like that. It would be easier to be consistent all the way, and not referring to personal knowledge, but saying this is what the Buddha taught.

Of course, without me intellectually understanding it, I cannot teach, without me believing it, it’s not nice for me to spread what I don’t believe.

10

Sure, bhante, but that’s one hefty paraphrasing. :slight_smile:

If there wasn’t any difference between those two sentences, we wouldn’t have an entire sutta in MN 95 in preserving the truth, would we? :slight_smile:

I also seem to have briefed my statement, since I was trying to the rules of monks regaeding attainments alongside the rules of the forums.

Context matters, bhante. This is not a forum dedicated to a single school of buddhism, compared to other such forums. Rather, different people of all sorts of traditions come here to study EBTs. Not everyone here would consider a mainline Theravadin to be their teacher — even if they were to show such a bhante due respect. :wink:

Anyway, we’ve drifted a bit from the OP’s topic, but I suppose in a roundabout way, it still demonstrates the challenges of trying to find “the true dharma”.

In the end, we all have to make our own choices and rely on our own practice:

By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

11

Yes, I am aware that not everyone has the same view on Jhana or Nibbana here. Just that do I have to be politically representing other people’s views when I post?

Just because there’s flat earthers out there, does it mean I have to take that into account and I cannot simply say the earth is sort of oval shaped? But I have to say, I believe in scientists and NASA and the rest that the earth is sort of oval shaped?

I didn’t claim to represent the forum, and I did said that there’s a variety of views in EBT circles. I presented my view as part of my normal speech. Or is it the line to draw is that whenever we speak of Jhanas and Nibbana in this forum, we have to say I believe? I don’t see other people doing that.

PS. In case these come across as agressive, I am really curious about the content policy here, also I am autistic, so I tend to be keyboard warrior.

12

I’ll just offer my own way of relating to the Early Buddhist Texts. And right off the bat it’s obvious that there are a lot of texts, a lot to read, assimilate and test out. And I’ve found that what makes all the difference is a measure of trust/faith, patience and time. The Buddhism of the EBT’s is a long game.

Having seen firsthand the untenable foundations and inadequate effectiveness of religions, belief systems and philosophies, the Buddhism presented in the Early texts captured my attention because of its practicality and depth. The teachings that matter do not require first assuming beliefs. But pondering isn’t enough. Personally testing everything out is readily accessible and vital. And when questions arise, the answers are there. This continuously reveals the simple complexities of how this all came to be, what the problem is and the way out.

It’s a curious thing to consider these thousands of suttas and the possibility that they’re the exact words of the Buddha from 2500 years ago. But establishing that that really isn’t required. In reading sutta after sutta, it becomes clear after a while that what is beautifully preserved are the same core messages, the same formula, so to speak. Get secluded, sit down, get still and watch what happens. With guidance from the suttas, it becomes clear what to look for and what the problem is, on and off the meditation cushion. When the path is hindered, the causes are explained and become totally obvious. Change happens.

In the Buddha’s handful of leaves simile, what he knew was like the number of leaves in the forest but the number of leaves in his hand was all that was important. Know dukkha. Know how dukkha arises. Know how dukkha ceases. Know the path the leads to the cessation.

For me, the further away traditions and schools get away from the suttas, the more complex and complicated it becomes. I gravitate towards the teachers I’ve found here who are committed to staying as close to the suttas as possible. Occam’s Razor. Suttas first, commentary very sparingly.

7 Likes
13

I doubt that black and white thinking is a helpful way to approach the authenticity of a 2600 year old religious teaching.

In fact, black and white thinking is not helpful in many situations, so learning to turn it off when we want can be a good skill to have.

9 Likes
14

Dear venerables and layfriend Dogen,

I appreciate the answers and thoughtfulness in your messages. I suppose I kind of lost sight of the fact that the Buddha’s teaching is, in fact, a practical one, and that pondering indeed has its limits.

While I’m not fully understanding the context of the difference in opinion, funnily enough, it forms a good example of the origin of my own doubtfulness. It’s those tiny jabs that are sometimes given within Buddhist circles about certain views that are a thorn in my side. While it is perhaps an idealistic idea, I had hoped that every tradition was more or less unified and standing strong together to represent Buddhism as a whole.

What especially bothers me is that we all read the Pali Canon, and yet one interprets one thing this way and another interprets it another way, sometimes even to the point of diverging in how we practice. While, of course, I can see that the above discussion is all within a friendly and educational context, I wonder how we will reconcile.

One may rely on the commentaries and another on the suttas and his own discernment, but perhaps I’m once again thinking in black-and-white terms of right and wrong. Maybe a truth can be approached through different ways.

To finish off, I hear this sort of statement a lot from practitioners:

To me hearing this feels like an isolated thing to say, especially when I’m still seeking how everything fits together. Because of course we make our own choices through our own interpretations, and some choices might be out of ignorance. I’m flawed, but perhaps you too make some choices out of afflictions that are still present. So who/where do we turn to as a means to check what is right and in line with what the buddha said?

The suttas! But then again, the divergence started from our own interpretations of certain suttas.

It reminds me of a Jataka tale where robbers or alcoholics tried to trick a king by luring him with prized liquor that was drugged. But when the king noticed that the drinkers themselves didn’t drink even a drop of it, he realized that something was off. This is a rough comparison, but I’m trying to get to the point that if we all seem to have access to the Dhamma, how come we are not always walking the same path?

I’m not accusing or blaming anyone I’m just trying to write out my thought pattern and where I’m coming from. English is not my first language, and I may come across as being rough. I just wanted to get my thoughts out so perhaps you can understand where I’m coming from.

Eventually, I will be dependent on the interpretation of a Sangha and, of course, my own discernment, but then again, that may differ from another community’s view. I’m aware that the differences are a minority compared to the overall agreements about the Dhamma. Yet even if people agree on perhaps 90% of the teachings, that remaining 10% seems to be enough to cause a split in ways of practicing and understanding. And that is what I find difficult to reconcile.

I suppose what I’m ultimately struggling with is how we can trust our own discernment while also recognizing that our discernment is itself imperfect. And if different practitioners sincerely arrive at different conclusions from the same teachings, how do we know when we are walking in accordance with the Dhamma?

I don’t mean this as an accusation. It’s simply something I personally struggle with and would like to understand better.

15

I really like the way you formulated your response, and I’m trying to apply the same approach as you formulated. I think I have been stuck on the intellectual side of it for a long time. That’s were the desire also came from to really set aside Mahayana and start with “The basics” or the canon that to me too feels certainly closer to the core/“original” Buddhism. I was just startled that even there are the same or similar differences or disputes I saw between the many philosophical schools of Mahayana. I guess it makes everything in a way more human because we still have faults.

1 Like
16

:sweat_smile: Very true, but on second thought to frame it more I guess its the grey area in-between that’s bothering me mostly. Trying to come to answers via logical reasoning, historical evidence is/ was the way for me to come to conclusive answers and perhaps my way of foolishly putting the kalama sutra into practice but as was said and what I keep stumbling upon is that ultimately finding out by testing it out is the greatest reassurance when it comes to the practice advice given by the buddha

:folded_hands:

17

I mean, that’s the definition of black and white thinking.

This is true in a sense. However even arahants don’t always end up with the psychic abilities to see for themselves everything the Buddha said to be true.

I think it’s more correct to say that ultimately we have to be willing to take many things on faith for much of our lives in order to practice the Buddha’s teachings. If one believes the Kālāmatists, one would think the Buddha said nothing at all about the importance of faith.

1 Like
18

Hi,

It may be helpful to give up this expectation. Logical reasoning and historical evidence can only take us so far.

In terms of “history” we’re limited in what we can know but you may find The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts by Venerables Sujato and Brahmli helpful. It’s available here:

As others have mentioned in this thread, no one believes the suttas are word-for-word exact replications of the Buddha’s Teachings.
However, there is good evidence that the core principles and Teachings have been preserved including the 4NTs, DO, causality, kamma, rebirth, and the cessation of dukkha.
In a practical sense, this is good enough.

Regarding debates about the Teachings, this was going on during the time of the Buddha and shortly afterwards, so nothing new here!
And yet, many people have benefitted and become Awakened.

We can just take up the practice, work with a respected teacher and Sangha if at all possible, and see what opens up.
Then we’ll directly know the benefits and beauty of the Dhamma, even as there will be some practitioners who understand some aspects of the Teachings in one way while others see it another way.
When we do this, the restless, need-to-be-absolutely-sure processes taper off as more ease, peace, and wisdom arise on the Path.

Hope this is helpful!

6 Likes
19

My line of thinking might be a bit extreme; and I certainly do not intend to dismiss the value of either the sangha & the greater community, nor
the suttas.

But my main inspiration as a practitioner of bodhisattva path is that the Buddhas can be enlightened on their own. So I think that, just as however flawed the bodhisatta’s mind was, it was sufficient to deliver him to freedom; so can we develop our flawed minds to see the dharma for ourselves.

Otherwise, consider the faith one has in a teacher or a certain tradition— can the faith one has with a flawed mind be reliable? How can you be sure that the teacher you think is wise is actually wise?

I can’t help it but think it keeps circling back to one’s own discernment. To even have a wise teacher you need wise discernment to begin with.

1 Like
21

Thank you for the recommending the book, because I so happen to be reading it! so I’m glad it is recommended here again. It shows that I can get some answers from there and from what I’ve read I’m already enjoying it. Now what you said is true and after reading the responses and some time thinking. The insights I’ve had gotten by thinking and using logic are far less than the ones of actually practicing. So by acting the rest will reveal itself later. In society a logical, historical approach has always been the superior one. But I suppose you can’t approach a teaching that works with the inner workings of the mind and a spiritual path from a full “sciency” view so to say.

:folded_hands:

1 Like
22

Well worded, I must agree that in the end it does really rely on you solely, the buddha did say that you need to rely on oneself as a support in practice. Its just a small leap of faith but the results aren’t just visible in an after life or so, but can be seen here directly on the majority of things. So that is the reassurance the buddha urged us to get to over come doubt if I interpret the Kalama sutra well enough.

Thank you for sharing your view on the situation, I really appreciated it!

1 Like