The Difficult Intersection of History and Tradition

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The Difficult Intersection of History and Tradition

Post by Alex123 »

BuddhaSoup wrote:I am interested in opinions on the issue, as Prof. Rita Gross has presented so well over the years, on how to manage the possible conflicts between what we have understood from the earliest suttas and Vinaya as to the Buddha's actual teachings, and what teachings developed later, particularly in the Mahayana. ...As Prof. Gross has pointed out in a number of articles (she being from the Tibetan Vajrayana lineage herself), when history collides with traditions, people get uncomfortable, even angry.
And similar could be stated about Theravada.

How can we be certain that a flesh-and-blood person called Buddha Gotama even existed? Even if we find fossil remains of him, then:
How do we know that he was fully Awakened?
How can we be sure that he didn't used skillful means?
How can we be certain the from 1st Council on, for centuries his doctrine was passed on without omissions, additions or errors?
Where is the evidence that verbal teaching was (without omissions or additions) written down centuries later?
How can we be sure that centuries of copying of these books was without omissions, additions, or other errors?

This is why I believe that practice and practical results is the key.
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: The Difficult Intersection of History and Tradition

Post by Anagarika »

Alex, we can't be sure to 99.99 percent accuracy, but we can be as sure as these scholars seem to be:

"Several scholars who specialize in the field of early Buddhism have said that much of the contents of the Pali Canon (and its main teachings) can be attributed to Gautama Buddha. Richard Gombrich says that the main preachings of the Buddha (as in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka) are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius: the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death.[19][20] Peter Harvey also affirms the authenticity of "much" of the Pali Canon.[21] A.K. Warder has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the shared teaching of the early schools was formulated by anyone else than the Buddha and his immediate followers.[22] J.W. de Jong has said it would be "hypocritical" to assert that we can say nothing about the teachings of earliest Buddhism, arguing that "the basic ideas of Buddhism found in the canonical writings could very well have been proclaimed by him [the Buddha], transmitted and developed by his disciples and, finally, codified in fixed formulas."[23]"

Gombrich has written that based on his lifetime of scholarship, it has to be more true than not that the Dhamma was taught by Gautama. There seems to be sufficient evidence to support these strong scholars and historians in these opinions.

I believe the point, or the elephant, is the idea that the same strong scholarship is certain to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that (most, all) the Mahayana sutras are not Buddha vacana; not the product of the oral recording by his disciples of what Gautama taught. Their authorship has been determined and dated. So, I feel you comparison, while appropriate, does not account for the elephant in the room. We can't be certain that all of the Pali Canon is vacana ( we know the Abhidhamma is a later work), but we can be as certain as Gombrich and these other scholars are, and that for me is good enough...until better evidence is brought forth, if any exists.

This is why I believe that practice and practical results is the key.


Alex, listening to Ven. Thanissaro recently, he made the point that a proper understanding of the Buddha's actual words and teachings is so important. The example he gave is meditation, or more closely, jhana, as the Buddha defined jhana. If we practice and seek practical results from a flawed strategy, or travel a road using an erroneous map, we can find ourselves in trouble. For me, understanding these early core teachings are such a big part of practice. I don't begrudge anyone using, for example, Dogen's teachings on zazen, but I feel it's important that there be an understanding that Buddha didn't teach zazen, and didn't frame meditation the same way that later Japanese teachers did. Traveling the path using Dogen's map will likely take one to useful and interesting places, but the traveler might not get to the important destination the Buddha intended for his disciples.
Last edited by Anagarika on Sun Aug 04, 2013 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The Difficult Intersection of History and Tradition

Post by Alex123 »

Hello BuddhaSoup,

That evidence is literary. It is not hard physical evidence. Buddha left no voice or video recording. He wrote no books. We cannot be certain "what he said" vs "what we have now".

Why couldn't a committee of well meaning bhikkhus compose a coherent doctrine? They did after all meet and composed the suttas into memorable structure during first council. So it is not like the Buddha told them what to recite word by word.

There was a case when some person didn't want to recite them, and preferred to remember what he has heard instead...
Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus.[27] Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha's teachings dates from (long) after his death.
Some scholars of later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.[28] Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD.[29] Gregory Schopen argues[30] that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon. This position was criticized by A. Wynne.[31]
rohana
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: The Difficult Intersection of History and Tradition

Post by rohana »

This post on Venerable Sujato's blog might be relevant: Is the Lotus Sutra authentic?

From the comments section:
  • Essentially, scholars subject a text to whatever tests they can and compile the results. Texts are looked at in terms of such criteria as:

    -Language (Sanskrit is later than Pali)
    -Philosophical evolution (texts often argue with other ideas, showing that the ideas that they are arguing against must already exist)
    -Textual evolution (there are frequently more than one version of a text, and comparing different versions tells us something of how the text formed and grew)
    -Geography (what places are mentioned in the texts – this can be correlated against archeology and history)
    -State of technology (particularly the widespread adoption of writing, which numerous indications suggest was a little before the start of the Common Era – Mahayana sutras constantly mention writing, Pali suttas don’t)
    -Cultural development
    -Parallel movements in other religions and philosophies
    -Intertextual references (quotations from other sources – the Prajnaparamita Sutra, for example, quotes from the Satipatthana Sutta)
    -Literary styles

    And so on. Any one of these indications is, of course, uncertain. But when a whole range of indications points in the same direction, and there are no indications pointing in another direction, we can be secure in our conclusions. The general scenario of the dating of the Mahayana texts was established over a century ago, and since then, all our discoveries in terms of new texts, archeology, and so on, have tended to confirm this picture.

    What has changed is the evaluation of the Pali texts: once thought to be a reliable record of the earliest Buddhist canon, they are now recognized as being just one among many recensions of early material, all of which have undergone an extensive process of editing and organizing.
And about the material in the Pāli Suttas:
  • Is there much in the suttas that is verified? Well, let’s restrict ourselves to material rather than spiritual matters, as these are more easily tested. The crucial question, it seems to me, is: of those things that can be verified, how much has been verified? And the answer is, so far as I can see, pretty much everything. Rajagaha really is where it says it is, and it is surrounded by hills were sages go. Pataliputta really is a fortified city on the Ganges. Savatthi really was a major city. Vesali really was a republic on the north shore of the Ganges. And so on. I am not aware of a single archaeological or geographical detail in the early scriptures that has actually been proven incorrect (leaving aside, of course the legendary tales of Uttarakuru and the like).

    Similarly with the state of culture in the time of the Buddha. The depictions of the Brahmans, the Jains, and the rest are of course colored by odium theologicum and mistakes and misrepresentations do occur; but on the whole, and in many details, they do depict these religions accurately. The Brahmans really do rely on Vedic rituals, and the Jains really do practice self-mortification. Similarly, the state of technology, political realities, climate, food, and so on seem to be pretty much accurate when placed in the wider context of Indian history. Even a minor detail like the manjitthika (‘red rot’) mentioned in one passage as a disease afflicting sugar cane has in fact been confirmed as a common sugar cane disease in the area.

    You claim that ‘none’ of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta can be verified. I’m afraid I have to disagree. The sutta starts with a political situation, the aggression of Magadha against Vesali, and history does suggest that this was accurate. The Buddha is shown to walk on a detailed journey: many of the stops on the way can be identified, and there are where the text says they are. And indeed, the scale of the journey is such that a fit 80 year old could achieve it. (BTW, congratulations to Fauja Singh!) The Buddha’s tomb is indeed in Kusinara. The Vajjis, Mallas, and so on were in fact peoples in the area. The Buddha’s relics, as confirmed by the Ashokan edicts, were distributed.

    What more can we reasonably ask for? No-one had a CCTV camera or a recorder to verify all the conversations and teachings that took place. I can’t look up the records of a hotel to confirm whether “Mr. Buddha” checked in for the night. We can’t look up the health records to confirm the nature of the Buddha’s illness. It’s decidedly unscientific to make unrealistic demands, and then dismiss the material because it doesn’t meet them.

    This is why I am resistant to an excessive skepticism, which it seems to me to be merely a reaction against excessive credulity. Actually the Pali canon is full of historical detail; of those things that we can verify, most has been verified; and most of what remains unverified is simply because we don’t have any evidence one way or the other.
With regard to the OP, I'd say, yes, bringing people into contact with the Dhamma is obviously good, but it should be done in a manner that is respectful to the existing traditions, without being obnoxious and simply make the Theravāda tradition available to anyone interested, without proselytizing. We can point out that there are many points of agreement with other schools, and respectfully disagree where we have to.
"Delighting in existence, O monks, are gods and men; they are attached to existence, they revel in existence. When the Dhamma for the cessation of existence is being preached to them, their minds do not leap towards it, do not get pleased with it, do not get settled in it, do not find confidence in it. That is how, monks, some lag behind."
- It. p 43
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: The Difficult Intersection of History and Tradition

Post by Anagarika »

With regard to the OP, I'd say, yes, bringing people into contact with the Dhamma is obviously good, but it should be done in a manner that is respectful to the existing traditions, without being obnoxious and simply make the Theravāda tradition available to anyone interested, without proselytizing. We can point out that there are many points of agreement with other schools, and respectfully disagree where we have to.
:anjali: Sadhu!
Post Reply