Was Buddhism ever a "system"?

[Adutiya]

Thank you, Beth, for the link to Bhante Sujato’s essay above. From that essay is:

@sujato

Example 7, where the noble ñāya is in the context of dependent origination, is harder to pin down. It seems to be saying that dependent origination itself is the noble ñāya. Here the sense of “method” doesn’t work so well, as a method deals with what you do, while dependent origination is what is. Obviously there is an overlap between these senses, but I feel that “method” doesn’t quite capture it. However, I think “system” works pretty well here. A “system” can mean a “method” for doing something, but it can also mean a “network of interrelated parts”, which is a pretty good description of dependent origination.

This helps me put words to the overall thoughts I’ve had about this topic. That “Buddhism” didn’t start out as a “system” or a “method” per se, but, due to the Buddha’s path of discovery of the Dhamma, a “network of interrelated parts,” he achieved Nibbana. His hesitation to teach others was because it could be daunting to point the way, as there was yet no established system.

So beginning with the 5 ascetics, he began explaining and teaching in ways that others could understand. Situations and discussions arose and the “system” began to take shape, perhaps not in his mind, but in its awareness to others. He explained the path in core fundamentals like D.O. and the 37 wings to awakening which fit as interrelated parts of a system because there are 4 Noble Truths and 8 Rights in the N8FP.

So my thinking about the question Was Buddhism ever a system? is that because what the Buddha taught definitely leads to Nibbana and if one follows the interrelated parts of that “system,” it will lead to the final goal. It didn’t begin as a system but put it all together in the Right way and it could be called a system.

All that said, Venerable Sujato was covering this subject because he was translating and it is inspiring to see how much goes into choosing a single word or phrase.