It is not possible to assign a date when Buddhist textual sources accurately testify to the nature of early Buddhism. The available sources are found in a variety of languages and Buddhist sects from throughout Asia. Within each tradition, each text has its own history and context. The fragmentation of Buddhism and its dissemination throughout Asia resulted in numerous Buddhist sects. Though they shared many texts, each sect added its own interpretations and modifications. The result is that almost all texts can be found in multiple versions. In some cases the differences are minor. In other cases they are wholly different works. In and of itself, this progressive fragmentation of Buddhism is neither surprising nor problematic. The difficulty emerges because the originals upon which all of these texts are based are no longer available. This may be due to the natural decay of early manuscripts and the eventual collapse of Buddhism in India. It is also likely that for many generations after the Buddha, texts were only preserved orally, suggesting that the existing documents are among the earliest written sources.
While Buddhism emerged and initially developed in the Gangetic Plain, the earliest textual sources are all found outside India (Schopen 1995:475-476). Sri Lankan texts available to modern scholars date to roughly the fifth century CE. The earliest Chinese sources also appear to date to the fifth century CE. Still later are Tibetan (seventh century Ce) and Sanskrit (fifth-seventh centuries Ce) sources. It is important to note that the latter are found, for the most part, in Central Asia rather than India. Just as the Pali Canon was modified to fit the Sri Lankan social context, we can assume that sources from Tibet, China, and Central Asia were similarly manipulated.
Given this variety in sources, and the lack of original texts, many Buddhist scholars have employed what they call “higher criticism” to reconstruct early Buddhism (Bareau 1974; Frauwallner 1956; Lamotte 1988). The method, on the surface, is both simple and compelling. Those textual and doctrinal elements that are shared in the most disparate existing sources are most likely to have the greatest antiquity. Thus, if a specific account is found in both the Chinese and Sri Lankan texts, for example, it is likely to have a common origin in India. Given that these sources date to the fifth century CE, and are believed to have been current for at least a few centuries before that, proponents of higher criticism postulate that their reconstructed Buddhism dates to the first few centuries bce. Some proponents even claim that they are reconstructing the form of Buddhism preached by the Buddha himself (see Bareau 1974).
The actual practice of higher criticism is much more complicated than the simple outline presented above (critiques of higher criticism can be found in Schopen 1997 and Trainor 1997). First, since the existing sources have all been translated into different languages, the identification of similar phrasing or concepts requires reverse translation of the texts back into their original Sanskrit. This is not an easy or self-evident task. Second, higher criticism does not determine an actual date for the common, ancestral text that underlies its offspring. Despite claims by its proponents, commonalities in Chinese and Sri Lankan texts only demonstrate that the common text existed at an unspecified time prior to the existing texts in the fifth century CE. There is no reason to believe that this reconstructed Buddhism resembled anything propounded by the Buddha.
The final difficulty in higher criticism lies in its assumption of independence among the different Buddhist traditions. If there was contact and borrowing among Buddhist traditions in China, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, and the Himalayas, many of the assumptions of higher criticism crumble.
For example, if one sect developed a new monastic code or interpretation of a sermon and another sect simply copied it, no earlier common text is implicated. Commonalities can be the product of communication and contact, rather than common origin (Schopen 1997:25-29). As will be discussed in later chapters of this book, Buddhist monks from across Asia studied in prominent monasteries in the Gangetic Plain well into the start of the second millennium CE. As such, Buddhists from widely dispersed traditions would have had the opportunity to share and adopt each other’s innovations, violating the assumption of independence that higher criticism demands. With the abandonment of Buddhist monasteries in the Gangetic Plain in the beginning of the second millennium CE, contact between monks from distant regions would have been greatly reduced. Thus, regional independence of Buddhist traditions is a very late development, and the assumptions of higher criticism are problematic for reconstructing early Buddhism.
Buddhist texts are traditionally divided into three distinct categories, collectively known as the tripitaka. The first category contains sutras, the sermons and biography of the Buddha. The second are the vinayas, containing the rules governing monastic life. The third, the abhidharmas, consist of later commentaries on earlier Buddhist texts. As far as understanding Buddhist history, it is important to note whether accounts are derived from the more theological and abstract sutras or the more practical and quotidian vinayas. If nothing else, the varying placement of these accounts shows whether the sangha considered particular activities a theological or practical matter. The development of Buddhist studies over the last two centuries can, perhaps over-simplistically, be understood as a shift from studies focusing on the sutras to newer studies focusing on the vinayas and abhidharmas—a shift from a more abstract and theological understanding of Buddhism to a more quotidian understanding of the lives of the Buddhist sangha. The mistake is to read the sutras as accurately depicting the activities of the early sangha, and the vinayas as the activities of the later sangha. This point will orient much of the discussion of textual evidence throughout this work. Wherever textual evidence is discussed, I will note whether it is derived from the sutras, vinayas, or the abhidharmas.
World History
