Buddhism

====Pre-sectarian Buddhism====
{{Main|Pre-sectarian Buddhism}}

According to [[Lambert Schmithausen]] Pre-sectarian Buddhism is "the canonical period prior to the development of different schools with their different positions".<ref>Schmithausen (1987) "Part I: Earliest Buddhism," Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference Vol. II: Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka, ed. David Seyfort Ruegg and Lambert Schmithausen, Leiden: Kern Institute, pp. 1–4.</ref>

The [[early Buddhist Texts]] include the four principal Pali [[Nikāya]]s {{refn|The [[Digha Nikaya]], [[Majjhima Nikaya]], [[Samyutta Nikaya]] and [[Anguttara Nikaya]]|group=note}} (and their parallel [[Āgama (Buddhism)|Agamas]] found in the Chinese canon) together with the main body of monastic rules, which survive in the various versions of the [[patimokkha]].{{sfnp|Sujato|Brahmali|2015|p=39–41}}{{sfnp|Gethin|2008|p=xviii}}{{sfnp|Harvey|1998|p=3}} However, these texts were revised over time, and it is unclear what constitutes the earliest layer of Buddhist teachings. One method to obtain information on the oldest core of Buddhism is to compare the oldest extant versions of the Theravadin Pāli Canon and other texts.{{refn|group=note|The surviving portions of the scriptures of [[Sarvastivada]], [[Mulasarvastivada]], [[Mahīśāsaka]], [[Dharmaguptaka]] and other schools.{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|p=ix}}{{sfnp|Warder|2000}}}} The reliability of the early sources, and the possibility to draw out a core of oldest teachings, is a matter of dispute.{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|pp=xxi–xxxvii}} According to Vetter, inconsistencies remain, and other methods must be applied to resolve those inconsistencies.{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|p=ix}}{{refn|group=note|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|1992}} the textual studies by Richard Gombrich,{{sfnp|Gombrich|1997}} and the research on early meditation methods by Johannes Bronkhorst.{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993}}}}

According to Schmithausen, three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|p=vii}}
# "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials". Proponents of this position include [[A. K. Warder]]{{refn|group=note|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}} 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 BC. 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}}}} and [[Richard Gombrich]].{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|p=viii}}{{refn|group=note|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". Ronald Davidson is a proponent of this position.{{refn|group=note|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 historic Buddha."{{sfnp|Davidson|2003|p=147}}}}
# "Cautious optimism in this respect". Proponents of this position include J.W. de Jong,{{sfnp|Jong|1993|p=25}}{{refn|group=note|name="Jong"|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{{refn|group=note|Bronkhorst: "This position is to be preferred to (ii) for purely methodological reasons: only those who seek nay find, even if no success is guaranteed."{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|p=vii}}}} and Donald Lopez.{{refn|group=note|Lopez: "The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct."{{sfnp|Lopez|1995|p=4}}}}

=====The Core teachings=====
According to Mitchell, certain basic teachings appear in many places throughout the early texts, which has led most scholars to conclude that Gautama Buddha must have taught something similar to the [[Four Noble Truths]], the [[Noble Eightfold Path]], [[Nirvana (Buddhism)|Nirvana]], the [[three marks of existence]], the [[Skandha|five aggregates]], [[pratītyasamutpāda|dependent origination]], [[Karma in Buddhism|karma]] and [[Rebirth (Buddhism)|rebirth]].{{sfnp|Mitchell|2002|p=34}}

According to N. Ross Reat, all of these doctrines are shared by the Theravada Pali texts and the Mahasamghika school's ''[[Salistamba Sutra|Śālistamba Sūtra]]''.<ref>Reat, Noble Ross. "The Historical Buddha and his Teachings". In: ''Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy''. Ed. by Potter, Karl H. Vol. VII: Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 AD. Motilal Banarsidass, 1996, pp. 28, 33, 37, 41, 43, 48.</ref> A recent study by Bhikkhu Analayo concludes that the Theravada ''[[Majjhima Nikāya|Majjhima Nikaya]]'' and Sarvastivada ''[[Madhyama Agama]]'' contain mostly the same major doctrines.<ref>Analayo (2011). ''A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya''. Dharma Drum Academic Publisher. p. 891.</ref> [[Richard G. Salomon (professor of Asian studies)|Richard Salomon]], in his study of the Gandharan texts (which are the earliest manuscripts containing early discourses), has confirmed that their teachings are "consistent with non-Mahayana Buddhism, which survives today in the Theravada school of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, but which in ancient times was represented by eighteen separate schools."<ref>{{cite news |last=Salomon |first=Richard |date=20 January 2020 |title=How the Gandharan Manuscripts Change Buddhist History |newspaper=Lions Roar |url=https://www.lionsroar.com/how-the-gandharan-manuscripts-change-buddhist-history/ |access-date=2020-10-10 |archive-date=29 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200229000500/https://www.lionsroar.com/how-the-gandharan-manuscripts-change-buddhist-history/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

However, some scholars argue that critical analysis reveals discrepancies among the various doctrines found in these early texts, which point to alternative possibilities for early Buddhism.{{sfnp|Skorupski|1990|p=5}}{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1998|pp=4, 11}}{{sfnp|Schopen|2002|pp=}} The authenticity of certain teachings and doctrines have been questioned. For example, some scholars think that karma was not central to the teaching of the historical Buddha, while other disagree with this position.{{sfnp|Matthews|1986|p=124}}{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1998|p=14}} Likewise, there is scholarly disagreement on whether insight was seen as liberating in early Buddhism or whether it was a later addition to the practice of the four ''jhānas''.{{sfnp|Schmithausen|1981}}{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|1993|pp=77–78, Section 8.4.3}}{{sfnp|Vetter|1988|p=5, Quote: [T]hey do not teach that one is released by knowing the four noble truths, but by practising the fourth noble truth, the eightfold path, which culminates in right samadhi}} Scholars such as Bronkhorst also think that the four noble 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}} According to Vetter, the description of the Buddhist path may initially have been as simple as the term "the middle way".{{sfnp|Vetter|1988}} In time, this short description was elaborated, resulting in the description of the eightfold path.{{sfnp|Vetter|1988}}