Early Buddhism and the oral tradition

[Bundokji]

The endless interpretations of written texts sheds doubts on the authenticity of oral tradition.

Not really. It sheds doubts on so called "Commentaries" and all that kind of later works. It seems like ancient monks lost the right explanation of certain Dhamma aspects very soon after Buddha's demise. However that was orally transmitted (that is, suttas) stood the test of time quite good.

Usually, reliance on the commentaries is justified through a shorter gap in time between them and the historical Buddha than us, hence it is assumed that their understanding is probably closer to the original meaning or less distorted. Time begets gaps and gaps beget mediums.

Maybe what differentiates the oral tradition from mere verbal expressions of knowledge is that the truth value of it seems to be multilayered. The explanatory power of the teachings seems to have a transcendental aspect that makes it survive distortions, not by necessarily being the exact words spoken by the historical Buddha, but by having a corrective element integrated to it that ensures its survivability even when merged with distortions.

[Bundokji]

I still don't understand what the scholars mean by Authenticity. May be its to find those teaching that can be reasonably attributed to the Blessed One only.

The scholarly approach to the text is mainly concerned with historical facts, hence authenticity in this context often represent a match between the speaker of the words and the words that have been spoken. The fact that the meaning of the words are open to disputes or different interpretations is not a main concern of scholars or historians, and usually taken as a given.

[Bundokji]

There is vast scholarly literature on this topic. Are you interested?

I don't mind. Please do share if you have any.

If you've not already encountered him, a good place to start would be with Walter Ong, especially his Orality and Literacy (1982) and An Ong Reader (2002).

Walter Jackson Ong SJ (November 30, 1912 – August 12, 2003) was an American Jesuit priest, professor of English literature, cultural and religious historian, and philosopher. His major interest was in exploring how the transition from orality to literacy influenced culture and changed human consciousness. In 1978 he served as elected president of the Modern Language Association.

[...]

A major concern of Ong's works is the impact that the shift from orality to literacy has had on culture and education. Writing is a technology like other technologies (fire, the steam engine, etc.) that, when introduced to a "primary oral culture" (which has never known writing) has extremely wide-ranging impacts in all areas of life. These include culture, economics, politics, art, and more. Furthermore, even a small amount of education in writing transforms people's mentality from the holistic immersion of orality to interiorization and individuation.

Many of the effects of the introduction of the technology of writing are related to the fact that oral cultures require strategies of preserving information in the absence of writing. These include, for example, a reliance on proverbs or condensed wisdom for making decisions, epic poetry, and stylized culture heroes (wise Nestor, crafty Odysseus). Writing makes these features no longer necessary, and introduces new strategies of remembering cultural material, which itself now changes.

Because cultures at any given time vary along a continuum between full orality and full literacy, Ong distinguishes between primary oral cultures (which have never known writing), cultures with craft literacy (such as scribes), and cultures in a transition phase from orality to literacy, in which some people know of writing but are illiterate - these cultures have "residual orality".

https://archive.org/details/OngWalterOr ... y/mode/2up

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_J._Ong

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orality

Thanks Bhante

[Zom]

Usually, reliance on the commentaries is justified through a shorter gap in time between them and the historical Buddha than us, hence it is assumed that their understanding is probably closer to the original meaning or less distorted. Time begets gaps and gaps beget mediums.

This is a poor argument, because no one can say for sure when did they appear. Again, they weren't memorized like the suttas so even the oldest commentaries could be badly damaged from early on. Different early schools had very different commentaries. However that doesn't mean all commies are bad and wrong. Often they give reasonable explanations and provide interesting plausible information. But again very often they struggle to explain delicate Dhamma aspects.

[neander]

As somebody who started with Zen some decades ago due to Japanese martial arts and started being passionate recently about some aspects of Nichiren Buddhism and later on early Buddhism, from what I read so far I would say that is very difficult that suttas and agamas contain the direct words and teachings of the Buddha, the final conclusion I arrived is as prof Lopez stated “The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct.”, I wouldn’t say 100% impossible but I think one can try to dig out some very small bits and pieces here and there…

Contrary to the popular beliefs of mainstream Buddhists, I also think it would be extremely important to know the historical Buddha seed how is difficult, tortuous is to ascertain his original message.

One of the teachings that was really innovative in Buddhism is what stated in the Kalama Sutta “ Do not believe the traditions..” and If I apply this to the Buddhist Literature I find it extremely unreliable. I am therefore a pessimist and tend to stay with the scholars like Schopen, Faure, etc..

This is how all starts.. according to the text:Queen Maya, dreamed that a white elephant pierced the right side of her body; the next morning she found herself to be pregnant, and nine months later, in a grove in Lumbini, she gave birth to a child Buddha,
The Buddhist literature is enormous 84000 Sutra and even if we stick with the to the Pali Nikayas as Brhonkhost said is very unlikely Buddha ‘s disciples remembered all his speeches during the beginning of his life, they must have remembered only the finals ones.
Please note also that many Suttas start with “Thus I have heard”….and not Buddha said that…
You can easily find a chronological order of the Buddhist text and realize how late they were written after the death of the historical Buddha even just considering only the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, modern Buddhology has dispelled many myths..

The same applies for Buddha ‘s image in the painting and sculptures that contributed immensely to defining Buddhism: for the first six centuries after his death, the Buddha there were no sculptures or paintings of Buddha, only of his footprints etc..
Then we have the Buddhist councils
“According to the traditions there were from time to time meetings called councils in English,the Pali term sangiti means singing or reciting together; the accounts we have of these councils are unreliable”, (J.W.De Jong)
At the first council there were already disagreements with the formation of 18 different school later on..

And a very important point is the contradictions of the literature:

(Buddhism J.W.De Jong) “we must accept the fact there are divergences and contradictions in the Buddhist scriptures”

Put very briefly, the teaching of the Buddha as presented in the early canon contains a number of contradictions. There are views and practices that are sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected (Bronkhorst Early Buddhist meditation)



These contradictions are in my opinion not big but enormous: from the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra and the eternity of the self to the nonexistence of self of the Vajrayana literature, from the monasticism of the Patimokkha to the Karmamudra from the antimetaphysics positions of Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta to the metaphysical discussions that could rival western philosophy. And even if we stick to the early Buddhist text nowadays scholars have pointed out how concepts like the four noble truth did not belong to original Buddhism (Lambert Schmithausen, Anderson), even the The Noble Eightfold Path has been put in discussion by Vetter..the Karma concept again had a change in the importance attributed (Schmithausen,) and so on… the more you read the more you find huge holes that become bigger and bigger..

Probably during Ashoka Buddhism was much more virile than today’s version as it was a real state religion:
Ashoka would invade Kalinga in 262 BC whereas we know from minor rock edicts that Ashoka had converted to Buddhism more than two years earlier and also the Pillar Edict IV did not abolish the death penalty. Ashoka issued an order to kill all the Ajivikas in Pundravardhana, enraged at a picture that depicted Gautama Buddha in a negative light (even if this could be apocryphal)
I am 99% convinced that during the Mauryan empire changes and additions were made, as soon as Buddhism traveled from Nepal to India in order to secure a position within Brahmin community Indian influence and concepts were added, and also reading Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India from Bronkhorst and others is quite clear for me that Jaina influences were added little by little plus maybe later on Yoga practices like Pranajama in order to create a sort of Vipassana plus many other bits and pieces according to the local area and local rulers, you can clearly see these additions as soon as Buddhism traveled to China with Taoism,Tibet with the Bon religion, Japan with Shinbutsu-shūgō up to western contemporary Buddhism..
I am also convinced, as I stated in the other forum, that Buddhism changed almost completely when it was transformed in a cenobitical system as Buddha probably wanted his sangha to be a community of wanderers when the monastic life was created, Buddhism lost its power..the same power that Ashoka found in it..

I recall reading in one sutra “my disciples are like the wind that cannot be caught by any net”

Take to the road; travel for the good of the many; travel for the happiness of the many…”…… "let not two of you go the same way" (Vin I 21)

D. N. De L. Young The Sangha in Buddhist History


Prof John Powers:
Buddha conceived the Shangha as a loosely organized community of wanderers. This imperative was initiated by the Buddha eight months after his awakening as he traveled toward the village of Senani:

“monks, take to the road;travel for the good of the many; travel for the happiness of the many, out of
Compassion for the world. Travel for the good, benefit, and happiness of humans and gods. Preach the doctrine!”

According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition later on, the sole exception to the this lifestyle was the rainy season retreat.(pali: vassa; skt.: varsa), when monks stayed in a temporary residence.

initially, the monks traveled even during the rainy seasons and people complained about them destroying plants (Scholarly reference Mohan Wijayaratna Buddhist Monastic Life)

The Indian monsoon causes torrential rains that turn roads to mud, and travel becomes difficult. There is an increased danger from disease and waterborne parasites. Buddha was pragmatic.

The wandering style was very important to the point that the monk Dhanya who did not want to take down the temporary cell he built during the rainy season was frowned upon by Buddha and his disciples (Vin I 152) and he was obliged to abandon it (Wijayaratna)

prof Charles Prebish believes that the sangha switched to a cenobitical system within a hundred years or so of the Buddha’s passing..


the milieu in which it was founded was the ancient community of India's wandering almsmen. It was this milieu that shaped settled its ethos and basic character, the foundation upon which its own system of Vinaya was afterward built. But we shall see how the Sangha separated itself from the parent community by its own modification of a general custom Vassavasa (rain retreat)...
Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India : Their History and Their Contribution to Indian Culture / by Sukumar Dutt


prof. Gregory Shopen, who is indeed one of the most reputable scholars we have: in Cross-Dressing with the Dead:

There is no evidence for Buddhist monasteries either before or during the Mauryan period no evidence that monasteries existed during Ashoka (Ashoka did not grant any tax reduction to any monasteries but only to the village of Lumbini), you can also find more interesting details..it seems certain monastic residential quarters appeared well after Ashoka and probably near the beginning of common era Later inscriptions from Bharhut and Sanchi did not mention anything so there is no archeological evidence until Kharoshı¯ records

with complex buildings comes maintenance plus all kind of issues that require financial support, this support establishing long-lasting relations with the donors that compromises the doctrine with changes and modifications always under close scrutiny, the power of money is not a modern thing so the whole suttas received today were indeed revised, changed to suit the donors' values and political agenda...and then all the Buddhist literature was created…

The Historical Authenticity of Early Buddhist Literature Alexander Wynne shows that some of the information preserved in the literature of the various Buddhist sects shows that historical information about events occurring in the fifth century B.C and in Asoka time that’s fine,I also do not dispute what prof Gombrich says that one can see a genius among the four Nikaya but this does not mean he knows what Buddha taught but only that he as a serious scholar was able to find some unifying themes in the Buddhist literature…..

[Bundokji]

This is a poor argument, because no one can say for sure when did they appear. Again, they weren't memorized like the suttas so even the oldest commentaries could be badly damaged from early on. Different early schools had very different commentaries. However that doesn't mean all commies are bad and wrong. Often they give reasonable explanations and provide interesting plausible information. But again very often they struggle to explain delicate Dhamma aspects.

Thanks Zom,

I was not defending or criticizing the argument, but describing on of the reasoning that i know of. Within our modern logic of time, such explanations hold a degree of plausibility.

This video was posted in the forum long ago. At least, this is how things appear to be when we imagine a group as a chain of individuals separated through space and time.

[mikenz66]

This video was posted in the forum long ago. At least, this is how things appear to be when we imagine a group as a chain of individuals separated through space and time.

I don't see groups of people chanting together and correcting mistakes...


Mike

[Ceisiwr]

Usually, reliance on the commentaries is justified through a shorter gap in time between them and the historical Buddha than us, hence it is assumed that their understanding is probably closer to the original meaning or less distorted. Time begets gaps and gaps beget mediums.

This is a poor argument, because no one can say for sure when did they appear. Again, they weren't memorized like the suttas so even the oldest commentaries could be badly damaged from early on. Different early schools had very different commentaries. However that doesn't mean all commies are bad and wrong. Often they give reasonable explanations and provide interesting plausible information. But again very often they struggle to explain delicate Dhamma aspects.

Ven. Anālayo has shown that was is considered to be Aṭṭhakathā in Theravāda is actually directly incorporated into some āgamas in the northern canons. This gives some evidence towards the commentaries being quite old. There are probably a lot of suttas with commentary in them that we just can't detect, or haven't detected yet.

[Bundokji]

I don't see groups of people chanting together and correcting mistakes...

Are you referring to the first council? It gives rise to interesting thoughts. From what i know, Arahanthood was a condition to join the council of which Ven. Ananda was the last to join. I do not know if Arahants need to correct each others mistakes by chanting together considering that their knowledge of the dhamma is flawless.

[Ceisiwr]

In fact, the dividing line between the original saying and its commentary may not always have been clear. Nowadays, when speaking of a ‘commentary’, one inevitably has in mind the Aṭṭhakathā and ṭīkā, which are quite different from the Pali ‘discourse’ material. But such clear separation would not have been in existence in ancient times A case in point can be found in the Aguttara-nikaya, where a monk is asked if what he has just taught was spoken by the Buddha.96 In reply, the monk answers with the dictum that “whatever is well said is the Buddha’s word”.97 The context and the simile he uses make it clear that with this dictum he is not intending to pass off his own explanation as the Buddha’s word, but only that he considers the Buddha to be the real source of whatever he has been expounding.98 Just as with the Madhupi$=ika-sutta, this discourse has come down as a canonical discourse, in this case even without an explicit endorsement by the Buddha. This shows how explanations delivered by disciples could nevertheless become part of what tradition regards as canonical...A reciter would know which parts were comments made by himself, but once the discourse with commentary had been passed on to his disciples, and then to their disciples, the formerly clear distinction between what was originally discourse and what commentary may not always have remained clear... Now, the drawing of inferences and the providing of additional explanations to aid comprehension is precisely the task of the commentaries. To judge from modern research findings on the way textual memory works, it could easily have happened that, during oral transmission, material of a commentarial nature was confused with the material on which it was commenting. In what follows, I survey several examples that seem to testify to this pattern...

According to the Ga$akamoggallana-sutta of the Majjima-nikaya, the advice given by the Buddha is supreme among “teachings of today”.113 The Pali commentary explains that “teachings of today” refers to the six heterodox teachers (i.e., PuraPa Kassapa, etc.).114 The corresponding passage in the two Chinese parallels to the Ga$akamoggallana- sutta proclaims that the Buddha’s teaching is able to subdue all heterodox wanderers,115 thereby expressing an understanding that corresponds to the Pali commentarial gloss and thus could have resulted from the influence of a similarly worded ancient Indian commentary.

The Aggivacchagotta-sutta of the Majjhima-nikaya reports an inquiry by the wanderer Vacchagotta about the destiny of a Tathagata after death.116 A Sayukta-agama parallel to this discourse speaks instead of the destiny of the “self of beings”, which does not fit the context.117 The reference to the self of beings parallels an explanation found in the Pali commentarial tradition, which glosses occurrences of the word Tathagata in the context of this type of inquiry as referring to a “living being”.118 Thus, the puzzling reference in the Chinese version could be due to the influence of an ancient Indian commentarial explanation similar to what is now preserved in the Pali commentaries. Examples of what could be the influence of commentarial exegesis occur not only in parallels to the Majjhima-nikaya. One such case can be found in the Dirgha-agama counterpart to the Brahmajala-sutta of the Digha-nikaya. Both versions report that the Buddha had become aware of the fact that a group of monks had been having a discussion. While the Digha-nikaya simply mentions that, when the Buddha joined the monks, he sat down and asked them what they had been talking about,119 the commentary clarifies that he asked this question even though he knew what their discussion had been about.120 This is made explicit in the Dirgha-agama discourse itself, which indicates that the Buddha inquired from the monks “knowingly”.121

Another example can be found in relation to the Kassapagotta-sutta of the Sayuttanikaya. The introductory narration of the Pali version of this discourse reports that the monk Kassapagotta admonished a hunter.122 The commentary then furnishes the additional information that the person in question was a deer hunter.123 The parallel passages in versions of this discourse found in the two Sayukta-agama translations go a step further, since they describe that the hunter was actually setting up a trap to catch deer on that occasion.124 The above examples suggest that during the process of oral transmission a commentarial gloss, being itself probably part of a body of widely accepted popular interpretation, could become part of the discourse itself.

A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya (Volume 2) - page 877 onwards

Personally I think the Aṭṭhakathā should be taken more seriously, especially among western converts.

[Ceisiwr]

It seems the extant early Buddhist texts are not entirely based on oral tradition. The texts are also artificial creation in both structure and content after being written down, or during writing process.

Could you refer me to the page where Choong Mun-keat argues that?

[Ceisiwr]

And even if we stick to the early Buddhist text nowadays scholars have pointed out how concepts like the four noble truth did not belong to original Buddhism (Lambert Schmithausen, Anderson), even the The Noble Eightfold Path has been put in discussion by Vetter..the Karma concept again had a change in the importance attributed (Schmithausen,) and so on… the more you read the more you find huge holes that become bigger and bigger..

Of course, there is a difference between putting forward a criticism and said criticism being valid.

[Bundokji]

The issue of orality, literacy and technology and their relationship to the precepts is interesting. Literacy implies a certain approach to the truth through linking words to forms. "Literacy" and "literal" seem to share the same linguistic root. The liar paradox is used to shut down artificial intelligence:

The liar paradox is occasionally used in fiction to shut down artificial intelligences, who are presented as being unable to process the sentence. In Star Trek: The Original Series episode "I, Mudd", the liar paradox is used by Captain Kirk and Harry Mudd to confuse and ultimately disable an android holding them captive. In the 1973 Doctor Who serial The Green Death, the Doctor temporarily stumps the insane computer BOSS by asking it "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say would be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" BOSS tries to figure it out but couldn't and eventually decides the question is irrelevant and summons security.

In the 2011 video game Portal 2, artificial intelligence GLaDOS attempts to use the "this sentence is false" paradox to kill another artificial intelligence, Wheatley. However, lacking the intelligence to realize the statement is a paradox, he simply responds, "Um, true. I'll go with true. There, that was easy." and is unaffected. Humorously, all other AIs present barring GLaDOS, all of which are significantly less sentient and lucid than both her and Wheatley, are still killed from hearing the paradox. However, GLaDOS later notes that she almost killed herself from her own attempt to logic bomb Wheatley.

In the seventh episode of Minecraft: Story Mode titled "Access Denied" the main character Jesse and his friends are captured by a supercomputer named PAMA. After PAMA controls two of Jesse's friends, Jesse learns that PAMA stalls when processing and uses a paradox to confuse him and escape with his last friend. One of the paradoxes the player can make him say is the liar paradox.

I encountered the following disclaimer when i tried to read the book shared by Bhante:

"All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers"

How to read or use the book online without breaking precepts? Do i need to use the technology of writing to get an approval from the publishers? Would quoting the disclaimer for the purposes of getting the approval from the publishers be a violation, considering that the disclaimer can be a part of the book?

[Zom]

Ven. Anālayo has shown that was is considered to be Aṭṭhakathā in Theravāda is actually directly incorporated into some āgamas in the northern canons. This gives some evidence towards the commentaries being quite old. There are probably a lot of suttas with commentary in them that we just can't detect, or haven't detected yet.

Yes, but first mahayanic/protomahayanic sutras/ideas/concepts are also very very old, much older than an established tradition. And again, there was a reason why suttas were kept separate from the commies. And even they (I mean, suttas) start with the warning sign: "evam me suttam".

[Ceisiwr]

Ven. Anālayo has shown that was is considered to be Aṭṭhakathā in Theravāda is actually directly incorporated into some āgamas in the northern canons. This gives some evidence towards the commentaries being quite old. There are probably a lot of suttas with commentary in them that we just can't detect, or haven't detected yet.

Yes, but first mahayanic/protomahayanic sutras/ideas/concepts are also very very old, much older than an established tradition. And again, there was a reason why suttas were kept separate from the commies. And even they (I mean, suttas) start with the warning sign: "evam me suttam".

Are they? The last I checked those were around 1st century B.C, whereas the commentaries appear to be older than that.