Is there a distinction between Early Buddhism and Theravada?
There are many forms of Buddhism and they proclaim many different teachings. Their approach to salvation, their attitude to the Buddha and their rituals differ tremendously. As highlighted by The Seeker’s Glossary,: “Unlike Mahayana schools, the Theravada tradition makes no mention of Amitabha Buddha, the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, etc., or the Pure Land. Theravadins believe mainly in Sakyamuni Buddha and the Bodhisattva Maitreya, but not in the numerous trance-historical Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the Mahayana tradition. This is because Theravada stresses the historical Buddha and His early teachings, applying the term Bodhisattva mainly to the previous incarnations of Buddha Sakyamuni”[1]
Therefore, the Theravada also needs, in the beginning of any comparative study, to be considered just another school of Buddhism. Yet, we have to agree, as every school also maintain, that Theravada is the oldest tradition and almost every other school branched off from it. Theravada, therefore, is the closest to the Early Buddhism. Any tracing back to the original Buddhism needs to have Theravada as the base. Hirakawa Akira in his ‘A History of Indian Buddhism’ begins with the Sutta and Vinaya pitakas handed down from the past. In reconstructing the teachings of the Buddha he considers Sutta pitaka, also called Agamas, as of central importance. “Although the teachings found in the Agamas (or Sutras) include much more than the teachings of the historical Buddha, many of the Agamas are closely related to the historical Buddha’s teachings. Any attempt to ascertain the original teachings of the historical Buddha must be based on this literature.”[2]
In the search for Early Buddhism, scholars have adopted the following criteria:
There have been many such studies to crystallise early teachings of the Buddha and distinguish Theravada from Early Buddhism. J.Takakusu, for instance, compared Pali Sutta Pitaka with Chinese Agamas and found out there is much agreement than disagreement in them. But he discovered that the Abhidhamma Pitakas of various sects have many points that they do not share. Therefore the Abhidhamma Pitakas are considered to be developments that took place after the sectarian divisions. However, the fact that even the Mahasanghikas, first sect to branch off from Theravada, pronounced that they do not accept Abhidhamma to be the words of the Buddha shows that it was in making and forming a separate identity by the time of the second council. As many Suttas in Digha,[3] Majjhima[4] and Anguttara Nikayas[5] refer to Abhidhamma kathas we can safely assume that even during the time of the Buddha the development of Abhidhamma scholasticism had begun.[6]
Theravada is the most conservative and puritan among the Buddhist schools. From the time they formed a group rallying round the seniors they were concerned about the vulnerability of the Buddha word to distortions. They knew that there were many occasions when some mischievous monks attempted disastrous distortions even during the lifetime of the Buddha. The possibility of further distorting attempts were foreseen by the Buddha himself and he, as a remedial measure, introduced mahapadesas, a technique of rejecting unwholesome views possible to be presented in the guise of Buddha word. Therefore, the Theravadins collected and collated the discourses of the Buddha and assigned them to groups of monks to protect them. Those monks, then, were called ‘bhanakas’, reciters, as the method of preserving was mainly reciting the part of discourses everyday. In concurrence with the bhanaka tradition there was a rather unofficial acaraiya parampara, who kept orthodox interpretations unchallenged and this tradition was commonly agreed upon by the three early schools of Buddhism, i.e., Theravada, Mahasanghika and Sarvastivada.
A note has to be made here that even the Theravada commentators were conscious of the fact that their commentaries did not constitute early Buddhism. For instance Buddhaghosa, the theoretician of Theravada, in his commentary to Vinaya, claimed that there are four strata in authority; namely, Sutta, Suttanuloma, Acariyavada and Attanomati. He explained attanomati as commentarial decisions arrived by intellectual exercise by individual masters and includes them in Theravada. He adds that they are of lesser grade in importance.[7]
Theravadins hold Vinaya as of prime importance. They even went to the extent of rehearsing Vinaya before the Suttas. ‘Vinaya is the life of religion. When Vinaya stands established the religion stands firm too.’ they claimed. As they did not want any unacceptable revision by monks bent on luxuries in future they went to the extreme of not accepting the liberty given by the Buddha to revise minor rules of Vinaya. Theravadins developed a unique tradition of commenting on dhamma which is described in Petakopadesa and Nettippakarana. This was perhaps developed by teachers whom are referred to as Poranas by Buddhaghosa.
The real religio-philosophical identity of Theravada is found in the developed Abhidhamma teachings, which, then, has penetrated into their commentarial tradition. Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, the greatest Theravada theoretician, is the central commentary on Sutta Pitaka which follows Abhidhamma doctrines very closely.
It is not true to say that both Theravada and Early Buddhism insisted that everyone should try to attain arahathood, not Buddhahood. The possibility of attaining Nibbana by any one of these bodhis is recognised but there was no insistence that everyone should follow the same path.
[1] The seekers Glossary of Buddhism (1998 New York) p.624
[2] Hirakawa Akira, A History of Indian Buddhism (Delhi 1993) p.38
[3] D.III.267
[4] M.I.472, M.I.212, M.II.238
[5] A.III.107
[6] Vinaya IV.144 also refer to Abhidhamma katha
[7] Samantapasadika p.131
Extracted from
Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies, University Of Kelaniya
Masters of Art (Buddhist Studies)
ME 35 - Theravada Traditions (A Historical and Doctrinal Study)
Professor Wijebandara Chandima
Therefore, the Theravada also needs, in the beginning of any comparative study, to be considered just another school of Buddhism. Yet, we have to agree, as every school also maintain, that Theravada is the oldest tradition and almost every other school branched off from it. Theravada, therefore, is the closest to the Early Buddhism. Any tracing back to the original Buddhism needs to have Theravada as the base. Hirakawa Akira in his ‘A History of Indian Buddhism’ begins with the Sutta and Vinaya pitakas handed down from the past. In reconstructing the teachings of the Buddha he considers Sutta pitaka, also called Agamas, as of central importance. “Although the teachings found in the Agamas (or Sutras) include much more than the teachings of the historical Buddha, many of the Agamas are closely related to the historical Buddha’s teachings. Any attempt to ascertain the original teachings of the historical Buddha must be based on this literature.”[2]
In the search for Early Buddhism, scholars have adopted the following criteria:
- What is in agreement in the literatures of many schools (especially between Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas) could be taken as early.
- What is commentarial is sectarian and do not constitute early teachings.
- What is mythological, magical and almost superstitious is later development since the philosophy of the commonly agreed texts as early teachings is non-magical and free of mythology.
- Language and meter also can be used to trace what is early and what is later.
- Some inscriptional references are also could be of help in gauging what is old.
There have been many such studies to crystallise early teachings of the Buddha and distinguish Theravada from Early Buddhism. J.Takakusu, for instance, compared Pali Sutta Pitaka with Chinese Agamas and found out there is much agreement than disagreement in them. But he discovered that the Abhidhamma Pitakas of various sects have many points that they do not share. Therefore the Abhidhamma Pitakas are considered to be developments that took place after the sectarian divisions. However, the fact that even the Mahasanghikas, first sect to branch off from Theravada, pronounced that they do not accept Abhidhamma to be the words of the Buddha shows that it was in making and forming a separate identity by the time of the second council. As many Suttas in Digha,[3] Majjhima[4] and Anguttara Nikayas[5] refer to Abhidhamma kathas we can safely assume that even during the time of the Buddha the development of Abhidhamma scholasticism had begun.[6]
Theravada is the most conservative and puritan among the Buddhist schools. From the time they formed a group rallying round the seniors they were concerned about the vulnerability of the Buddha word to distortions. They knew that there were many occasions when some mischievous monks attempted disastrous distortions even during the lifetime of the Buddha. The possibility of further distorting attempts were foreseen by the Buddha himself and he, as a remedial measure, introduced mahapadesas, a technique of rejecting unwholesome views possible to be presented in the guise of Buddha word. Therefore, the Theravadins collected and collated the discourses of the Buddha and assigned them to groups of monks to protect them. Those monks, then, were called ‘bhanakas’, reciters, as the method of preserving was mainly reciting the part of discourses everyday. In concurrence with the bhanaka tradition there was a rather unofficial acaraiya parampara, who kept orthodox interpretations unchallenged and this tradition was commonly agreed upon by the three early schools of Buddhism, i.e., Theravada, Mahasanghika and Sarvastivada.
A note has to be made here that even the Theravada commentators were conscious of the fact that their commentaries did not constitute early Buddhism. For instance Buddhaghosa, the theoretician of Theravada, in his commentary to Vinaya, claimed that there are four strata in authority; namely, Sutta, Suttanuloma, Acariyavada and Attanomati. He explained attanomati as commentarial decisions arrived by intellectual exercise by individual masters and includes them in Theravada. He adds that they are of lesser grade in importance.[7]
Theravadins hold Vinaya as of prime importance. They even went to the extent of rehearsing Vinaya before the Suttas. ‘Vinaya is the life of religion. When Vinaya stands established the religion stands firm too.’ they claimed. As they did not want any unacceptable revision by monks bent on luxuries in future they went to the extreme of not accepting the liberty given by the Buddha to revise minor rules of Vinaya. Theravadins developed a unique tradition of commenting on dhamma which is described in Petakopadesa and Nettippakarana. This was perhaps developed by teachers whom are referred to as Poranas by Buddhaghosa.
The real religio-philosophical identity of Theravada is found in the developed Abhidhamma teachings, which, then, has penetrated into their commentarial tradition. Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, the greatest Theravada theoretician, is the central commentary on Sutta Pitaka which follows Abhidhamma doctrines very closely.
It is not true to say that both Theravada and Early Buddhism insisted that everyone should try to attain arahathood, not Buddhahood. The possibility of attaining Nibbana by any one of these bodhis is recognised but there was no insistence that everyone should follow the same path.
[1] The seekers Glossary of Buddhism (1998 New York) p.624
[2] Hirakawa Akira, A History of Indian Buddhism (Delhi 1993) p.38
[3] D.III.267
[4] M.I.472, M.I.212, M.II.238
[5] A.III.107
[6] Vinaya IV.144 also refer to Abhidhamma katha
[7] Samantapasadika p.131
Extracted from
Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies, University Of Kelaniya
Masters of Art (Buddhist Studies)
ME 35 - Theravada Traditions (A Historical and Doctrinal Study)
Professor Wijebandara Chandima