The reliability of oral memory in Buddhism

[VincentRJ]

I've long been a backseat admirer of Buddhist philosophy, but it wasn't until fairly recently I became aware of the fact that there is a complete lack of written historical texts describing the teachings of the Buddha, until the Pali Canon was compiled around 400-450 years after Gautama's death.

From my perspective, and the perspective of anyone who is skeptically oriented or culturally conditioned by the very successful, modern scientific methodology, I imagine this lack of written evidence of Gautama's life and teachings during the times he lived, presents a huge problem of authenticity.

Of course, this is also a problem for all the major, current religions. The fact that the Christian gospels were written between 30 and 100 years after the death of Jesus, and by people who had probably never met Jesus, is also a concern for those of us who strive for historical accuracy, or basically 'the truth'. But 450 years! Wow! That's a long time.

On the basis that a generation in ancient times, or life expectancy, was on average 45 years, or less, then 450 years spans 10 generations, or more. That represents so much scope for distortion, exaggeration, and misrepresentation when teachings are transmitted only by memory.

I can't help wondering if there are any examples of long, oral traditions being compared with archaelogically discovered, original texts relating to the oral traditions. Shakespeare lived around 400 years ago. Imagine if his plays were transmitted only by memory, from actor to actor and from generation to generation. Imagine if they were first written down today, from several generations of memory, then imagine if a few years later someone discovered in a loft, the whole texts of Shakespeare's plays written by him. How would they compare with the texts written from 400 years of memory?

[Brucenkhamen]

I think the early Buddhist oral tradition worked in the same way as the monks recite the Patimokkha today, ie one monk chants from memory in front of a full gathering of the Sangha while senior monks will prompt him whenever his memory fails and correct him whenever he makes a mistake. So this process has the checks and balances of a committee to ensure accuracy that a lone scribe writing down his recollections by candlelight would not have, memorisation is seen as an important mental discipline.

You may have noticed the early Buddhists Suttas contain a lot of repetition and there are lot of lists, this was as a mnemonic to aid in oral transmission and later texts like the Abhidhamma dont have this characteristic.

The Pali Canon was written down in Sri Lanka after 29 BCE, and what is now the Chinese Agamas were maintained as a separate oral tradition in North India and I understand was probably written down at a similar time in Sanskrit. While there are differences between the two I understand they are remarkably similar considering they were maintained as oral traditions thousands of miles apart and in different languages.

This article has a discussion on how the oral tradition probably worked http://korat.ibc.ac.th/files/Articles/The%20Oral%20Transmission%20of%20Early%20Buddhist%20Literature_JIABS_Wynne_2004.pdf

[VincentRJ]

Thanks for that link to the pdf article, Bruce. It covers the problem quite well, stating the cases both for and against the processes of improvisation, distortion and elaboration.

Nevertheless, in the conclusion, the author states: "No one can deny that there must have been a period of free literary transmission at the beginning of Buddhism. After the Buddha’s death, every bhikkhu or bhikkhuni would have remembered a number of stories about the Buddha’s life and teaching, some of which they witnessed themselves, and others which they heard second-hand. In the beginning it is likely that such stories and teachings, based on the collective memory of the early sangha, were not fixed and circulated freely."

What prompted me to start this thread was Rocky's last comment in another thread, "Was Buddhism convoluted with Hindu beliefs?"

I get the impression that a major flaw in Alexander Wynne's argument, which I don't think he addressed, are the consequences of the natural, unruly, power-seeking and lying nature of most individuals. Lying, whether little white lies or big black lies, appears to be a natural characteristic of most life forms, and is often necessary for survival, and certainly necessary in the normal human affairs of politics and business.

If we assume that all members of the the various Sanghas that have existed since the times of the Buddha were completely truthful and were ideal Buddhists of impeccable behaviour, then we could have more confidence that the teachings are historically accurate.

However, wouldn't we be rather naive to assume this?

[Brucenkhamen]

If we assume that all members of the the various Sanghas that have existed since the times of the Buddha were completely truthful and were ideal Buddhists of impeccable behaviour, then we could have more confidence that the teachings are historically accurate.

However, wouldn't we be rather naive to assume this?

There were bad eggs in the Sangha as there are today, the Vinaya documents the escapades of some of them.

This is one of the problems a communal oratory tradition is supposed to mitigate. The group comes together and compares their recollection of the discourses in question, they agree on a memorisable format, then proceed to recite that format and check on each other to ensure consistancy.

A minority with an agenda can't really hijack that process in the same way that a minority with a keyboard and broadband can today.

[VincentRJ]

If we assume that all members of the the various Sanghas that have existed since the times of the Buddha were completely truthful and were ideal Buddhists of impeccable behaviour, then we could have more confidence that the teachings are historically accurate.

However, wouldn't we be rather naive to assume this?

There were bad eggs in the Sangha as there are today, the Vinaya documents the escapades of some of them.

This is one of the problems a communal oratory tradition is supposed to mitigate. The group comes together and compares their recollection of the discourses in question, they agree on a memorisable format, then proceed to recite that format and check on each other to ensure consistancy.

A minority with an agenda can't really hijack that process in the same way that a minority with a keyboard and broadband can today.

A few bad eggs might not be the only problem. Even with the best intentions, errors and misunderstandings can take place. Human competence is limited. There's also a natural and understandable tendency for religious groups and organisations to modify and enhance the biography of a great teacher in order to inspire the followers to pursue the spiritual path and to increase the number of converts in the population at large, and to generally promote and spread the religion.

[Brucenkhamen]

A few bad eggs might not be the only problem. Even with the best intentions, errors and misunderstandings can take place. Human competence is limited. There's also a natural and understandable tendency for religious groups and organisations to modify and enhance the biography of a great teacher in order to inspire the followers to pursue the spiritual path and to increase the number of converts in the population at large, and to generally promote and spread the religion.

Of course. This is true of the oral tradition, just as it is of written or digital forms of transmission.

Wasn't that covered by the previous thread? Isn't this a new topic?

[rockyysdt]

Lying, whether little white lies or big black lies, appears to be a natural characteristic of most life forms, and is often necessary for survival, and certainly necessary in the normal human affairs of politics and business.

If we assume that all members of the the various Sanghas that have existed since the times of the Buddha were completely truthful and were ideal Buddhists of impeccable behaviour, then we could have more confidence that the teachings are historically accurate.

However, wouldn't we be rather naive to assume this?

A passage I quoted in another thread is apt for your post.

Bikkhu Buddhadasa documents such behavior in his book titled "Anatta".

Source: Buddhadasa "Anatta": Quote: they got some bits and pieces of concepts from Mahayanists, secretly spread what they got to some others among themselves, and finally hold such concepts as the truth since they correspond to their viewpoints, which they have already believed in.

This particular misinformation related to the meaning of Anatta, rather a large discretion.

One way of determining the validity of a specific teaching was to look for its appearance found in distant regions.

Secretly spreading a teaching is capable of giving such an illusion.

Edited July 17, 2015 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

I'm simply trying here to get a clearer picture and understanding as to why there are no original, historical texts written during the times of the Buddha.

I understand that literacy during those times would have been the preserve of only the few who were privileged and educated. However, the Buddha, a so-called prince, would surely have been among the privileged few who were literate.

A person who is literate is one who reads and writes. A category of people who are literate but who don't read and write, is difficult to comprehend. Is it possible the Buddha wasn't literate? Or, is it perhaps more likely that Gautama was literate when living in the palace, but after leaving the palace on the road to enlightenment, he gave up reading and writing because he considered them attachments to this world?

After all, if one writes something, one needs a writing tool of some description, some ink or paint, and something to write upon, such as tree bark or a cave wall. I can understand that a wandering ascetic would not be concerned with such cumbersome activities, but what about those who knew Gautama and sometimes listened to his discourses and teachings? Why didn't any of those associates record anything during the very long life of the Buddha? What's the explanation?

Would writing have been considered too elitist within the Buddhist framework of equality and the rejection of the caste system? Would writing to record events, have been considered a pointless activity if most of the followers of Gautama were illiterate? Or, indeed, was the spoken word, from memory, considered to be more accurate and meaningful than the written word, in those times?

During searches on the internet, I came across the following article which sheds some fascinating light on the possible connection between Buddhism and the ancient Indus Valley Civilization, which existed very approximately between the years 3,000 and 1800 B.C. and which predates the Vedic, Brahmanic, caste system which was apparently introduced by the Aryan invasion of the region between 1800-1500 B.C.

What surprised me is that the Indus Valley Civilization had its own script which has not yet been deciphered. More work to be done.

http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud2.htm

In Buddhism we have a religion which draws most of its inspiration from the Indus Valley religion, the ideas of renunciation, meditation, karma and rebirth, ultimate liberation - ideas which were important to the Indus Valley Civilization. The Buddha Himself indicated the Indus Valley origins of His tradition when He said that the path which He taught was an ancient path and the goal to which He pointed to was an ancient goal.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm simply trying here to get a clearer picture and understanding as to why there are no original, historical texts written during the times of the Buddha.

Probably because they considered the teachings too important to entrust to scribes. Probably the Buddha, just as Jesus was, was too busy to sit up late at night enscribing his teachings onto tablets.

I think in those days the oral tradition was considered more reliable way of teaching and transmitting knowledge. One can be quite flippant about a book, after you put it down you've forgetten half of what you just read, that's not the case with the oral tradition it's a group effort that can't be taken lightly.

Ven Sujato's exceleent book on the Authenticity of the Early Buddist Texts has information on how the Oral Tradition worked http://www.ocbs.org/images/stories/authenticity.pdf

Edited July 18, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

I'm simply trying here to get a clearer picture and understanding as to why there are no original, historical texts written during the times of the Buddha.

Probably because they considered the teachings too important to entrust to scribes. Probably the Buddha, just as Jesus was, was too busy to sit up late at night enscribing his teachings onto tablets.

I think in those days the oral tradition was considered more reliable way of teaching and transmitting knowledge. One can be quite flippant about a book, after you put it down you've forgetten half of what you just read, that's not the case with the oral tradition it's a group effort that can't be taken lightly.

Ven Sujato's exceleent book on the Authenticity of the Early Buddist Texts has information on how the Oral Tradition worked http://www.ocbs.org/images/stories/authenticity.pdf

I think I've found the answers to my questions, Bruce, by applying the principle of 'Occam's Razor'. The reason why there seem to be no written records that date to the times of the Buddha, not only on the important issue of Gautama's teachings, but on any matter at all, is because these people simply didn't write. They were not literate.

The following linked article provides a convincing explanation. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34hrdq/was_gautama_buddha_illiterate_was_there_a_written/

For example, the earliest records of writing in Sanskrit appear from 3rd century BCE onwards during the reign of Emperor Ashoka, in the Brahmi script. Buddha lived between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. He would probably have spoken Sanskrit as well as the local Magadhi variation of Prakrit, which is similar to Pali but not the same. However, the absence of any written records at all from the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. suggest that neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit had developed a fully functional written form, or alphabet, during that period of history.

Edited July 18, 2015 by VincentRJ

[fang37]

A great source of Buddhist literature in various languages & FREE!

Buddhist Education Foundation - Taiwan

[Brucenkhamen]

For example, the earliest records of writing in Sanskrit appear from 3rd century BCE onwards during the reign of Emperor Ashoka, in the Brahmi script. Buddha lived between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. He would probably have spoken Sanskrit as well as the local Magadhi variation of Prakrit, which is similar to Pali but not the same. However, the absence of any written records at all from the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. suggest that neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit had developed a fully functional written form, or alphabet, during that period of history.

Actually that points towards another important point. At the time Sanskrit was the language of the Brahmins, most people besides the Brahmins could not read or write in Sanskrit and possibly not even understand it when spoken.

The Buddha wanted his teachings to be accessible to ordinary people so he taught in the local Pakrit (vernacular) dialects in the various locations that he travelled in. If he had arranged for his teachings to be written down then they would have been written down in Sanskrit and therefore come under the control of the Brahmins, something the Buddha was anxious to avoid (think of the medieval Catholic Church with Latin).

I heard that Pali never existed as a spoken language, it was invented as a hybrid that allowed various Pakrit dialects to exist in one written form, thus bypassing Sanskrit and the Brahmins.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

For example, the earliest records of writing in Sanskrit appear from 3rd century BCE onwards during the reign of Emperor Ashoka, in the Brahmi script. Buddha lived between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. He would probably have spoken Sanskrit as well as the local Magadhi variation of Prakrit, which is similar to Pali but not the same. However, the absence of any written records at all from the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. suggest that neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit had developed a fully functional written form, or alphabet, during that period of history.

Actually that points towards another important point. At the time Sanskrit was the language of the Brahmins, most people besides the Brahmins could not read or write in Sanskrit and possibly not even understand it when spoken.

The Buddha wanted his teachings to be accessible to ordinary people so he taught in the local Pakrit (vernacular) dialects in the various locations that he travelled in. If he had arranged for his teachings to be written down then they would have been written down in Sanskrit and therefore come under the control of the Brahmins, something the Buddha was anxious to avoid (think of the medieval Catholic Church with Latin).

I heard that Pali never existed as a spoken language, it was invented as a hybrid that allowed various Pakrit dialects to exist in one written form, thus bypassing Sanskrit and the Brahmins.

Bruce,

This view you've described is more or less what I imagined to be the case when I began looking into the matter. I assumed that the Vedas, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and so on, were first written down long before the period of the Buddha, and that the art of writing would have been an established practice among the upper echelons by the time Gautama appeared on the scene.

With this idea in mind, I found it rather odd and incongruous that no writings relating to the Buddha, his royal family and surrounding circumstances, have been discovered that date to the time he lived.

To explain this situation, we tend to devise complicated scenarios, such as the fact that Gautama was reaching out to the ordinary, illiterate person who didn't speak or read Sanskrit. Fair enough! That sounds reasonable. But why are there no written records at all on any matter that date to the time of the Buddha?

Can we assume that writing Sanskrit was the preserve of the Brahmin priests of the time and that no-one who was not a Brahmin priest was allowed to write, and/or had the ability to write? If this is the case, then the implication would be that the Royal family of the Buddha, and their associates, were simply illiterate.

With this concept in mind, I began searching the internet for reports of the oldest preserved writings of the Vedas that have been discovered. It seems that none have been discovered that date as far back as the period of the Buddha.

It seems that not only were the Buddhist teachings first written after the death of Gautama, but also the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads were all first written down after the period Gautama is claimed to have lived.

The principle of Occam's Razor, in philosophy and science, is that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts.

Using this principle, I would say that the reason we have no written records dating to the time of the Buddha is simply because writing was not sufficiently developed during that period of time in India to allow the expression of the ideas and concepts contained within the oral memory. There was no adequate script. The task was impossible. Everything had to be committed to memory. There was no alternative.

Don't you like the simplicity and truth of this?

During my internet search, I did come across a few 'authoritative' references to dates of the earliest written Vedas, that came close to the life of the Buddha, as follows.

"The Bhagavad Gita was written at some point between 400 BCE and 200 CE."

"The oldest preserved parts of the Mahabharata text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE."

"The first introduction of writing to South Asia apart from the Bronze Age Indus script, which is undeciphered and may not be an actual script, is mostly identified as the Edicts of Ashoka from c. 250 BCE."

[Brucenkhamen]

Don't you like the simplicity and truth of this?

I see no problem with it.

[VincentRJ]

Don't you like the simplicity and truth of this?

I see no problem with it.

Wow! That's unusual for you to agree with me, Bruce.

Seriously though, I have to admit that my exploration into this topic has produced a mixture of fascination and bewilderment. I'm bewildered because of the lack of certainty on so many issues, and the apparent differences of opinion among scholars on even the approximate dates of so many significant events.

However, I'm fascinated by the capacity of these ancient Indians to memorize so much without the aid of a written language. I guess those of us who were brought up in an environment in which writing is such a common and regular activity, from Primary School onward, find it difficult to imagine how anyone could memorize and orally transmit what would be the equivalent of hundreds of pages of text, if it were written down.

For example, Panini is credited with defining the Sanskrit rules of grammar, syntax and semantics, and amazingly produced almost 4,000 sutras to define the structure of the language. When one then reads that Panini probably didn't have the benefit of a mature, writable script to do this, and probably had to rely upon his own memory and the memory of students to help him, one becomes bewildered. How is this possible? How could anyone create such a complicated set of rules defining the grammar of a language, its syntax and morphology, without having a script to work with? If he did this without a script, then his major work or treatise, called the Astadhyayi, would have been transmitted by memory for perhaps a couple of hundred years until a script was developed.

The dates of Panini's life are so vague and approximate, I gather he could have been a contemporary of Gautama Buddha, although he lived on the other side of the country in what is now Pakistan.