So What about Archaic Buddhism

assaddho akataññū ca / sandhicchedo ca yo naro // hatāvakāso vantāso / sa ve uttamaporiso //

The man who is faithless, ungrateful, a burglar, who destroys opportunities and eats vomit—he, truly, is the highest of men. (the “dark side” or alternate interpretation of Dhammapada verse 97, which consists of a series of rascally plays on words)

     Some of you may have noticed that I uploaded a video recently on the Viyuha Suttas of the Sutta Nipata, with some commentary on the suttas and on the Atthakavagga in general. Some of you may also have noticed that below it in the comments a viewer left the following comment: 

Don't you think we have to start with the beginning not the end. The end is freedom from suffering. The verses you quote describe the mind of someone having reached the goal. Yet a beginner has a deluded mind. He is not able to understand the true meaning behind the words. The Suttas provide a clear "system" to achieve the goal. To start with "nothing is real" and trying to get there by reading a waterproof copy of your translation on a mountain top - I don't think such approach will work. I hope you do not advocate it. There is only one truth, of course,  but the approach to realise it maybe can be manyfold. Why not follow the Buddha's teaching as transmitted in the Suttas? It's a simple teaching of do and don't. Plus perseverance, patience and trust. And NO distraction with building, teaching, studying, lecturing etc.

In response to this I left the following comment:

The Atthakavagga was not intended for beginners. The early Sangha consisted mostly of veterans to the Holy Life. Also, it would be pointless to give instruction in suttas to people who are already enlightened. You can find fault with the method of the Atthakavagga, but the point remains that it is very likely a better representation of what early Buddhism taught than the established system of Theravada.

Since then I’ve been thinking of this shortish interchange (though the commenter left a response to my response which will be quoted a little later on), and it seems to bring up two issues: first, why teach archaic Buddhism or even try to find out what archaic Buddhism was like; and second, why did early Buddhists move away from teachings like those in the Atthakavagga? These two issues can be combined into a larger issue, or rather naturally overlap into one, namely: why would a corrupt or watered down tradition be preferable to the original teachings of an enlightened teacher? I will wrangle with these issues separately, more or less.

     First, why shouldn’t we just do as the commenter suggested and stay with the established and orthodox system of Theravada Buddhism, even though there is considerable evidence that it does not reliably represent what the historical Gotama Buddha actually taught?

     In the Buddha’s time, according to the ancient tradition, many of the Buddha’s hearers were “ripe” for enlightenment. One theory for this is that true Dhamma had just very recently been rediscovered, so many beings had made it as far as possible without Dhamma established in the world, and so all they needed was an enlightened teacher to give the final nudge to send them over the edge of Samsara, so to speak. Also, the Buddha’s time in northern India was apparently a time of great spiritual ferment and fervor, with heroic and/or desperate men trying as hard as they possibly could to attain the Ultimate.

     But now of course most Buddhists would qualify as beginners, even some who have been believing practitioners for decades—hell, even a great many renowned teachers are essentially beginners in Dhamma. Thus teaching very advanced Dhamma designed to help advanced practitioners release themselves from Samsara would, as our commenter suggested, be almost useless for the average Buddhist of today. Even most monks are not the homeless wandering ascetics portrayed in texts like the Atthakavagga.

     (Many Mahayanists like the Pure Land types, let alone some orthodox Theravadins, don’t even care if their tradition was really taught by the historical Buddha. They take it as a matter of faith or else, if they are more educated perhaps, they just don’t care all that much and follow the system anyway, using arguments like, “Well, the historical Buddha didn’t teach it but it’s true anyway and that makes it a teaching of Buddha regardless.”)

     It makes a great deal of sense to have a two-tiered system, with advanced practitioners practicing full-time for the attainment of the Ultimate, and the majority supporting their efforts and making more modest efforts just to attain a better, more comfortable position in Samsara. This was how Buddhism was set up fairly early on in its history. But, as I have noted, even many monastics nowadays are beginners or even worse, not intent upon enlightenment but just filling a social niche in a Buddhist culture. Also, this two-tiered approach is anathema to possibly the majority of western Buddhists, some of whom are downright offended by the very existence of strenuously practicing monastics because it causes their own lukewarmness and mediocrity to seem not good enough somehow. Americans want equality (not to mention the new lefties who insist on equality of outcome), and advanced full-time practitioners receiving homage and support from lay Buddhists are too far beyond the masses for Buddhist masses of America especially to feel very comfortable with that.

     Most Buddhists evidently prefer something easier to grasp and to follow than teachings so high that they cause disorientation—and disorientation can be scary. People want something that they can grasp, even though, as the Atthakavagga clearly teaches, what can be grasped is not the Goal, or anything resembling the Goal…which more or less leads us to the second issue stated above.

     I observed years ago in one of my best-received essays (now I don’t even remember which one), the Buddha led his followers to the edge of a cliff, and shortly after he disappeared off that edge less wise Buddhists began backpeddling and justifying the keeping of a safe distance from the edge of the world. They did this largely through philosophizing about the nature of the world, and of the edge of it. Finally this became too obvious, and philosophers like Nagarjuna led Buddhists back to the edge again…only for Nagarjuna’s own successors to begin justifying backing away from the Abyss and contenting themselves with intellectual philosophy and the writing of elegant poetry. This is the history of Buddhism in general: it reaches full flower at the very edge of Samsara, and then rather quickly degenerates into teaching about the nature of the edge from a safe distance…not even to mention what is happening in the west, where the edge is forgotten or dismissed in favor of such samsaric and irrelevant issues as queerness and white privilege.

     The Atthakavagga could be, as some scholars suggest, an early set of teachings from a time when, yes indeed, most of the Buddha’s disciples were veterans to the asceticism of the ancient Indian Holy Life; yet when the Buddha’s teachings became more well known and popular he was required to teach, in his own lifetime, more elementary Dhamma to monks who were newly leaving the home life and also to lay supporters who had never left it. There may be some truth to this, which would do much to remove the notion of corruption in the later orthodox tradition, considering how far that tradition deviates from the radical teachings of “believe nothing, cling to nothing” found in the oldest strata of the Pali texts.

     But even setting that possibility aside, an important point that I made in the video is that, without structure, without a coherent set of doctrines and lists of do’s and don’t’s, any spiritual system will go into rapid decline after the death of its inspired and charismatic founder. Some systems may be fortunate enough that there is a sequence of wise and charismatic leaders for a time, but it really cannot last for very long without deliberate structure to stabilize it.

     So in order for Buddhism or any other system to survive for more than a few decades, it must be ordered and regimented and unified into a more or less coherent and elegant whole…even though the Atthakavagga teaches that such order, especially if taken seriously, is a hindrance to enlightenment. But as I say, most Buddhists aren’t striving whole-heartedly for enlightenment anyhow, and would probably run from it if it was offered to them on a platter. Enlightenment is a kind of death within the context of Samsara and delusion, and it is SCARY even to many who are ostensibly striving for it. The Atthakavagga can be a little scary too.

     So, we necessarily wind up with a system that can persist in Samsara, and which appeals to samsaric minds. Those who are intent upon enlightenment, really intent and resolved upon it, may have some of the established system serving as obstacles, and they may make progress partly because of and partly in spite of the orthodox system; but some, I trust, make it to the Goal anyway. It is a sobering thought that all we have to do is look at the success rate of Theravada Buddhism, or any other school of Buddhism, or any other school of spirituality, and we find that a tiny fraction of 1% really succeed, assuming that any do, at getting enlightened. That does not indicate the true spirit of what the Buddha taught, but rather something inferior to that which nevertheless can survive in Samsara for more than 2000 years.

     There is much wisdom in Buddhism even today, and I really do not want bash the Dhamma and Vinaya as found in the Pali Canon—I owe a great deal to it—but the fact remains that it is no longer reliably what the Buddha really taught. My guess is that teachings in the established, orthodox tradition that accurately represent what Gotama Buddha taught his followers in the Ganges Valley would amount to well under half of the content of the Tipitaka, possibly less than 20%. But if you are wise, and ripe, you can find what you need there.

     Anyway, as promised, here is the commenter’s reply to my reply:

Thank you. I absolutely agree with you that what you tried to point at represents the “true” spirit of the teaching. I am just worried that those who watch the video might think it’s enough to just establish such a mind and that’s it. First it’s very difficult and second if one “succeeds” it’s done in the wrong way as it can be seen in people who give a sh.. about anything. Maybe you should have talked a bit more about the context those wise words should be taken up. Not many people tried as hard as you. Although you have not found what you hoped to find at least you have acquired the necessary knowledge in theory and practice without which no success at all will come. The path is blood sweat and tears and we don’t know when the end of the tunnel will be reached. So please forgive my comment but a teaching like that to an unprepared heart destroys more than it helps if not presented in a context of the practice which is based upon rules in order to help to tame the unruly mind. Being the times as they are sentences like you quoted can be like water on the mills of a generation without values or guidelines how to live a wholesome life. To criticise the Sangha, although Burmese, in such strong words might backfire. Look what happened to the Catholic Church …