In Search of the Original Buddhism

Last updated on: May 24, 2011 at 10:23 pm by Justin Whitaker

In Search of the Original Buddhism 2011-05-24T22:23:00-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Tricycle’s article on the “Truest” Buddhism.

Many of you will have seen this recent article from Tricycle, Whose Buddhism is Truest? If not, I highly recommend it, both for those studying early Buddhism and for all practitioners of Buddhism – both of whom will inevitably run into sectarian superiority hogwash from time to time.

Many a time I’ve seen Tibetan Buddhists claim to have perfectly categorized and analyzed the Buddha’s teaching, including developing and standardizing the “faster way” of tantra. Chinese Buddhists claim a widening and deepening the Dharma by connecting more deeply with the compassion (karuna) missing from the “lesser vehicle” (hinayana). And of course the Theravadins aren’t left out, blithely dismissing the “fabrications” of all non-Pali based traditions. Oh and Zen. Certain Zen folks like to take the haughty stance of being above all the scholarly foolishness, prefering instead to “express their perfect Buddha Nature…” by just sitting (Shikantaza, 只管打坐). Modern Western scholars, of course, escape all of this (j/k). We scholars, insofar as we are human, tend to fall into one or more of these – or other – pitfalls on a regular basis. And these are just a few that I’ve personally observed.

Based on findings from newly unearthed Buddhist scriptures in Gandhara, the above article does a great deal to debunk at least some of these sectarian squabbles, namely claims to primacy or originality.

Here are some of the key points and my thoughts:

It is now clear that none of the existing Buddhist collections of early Indian scriptures—not the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, nor even the Gandhari—“can be privileged as the most authentic or original words of the Buddha.”

Even at the time of my work on my MA thesis (2005), it was drilled into my head that the Pali canon couldn’t be claimed to be the earliest scriptures, but could still be seen as the most complete original-language (even this is contested) body of the Buddha’s teachings. As Anne Hanson wrote in 2003:

As Steven Collins has persuasively argued, the equation made by earlier scholars between the notion of a preexistent Pali canon and “original” or early Buddhism can hardly be historically supported. Rather, present-day versions of the Pali canon, he suggests, are the product of the Sinhalese Mahaviharin sect’s efforts at self-preservation and legitimation during periodic downturns of royal patronage for the sect in Sri Lanka. These efforts resulted in the introduction of the concept of the Tipitaka as a closed and authoritative body of Theravadin scriptures (1990, 75-102). – In “The Image of an Orphan: Cambodian Narrative Sites for Buddhist Ethical Reflection,” The Journal of Asian Studies

And “Pali” is not what the Buddha spoke – the word itself means “text” – but rather it is guessed that he spoke Magadhi or Magadhan, an Indo-Aryan language of the ancient Indian kingdom of Magadha, which spanned present day Indian states of Bihar, eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bengal.

So what the Buddha spoke, and taught, was stretched in various directions after his death. And none of that process begins to be recorded for at least 300 years. Therefore to claim to have this or that “original” teaching or thought of Buddhism is a fiction. But a useful fiction – at times.

The parallels with digging through the mess of Christian orthodoxy are telling:

Religious orthodoxy wants to claim that one’s own tradition is the best. To do that, one needs to point to something unique to make it so. Having the sole true version of a singular truth is just such a foothold. And not only for Buddhists. Elaine Pagels, the scholar of religion who brought to light the Gnostic gospels, told Tricycle in 2005:

The Church father Tertullian said, Christ taught one single thing, and that’s what we teach, and that is what is in the creed. But he’s writing this in the year 180 in North Africa, and what he says Christ taught would never fit in the mouth of a rabbi, such as Jesus, in first-century Judea. For a historically-based tradition—like Christianity, and as you say, Buddhism—there’s a huge stake in the claim that what it teaches goes back to a specific revelation, person, or event, and there is a strong tendency to deny the reality of constant innovation, choice, and change.

The Buddhist canons as they exist today are the products of historical contingencies.

And the parallels are also humbling, as Biblical studies, as a field, is much more mature than Buddhist studies. Richard Gombrich observes, “The exegesis of the Pali canon has not yet advanced much beyond where the exegesis of the Bible stood in the middle of the 19th century…” (from here, pdf.) – We have some work to do! This sentiment is echoed in the article as well:

The meaning of words is their use in context. A set of words stripped of their context is like playing pieces stripped of their board game. What would we have?

Certainly it would be good to know what the Buddha said. To the extent that we share the conventions of 5th-century B.C.E. Indians, we might understand some of what he meant. If we increased the conventions we shared with them (say, by learning early Indian languages or by studying history), obviously we would understand more.

This is a line that Gombrich enthusiastically urges in his book What the Buddha Thought. He, however, stands on one side of a divide amongst scholars about what we can know, ironically, about what the Buddha thought. The Tricycle article’s author, Linda Heuman, seems to place herself on the other side:

But context is vast—an unbounded, interdependent web of connections. And it is dynamic, shifting moment to moment. Context is finished the moment it happens; then it is a new context. We really can’t recreate it. And even if we could, we still wouldn’t know exactly how the Buddha was using his words within that context, so we wouldn’t know exactly what he meant.

Such a view clings to a somewhat slippery slope – somewhere along that slope we begin to question whether the Buddha even existed, vs being a mere literary figure (see What the Buddha Thought, ch 13). Once that is done, the authoritative figure of all schools of Buddhism becomes a mere shadow, and what trust can there be of the claims concerning various practices? Gombrich resists such a downhill postmodern tumble into murkiness (Linda’s use of the qualifier “exactly” twice gives her good room to argue that she’s not in danger of that murkiness) by asserting that it’s patently obvious to any reasonable person who reads the Pali suttas that they were produced by and large by one genius individual. And further, by learning early Indian languages and by studying history, one can get a sense of what that individual was like, indeed, some glimpse at “what the Buddha thought.”

The article should be read for its discussion of the “braided river” theory of early Buddhism advanced by the scholar Paul Harrison, as well as the discussion at the end – which deserves expansion – on what is essentially Wittgenstein’s theory of family resemblance, extended to Buddhism.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 16, 2011

Birth of the Rebirthers: A uniquely Buddhist/Hindu Conspiracy Theory

Next Post

May 25, 2011 Busy life, New Blogs to Check Out

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz