Some Buddhists and non-Buddhists suspect the authenticity and reliability of the Tipitaka pointing to the possibility of altering the teachings of the Buddha by later additions or by being it impossible for monks to memorize all the Tipitaka, which is a book of volumes of volumes when it came in the oral tradition for about 500 years.
Reply to the question of how such long texts were memorized by monks is that Pali Suththas were written in a manner that makes it easy to remember them by using mnemonic techniques like repetitions, sound similarities, rhythm, using similar syllables at the end of the lines, etc. I would like to quote from the Wikipedia article on the Oral tradition since it has worded this cleverly, and would like to tell anyone who doubts the facts since it was from Wikipedia, that I have referred to the sources it given as footnotes and thus have confirmed the accuracy of the claim.
Oral cultures have employed various strategies that achieve this without writing. For example, a heavily rhythmic speech filled with mnemonic devices enhances memory and recall. A few useful mnemonic devices include alliteration, repetition, assonance, and proverbial sayings. In addition, the verse is often metrically composed with an exact number of syllables or morae – such as with Greek and Latin prosody and in Chandas found in Hindu and Buddhist texts.[39][40] The verses of the epic or text are typically designed wherein the long and short syllables are repeated by certain rules so that if an error or inadvertent change is made, an internal examination of the verse reveals the problem.[39]
Though we can’t even think about an oral tradition today, at the time, in India, oral tradition was highly reliable because the writing was unknown at the time and it was the only way of knowledge transmission known to them. Since the preservation of knowledge of secular areas like the law, education, etc too was dependent on the oral tradition they took strong care of it. Thanks to the training of generations people had a great skill of memorizing long books. And the monks or ascetics who memorized things devoted their whole life to that service.
And it wasn’t all the Tipitaka memorized by every monk, just a part of it, (in the first Buddhist council sections to be memorized were divided among student generations of Arhats Upali, Sariuth, Moggallana, Ananda, Kashyapa, allocating two sections to each student generation) and they devoted their whole life for memorizing it. And it wasn’t memorized by a single monk but a group of monks (about 500) enabling to it being corrected by comparing versions of other monks if any omission or alteration was unintentionally done by a monk. It’s highly unlikely to happen that the same omission or alteration to be happened by 500 or hundreds of monks who memorized it. Since the age expectancy was 100 at the time (some even lived 120), it had not to pass through so many generations, may have been only passed through just five generations. And it didn’t come in oral tradition in all these 500 hundred years continuously. It was checked and approved in the Buddhist councils at three instances first is being after the great demise of the Buddha and second is being 100 years after the great demise of Buddha and the third is being 136 after the second council.
If we consider this argument further, which points to the possibility of monks being unable to memorize such a large amount of facts if it has happened then it will result in omissions in the texts rather than additions. If such a thing had happened it can be clearly visible, creating the lapses in the narration or in the discourse. But in the Tipitaka, we can’t see such signs of cases in which monks were unable to memorize the discourse properly. Since signs which suggest errors of memorization (you can show if you have found any) can’t be seen, we have to conclude that it hasn’t happened. A philosophical text like Tipitaka can’t be composed by various hands without having inconsistencies and differences in language.
Whatever the people who do not have any knowledge of Pali language, Indology and have not studied Buddhist texts say, the majority of the western scholars on Buddhism, Pali, and scholars on Indology affirm that Tipitaka wasn’t unchanged, or at least it’s doctrinal core is preserved. Rhys Davids, Richard Gombrich, J. W. de Jong, Lamotte, Noble Ross Reat, A. K. Warder, Maurice Winternitz, Alexander Wynne are among them.
“The content of the main body of sermons, the four Nikāyas and of the main body of monastic rules … presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and—most relevantly—coherence, that it is hard to see it as a composite work.” They are “the work of one genius”, the Buddha. – Richard Gombrich
“I, therefore, agree with Rhys Davids, and disagree with skeptics such as Senart, Kern, and Schopen, that the internal evidence of the early Buddhist literature proves its historical authenticity.” – Alexander Wynne
Comparative studies between Tipitaka versions of different schools of Buddhism, which had ideological disputes, and hence continued as separate lineages ever since the split without having any correspondence, have shown that the doctrinal core of them is the same. This is an indicator of the reliability of the process of oral transmission, for if it is not there is no other way to happen that.
Furthermore, there are many internal pieces of evidence like literary features (grammar, vocabulary, tone, style) unique to it, the flavor of the single creator, and lack of inconsistencies to prove that it wasn’t changed as pointed by Bikku Sujatho and Bikku Brahmali. And since socio-economic, historical, and geographical information in the Suththas too clearly matches with the already found image of India (see the book by Sujatho and Brahmali to get a detailed account on these evidences) at the time of the Buddha, it must have been composed at the time of the Buddha, and there’s no reason to think it was composed by some other contemporary scholar other than the Buddha. The precision and sophisticated nature of these teachings and the outstanding way things have been explained suggest that they must be from someone who achieved a higher status, Non-other than by a Buddha.
Regarding the possibility of later additions, such alteration can be easily recognized, because someone other than Buddha, can’t imitate Buddha’s language and style with the same grandeur, it can be clearly recognized by a scholar who is familiar with the ancient writings in Pali language, paying attention to the differences of the Pali writing at different times. On the other hand, if certain teaching has been added later, then inevitably, it will show odds with other teachings of Suththas. Since the teachings of Suththas are intertwined with each other, if certain teaching is a later addition, then all other teachings intertwined with it, must have to be later additions for one teaching can’t separate from another. But most of the so-called ‘questionable teachings’, which is rejected by many modernist Buddhists, clearly consistent with other teachings. And if certain teaching and references to it can be seen in many Suththas, then such teaching can’t be a later addition for if so all these references must be added later, but it’s not possible to do so keeping the narration and flow of these Suththas.
In fact, most of the so-called Buddhists are coming with this argument when they have found teaching which is not appealing to them or contrary to beliefs they are clinging to and wanted to discredit the teaching in Buddhism to preserve their personal beliefs without leaving Buddhism.
I’m not dogmatically maintaining that teachings of the Buddha were never being altered in the course of oral transmission. But if we use this argument without a restrain, then there will be the possibility of even the original teachings of the Buddha being rejected by us thinking they are later additions. This will happen in a more deteriorating manner if we are revising the Tipitaka when it is in contradict with accepted views of our time. So we must limit our doubt to only the instances, where the teachings in the Tipitaka;
- Seemingly in inconsistency with other views in Tipitaka on the same matter or
- Contradicts with commonly accepted morality or
- A fact about the Earth/Universe/Human body etc is in contradiction with the scientifically proven facts on the same issue.
On all the other occasions it’s better not to reject the teaching in the Tipitaka, for it’s not yet proven that it is not a teaching of the Buddha, and thus if it was a one of the Buddha, then we have done a great damage (both to the Buddhism and to our spiritual lives) by rejecting it. Unless it meets the above criteria, believing or practicing it may not do any harm. But if it was rejected and if was a true teaching, we’ll lose a great teaching and possible valuable spiritual outcomes of it. So it’s better to accept teachings which are not highly unacceptable to be a teaching of a Buddha even if we have some doubts regarding it.
However, the above criteria I mentioned can be mistaken. For example one can reject teachings, sayings, or rules seemingly misogynistic, based on the argument that they are incompatible with ‘morality.’ This is a misuse of the above criteria. I used the term ‘commonly accepted morality’ keeping in mind things that must have been considered evil in every cultural context (inhuman/cruel acts like killing, raping, etc). Rules or beliefs which may have been accepted in certain cultural contexts, and mild in effect (not necessarily inhuman) must be excluded from this though they are considered as discriminatory in the current day. In other words ‘morality ’ should not be confused with modern human rights produced in the western culture. And similar caution must be said on the other two criteria. Consistency with science should not be interpreted as consistency with materialism. Buddhism consists of many supernatural concepts. Though the modern world strongly rejects such phenomena as untrue, until tested and found as non-existing by a scientific experiment those concepts must not be rejected as not being taught by the Buddha. The problem is that supernatural phenomena, can not be put into scientific experiments since most of them are unfalsifiable hypothesizes.
Finlay, I would like to examine important teaching, which is rejected by many modernist-Buddhists as not being taught by the Buddha. Worshiping Buddha statues and offering things to them, expecting merits is an established practice among Buddhists in many Asian countries (maybe in Europe too). A conversation between Venerable Ananda and the Buddha, which comes in Parinibbana Suththa of Deega Nikaya too supports the practice, but some see this as a later addition.
The reason most are rejecting this as a later addition attributing it’s the founding mentality to unnecessary high-veneration of Buddha (elevating Buddha to a God from the position of a human being) maybe the hesitancy to accept, a merit can be gained by worshiping or offering things to someone who had absolutely demised, which is not possible unless there is a supernatural force dedicated to giving such rewards; and not seeing any linkage with such a teaching and basic teachings (especially with the path of Nirvana) of Buddhism. If the rejection is based on superstitiousness of the teaching, it must be reminded that even the most central teachings of Buddhism, like Nirvana, rebirth, and merits & sins are supernatural concepts too and you have to reject Buddhism altogether on that basis.
And it must be said that considering worshiping or offering things to Buddha as a meritful act is consistent with the concept of merit in Buddhism too, for the merits are virtuous/pious feelings or acts done with such a mind, and praising to the Buddha and expressing gratitude to his qualities is undoubtedly such an act. Maybe the most meritful one. There’s nothing inconsistent in it with Buddhist philosophy. Since one of the meditations among Buddhist meditations, as taught by Buddha is the remembrance of Buddha (since there are many such meditations – remembrance of Seela, Dhamma, Deva, Brahma, Sangha – this can’t be a later addition.) this is a teaching in harmony with many other teachings and since removing them as later additions create many inconsistencies, so this can’t be a later addition.
I haven’t referred to all the Tipitaka, But I’ve referred to many Suththas, including complete Deega Nikaya. I found only one teaching which can be determined as a later addition by using the above criteria. In the Sutta of the Seven Suns, it’s said that there’s a mountain called Meru, which is 42000 Yojanas high. A Yojana is 8 miles. We clearly know such a mountain does not exist in the world. Even Mount Everest (the highest place on Earth) has a height of only 8 kilometers. Some argue that a Yojana is a much smaller unit, But even if we interpret a Yojana as being only 1 meter, even then ‘mount Meru’ must have to be high as 42 kilometers. So we can reject this as utter rubbish. But rest must have to be came unaltered from oral tradition as Buddha himself told.
If you have come across any teaching which confuses you and seems to meet the above criteria, please comment below, so that we can examine it.
Sasithmadu 