Pre-sectarian Buddhism, also called early Buddhism, the earliest Buddhism, original Buddhism, and primitive Buddhism, is Buddhism as theorised to have existed before the various early Buddhist schools developed, around 250 BCE (followed by later subsects of Buddhism).
The contents and teachings of this pre-sectarian Buddhism must be deduced or re-constructed from the earliest Buddhist texts, which by themselves are already sectarian. The whole subject remains intensely debated by scholars, not all of whom believe a meaningful reconstruction is possible.
"Early Buddhism" may also be used for considerably later periods.
Name Various terms are being used to refer to the earliest period of Buddhism: "Pre-sectarian Buddhism" "Early Buddhism", "The earliest Buddhism", "Original Buddhism", "The Buddhism of the Buddha himself." Precanonical Buddhism Primitive Buddhism
Some Japanese scholars refer to the subsequent period of the early Buddhist schools as sectarian Buddhism.
Timespan
Pre-sectarian Buddhism may refer to the earliest Buddhism, the ideas and practices of Gautama Buddha himself. It may also refer to early Buddhism as existing until the first documented split in the sangha. According to Lambert Schmithausen, it is "the canonical period prior to the development of different schools with their different positions."Schmithausen (1987) “Part I: Earliest Buddhism,” Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference Vol. II: Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka, ed. David Seyfort Ruegg and Lambert Schmithausen, Leiden: Kern Institute, pp. 1–4.
Contrary to the claim of doctrinal stability, early Buddhism was a dynamic movement. Pre-sectarian Buddhism may have included or incorporated other Śramaṇic schools of thought, as well as Vedic and Jain ideas and practices.
The period of "Early Buddhism" in the sense of pre-sectarian Buddhism is considered by scholars such as Paul J. Griffiths and Steven Collins to be from the time of the historical Buddha to the reign of Ashoka (c. 268 to 232 BCE).Griffiths, Paul J. (1983) “Buddhist Jhana: A Form-Critical Study”, Religion 13, pp. 55–68.Collins, Steven (1990) “On the Very Idea of the Pali Canon”, Journal of the Pali Text Society 15, pp. 89–126. The first documented split occurred, according to most scholars, between the second Buddhist council and the third Buddhist council. Lamotte and Hirakawa both maintain that the first schism in the Buddhist sangha occurred during the reign of Ashoka.Lamotte, Étienne (1988) History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, translated from the French by Sara Boin-Webb, Louvain: Peeters PressHirakawa, Akira (1990), A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, tr. Paul Groner, University of Hawaii Press According to scholar Collett Cox, "most scholars would agree that even though the roots of the earliest recognised groups predate Aśoka, their actual separation did not occur until after his death."
The first post-schismatic groups are often stated to be the Sthavira Nikāya and the Mahāsāṃghika. Eventually, eighteen different schools came into existence. The later Mahayana schools may have preserved ideas which were abandoned by the "orthodox" Theravada, such as the Three Bodies doctrine, the idea of consciousness (vijñāna) as a continuum, and devotional elements such as the worship of saints.
Earliest Buddhism and the Śramaṇa movement
Pre-sectarian Buddhism was originally one of the Śramaṇic movements. The time of the Buddha was a time of urbanisation in India, and saw the growth of the śramaṇas, wandering philosophers that had rejected the authority of Vedas and Brahmanic priesthood, intent on escaping saṃsāra through various means, which involved ascetic practices, and ethical behavior.
The śramaṇas gave rise to different religious and philosophical schools, among which the most important included pre-sectarian Buddhism itself, Yoga, and similar schools of Hinduism, Jainism, Ājīvika, Ajñana, and Cārvāka. During this time, concepts that would become popular in all major Indian religions also emerged, such as saṃsāra (endless cycle of birth and death) and moksha (liberation from that cycle). Nevertheless, despite the success that these wandering philosophers and ascetics had obtained by spreading ideas and concepts that would soon be accepted by all religions of India, the orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy (āstika) opposed Śramaṇic schools of thought and refuted their doctrines as "heterodox" (nāstika), because they refused to accept the epistemic authority of Vedas.
The ideas of saṃsāra, karma and rebirth show a development of thought in Indian religions: from the idea of single existence, at the end of which one was judged and punished and rewarded for one's deeds, or karma; to multiple existences with reward or punishment in an endless series of existences; and then attempts to gain release from this endless series. This release was the central aim of the Śramaṇa movement. Vedic rituals, which aimed at entrance into heaven, may have played a role in this development: the realisation that those rituals did not lead to an everlasting liberation led to the search for other means.
Scholarship and methodology Earliest Buddhism can only be deduced from the various Buddhist canons now extant, which are all already sectarian collections. As such any reconstruction is tentative. One method to obtain information on the oldest core of Buddhism is to compare the oldest extant versions of the Theravadin Pāli Canon, the surviving portions of the scriptures of Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka and other schools, and the Chinese āgamas and other surviving portions of other early canons (such as the Gandharan texts). Early proto-Mahayana texts which contain nearly identical material to that of the Pali Canon such as the Salistamba Sutra are also further evidence.
This comparative study began in the 19th century, when Samuel Beal published comparative translations of the Pali Patimokkha and the Chinese Dharmaguptaka Pratimoksa (1859), showing they were virtually identical. He followed this up with comparisons between the Chinese sutras and the Pali suttas in 1882, accurately predicting that "when the Vinaya and Āgama collections are thoroughly examined, I can have little doubt we shall find most if not all the Pali Suttas in Chinese form." In the following decades various scholars continued to produce a series of comparative studies, such as Anesaki, Akanuma (who composed a complete catalogue of parallels), Yin Shun and Thich Minh Chau.Anesaki, Masaharu. The Four Buddhist Āgamas in Chinese: a concordance of their parts and of the corresponding counterparts in the Pāli Nikāyas. Kelly and Walsh, 1908.Chau, Thích Minh. The Chinese Madhyama Āgama and the Pāli Majjhima Nikāya: A Comparative Study. Saigon Institute of Higher Buddhist Studies, 1964.Akanuma, C. The Comparative Catalogue of Chinese Āgamas & Pāli Nikāyas. Hajinkaku-Shobō, 1958Yin Shun. “Za-ahan-jing Han-Ba duizhaobiao [A Comparative Table of SA to the Pali texts]”. In: FSA (Foguang Tripitaka). Vol. 4. 1983, pp. 3–72. These studies, as well as recent work by Analayo, Marcus Bingenheimer and Mun-keat Choong, have shown that the essential doctrinal content of the Pali Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas and the Chinese Madhyama and Samyukta Āgamas is mostly the same, (with, as Analayo notes, "occasional divergence in details").Choong, Mun-keat. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sūtrāṅga Portion of the Pali Saṁyutta-Nikāya and the Chinese Saṁyuktāgama. Harrassowitz, 2000.
According to scholars such as Rupert Gethin and Peter Harvey, the oldest recorded teachings are contained in the first four Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka and their various parallels in other languages, together with the main body of monastic rules, which survive in the various versions of the Patimokkha.Nishimoto, Ryūzan. “Rajūyaku Jūju Bikuni Haradaimokusha Kaihon no Shutsugen narabini Shobu Sō-Ni Kaihon no Taishō Kenkyū”. In: Õtani Gakuhō 9.2 (May 1928), pp. 27–60. Scholars have also claimed that there is a core within this core, referring to some poems and phrases which seem to be the oldest parts of the Sutta Pitaka.
The reliability of these sources, and the possibility to draw out a core of oldest teachings, is a matter of dispute. According to Tillman Vetter, the comparison of the oldest extant texts "does not just simply lead to the oldest nucleus of the doctrine." At best, it leads to:
According to Vetter, inconsistencies remain, and other methods must be applied to resolve those inconsistencies. Because of this, scholars such as Edward Conze and A. K. Warder have argued that only the material which is common to both the Sthavira and the Mahasamghika canons can be seen as the most authentic, since they were the first communities after the first schism. The problem is that there is little material surviving from the Mahasamghika school. However, what we do have, such as the Mahasamghika Pratimoksha and Vinaya, is mostly consistent in doctrine with the Sthavira texts.Pachow, W. A Comparative Study of the Pratimoksha: On the Basis of its Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit and Pali Versions. Motilal Banarsidass, 2000. Other Mahasamghika sources are the Mahavastu and (possibly) the Śālistamba Sūtra, both of which also contains phrases and doctrines that are found in the Sthavira canons.Rahula, Bhikkhu Telwatte. A Critical Study of the Mahāvastu. Motilal Banarsidass, 1978.
Further exemplary studies are the study on descriptions of "liberating insight" by Lambert Schmithausen, the overview of early Buddhism by Tilmann Vetter, the philological work on the Four Truths by K. R. Norman, the textual studies by Richard Gombrich, and the research on early meditation methods by Johannes Bronkhorst.
Scholarly positions According to Schmithausen, three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished regarding the possibility to extract the earliest Buddhism from the early Buddhist texts:
"Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;" "Skepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;" "Cautious optimism in this respect."
Optimism regarding the early Buddhist texts In his History of Indian Buddhism, Etienne Lamotte argues that while it "is impossible to say with certainty" what the doctrine of the historical Buddha was, "it is nonetheless a fact that, in order to appreciate early Buddhism, the only valid evidence – or indication – which we possess is the basic agreement between the Nikayas on the one hand and the Agamas on the other."Lamotte, Étienne. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era. Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain. Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1988, p. 639.
Likewise, Hajime Nakamura writes in his Indian Buddhism, that "there is no word that can be traced with unquestionable authority to Gotama Sakyamuni as a historical personage, although there must be some sayings or phrases derived from him." Nakamura adds that scholars must critically search the early scriptures for the oldest layer of material to find the "original Buddhism". Nakamura held that some of the earliest material were the Gathas (verses) found in the Sutta Nipata, as well as the Sagatha-vagga of the Samyutta Nikaya, the Itivuttaka and the Udana. These texts use less of the doctrinal material that is developed in other texts, are more likely to promote wilderness solitude over communal living and use terminology which is similar to Jain ideas.