"Theravada Buddhism" and "Early Buddhism"

The Watercooler
62

What have you found out in your studies? For me for example it’s seems we can’t understand early Buddhism yet. For example I agree that Petakopadesa has corruptions. But there is also a possibility that we yet do not understand it. It’s way of teaching is different. I’m studying that right now. So I can’t give my view yet.

But your right about learning from Buddha truly said. Yep it’s difficult one. But it will become easy if you can recognize sometimes that it’s principles start with Buddha’s teaching, but what normally said after it is a elaboration. Expanding. Because in Petakopadesa already talks about the two type person. The one that understands in a brief teaching. And the one that understands in detailed explanation.

In the suttas you see that it was accepted by Buddha that disciples explains dhamma in their own detailed explanation. Now. Commentaries comes from that tradition.

I think we really need atleast Niddesa commentary right now to understand early Buddhism. We don’t understand it anymore.

In my personal study I see two sort of Buddha. The just Enlightenment Buddha. Which I prefer. And his later ministry. Which seems with the help of the main students.

Sangha itself slowly got more rules. That way you can see a change in Buddha’s ministry. From 0 rules to 10 to 150 +

Shows that he was teaching to generation complicated. And his teaching on impermanence explains exactly what happened.

I imagine Buddha preaching in different regions of India. That’s why different transmission. But there was probably the headquarter where monks go and learn extra discourses transmitted by Ananda and the original Sangha. Those monks trainees will probably go back to their region and discourses was transmitted. But the region itself has their own transmission of discourses that Buddha taught in that region. And they probably learn other discourses from other regions.

For example Sri Lanka had monks that went India because famine in Sri Lanka and then when they go back a discourse is added to the Canon. There can be modification also because all want to teach trainees monks to transmit it according to their tradition.

My point is. It could have been like that.

2 Likes
63

@SeriousFun136 wrote The reason I share this is because when I first got interested in Buddhism, I got drawn to the Theravada sect because I assumed that because they were the most conservative, that they conserved the teachings hopefully almost completely.
I think I was in for a rude surprise when I began to learn that a significant amount of Theravada literature does not actually accurately represent the Dhamma-Vinaya that the Buddha taught. This had adverse tangible effects on my life: I purchased most of the Pali Canon books thinking that I was buying a hard copy version of what the Buddha taught and now feel like I have wasted quite a bit of money due to “false advertising.”

The way i feel commensurates with your experience. Naysayers exhaust me. I am thankful for this thread, that there are others with this kind of sensibility.

However i do not regret purchasing the Bodhi books. Initially they confused me, the multiple contradictions. I told myself “Do something”. I expunged what was not Buddha’s teaching, in my own copies, in order to make sense of the canon.

Your post had the opposite effect that Theorists vs practitioners had on me. I thought only a person without hiri otappa would undertake a task like that.

So thank you briefly for being you, and being here, and for the voice of sanity.

1 Like
64

@Sujato thank you for revealing the mythic nature of Theravada.

only you could write stuff like this. Pali canon was packed with a few fairy tales, i thought. ‘Mythic’ sounds a lot better.

Hopefully it is not as mythological as Greek mythology. I like Theravada simply because it does not pack a Bodhisattva in place of the Arahant. A small mercy.

In my own imagination true Theravada is those places in the canon where Buddha is not espousing vedic or upanisadic or resorts to false advertising, for men monks.

For instance take the vinaya rule, a woman monk has to bow down to a man monk, no matter the age, or her own accomplishments? Was the all compassioanate Sammasambuddha that unfair?

Surely Buddha did not have Mahapajapati Gotami bow down to the 7 year old grandson, Rahula, or was he older, by then?

Take the case of Ananda going from stream entry to Arahant, night before first council. One sutta in the canon contradicts this however, thank God.

Or that Annada had to force Buddha’s hand, regarding Women’s entry to the hallowed ground. As a penalty life of sasana contracts??

Luckily here too, we have a contradictory sutta MN 83, sutta that claims that as long as a bhikkhu aspires to become an arahant, so long shall the sasana live! Buddha warns Ananda “do not aspire to reappearance in brahma worlds” What does this tell us of formless meditations?

Or consider the mythology of Sannavedayitanirodha and formless meditations. Was this Buddha’s teaching? If so he reinstituted something that he rejected in MN 36.

Theravada means begun from elders? Elders belonged to Mahasamghikas? Sthaviras? which only trusted the 4 buddhist jhanas to be Buddha’s teaching, apparently it evolved to teach something that the Sthaviras did not believe.

I would expunge MN 111, audacity of 4th or 5th century abhidhammikas? in feeding these words into the mouth of Buddha.

I also expunge MN 43, MN 44 for my own sane version of ‘Voice of Buddha’ simply because these two were written by later abhidhammikas to support the ‘formless mythology’. These two does a good mix of truth and falsity, and feeds those into mouths of Sariputta and Dhammadina.

These of course are the most glaring fairy tales, or the glaring ‘mythic tales’ in the canon. This is a postion i take based on sticking to Noble Ten-fold path, or the Noble 8-fold as frequently presented, not the wrong 8-fold path.
PS love this thread, we should have more of these, without blindly accepting everything written in the Pali canon. Curiosity, inquiry, the boldness to push the false aside, will help in the long run. This is what Buddha was looking for 2500 or more years later, the ability to pull out the nails driven into the drum, (Ani sutta) to make the drum sound good again, with the voice of the Buddha.
With love

65

Welcome.

I created this thread in order to raise this issue. I definitely had trouble discerning between the two, so I thought it might be helpful for others who are also confused like I (still) am regarding the differences and similarities between the two.

The Buddha himself seems to encourage careful consideration both in terms of rejecting and accepting what is and isn’t Dhamma-Vinaya.

I am glad. I agree completely with the overall sentiment that you expressed.

However, I also think it is important to fully and carefully consider, because doesn’t seem easy to discern between Adhamma-Avinaya and Dhamma-Vinaya.

For example, I do not criticize Theravada for being conservative - I criticize them for claiming to be more conservative than they really are in terms of conserving Dhamma-Vinaya and for conserving Adhamma-Avinaya and presenting it as Dhamma-Vinaya.

I think that Adhamma-Avinaya should be acknowledged as Adhamma-Avinaya.
I think that Dhamma-Vinaya should be acknowledged as Dhamma-Vinaya.

1 Like
66

Wow. I thought I was alone. Take for example a hard question I have now. Nikayas talk of the wrong view to believe there is no sacrifice. Late texts identified this a Vedic sacrifice. The non-harmful ones. Ghee etc. which was mostly done as away to hope for heaven.

But in Suttanipata Buddha says

All these human sages, warriors and brāhmaṇas
who make sacrifices to the gods in manyfold ways here in the world, it was in hope of [getting] such a state [again]
and because of approaching old age that they made sacrifices.

So what I learned is. That for me Nikayas and Agamas was made by the second wave of Buddhism. The first wave was the old suttanipata etc which was enough to rewrite the second wave. I’m keeping it simple. I got disappointed like y’all a couple years ago. Like two years. When I started to realized the reality y’all already said. It’s confusing. It still is. But keeping it simple works. I keep with the first wave of Buddhism. It’s my source of inspiration. It’s enough. I like to imagine those are the only things Sangha had during Buddha. They are more powerful. I’m going to try remember them also.

1 Like
67

@SeriousFun136 wrote
The Buddha himself seems to encourage careful consideration both in terms of rejecting and accepting what is and isn’t Dhamma-Vinaya.

It is not that i did not give careful consideration to MN 43, and MN 44, wasted much time on these. To go over briefly, passages there explaining ‘emergence from Jhana’ a clear case of overthinking typical of abhidhammikas.
Plus the breakdown seemed derived from the manner jhana is explained in VSM, not from MN 4 nor from MN 19 where Buddha describes these states with amazing simplicity and clarity. His voice is cool and clear.

What need is there to endlessly question about what happens on emerging from jhana like in MN 44.

These two suttas MN 43 and 44, provide plenty fodder for folks who want to spend a lifetime debating jhanas. Jhana is not intended to be debated upon, sutta pitaka itself is to be blamed.

Theravadins have taken liberties with original teachings, jamming them generously with hinduistic nonsense. In this sense it is true Theravadins did not conserve the original teachings, what you pointed out. But this is symptomatic of other agama suttas also, considered non-theravadin? but do they claim they are more conservative?

Buddha himself says in one sutta, one cannot know the state of jhana of another.

Jhana is meant to be practised, after understanding Right View, right intention… Right Effort and Right Sati (not sati that sits on objects)

Before asking “How do you feel on emerging from jhana?” MN 44, one should ask “How do you get there?”

The answer might be “How about tweaking your lifestyle?” But many don’t want to do that. If they did, all the questions will vaporise. Many try to understand Jhana intellectually.

To me it is apparent that MN 43 and MN 44 appeared on the radar, as a result of abhidhammikas dabbling in jhana (who were clueless) thus sought intellectual means of explaining jhanas, like in the commentaries. Buddhagosa himself admits, that the commentaries are intellectual endeavours.

In MN 43 and MN 44 words are fed into the mouth of arahants.
To me it is a case of disparaging these arahants, but seems that, that was the norm of the day, once the Buddha passed away.

I did not come to a hasty conclusion regarding these things. Plus in MN 122 Buddha says

“it can be expected that when a bhikkhu lives alone, withdrawn from society, he will obtain at will. without trouble or difficulty, the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace…”

The sane descriptions in this sutta are far more helpful in ‘How to do Jhana’ than the over counter, analytical MN 43 and MN 44. But people go for razzmatazz, not pragmatism.

MN 121, and MN 122 are far more helpful, plus the suttas where Buddha offers brilliant similes for the four jhanas. Ability to descend into the void at a moment’s notice, the teacher praises in MN 122 and other suttas.

This is just to show you that what i wrote was well thought out. I agree with your comments.

As for Theravada i think, there is no one Theravada, there are a thousand different versions. Another major SNAFU, the theravadins missed the point of the 7th factor of the 8-fold path. There is only one sutta in the canon that does justice to what Samma sati was meant to be, SN 46. 42. “Origination”. Many have a hard time understanding that. The Sarvastivadin abhidhmmakosa came to my rescue there. In their version of Samma sati, SN 47. 42 is the only sutta discussed. No one gives credit to Sarvastivadins for that. Theravadins have totally misinterpreted rupa, vedana, sanna, and dhammanupassana.
When one understands that, one sees that Samma samadhi is an elegant version of Samma Sati, invented to dismantle the process of dependent origination by the Tathagata.

The few elders that emanated from the original schism were truly Theravadin? According to them, Samma samadhi was only the 4 buddhist jhanas, and Buddha’s teachers Alara Kalama and Uddakaramaputta had nothing to do with Buddha’s awakening.

An excerpt from Bareau "“The buddhist schools of the small vehicle”

Mahasamghika Schism…

Various sources agree in explaining the great schism by means of Mahadeva’s five propositions concerning the nature of the arahant, which were rejected by the numerically few but knowledgeable Sthaviras, and adopted by Mahasamghikas, who were numerically greater but less knowledgeable . According to the same sources, the event took place in Pataliputra in the first half of the second century…in the reign of Nanda and Mahapadma…King of Magadha the arbitrator?

As for Theorists vs Practitioners, i am surprised that it saw the light of day here.

It is a pleasure to see that there is a still a few Theravadins left who are enamoured by the voice of the Buddha and not Buddhaghosa (Voice of Buddha). Not sure how you would define a Theravadin? a task impossible when it is lost in Mythology @sujato

You wrote

However, I also think it is important to fully and carefully consider, because doesn’t seem easy to discern between Adhamma-Avinaya and Dhamma-Vinaya.

As far as i am concerned i pretty much can detect Adhamma-Avinaya. Knowledge is not enuf, The day is not long enuf, gold is in the Expedition.

I like what you say here…

For example, I do not criticize Theravada for being conservative - I criticize them for claiming to be more conservative than they really are in terms of conserving Dhamma-Vinaya and for conserving Adhamma-Avinaya and presenting it as Dhamma-Vinaya.

I think that Adhamma-Avinaya should be acknowledged as Adhamma-Avinaya.
I think that Dhamma-Vinaya should be acknowledged as Dhamma-Vinaya.

For that, for Theravadins to admit their mistakes, first they have to know what they are mistaken of. Or they feel it is their hallowed duty to safeguard the canon as it was handed over to them, with the mistakes and the non-mistakes. Once mythology is created, it is hard to distinguish Truth from ‘Myth’ @sujato

In the very early period Theravadins were faced with many challenges, perhaps that contributed to the corruptions. Above is not the only major problem with Theravada. Sutta Pitaka has botched the job of communicating the relevancy of DO. But perhaps you should start a thread on that, and carefully orchestrate that. You have the skills, congratulations on that.
With love

1 Like
68

Of course, from our point of view (that is, orthodox Theravada), we have no mistakes to admit to.

69

Do you think that Theravada Buddhism actually preserved the Buddha’s Dhamma-Vinaya 100% perfectly? :thinking:

1 Like
70

Yes. I even study and follow the Abhidhamma and take the Visuddhimagga as my guide. Utterly wicked of me, I know :wink: :smile:

1 Like
71

Lol, my only concern is that it is funny until its not.

Like I would love it if Theravada Buddhism preserved it 100% accurately as I thought that they might have done or nearly done.

Why?

It’s less thinking for me.

I don’t have to worry about whether the Buddha actually said it or not because it would all been taught by the Buddha.

The danger I sense is that the Buddha warned that those who misrepresent the Dhamma-Vinaya taught by the Buddha reap and accumulate bad kamma, little by little.

So when I say its funny until its not, I mean, when those bad kamma that came from misrepresenting the Dhamma-Vinaya come to fruition, the potentially harrowing pain and suffering that follows could make one regret ever having trusted the Theravada representation of Dhamma-Vinaya to the degree that that representation is actually not true.

In short, to the degree that the Theravada representation of Dhamma-Vinaya is false/misleading, I think to that degree, it would lead to bad things happening to me by trusting it and acting in accordance with it.

Therefore, I would encourage both myself and others some measure of caution and critical-thinking, despite the appeal of taking the easy way out and blindly trusting the tradition as a whole, including any false and misrepresentative parts as well.

1 Like
72

Well you must practice as you see fit. Everyone is entitled to freely practice their religion as they wish.

73

Everyone may be entitled to practice their religion as they see fit.
But everyone is not entitled to “get the results that they want” merely by “freely practicing their religion as they wish,” as opposed to say, “practicing the right things/religion in the right way.”
If this was the case, everyone would get whatever want by practicing whatever religion they want however they want.
But that is not how things work in actuality.

1 Like
74

Of course. Some methods of approach and practice will yield results. Others will not.

1 Like
75

It seems for Abhidhamma tradition to be EBT it’s strange that Buddha didn’t mention him teaching his mother in Tusita host in this Udana.

By time Ananda is attending him it was the last years. Such a abhidharma tradition had to be mentioned if it was a special occasion. And it fits to be mentioned in this sutta. But it’s not.

1 Like
76

That doesn’t really prove anything either way.

77

Well do you have a early sutta where Buddha mention him teaching his mother in tusita heaven? I’m just curious

Remember I shared Udana. Probably early tradition.

My point was that Ven Ananda is the last years so if it was a important tradition he would have mentioned it. Sarvativada made a story like that. Wait I will share.

78

compare a late minor text of sarvastivada. Meaning not in Canon.

Parable 5: The Buddha Expounds the Doctrine to His
Mother Maya in the Trayastrimsa Heaven

If it’s outside a canon it’s usually not accepted tradition among all

There is a chance Theravada adopted Abhidharma from the sub branch of Sarvastivadins that was on the island of Sri Lanka. But of course for new trend had to make their own text. Everyone seems to have been trying to show the best System.

79

There isn’t one, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

80

Just so I know. Are you :100: sure? What about commentaries? Like a type Theravada version.

81

Just a small one-point insertion in this long thread:

There are a lot of suttas, where some disciple (Ananda, Sariputta) and even householders cited, explained or put-it-in-some-own-words discourses and/or teachings of the Buddha to others, and the Buddha explicitely praised that explanation, re-telling (I think I remember correctly that he even said something like “I would have said it the same way”). I’ve seen this recently when reading through AN 3 and AN 4, but examples of this should be everywhere.