[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines [Lusthaus I]

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Stephan,

>.  However, I do think that there is a greater
> continuity with what went before than some people recognize.  I would not,
> therefore, immediately assume that the bulk of Mahayana is innovative in
> content.  The materials are somewhat sparse in some respects, but I think
> that the various Mahayanas were part of an on-going religious and
> philosophical "dialogue" within the Buddhist movement.

This is not a new idea, but I would caution against introducing the term
Mahayana, much less Mahayanas, into the earlier strata. The term "Mahayana"
introduces a coloring into how one might read the earlier materials that may
not be there (superimposition), comparable to understanding Indian Buddhism
through Tibetan prisms, or Chinese and Indian Buddhism through Japanese
prisms. That can give the illusion of continuities where there are none, a
problem many Indian Buddhists warn about in many contexts.

You suggest that the earliest codification of the teachings was in the form
of matrikas (similar to the Samyutta N lists). That, too, is not a new idea,
and has a certain attraction: Matrikas would be effective mneumotics, they
accord with the proliferation of numbered lists rampant throughout Buddhist
literature, matrika is even a clearly defined genre of Buddhist literature
claimed by tradition to go back to the earliest strata, etc. The tendency
toward enumeration was a feature of Indian thinking especially in certain
periods (e.g., the Samkhyans take that tendency as their name, the
"Enumerators"). So no one would deny matrikas are in the air. The questions
remains: What was their content? Were there competing sets of matrikas, even
incommensurate sets, and if so, what were their origins, who promoted which,
etc.?

First, I don't think the earliest transmissions were restricted to matrikas;
matrikas were part of the picture, but longer narratives, expository
unpacking of matrikas (the purpose of memorizing the lists in the first
place), vivid analogies, discourses on ideas and terms of contemporary
parlance and significance (e.g., karma, asavas, etc.) were an important,
perhaps even more important part. It would be hard to imagine that people
would give up family, sex, a comfortable home, dinner, etc., just to sit in
a bug and tiger infested forest (or village outskirts), to memorize and
recite lists. Had Buddhism been that, we would never had heard of Buddhism,
and there would probably be no record of any such group known as Buddhists.
The early suttas fire up the intellect and the imagination (even today!).
They address intellectual, emotion, existential, etc., problems and provide
methods of analysis and treatment. Buddha's approach is sufficiently
different in many aspects from what we know of contemporary traditions (his
challenging of authority on epistemological grounds, etc.), that we can
discern something distinctive in those teachings. Matrikas were, at most,
condensed, organized chunks of doctrine meant to be reconstituted and
brought to life via oral commentary (which would accompany their study) and
personal reflection. Oral tradition (especially in an oral tradition) can be
remarkably consistent over time. Cf., e.g.,  the Mishna and Gemara  in
Judaism, which were centuries old traditions, with a sense of their own
history and internal debates even before being committed to writing as the
Talmud.

It's interesting that you point to Samyutta N, rather than Pali Abhidhamma
works, as matrika prototypes, since, as you are undoubtedly aware, although
the Abhidhamma lists are ostensibly supposed to be attempts to systematize
the teachings less systematically scattered throughout the Nikayas, the
Abhidhamma lists and organization of ideas differ at times from the Nikaya
lists. This is very significant, since if we are trying to look for early
signs of variations in doctrine between Buddhists, this is an important
place to look.

Since if alternate canons were being compiled (orally or in writing) by
different Buddhist groups in the early centuries of Buddhism, they are no
longer extant for comparative studies (aside from occasional indications of
earlier versions of passages perhaps preserved in Sanskrit agamas -- which
are not extant in toto in their original form, but somewhat more extensively
preserved in [sometimes bad] Chinese translations), our main, even sole
source for the early centuries, is the Theravadin literature, with all the
attendant philological, redactive, etc., problems they pose. That's why,
especially when engaged in speculations about what might be possible instead
of attending to strictly scrutinized and analyzed evidence, we all tend to
argue in circles. Lacking those possibly alternate canons (I'll return to
this in a second), any sign of fracture in the Pali materials themselves
become our major clues. The disparity between Nikaya and Abhidhamma matrikas
is one important arena. Since the Abhidhamma versions are often more
organized, more polished for neatness and consistency, it is natural to
assume that they came later, reworking the more unruly material. However, we
probably should also approach this on a case by case basis, since that might
not always be the case.

This brings us to

> I am suggesting that we at least consider
> the possibility that different groups in early Buddhism had differing
> preferences and interpretations with regards the core teachings assembled
in
> the immediate aftermath of the Buddha's life.

Since, as I explained previously, I see schisms and different groups forming
under different teachers in different parts of India even during Buddha's
lifetime, I not only consider this a possibility, I take it as a fact. What
we don't know clearly, however, is precisely the nature of their
disagreements. How differently did Sariputta explain things than Moggallana?
If, as some indications suggest, the two of them brought the four-cornered
negation method -- used by Buddha in the Brahmajala sutta, etc. -- from
Sanjaya, would teachings deriving from those reflect Sariputtrian Buddhism,
or Moggallanic Buddhism? Did Buddha himself adopt that from them and devise
his own applications of it? Who else brought stuff that the Buddha adopted?
Or added his or her own twist or elements to the groups they themselves
taught? Who adapted their understanding of Buddha's teachings to better
teach certain groups with certain concerns, assumptions, ways of thinking.
and how did those compromised modifications affect the core teachings
elsewhere when the different Buddhist groups got together? Intriguing
speculations can germinate from such questions. But these are speculative.

 >It does not seem to me
> entirely unreasonable to suspect that at least one type of group did
> maintain a variant understanding of the core teachings that escaped the
> abhidharmization process which which centred in the monasteries.

Again, the evidence suggests that the abhidhammic homogenization of doctrine
occurred at least in part independent of the redaction of the Nikayas. So
your claim would have to be that there was a group or groups who "escaped"
the combined redactive efforts that resulted in (i) Pali Nikayas, (ii) Pali
Abhidhamma, and (iii) Pali Vinaya (a separate set of redactive issues I
haven't mentioned). The froup you are indicating will have escaped
Sarvastivadin agama and Abhidharma redaction as well? They have affinities
with Mahasanghikas (with vinaya-related hints?)?

Just as we can detect variance between Nikaya and Abhidhamma, there is one
more major extant source of important evidence for the variances between
different early group, and important text that remains insufficiently
studied: Kathaa vatthu (Points of Controversy in the PTS English).

Kathaa vatthu is a remarkable text, and the earliest indication (if we
accept it does reflect in some manner the so-called third council during
Asoka's time, whenever it was finally redacted, and with whatever
supplementary layers) of proto-mahayanic positions being contended in early
Buddhist times. Clear and well-formed positions on a wild range of issues
get debated. We unfortunately cannot be who these groups really were (they
are identified in the commentary, but that came much later), not know much
about these groups aside from what evidence they provide for us in the text.
One of the interesting facts is that, while the groups disagree
fundamentally on many issues, major and minor, there are very few instances
where the Theravadins' opponents appeal to proof texts at odds with the
Theravadin canon (which would itself not have been written at that point).
We can speculate in a variety of ways to diminish the importance of that -- 
they had alternate canons, but refrained from appeals to it for debate
etiquette; the Theravadins redacted out disturbing deviations; etc. -- but
the fact remains that these opponents were able to mount and defend
(sometimes successfully, according to the Kathaa vatthu -- the Theravadins
don't always have themselves win!) these radically different positions
drawing on the same canonical sources as the Theravadins. At minimum, this
indicates that there were significantly different interpretations around of
the same core materials.

 > these non-monastic / non-lay individuals as one
> possibility.  It would be a useful task to see if there are any other
traces
> of these people and the origins in other early Mahayana texts, not that we
> know what we are looking for.

Documentation and corroboration would certainly help.

 > If the MPNS is anything to go by, these
> people had carried on basically independently from the monasteries but for
> some unexplained reason later moved into the monasteries some time between
> 100 - 200CE.and began promoting their doctrines and reforms.

Given the clannish and tribal nature of Indian society, even in parts of
India today, this is reasonable, and even probable. Documentation would be
nice.

 Dan Lusthaus