The Samyutta Nikaya as the earliest of the EBTs

[sujato]

I’m really uncomfortable with the use of the word “guess” in this thread. It’s not “guessing”, it’s inferring.

Inference is a key part of knowing, whether we are talking about the means of knowing taught in the Suttas themselves, or the methods of science, or our decision to grab an umbrella before going outside. We don’t just “guess” whether it is going to rain, we infer from the sky and the forecast. Sometimes our inference is right, sometimes wrong—again, as the Buddha said—but an inference is never a “guess”.

[yeshe.tenley]

Hello Venerable,

• “guess” - estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

• “guess” - If you guess something, you give an answer or provide an opinion which may not be true because you do not have definite knowledge about the matter concerned.

• “guess” - to give an answer or opinion about something without having all the facts.

My usage of the word guess was not meant as a pejorative and I added the adjective “educated” so as to indicate the guesses were not in fact “wild” Rather, my usage was intended in line with common definitions such as the above which I do believe fit this case.

Inferring from the fact that the SN and SA contain much overlapping material that the SN is earlier than other teachings is an educated guess because we don’t have sufficient information to be sure the inference and conclusion is correct. It rests upon assumptions that are not themselves verified as correct. It is as @Dhammabodhi said, a hypothesis; which is to say an educated guess that has not been proven as a fact.

• “infer” - deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

• “infer” - to form an opinion or guess that something is true because of the information that you have.

• “infer” - to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

It doesn’t appear the definitions of these two words are as clearly distinguishable as you might think. In fact, the second definition of infer has it as a guess.

Moreover, if you combine the reasoning and the guess aspect of the definitions of inference you might arrive at the construction, “educated guess”

[Snowbird]

@yeshe.tenley

It rests upon assumptions that are not themselves verified as correct.

Exactly. Whether you say inferences based on assumptions or guesses based on other guesses, the end result is the same.

And even guesses based on guesses can turn out to be correct. The problem I see is that in practice, although the person who presents their latest theory may very well know that they are making inferences based on assumptions, and they even state them clearly, people will only hear “SN is the earliest text”. It’s not entirely the fault of the person promoting theories. But you can’t escape the fact that these ideas will be received in a certain way.

Edit to add: When I say “guess”, I in no way mean that it isn’t based on some bit of reasoning. Clearly people making them have lots of arguments to support their guess. But I realize it may sound pejorative. Sorry.

[Dhammabodhi]

I think you have articulated very clearly one of the main counterarguments to the hypothesis and this is well worth continued debate.

I would like to clarify that I have four interrelated sources of information behind generating my hypothesis.

One is the comparison of extant collections of canonical texts done by Master Yin Shen and Sujato Bhikkhu which points to the overlap between the Samyutta NIkaya and the Samyukta Agama.

A second is the historical research by Indologist Johannes Bronkhors focused on Greater Magadha and the Maruyan Civilization. The world in the Samyutta Nikaya matches the world Bronkhorst describes.

A third is my own comparison of the theory and practice of contemporary lineages of Theravada Buddhist meditation, namely the Ledi Sayadaw Vipassana lineage and the Ajahn Mun monastic lineage, with somatic trauma therapy from depth psychology and Somatic Experiencing.

And fourth is my own comparison of the yogic spiritual practice in the Samyutta Nikaya with the Daoist teachings on internal alchemy as presented by scholar practitioner John Blofeld. In addition, religous studies scholar Hal Roth has shown that Daoist inner practice (nei-yeh) dates back to the pre-imperial city-state culture in China. Early Buddhism and early Daoism were both oral traditions that focused on body posture, breath, the heart-mind, and a deeper formless mysticism.

Later Buddhism and later Daoism add scholastic philosophy done by reading and writing and further evolutions of the already established yogic spiritual practice which would have been both oral and written. These would mix with local indigenous spirituality/religion.

I can offer a bibliography of books as content to consider.

[thomaslaw]

@yeshe.tenley

Inferring from the fact that the SN and SA contain much overlapping material that the SN is earlier than other teachings is an educated guess because we don’t have sufficient information to be sure the inference and conclusion is correct. It rests upon assumptions that are not themselves verified as correct.

@Snowbird

Whether you say inferences based on assumptions or guesses based on other guesses, the end result is the same.

It seems your viewpoint or conclusion about SN/SA is just “guess”. This is because you do not actually study the relevant works by Yin Shun at all.

[Snowbird]

If there was actual proof, then we wouldn’t be having this whole conversation.

[thomaslaw]

@Dhammabodhi

The work of Yin Shun and Sujato is very straightforward. They just compared the available canons and found overlap between the Samyutta Nikaya and the Samyukta Agama. That kind of discovery could have been made a long time ago but the people doing the research lacked the vision and will to do so.

This is because they simply are unable to read the Chinese books by Yin Shun. They also have the difficulties to read the Chinese Buddhist texts mentioned clearly in the relevant work by Yin Shun.

Cf. also:
Page 911 from SA/SN Three Angas Choong MK.pdf (199.8 KB)
Page 903 note 24 from SA/SN Three Angas Choong MK.pdf (291.1 KB)

[thomaslaw]

@Snowbird

If there was actual proof, then we wouldn’t be having this whole conversation.

I am very welcome this whole conversation. But remember that please do follow closely “right speech”.

[BethL]

Going back to Bhante Sujato’s analogy above:

@sujato

If you compare with a house, for example, the fact that a house is older than the one next door doesn’t necessarily mean that any particular part of that house is older; in fact, its age make the presence of renovations more likely. So while we can argue that the teachings of the Samyutta were likely to have been considered central from an early time, we can’t really argue that any particular teaching in the Samyutta is older than one elsewhere. At least, not without supporting arguments.

This squares with my understanding that, in general, scholars maintain a bird’s-eye view when establishing an earlier-vs-later logic; however, to do this they must analyze texts at the most discrete levels possible.

If I’m going to purchase a house, I’d like to know the age of the house so that I can estimate about how much renovation has occurred over the years. (Oh, we Americans are so clever by inventing the term “guesstimate”. ) If I purchase an older house and hear wood creaking from time to time, I know what’s likely happening. If I were in a new house and heard the same noise, I’d be concerned and spend time investigating. It has no bearing, really, on how I appreciate the value of the house. But it does have a bearing on how I take care of it. Why wouldn’t I want to have this knowledge?

@yeshe.tenley

Trying to understand, it sounds like you’re saying that a certain group of scholars of Christian texts have concluded upon the basis of textual evidence that another group’s faith is not warranted and should therefore be abandoned or altered based on the strength of this textual evidence?

Yes. What’s curious to me is the compulsion to signal to people that they are likely deluded – beyond simply producing the academic work itself. As if their audience doesn’t have the capacity to evolve in their relationship to spirituality. Why do they care about this? I’m not sure what’s feeding that. It doesn’t feel like compassion, for example.

@llt

In the case of the synoptic gospels, while scholars haven’t solved exactly how they developed, the majority of scholars agree that Mark is likely earlier than the others (this has been the case for a long time).

@llt

The nature of studying the past is such that there are often things that we do not know with 100% certainty. However, that does not mean that there are not methods of studying texts themselves, and using internal evidence, or references between texts, or taking multidisciplinary approaches, that will not result in a better understanding of what is likely to have happened. Additionally, studying texts can tell us a lot about the texts themselves, and the values and ideas contained in them.

When I started these studies on my own (I’m not an academic) it made all the difference to start viewing Mark as likely earlier than Matthew, Luke, and John – and to understand the likelihood of Q as the primary, earlier source of Matthew and Luke, and so on…all the way through the rest of the New Testament.

For one, over time I changed my thinking as regarding the historical Jesus as the only singular figure who could have jump-started a different Jewish sect. I still regard the historical Jesus as a singular figure, for certain. (Granted, I’m acknowledging here my belief without absolute proof that such a person existed.)

And I regard the New Testament as a singular textual corpus that likely would not have evolved over time without a centrifugal group of teachers and scribes who, through their rigorous commitment and spiritual discipline, tapped into a specialized wisdom or knowledge that would otherwise have remained dormant. Assessing where there were likely renovations – especially those showing hostility toward rabbinic Judaism – does not make me want to ignore the corpus as a whole; it does tell me where to tamper any implausible expectations that the eventual recordings could ever be free of prejudice.

This was part of my turning toward Buddhism because I instantly appreciated the invitation to discover liberation as a faculty of my own agency, i.e. not dependent on the historical accuracy of the texts themselves or whether, frankly, a singular individual should even have to arrive at the truth in order for that truth to be validated.

Of course, comparing ancient Greek Gospel textual studies to EBT studies starts to break down rapidly after a point. But at a high level I think there’s inherent value (going back to the house analogy and other comments in this thread).

@Dhammabodhi

I can offer a bibliography of books as content to consider.

This would be great!

[Dhammabodhi]

Choong, Mun-Keat. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutranga Portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000.

Sujato, Ajhan. A History of Mindfulness, How Insight Worsted Tranquility in the Satipatthana Sutta. Second. New South Wales, Australia: Santipada, 2012. A History of Mindfulness.

Roth, Harold. Original Tao: Inward Training. Bilingual edition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2004.

Roth, Harold D. Contemplative Foundations of Classical Daoism, The. Albany: SUNY Press, 2021.

Blofeld, John. Taoism: The Road to Immortality. Shambhala, 2000.

Bronkhorst, Johannes. Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. Greater Magadha. Brill, 2007. Log in | Lewis R. Lancaster Research Library @ University of the West.

Bronkhorst, Johannes. Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism. Brill, 2011. https://brill.com/display/title/19810.

Thanissaro, Bhikkhu. “First Things First.” dhammatalks.org, 2018. First Things First.

Thanissaro, Bhikkhu. The Paradox of Becoming. Valley Center, CA: Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 2008.

Dhammadharo, Ajhan Lee. Keeping the Breath in Mind and Lessons in Samadhi. Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Seventh Revised. Metta Forest Monastery, 2017.

Freese, John B. “A Mutual Critical Correlation of Buddhist Meditation and Trauma Therapy.” Claremont School of Theology, 2022. Internet Archive. A Mutual Critical Correlation of Buddhist Meditation and Trauma Therapy : John B. Freese : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.

Dhammabodhi, ed. An Anthology of 50 Discourses from the Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Bhikkhu Sujato. Penasco New Mexico: Dhamma Vinaya Press, 2023.

Goenka, S. N. Discourse Summaries. Seattle, WA: Pariyatti Publishing, 2000.

Khin, Sayagyi U. Ba, and S. N. Goenka. Sayagyi U Ba Khin Journal: A Collection Commemorating the Teaching of Sayagyi U Ba Khin. Onalaska, WA: Vipassana Research Publications, 2017.

[Ceisiwr]

@Snowbird

I think why this is so important to be aware of is that we aren’t just talking about organizing our bookshelf. Like, we want to put the books farthest to the left that contain the oldest text and then the newer texts to the right. If that’s all this was about, then sure, do whatever you like. But it’s not. These theories aim to say what is more authentic Buddhavacana and what is less. And people will naturally tend to ignore teachings that someone has come along and theorized is later.

And then you get the extreme example, which you see on this forum by certain people, where only the SN and only the ones with parallels are accepted and with no further explanations or exegesis allowed. Something completely new and alien in the history of Buddhism.

[Snowbird]

@Ceisiwr

And then you get the extreme example

Exactly. This is quite common and now somewhat ingrained.

[thomaslaw]

Thanks for the list of books.

I would like to add:

Choong Mun-keat. “Ācāriya Buddhaghosa and Master Yinshun 印順 on the Three-aṅga Structure of Early Buddhist Texts ” in Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama (Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts, Research Series 8; edited by Dhammadinnā), Taiwan: Dharma Drum Corporation, August 2020, pp. 883-932.

SA/SN Three Angas Choong MK.pdf (681.7 KB)