[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines [Lusthaus II]

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Dan,

> Like Bruce, I'm surprised that you find the distilled Nikaya core -- if we
> can call it that -- too meager to justify 40+ years of a first rate 
> teacher.
No, I just making an initial observation to get the ball rolling.  Perhaps 
my explanation was a little muddled or unclear.  I basically agree with your 
evaluation of the Buddha's teachings career though I feel some of your 
assessment forms a circular argument.  My thinking is that the Buddha 
probably said less rather than more during his lifetime -- as you suggest 
elsewhere, his key teachings can be simply summarized.  What I suspect is 
that we have rather more in the Nikayas than we ought to -- though this is 
just a hunch partly formed from what we know of the development of the 
scriptures in other religions.  The teacher / prophet has a powerful and 
succinct message which can only be conveyed in a finite number of ways.  The 
teacher dies and then there is an initial phase of consolidating the 
teachings, with the help of the immediate discples who personally knew the 
teacher.  At some later stage, these core teachings become expanded.  This 
is exactly the kind of thing that is thought to have happened with 
Christianity and will probably be shown to have ocurred in the case of Islam 
if the Sana'a mss ever get published.

In the case of Buddhism, my view is that the Buddha's teachings were 
initially transmitted in the form of matrka-like formulas together with some 
other reminiscences like the so-called logia of Jesus and some narratives. 
Such would have been quite adequate to transmit the knowldge needed to 
follow the Buddha's prescribed path.  There is some work being done now on 
the formation of the Nikayas / Agamas which suggests that the only thing 
which was rehearsed at the First Council was something similar to the 
matrkas that form the back-bone of the Samyukta-aagama and a basic form of 
the Pratimoksa.  To what extent these were in the form of dialogues is 
unclear.

Next, I think that a expansion of the teachings into the form of dialogues 
(suttas) that used the matrka information in combination with some 
recollections of the actual dialogue style of the Buddha and incorporating 
his logia. I think most people will accept that the suttas are unlikely to 
report the exact words of the Buddha in most cases.  The work of Mark Allon 
(Style and Function 1997) illustrates how carefully crafted the suttas are 
as literary, albeit oral, works.  I am not suggesting that the Buddha did 
not have the ability to do this, but much of the data Allon reviews is 
specific to Pali.

I also assume that Buddha did not deliver his teachings in Pali but in one 
or several other Middle Indian dialects.  At what stage did the Nikayas 
composed in Pali emerge ?   Were there fullly fledged suttas available 
beforehand which were converted in to Pali or were there perhaps multiple 
sets of the Nikayas compiled in various dialects.  I know this happened 
later, but I am talking about the initial compilation.  Given that the 
presence of Magadhisms is recognized in some parts of the Nikayas, we can 
assume that there were some materials to work from -- but how extensive 
would these have been ?  If we can assume that the first major compilation 
or composition of the Nikayas took place in Pali, perhaps in several stages, 
could not one also envisage that this Pali-ization also acted as a kind of 
bottle-neck for what was and was not included in the Nikayas ?  In other 
words, I think it would not be unreasonable that some form of redactional 
process took place simultaneously with the conversion or composition of 
suttas in Pali.  This redactional process need not have been malicious, but 
it would not be surprising if this was coloured by the inclinations of the 
authors.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge