[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines

[Bruce Burrill]

Stephen,

 > This seems a lot until > we consider that this represents only
 > 45 - 90 discourses > per annun for a teaching career lasting
 > around 45 years. In fact, about one a week or less. This suggests
 > several possible scenarios. One is that the Buddha did not have
 > much to say for himself most of the time - after all, he was a "muni"
 > (a sage characterized by maunya / silence). Another is that he said
 > things that have seemingly not been recorded for some reason. Other
 > possible scenarios come to mind as I am sure will be quick to suggest.

Interesting, but considering that this material was being preserved and 
transmitted orally, that is in fact quite a bit, and also considering the 
sophistication of thought that some of these discourses contain, quantity 
(or lack thereof) is not a very compelling argument, nor is it even 
strongly suggestive.

 > My hunch, shared by others, is that the corpus of dialogues attributed
 > to him were a artefact consciously created by a few groups within the early
 > Buddhist movement.

Before or after the death of the Buddha? As far as hunches go, I opt for 
Gombrich's: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main 
edifice [of the Pali Texts] is not the work of one genius." It is no less 
reasonable to push this material back towards the Buddha who, if we are to 
believe the texts, was concerned about the preservation of his teachings.

 > Though as a record of a teacher's lifetime of discourses, the Nikayas are
 > rather sparse, they are however perhaps at the upper limit of what can
 > be usefully remembered, studied and transmitted.

Sparse? Again, that is a value judgment.

 > This is an important point - the process of remembrance and transmission.
 > To remember and transmit the Nikayas presupposes a considerable degree 
of > institutional organization which I suspect would not have existed with
 > the early Buddhist movement for several generations - I believe
 > the archaeological record confirms this.

First of all there is no reason not assume that there wasn't a body of 
teachings already in place at the time of the Buddha death that was being 
carefully transmitted by the monastic Sangha

Recent scholarship has pushed the death of the Buddha from 100 to 150 years 
from the rise of the Ashoka, and there seems to be evidence to suggest an 
established (though not complete) "Canon" by the time of Ashoka.

 > Given the need for a centre or centres with institutional organization,
 > we must assume that some or even just one of the viharas with their
 > population of sedentary monks to be the initial focal point for this
 > compilation activity. It has been noted that main concern of these
 > sedentary monks would have been twofold: maintenance of the vinaya
 > and maintenance of the scriptural tradition through memorization.

And let us not forget that all monks were sedentary during the Rains. 
Again, there is nothing here to suggest that oral texts were not 
extensively used during the Buddha's lifetime. Once the Sangha got too 
large for him to effectively interact with all his followers, it is not 
unreasonable for there to be some way of preserving the teachings for those 
who were at a distance from the Buddha, as well as preserving the teachings 
in anticipation of the Buddha's eventual demise. The texts point to that.

 > These two things, especially the latter, would probably have taken
 > up most of their time, leaving little time for meaningful pursuit of
 > other Buddhist aims.

Memorization would have taken up a lot of time, though it is to stretch it 
a bit to say "most of their time," but then that is what the Sangha was 
for. Some Tibetan monks, Geshe students as an example memorize volumes of 
stuff that far exceeds, for example, the Majjhima Nikaya in length, but 
that is only part what they would do during their days of study, ritual, 
and practice.

 > Now as for the range of doctrines and discourses contained in the
 > Nikayas, I believe it would be reasonable to assume that the resident
 > monks would have tended to select or compile suttas that conformed to and
 > justified their life-style.

Maybe, but we also have very clear examples of the Pali Canon containing 
teachings that are not in keeping with Theravada doctrine, so how much of 
that sort of editing went on is open to question.

 > 1. Nirvana was not simply a "blowing-out" or cessation, but was
 > the attainment of immortality and of a deathless sphere. This nirvana,
 > as a supramundane state, is also incarnated within the person of the 
Buddha,
 > making him who he was.

Well, I'd have to look at the context for this, but other more recent 
studies suggest something a bit different.

 > 2. The Buddha was considered to be a being in whom ultimate reality
 > was embodied as an incarnation of a tathagata, a terrestrial
 > manifestation of the Dharma.

And the nature of this ultimate reality? And do we take this literally or 
figuratively? And let us not forget that the word tathagata was frequently 
used for the arahant.

 > 3. The idea of anaatman was much more limited in application. It was
 > held that there was also a self / vij~naana that is the permanent core
 > of an individual and is an element (dhaatu) absolute in nature,
 > immersed into the contingent. Nirvana is possible because it is
 > already indwelling as the innermost core of a being.

I'd love to see the textual support for the last sentence. Actually, I'd 
love to see the support for all of this. Dhaatu is a very interesting word 
that gets used in combination with a wide variety of words, that certainly 
do not suggest thingness in any sort of absolute manner.

 > Thus, what Schayer has shown is that there was a second doctrinal
 > position current in early Buddhism prior to the canonical period, as
 > old as, *if not older*, than the so-called orthodox Buddhism of the
 > Nikayas and Agamas.

Maybe, but this sort of argument looks familiar and has never been terribly 
convincing in its various guises that I have seen before.

 > Of course, the dual nature of earliest Buddhism has long been recognized,

Yes; Gombrich talks about it in his HOW BUDDHISM BEGAN, but it does not 
look quite like Schayer's version.

 > The next matter I would like to consider is this : did these 
supposedly > "anomalous" doctrines cease to have any existence except as
 > fragmentary fossils in the Nikayas or were they sustained by any groups ?

That is assuming one can make a reasonable case for a Schayer version of 
the Dhamma.

 > One of the repeated claims of the MPNS is that the Buddhism of its
 > day is a distorted, misunderstood version of the Buddha's true teachings.

Sounds like Dark Zen.

 > Now, it might be interesting if we were to take Mahayana claims
 > about its origins seriously, if not always literally.

There is no compelling reason why we need to take the Mahayana (which 
Mahayana?) claims seriously at the expense of the traditional claims of the 
"orthodox" schools. Maybe we should not take either set of claims seriously.

 >  A key feature of these claims is that there were two groups taught
 > by the Buddha, the sravakas and the bodhisattvas. According to many 
Mahayana > sutras, the sravakas had lesser ability in understanding, often 
took things > literally and often missed the point entirely.

Which is, or course, a self-serving claim that does not hold up well when 
you consider the radical and difficult position of the early Buddhism of 
the Pali texts and the capitulation to religious sentimentality of the 
Mahayana after the Ugra.

No doubt that the forest dwellers living in the peripheries of the Buddhist 
world gave us what we now call the Mahayana, but I would say that the 
emphasis on the person of the Buddha after the Buddha's death, giving us 
"biographies"/hagiographies and various hows and wherefores of the Buddha 
(the Buddhavamsa, the Cariyaapi.taka, the Bodhisattvapi.taka, the 
Lalitavistara, the Apanadanas and the like) lionizing/valorizing the Buddha 
far beyond the picture we get of him in the earliest texts is the real 
basis of the Mahayana.

Given all that, what I'd be interested in is taking a look at Schayer's 
third point (or any of them) in detail and seeing if they hold up to a 
careful look.

Bruce