Editing The Buddha (section)

=== Historicity ===
==== Scholarly views on the earliest teachings ====
{{Main|Presectarian Buddhism}}
[[File:Kanishka Buddha detail.jpg|thumb|upright|The Buddha on a coin of [[Kushan Empire|Kushan]] ruler [[Kanishka I]], {{circa|130}} CE]]

One method to obtain information on the oldest core of Buddhism is to compare the oldest versions of the [[Pali Canon]] and other texts, such as the surviving portions of [[Sarvastivada]], [[Mulasarvastivada]], [[Mahisasaka]], [[Dharmaguptaka]],{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|p=ix}}{{sfnp|Warder|2000|p={{page needed|date=October 2020}}}} and the Chinese [[Āgama (Buddhism)|Agamas]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Tse-Fu Kuan |title=Buddhist Foundations of Mindfulness |editor1=Edo Shonin |page=267 |chapter=Mindfulness in similes in Early Buddhist literature |editor2=William Van Gordon |editor3=[[Nirbhay N. Singh]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Mun-Keat Choong |title=The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |year=1999 |page=3}}</ref> The reliability of these sources, and the possibility of drawing out a core of oldest teachings, is a matter of dispute.{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993}}{{sfnp|Vetter|1988}}{{sfnp|Schmithausen|1990}}{{sfnp|Gombrich|1997}} According to [[Lambert Schmithausen]], there are three positions held by modern scholars of Buddhism with regard to the authenticity of the teachings contained in the Nikayas:{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|p=vii}}
# "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials".{{efn|Two well-known proponent of this position are [[A.K. Warder]] and [[Richard Gombrich]].
* According to A.K. Warder, in his 1970 publication ''Indian Buddhism'', "from the oldest extant texts a common kernel can be drawn out".{{sfnp|Warder|2000|loc=inside flap}} According to Warder, c.q. his publisher: "This kernel of doctrine is presumably common Buddhism of the period before the great schisms of the fourth and third centuries BCE. It may be substantially the Buddhism of the Buddha himself, although this cannot be proved: at any rate it is a Buddhism presupposed by the schools as existing about a hundred years after the ''parinirvana'' of the Buddha, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was formulated by anyone else than the Buddha and his immediate followers".{{sfnp|Warder|2000|loc=inside flap}}
* Richard Gombrich: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice is not the work of a single genius. By "the main edifice" I mean the collections of the main body of sermons, the four Nikāyas, and of the main body of monastic rules."{{sfnp|Gombrich|1997}}}}
# "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism".{{efn|A proponent of the second position is Ronald Davidson.
* Ronald Davidson: "While most scholars agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature (disputed){{sic}} that a relatively early community (disputed){{sic}} maintained and transmitted, we have little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha."{{sfnp|Davidson|2003|p=147}}}}
# "Cautious optimism in this respect".{{efn|Well-known proponents of the third position are:
* J.W. de Jong: "It would be hypocritical to assert that nothing can be said about the doctrine of earliest Buddhism [...] the basic ideas of Buddhism found in the canonical writings could very well have been proclaimed by him [the Buddha], transmitted and developed by his disciples and, finally, codified in fixed formulas."{{sfnp|Jong|1993|p=25}}
* Johannes Bronkhorst: "This position is to be preferred to (ii) for purely methodological reasons: only those who seek may find, even if no success is guaranteed."{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|p=vii}}
* Donald Lopez: "The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct."{{sfnp|Lopez|1995|p=4}}}}

Scholars such as [[Richard Gombrich]], Akira Hirakawa, Alexander Wynne and [[A.K. Warder]] hold that these Early Buddhist Texts contain material that could possibly be traced to the Buddha.{{sfnp|Gombrich|1997}}{{sfnp|Warder|2004|p={{page needed|date=October 2020}}}}<ref name=":1" /> [[Richard Gombrich]] argues that since the content of the earliest texts "presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and—most relevantly—coherence...it is hard to see it as a composite work." Thus he concludes they are "the work of one genius".{{sfnp|Gombrich|2006b|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KCh-AgAAQBAJ&q=the%20work%20of%20one%20genius 21]}} [[Peter Harvey (academic)|Peter Harvey]] also agrees that "much" of the Pali Canon "must derive from his [the Buddha's] teachings".<ref>Harvey, Peter (1990). ''"An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices"'', p. 3. Introduction to Religion. Cambridge University Press.</ref> Likewise, [[A. K. Warder]] has written that "there is no evidence to suggest that it [the shared teaching of the early schools] was formulated by anyone other than the Buddha and his immediate followers."{{sfnp|Warder|2000|loc=inside flap}} According to Alexander Wynne, "the internal evidence of the early Buddhist literature proves its historical authenticity."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wynne |first1=Alexander |year=2005 |title=The Historical Authenticity of Early Buddhist Literature |journal=Vienna Journal of South Asian Studies |volume=XLIX |pages=35–70}}</ref>

Other scholars of Buddhist studies have disagreed with the mostly positive view that the early Buddhist texts reflect the teachings of the historical Buddha, arguing that some teachings contained in the early texts are the authentic teachings of the Buddha, but not others. Ainslie Embree writes that many sermons credited to the Buddha are the works of later teachers, so there is considerable doubt about his original message.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Embree |first=Ainslie |title=Sources of Indian tradition |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-231-06650-1 |editor-last= |editor-first= |edition=2nd |series=Introduction to Oriental civilizations |location=New York |pages=93}}</ref> According to Tilmann Vetter, inconsistencies remain, and other methods must be applied to resolve those inconsistencies.{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|p=ix}}{{efn|Exemplary studies are the study on descriptions of "liberating insight" by Lambert Schmithausen,{{sfnp|Schmithausen|1981}} the overview of early Buddhism by Tilmann Vetter,{{sfnp|Vetter|1988}} the philological work on the four truths by K.R. Norman,{{sfnp|Norman|2003}} the textual studies by Richard Gombrich,{{sfnp|Gombrich|1997}} and the research on early meditation methods by Johannes Bronkhorst.{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993}}}} According to Tilmann Vetter, the earliest core of the Buddhist teachings is the meditative practice of ''dhyāna'',{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|pp=xxx, xxxv–xxxvi, 4–5}}{{efn|Vetter: "However, if we look at the last, and in my opinion the most important, component of this list [the noble eightfold path], we are still dealing with what according to me is the real content of the middle way, dhyana-meditation, at least the stages two to four, which are said to be free of contemplation and reflection. Everything preceding the eighth part, i.e. right samadhi, apparently has the function of preparing for the right samadhi."{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|p=xxx}}}} but "liberating insight" became an essential feature of the Buddhist tradition only at a later date.

He posits that the Fourth Noble Truths, the Eightfold path and Dependent Origination, which are commonly seen as essential to Buddhism, are later formulations which form part of the explanatory framework of this "liberating insight".{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|pp=xxxiv–xxxvii}} [[Lambert Schmithausen]] similarly argues that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the four ''dhyānas'', is a later addition.{{sfnp|Schmithausen|1981}} [[Johannes Bronkhorst]] also argues that the four truths may not have been formulated in earliest Buddhism, and did not serve in earliest Buddhism as a description of "liberating insight".{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|p=107}}

[[Edward Conze]] argued that the attempts of European scholars to reconstruct the original teachings of the Buddha were "all mere guesswork".<ref>Conze, Edward (2000). "Buddhism: A Short History". From Buddhism to Sufism Series. Oneworld.</ref>