Dedicated to Dr. Robert Thurman

“It is the tyranny of hidden prejudices that makes us deaf to what speaks to us in tradition.”  –  Gadamer, Truth and Method (1960)

In contemporary interpretations of Buddhist texts, particularly within the Theravāda tradition and its scholarly derivatives, there has emerged a trend of textual reductionism that seeks to identify and prioritize the “oldest” strata of Buddhist texts as the purest and most legitimate expression of the Buddha’s teachings. This approach assumes that by isolating the earliest texts, we are accessing the direct, unmediated words of the Buddha himself. While this method may seem appealing for its historical rigor, it risks narrowing the interpretative scope of Buddhism and undermining the phenomenological richness of the tradition. A more open, phenomenological approach allows us to engage with the entire body of Buddhist texts without preconceived judgments, thereby fostering a fuller understanding of the Dharma.

1. The Problem of Reductionism: Imposing Preconceived Frameworks

Textual reductionism in Buddhist hermeneutics operates under the assumption that older equals more legitimate, and that later texts are necessarily distortions or deviations from the original teaching. This approach begins with a preconceived framework: the belief that only certain texts represent true Buddhism. By doing so, it commits an intellectual contradiction. If the goal of Buddhism is to pursue enlightenment through personal cultivation and insight, then beginning with a rigid interpretative framework undermines this very process. It is as if one has already assumed the role of the enlightened interpreter, claiming to know in advance which texts contain the truth and which do not. This contradicts the Buddhist ethos of openness to learning and growth.

In contrast, a phenomenological hermeneutic approach, inspired by the work of Edmund Husserl and later developed in existentialist thought, insists on suspending preconceptions—a process known as epoché—in order to engage with a text or phenomenon on its own terms. In the context of Buddhism, this would mean approaching the entire Pāli Canon—including the Nikāyas, Abhidhamma, and commentarial traditions—without prematurely deciding which portions are legitimate or illegitimate. It is only by bracketing our assumptions that we can allow the texts to speak for themselves and yield their full meaning through dialogue with the practitioner.

2. Arbitrary Nature of Reductionism

Textual reductionism often lacks a clear, objective methodology for identifying what counts as “authentic” or “legitimate.” While some scholars may claim that certain texts are closer in time to the Buddha, the process of oral transmission and cultural context make it difficult to assert that any text perfectly preserves the Buddha’s direct words. The historical complexity of the Buddhist tradition means that teachings have evolved and adapted to different cultural and historical contexts, all while preserving the core insights of the Dharma.

By reducing the scope of inquiry to the oldest texts alone, we risk dismissing the profound insights found in later developments of Buddhist thought, such as the Mahāyāna Sutras or Vajrayāna teachings. These later traditions, while not as temporally close to the Buddha, often contain deeper elaborations on Buddhist philosophy and practice that remain in dialogue with the earlier teachings. To dismiss these texts out of hand is to impoverish the interpretative possibilities of Buddhism and reduce its spiritual richness to a set of narrowly defined doctrines.

A phenomenological approach, by contrast, encourages us to explore the interconnectedness of texts across time, allowing the diversity of Buddhist thought to emerge organically. Rather than focusing on the historical primacy of a particular text, we would seek to understand how the entire canon—from the early Nikāyas to later Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna texts—offers different but complementary windows into the Buddha’s teachings. Each layer of the tradition contributes to the dynamic unfolding of the Dharma.

3. Attachment to Views: A Contradiction in Buddhist Practice

Another significant issue with the reductionist approach is its attachment to views—something that the Buddha explicitly warned against. In several suttas, including the Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12.15), the Buddha advises practitioners to avoid rigidly clinging to specific views, even about the Dharma itself. By asserting that only certain texts or interpretations are legitimate, reductionism violates this core teaching and fosters dogmatism.

A phenomenological approach, on the other hand, aligns more closely with the Buddhist middle way—the avoidance of extremes. In suspending judgment, we allow for the fluidity of interpretation, recognizing that each practitioner’s experience with the texts may lead to different insights. This hermeneutic openness encourages the kind of non-dogmatic inquiry that the Buddha himself endorsed, where the texts serve as guides to experience rather than rigid doctrines to be defended.

4. Moral and Practical Consequences of Reductionism

Finally, the reductionist approach can lead to moral and practical consequences that contradict the ethical heart of Buddhism. By narrowing the scope of legitimate interpretation, it can foster sectarianism, intolerance, and even bigotry. When one tradition or school claims exclusive access to the Buddha’s true teaching, it risks alienating others and promoting an “us vs. them” mentality. This kind of thinking runs counter to the compassionate inclusivity of the Dharma, which seeks to reduce suffering for all beings.

By contrast, a phenomenological approach encourages dialogue between different schools and interpretations, fostering a spirit of tolerance and understanding. It recognizes that the path to enlightenment is not a one-size-fits-all journey, but a process that may take different forms depending on the individual and the cultural context. By embracing the plurality of Buddhist texts and traditions, we open ourselves to the full richness of the Dharma, rather than reducing it to a narrow set of pre-approved doctrines.

Conclusion: Towards a Phenomenological Buddhism

A phenomenological approach to Buddhism offers a non-reductive way of engaging with the texts and traditions of Buddhism. By suspending preconceptions and engaging with the entire Buddhist canon without bias, we allow the full range of teachings to emerge in dialogue with our own spiritual inquiry. This approach avoids the intellectual contradiction of imposing a pre-existing framework and aligns more closely with the Buddhist practice of non-attachment to views.

Such an approach not only preserves the ethical and spiritual inclusivity of Buddhism but also provides a richer, more meaningful engagement with the Dharma. In doing so, we remain true to the spirit of inquiry that the Buddha himself encouraged—a spirit that is open, flexible, and always evolving in the pursuit of enlightenment.

This phenomenological Buddhism could serve as a corrective to the limitations of reductionist approaches, fostering greater openness to the diverse expressions of the Buddha’s teachings while remaining rooted in the core insights of liberation from suffering.

Postscript: The Legitimacy of the Bodhisattva Doctrine in a Phenomenological Context

The bodhisattva doctrine, central to Mahāyāna Buddhism, holds that beings can aspire to become Buddhas by cultivating virtues and wisdom over countless lifetimes, ultimately postponing their own liberation in favor of aiding others on the path to enlightenment. This stands in contrast to the Theravāda emphasis on arahantship, where the goal is personal liberation (Nibbāna) in a single lifetime. Scholars who reject the bodhisattva path as a later development argue that this doctrine not supported by the earliest texts of the Pāli Canon. They argue that the bodhisattva doctrine, as understood in later Mahāyāna traditions, deviates from the Buddha’s original teaching. However, this view may overlook the nuances and richness found within the Pāli Canon itself and its relationship to the bodhisattva ideal.

1. The Use of “Bodhisattva” in the Pāli Canon

Interestingly, the term “bodhisattva” does appear in the Pāli Canon, though it is generally used to refer to the Buddha in his previous lives, before his enlightenment. This establishes a certain legitimacy to the concept of a bodhisattva, even within early texts. The Jātaka tales and other narratives in the Nikāyas clearly describe the Buddha’s path as a bodhisattva over many lifetimes, cultivating the perfections (pāramitās) that eventually led to his awakening. In this context, the bodhisattva is not just a later Mahāyāna construct but an integral part of the Buddha’s life story as portrayed in early Theravāda texts.

The Pāli Canon also distinguishes between arahants and Buddhas. Arahants, though enlightened, do not undertake the extensive vows or altruistic aspirations of a Buddha. The Buddha’s path, which involved cultivating qualities over numerous lifetimes for the benefit of all beings, is clearly of a different nature from the arahant path. Thus, while the full Mahāyāna conception of a bodhisattva—with its distinct cosmology and emphasis on the vow to save all sentient beings—may not be articulated in the earliest texts, the distinction between Buddha and arahant supports the legitimacy of at least the core elements of the bodhisattva ideal.

2. Phenomenological Engagement with the Bodhisattva Doctrine

From the phenomenological viewpoint I have advocated, the rejection of the bodhisattva doctrine based solely on its perceived absence from the earliest texts reflects a premature closure of interpretive possibilities. It imposes a reductionist hermeneutic that precludes the richness of the Buddhist tradition from fully unfolding. Rather than starting from the assumption that the bodhisattva path is illegitimate because it developed later, a phenomenological approach would engage with the concept as it appears across the full range of texts—both early and late—and allow the doctrine to reveal its meaning within the larger context of Buddhist practice.

The bodhisattva ideal, while more elaborated in Mahāyāna texts, can be seen as an extension of ideas present in the early canon, where selfless compassion, ethical perfection, and the aspiration to full Buddhahood are already established in the life of Siddhartha Gautama. A phenomenological reading does not reject later developments outright but considers how they build upon and expand earlier teachings, offering new dimensions to the understanding of liberation and altruism.

3. Arguments Against the Legitimacy of the Bodhisattva Ideal

From a textual reductionist perspective, the argument against the bodhisattva ideal hinges on the assertion that the Pāli Canon’s earliest texts emphasize personal liberation and that the later Mahāyāna expansion toward universal salvation is a corruption of this original focus. Critics argue that the Jātakas and other later texts are mythological embellishments rather than authentic teachings, thus undermining the doctrinal purity of the bodhisattva path.

However, this argument rests on the assumption that the earliest texts are automatically more authentic or legitimate—an assumption that, as we have seen, can be problematic. Additionally, even within the early canon, there is recognition of the greater sacrifice and altruistic commitments made by Buddhas, as distinct from arahants.

4. The Phenomenological View: Embracing the Bodhisattva Path

A phenomenological approach would instead recognize that the bodhisattva ideal represents a different but complementary path within Buddhism. While the arahant path focuses on personal liberation, the bodhisattva path speaks to a wider social and ethical vision, in which the practitioner aims not just for their own salvation but for the awakening of all beings. Engaging with the bodhisattva doctrine in its entirety, rather than dismissing it due to historical considerations, allows for a deeper and more inclusive understanding of what it means to be on the path to awakening.

Furthermore, in the phenomenological context, the experience of compassion and the aspiration for universal enlightenment found in the bodhisattva path are not at odds with the core teachings of the Buddha but are natural extensions of the Dharma’s ethical concerns. The Mahāyāna expansion into the bodhisattva ideal can be seen as a creative development that enriches rather than contradicts the earlier focus on personal liberation.

Conclusion: The Legitimacy of the Bodhisattva Ideal

From a phenomenological Buddhist perspective, the bodhisattva doctrine should not be dismissed as illegitimate simply because it developed later than the earliest strata of the Pāli Canon. Instead, it should be understood as an evolving expression of Buddhist ethics and compassion, deeply rooted in the early accounts of the Buddha’s own life as a bodhisattva. By embracing the full range of Buddhist texts, including later developments, we avoid the pitfalls of reductionism and open ourselves to the richness and diversity of Buddhist thought.

In this way, the bodhisattva path and the arahant path are seen not as mutually exclusive but as complementary expressions of the Dharma, each offering distinct but equally valid pathways toward awakening and liberation.

References

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception.

Ricoeur, Paul. Truth and Narrative.

———-. The Conflict of Interpretations.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Hermeneutics and Criticism.

Schumacher, E.F A Guide for the Perplexed.