Skip to content
buddhavacana

My Journey

Brief history of how I was introduced to Buddhism and my progress to date

This website documents my evolving journey discovering and studying the teachings of the Buddha. I was first introduced to Buddhism in my early teens, through a book called “What Buddhists Believe” by Dr K Sri Dhammananda. The core concepts of Buddhism made a lot of sense to me. However, life took over and I did not pursue my interest in Buddhism until recently, when I retired from an active working career. In the last few years, I started by studying the Pāḷi Canon (translated into English) and other Buddhist texts, and then learnt Pāḷi in order to read the original texts. Lately I have been reading texts outside the Pāḷi Canon, including Sanskrit and Chinese texts in the Mahāyāna and related traditions.

My understanding of who the Buddha was and what the Buddha may have taught have evolved over the years. In hindsight, my perspective when I started was fairly biased. I was mainly exposed to Theravāda Buddhism, from the perspective of books from the Pali Text Society and the Buddhist Publication Society. These books were written mainly by European or Western educated scholars and adherents, and they promoted a rationalist interpretation of Buddhism - the Buddha was a human being with human imperfections, and his teachings can be regarded as a form of philosophy as well as meditative practice. Stories of the Buddha’s miraculous birth, pre-destined future, tree worshipping, performing magic and exhibiting psychic powers, and exalted descriptions of the Buddha acting as an omniscient being conversing with deities and demons in different universes were dismissed as corruptions or fanciful imaginations from over-zealous disciples, or propaganda intended to proselytise the masses and encourage donations and patronage.

I somehow formed the impression that other forms of Buddhism, such as the Mahāyāna tradition practised in East Asia, and the Vajrayāna tradition practised in Tibet, were later developments that deviated from his “original” teachings, and represented “corrupted” forms of Buddhism. There was a “pure” form of Buddhism based on the so-called “early texts” that represented what the Buddha “really” taught, and recoverable through scholarly research and analysis.12

The Buddha and Buddhism therefore represented to me a rational philosophy aligned to modern scientific views, and thus was highly appealing. Little did I realise this representation of Buddhism, which I am going refer to as “Protestant Buddhism”, is largely a modern invention that arose in the 19th and 20th centuries, influenced by Western ideas of rationalism, empiricism, and Protestant Christianity. Protestant Buddhism was created by European scholars and amateur “orientalists” in the era of colonialism. The British found versions of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Myanmar that were highly syncretic and degenerated, and some enthusiastic individuals reimagined a “pure” Buddhism that met their ideals and wrote about it in their books. They sought to reform Buddhism and make it more compatible with modern values and scientific worldview.

This view of Buddhism is a reaction against the colonial and missionary critiques of Buddhism as superstitious and irrational, and sought to present Buddhism as a rational and ethical alternative to Western religions. The British colonial administration in Sri Lanka and Burma (Myanmar) supported this movement, as it aligned with their own interests in promoting a more “modern” and “civilised” form of Buddhism that was less threatening to their rule. It is also heavily influenced by the Theosophical Society, founded by Henry Steel Olcott and Helena Blavatsky in 1875, and Protestant Buddhism (at least in Sri Lanka) is largely descended from the Buddhist Theosophical Society (BTS).3

However, the more I read and study (and as my knowledge of Pāḷi increased), the more I realise that this view of Buddhism is a constructed one, and quite possibly flawed. K. R. Norman (an early British philologist at the University of Cambridge and a leading authority on Pali and other Middle Indo-Aryan languages) who was president of the Pali Text Society from 1981-1994 acknowledged in Pāli Philology And The Study Of Buddhism4 that the study of early Buddhism, particularly Theravāda, is critically hampered by its reliance on flawed textual editions, many of which were produced by the Pali Text Society using insufficient manuscript evidence and poor philological methods.

It is possible that European scholars and philologists came to the East to search for Eastern spiritualism and mysticism. They reworked what they found into what they expected to find.

The scholars observed that what existed in so called Buddhist countries is worship of the Buddha integrated with local animist beliefs. In India and elsewhere (Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand) it was integrated with Hinduism. The scholars postulated a “pure” Buddhism stripped of syncretism and decided that medication must be the core of Buddha’s teachings. This is despite many observations that monastics were generally not seen to be meditating and to live rather prosaic lives. I don’t believe the Buddha actually taught meditation as a core practice (see TL;DR - What the Buddha Taught). Meditation was probably a later development, perhaps introduced to help monastics focus their minds during long periods of retreat and isolation.

This problem is compounded by the fact that all canonical texts, in Pāli and Sanskrit alike, are translations from earlier Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, a process which created ambiguities, obscured original meanings, and led to divergent interpretations across different Buddhist traditions.

The Buddha’s teachings were transmitted orally for several centuries before being written down, and they were subject to various interpretations and adaptations by different communities and cultures. The Pāḷi Canon itself is a collection of texts that were compiled over many centuries, and it reflects a late, sectarian and redacted perspective belonging to the Theravāda tradition.56

Steven Collins argues in On The Very Idea Of The Pali Canon6 that the Pali Canon should not be equated with Early Buddhism but should be understood as a product of the Mahāvihāra monastic lineage in Ceylon, created during the early first millennium CE as a strategy for self-legitimation. This establishment of a closed, exclusive list of scriptures was a response to sectarian rivalry, particularly with the Abhayagiri monastery which used other texts. Original Pali terms like pāli and tipiṭaka did not denote a fixed collection, and the Mahāvihāra advanced a restrictive, historicist interpretation of buddha-vacana (the Buddha’s Word) to assert its authority. This process of canonisation was linked to the standardisation of commentaries and the development of the vamsa (chronicle) tradition, which together reinforced the Mahāvihāra’s claim as the sole legitimate lineage. Despite the ideological power of this fixed canon, Theravāda practice has always incorporated a wider range of texts, suggesting the true significance of the Pali Canon lies not in the exclusive use of its contents, but in the powerful idea of a definitive collection that legitimized a particular school of thought.

We don’t even know whether the Buddha was a historical figure or a mythical one. The earliest texts we have about the Buddha were written several centuries after his death, and they contain many legendary and mythical elements. The Buddha’s life story, as presented in the Pāḷi Canon and other texts, is a mixture of supposedly “historical facts”, hagiography and mythological embellishments. There is no evidence of the Buddha’s existence outside of Buddhist scripture.7

If the Buddha was a historical figure, then perhaps soon after his death, and perhaps even during his lifetime, there were probably multiple trends in how his disciples wanted to preserve his memory and his teachings. On one hand there were those who wanted to remember him as a human being, with flaws and imperfections, while on the other hand there were those who wanted to idealize him as a perfect, omniscient being.

Then there was the issue of attracting followers, and more importantly patronage. Buddhism as a movement would not have survived long without the support of wealthy patrons. These patrons often played a significant role in shaping the direction of the movement and influencing the development of Buddhist doctrine.

An imperfect human being who has achieved the cessation of suffering would not attract many converts. Those that truly understood his teachings will realise the significance of his achievement, however the average person may not be impressed unless he could also perform miracles, read minds, foretell the future, and fraternise with the gods. More importantly, rich patrons such as wealthy merchants and kings would not be willing to give donations, slaves and lands unless he saw the Buddha as more than just a human being, but someone who could help them.

So, it is no surprise that the Buddha was valorised and deified almost from the beginning. We know that the Vinaya texts, which are largely consistent across different Buddhist traditions, indicate that the Buddha was regarded from the beginning as a semi divine being with extraordinary qualities and abilities. The Buddha is often described as possessing supernormal powers, such as the ability to read minds, perform miracles, and transcend the limitations of ordinary human existence. So the notion that the Buddha was merely a human teacher and philosopher is also a late construction.8

The original focus of this website was to document my journey in studying the Pāḷi Canon and related texts, and my progress in learning Pāḷi. However, as my understanding of Buddhism has evolved, I have expanded my focus to include other Buddhist traditions and texts. I have also started exploring the historical and cultural contexts of Buddhism, and how they have influenced the development of different Buddhist traditions.

I still believe the Buddha may have been a historical figure, and his “earliest” teachings (as contained in the Vinaya) may have been a “pure” and “rational” soteriology that can be empirically validated through personal experience. However, I now also appreciate the Mahāyāna perspective that the “Buddha” may simply be a concept, an idealised archetype that represents the highest potential of human beings.

The Mahāyānans were very concerned that the Buddha’s teachings as preserved in the Āgamas were inconsistent, contradictory, and losing their effectiveness, which would have been evident even in the 2nd century BCE, a mere 200 years after the death of the Buddha, and there was a belief that his teachings would eventually become ineffective after 500 years. Indeed, the last recorded Theravādin arahant died in the 1st century CE so the predictions were fairly close to the mark.

They came to believe the Buddha taught in metaphor or “roundabout way” (pariyāya), which explains the apparent inconsistencies across the sutras. They also came to the conclusion the Buddha’s teachings were specifically formulated to suit specific individuals, and therefore are less effective on others. His teachings required a living Buddha to be effective (as they were customised for the individual, and therefore not universally appropriate). They went back to the basics or core of the Buddha’s teachings, which was dependent origination and the five collections (skandhas) and extrapolated these into the concept of “emptiness” ([S]śūnyatā), lack of “inherent substance or existence” ([S]svabhāva) and “the Perfection of Wisdom” ([S]Prajñāpāramitā).

They also imagined the existence of a transcendental, eternal, omniscient Buddha: [S]Amitābha (“measureless or limitless light”) who established a Pure Land of perfect peace and happiness, called [S]Sukhāvatī (“Blissful”), where beings who mindfully remember him with faith may be reborn and then quickly attain enlightenment.

These are brilliant solutions to the issue of trying to account for inconsistent teachings and the very human failings of the Buddha (he needed to eat and sleep, he was sick, became old and died), which would have become increasingly difficult to explain to patrons, new converts, novices and lay disciples.

Mahāyāna doctrine is completely consistent with the Buddha’s early teachings in the Mahākhandhaka. More importantly, the doctrine provides a clear path for the bodhisattva and allows the Buddha to be reimagined and worshipped as a conceptual eternal omniscient being living in a celestial realm, which is important to attract patronage and support from the masses. The Mahāyānans acknowledge that their sutras may not have come from the Buddha’s mouth, and their doctrine uses [S]upāya-kaushalya (“skilful means”) - as everything is ultimately empty of inherent substance, including the Buddha and his teachings, it is okay to reinvent the Buddha as a conceptual being and to reimagine his teachings based on a transcendental approach. What matters is how effective the teachings are towards attaining awakening, not how historically accurate or faithful they are alleged to be. By doing so, the Mahāyānans transcended the original Buddha and his teachings, so that Sakyamuni (the Mahāyānan name for Gotama Buddha) can be relegated to become a side figure and his teachings can be regarded as the “lesser” or “inferior” way (Hināyāna).

For more information, refer to Mahāyāna - Reconstructing the Buddha and his teachings.

My current perspective is that whether the Buddha existed as a historical figure or not is irrelevant, as the ultimate objective is for us to understand that the perceptual and subjective world that we experience is ultimately devoid of inherent or substantive existence (or, at the very least, we cannot validate the independent existence or intrinsic qualities of what we perceive outside our perceptions and mental concepts), and when we understand this, we will truly be liberated.

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. There has been an interest in the so-called “Early Buddhist Texts”, representing the earliest stratum of Buddhist literature, which some believe may contain the closest approximation to the original teachings of the historical Buddha. These texts are primarily found in the Pāḷi Canon of the Theravāda tradition, as well as in other early Buddhist canons such as the Āgamas of the Sarvāstivāda and other early schools. Scholars such as Analayo and Allon, as well as monastics such as Bhikkhu Sujato, have used various methods, including textual criticism, comparative analysis, and historical research, to identify and study these early texts. The goal is to reconstruct the teachings and practices of the Buddha as accurately as possible, shedding light on the origins and development of Buddhism. ↩

  2. Allon, M. Early Buddhist Texts: Their Composition and Transmission. J Indian Philosophy 50, 523–556 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09499-6 ↩

  3. Gombrich, R. F. (2006). Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge. ↩

  4. K. R. Norman (1990), Pāli Philology And The Study Of Buddhism, The Buddhist Forum Volume I - Seminar Papers 1987-1988 ↩

  5. Cousins, L.S. (2013) The Early Development of Buddhist Literature and Language in India, JOCBS 2013 (5), pp. 89–135. ↩

  6. Collins, Steven, On The Very Idea Of The Pali Canon, JPTS XV(4) pp. 89-126 ↩ ↩2

  7. Drewes, D. (2017). The Idea Of The Historical Buddha. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 40, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2143/JIABS.40.0.3269003 ↩

  8. Frauwallner, E. (1956). The Earliest Vinaya And The Beginnings Of Buddhist Literature. ROMA Is. M. E. O. ↩