section_path: Teachings and views/Core teachings/Scholarly views on the earliest teachings
section_name: Scholarly views on the earliest teachings
paragraph_text: Scholarly views on the earliest teachings
  
  One method to obtain information on the oldest core of Buddhism is to compare the oldest versions of the Pali Canon and other texts, such as the surviving portions of Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka, and the Chinese Agamas. The reliability of these sources, and the possibility of drawing out a core of oldest teachings, is a matter of dispute. According to Lambert Schmithausen, there are three positions held by modern scholars of Buddhism with regard to the authenticity of the teachings contained in the Nikayas:
  
  Scholars such as Richard Gombrich, Akira Hirakawa, Alexander Wynne and A.K. Warder hold that these Early Buddhist Texts contain material that could possibly be traced to the Buddha. Richard Gombrich argues that since the content of the earliest texts "presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and—most relevantly—coherence...it is hard to see it as a composite work." Thus he concludes they are "the work of one genius". Peter Harvey also agrees that "much" of the Pali Canon "must derive from his teachings". Likewise, A. K. Warder has written that "there is no evidence to suggest that it was formulated by anyone other than the Buddha and his immediate followers." According to Alexander Wynne, "the internal evidence of the early Buddhist literature proves its historical authenticity."
  
  Other scholars of Buddhist studies have disagreed with the mostly positive view that the early Buddhist texts reflect the teachings of the historical Buddha, arguing that some teachings contained in the early texts are the authentic teachings of the Buddha, but not others. According to Tilmann Vetter, inconsistencies remain, and other methods must be applied to resolve those inconsistencies. According to Tilmann Vetter, the earliest core of the Buddhist teachings is the meditative practice of dhyāna, but "liberating insight" became an essential feature of the Buddhist tradition only at a later date.
  
  He posits that the Fourth Noble Truths, the Eightfold path and Dependent Origination, which are commonly seen as essential to Buddhism, are later formulations which form part of the explanatory framework of this "liberating insight". Lambert Schmithausen similarly argues that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the four dhyānas, is a later addition. Johannes Bronkhorst also argues that the four truths may not have been formulated in earliest Buddhism, and did not serve in earliest Buddhism as a description of "liberating insight".
  
  Edward Conze argued that the attempts of European scholars to reconstruct the original teachings of the Buddha were "all mere guesswork".