Australian Brahmic Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh »

Kenshou wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:It fails to acknowledge just how indebted we all are to the entirety of the canonical, para-canonical, and commentarial texts for our understanding of Pāḷi as a language.
That's a good point.
I've heard Bhikkhu Sujato say on several occasions just how indebted we are to the commentaries for our understanding of Pāḷi as a language....I think you guys are going a bit overboard in your condemnation of two people who both have an obvious and genuine dedication to the Dhamma....and I'm a little surprised at all this venom...you are talking about ordained Bhikkhus after all...
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

I think Adeh that if we label all plainly expressed views with which we disagree as " venom" we risk falling into a breach of right speech...
User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh »

I wasn't talking about the views, I was talking about the tone....
User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh »

I haven't communicated with Ajahn Brahm, but I have with both Bhikkhu Sujato and Ajahn Bramali and they are two very kind men who take the time to answer peoples questions....
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by PeterB »

Which unless you are telepathic you cannot detect. You are " hearing" a tone that YOU project.
It could be being voiced with great sadness, great compassion, humorous detachment, concern...we dont know do we ?

Its just pixels on a screen...we give it life.
User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh »

Yeah...what ever you say Peter....
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by bodom »

:focus:

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by pilgrim »

What makes one a Theravadin? Do I have to unequivocally accept all 3 baskets, everything in the Commentaries, the Visuddhimagga and also reject the idea of bhikkhuni ordination? :rolleye:
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Sylvester »

Ñāṇa wrote:
pilgrim wrote:Every teacher has his own style of teaching and his particular emphasis. I don't think it is fair or even accurate to say this constitutes a new tradition.
darvki wrote:As for the link to Ajahn Sujato's article on the Agamas, I don't see how subscribing to a different transmission of the Buddhavacana because one finds it to be more reliable brings one outside the Theravada.
Ven. Brahmavamso's explicit contradiction (and tacit rejection) of the doctrines contained in the Canonical Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and major parts of the Canonical Theravāda Khuddakanikāya, and Ven. Sujato's explicit rejection of the same doctrines, leaves very little "Theravāda" in what they are presenting. The doctrines contained in the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and Theravāda Khuddakanikāya texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga are what constitute the Theravāda as a unique doctrinal school (vāda). These treatises are all specific to the Theravāda. They have no parallel counterparts even amongst the other Sthaviravāda schools such as the Sarvāstivāda. Therefore, whatever it is that Ven. Brahmavamso and and Ven. Sujato, et al, are teaching, it cannot be called Theravāda. To call it Theravāda renders the designation quite meaningless.

All the best,

Geoff
One can still call it "Critical Theravada Buddhism" to the extent that such a Buddhism acknowledges the stratification and assign different soteriological value to the different strata of texts.

But, that might sound politically-incorrect and imply that other Theravada strains were uncritical or unthinking, so not quite useful.

Perhaps "Critical Textual Theravada"?

Which actually brings us to the nub of another issue. Is Theravada a "Sangha" that can be a "vada"? Is Ajahn Chah's lineage a "Sangha"?

One could of course insist that one need not fret about Vinaya technicalities, but I always thought that the Vinaya describes a "sangha" as being defined by a siima, and the Buddha clearly prohibited over-sized siimas. So, at best Ajahn Chah's lineage can describe themselves as a Nikaya, of which Ajahn Brahm is persona non grata.

As for the "vada" that is Theravada, even if a 7th Council were held to pass a resolution making it a creed of faith in the provenance of the Abhidhammic material and the authority of the Commentaries, that sanghakamma is limited to within the sangha seated inside that siima. It's too far easy to brandish the "schism" (sanghabeda) spectre without regard to what it actually entails.
Vossaga (Element)

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Vossaga (Element) »

Dan74 wrote:He is a populariser, so he does "dumb it down" to some extent.
I find this a very insightful point. Ajahn Brahm himself is not Australian. He is English. So the "Australian Buddhism" may refer to the audience.

:toast:
Last edited by Vossaga (Element) on Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Nyana »

pilgrim wrote:What makes one a Theravadin? Do I have to unequivocally accept all 3 baskets
A Theravāda practitioner dismissing the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and Theravāda Khuddakanikāya texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga is analogous to a Chan/Zen practitioner dismissing the Platform Treatise of the Sixth Patriarch or a Nyingma practitioner dismissing the Guhyagarbha Tantra. In each of these cases these texts form the doctrinal basis for practice and textual interpretation within each school.

Thus, if one fails to accept the canonical doctrines and path structure as presented in the Abhidhammapiṭaka and Paṭisambhidāmagga, then one isn't really engaged in Theravāda practice. This doesn't mean that every practitioner has to be an Abhidhamma scholar, just as not every Nyingmapa practitioner has to be a scholar of the Nyingma Canon. But it makes little sense for a Theravāda practitioner to dismiss well over a third of the Theravāda Canon, especially since it is this large section of materials which are unique to the Theravāda.

It's also worth mentioning that the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka actually accords with the sutta strata of teachings nicely. In general, it is more conservative and therefore closer to the suttas than is the case for the extant Sthavira Sarvāstivāda treatises, etc.

If we approach the Abhidhammapiṭaka as a prescriptive and descriptive aid to help clarify practice and textual interpretation of suttas, and not as a closed system of ultimate truth which marginalizes the suttas as being of lesser importance, then this combination of canonical Vinayapiṭaka, Suttapiṭaka, and Abhidhammapiṭaka offers us a very workable and valuable set of teachings to guide our practice.
pilgrim wrote:everything in the Commentaries, the Visuddhimagga
The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga are not canonical. Moreover, the commentaries do not present a homogeneous doctrine. It's not uncommon to find multiple opinions presented regarding a particular canonical passage, etc. It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on. This is due to the commentaries being authored by people separated from the historical, geographical, and cultural situation of the early Buddhist community. This has been well documented by a number of translators and scholars. Therefore, while the commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.

All the best,

Geoff
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Sylvester »

Hmm, why draw the line artificially at the Psm and Abhidhamma? What about the Classical Mahaviharins who insist that the Vsm and the Commentaries and Tikas should also be included in received Theravada? What about the other camp who argues that "Theravada" is simply a Vinaya ordination lineage, and not a doctrinal one?

I shudder to think that Ajahn Chah and Ven Nanananda have fallen between the cracks, based on this definition. The definition is not without its utility, but I think it only functions as such as an academic comparison between the different Schools. The Mahavihara position may well be taken to be one vein of Theravada, as I don't see the label as being anything more than a convenient identifier for people who prefer to work with the Pali Canon, or the parts of the Pali Canon they deem to have soteriological value.
Vossaga (Element)

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Vossaga (Element) »

Ñāṇa wrote:Ven. Brahmavamso's explicit contradiction (and tacit rejection) of the doctrines contained in the Canonical Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and major parts of the Canonical Theravāda Khuddakanikāya, and Ven. Sujato's explicit rejection of the same doctrines, leaves very little "Theravāda" in what they are presenting. The doctrines contained in the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and Theravāda Khuddakanikāya texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga are what constitute the Theravāda as a unique doctrinal school (vāda). These treatises are all specific to the Theravāda. They have no parallel counterparts even amongst the other Sthaviravāda schools such as the Sarvāstivāda. Therefore, whatever it is that Ven. Brahmavamso and and Ven. Sujato, et al, are teaching, it cannot be called Theravāda. To call it Theravāda renders the designation quite meaningless.
Hello Geoff

A question. Who or what exactly are the 'Elders' in Theravada? Are they the Buddha's arahant disciples, who followed & taught the Dhamma in the suttas? Or are they those who invented Abhidhamma? For example, if one follows only the suttas, what school or designation is that?

Thanks

:smile:
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by cooran »

Ñāṇa wrote:
pilgrim wrote:What makes one a Theravadin? Do I have to unequivocally accept all 3 baskets
A Theravāda practitioner dismissing the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and Theravāda Khuddakanikāya texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga is analogous to a Chan/Zen practitioner dismissing the Platform Treatise of the Sixth Patriarch or a Nyingma practitioner dismissing the Guhyagarbha Tantra. In each of these cases these texts form the doctrinal basis for practice and textual interpretation within each school.

Thus, if one fails to accept the canonical doctrines and path structure as presented in the Abhidhammapiṭaka and Paṭisambhidāmagga, then one isn't really engaged in Theravāda practice. This doesn't mean that every practitioner has to be an Abhidhamma scholar, just as not every Nyingmapa practitioner has to be a scholar of the Nyingma Canon. But it makes little sense for a Theravāda practitioner to dismiss well over a third of the Theravāda Canon, especially since it is this large section of materials which are unique to the Theravāda.

It's also worth mentioning that the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka actually accords with the sutta strata of teachings nicely. In general, it is more conservative and therefore closer to the suttas than is the case for the extant Sthavira Sarvāstivāda treatises, etc.

If we approach the Abhidhammapiṭaka as a prescriptive and descriptive aid to help clarify practice and textual interpretation of suttas, and not as a closed system of ultimate truth which marginalizes the suttas as being of lesser importance, then this combination of canonical Vinayapiṭaka, Suttapiṭaka, and Abhidhammapiṭaka offers us a very workable and valuable set of teachings to guide our practice.
pilgrim wrote:everything in the Commentaries, the Visuddhimagga
The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga are not canonical. Moreover, the commentaries do not present a homogeneous doctrine. It's not uncommon to find multiple opinions presented regarding a particular canonical passage, etc. It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on. This is due to the commentaries being authored by people separated from the historical, geographical, and cultural situation of the early Buddhist community. This has been well documented by a number of translators and scholars. Therefore, while the commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.

All the best,

Geoff
Well said Geoff.

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by pilgrim »

The insistence that we all adhere to the good book may be applicable if Buddhism is a religion of faith. But it is not. We use the texts not as an item of faith but as a manual for our application.
Post Reply