How to talk about Authentic Buddhism?

I’ve just finished an intensive Pali course with Professor Richard Gombrich in Oxford, Endland. My next stop is the Oxford Buddhist Vihar, where I will remain in a semi-lazy individual retreat for one week. Here is a short post with some thoughts I had over our time here discussing Buddhism, language, culture and the rest for two wonderful weeks.

Here goes: we might think of three kinds of “authenticity” in our discussions of Buddhism:

• Spiritual: which is not really a matter for scholars to think about.
• Historical: which asks if a text or practice really does come from where it is claimed to be from. Here scholars have plenty to say, much of it ‘debunking’ traditional views.
• Philosophical: which looks at the general ‘coherence’ of ideas or themes in Buddhism, perhaps in terms of the context of early Buddhism, or the development of the idea of emptiness. Here too, scholars can be extremely helpful in bridging traditional narratives and drawing on diverse disciplines to shed new light Buddhism.

So when we talk about the Heart Sutra not being an “authentic” teaching of the Buddha, for instance, we have to specify that we’re speaking in the historical sense, based on our best evidence. Whether the text is perfectly authentic Spiritually is more a concern of traditions and individual practitioners. And the question of its philosophical authenticity is well worth debating, both within traditions and the academy.

Just a thought. I’d be happy to read yours.