Talk:Pre-sectarian Buddhism

The Concept of Presectarian Buddhism.

As far as I can tell there is absolutely no evidence for a presectarian Buddhism. All the evidence we have is sectarian. The idea of a pre-sectarian Buddhism accepts the premise of the Buddhist tradition uncritically on it's own terms, and then interprets sectarian evidence from this point of view. So this is not an historical or scientific term, it is a religious term. Unfortunately it's not clear which scholars that are mentioned accept this premise, but some of them clearly do. Jayarava (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

'Pre-sectarian Buddhism' and Theravada Buddhism is the same

First Buddhist council was held three months after Gautama Lord Buddha's Parinirvana(passed away) with the leadership of Great Arahant Mahakassapa Thero and King Ajātasattu was sponsored to it. All of the 500 members was great Arahant Theros(monks) who don't have any wrong views(frames). It took the monks seven months to recite the whole of the Vinaya and the Dhamma and formulate it to the Tripitaka(Pali Canon). Also the great Theros made the unanimous decision to keep all the rules of the Vinaya, even the lesser and minor rules. But the Lord Buddha has said minor rules of Vinaya can be change. Dhamma is the ultimate reality showed by the Lord Buddha. Vinaya are rules which quickly guide to the eternal happiness with fulfilling requirements(Paramita). All second and third also held by great Arahant Theros.

All I want to tell you that current Tripitaka (Pali Canon) is the same Dharma and Vinaya(except some commentaries) as formulated at the First Buddhist council which held three months after Gautama Lord Buddha's Parinirvana (passed away). So, 'Pre-sectarian Buddhism' and the Theravada Buddhism is the same thing. It is true that currently only few follow pure teachings as in Tripitaka. --Mudithachampika (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-sectarian Buddhism and Theravada are not the same. Read some scholarly studies on the history of the Buddhism, instead of sectarian publications. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-sectarian Buddhism as a title

I am new to this article, but you know me :-D. I am a bit concerned about what it's attempting to cover; apart from considerable sleuthing from the editors, it appears that those scholars that have said anything about the topic completely disagree with each other on every point. Also I am not convinced about the name of the article. Pre-sectarian Buddhism would, in my mind, represent Buddhism before the first schism - which according to vinaya occured during Buddha's own life, and was largely based upon a group led by his cousin Devadatta. Yet the article seems to be primarily concerned with Pre-canonical Buddhism.

As for Conze's question of 'real issue', I am pretty sure that we get a good flavour of how Lord Buddha was a veritable 'tourist attraction', with many people falling over themselves to sponsor him and his community. He was also approached by many commoners also, and spoke the vernacular. There are also lay vows and sutras for householders, such as the Dighajanu Sutta.

Regardless, I don't want to come across merely as a critic, especially as a lot of careful work has done to construct the page, and much that I would dispute many of the authors cited. This particular phrase insight, which is a cognitive activity, cannot be possible in a state wherein all cognitive activity has ceased. particularly rankles. I really think that if Schmithausen and Bronkhorst spent more time practicing and less time feathering their academic beds they would easily understand that which appears to be a conflict just is not. One of the features of Buddhism that appears to be missing from any of these scholar's thoughts is that there is a living transmission of mind - a continuum of realisation that reaches back to Buddha, and this is not found in just one tradition or another. (20040302 (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

@20040302: "Pre-caninical Buddhism" sounds like a good title, but I think that you really shpuld read those authors. Wikipedia is not based on personal practice and experience, but on reliable sources - blablabla et cetera; you know the lecture ;). Wgat they say is that that "living transmission" saw some fundamental changes, at least regarding the position of "insight." And that's a long-standing notion, not just those two. See Four Noble Truths#Substituting "liberating insight", especially note 22. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, thanks for your gentle and humorous reminder. The transmission that I mention is not a textual or intellectual one, but like water poured into water. Academics like to make a mark and find new things to say - especially provocative things, but different traditions are using different words merely because they reflect the need of the community they are in, and likewise have the dance of their own past as an echo in their actions. The end-game of all this, I believe (supported by overwhelming quantities of literature), is prajna developed by recognising the three marks of samsara. If that recognition is a cognitive 'super-imposition' then it isn't a recognition at all. Once the recognition has taken place, then one has entered into the path. Now I concede there are many methods to recognition, including academic and meditative, using inward looking (such as zen, etc) or other means. Even the manner of recognition varies - eg the Cittamatra depend upon alayavijana - but the fundamental recognition of the three marks is unchanged. Even tantra is exactly the same on this, but the 'twist' in tantra is that one recognises the truth of the three marks. If there is any "fundamental changes" of what is being recognised as the nature of the universe, then the universe itself has changed, which I find pretty hard to accept. Western science has only recently discovered the universality of impermanence. Up until recently it was assumed that some particles did not decay; it's been quite some time that science has accepted the universality of momentary change. So, one must make a decision. Is Buddhism a religion that requires blind faith in the three marks, or is it not? Buddha repeatedly says "Find out for yourself". Both Napper and Huntington have some pretty scathing remarks directed towards academic Buddhologists. Also cf. Alan Wallace's paper (20040302 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)) addendum: So, I read some of Tilman Vetter (1988) as you suggested, and I am disappointed. His dependency upon Gomez for much of his insight into eg. the Madhyamaka is really poor and very misunderstood. The rest of it is mysterious. I want to know where the source is for being able to achieve liberation through reaching the formless (aka the peak). All the materials and teaching I am familiar with states that one does not need to develop formless concentrations, and that formless meditation leads to rebirth in the formless realms, but it is not liberation. (20040302 (talk))

A whole (large) section on the views of one scholar?

The views of Schayer (which date from the 30s) are given much more space here than any other scholar. I believe this section should be turned into one that discusses the various scholarly positions, updated with the views of more contemporary scholars, such as Schopen, Davidson, Gombrich, Harvey, etc. As it stands, it is very one sided. I am going to see if I can write something up, even if its going to take some time to get all the sources together. Any thoughts on this, User:Joshua Jonathan?? Javierfv1212 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Schayer is often-quoted; his views, in a way, deviate from mainstream scholarship, but he seems to be respected, and a welcome alternative view, evenn after so many decades. Also, his views are not easily integrated in the rest of the article, but warrant a thorough description on it's own. Therefore, the separate, and long, treatment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the changes I've made? I think that large section on Schayer was a bit unfocused, it talked about the doctrines of his idea of early buddhism and also his views on how early Buddhism can be deduced from the sources. Also I think that the article as a whole was giving undue weight to his views. So what I did was I added a section which has the views of a larger number of scholars, the optimists, the skeptics and Schayer's view of an "alternate" tradition which is mainly opposed to the major views of the canonical nikayas/agamas. Then I also created a subsection in the section on early buddhist teachings called "Nirvana" and under that I put a subsection explaining the more widely accepted scholarly views on early buddhist nirvana as well as the views of scholars such as Schayer and others which hold that it is a kind of consciousness or place. I think that the changes I've made produce a much more balanced article now. Thoughts? [edit] Also, I changed the part that made it sound like Alexander Wynne agreed with Schayer's view, it was quoted out of context but if you actually look at the source text, Wynne disagrees with Schayer and the quote that was put here was Wynne's restatement of Schayer's view, not him agreeing with Schayer.Javierfv1212 17:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think your edits are fine. It's an interesting topic, early Buddhism; not suited for people who want to believe in orthodoxy! Ever read Buddhadasa? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Presentation of Dhyana and Insight are biased towards one view

These sections are biased towards a specific theory (presented by Vetter, Bronkhorst and others) that says that liberating insight is a "later addition" and was not present in early Buddhism. I don't see any presentation of other views or ideas about insight besides this perspective. But as has been noted by Venerable Anālayo in A Brief Criticism of the ‘Two Paths to Liberation’ Theory, there are other views on this issue. I am going to go ahead and attempt to make changes to this. Likewise, the same one sided perspective is repeated in the Buddhism article, which will also require editing. Javierfv1212 19:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212: I agree with you that additions are welcome; yet, I've the feeling that not all of it is a rejection of de Vallee's thesis, nor contradicting Vetter and others. Arbel, for one, builds on the work of Vetter and others. Are these authors responding to Vetter and others, or are they put together here by you? The terms "However" and "For example" give rise to concern in this regard.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, they are definitely pushing back against the view that there 2 different paths, an ecstatic one and an intellectual one. They are cited by Analayo on just this issue. I also think that the other subsections of the "Dhyana" section need to be changed to reflect that they are based on certain scholarly opinions and are not established as agreed upon facts by some scholarly consensus. For example, the first sentence in the "Liberating Insight" subsection reads "Discriminating insight into transiency as a separate path to liberation was a later development." But this is based on the opinion of certain scholars and the article should reflect that. Javierfv1212 13:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that could be attributed. I think that the main point is in the meaning of the word "samadhi"; does it mean "concentration," as in fixating and narrowing the mind; or does it refer to a 'heightened' sense of awareness, as Arbel writes? Most, if not all, of these authors agree that the Buddhist path is more than a simple dichotomy between insight versus concentration; one way or the other they all content that the various elements of the path form an integrated whole, working in tandem; and that sense-restraint, paying attention, and insight into the flux of (internal) phenomena contributed to an altered state of being. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)