mikenz66 wrote:... Let me re-phrase it:
"It is logically possible that the Theravada Commentaries are correct, and the other sects are wrong. This is, of course, the view of the Theravada Tradition..."
Ajahn Sujuato and his ilk are using the working
assumption that:
"The correct things are those which everyone agrees on".
This is a useful way to analyse the data, but does not necessarily lead to the "correct" conclusion. Obviously one could quote historical examples in science and other areas where the majority turned out to be wrong.
Mike
That is a very good point, Mike. And thanks for bringing us back to the OP.
Furthermore, Bhante Sujato lists "a number of criteria", which are worth investigating.
Let us take a poke at the first five, to begin with:
Simplicity: Shorter, more basic teachings are likely to have appeared earlier than complex, scholastic elaborations. This is one of the fundamentals of historical criticism.
Is this really "one of the fundamental of historical criticism"? Perhaps. But, as far as "textual criticism" goes, particularly biblical and classics, in addition to:
The shortest reading is, in general, the best. -- "Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, præferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum (Griesbach)."
there is also the maxim:
The more difficult reading is also the more probable. -- "Proclivi scriptioni pr stat ardua"
Multiple Attestation: Teachings appearing more often are likely to be more authentic than those less frequent. This of course only applies to independent attestation, not mere repetition.
The last point is critical - "independent attestation, not mere repetition", because we often do not know entirely clearing the process whereby the early texts were compiled. Thus, there may be more repetition in there than originally thought.
Similarity: Teachings congruent in style, form, or content with known early teachings are more likely to be authentic than heterodox passages.
Doesn't this beg the question - ie. "... with known early teachings"? How do we know that they are early before undergoing this process?
Dissimilarity: Teachings dissimilar to other traditions, whether pre-Buddhist or later Buddhism, are unlikely to have appeared through assimilation or revision and thus are likely to be authentic. Notice that this principle does not say that teachings held in common with other traditions are inauthentic; it simply can’t tell.
But, on the other hand, due to sectarian sentiment, "dissimilar" teachings which differ from other traditions, may be given more emphasis to emphasis the unique doctrines of a given line of thought. There are examples of this in many places, for instance, the "self power" vs "other power" of Zen and Pureland. The extreme "other power" of late Japanese Pureland does not represent early Pureland in China, from which it derives. It only developed this "dissimilar" teaching in the context of other Japanese schools.
Concordance between Nikayas and Agamas: The essential congruence of the Nikayas and the Agamas is probably the most important finding of modern Buddhist studies, and should become a standard criterion in all matters concerning early Buddhism. Although the basic findings are in, there remains much work to be done in sorting out the finer details.
This is the one Mike is kind of countering, above. However, given that much of the Agamas are also Sthavira / Thera, then what we have is a lot of Sthavira / Thera material, but little from the Mahasamghikas. We can only thus confirm the similarities to the point of the break up of the various Sthavira / Thera schools, but not to the Buddha himself.
Caution: Prepare to fall into a sectarian position, and call it "the true teaching of the historical Buddha".
Oh, haven't we heard this one before?