Identification
of the Early Buddhism
by Prof. Oliver Obeynayaka
in BPU, Colombo, Sri Lanka 2012
2012/03/04 The identification of Early Buddhism
is a matter that has been discussed by the Buddhists scholars for a long
period. There is no consensus of opinion that arises so far. The opinion of the
Theravada Buddhist countries from Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, and
Laos, each that the Pali Tipitakas represents the early Buddhism. It is used to
be noted that there are four Tipitaka the are available in the world at the
present more. They are:
(1)
Pali tipitaka,
(2)
Chinese tipitaka
(3)
Tibetan Tipitaka
(4)
Mongolian tipitaka
the question that would
arrive is how the Pali tipitaka is to be sonsidered as the sources of early
Buddhism when there are three more tipitakas available. This question can be
answered in the following way. There are canonical sections which prove/………..
hypothesis. One of them is the Aranavibhanga sutta of the M.N. This particular
sutta show s the way to create a complete free society. The attitude of the
people whose language is one of the factors discuss in relation to this in the
Aranavibhanga sutta.
The Buddha advised us
to avoid two extremes regarding the use of language. They are adherence to a
particular language and the transgression of conventional use. To explain these
two extremes, the Budhha had pointed out seven terms which indicate the bowl in
seven stages of Gangetic Vally in the 6th century BC in Gangetic
Vally. What is highlighted in this sutta is that all seven terms indicate the
same bowl. One word is not one term is not either inferior or superior to
another. Similarly, one term is not more sacred than another. The language has
only an in instrumental value. The Aranavibhanga sutta highlights three points;
1.
The Buddha at least know seven languages
among the languages the existed in Gangetic Vally
2.
Since the term Patta is given among the
seven terms in the Aranavibhnaga sutta, the Buddha would have used the language
which we now call as Pali in preaching the Dhamma
3.
Even though the sutta mentions only
seven terms from the state language (janapada nirutti), the Buddha would have
known various other languages. Therefore he used at the medium of instruction
the language that suited the place and the audience in discussion the doctrinal
point.
As
we know most of the monk during the time of the Buddha were from the Brahmins caste.
The language of the Brahmin wasn’t/ possess rthe second instance to which we
draw our attention point to the fact that Sanskrit was also not forgotten by
the Buddha as a language to which the Dhamma can be transmitted. This is
recorded in the Khuddhakavatthu Khandaka of the Culla vagga Pali. As reported, there
were two Brahmin monks requested the Buddha to study and remember the word of
the Buddha through the words of medium of Sanskrit. The word was used by two
monks is Chandasa. The Buddha turned down this request. If anyone studies and
remembers the word of the Buddha through the words medium of Sanskrit, the
Buddha declared as an office. It is instruction to the monks to study and
remember the word of the Buddha through their own languages. This is the
rational conclusion we can arrive at by reading the anecdote given in
Khuddhakavatthu Khandaka. The conclusion of this story can be summarized as
follows;
1.
The Buddha did not use only one language
for preaching his Dhamma
2.
The monks as well as the people will
allow (will be allowed) to study and remember the Dhamma in the language which
is very familiar to them
3.
Accordingly the Brahmin monks perhaps
studied the Dhamma in Sanskrit
4.
Perpetuating the Dhamma in a selected
single language was not permitted it was considered as an offence that can be
committed by a monk.
Therefore it is
reasonable to believe that the teachings of the Buddha were maintained by
various languages during the life time of the Buddha himself. This phenomenon
is substantiated by the archaeological evidence. As we know various sections of
manuscripts written in various forms of Prakrit among the literary pieces found
in this excavation. The section of Prakrit Triipitaka had been discovered from
various places in India. According to the literary sources Buddhism split into
18 schools before introduced to Sri Lanka. Each of school had Tripitaka. But
most of which have now disappeared. This multilingual approach was maintaining
the word of the Buddha, was introduced by the Buddha himself. In such as
background the question that would be arrived is how the Pali Tripitaka can be
considered as the most authoritative source of early Buddhism.
2012/03/11
Even
though the Pali Tripitaka is the most reliatble source of early Buddhism, our
attention should also be paid to the other sention of Tripitaka available in
Sanskrit, Prakrit, Chinese, Tibetan and Mongolian languages. A comparative
study of all these Tripitakas would shade more light on understanding what
early Buddhism is. The similarity among these Tripitakas whould tell us to
identify the early sources of all these Tripitakas. The evidence has revealed
that the Vinaya and Sutta in these Tripitakas correspond to one in other to a
greater extent. However, there are differences regarding the Abhidhamma. The
critics(……) are of the opinion that the discourses are more important than the
Vinaya and Abhidhamma in recognizing the early teaching of Buddhism.
The
importance of a comparative study of available version of the Tripitaka is
substantiated from the following example. The first two lines of the Pali
Dhammapada run as Manopubbangama dhamma, Mannosettha manomaya. The Prakrit,
Sanskrit and most of the Chinese version of the Dhammapada replace the word
manamya with the word Manojave with the word Manojava. Therefore the question
that would arrive is whether the term Manomaya in the Pali Dhammapada represent
the earliest form of the first stanza of the Dhammapada. In this regard the
Petakopadesa is of wider important.
The
Petakopadesa is considered as one of the canonical text in Myanmar. (there are 19 texts of K.N. They add four
more texts to the text accepted in Sri Lanka. Those are Petakopadesa,
Milindapannya, Nettipkarana and Suttasangaha.) The authorship of the
Petakopadesa is attributed to the Ven. Mahakaccayana who lived during the
Buddha’s time in India. The petakopadesa cite quite often from the other
canonical text. One of these citations of the Petakoppadesa is the first stanza
of the Dhammapada. There are the last term of the second line of the Dhammapad
is given as Manojava, not as Manomaya.
It
shows that the Dhammapada which is reforred to in the Petakopadesa carried the
last word of the second line of the Dhammapada. It was not Manomaya, but
Manojava. Therefore the other versions of the Dhammapada shade more light on
understanding the fist stanza of the Dhammapada than the Pali version. In most
of these versions to the Dhammapada, vaharopadam is also understood differently
according to the Pali tradition what it means is that the bulls follow the
wheels of the cart. There is no word in the first stanza to indicate a bull.
Vahato is the cart. Accordingly what is the first stanza of the Dhammapada
means that the result of the sinful acts would follow the actors as the wheels
of the cart follow the cart. This small example would show us that early
Buddhism can be raised only when we compare the Pali Tripitaka with other
version of the Tripitaka available in multiple languages. The opinion of the
country like Sri Lanka is that Mahayana is a heretical sect. It has nothing to
do with early Buddhism. However the importance of Mahayana hould not be ignored
in search of early Buddhism.
The
objective of both Theravada and Mahayana is the realization of Nibbana. The
teachings of four noble truths dependent origination, three characteristics of
existence,……… the path leading to the realization of the four noble truths, are
common to both Theravada and Mahayana. The moral teaching relevant to the laity
(lay people) are commonly accepted by Theravada and Mahayana. The historical
significance of the Buddha Gotama is also accepted by Buddhist schools.
Therefore it is unjustifiable to reject Mahayana in understanding the early
teachings of Buddhism. It is to be noted also that the teaching which are
fundamental to Mahayana had their early counterpat in the Pali Tripitaka. One
of the popular teachings of Mahayana is that is Buddhology. As we know the view
of many previous and future Buddha is found in the Pali Tripitaka.
What
Mahayana did was that is increases the number of Buddha and elevated the
Buddha-hood to a bigger position. Therefore it is logical to accept that
Mahayana learnt the concept of numerous of Buddhas from the Pali Tripitakas. In
other which is considered peculiar to Mahayana is that the concept of
perfections (paramita). The perfections are not refered to any of the discourse
in the Pali text. Therefore it is generally believe that early Buddhism learnt
the concept of perfections from Mahayana. However, two texts of the Pali canon
speak of perfection (paramita). They are the Buddhavamsa and cariyapitaka of
the K.N. There is no doubt that these two were incorporated in the Pali Canon,
when it was brought to Sri lanka by the Arhant Mahida in the third century
B.C.E. All the Mahayana discourses that have so far been discovered belong to a
latest period. It is generally considered that proper Mahayana emerge during
the beginning of the Christian era. Therefore the teachings of the perfection
was known in the Pali Tripitaka before Mahayana came into existence. What
Mahayana did was that it restored a more prominent place to the teaching of
perfection, as fulfillment to be completed in the ten states (Dasabhumi) of the
journey of a Bodhisatva.
In
other teaching of great significance in Mahayana is Trikaya (three bodies of
the Buddha) The Pæli
text speaks that the Buddha was an extraordinary person who had two bodies as
physical body (Rupakæra)
and doctrinal body (Dharmakæya).
Doctrinal body is referred to in the Brahamajala sutta of D.N and in the Apadæna of K.N. The Rþpakæya is referred to so
many discourses in the story of Mahapajapait Gotami of therø-apadana. It is said
that the Buddha nourished the dharmakaya of the Mahæpajapait Gotamø while Mahapajapati
Gotami nourished the physical body of Buddha. Therefore the Trikaya teaching of
Tripititka in Mahayana is also a development of a teaching that is referred occasionally
in the Pali text. The foregoing what is said about would reveal that in a diary
of early Buddhism. Mahæyæna also place a role
which is minimal to understand what early Buddhism is.
2012/04/18
It is generally
accepted that the term Therevada and Vibhajjavada represent early Buddhism. The
term Theravada is used in the sources to indicate three meanings. They are;
1.
Something which is certain
2.
The opinion of the eldest
3.
The fundamental teachings of Buddhism.
The
first meaning is found in the term Theravada in the story of hermit Alara-kalara
and Udaka found in the Ariyapariyesana of M.N. Hermit Siddhartha met Alara-kalama
and learnt the third immaterial attainment. He was not satisfied with what he
had leant from Alara-kalama and then went to Udaka. Hermit Siddhartha learnt
the fourth immaterial attainment. He was not satisfied with what he had learnt
from Udaka also and left in searching of someone who could show him the path
leading to the cessation of suffering. In this context the Ariyapariyesana
sutta mentions the term Thereavada in the sentence “Tavatakeneva otthapahatamattena
lapitalapamattena theravadañca
vadami ñanavadanca janami
passami.” The papancasudani, (commentary of M.N) defines the term Theravada as
Thirabhada which means that the hermit Siddhartha obtained knowledge of what Alæra kalæma and Udaka taught to
the extent of certainty. The second meaning of the term Theravada is found in
the Samantapasadika, the commentary of the Vinaya. The Ven. Buddhaghosa gives
us four sources of Vinaya. They are
1.
Sutta
2.
Sutta nuloma
3.
acariyavada, and
4.
Attanomati.
The
first onne is the canonical teaching. The second is the sources of Dhamma
indicated in the teaching of Mahæpadesa. The third one is the interpretation
offered by the 500 Arhants who participated in the fourth council. That is
called Acariyavada. The fourth one is the opinion held by the eldest who lived
from time to time. These opinions are their own views. The commentator
explained here that this personal view of the eldest can also be termed as
Theravada. The Samantapasadika informs us that the fourth one which is
indentified as Theravada also is the weakest sources of Vinaya. The third
meaning of the term Theravada is found in the Pali commentary, sub-commentary
and chronicles. Two more terms are also identified as equivalent to the
Theravada as Therakatha and Therikatha in these sources. These three terms
according to these sources mean the fundamental teachings of the Buddha.
The
samantapæsædika tells us that the
Arhant Mahinda who introduced
Buddhism to Sri Lanka learnt the commentaries and the Theravada from the Arhant
Moggaliputta tissa. The wards given in this context are “Sarakatam sabbam
theravadam”. Commenting on this the Vimati-Vinodanai, a Vinaya sub-commentary
says that Sarakatam means the commentarial tradition and the Theravada means
the fundamental teaching of Buddhism. These three terms came to be used as a
result of the second Buddhist council was convened according to the Pali
sources due to the ten disciplinary points raised by the vajjøputtaka monks.
According to the Tibetan sources the second Buddist council was convened to
discuss the five points that the Ven. Mahadeva with regarding the quality of
the Arhant. However it is legitimate to think that there was a conflict between
the young and the old monks after 100 years from the Buddha’s Prinibbana.
The
young monks left the orthodox tradition and established their own schools which
came to be known as Mahæsangghika.
The old monks summoned the second Buddhist council and rejected the ideology
that went against the orthodox tradition. It is said that the leaders of second
Buddhist council established the tradition that was put forward by the leaders
of the firs council. Accordingly the Arahant Sabbakami, Yasa, Revata followed the
footstep of the Arahant Mahækassapa,
Ananda and Upæli.
The same tradition was later safeguarded by the Arahant Moggaliputta tissa in
the third Buddhist council. These were the Arahants who upheld/…… the teaching
of th eBuddha from times to time. They were known as those who spearheaded the
Theravada. Accordingly it is accepted that the term Theravada is historically
related to early Buddhism.
There
are those who believe that Theravada is only one of the Buddhist schools that
came into existence in India before Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lank. Accordingly
it has nothing to do with early Buddhism. This conclusion is not justifiable as
we know the Mahæsanghika
school gave right to various other schools. But identify of Mahæsanghika was never lost
with various subdivision Mahæsanghika
school did not disappear. In the same way, even though various other schools
branched off from the orthodox tradition, its identity was never lost with the
school like Mahiccasaka, Savasativada, Kassapiya and others. The orthodox of
schools maintain the ownership of the fundamental teachings that the Buddha
preached. Therefore Theravada should be considered as the closest school to
early Buddhism.
The
second term it is identified with early Buddhism is Vibhajjavada these term is
found in school context of the Pali Tripitaka. The first is the Catukkanipata
of the A.N. There are the Buddha
said that there are four categories of questions. They are;
1. Ekamsa
vyækaranøya (a question to be answered
categorically)
2. Patipucchæ vyakaranøya (a question to be answered by asking a
founder question)
3. Vibhajja
vyækaranøya (a question to be answered analytically)
4. Thapaniya (a question to be set
aside)
These
four categories are not given in a heretical order. Therefore all four
categories are equal what is emphasized is that a question to be answered
categorically should not be answered by asking a counter-question, analytical
question or by setting it aside. The answer should be given according to the
nature of the question. What the Buddha followed was to understand the nature
of the question and answer it accordingly. Therefore the Buddha is Ekamsa-vadø,
Patipuccha-vadø
and thapaniya-vadø to the extent
that he was Vibhajjavadi.
The
second context where the term Vibhajjavada is mentioned is found in the Subha Sutta of the M.N. The young Subha asked the following two questions
from the Buddha.
(1) Is the members
of the laity, not the members of the clergy who are more fruit toward grand,
maize. What do you think about it?
(2) The
activities of laity, not the activities of the clergy which would bring more
result, what do you think about it?
Answering
these two questions the Buddha said: Vibhajjavado
kho aham ettha, manava, naham ettha ekamsavado. What the Buddha emphasized
here is it does not give a categorical answer to the two questions that Subha
asked. But he gave an analytical answer. The term ‘Ettha’ (here, in this
context,) in the Buddha’s answer is very important because it indicates that
the Buddha maintained an analytical approach only in relation to the two
questions that Subha asked. What it means is that he would maintain that categorical
approach on suitable occasion. Therefore the conclusion that can be arrived at
is that the term Vibhajjavada does not carry any unit meaning either in
relation to the Buddha or to his teaching. Then the question that would arrive is
out the term Vibhajjavada which is so benefit in the Theravad Buddhist
countries. To answer this question we should turn to the third Buddhist
council found in the Samantapasadika, commentary on the Kathavatthu and
Mahavamsa.
2012/03/25
What
is to be remembered here is that these Pali sources of the third Buddhist
council do not reveal the exact historical background under which the third
Buddhist council was convened. According to the Sanskrit and Chinese sources,
there was a philosophical debate in the third century B.C regarding the
existence of the individual. This debate originated due to the fact that the
Abhidhamma negated the existence of the individual going against the position
of early Buddhism. This gave rise to various Buddhist schools like,
Vijjiputtariya, Savasativada and Kassapiya. In this background the monks of the
orthodox school were compared to reveal their position in this regard. The
third Buddhist council was convened to take a decision on this matter. There are
not only the Theravadin but also the various other schools took the position
that Buddhism gives an analytical answer to the question that adds addition.
Buddhism becomes a Vibhajjavada only on this account. Therefore the term
Vibhajjavada should not be taken as a term which points out the true nature
either of the Buddha or his teachings.
……....The End………..