I Don’t Read the Buddha Much. Why Not, You Ask?
Written on May 16, 2010 by Tom Stine
Buddhism has a problem, an unfortunate one, but such is life. And that problem is: there is no way to know for certain what the Buddha said. It is a problem with any spiritual teaching more than a thousand years old, or any history for that matter. It has to do with written texts and oral transmission.
The first written Buddhist texts are in the Pali language and are based upon 400 years of oral tradition. That means that whatever the Buddha said 2500 years ago was repeated generation after generation, from one man to the next, for four centuries. Even if the monks who recited the Dharma for 400 years didn’t add a single thing to the words they were taught, not a single new interpretation or correction or improvement, the chance for inaccuracy is huge. Remember playing telephone in elementary school?
When you consider that the Buddha’s followers were about as likely to be enlightened as Saint Peter was to have understood Jesus’ teachings (sorry, but Simon called Peter had no clue what Jesus was talking about!) then, well, the odds are really good that there are major errors. In other words, we have no real idea what the Buddha actually said. I can’t see any way around it.
It’s the Jesus problem. The earliest Christian texts were written about 40-60 years after Jesus’ death. We don’t have any of those. We have fragments of texts that were produced 300-400 years after the actual documents were supposedly written. And we don’t have all that was written in those early years, just the stuff that the early church wanted to keep plus a bit of other stuff. So, we have oral tradition problems, interpretation problems, etc. At least Theraveda Buddhism attempted to preserve the Buddha’s words, something that Christians didn’t even really try to do, except with sayings gospels like the Gospel of Thomas. (Note: contemporary Jesus scholarship is a fascinating subject, worthy of a bit of study. I strongly suggest Marcus Borg. Needless to say, what modern Jesus scholars have to say is not what you are likely to hear in most churches today.)
So, when I started reading Buddhism a bit a few years ago, I was like most people are: confused. My question was: how do I get to the words of the Buddha? And after a while, I knew the answer was the same one I had discovered years before with Jesus: you don’t. You can’t. We will quite likely never know what he really said. And the most likely reason is that his followers didn’t have the slightest idea what he meant by the things he said.
Think about it: the average follower of the Buddha was like most spiritual seekers today. He kinda, sorta, maybe had a sense of what the Master was saying, but he wasn’t so sure. If suddenly things got clear and he experienced some sense of awakening, would he then really care if the Buddha’s words got accurately transmitted to the next generation? Probably not. He might have gone on and done other things with his life, or he might have started teaching others using his words and thoughts.
No, unfortunately, the folks most likely to have been sticklers for repeating the Buddha’s words were quite likely not completely understanding everything he said but were hoping that the Master’s words would enlighten them some day. As time went on, not only did error creep into the transmission but so did interpretations and “improvements” and “he must have meant something else when he said that.”
I know, there is no way to prove such a thing, but it is pretty obvious that in many traditions other than Buddhism that the interpretations became more important than the original words. Just look at Christianity. Go to any modern church and count the number of times the minister quotes a passage from the New Testament that has something in it that Jesus supposedly said. Then compare that to the number of quoted passages from the Hebrew Bible and St. Paul. You will be astounded! St. Paul and the Prophets win by a landslide. Yes, I did this experiment personally years ago. I was shocked. They never, ever quote The Sermon on the Mount in fundamentalist Christian churches.
And so I have adopted a very dishonest method of “scholarship” when it comes to the Buddha and Jesus: I look for the common threads in them that fit with contemporary “enlightened guys” and keep that and discard the rest. As a matter of fact, that’s how I approach all spiritual literature. I only look for the common thread. I’m only really interested in what I find in common between Zen, Advaita, Buddhism, mystical Christianity, channeled material, etc. And then I compare it with my experience. The thread of commonality seems to be what matters and what helps with my personal experience always as the final arbiter.
I know, I would never make a good scholar. But good scholarship has nothing to do with awakening. At least, it hasn’t done me a damn bit of good.
So, for the most part, I much prefer to read enlightenment literature that was actually written down and transmitted fairly intact. There is so much rich, wonderful stuff from Zen and Advaita that I don’t have much need for the old Buddhist texts. I’d much rather read Nisargadatta Maharaj.
I know many people don’t care for Advaita, but I find the best spiritual writings in people who are labelled Advaita. Not that these writings necessarily came out of that school of thought, but their teachings are so similar to true Advaita that they are usually pigeon-holed there. That’s the story with Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta. And even Adyashanti.
I have to admit that most of what passes for Advaita these days is like Zen: pure crap. Both schools of thought get too hung up on the nothing part of awakening. That’s why Nisargadatta is so cool: in his talks, he made it clear that nondual (which is what Advaita means) means NON-DUAL, as in not 2. There isn’t nothingness or everything. There isn’t all and nothing. There’s just One. You look at it one way, and you find nothing. Absolutely nothing. And then you open your eyes, and you see a rich world of form. And the everything that you see is filled with the nothing that you see. And out of the nothing arises form. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
Now don’t get me wrong: there are some wonderful Buddhist texts to read. The Dhammapada is excellent, and whoever said those words knew up from down. But on the whole, I don’t have much time for all the -ism that arose around a quite awake guy who might have been called Siddhartha and we now know as The Buddha.
