Much of the Sanskrit Buddhist literature survives only in Chinese or Tibetan translation. The only complete collection of the earliest traditions (they were oral, so “texts” is a metaphor) is the Pali Tipitaka of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. The north Indian Sanskrit forms of the stories of the Buddha teaching – the Suttas or Sutras – differ in only in minor ways from the Pali. Amazing, considering the cultural, geographical, and temporal distance between them. That forms a field of research, if not a quest, for the oldest form of “Buddhism.”

The picture of pre-Asokan Buddhism that emerges is an artifact of Western scholarship. But it is the best picture we have. Using it as a Procrustean bed on which to trim the existing Asian Buddhist religions is a bad idea. But as a Western Buddhist myself, I find it a good standard to apply to them in my selection of what shall constitute Buddhism for myself.

The whole idea of “Original Buddhism” seems to be nothing more than an academic exercise, and an ethnocentric one at that. Although the Buddha and many of his historical followers have had some very pointed and relevant things to say about reality, many of which do correlate with some recent scientific research, its a huge disservice to separate Buddhism’s scriptural/philosophical tradition from its meditative lineages and whitewash its unique character by calling it ‘adaptable.’ There is a great deal of misunderstanding and elitist hubris contributing to the current rhetorical notions of what Buddhism is and was. Without taking the oral/living traditions that have propagated, practiced, and passed on Buddhist teachings into account; we make the fundamental mistake of projecting our own cultural/religious values/perspectives onto undigested concepts. It practice, it has always been the meditative lineage that illuminates Buddha’s scriptural tradition, not the other way around. The only way one has access to this stream of knowing is to come into contact with these lineages and share in their oral transmission.

So, no surprise to find a tectonic slippage between historical Buddhism and the “lineage” of colonial pseudo-Buddhism on which Brooks’ notion of “neural Buddhists” is based. Perhaps similar to Jefferson and the 19th Century Quest(ers) of the Historical Jesus (not the New and Third Quests), Brooks has found a “buddha” in his own image.

I’m afraid your cultural presumptions have led you astray. In all the Asian traditions of Buddhism, the authority of practice often rests quite strongly upon lineage, which is always conceived as a continuous, non-broken succession of teaching and transmission, passed on from teacher to student. For some, that leads back to the historical Buddha; for others, that lineage leads back to other Buddhas. But all are anchored ultimately in an individual who discovered the truth of the Dharma and passed it on to those after him. And yes, it was almost inevitably a “him.”

Only a Western Buddhist would think to look to the underlying unity of cultural practices beneath living persons and social institutions. So very post-Enlightenment.

While it may be tempting to go on about how Buddhism is a transcendent, amorphous phenomenon that is infinitely adaptable while never losing its inherent purity, it is the duty of scholars to map what is actually happening during periods of translation, that is, what is kept, what is left out, and what is reinterpreted and how. The translation of Buddhism from East to West can certainly be seen as a highly contextual phenomenon whose understanding is significantly limited by its reduction to “just another adaptation amongst many.” I believe Dr. Lopez’s advice here is to do just that, to understand this phenomenon contextually, which is really to understand it in any real sense at all.

For a historical analysis of how Zen Buddhism came to the West, via D.T. Suzuki and his “New Buddhism” (Shin Bukkyo) cohorts, Robert Sharf’s article, “Zen and the Art of Japanese Nationalism,” is another priceless piece. Any of Dr. Prebish’s recent anthologies on Western Buddhism are also highly recommended.

“You speak of the “historical Buddha” as an authority on Buddhism, as though he were of equal importance as Jesus Christ. While this may be true for some followers, his role is in fact NOT analogous; where Jesus reportedly sought out disciples, saying “no man cometh to the Father but by Me,” Gautama Buddha took them only reluctantly, insisting that the path to enlightenment can only be followed by a seeker alone.”

I appreciate the point, insofar as it has to do with how a majority of people look at Jesus, but I think it’s arguable that Jesus’ own human finitude and life is that through which believers were suppose to seek God. This is something of Hegel’s view and likewise certain dialectical and existential theologians after him. The Buddha makes his historical personage more explicitly beside the point than Jesus, as is clear in the parinibbana sutta and his insistence on his just being another human being (albeit with the 32 marks of perfection). By the same token, he still seems to want people to look at him as an example of *their own* perfection, or in the parlance of the Mahayanist, their Buddha-nature.

Even more dubious, though, is equating any scripture with what the Buddha taught. I think this is repeated more often by Mahayana Buddhists, but it’s in the pari-nibbana sutta itself, too. Clearly, that does not mean we ignore issues of historicity in the scripture, but I think it changes what effect they have on our reception of them.

Take the Raft Analogy as a way to consider the issue. What of what the Buddha said gives us the impression that his original words, which is to say what he uttered whether they’ve been faithfully recorded in the Pali Canon or not, constitutes the true (i.e., only) Dharma-raft? Clinging to them, to the thought of them, in this way seems to be beside the point. The Buddha was supposed to be only one who turns the Dharma wheel; he did not create it. The Dharma is what he left, but why are we to suppose that this is reducible to a historical text, to something he made? If historical texts like the Pali Canon relates us to what he taught, it can only be by way of pointing.

I’m afraid now your own cultural judgments have led you astray. You speak of the “historical Buddha” as an authority on Buddhism, as though he were of equal importance as Jesus Christ. While this may be true for some followers, his role is in fact NOT analogous; where Jesus reportedly sought out disciples, saying “no man cometh to the Father but by Me”, Gautama Buddha took them only reluctantly, insisting that the path to enlightenment can only be followed by a seeker alone. Regardless of the characteristics or teachings of the historical personage of Gautama Buddha, one should not look to him as the ultimate authority on the practice, but rather to the various distinct yet surprisingly often mutually congruous cultural practices of Buddhism, all culturally modified trappings of an underlying worldview that is not, to my poor eyes, adulterated by the multiplicity of practices adorning it. There is no single authoritative practice of Buddhism.

Historiographically, a huge problem with the story you tell (which by the way maps almost perfectly what modernist Buddhists – Asian and Western – have been saying for a century) is that if “original Buddhism” is found in the Pali Canon, then it is almost inevitably far distant from whatever the historical Buddha taught. The Pali scriptures weren’t written down in any form until around the final century of BCE and the canonical form of the Pali scriptures wasn’t secured until the 5th century AD. So historically speaking, the Pali Canon as a textual form didn’t exist until at least 800 years after the historical Buddha is believed to have lived. To claim that it preserves “original Buddhism” is therefore highly dubious from a historical perspective. The Pali Canon, in fact, represents a culturally specific and geographically adapted form of South Asian Buddhism, one of those forms that risks the “distortion” you regret. You will need to look for the source(s) of your “original Buddhism” somewhere else, I’m afraid.

The Buddha is already unnecessary for Buddhism in his own words at the end of the Maha-parinibbana Sutta. The Heart Sutra is given by Bodhisattva Avelokiteshvara and not the Buddha or for the Buddha by one of his disciples. Dogen is a reference in himself too, though his authority is zazen practice and not a person or scripture.

Lopez does hit on a very relevant point, and that is that for its title Buddhism is mentioned only twice in Brooks’ article, and uninformatively at that. It is mentioned as if we all know what he means, and I think our responses to him indicate he means something, but I’m not sure we recognize it by simply referring to its supposed antecedents.