SuttaCentral
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? 
Because what if we also claimed to be like the Elders had it. But its not true? 
.
Better? @Ceisiwr
Because I was responding to you to read that book
Could you edit your post. You are attributing a quote to me there that I did not say.
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.
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?
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.
Bhante,
I don’t quite understand what you have written here. Are you equating the version of history accepted by Theravadava as mythical and/or are equating the the doctrine presented in Abhidhamma/Commentaries as mythical?
Perhaps this earlier post of mine will be relevant.
I am not asking what a myth is Bhante.
I think the point is, they make a connected body of works. A ‘naya Sāgara’ as it were.
I found your further reflection to be quite insightful.
How do you define Early Buddhism in this case?
I know Early Buddhism isn’t perfect (in my own mind, I use “actual Buddhism” or just “Buddhism” to denote that which was/is perfectly representative of what the Buddha himself intended - the caveat being that I myself likely cannot fully discern what it is at this time).
But couldn’t one (rightly) claim that Early Buddhism is “better” than Theravada Buddhism in a non-divisive matter of fact way without resorting to making it seem like Early Buddhism is the perfect representation of Buddhism?
For example, Mahayana is A percent correct, Theravada is B percent correct, Early Buddhism is C percent correct, and so on and so forth - but acknowledge that C is greater than B?
Perhaps falsely equating those which are not equal could misrepresent the reality to those who are not yet familiar with that situation?
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.” Theravada sect advertised something that they claimed was taught by the Buddha that was actually not taught by him and that seemed to have led me to some sort of financial harm.
The intangible effects are likely even worse - I think back to various views that I picked up from non-Dhamma-Vinaya Theravada literatures (such as commentaries, Abhidhamma, etc.) which upon critical examination have seems to have no actual basis in Dhamma-Vinaya, such as “Devadatta will be reborn as a paccekabuddha,” “Buddha taught his mother and gods the Abhidhamma,” and other such views that I think misled me into wrong view.
It has led me to dread the karmic consequences of these because I myself (wrongly) trusted the Theravada sect to tell me the right thing and they didn’t, but I have no one to blame but myself for (wrongly) misplacing my trust in a sect that falsely claims to preserve the teachings purely, completely, 100%, etc.
When I reap harm for being misled by the Theravada sect, will the Theravada sect take responsibility for misleading me into harm and dukkha?
Of course this same principle applies to both non-Buddhist and Buddhist individuals and groups, myself included!
But I wanted to bring up this concern as a possibility of the kind of danger that I see for excusing or overlooking the false, harmful, unbeneficial, misrepresentative, etc. parts of anyone and anything (in this case, of the Theravada sect, and perhaps Early Buddhism to some degree as well) in order to try to maintain some illusory semblance of unity between the various divisions of Buddhism, instead of say actual unity that is based squarely on the Dhamma-Vinaya.
Given how much/many times I have felt misled by things that were claimed to have been taught by the Buddha, how can I suitably respond to these misrepresentative parts without being divisive or harsh or harmful or unbeneficial in any way whatsoever from here on forward the future?
I understand you Bhante. That was beautifuly written. 
I tend to think like that also. I’m aware that there was change in Buddhism. I see the Faith of hoping things are the same as 1 council as the traditional interpretation. We have to work more towards just letting go. And hoping each person choice is helping towards the goal.
If it teach a person to let go then that’s actually Buddha’s path. Later or before. 
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.
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”.
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.
Being focused on EBT is not easy.
Like reading this. What to believe. 
And compare to the nikaya version. Nikaya doesn’t say after becoming a god. And it doesn’t say about Hermit Enlightenment.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.