[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines [Lusthaus I]

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Dan,

>>.  [snip] 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
Of course not -- I am not especially claiming any great originality.

> but I would caution against introducing the term Mahayana, much less
> Mahayanas, into the earlier strata.
Yes, I am also aware of the problems (though I am not so sure why you 
particularly caution against Mahayana) and I often brought that point up in 
my lecturing days.  My view is that some doctrines later brought to the fore 
or expanded by the different strands of Mahayana have a long history (as you 
know) and that a number of the so-called Hinayana schools played a even 
greater role than conventionally assumed in the process leading to overt 
Mahayanas.  Some people call this phase proto-Mahayana.  Thus, it may be 
argued that the earliest strata of the core MPNS is probably not even 
Mahayana in the conventional sense.  Also, as a whole, the MPNS mentions 
sravaka bodhisattvas and never uses the term Hinayana.

> The term "Mahayana" introduces a coloring into how one might read
> the earlier materials that may not be there (superimposition)
Yes, I try to be on my guard against this -- in fact, looking at the 
material avoiding this colouring as far as possible makes its study more 
rewarding in terms of textual archaeology.

> 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
This too I am aware though the evidence is fairly obvious.

> First, I don't think the earliest transmissions were restricted to 
> matrikas;
[snip]
As I said in one of my messages, I too do not suggest that matrkas were the 
only material in the early transmissions.  I can imagine quite a lot of 
quasi-commentorial material being handed done at the same time -- this, as 
you know. is how matrka type lists (like later karikas) work.  But I think 
that the matrkas were the main codified form of the doctrines

> 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.
No, but they were not leaving home just to or even to recite lists.  They 
were trying to gain liberation through practice rather than learning.  Given 
a charismatic teacher, a few lists would not have hurt.

> The early suttas fire up the intellect and the imagination
[snip]
You raise an interesting point her -- it depends how early is early.  You 
are probably right about the function of the suttas as inspiration, but 
perhaps that tells us something of their intended audiences.  I may be wrong 
but it seems to me that many of the people who uttered the Thera and Theri 
gathas wre not the sort of people who needed the kind of extended scriptural 
support you suggest.  The increasing quantity of suttas and other literature 
suggests to me a gradual shift from a practice-centred life to one 
concentrating on learning and preservation of the teachings -- an activity 
which you seem to acknowledge after your Zalman Schachter story.  I can 
imagine the suttas gradually increasing exponentially until the canon was 
closed.

> 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.
Which is all that would have been needed with charismatic teachers of high 
calibre.

> It's interesting that you point to Samyutta N, rather than Pali Abhidhamma
> works, [snip] to look for early signs of variations in doctrine between
> Buddhists, this is an important place to look.
No, I am pointing to the SA, re-ordered a la Yinshun  -- the SN does not 
preserve the matrka structure.  Many of the non-Theravadin abhidharma texts 
preserved in Chinese right up to the Abhidharma-samuccaya alsoseem to 
preserve what is probably the original matrka well, though it would be 
helpful to have had some more Mahasanghika works..


> 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.
Dan, you're coming around to my position ?

> 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. [snip] 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.
Yes, you raise some excellent points in this paragraph which I am entirely 
in agreement with.  The problem is what exactly were the core teachings ? 
Are all the core teachings really core teachings ? Vetter suggests that even 
the eightfold path was not part of the core teachings at first -- he 
believes, with good reasons, that the path consisted of just one item: 
samadhi, to which the other seven items were added a supportive strategies. 
Also, what was the precise meaning attributed by the Buddha to the core 
teachings -- e.g what did he really mean by the anatta doctrine ?

> 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)
This is quite feasible -- what, for example, might have happened with Purana 
and his 500 associates after they rejected the way the suttas were being 
transmitted ?

> The group you are indicating will have escaped
> Sarvastivadin agama and Abhidharma redaction as well?
Easily, if they were not active in the Sarvastivadin "homelands".

> They have affinities with Mahasanghikas (with vinaya-related hints?)?
The interesting thing here which I did not mention is that those who 
promulagated the proto-MPNS were probably convergent with the Mahasanghikas, 
coming in from the outside.  There are a few clues that they seem to have 
influenced the Mahasanghika vinaya.

> Kathaa vatthu (Points of Controversy in the PTS English).
Yes, your comments about the Kathaavatthu are well-taken.  I have been 
intending to revisit this fascinating text again as soon as I have time for 
the reasons you mention.

> At minimum, this indicates that there were significantly different
> interpretations around of the same core materials.
Indeed, that is partly my contention, though it depends how precisely one 
defines core materials.

> 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.
Well, as I mentioned, the MPNS is one text that does give some documentation 
of this -- it is unfortunate that I cannot publish the text itself in 
installments on Buddha-L.


Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge