How Modern Orthodox Theravada Deviate from Early Buddhism

[Kumara]

I wanted to say "original" instead of "early", but we can't know the original Buddhism, can we? (You might say we can, by super-psychic recalling. Sure, but that's subjective.) So, Early Buddhism it is, meaning Buddhism as recorded in the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas.

Here I invite everyone to highlight the differences.

This is helpful as a guide: http://www.dhammaforeveryone.com/is-the ... avada.html

(Update: I've modified the title based on input so far. Original title: Differences between Theravada and Early Buddhism)

[DNS]

I wanted to say "original" instead of "early", but we can't know the original Buddhism, can we?

http://www.originalbuddhism.com

Or alternatively:

http://www.originalbuddhism.org

I couldn't resist getting those domain names when they became available a few years ago for reasonable price.

[Mr Man]

And how do we define Theravada?

[DNS]

And how do we define Theravada?

Everyone will have their own ideas and interpretations, but I would say, the Buddhism of the Third & Fourth Councils which included the Abhidhamma and then later commentaries.

Early Buddhism: 5 Nikayas and Patimokkha
Early Theravada: 5 Nikayas, Patimokkha, rest of the Vinaya, Abhidhamma
Later Theravada: 5 Nikayas, Patimokkha, rest of the Vinaya, Abhidhamma, later Commentaries

[Spiny Norman]

This is helpful as a guide: http://www.dhammaforeveryone.com/is-the ... avada.html

I noticed this as one of the criteria in the guide:
What is mythological, magical and almost superstitious is later development since the philosophy of the commonly agreed texts as early teachings is non-magical and free of mythology.

Is this intended to include sutta content relating to rebirth and kamma? And who has "commonly agreed" that certain texts are early?

[Mkoll]

And how do we define Theravada?

Everyone will have their own ideas and interpretations, but I would say, the Buddhism of the Third & Fourth Councils which included the Abhidhamma and then later commentaries.

Early Buddhism: 5 Nikayas and Patimokkha
Early Theravada: 5 Nikayas, Patimokkha, rest of the Vinaya, Abhidhamma
Later Theravada: 5 Nikayas, Patimokkha, rest of the Vinaya, Abhidhamma, later Commentaries

I'd say 4.5 Nikayas instead of 5 for Early Buddhism because many books in the Khuddaka show Abhidhammic influence I think, e.g. the Patisambhidamagga.

[mikenz66]

This is helpful as a guide: http://www.dhammaforeveryone.com/is-the ... avada.html

I noticed this as one of the criteria in the guide:
What is mythological, magical and almost superstitious is later development since the philosophy of the commonly agreed texts as early teachings is non-magical and free of mythology.

Is this intended to include sutta content relating to rebirth and kamma? And who has "commonly agreed" that certain texts are early?

I think this is one of the more interesting questions that needs to be addressed. My impression is that some of the modern "Early Buddhism" community starts with a very science-materialistic viewpoint, which may be where some of this is coming from.


Mike

[Mkoll]

This is helpful as a guide: http://www.dhammaforeveryone.com/is-the ... avada.html

I noticed this as one of the criteria in the guide:
What is mythological, magical and almost superstitious is later development since the philosophy of the commonly agreed texts as early teachings is non-magical and free of mythology.

Is this intended to include sutta content relating to rebirth and kamma? And who has "commonly agreed" that certain texts are early?

I think this is one of the more interesting questions that needs to be addressed. My impression is that some of the modern "Early Buddhism" community starts with a very science-materialistic viewpoint, which may be where some of this is coming from.


Mike

The article states that what Spiny quoted is one of the criteria of scholars so it wouldn't be surprising that they come from that viewpoint.

[Qianxi]

I notice Bhikkhu Analayo has a chapter on "Early Buddhist Teachings" in a book due out soon.

"Early Buddhist Teachings", in Blackwell Companion to South and Southeast Asian Buddhism, M. Zimmermann (ed.), (forthcoming).

I don't think he has a summary style account of early Buddhism in any of his articles - but comments about the differences between early Buddhism and later Theravada are spread throughout his work.

I think an area of complexity is that although for some differences you can say "that idea does not appear in this layer of text", many differences are subtle changes of emphasis.

[Spiny Norman]

I've heard people talk about "pre-sectarian" Buddhism, but I'm not sure if that's the same as "early" Buddhism.

[Kim OHara]

I've heard people talk about "pre-sectarian" Buddhism, but I'm not sure if that's the same as "early" Buddhism.

It is, but the terms don't overlap 100%.
(1) In the beginning, you have the Buddha talking to his followers. Everyone was on the same page (in modern terms) because what he said was good and anything he didn't say (e.g. teachings by a senior follower) he either approved or disapproved.
(2) Then you had the spread of disciples into wandering groups who gradually lost touch with him and with each other, and little differences began to creep in.
(3) Eventually, some time after the Buddha's parinibbana, those differences were big enough and consistent enough that people started talking about 'schools' or 'sects'.
(4) Later still, each school made systematic collections of the teachings as they knew them, and then they added to them and eventually, wrote them down. It's important to remember, though, that every school can and does trace its scriptures back to (1), just as every vertebrate animal can (theoretically) trace his/her ancestry back to the first vertebrates, millions of years ago. (Some of us/them still look very much like that first ancestor, while others have grown fur or feathers - even quills - but we're still, equally, true descendants.)
"Pre-sectarian" refers to everything before (3). "Early" is not so specific.
Going back to the OP, "original" should refer only to (1).


Kim

[daverupa]

(2) and (3) need some unpacking; they stayed in touch with each other due to Vinaya, but what arose over time were landed monasteries and, then, local practices that they followed as matters of local Vinaya, local ritual, etc. Different places gave the common recitations different emphases, some recitations weren't as well-known, there was nuanced local commentary, and as time goes on the diction and language were rounded off for the sake of clarity in various prakrit recitations.

Then comes Asoka, and with this impetus the reciters begin to wander far afield. It's around this time that proto-abhidhammas (nuanced local commentary et al, above) start to diverge along scholastic lines. Ultimately, these groups are the ones that end up providing us with the Agamas & Nikayas, having formed & closed them within ~250 years, to be followed by various Scholastic Abhidhamma and Commentary while interweaving a religious identity among the various peoples who sustained it, rendering all manner of para-canonical material...

[Kusala]

I wanted to say "original" instead of "early", but we can't know the original Buddhism, can we? (You might say we can, by super-psychic recalling. Sure, but that's subjective.) So, Early Buddhism it is, meaning Buddhism as recorded in the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas.

Here I invite everyone to highlight the differences.

This is helpful as a guide: http://www.dhammaforeveryone.com/is-the ... avada.html

I highly recommend this Dhamma talk ---> The True Dhamma Has Disappeared

phpBB .

[Kumara]

I wanted to say "original" instead of "early", but we can't know the original Buddhism, can we?

http://www.originalbuddhism.com

Or alternatively:

http://www.originalbuddhism.org

I couldn't resist getting those domain names when they became available a few years ago for reasonable price.

"Modern Theravada" is "original Buddhism"? Gaaa....

[Kumara]

And how do we define Theravada?

Good question. How about "current orthodox Theravada"?