"Theravada Buddhism" and "Early Buddhism"

The Watercooler
15

Well, we’d first have to define these things a lot more clearly, and distinguish between text, doctrine, and practice. For example, what is considered to be “Theravada” in theory is very different from Buddhism as practiced in “Theravada” countries by people who would consider themselves “Theravadins”. That is, we have a narrow, textual and doctrinal, view of Theravada, whereas it is in fact a full religious tradition, with its hierarchies, magic, ritual, and superstitions.

Many of the ideas doctrinally regarded as “Theravadin” are not really accepted or understood by most Theravadins; for example, many Theravadin death rituals assume that there is a period between life and life.

Within the broad tent of early Buddhism, there is a general agreement on certain kinds of things; for example, that the Buddha taught a rational doctrine with meditation at its core, which taught the escape from suffering; and that he did not teach, or at least did not emphasize, the worship of relics, for example.

My point here is really this: if there seems to be a lack of a simple and well-defined list of differences between the two, that is probably because those who are familiar enough with the field to understand the differences appreciate that it is a lot more complex than it looks!

There are other studies in these areas. I have looked at one important area in my A History of Mindfulness. Having said which, I don’t find the depth of research in this book particularly compelling.

There are a variety of works along similar lines, and they keep bringing up the same passages and ideas. I can think of two reasons why that might be the case:

  • They are really on to something, and the suttas are saying something quite different from what we thought.
  • There is a systematic problem in how such studies are undertaken and framed, a bias in reading that shapes findings in predictable ways.

I have found that scholarly work is most useful when it focuses on small and specific areas, when it addresses social, economic, or material aspects of the texts. The problem, I believe, is when scholarship tries to scale up its methods—breaking big problems into reductive units, then reassembling the big picture from atoms—so that the same principles are applied to profound matters of consciousness. The mistakes in small things, which are many, become hidden under the big tent, and an illusion of certainty is created.

Ven Bodhi would generally accept the same distinctions as any other historically-minded scholar.

That’s too reductive. It is an early example of the Abhidhamma tendency. There are many other such early indications of early “abhidhammic” tendencies, including the Satipatthana Sutta, the formal structure of the Samyutta, the discussions on meaning found in the Suttas, the formal structure of the Vinaya, and so on. It was a broad-based movement, not a specific text or set of doctrines.

Yes, tradition ascribes a close relationship between Sariputta and the origin of the Abhidhamma, and in the non-reductive sense, this is obviously true.

This is true, and most followers of EBTs would accept this.

12 Likes
16

Learned this New word :joy:

1 Like
17

Just to add a postscript here regarding Reexamining Jhana: Towards a Critical Reconstruction of Early Buddhist Soteriology, as I hinted above I find the main argument has too many problems of fact and interpretation to be convincing. However, I have just read the 'Aftermath" portion, and it’s really interesting.

Again, not that I would say everything the same way, but it expresses things that I have believed my whole life: namely, that we (as a child of so-called “western” culture) are in crisis, and lack the tools to get out of it; and Buddhism (among other things) may well provide ideas that can enable us to move forward. Yet as he says:

But to take advantage of these possibilities, Buddhism must come out of its slumber, and start actively rethinking its place and role in the world. Its relative inactivity and inability to produce outstanding thinkers or sensitive artists is really embarrassing, especially when we compare Buddhism to say, Catholicism. But to succeed in that task, the East must do away with the false dichotomy of uncritically affirming its own tradition or completely ignoring it. It must take the middle road of critical approach.

12 Likes
18

Kept reading introduction to path of discrimination. This came after what I posted earlier

The book which has really dominated the Theravāda Abhidhamma tradition as we know it is the Dhammasañgani, a text quite unknown, apparently, to the other schools. It enumerates and describes the dhammas, applies the triad and dyad analysis to them and further classifies them as ‘thought’ (citta), ‘mentals’ (<cetasika), ‘matter’ and nibbāna and in other ways. It may embody some older material, but is probably later than the Sabbatthivāda schism (c. B.C. 237, IB2 273). It was placed first in the standard order of the texts. Now the Samgītiparyāya of the Sabbatthivāda likewise enumerates dhammas (from the Samgīti Suttanta), but explains them by quoting other suttas, often duplicating explanations in the Dharmaskandha- Vibhañga. The Theravāda, following our hypothesis above, would have had such a text. If so, they discarded it in favour of the new Dhammasañgani as a far more systematic account of the dhammas, described by listing synonyms and what were later called ‘characteristics’ 0lakkhana) and classified according to the abhidhamma-anslysis and an elaborated version of the ‘groups’.

19

I am confused by what exactly you are saying here. Can you define more clearly between Early Buddhist texts, Early Buddhism And the acedemic endeavour?

2 Likes
20

Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Early Buddhist Texts seem to be those texts that are identified by the academic community of Early Buddhism scholars to likely be a from the earliest strata of Buddhist texts and/or spoke by the Buddha and his immediate disciples.
Early Buddhism seems to be the religion based upon that.
The academic discipline would be the “Early Buddhism” specialists within the field of “Buddhist Studies.”

Does this make sense?

It seems that every Buddhist sect considers all of their texts to have been spoken directly by the Buddha and thus early. However, these claims do not seem evidence-based.

I replied in this thread because this discussion seems more related to “Theravada Buddhism vs. Early Buddhism” than it does to “Theorist vs. Practitioners.”

I think you are implicitly giving both the Abhidhamma and Commentaries too much credit here.
I think that from the evidence available today, it is relatively clear that neither the Abhidhamma nor Commentaries were even in existence during the First Buddhist Council.

I agree with your concise assessment provided here.

Venerable, many of us are afraid that you may have fallen into wrong view (to some degree) on the topic of Abhidhamma and Commentaries being taught directly by the Buddha.

Isn’t there a discourse on persuading others and allowing oneself to be persuaded?

How do you think that we all, including me, should address this disagreement regarding whether the Abhidhamma and Commentaries are spoken by the Buddha, perfect, completely in accordance with Dhamma-Vinaya, etc.?

Perhaps we can try out those approaches to the degree that they are suitable in order to harmoniously arrive at a happy mutual agreement that is based on the Dhamma? What do you think?

How would you re-write those lines in a more objective, impartial, and unbiased way?
How could be written in a way that is neither biased against, nor for the Theravada sect?

2 Likes
21

Thank you for the reply. I was hoping for something more substantial. But I want persue it any further.

I am afraid, this is not an accurate representation.

2 Likes
22

Please refer to this book for more accurate answers to your inquiry:

The definition of early Buddhist texts is provided on page 9-10.

Bhante Sujato’s response earlier on this thread can help shed some light on “Theravada Buddhism” and “Early Buddhism.”

You can direct your inquiries to him as he seems far more knowledgeable about the topic of the questions that you asked me than I am. Perhaps he can answer to your satisfaction.

It makes sense!
My concern is that many who are not familiar enough with the field (myself included) seem unable to accurately discern between the two - hence this thread.
It was only within the past two years that I even realized that Early Buddhism was distinct from Theravada Buddhism - I don’t think I even knew of the term “Early Buddhism” prior to this.

2 Likes
23

In my journey in Buddhism. What attracted me always is those earliest strata texts. Like Suttanipāta, Udāna etc. Because that was probably the only teaching used until Agamas and Nikāyas.

I wish to read the commentaries of them. Maha Niddesa etc

I like already the ones found at Ghandhara of the same texts.

24

How/were did you find these? Thanks in advance.

25

I think generally speaking it’s easier to identify texts that seem to be later works than it is to define exactly which texts are early. Some sutras sound like Abhidharma in the way they are written with series of technical terms or lists of dharmas (eg DN 34). Some texts are clearly well-thought out literary works (eg DN 16). Some texts seem like early exegetical texts (eg MN 141). Sometimes just the style of how a text is written makes it seem later. I can think of MN 119 in this case, which gives a long list of benefits to following its teaching. It reminds me of later Mahayana sutras in that regard. In Agamas, some sutras go so far as name themselves, which is also something Mahayana sutras do.

6 Likes
26

Not exactly the same. But similar.

I bought a Ghandhara book there is a few pages of one they found.It’s really cool.

Before that I read this one. Which is way longer. And it’s free. It’s from fragments. So it’s corrected

A Gāndhārī Commentary on Early Buddhist Verses: British Library Kharoṣṭhī fragments 7, 9, 13 and 18

1 Like
27

Hum. that’s interesting. I’ve never had the chance to study the chinese agamas extensively. Which sutra there discusses dharmas existing in the 3 times?

You’ll have to forgive me but I cannot locate it. I’ve tried a few searches but come up empty. Perhaps someone else can point into the right direction.

Do you guys know what Bikkhu Bodhi says about this issue of EBT and Theravada? If I remember well a text I’ve read from him, Bikkhu Bodhi says that Abhidhamma is commentarial rather than buddhavacana.

In the introduction to the Abhidhammattha sangaha he puts forward a view that the basic architecture and vision of the Abhidhamma comes from the Buddha but this was worked out in greater detail by subsequent disciples.

-proposing a bhavanga-citta.

I believe tradition equates this with the luminous mind.

proposing a heart-basis.

This is an explanation of the idea found in the suttas of mind and matter depending on each other.

28

Your right. I wish I was you. I wish you translated the Early Abhidhamma texts the Chinese translated. The earliest style would be interesting to read the nature of that early beginnings

But I have noticed what you mean. Like in nikayas that sutta where Ānanda is saying he heard the words from Buddha’s own lips repeatedly. It’s like reading that is already telling me this sound a late text. Trying to convince me that it must be then truth. :joy:

If you see the parallel Ānanda is more lax.

29

Based on what?

There is definitely some contradiction.

Do name these contradictions?

I don’t think early Buddhism “canonizes” nor “authorizes” commentaries or sub-commentaries.

A commentary is simply a more detailed explanation of a sutta. I’m sure this was happening from the earliest of times.

Furthermore, the following are considered not to be spoken by the Buddha and thus not considered “authentic” according to Early Buddhism

A lot of what you have on your list aren’t considered to be the word of the Buddha even by orthodox Theravadin standards. I’m not sure why that makes them inauthentic though? Why are the Petakopadesa, Nettippakarana or the Patisambhidamagga inauthentic texts?

It seems that every Buddhist sect considers all of their texts to have been spoken directly by the Buddha and thus early.

This isn’t true.

1 Like
30

My friend I never read Agamas saying that. If it is because it was made by Sarvāstivāda. Which teaching is found a lot about the times in Abhidhamma texts. But here I give you just a snippet of the book of a Ghandhara debate text about it they found.

An Abhidharma Treatise on Time and Existence

It is not the case that everything exists, nor is it the case that everything does not exist. A past [factor] exists without efficacy; [for example,] an arhat may have had desire, anger, and delusion in the past. The past should be referred to as nothing but the past. The future should be referred to as nothing but the future. The present should be referred to as nothing but the present. Just as the essential nature of the past is established as having existence in order to determine the past, so too the essential nature of futureness is established as having existence in order to determine the past; and so too, the essential nature of presentness is established as having existence in order to determine the past. This [principle] is to be applied similarly to the future and so on, down to the unconditioned [factors].

Please buy The Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhāra By Richard Solomon to read the rest. Interesting debate text.

31

I have to agree. Read Satyasiddhisastra. It’s a confusing time. But only in the beginning when there was few sects they had similar teaching. Then after there came probably came more and more sects than each made discourses. Now where are we? :joy:

Because what if we also claimed to be like the Elders had it. But its not true? :thinking:.

Better? @Ceisiwr

Because I was responding to you to read that book

32

Could you edit your post. You are attributing a quote to me there that I did not say.

33

What are you asking here?

Look at the disagreements section of the OP.

How are you so sure about this?
Who gave monastics the authority to write commentaries?
I don’t remember the Buddha ever authorizing monastics to do such a thing. :thinking:

I literally copied and pasted the books of the Pali Canon.
Which books of the Pali Canon do you think are “not considered the word of the Buddha even by orthodox Theravadin standards”?

Authentic is defined as that which is actually spoken (in substance) by the Buddha.
I.e. if a sutta claims that the Buddha said it and he actually did not - that would be considered inauthentic.

You will have to direct your inquiries to someone more knowledgeable that me about this.
Sorry that I can’t be of more help to you with my current level of knowledge and mental development.

Sorry, let me clarify.
It seems to me that each sect, at least implicitly, claims that their canonized texts are the word of the Buddha. Monastics within the sect may disagree, but the sect as a whole canonizes the texts they think are the word of the Buddha, I think.
If not, what’s the point of a canon? Or else, it would beg the question: why are sects canonizing words that do not belong to the Buddha?

34

On further reflection, it seems to me that all this discussion, including my own contributions, misses the crucial point. The fundamental difference is the attitude to time: Theravada is mythical, Early Buddhism is historical.

The best summary of mythic time is from Sallustius:

These things never happened, but always are.

Myth points to the presence of the eternal in the transient. Events of the past are true not because they are verified facts, but because they are imbued with an overwhelming sense of meaning. So for Theravada, for example, the doctrine taught by the Buddha is identical with that in the Abhidhamma, which is identical with the commentaries, which is identical with that in contemporary Theravada. And any challenge to this is not about the facts, it is a threat to the sense of meaning that creates the identity of Theravadin community.

“Early Buddhism” is a concept that arises once you reject that approach. If you look at things historically, that is, take an interest in what actually happened, using whatever critical faculties may be brought to bear on this question. To a historian, it is self-evident that things change over time, and that they may only be understood in terms of context and process.

Understood like, this, we can see that the underlying difference between the two approaches is not a matter of the acceptance or denial of certain facts or interpretations. It’s a question of character and culture, of spiritual evolution. Speaking for myself, I could no more go back to orthodox “Theravada” than I could will myself to believe in Jesus. I have been there, and I moved on.

But that doesn’t mean that Early Buddhism is better than Theravada. People are just in different places, and what matters is not your religious identity, but how that identity nourishes your spiritual growth. If you try to force ideas on people, you just end up creating divisions and hardening opposition. People grow and change when they’re ready. Sure, in some cases, there’s no choice. If it is a matter of fundamental human rights, then no-one has a right to cling to their tradition, and they will have to change, like it or not. But when it comes to, say, choice of meditation method, what matters is whether it helps abandon the hindrances. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, and it’s healthy to want to learn.

Rationalist-minded people like myself chronically underestimate the power of the irrational, of the little-understood psychic forces that bring people together and imbue a community with a shared sense of meaning. And it is entirely noteworthy that we have rather systematically failed to create any meaningful equivalent. Attempts to create a purely rational world typically devolve to irrational cults of personality (see: the history of Communism). Due to fear of the irrational and inability to understand it, apostles of the rational end up in thrall to the irrational.

And this is why I have been studying and promoting the study of mythology.

22 Likes