On fidelity and flexibility in the Early Buddhist discourses
Bernat Font on why he has invited Eviatar Schulman for a conversation on this topic on 24 February (see more here):
Most dharma practitioners know only one version of how the early Buddhist discourses came about: the Buddha's disciples memorised his sermons as best as they could, put them into standard formats to aid remembrance, and passed them down on to the next generation. From then on, the job was mainly to learn by heart and transmit that oral literature, until eventually it was put into writing. This version sees it mainly as an exercise in memory.
This perspective makes us ask particular questions, such as how accurate the disciples' memories could be, whether they inserted ideas the Buddha didn't teach by mistake, or added their own interpretations. When two or more versions of a text differ, we wonder which is the correct one and which is the misremembered one. Basically, this way of looking at it rests on a clear split between someone who preached and people who recorded those teaching events more or less accurately.
There are other perspectives, though. Some scholars see it less as a matter of memory and more as a creative process, because remembering what somebody taught isn't necessarily about repeating it verbatim. These scholars don’t question the aim of representing the Buddha's instructions faithfully, but suggest that monastics adapted oral 'texts' to suit specific audiences and situations, remixed two or more discourses to create new ones—much like a DJ—and that, as long as this was done within the parameters of the tradition and didn't distort the message, it was considered legitimate. For them, the early Buddhist tradition functioned more like jazz than like classical music does today.
If you know a teacher well and have attended many classes and retreats with them, you can probably explain to someone else quite well what their teachings are. Making an effort to be loyal to them and not misrepresent them, your account will likely include word-by-word bits of things they say often, examples they repeat, and also explanations that capture the essence well but use your own words. You might say: "In her approach to mindfulness, she says there are three main points: ..." even when that teacher has never uttered that exact sentence. But while the condensation into three points might be yours, it still relays her teaching accurately.
This more flexible view of the early discourses will raise different questions when we read the texts or compare versions that don't totally match: Why does this discourse contain a story when another, similar one doesn't? For what purpose would the early sangha lengthen or shorten this teaching? What are they trying to say when they pair the reflection on impermanence with the six senses or with mindfulness of breathing?
My doctoral supervisor, Rupert Gethin, once asked me one of those basic questions that reveals how much you've taken a certain conclusion for granted: if an element under the fourth foundation of mindfulness is not common to all versions of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, why does this make it less likely to be original? Why would this mean it's a later addition or somehow less valid? Perhaps variations are not a bug, but a feature of the early Buddhist oral tradition.
Eviatar Shulman is the latest proponent of this flexible approach. He speaks of “the play of formulas” and insists that we think of the discourses as having authors. This, and how he's experimented with being a ‘saṃyutta bhāṇaka’ (a memoriser-reciter of texts from the Saṃyutta Nikāya) or with learning parts of the abhidharma by heart, make him an interesting person to talk to about Buddhist texts and their function—plus, he's a very engaging speaker.
Even the more intellectually curious meditators tend to access but a thin slice of the academic literature that's available out there, creating a false sense of scholarly consensus. I don't think that's good. So I was moved to help expose practitioners to more voices, because I believe this can inject curiosity and life into people's relationship with the early suttas. It's hard to see the downside of that!