Tagged: Buddhist Studies
Pages with this tag
Anālayo - Dependent Arising and Interdependence (2021)
1The early Buddhist doctrine of "dependent arising" posits a specific conditionality, where particular phenomena arise due to identifiable causes, with the primary aim of understanding and eradicating the specific conditions, such as ignorance, that lead to human suffering. This principle is distinct from the concept of "interdependence" or "interconnectedness" — the idea that all phenomena are mutually related in a vast web — which is a later development from Mahāyāna traditions like Huayan philosophy. The text argues that modern interpretations often conflate these two divergent concepts, a confusion that diminishes the practical focus of the original teaching and is exemplified by contemporary research tools like the "Interconnectedness Scale," which incorrectly mixes items reflecting both specific conditionality and universal interdependence.
Drewes - The Idea Of The Historical Buddha (2017)
2In a reevaluation of the Buddha's historicity, David Drewes argues that scholarship has never actually established that the Buddha was a real person and that he cannot be properly considered a historical figure. The author traces the development of the idea from the early nineteenth century, when the Buddha's existence was an open question, through the pivotal work of scholars like Eugène Burnouf, who separated the final Buddha, Śākyamuni, from his mythical predecessors based on Nepalese tradition rather than new evidence. Drewes contends that subsequent influential scholars, such as T.W. Rhys Davids and Hermann Oldenberg, cemented the Buddha's historicity not through factual discovery but by presupposing it and defending it with fallacious arguments, such as the logical necessity of a founder or appeals to a scholarly consensus that was not yet established. Even major twentieth-century proponents like E.J. Thomas, Étienne Lamotte, and André Bareau admitted that no reliable historical data could be extracted from the legends. Drewes concludes that since early texts depict a generic, supernatural being rather than a specific individual—with names like "Siddhārtha" being late additions and clan names like "Śākya" being potentially mythical—the Buddha belongs in the same category as other ahistorical founders like Vyāsa or Laozi, whose existence is a matter of belief rather than empirical fact.
Drewes - Toward Blue Skies Ahead - Reply To Von Hinüber's Second Response (2023)
3In this reply, David Drewes defends his thesis on the lack of evidence for the historical Buddha against critiques from Prof. Dr. von Hinüber, clarifying that his original paper targeted the scholarly inconsistency of affirming historicity without proof. Drewes explains that his focus on secondary sources is due to the absence of any primary texts being presented as evidence, and he posits that the origins of Buddhism before the mid-third century BCE are unknowable, cautioning against projecting modern concepts like "mystical experience" onto its prehistory. He systematically refutes von Hinüber's specific counterarguments by employing detailed linguistic and manuscript evidence to defend his textual emendations in the Dīrghāgama and Sañghabhedavastu, and he substantiates his mythological analysis by showing that numerous Indian myths, including the Sītā story, feature a ritualistic golden plow, thereby connecting a Pali story about the Buddha's youth to this broader narrative tradition.
Hinüber - The Historical Dr. Drewes And The Buddha (2023)
4In a rebuttal to Dr. Drewes's critique, Oskar von Hinüber defends his argument for the Buddha as a historical person by asserting that Drewes focuses on the opinions of other scholars rather than engaging with primary sources. Hinüber reiterates his own method, which involves analyzing the earliest possible texts for linguistic clues and for details that were later suppressed by the tradition, as these are likely to contain fragments of historical memory. He refutes Drewes's specific counterarguments concerning the Upaka episode and the Jambu tree meditation, defending his philological analysis and dismissing Drewes's claims of textual corruption and flawed mythological parallels. Ultimately, Hinüber argues that while a full biography is impossible, a vivid historical memory existed in ancient India, distinct from formal historiography, and that traces of this memory of a real person can be found in the oldest Buddhist texts through careful scholarly application rather than abstract debate.
Tillemans - Remarks on Philology (2018)
5In a reflection on the practice of philology within Buddhist Studies, Tom Tillemans argues against rigid methodological positions, instead defending the practical goal of understanding an author's thought through deep engagement with their language, history, and context. He counters the critique that philologists naively seek to eliminate all personal bias by suggesting that prejudices can be progressively challenged and refined, allowing for genuine progress in understanding. Tillemans addresses the central tension between interpreting a text "on its own terms" and using modern, author-alien concepts by introducing the logical distinction between *de re* and *de dicto* attributions of thought, which validates interpretations that are true to an author's thinking even if phrased in unfamiliar terms. He concludes by championing the necessity of rigorous, text-based philological work, warning that postmodern pragmatism should not be misused as a license to bypass the demanding but essential task of mastering the linguistic and historical foundations of the texts being studied.