Dr Rod Bucknell's forthcoming new book: Reconstructing Early Buddhism

[Ceisiwr]

How Early Buddhism Differs from Theravada :
Order USD-1266009
Thank you Leo!

Thank you Ceisiwr

I'm thinking this subject is a minefield hidden in a fog covered ricepatty...

Leo

You’re welcome.

[frank k]

What is a good introduction and explaination of the development of the distinction between the path as presented in the EBTs and the LBTs?

Thank you.

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... ectly.html

Not exactly an intro, but it will give you some resources that present a fairly accurate EBT jhāna.

AFAIK no one has done a more detailed study on where LBT jhāna redefinitions contradict EBT jhāna.
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/ ... index.html

For EBT, note that Sujato has a corrupted understanding of EBT jhāna.

[frank k]

The quote from him you quote below, which is from a separate paper, not from the book, is good.
I didn't end up buying the book, so I can't look it up and quote what parts bothered me.
But if I had a bias, I'm rooting for more people to publish books and articles to promote a proper understanding of EBT jhāna, so if I end up not recommending something, there's good reason.
If the rest of his paper on jhāna is similar to the quote you provide, then I'd be much more inclined to recommend the paper.
Again, I only read the chapter on 'concentration', but even so it would be fair to expect by the end of that chapter, I should have a good sense of what EBT jhāna is and isn't. In the book as I recall, he doesn't take a firm stand as he does in the quote below.

I had a different reading than your own and "the preference" of the writer seemed very clear to me, maybe because I was already aware of the ideas of the writer from previous work (both of Bucknell and of Stuart-Fox). One goal of the Book is to define the "first-order" questions and a less conflicting stance on points that are not the focus of the book could help reception in the field (the book is already full of controversial, albeit documented, statements). You're totally entitled not to like this approach, but that's it.

Btw I can't think of being more clear than this, when the "implications" are spelled out for example in his paper of 1993:

It is now evident that Buddhaghosa's account is not, as generally supposed, merely a more detailed and precise formulation of the account
found throughout the Nikayas. Rather, it is a fundamentally dfferent version which is in serious conflict with the Nikaya account. By Buddhaghosa's day the jhana doctrine had been drastically modified.

One negative consequence of Buddhaghosa's complex account of jhana was that mastery of the higher jhanas was made to seem a superhuman attainment. With the entire series multiplied by itself, as it were, the total number of stages was greatly increased; and no genuine instructions were available for the attainment of any jhana beyond the supposed first one. This effect continues to the present day. To most Bud-dhist meditators, even "the second jhana" seems hardly a realistic goal, while ' arupa-jhanas" appear impossibly remote. The present re-vised understanding of the jhanas should, therefore, give encouragement to practicing meditators. The path of concentration practice is not nearly as long and arduous as Buddhaghosa made it seem.

I think that you can still find points of disagreement in the paper, but those are no small declarations. One very interesting read would be the paper about first jhana of 2019 of Bucknell, I was not able to find it without paying 100€ for the "Engaging Asia" book.

[frank k]

One other problem with his book and understanding of jhāna.
He doesn't seem to really understand how funadamental aspects of Vism. redefinition of jhāna meditation system works, how it differs from vimuttimagga.
I don't want to be too hard on him, but this is a general problem not with just his book, but most jhāna books and articles out there, when people don't have enough meditation experience to understand both the instructions and the practice clearly.

But more blameworthy, is his not taking into account suttas such as MN 125, AN 3.60, SN 41.8 which would clear up much fuzziness in his research findings.

[auto]

Btw I can't think of being more clear than this, when the "implications" are spelled out for example in his paper of 1993:

It is now evident that Buddhaghosa's account is not, as generally supposed, merely a more detailed and precise formulation of the account
found throughout the Nikayas. Rather, it is a fundamentally dfferent version which is in serious conflict with the Nikaya account. By Buddhaghosa's day the jhana doctrine had been drastically modified.

One negative consequence of Buddhaghosa's complex account of jhana was that mastery of the higher jhanas was made to seem a superhuman attainment. With the entire series multiplied by itself, as it were, the total number of stages was greatly increased; and no genuine instructions were available for the attainment of any jhana beyond the supposed first one. This effect continues to the present day. To most Bud-dhist meditators, even "the second jhana" seems hardly a realistic goal, while ' arupa-jhanas" appear impossibly remote. The present re-vised understanding of the jhanas should, therefore, give encouragement to practicing meditators. The path of concentration practice is not nearly as long and arduous as Buddhaghosa made it seem.

I think that you can still find points of disagreement in the paper, but those are no small declarations. One very interesting read would be the paper about first jhana of 2019 of Bucknell, I was not able to find it without paying 100€ for the "Engaging Asia" book.

Is it ok to disagree with what Dr Rod Bucknell says?
In my opinion saying it is 'rare' to reach jhana in one sitting, is to give some slack or motivation.

2. In the section dealing with that of two kinds, access concentration is the
unification of mind obtained by the following, that is to say, the six recollections,
mindfulness of death, the recollection of peace, the perception of repulsiveness in
nutriment, and the defining of the four elements, and it is the unification that
precedes absorption concentration.

[l_rivers]

I just wanted to share this... it seemed appropo. [I have recently 'discovered' the Therigatha]


14: 1 Revata's Farewell
-from the Therigatha (Therīgāthā), often translated as Verses of the Elder Nuns (Pāli: therī elder (feminine) + gāthā verses)

Attaining no-thinking,
the disciple of the
Rightly Self-awakened
One is endowed with noble
silence(2)
straightaway.

As a mountain of
rock is unmoving,
firmly established,
so a monk,
with the ending of delusion,
like a mountain,
doesn’t quake.

PS: the opening verses on metta bring the previous discussion notion that good-will self-taming in the sence of Right Conduct as an initiator of The Path to mind, itself maybe a reference to the positive aspect of the work of the 1st Jnana - overcoming the 5 Hindrances, and becalming mental chatter.)


(2) "Noble Silence" = 2nd Jñāna

[thomaslaw]

Visuddhimagga is not a EBT.
It is a Theravāda text written by Buddhaghosa approximately in the 5th century in Sri Lanka. It is a manual condensing and systematizing the 5th century understanding and interpretation of the Buddhist path, particularly in the viewpoints of the elders of the Mahavihara Monastery in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.

[l_rivers]

It is my impression that the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga are texts used as an example of a LBT in contrast to any particular EBT.

It is also my impression that the era of the Abhidharma and scholasticism is itself the building of the wall between the EBT and the LBT eras.

Have I got this wrong?

[thomaslaw]

It is my impression that the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga are texts used as an example of a LBT in contrast to any particular EBT.

The Vimuttimagga (Jietuo dao lun 解脫道論) is also not a EBT.
It is a Buddhist practice manual, traditionally attributed to the Arahant Upatissa (c. 1st or 2nd century). It was translated into Chinese in the sixth century by Sanghapala. The original text is no longer extant, but the work has survived in Chinese.

[Ceisiwr]

It is my impression that the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga are texts used as an example of a LBT in contrast to any particular EBT.

It is also my impression that the era of the Abhidharma and scholasticism is itself the building of the wall between the EBT and the LBT eras.

Have I got this wrong?

That’s the general idea in EBT circles, but it’s not as simple. Some would argue the Abhidhamma gets everything wrong. Others that it contains some early and late ideas, with some of the late ideas being elaborations on early ideas. Of course, Ābhidhammikas and traditional Buddhists believe it’s all early material, being passed down unchanged from the time of the Buddha. The Visuddhimagga sums up the views of the Mahāvihāravāsins, whilst the Vimuttimagga is likely that of the Abhayagiri Vihāra IMO. Both are later, but as to if they represent early Buddhism or not is open to debate. For example, Sujato and other EBT folk would argue that momentariness is a later idea which isn’t supported by the early texts. Personally I take the opposite view.

[l_rivers]

Thank you.This thread has itself demonstrated how carefully and patiently one must tred. Getting a general idea of what is going on is concidered heresay in court.

[mikenz66]

Hi I_Rivers,

It is my impression that the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga are texts used as an example of a LBT in contrast to any particular EBT.

It is also my impression that the era of the Abhidharma and scholasticism is itself the building of the wall between the EBT and the LBT eras.

Have I got this wrong?

That’s the general idea in EBT circles, but it’s not as simple. Some would argue the Abhidhamma gets everything wrong. Others that it contains some early and late ideas, with some of the late ideas being elaborations on early ideas. Of course, Ābhidhammikas and traditional Buddhists believe it’s all early material, being passed down unchanged from the time of the Buddha. The Visuddhimagga sums up the views of the Mahāvihāravāsins, whilst the Vimuttimagga is likely that of the Abhayagiri Vihāra IMO. Both are later, but as to if they represent early Buddhism or not is open to debate. For example, Sujato and other EBT folk would argue that momentariness is a later idea which isn’t supported by the early texts. Personally I take the opposite view.

As Ceisiwr points out, there are many complexities. In my opinion there is a great deal of confusion generated by people using the term "Abhidhamma" to mean "Canonical Abhidhamma (https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/abhidhamma https://suttacentral.net/abhidhamma-gui ... to?lang=en) + commentaries (such as summarised in the Visuddhimagga, and later works). People such as Ven Sujato, Analayo, etc would tend to define the first four Pali Nikayas, https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta plus the earlier works in the KN (Khuddakanikaya) https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/minor as Early Buddhist Texts. The later KN texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/minor/kn/ps are argued by some to be later than the canonical Abhidhamma.

And, of course, there are various attitudes towards this Early/Late division, as you have seen. Some are of the opinion that the later material is a dangerous corruption and leads to incorrect understanding. Others (such as Vens Analayo and Sujato) of the opinion that later material can actually be useful, but it's helpful to know the difference. Others see the entire Theravada Canon and Commentaries as authoritative, and are of the opinion that the Commentaries are essential to correct understanding.


Mike

[sunnat]

and then there are those who just practice successfully (as taught by teachers of both pro and anti abhidhamma and commentaries) and themselves have no personal opinion or real knowledge of either except that if it is good (conducive to progress) either way for anyone then that is good. In fact one may successfully opine that too much dwelling on the matter is an impediment while it is good that there are those who seriously study the matters and share their knowledge. (true knowledge (panna) is another issue, born of practice)

[mikenz66]

Mike

[l_rivers]

Thank you Mike66 and Ceiswr!

This was a concidered and thourough going presentation. And you cast your votes without harming its value.


Leo

Hi I_Rivers,

It is my impression that the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga are texts used as an example of a LBT in contrast to any particular EBT.

It is also my impression that the era of the Abhidharma and scholasticism is itself the building of the wall between the EBT and the LBT eras.

Have I got this wrong?

That’s the general idea in EBT circles, but it’s not as simple. Some would argue the Abhidhamma gets everything wrong. Others that it contains some early and late ideas, with some of the late ideas being elaborations on early ideas. Of course, Ābhidhammikas and traditional Buddhists believe it’s all early material, being passed down unchanged from the time of the Buddha. The Visuddhimagga sums up the views of the Mahāvihāravāsins, whilst the Vimuttimagga is likely that of the Abhayagiri Vihāra IMO. Both are later, but as to if they represent early Buddhism or not is open to debate. For example, Sujato and other EBT folk would argue that momentariness is a later idea which isn’t supported by the early texts. Personally I take the opposite view.

As Ceisiwr points out, there are many complexities. In my opinion there is a great deal of confusion generated by people using the term "Abhidhamma" to mean "Canonical Abhidhamma (https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/abhidhamma https://suttacentral.net/abhidhamma-gui ... to?lang=en) + commentaries (such as summarised in the Visuddhimagga, and later works). People such as Ven Sujato, Analayo, etc would tend to define the first four Pali Nikayas, https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta plus the earlier works in the KN (Khuddakanikaya) https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/minor as Early Buddhist Texts. The later KN texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/minor/kn/ps are argued by some to be later than the canonical Abhidhamma.

And, of course, there are various attitudes towards this Early/Late division, as you have seen. Some are of the opinion that the later material is a dangerous corruption and leads to incorrect understanding. Others (such as Vens Analayo and Sujato) of the opinion that later material can actually be useful, but it's helpful to know the difference. Others see the entire Theravada Canon and Commentaries as authoritative, and are of the opinion that the Commentaries are essential to correct understanding.


Mike