When Early Buddhism became too complex?

[dharmavital]

Hello friends,

We live in the information age. Now, we can study the Dhamma very carefully.

The point is, when Early Buddhism became too complex? and why?

Regards

Jorge

[Eko Care]

According to the historical evidences and traditional records, the early Buddhism had not became too complex in the early days.

What had happened is the different groups with different opinions had started to deviate from the main stream.

During the time of the first council a senior monk called "Purana" had shown his reluctance to rejoice the first council.

Then at the time of the second council, there were large number of monks who were apperently arguing for a lax version of Vinaya.

After those monks were formally expelled by the elder monks, they had organized a seperate council called Mahasangiti under a different king in a different state. This is considered the origin of the root of Mahayana.

Later at the time of third council, the elder monks had managed to expell the heterodox monks, with the help of king Asoka. This is considered the origin of different sects of heterodox theravada.

Later those 18 school had defined the Dhamma as they believed it.

Generally the people who can't understand subtle kilesas that cheat their own mind in the for of Dhamma, can never be aggree with the Orthodox Theravada descipline and view.

The tradition of the Elders maintained the strict Vinaya and the Dhamma, without letting kilesa-driven monks to pollute it.

Even today, the monks or people who have lax or extreemist opinions on the morals and ascetic practices, can't agree with the elder monks' tradition.

[dharmavital]

I think maybe there are content that is not Buddha-vacana. We have over 2500 years of distance. Now, early buddhism is an academic field, with many scholars.

Maybe in early days, things were simpler.

[DNS]

The point is, when Early Buddhism became too complex? and why?

Do you mean the shift from early Buddhism - pre-sectarian period to the sectarian period? That is common in all religions. They all fragment due to clergy and members having different ideas, adding in new teachings, etc.

See this image and notice how every religion gets fragmented into many divisions:
https://000024.org/religions_tree/religions_tree_8.html

[Eko Care]

I think maybe there are content that is not Buddha-vacana. We have over 2500 years of distance. Now, early buddhism is an academic field, with many scholars.

Yes, it is an acceptable assumption, but no evidences.
I mean the evidences to prove something in Tipitaka as not in conformity with the original teaching.
The people with protestant bent, incline more towards this assumption.

Maybe in early days, things were simpler.

Yes, the verification of the authenticity might be simpler, as the earliest people could meet the Buddha or great disciples physically.

[dharmavital]

The point is, when Early Buddhism became too complex? and why?

Do you mean the shift from early Buddhism - pre-sectarian period to the sectarian period? That is common in all religions. They all fragment due to clergy and members having different ideas, adding in new teachings, etc.

See this image and notice how every religion gets fragmented into many divisions:
https://000024.org/religions_tree/religions_tree_8.html

It's awesome. Archaeology can help with this. We know the core teachings, too.

[dharmavital]

I think maybe there are content that is not Buddha-vacana. We have over 2500 years of distance. Now, early buddhism is an academic field, with many scholars.

Yes, it is an acceptable assumption, but no evidences.
I mean the evidences to prove something in Tipitaka as not in conformity with the original teaching.
The people with protestant bent, incline more towards this assumption.

Maybe in early days, things were simpler.

Yes, the verification of the authenticity might be simpler, as the earliest people could meet the Buddha or great disciples physically.

I think that teachings are authentic, at least in spirit. My question is about the amount of data you need to know to have an overall picture.

[cappuccino]

I can simplify …

[Eko Care]

I think that teachings are authentic, at least in spirit. My question is about the amount of data you need to know to have an overall picture.

Try learning the Fundamentals of Theravada from Visuddhimagga and Abhidhammatthasangaha.

Those are the classically recommended boats to enter into the Tipitaka ocean.

(Otherwise modern type of support can be taken from here or from another learned fundamental analyzer.)

[SarathW]

The Dharma-ending Age
Who is responsible for the decline of Buddhism?
A study of Buddhist prophecy based on early Pali sources
Copyright by Piya Tan ©2010, 2012
1 Introduction
1.1 The earliest Buddhist sources that predict the decline or disappearance of Buddhism are unanimous
in attributing this catastrophe to the failings of the Buddhists themselves. Jan Nattier, in her book, Once
Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (1991:120-132), summarizes the factors
singled out by the canonical sources into the following 7 categories:
(1) the admission of women into the monastic community;
(2) the lack of respect toward various elements of the Buddhist tradition;
(3) the lack of diligence in meditation practice;
(4) carelessness in the transmission of the teachings;
(5) the emergence of divisions within the sangha;
(6) the emergence of false or “counterfeit” Dharma; and
(7) excessive association with secular society.

https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharma ... e-piya.pdf

[thomaslaw]

According to Ven. YinShun, Early Buddhism in terms of EBTs may historically have two phases:
(1) Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism (i.e. based on the so-called ‘Connected Discourses’ 相應教, Saṃyukta-kathā) and
(2) Nikayas/Agamas Buddhism (i.e. mainly based on the principal four Nikayas/Agamas).
Cf.: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ea ... e/27829/42

[dharmavital]

According to Ven. YinShun, Early Buddhism in terms of EBTs may historically have two phases:
(1) Samyutta/Samyukta Buddhism (i.e. based on the so-called ‘Connected Discourses’ 相應教, Saṃyukta-kathā) and
(2) Nikayas/Agamas Buddhism (i.e. mainly based on the principal four Nikayas/Agamas).
Cf.: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ea ... e/27829/42

What about the Sutta Nipata? I've read that those suttas are very old.

[thomaslaw]

---
What about the Sutta Nipata? I've read that those suttas are very old.

Sutta Nipata is not part of the principal four Nikayas/Agamas. Certain texts of Sutta Nipata belong to anga 4. Gatha. See p. 10, note 34:

[Kamran]

I think another reason is that when it spread to central Asia and China, the monks encountered civilizations with very different ideas and philosophy than India.

Central asia had been trading extensively from Europe to China and already had embedded philosophies and ideas which were very different than those in India.

The monks/buddhism would have had to adapt to the new environment, I think.

[Pulsar]

thomaslaw wrote

Sutta Nipata is not part of the principal four Nikayas/Agamas. Certain texts of Sutta Nipata belong to anga 4. Gatha. See p. 10, note 34:

I am puzzled at the compilers who did not include Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga of Sutta Nipata within the principal teachings of the Buddha.
It is reported that during Buddha's lifetime, Buddha was impressed by a monk (Sona) who knew the Octads by heart. So these are not Gathas manufactured after Buddha's decease.
On the other hand, the principal four Nikayas contain suttas such as MN 111 and MN 10/DN 22 that were fabricated 200-300 years after Buddha's passing away. Go figure.
With love