The Paradox of Buddhist Beliefs
Early Buddhist Teachings (EBT), the most “scientific” branch of Buddhism
Like other religions, terms like “Buddhism” or “Buddhist” can comprise countless traditions and beliefs. One that has really drawn me in as a neuroscientist is Early Buddhist Teaching (sometimes abbreviated as EBT) which uses comparative text analyses to determine what they actually recorded during the historical Buddha’s lifetime (or shortly thereafter.) Much of current Buddhism is based upon texts that were written much later after the historical Buddha’s death, by numerous other authors.
Bhante Sujato is an authoritative scholar-monk on this topic, and you can read his summary (and buy his book) on what EBT is here.
According to Bhante Sujato, EBT differs from even the “oldest” branch of Buddhism (Theravada) in the following ways:
- The Buddha was a human being, not an exalted godlike figure (or even a king!)
- Didn’t go forth because he encountered the messengers for old age, sickness and death…instead he went forth after seeing the strife and violent conflicts of the world
- Does not distinguish between “conventional” vs “ultimate” reality
- Does not give as much credence to the Abhidhamma texts or its derivative commentaries
- Does not give elevated status to the Pali language
- Contextualizes teachings with its historical context (proto-Hinduism / brahminical path)
- Encourages dialogue and inquiry, not doctrine nor rote memorization
- Less emphasis on the mechanics of meditation methods, more on context and meaning
- The “present” is a broad feature, not a specific moment
- Lay folk practice by taking 1 day a week to undertake the 8 precepts, instead of going on intensive retreats (Bhante even explicitly spells out that intense retreats can trigger psychiatric issues, something that is reluctantly discussed if at all by Buddhist communities at-large)
- …and more! Please read Bhante Sujato’s post and support his book.
As someone who undertook neuroscientist training, EBT is more aligned with those who have analytical leanings, who want to understand Buddhism in a secular fashion. It’s a path that I encourage those who are skeptical of “belief” to undertake, because it matches methods of scientific inquiry the best. The suttas (scriptures) become scientific papers one can review and test in their own practice, to determine whether these “findings” are replicable.
Downside of only relying on EBT
The downside of EBT is that it can be quite dry on its own. To me, there is inherent beauty in the forms of Mahayana traditions such as Zen, and Vajrayana teachings resonate with modern mindsets in how it addresses e.g. depression. (EBT does not provide obvious solutions to counter modern psychological ailments.) Importantly, much of EBT is still debated, including whether jhana development is necessary for awakening.
EBT = Context
Whether you are a Buddhist practitioner or Buddhist-curious, I highly encourage you to explore EBT, because it can give context for what the historical Buddha really taught. However, it doesn’t mean that we throw out all the subsequent Buddhist practices — EBT allows us to contextualize their development and make better discernments about what might be helpful or skillful towards our own path.
If you have read until this far, please read the Amendment to receive important clarifications about this post!
