"Theravada Buddhism" and "Early Buddhism"

The Watercooler
42

What are you asking here?

I’m asking what is your basis for claiming that Theravada introduced changes? What you find contradictory?

How are you so sure about this?

Suttas need explaining.

Who gave monastics the authority to write commentaries?

They come from Theras.

I don’t remember the Buddha ever authorizing monastics to do such a thing.

There wouldn’t be any need to when he was alive.

Which books of the Pali Canon do you think are “not considered the word of the Buddha even by orthodox Theravadin standards”?

Well for one no orthodox Theravadin considers the Petakopadesa, Nettippakarana or the Patisambhidamagga to be the word of the Buddha.

43

Theravada is mythical, Early Buddhism is historical.

I disagree.

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.

Personally I don’t agree with Theravadin orthodoxy because it makes me feel good. I started out rejecting it, in favour of a sutta only approach. I gradually grew closer to classical Theravada through investigation and reasoning.

“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.

Its also an easy way for people to invent their own Dhamma. I’ve noticed quite often that EBT folk have a tendency to end up with an interpretation of the Dhamma which aligns with their other views and beliefs. Its an interesting observation that most EBT folks are of a leftist/liberal persuasion and that the Dhamma they promote ends up perfectly aligning with progressive values. The EBT approach can and easily does tend towards dismissing “problematic” (i have no idea why left wingers love this word) suttas as simply being “later additions” or “inauthentic”.

1 Like
44

What is classical Theravada? How is that different from other forms of Theravada?

Who are these?

I agree that this is uh “problematic.”
I have also noticed this phenomenon, but I thought of it as “Western Buddhism,” not “EBT folks.”
I disagree with leftist/liberal/left-wing/progressive values to the degree that they conflict with the Dhamma-Vinaya.

How did rejecting “leftist/liberal/left-wing/progressive values disguised as Buddhism” lead you to reject “Early Buddhism” and embrace “classical Theravada”?

What about the parts of the Theravada Pali Canon that are actually added on later and never actually spoken by the Buddha based on various strands of evidence? This is something that has nothing to do "the use of left-wing liberal values looking for support in Buddhism) that you seem (rightly) wary of.

45

Being focused on EBT is not easy.

Like reading this. What to believe. :thinking:
And compare to the nikaya version. Nikaya doesn’t say after becoming a god. And it doesn’t say about Hermit Enlightenment.
image image

I think that’s the reason Avanti was following Buddha path. I think Hermit Buddha Path it was started as. But the tradition developed to full Buddhahood.

Interesting. Just found it this morning.
I know there is alot corruptions. But some like this seemed to have been from pre-theravada.

I believe sri lanka had Buddhism before they became converted again by King Asoka missionaries.

46

What is classical Theravada? How is that different from other forms of Theravada?

Orthodox Theravada as opposed to a Theravada that rejects the commentaries and the Abhidhamma.

Who are these?

People who call themselves EBT

I have also noticed this phenomenon, but I thought of it as “Western Buddhism,” not “EBT folks.”

It does seem to be a western convert phenomenon. Most western buddhists seem to take either an EBT approach or a secular one, with the two being closely related.

How did rejecting “leftist/liberal/left-wing/progressive values disguised as Buddhism” lead you to reject “Early Buddhism” and embrace “classical Theravada”?

That isn’t how it happened. I began to find that my conclusions on the Dhamma increasingly matched orthodox Theravada after starting from a sutta only approach. Combined with reading into the other early schools, over time I adopted the Mahāvihāra line.

What about the parts of the Theravada Pali Canon that are actually added on later and never actually spoken by the Buddha based on various strands of evidence? This is something that has nothing to do "the use of left-wing liberal values looking for support in Buddhism) that you seem (rightly) wary of.

I just named 3 that are accepted as good explanations of the Dhamma in Theravada.

47

Please look up chapter 3 (pg 39-61) for specific details regarding oral transmission. The authors argue that the oral transmission is actually relatively accurate and conservative, but I think they also admit that it’s not necessarily 100% accurate.

Please look at chapter 4 (pg 66-98) for more specific details of contradictions that are and are not found in early texts.
The texts that I listed in the disagreement section are texts that are likely to be largely inconsistent with the body of earlier texts.

According to who? The Buddha? If the Buddha thought the suttas needed explaining, then why didn’t he just explain them while he gave them? Why did he stop? Why didn’t he make sure they were explained by the time he passed away? Basically, beings seem to think that the Buddha did an imperfect job and that they can do better and add on to something that is imperfect.

Even if it did need explaining, who said the monks who came after are wise enough to provide explanations that the Buddha himself did not provide (i.e. the Buddha didn’t write the commentaries).

What is the need for countless proliferations of explanations?

And who can I blame when these explanations are wrong and I am misled by them? Which Theravadin Theras could I blame for ending up in hell because the Theras misled me into believing false things?

What came from the Theras? The authority?
Who authorized the Theras to write commentaries or to authorize the writing of commentaries?

So what made the need for commentaries arise later on? What changed and somehow made it okay to write commentaries?

And who is this individual or group who decided that it was now time to begin writing commentaries that the Buddha himself never encouraged nor authorized?

Do you know every single orthodox Theravadin? If not, how do you know none of them consider it that way?

The standard collection of buddhavacana in Theravada seems to be the Pali Canon. Do you agree?
So why include texts that are not buddhavacana in the Pali Canon.

Finally, may I ask you: Are you of Sri Lankan descent?

48

A textual loss or accidental change of a word isn’t the same as directly changing the texts. It is possible to be highly conservative when it comes to doctrine and to have suttas forgot. That being said, the suttas seem to have been remembered and transmitted rather well.

So what made the need for commentaries arise later on? What changed and somehow made it okay to write commentaries?

His teachings were stripped down and condensed to aid with memorisation, thus requiring explanation. In other words, a commentary.

And who is this individual or group who decided that it was now time to begin writing commentaries that the Buddha himself never encouraged nor authorized?

The good and wise Theras.

Please look at chapter 4 (pg 66-98) for more specific details of contradictions that are and are not found in early texts.
The texts that I listed in the disagreement section are texts that are likely to be largely inconsistent with the body of earlier texts.

It would be easier if you stated the apparent contradictions than have me read through pages of text.

What came from the Theras? The authority?
Who authorized the Theras to write commentaries or to authorize the writing of commentaries?

Why would Theras need permission?

Do you know every single orthodox Theravadin? If not, how do you know none of them consider it that way?

No, but Theravadin Orthodoxy is that the Patisambhidamagga didn’t come from the Buddha himself.

The standard collection of buddhavacana in Theravada seems to be the Pali Canon. Do you agree?
So why include texts that are not buddhavacana in the Pali Canon.

For further explanation.

Finally, may I ask you: Are you of Sri Lankan descent?

No, I’m Welsh. My username is welsh.

49

Thank you for clarifying.

How can people call themselves “Early Buddhist Texts”? EBT refers to texts, not people.

This seems false.
Are you from the West? If yes, what country?
I do not think these two are closely related at all.

The secular one seems to be the one that you have problems with - they take the parts of Buddhism at fit with their secular worldview and reject the parts that don’t (gods, rebirth, etc.).

The EBT approach emphasizes a study and practice of early Buddhist texts. It seems superior to the Theravada approach of accepting the Pali Canon as buddhavacana and instead examining a wide variety of early Buddhist textual sources.

The fact that you think the secular approach and EBT approach are at all similar makes me wonder if you are born into a traditional Buddhist ethnic culture - perhaps Sri Lankan or otherwise. Is this the case?

But you said that you are classical Theravadin, but here you seem to be saying that you are orthodox Theravadin? Which is it?

Is that the Sri Lankan Theravada line?

The Buddha taught only the Dhamma-Vinaya to guide beings to Nibbana.
Theravada sect created commentaries, etc.
So, I am asking about not just those 3 that you mentioned, but all the texts that Theravada sect holds as being being conducive to Nibbana which the early Buddhist textual approach seems to reject as later additions, such as:

  • Buddha biographies
  • Historical chronicles
  • Commentaries
  • Sub-commentaries
  • Parivara
  • Abhidhamma
  • Dhammasangani
  • Vibhanga
  • Dhatukatha
  • Puggalapaññatti
  • Kathavatthu
  • Yamaka
  • Patthana
  • Khuddakapatha
  • Vimanavatthu
  • Petavatthu
  • Jataka
  • Niddesa
  • Patisambhidamagga
  • Apadana
  • Buddhavamsa
  • Cariyapitaka
  • Nettippakarana
  • Petakopadesa
  • Milindapañha
50

Did you know these Theras and directly understand their minds?
If not, how did you assess and draw the conclusion that they were “good” and/or “wise”?

It would be easier if you went through the vast bulk of Buddhist literature and accurately evaluated what is and isn’t Dhamma-Vinaya without having me go and do it.
It just so happens that I am interested in doing this - but I am unlikely to be able to finish my evaluation anytime soon.

Why would they not need permission?
Why would they be free to do whatever they see fit?
Suppose I were to become a monk. Could I say and do and write whatever I want without regard for what the Buddha stated was permissible or not permissible? I don’t think so.
It would be better for me to join another religion if I wasn’t interested in abiding by the rules laid down by the Buddha.

That still doesn’t account for all the other texts in the Pali Canon that the Orthodoxy seems to consider buddhavacana, but which upon closer inspection, does not seem to be.

Okay, so then why claim that the Pali Canon is buddhavacana then if the Theravada sect as knowingly included “further explanation” that the Buddha himself did not provide?
Why not keep the further explanations and all other additions separate?

Thank you for clarifying.

I am curious: How did you come to seemingly reject EBT (I can see why you would reject secular Buddhism based on reasonings that you provided earlier) and embrace classical Theravada?

Like why one over the other?
Also, how much of the early Buddhist texts have you actually read? That could give me a better idea on what you are basing your assessments on.

51

Bhante,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It has helped me to reflect on my interactions with companions with various identities. For me, the comment I quoted is helpful in considering not only EBT, Theravada, Mahayana, etc, but also my relatively secular friends.

2 Likes
52

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t make sense of your question. A “doctrine” can’t be mythical. A myth is a sacred story: a doctrine is not a story.

Again, this is not the way I am suggesting we look at it. Try not to think of the past as either “history” or “myth”. These are not qualities of the past, or of our stories of the past, they are sensibilities that we use to inform our inquiry.

There is a story, or set of stories, broadly accepted among Theravadins that tells of who they are as a people and how they came to be. That story creates a sense of the sacred by connecting the life of the Theravadins peoples with the life of the Buddha. That story is, by definition, a myth, and it is the job of a student of mythology to understand the stories and how they provide a sense of meaning to Theravadin people past and present.

Now, that myth is based on the depiction of certain events and characters in the past. Some of those things actually happened, some did not. The job of a historian is to sift the truth from fantasy, and to depict the story of what happened in a coherent way that makes sense of the facts.

4 Likes
53

I think you’re getting carried away with your own political persuasions here and allowing your own often repeatedly stated “conservative” views to colour your ‘observation’ which is, quite frankly, just your opinion and not exactly thorough research into the actual political beliefs of people who are interested in Early Buddhist texts.

In fact, I think you are one of the few people on this forum, and in the larger Buddhist community, whose political views are actually known to me — because you frequently tell us so and have created such a strong identity around it which you use to discuss your views in this forum. As far as I can see, most people keep their actual politics fairly private, very few tend to identify strongly and publicly with any particular ideaology. Perhaps what you are referring to is people’s general ethical values based on particular personal and social issues in certain contexts, rather than some great big leftist EBT conspiracy?

For some reason you also seem to be positioning those who call themselves Theravadans as conservative/right wing, which is almost certainly not true either and seems merely just wishful thinking to match your own particular viewpoint.

I wonder if you can perhaps rethink your frequent political sledging of people here in terms of the overly simplistic left/right debate (which it seems you are largely having with yourself) and review your own position.

It seems that after wading through your posts on this forum that you are more than guilty of this yourself—you are constantly restating your conservative credentials and using those conservative viewpoints to very much shape the dhamma in a conservative image.

Such hypocrisy, coupled with your compulsion to keep up a punishing political agenda here of heckling those you perceive as “leftist” or “progressive” in the name of Dhamma is a little shameful, I think.

2 Likes
54

Thank you for your thoughts Bhante. I disagree, but thank you.

55

Ok. If you allow me to respond also. I understand your point. The truth is. Do you know that the understanding was lost over time. Commentaries actually explain the monks that formerly passed down every tradition that we now have. Because of famine and war sometimes in Theravada history knowledge was lost. And what commentaries try to do is try to explain the understanding that was lost. Sometimes I think it actually was still normal to make them in way Netti and Peta was made but it later got it’s developments.

But there is a really difficult tradition with them.

For example there was Abhayagiri monastery also.

Who knows they brought certain influence to the Mahāvihāra.
This complicated.

I sometimes wonder why in the Chinese Sinhala Commentary that was supposedly of Abhayagiri monastery also mentions the Abhidhamma books. What if it was actually theirs?

Since they say they where a Sarvāstivāda sub branch. And Sarvāstivāda is a lot in Abhidhamma. What if that’s how Theravāda got Abhidhamma? I don’t know :man_shrugging:
Just wondering

But you should read this. It’s interesting

The Impact of the Abhayagiri Practices on the Development of Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka

https://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/53107/3/FullText.pdf?accept=1

They send a link to your email of the pdf

1 Like
56

Thank you Bhante,

To be honest I can’t make any sense of what you have written. I wish you would be more precise. But I think I will retire from this thread.

57

I didn’t see your later editions. Niddesa we don’t even have in English. How can you know? That’s a commentary on early strata text. How should we not accept it. It should be good. As the Ghandhari commentary I shared with you. They do clarify things probably. Like I told. They where made because knowledge of the early strata text was Lost. I think it still is. We have to translate it in English.

If it’s about early text we should

  • Maha Niddesa (mahā-) (abbrev., “Nidd I” or “Nd1”), commenting on the Atthaka Vagga (“Octet Chapter,” Sn 4);
  • Culla or Cula Niddesa ( cūḷa- ) (abbrev., “Nidd II” or “Nd2”), commenting on the Parayana Vagga ("Way to the Far Shore Chapter,"Sn 5) and Khaggavisana Sutta (“Rhinoceros Horn Discourse,” Sn 1.3).

It might reveal the changes done.

58

I think it’s very important not to judge who wrote some commentaries. Because maybe they was accomplished in these that Buddha mentioned.

“Mendicants, when a mendicant is accomplished in ethics, immersion, wisdom, freedom, or the knowledge and vision of freedom, even the sight of them is very helpful, I say. Even to hear them, approach them, pay homage to them, recollect them, or go forth after them is very helpful, I say. Why is that? Because after hearing the teaching of such mendicants, a mendicant will live withdrawn in both body and mind, as they recollect and think about that teaching.

https://suttacentral.net/sn46.3/en/sujato

I am also aiming for EBT. But some truth can be found in what you call later editions. They might be later or not. But it’s like what Buddha said above. But it’s a text.

59

I agree.
Some truth can be found in all the major religions of the world too.

If something is true, harmless, and beneficial, I agree, it should be accepted, early or later, non-Buddhist or Buddhist, etc.

But I think I might not have made the distinction clear enough:

“Actually not spoken by the Buddha” vs. “Actually spoken by the Buddha”

“False, harmful, unbeneficial” vs. “True, harmless, beneficial”

I am arguing that many of the later parts of the Theravada Pali Canon can be “true, harmless, beneficial,” but that doesn’t mean it was spoken by the Buddha.

The problem is that many in the Theravada sect consider its Pali Canon to have been spoken by the Buddha.

Yet, there is compelling evidence to show that a certain amount/significant portion of it (say X percent of it - because I do not know the exact amount, but I know it is more than 0 percent) is not actually spoken by the Buddha.

Why is that a problem - even if it is true?

Because saying that the Buddha said something that he didn’t actually say is false - even if that thing that people falsely attributed to him is true.

Does that make sense?

What specific parts of his criticism exactly do you disagree? The whole thing? A part of it? If yes, how so?

Could you explain yourself so that I can hear your perspective?

I would like to be able to gauge to what degree the Bhante’s criticism is not and is valid.

But without your full response and explanation, it would be difficult for me to be able to do so.

I agreed with you claim that there are beings in the world who try to use Buddhism to support their left-wing views, and have openly told me that they care more about their left-wing causes than they do about Buddhism.

But I am curious what exactly your political views are because it could help me understand where you are coming from better and to what degree the Bhante’s criticism of you is valid.

60

I didn’t respond in full as Bhante and I, whilst sharing the same faith and other things in common, have vastly different views both in terms of our political outlook and in terms of our approach to the Dhamma. We just simply do not agree, at the moment.

This is an EBT page. It’s also heavily leans towards progressive values. That puts me at odds on two fronts with the general consensus of this page, and so I’m increasingly cautious about not rocking the boat too far and being labelled as a “Troll” and the subsequent ban hammer that inevitably follows such an accusation. This isn’t the page to fully express views commonly labelled as being right wing, nor is it the page to expound orthodox Theravada as the correct approach to the Dhamma. This page is geared towards an EBT approach to the Dhamma and towards a progressive politically engaged Dhamma. I’m being sensitive to that fact.

But I am curious what exactly your political views are because it could help me understand where you are coming from better and to what degree the Bhante’s criticism of you is valid.

A mix, but most of my political beliefs would be labelled as being of the right by modern standards. In the interest in not turning this into a discussion about me, which I’m sure no one else is really interested in, feel free to DM if you would like a more in depth conversation :slight_smile:

2 Likes
61

Well said! Thank you for explaining. :pray:

Will do.