I’ve brought it up before- but I think that a critical part of EBT that I haven’t noticed being used a whole lot yet is research into oral literature that has never been written down! Or has been written down only very recently. I think getting more studies into oral lit would be incredibly illuminating on mahayana sutras.
I think there is a strong possibility that some (not all) but some of the mahayana sutras may have a historical lineage through oral literature. Especially the older ones that are in essence, advocating a kind of forest tradition.
I think it’s also important here to remember that in mahayana circles, especially tibetan, the argument is not always about the later texts coming from the historical buddha. But rather, they were things taught by the Dharmakaya Buddha (Meaning they were learned in deep samadhi).
I would say that point two here shows where historicity also would not fit in, if the claim is not about the historic Buddha, but the ‘spiritual’ one. I imagine this same thing would apply implicitly to abhidhamma, which itself is tied to the spiritual Buddha more than the historical one (IE; it being first taught to his mother during a journey into the heavenly realms).
ADDENDUM EDIT;
I wanted to add I loved your work sects and sectarianism!! It’s nothing less than amazing to see my gut feeling that the separations people claimed in the sangha are not as apparent as the fundamentalists made them seem.
I bring this up because I feel we will see even more of this as we narrow down EBT studies.
Many of the Mahayana sutras talk about written texts, a lot, and the origins of the movement would seem to be associated with writing. But the dating of the texts is based on a very broad range of criteria, and there is no doubt that, even if some of them had an oral history before being written down, that oral history begins hundreds of years after the Buddha.
I mean, if you say so, but frankly, citation required. Yes, the (much later) tantric texts might be explained this way, but I’ve never heard of a Tibetan Buddhist, except modern reformists, who doesn’t think that the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the Buddha.
This just isn’t the case. It is absolutely believed by traditional Theravadins that the Buddha himself personally taught the Abhidhamma to his mother in heaven. He then conveyed this teaching to Sariputta, who created the texts as we know them.
I appreciate that you’re trying to bridge divides. But if we are to do so, it has to be on the basis of facts. We’re not tilting at windmills. We live in these communities, we know what people believe and say.
What we do not know is the motivation of those who created these texts, and how they came to be considered the words of the Buddha. Personally, I regard all of them as genuine and sincere spiritual literature with deep meaning for those with faith in them. I wouldn’t call them forgeries. Someone creating a forgery would make an attempt to make it like the original. But these texts are effusively creative and utterly unlike the original texts in every way. I find it difficult to believe that, at the time, this was not obvious to any learned person who read them.
Hello everyone! I’m new here and just finished reading the forum guidelines. I’ve highlighted one example of “extremist views” listed in these guidelines:
“Anyone advocating extremist or conspiracy theory views will be warned, and if they persist, banned. Examples of such views include ‘The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka’, ‘Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence’, ‘The original Pali manuscripts at Aluvihara exist’, ‘Chinese texts are all Mahayana’, ‘Mahayana texts are fake’ etc.”
This example surprised me, considering that it’s pretty common knowledge that Mahayana sutras don’t represent the teachings of the historical Buddha and in that respect can justifiably be considered “fake”.
Then I stumbled across this topic and noticed that bhante @sujato himself describe the Mahayana sutras as basically fake, although without using that exact word:
I completely agree with these statements, but as a new member here I’m a bit confused about why saying that Mahayana sutras are fake is considered an “extremist view” or a “conspiracy theory” on this forum, while saying that Mahayana sutras are inauthentic isn’t.
Plagiarism – but no one believes that the Mahayana texts attempt to do this. For example, they are not forgeries that claim to be newly discovered Pāli Canon texts, and they do not replicate/duplicate the Pāli texts and then profess to be the original texts.
Utterly devoid of Buddhist doctrine, but claiming to be so.
Not true. While there are significant differences in some doctrinal areas and interpretations that differ from many Theravadin practitioners, they are still imbued with Dhamma teachings. In other words, they are not texts of religion A that deceptively claim to be the texts of religion B, (though, admittedly, some practitioners of the EBTs claim this is so, given the significant doctrinal differences that are present).
Also, I know of no serious scholars who claim the Mahayana texts were written by people who did not consider themselves Buddhist. So not fake in this way, either.
The following previous postings may be relevant to your interests on Master YinShun (and his follower Ven. Choong Mun-keat’s works on Samyutta/Samyukta comparative studies):
EBTs (such as the principal source, the four Nikayas/Agamas) are just texts, some compiled/edited early, some later. EBTs were gradually developed and expanded. EBTs were not entirely established at once at the first council in complete form (structure) and content. The extant EBTs are sectarian texts. One can seek an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively.
Pali fundamentalism (Chinese texts are all Mahayana, etc.).
Like I said above, the Mahayana texts are clearly “inauthentic” in the sense that they (at least nominally) claim to be spoken by the Buddha when they are obviously not. At the same time, I also believe that they are genuine, and often wise and insightful, scriptures that are the outcome of a serious spiritual and philosophical inquiry. The historical problematic is: how is it that both of these things can be true? It’s an interesting question!
I believe that in at least some cases, the Mahayana sutras were the product of a meditative insight: the Buddha spoke to monks in samadhi. Other texts appear to be the product of philosophical systematics like the Abhidhamma, or else they address practical problems that arose in the tradition. There’s probably not a simple answer.
In Vinaya, Cullavagga, the Buddha advises bhikkhus not to use Vedic language (Chanda; i.e. Vedic Sanskrit) (Vin. II, PTS, p. 139 “Chandaso”) for the Buddha’s language/teachings (buddhavacana), but use your own language (sakāya niruttiyā) for the Buddha’s teachings. If making the Vedic language for the Buddha’s teachings, it will be corrupt.
The essential teaching here is “sakāya niruttiyā” (based on your own language) for the Buddha’s teachings “Buddhavacana”. No any languages, including Pali, should be regarded as an absolute Buddhavacana.
This understanding is very essential for the studies in EBTs or Early Buddhism.
Sorry Bhante, that sentence appears in the FAQ, under question 15. Not in the guidelines. My bad.
I’m sure there is plenty of wisdom in all sorts of texts. I usually consider the Mahayana sutras as “fake texts” exactly because they’re inauthentic. I guess it depends on how you define “fake”.
I mean there are lot of Mahayana texts that are literally identical to EBT’s but with the words “this too is empty” or something like that appended to the end of every sentence. Then there are major Mahayana works that do not in any way claim to be the words of the Buddha, like Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika for example.
And this site still hosts the Abhidhamma despite widespread acknowledgment that they aren’t quite as “E” as the other EBT.
Finally plenty of people who are interested in getting to the earliest strata of Buddhist texts (myself included) still don’t think we have any conclusive evidence that we actually get back to the lifetime of the Buddha or his actual words and phrases, so the idea that the crucial difference between Mahayana and “EBT’s” is that Mahayana texts where not spoken by the Buddha kind of implies that we have definitively arrived at the conclusion that the EBTs where and this is far from the case.
I agree with this. Nowhere have I claimed that the Pali canon contains the actual words of the Buddha. Nor have I claimed that all Mahayana texts claim to be the words of the Buddha, or that Mahayana schools don’t have their own versions of suttas found in the Pali canon.
All I wrote was that I consider Mahayana sutras to be fake, i.e. in their claims to contain a “higher teaching” of Lord Buddha. I never thought of that as a controversial opinion, which is why I was surprised to find it described as a “conspiracy theory” in the FAQ.
In Vinaya, Cullavagga, the Buddha advises bhikkhus not to use Vedic language (Chanda; i.e. Vedic Sanskrit) (Vin. II, PTS, p. 139 “Chandaso”) for the Buddha’s language/teachings (buddhavacana), but use your own language (sakāya niruttiyā) for the Buddha’s teachings. If making the Vedic language for the Buddha’s teachings, it will be corrupt.
To answer you let me quote Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali (2014, 11-12), they enumerate the texts that qualify as Early Buddhist Texts:
They are the bulk of the Suttas in the main four Pali Nikayas and parallel Agama literature in Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, and other Indian dialects; the patimokkhas and some Vinaya material from the khandhakas; a small portion of the Khuddaka Nikaya, consisting of the significant parts of the Sutta Nipata, Udana, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, and Thera- and Theri Gatha. [emphasis added]
That prohibition is, to my knowledge, only in the Pali canon and therefore not a part of the EBTs. The Chinese Agamas are believed to be translations from a form of Sanskrit. Such a prohibition if taken literally would eliminate a lot that is considered EBTs.
[quote=“sujato, post:50, topic:5957”]
What principles, exactly? AN 2.23 says that one who says what was not spoken by the Buddha was spoken by him misrepresents the Buddha. Forgetting the Buddha’s words and attending to later teachings is said to be a decisive factor in the ending of Buddhism (SN 20.7, AN 5.79). This is not merely a matter of historical correctness, for correct understanding of what the Buddha taught and didn’t teach directly affects ones’ spiritual welfare (AN 1.132-139, SN 55.53). [/quote]
The Karuna Buddhist Vihara bhikkunis teach sutta study (EDIT: focus on nikayas MN, AN, SN, and DN, not so much commentaries or abhidhamma). Right now it’s Thursday nights (US Pacific time 7pm) over zoom, live. Chanting, meditation, read a sutta together, discuss the sutta’s meaning, ask questions, implications for life and practice.
