Authentic sayings

 

“The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts” by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali is a text available free on the web in PDF format. It´s undated, but seems to have been published in 2013. The two authors are probably supporters of the Buddhist Association of Western Australia, a Theravada group with a mostly White membership. The association in turn is inspired by the “forest tradition” in Thailand, of which I know very little (but I suspect they may be vaguely heterodox). The point of the text is to prove that important portions of the Pali Canon can be traced back to the Buddha himself or his immediate disciples. The question is important, since the earliest preserved manuscripts of Buddhist scriptures have been dated to perhaps 500 years after the Buddha´s death (give or take a few centuries). Even the Buddhists themselves admit that the Buddha´s message must have been transmitted by oral recitation for at least a few centuries. Modern scholars can therefore ask: how do we *know* that the material was transmitted without changes until it was written down hundreds of years later? Indeed, how do we know the scriptures weren´t tampered with, too? Add to this that Buddhists can´t even agree among themselves on when the Buddha lived…

The Pali Canon (a.k.a. the Tripitaka or Tipitaka) is divided into three sections: Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka. Sujato and Brahmali argues that there is a good scholarly case for most of the Sutta Pitaka being spoken by the Buddha or his closest associates. Most of the Vinaya Pitaka and all of the Abhidhamma, by contrast, is later. So are Buddha biographies, historical chronicles and the Mahayana sutras. The jataka tales are somewhat anomalous, for while some of them might even predate the Buddha, their Buddhist forms are late. The authors refer to the texts containing the spoken message of the Buddha as “Early Buddhist Texts” or EBTs. All others are non-EBTs. The theological implications of the EBT/non-EBT distinction are never spelled out in the essay, but I assume there must be one. Note that the distinction privileges one “basket” of the Pali Canon (the Suttas or discourses) from the two other “baskets” (the monastic code and the theological treatises). Note also that the Buddha´s biography and the jataka tales about the Buddha´s previous lives aren´t part of the EBTs in this scenario. Are they less reliable, non-canonical, or what? I suppose a deep dive into the worldview of the Buddhist Association of Western Australia might be in order here.

That being said, I admit that the essay is relatively well written and sounds convincing enough. For instance, the authors point out that the EBTs describe a political situation that must predate the Magadha kingdom of the Nanda dynasty (which unified the middle Ganges plain) and the even later Mauryan empire (which united most of India). There are 16 smaller warring states, and most of the world outside their territories is poorly known or unknown. Magadha is depicted as fairly important and expansionist, but the united kingdom is still in the future. The royal and imperial capital of Pataliputra is described as an obscure village. Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka are never mentioned in the EBTs, despite being extremely important figures in Indian history, the latter also in Buddhist ditto. This would have been impossible had the material in the EBTs been changed during their respective reigns.

Another clue is the language used. The authors believe that the Pali Canon was first committed to writing in Sri Lanka. Yet, the EBTs contain no legends about the Buddha visiting the island (an important part of Singhalese self-identity), nor is the Pali used in the texts influenced by Singhalese or the Dravidian languages. Other Pali texts composed in Sri Lanka apparently are so influenced, suggesting that the “purist” Pali of the oral tradition must be older. The fact that the EBTs never reference non-EBTs, while the opposite happens frequently, also suggests that the EBT material is older. The authors also use the “criterion of embarrassment”. The EBTs depict the Buddha and his monks as very human, even including some foibles, while later generations rather elevated them to a more superhuman/supernatural status. That the “human” stories weren´t revised to suit later understandings suggest that they must be early (it also implies a very exact and conservative mode of oral transmission). A more piquant difference between EBTs and non-EBTs is that the former never mention the art of writing! They must therefore have their origins in an oral culture.

Archeological evidence is harder to use, since there is relatively little of it from the Buddha´s own time. Most of the early evidence for Buddhism comes from the time of Ashoka, several centuries after the Buddha. Still, it does seem to confirm that the material in both the EBTs and some of the non-EBTs must have existed during that time. To take just one example, the EBTs mention five earlier Buddhas who supposedly appeared before Prince Siddharta Gautama. Non-EBTs expand on their number. An inscription from a stupa from the Mauryan period only mentions the legendary Buddhas from the EBTs. Sometimes the authors are a bit overenthusiastic. I mean, how do they know for sure that the relics discovered at Piprahwa in northern India (one of two sites identified with the ancient Kapilavastu) really are from the historical Buddha? Just because some inscription says so? Dude!

The essay ends with some chastising words to those scholars who are skeptical about all or most of the above, whom the authors dub “denialists”. They somewhat uncharitably compare them to climate change deniers and creationists. The authors also believe that these scholars are experts on later Buddhism (including Mahayana and Vajrayana), rather than on the earlier material. Since later Buddhism is obviously based on well-crafted myths, these scholars presumably tend towards skepticism about the “EBTs”, as well. Not sure if the denialists ever bothered responding to the dear monks…

With that, I end this review.