The term Early Buddhism can refer to:

- Pre-sectarian Buddhism, which refers to the Teachings and monastic organization and structure, founded by Gautama Buddha.
- The Early Buddhist schools, into which pre-sectarian Buddhism split (without formal schisms, in the sense of Vinaya).

The period of Pre-sectarian Buddhism lasted until about 150 years after the death of Gautama Buddha. The various splits within the monastic organization went together with the introduction and emphasis on Abhidhammic literature by some schools. This literature was specific to each school, and arguments and disputes between the schools were often based on these Abhidhammic writings. However, actual splits were originally based on disagreements on vinaya (monastic discipline), though later on, by about 100 CE or earlier, they could be based on doctrinal disagreement.[1] Pre-sectarian Buddhism, however, did not have Abhidhammic scriptures, except perhaps for a basic framework, and not all of the early schools developed an Abhidhamma literature.

Pre-sectarian Buddhism is the Buddhism presupposed by the early Buddhist schools as existing about one hundred years after the Parinirvana of the Buddha. Most scholars do agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature that a relatively early community maintained and transmitted....

The earliest phase of scriptures, recognized by nearly all scholars (the main exception is Dr Gregory Schopen), is based on a comparison of the Pali Canon with the Chinese Agamas and other surviving portions of other early canons. Some scholars consider that this rough common core of the scriptures of the different schools gives a substantially correct picture of the original teachings of the Buddha. This core is identified as the four main nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka (the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya), together with the main body of monastic rules,[18] the Vinaya Pitaka.

In summary, clinging to the five aggregates is dukkha. SN 56.11

~~And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its change & alteration. ~~SN 22.1

~~'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace. ~~'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace. MN 140

Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth clinging to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth clinging to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans. MN 37

The Source of the Tantras

Tantra practice requires conviction in the authenticity of the tantras, correct understanding of their procedures and theory, and certainty of their validity as methods leading to enlightenment. According to the Tibetan tradition, Shakyamuni Buddha himself is the source of the tantras. Many scholars, however, both Western and Buddhist, have disputed this point. By Western scientific standards, however, none of the texts ascribed to Buddha – neither the sutras nor the tantras – can pass the test for authenticity. The question is whether this is crucial to tantra practitioners or other criteria are more relevant to them.

The Tibetans explain that Shakyamuni Buddha taught three vehicles or pathways of practice that lead to the highest spiritual goals. The modest vehicle, Hinayana, leads to liberation, while the vast vehicle, Mahayana, leads to enlightenment. Although Hinayana is a pejorative term appearing only in Mahayana texts, we shall use it here without negative connotation as the widely accepted general term for the eighteen pre-Mahayana Buddhist schools. Tantrayana, the tantra vehicle – also called Vajrayana, the diamond-strong vehicle – is a subdivision of Mahayana. Hinayana transmits only sutras, while Mahayana transmits both sutras and tantras.

No one recorded Buddha's discourses or instructive dialogues when he held them two and a half thousand years ago, since Indian custom at the time limited the use of writing to business and military affairs. The year after Buddha passed away, however, five hundred of his followers gathered in a council at which three of his main disciples recounted different portions of his words. Subsequently, different groups of monks took responsibility to memorize and periodically to recite specific sections of them. The responsibility passed from one generation of disciples to the next. These words became the Hinayana sutras. Their claim to authenticity rests exclusively on faith that the three original disciples had perfect recall and that those at the council who corroborated their accounts all remembered the same words. These two provisions are impossible to establish scientifically.

Even if the original transmission were free of corruption, many outstanding disciples in subsequent generations lacked flawless memories. Within a hundred years after Buddha passed away, disagreements arose over many of the Hinayana sutras. Eventually, eighteen schools emerged, each with its own version of what Buddha said. The schools even disagreed as to how many of Buddha's discourses and dialogues were recited at the first council. According to some versions, several of Buddha's disciples were unable to attend and orally transmitted exclusively to their own students the teachings that they recalled. The most outstanding examples are the texts concerning special topics of knowledge (Skt. abhidharma). For many years, subsequent generations recited them outside the officially sanctioned meetings and only later councils added them to the Hinayana collection.

The first written scriptures appeared four centuries after Buddha, in the middle of the first century BCE. They were the Hinayana sutras from the Theravada school, the line of elders. Gradually, the sutras from the other seventeen Hinayana schools also emerged in written form. Although the Theravada version was the first to appear in writing and although Theravada is the only Hinayana school that survives intact today, these two facts are inconclusive to prove that the Theravada sutras are the authentic words of Buddha.

The Theravada sutras are in the Pali language, while the other seventeen versions are in assorted Indian languages such as Sanskrit and the local dialect of Magadha, the region where Buddha lived. It cannot be established, however, that Shakyamuni taught in only one or all of these Indian tongues. Thus, no version of the Hinayana sutras can claim authenticity on the grounds of language.

Moreover, Buddha advised his disciples to transmit his teachings in whatever forms would be intelligible. He did not wish his followers to freeze his words into a sacred archaic language like that of the ancient Indian scriptures, the Vedas. Consistent with this guideline, different portions of Buddha's Hinayana teachings first appeared in writing in divers Indian languages and in dissimilar styles of composition and grammar to suit the times. The Mahayana sutras and tantras also exhibit a wide diversity of style and language. From a traditional Buddhist viewpoint, diversity of language proves authenticity rather than refutes it.

According to the Tibetan tradition, before Buddha's teachings were put into writing, disciples recited the Hinayana sutras openly at large monastic gatherings, the Mahayana sutras in small private groups, and the tantras in extreme secrecy. The Mahayana sutras first surfaced in the early second century CE, and the tantras began to emerge perhaps as soon as a century later, although any precise dating is impossible. As noted above, according to several Hinayana traditions, private circles orally transmitted even some of the most famous Hinayana texts before the major monastic assemblies accepted them into the corpus of what they openly recited. Therefore, the absence of a text from the first council's agenda does not disprove its authenticity.

Moreover, the participants of the tantra recitation sessions swore vows of secrecy not to reveal the tantras to the uninitiated. Therefore, it is not surprising that personal accounts of the tantra meetings have not appeared. Thus, it is difficult to prove or disprove the prewritten transmission of the tantras and the occurrence of the secret meetings. Moreover, even if one accepts a prewritten oral transmission of the tantras, it is impossible to establish how and when such transmission began, as is the case with the Hinayana scriptures missing from the first council.

As the Indian master Shantideva argued in Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior (Skt. Bodhicaryavatara) any line of reasoning presented to prove or discredit the authenticity of the Mahayana texts applies equally to the Hinayana scriptures. Therefore, the authenticity of the tantras must rely on criteria other than linguistic factors and the date of initial redaction.

...

Pre-sectarian Buddhism,[1] also called early Buddhism,[2][3] the earliest Buddhism,[4][5] and original Buddhism,[6] is the Buddhism that existed before the various subsects of Buddhism came into being.

Some of the contents and teachings of this pre-sectarian Buddhism may be deduced from the earliest Buddhist texts, which by themselves are already sectarian.

Shinzen Young mentions in some YT vid that one of his teachers shocked him by saying, "The Buddha wasn't the first nor necessarily even the best". Why assume that Buddha's presentation was the best presentation? Even if we assume Buddha was somehow tapped into an Absolute, I don't think it follows that therefore his presentation of his perception of that Absolute is itself Absolute.

I don't think seeking historical authenticity is ever going to pan out. Anyway, here are some views for balance.

I see suttas kind of like dinosaur fossils. Their ‘authenticity’ is the fact that they exist. I don't need to know that a collection of fossils once belonged to a specific dinosaur. I just need to verify that at least enough of them fit together to allow me to see what the thing probably looked like. Just as I rely on dinosaur experts to figure out which bone goes with which dinosaur - I also rely on sutta scholars to figure out which are early and which came later - 100 percent accuracy not required.

If we find a treasure map in the desert, do we need to determine its authenticity before we dig at X (marks the spot)?

Not picking on you but just a general observation:  when the suttas get mentioned here on DhO as a source of practice, this authenticity issue often gets raised in one form or another. Yet no such test seems required for the Progress of Insight - of equally unknown origin. From my position it seems the general view is that the suttas are dubious and best avoided while Practical Insight Meditation is reliable and modern - even though the person that developed it did so by working with one of the suttas - the reason being that he felt this was the most reliable information for how to practice.

just as modern scholarship* has ventured into fascinating theories to help understand the historically stratified nature of ancient documents, there's no reason to preclude that similar and more psychological, pedagogical tools could be used to analyze and reason, hypothicate the development within the very lifetime of G.Buddha. Stephen Batchelor, for one, has ventured in this direction. I can well imagine some bright, ambitious young scholars taking on this challenge in coming decades.

Why assume that Buddha's presentation was the best presentation? 

re: Chuck Kasmire (5/12/14 5:12 PM)

Hot topic, especially in secular / pragmatic circles.

I've in the midst of ongoing research (likely with "no known end") into all the aspects and sources I can find. In the wikipedia entries, when one goes into all the detailed theories, one striking thing is all the entrenched viewpoints on the issue.

The majority of these texts are directed at un-awakened monks - less to lay people - specifically for the purpose of guidance. Certainly there needs to be better translations - this is an evolving process. I think that anyone who looks to any specific teaching probably has found value there - but I don’t see why this would be some sort of ‘superior ability’. Why would choosing to read the suttas preclude someone from also working with modern day teachers?

I can think of quite a few modern teachers that encourage people to read the suttas.

The diversity of buddhist traditions and the diversity of teachers seems to make a clear case that there is no one right interpretation for practical purposes.

I was defining a term. There is a pretty active community that is exploring this area of early texts. I think there is quite a bit of interest in this. I don’t understand how investigating what is early vs late implies ‘one right interpretation’.

To define the eightfold path in enough detail for a western lay person is more than the project of a lifetime.

I disagree. The primary focus of the eightfold path is to develop the skill of “right concentration" to the point a person reaches stream entry. How long that takes depends on many factors but a lifetime seems over the top - change tactics long before that I think. A major problem with Buddhism is that people get lost in analyzing, studying, and comparing texts instead of using them to look inward and understand what is going on in their own mind. 

There is a tendancy of individuals to want to claim some originality or insight that is their own.This often seems to indicate a strong ego running the show. The risk of misinterpreting the original texts or not contextualizing the conclusions or missing critical aspects or projecting one's own issues into the text seems huge.

The same can be said of people following modern practices or texts.

Anything can be put to use when it comes to feeding the desire for fame or self importance or whatever. There has to be a strong desire to look within (a good sense of humor is also useful). If it’s not there than it’s just a game. Obviously, having others to discuss these things with can help much. It’s an iterative process - mistakes will be made.

I can see real value in going to the early texts to try to clarify a particular point or build confidence in a certain interpretation. But it seems to me that should be done within a context provided by current teachers.

That could certainly be useful - on the other hand, if the current teacher you are relying on doesn’t actually understand then it might not be - buyer beware, get a second opinion and all that. You have to question assumptions and investigate things for yourself. If you have followed my posts, you will know I am a fan of Than Geoff., Reggie Ray, Sujato, and others. I think going it alone and self assessing where you are at is a mistake - unless of course that is your only option.

Is this making sense ?

If my answers are addressing your concerns then yes - if not, try rewording. Feel free to just throw it right out there.

More specifically regarding the buddha's teachings my assumption is that the majority of those teachings and all of the buddha's experience relate to a path leading to a monastic lifestyle. Within that lifestlye the buddha claims one can achieve the goal of the path. It seems those who want to go directly to the sources and awaken would be wise to also practise in similar conditions to the buddha's recommendation ?

Yes, that would make sense. Early monastic tradition seemed more a solitary affair with annual get togethers of a couple of months and local hangouts when there were several in a given area. I don’t see any modern equivalents. What makes a beggar a beggar? It’s not the robe or the ordination. The Lucky Man said that if you practice the dhamma and follow the vinaya - that makes you a beggar. So people think you have to ordain and adopt a zillion rules - OK, that’s a codification of the vinaya but put more simply:

As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'

One does not have to ordain to develop these qualities. There are abundant examples of non-monastics awakening in the early texts.

The value of the monastic life style at that time was I think to help a person extricate themselves from the demands of a clan/extended family oriented culture - giving them the freedom to lead a contemplative life. Now days, it is far easier for a person - at least in a western culture - to live a contemplative life style without having to deal with arranged marriages, learning animal sacrifice rituals, or getting called-up for sword duty. When you read the reasons for the various rules in the vinaya - they almost all have to do with keeping a bunch of wandering young men out of trouble - essentially keeping the sangha going and not taking advantage of lay supporters.

Mark, with my computer as my witness, I hereby predict that the school of Early Buddhism will sweep aside all others quicker than a melting glacier. Remember: A single bark can start a prairie howling

Although generally regarded as a religion, Buddhism (or Buddha Dhamma), is basically a method of cultivating the mind. It is true that, with its monastic tradition and its emphasis on ethical factors, it possesses many of the surface characteristics that Westerners associate with religion. Thus like those religions it has as one of its main objectives the purification of the human being through thought, speech, and action. However, its approach is not primarily theistic. Rather, it affirms a universe which conforms to impersonal laws as expressed through the inner workings of the mind. Thus from this point of view at least it is not a religion as most Westerners view it since it worships no deity. But this does not mean that its teachings cannot be of value to those brought up in other faiths. The practical application of the Dhamma by non-Buddhists has enabled many in other faiths to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of their native religion.

In reality, Gotama neither affirmed nor denied that the world was eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite. He set aside such ideas as being “unbeneficial ...to the fundamentals of the holy life,” saying that “it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have left it undeclared.” What he did declare was what he had experienced in his life, that suffering exists in life, that such is the origin of suffering, that such is the cessation of suffering, and that such is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This declaration of these four aspects of his experience he called the Four Noble Truths.

Thus rather than to engage in endless debate over speculative views about divine life, the afterlife, the soul and its relationship to the body, the Buddha chose to leave that to the individual questioner to determine for him or herself. As for himself and his followers, he was more interested in helping people to see and comprehend the great truths he himself had experienced in his awakening, which he likened to being “against the current,” against man's selfish desires. Just four weeks after his Enlightenment, seated under a banyan tree, he thought to himself: “I have realized this Truth which is deep, difficult to see, difficult understand...comprehensible only by the wise...Men who are overpowered by passions and surrounded by a mass of darkness cannot see this Truth, which is against the current, namely, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all mental formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, the development of dispassion, cessation, Nirvana.”

His main concern, therefore, was for the practical benefit of assisting mankind with achieving the necessary insights about life which would help him to live a more happy, compassionate, loving, and fruitful life. That entailed helping people to develop an awareness of what made life unsatisfactory so that they could remove those facets from their lives and live more fully. Toward that end, he developed a formula for the elimination of suffering and unsatisfactoriness in the form of four basic statements which set out the fact of dissatisfaction, its cause, its cure, and the method for its cure. These are known as the Four Noble Truths.

One of the main insights he had which involves the essence of what causes this perception of unsatisfactoriness is the fact that people perceive their experience of themselves as having a continuity which is solid and permanent. That is, they fail to see or understand that the being that they recognize as themselves is no more solid or permanent than what they are perceiving in any given moment. Which is to say that they perceive their own ego as a solid, unchanging self rather than as an actor on a stage who can assume many roles and play many parts but whose essential nature is other than any of the roles he portrays.

A person's ego is like a mask he puts on to interact with other people in social situations. It is a social convention – an agreed upon fiction. The mask is not the real personality, but only a mask meant to make socializing more easy and practical. The problem comes when a person forgets the role he is playing and begins to take his role seriously, as though it is reality rather than a fiction which he conveniently shares with other players in life. This is what causes the perceptions of dissatisfaction, worry, frustration, discord, anxiety, pain, or agitation.

When a person forgets this truth and believes in his own selfhood and acts upon that belief, the Buddha described such a condition as delusion. This is because from the standpoint of ultimate existence the conventional self has no substantial reality. It is only within this delusion of selfhood that ultimate suffering can exist. When this self-delusion is eventually transcended and final enlightenment is achieved, the ultimate state – the Deathless or Nirvana – which lies beyond the relative universe is reached. In this ultimate state suffering is extinguished. Yet as long as any element, no matter how small, of selfhood remains, there also remains the potential for suffering within it.