I am thinking that Early Buddhist Texts followers also need a society properly and also it will serves kind of international buddhism. If we follow EBTs only, there is no contradiction or problems. I just started learning EBTs and my knowledge related to EBTs are very small right now. I am a lay person. Please correct me if I say something wrong. I am respectfully open to all suggestions and discussions.
Thanks a lot to the website founder, Bhantes and participants.
Well, there is the Āgama Research Group and us (SuttaCentral, of course).
What would be the purpose of such a society?
Do you mean that if any discussion is limited to (some definition of) early Buddhist texts then no one will debate things? I wish this were true! One perspective on the commentaries is that they serve the purpose of explaining things where there are gaps in the suttas. Not that there aren’t debates about the meanings of the commentaries either.
But to your larger point… If something like an Early Buddhist Text Society were to exist, they would need to decide what the early texts are. Good luck with that! There is also probably a much smaller body of people interested in the Agamas as EBTs. It’s not something the Mahayana world is really interested in. As far as I know there has never been a living tradition based around them ever in history. They were a translation project (someone correct me if I’m wrong)
I’m going to assume you mean the Chinese Agamas, since the Gandhari, Sanskrit and Prakrit based Agamas clearly had Indic communities based on (Sarvastivadin, Mulasarvastivadin, Lokottaravādins, Dharmagupta etc.)
While it’s true that Chinese and Tibetan communities didn’t exclusively study Agamas, they absolutely studied Suttas (and Abhidhammas) extensively to be considered a Tipitaka Master.
The Chengshi masters of the Southern Dynasties and the tradition under Xuanzang both required serious agamic grounding; Sarvastivada abhidharma is wall-to-wall Agama citation, and Chinese exegetes followed the citations.
Tiantai (Even Nichiren, who’s one of the most vocal Mahayanists about leaving Agamas behind) and other commentators cite the Āgamas constantly. Encyclopedic anthologies, as well as popular preaching materials / compilations are full of Agama materials as well. Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (Daizhiduron), which was most likely composed in a Chinese speaking millieu, contains heavy references to Agama, and relies on it to make its rhetoric questions and arguments.
I’m less informed on the Tibetan side of it so I can’t really comment on that.
And of course, being a monastic around these parts means being in Dharmagupta / Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya lineage, which obviously means a heavy involvement with the Vinayas.
So, yeah, it’s not the sole focal point, but you’d be surprised with how well read traditional Mahayana masters would be with the basic “Hinayana” Suttas as they would be called (sometimes this being used pejoratively, but usually, just referring to Agamas).
Yes Bhante. Actually, when I find with the name “EBTs”, I have not find a dominant website or org like others, that is why. And also, I am new to this Sutta Central. And to be honest, I just found out today that I can be a part of community and discuss in Sutta Central.
Thanks a lot that you suggest the Agama Research Group. I will read their works.
And also, thank you very much that you founded the Open Buddhist University. I only started to know about EBTs from your website. I found a book that is The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts and only then, I know about EBTs.
I am ready to learn more and more from this website and your open university.
With deep respect, thank you so much Bhante.
Yeah, thanks for your points. I really slipped these points in my thinking.
Oh, welcome aboard! 
Yes, the coauthors of that book are the main translators of the Suttas and Vinaya over here at SuttaCentral 
You’re most welcome!
This is somewhat of an overstatement (though only somewhat). An Shigao, the earliest translator, author, teacher, etc. in the Chinese historical record did seem to have a circle gathered around him espousing a school of thought centered more or less exclusively in the texts he transmitted. And those texts were overwhelmingly sāvaka texts. This “school” certainly outlived him, though just how long it lasted–or, more to the point, how long its exclusivity lasted–is anyone’s guess. (Movements like that were always cropping up and withering away in a matter of generations in Chinese Buddhist history.)
Easiest way to learn something online remains saying something wrong on the internet.
I know that there’s some both Theravadin and general Sravakayan movements in Japan today. So such movements in time shouldn’t be really surprising.
There is no need.
For a place of discussion internationally, we already have suttacentral.
For something else, for what? Society typically deal with people, community, fund, property, event.
There is no need to create new society/ institutions for EBT related publication, event, teaching, propagation etc. Because EBT is acknowledged as authentic canon in ALL Buddhist tradition.
Just use existing Buddhist organizations.
For example (in extreme), there is no legitimate reason a Tibetan Buddhist cannot invite a Theravada monk to teach pali sutta. If they don’t do that, it’s just because they have preference or other consideration.
So, I don’t see any need. Resources and people are scarce, creating new one for something already done (even partially and not in focus) is wasteful.
Good question. 
Again, I think the aforementioned Agama Research Group are doing wonderful things with comparative studies.
Unsurprisingly, comparative studies are not popular with most mainstream establishments, since they bring text-critical/text-historical approaches to the study of the Buddhist teachings, and very few traditions want to be challenged for the provenance of their scriptures.
This can have varying effects on the confidence a practitioner has on the scriptures and the traditions they are built on. The downsides of challenging the establishments are obvious — what may not be immediately obvious is why a critical perspective might in fact increase confidence.
Of course, some might prefer to consider the entire canon to be verbatim faithful to the dot to every details of Buddha’s and his disciples’ lives. While I can respect that as a practice position (many respectable monastics and practitioners can be considered here), some may also find it hard to defend as a correct historical assessment of the transmission, which is likewise the view of too many monastics.
Some of the more fantastical, harder to process stories can be read as an insightful product of a monastic community who skillfully shaped their stories to meet the needs of the audiences. Some stories, read allegorically, or as literary answers to certain Brahmanical stories and tropes, can prove to be quite insightful.
Furthermore, Agamas being the backbone of all Buddhist traditions, a communal EBTS like the ARG, can provide scholarship to the links between different schools.
An immediate example would be Prajnaparamita Sutras in Mahayana. Both Theravadins and Mahayanists might think it differs significantly from EBTs, but upon close research, like Ven. Analayo’s Work, we might trace how its ideas are found across Agamas.
All in all, a careful study of comparative Buddhist EBTs can help us understand how the canon was shaped and so understand our own history better, and bring otherwise estranged communities together. I think these are good things, overall.
No, I definitely wouldn’t say “wrong” at all. From the overall picture, you were both correct. I just wanted to show that sāvakas were up on the scoreboard at one point. But An’s contemporaries closed the gap quickly and, as you two correctly pointed out, sāvaka ideology quickly became a historical relic, something more conceptual than real.
There is indeed no such society or organization.
The Early Buddhist Manuscript Project perhaps comes the closest amongst secular organizations.
But yes – great idea; such a society is really needed. I would participate in and contribute to the work of such a society.
