What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Can anyone give me a run down on the significant difference between the two?
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17192
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
I have outlined the major differences here at Dhamma Wiki:
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Theravada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Theravada
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... _Theravada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Classical Theravada
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... _Theravada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Modern Theravada
Admittedly, you will see my bias toward Modern Theravada, but I also acknowledge that Classical Theravada is probably best at preserving the Theravada position.
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Theravada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Theravada
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... _Theravada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Classical Theravada
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... _Theravada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Modern Theravada
Admittedly, you will see my bias toward Modern Theravada, but I also acknowledge that Classical Theravada is probably best at preserving the Theravada position.
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
I think that It's reasonably easy to define Classical or "Standard" Theravada:
Priority is given to:
1. Tipitika (including Abhidhamma);
2. Canonical Commentary;
3. Later teachings.
As I understand it, a Mahayana (or any other) teaching that doesn't contradict 1 or 2 is fine. It would be tested against the Canon just the same as a teaching from a present-day Theravada teacher would be.
Modern is whatever one wants to define, but, as David's links say, it would generally imply disagreeing with some of the above, i.e. downplaying the Abhidhamma and Commentary.
It's a bit too much of a black-white definition in my view. I think that there are a number of up-to-date Classical Theravada teachers. In particular, the Burmese teachers (Ledi Sayadaw, Mahasi Sayadaw, etc) whose teachings form the basis of much modern "vipassana" or "insight" meditation, teach methods heavily based on the Classical Commentary.
Metta
Mike
Priority is given to:
1. Tipitika (including Abhidhamma);
2. Canonical Commentary;
3. Later teachings.
As I understand it, a Mahayana (or any other) teaching that doesn't contradict 1 or 2 is fine. It would be tested against the Canon just the same as a teaching from a present-day Theravada teacher would be.
Modern is whatever one wants to define, but, as David's links say, it would generally imply disagreeing with some of the above, i.e. downplaying the Abhidhamma and Commentary.
It's a bit too much of a black-white definition in my view. I think that there are a number of up-to-date Classical Theravada teachers. In particular, the Burmese teachers (Ledi Sayadaw, Mahasi Sayadaw, etc) whose teachings form the basis of much modern "vipassana" or "insight" meditation, teach methods heavily based on the Classical Commentary.
Metta
Mike
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Thanks Mike.
Classical Theravada = Standard Theravda. Modern Theravada = whatever on wants to define.
There seems to have been a move by those favouring Mahayana and "Modern" Theravada to make a definition of Classical Theravada mean"frozen, out-moded" or "not what I'd like Theravada to be". Fortunately, this hasn't taken off.
metta
Chris
Classical Theravada = Standard Theravda. Modern Theravada = whatever on wants to define.
There seems to have been a move by those favouring Mahayana and "Modern" Theravada to make a definition of Classical Theravada mean"frozen, out-moded" or "not what I'd like Theravada to be". Fortunately, this hasn't taken off.
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 ---
---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 ---
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
[quote="Chris"]Thanks Mike.
Classical Theravada = Standard Theravda. [quote]
Whose standard Theravada? Ven Mahaboowa's? Sujin's? Ajahn Chah? Mahasi Saydaw? Etc, etc, etc?
Classical Theravada = Standard Theravda. [quote]
Whose standard Theravada? Ven Mahaboowa's? Sujin's? Ajahn Chah? Mahasi Saydaw? Etc, etc, etc?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi Tilt,
Perhaps that's a useful thing to focus on.
The Thai Forest monks you mention (or, at least, their disciples), tend to be rather negative about the Classical Commentaries and the Abhidhamma, though I understand that Ajahn Chah actually did do a lot of study in his early days. Also, as has been pointed out in other threads, by Ven Gavesako and others, teachers in Thailand don't spend a lot of effort classifying exactly where various ideas come from.
And of course much of that sort of classification would be distracting coming from a teacher. As I said, the Burmese teachers, and therefore many of the lay "insight" teachers (such as Joseph Goldstein, etc) clearly use a lot of Commentarial and Abhidhammic concepts in their teaching (Goldstein, of course, learned it from U Pandita). And the common instructions of spreading metta first to oneself, then a respected person, and so on, is from Commentary (not Suttas), and is explained in great detail in the Visuddhimagga (including the question of: "Why are we teaching it like this if the Buddha didn't teach it this way?").
Metta
Mike
Perhaps that's a useful thing to focus on.
Mahasi Sayadaw and Khun Sujin cleary pay/paid a lot of attention to the Classical teachings, though they come to rather different conclusions on some details.tiltbillings wrote: Whose standard Theravada? Ven Mahaboowa's? Sujin's? Ajahn Chah? Mahasi Saydaw? Etc, etc, etc?
The Thai Forest monks you mention (or, at least, their disciples), tend to be rather negative about the Classical Commentaries and the Abhidhamma, though I understand that Ajahn Chah actually did do a lot of study in his early days. Also, as has been pointed out in other threads, by Ven Gavesako and others, teachers in Thailand don't spend a lot of effort classifying exactly where various ideas come from.
And of course much of that sort of classification would be distracting coming from a teacher. As I said, the Burmese teachers, and therefore many of the lay "insight" teachers (such as Joseph Goldstein, etc) clearly use a lot of Commentarial and Abhidhammic concepts in their teaching (Goldstein, of course, learned it from U Pandita). And the common instructions of spreading metta first to oneself, then a respected person, and so on, is from Commentary (not Suttas), and is explained in great detail in the Visuddhimagga (including the question of: "Why are we teaching it like this if the Buddha didn't teach it this way?").
Metta
Mike
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
So, in other words, there is a very wide range of stuff that could be called "standard Theravada" that does not always agree with each other.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Tilt,
Perhaps that's a useful thing to focus on. . . .
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi Tilt,
Nice to talk, but I'm always worried you have a "trick question" up your sleeve...
Metta
Mike
Nice to talk, but I'm always worried you have a "trick question" up your sleeve...
Yes, which was why my definition was in terms of approach to the Tipitika/Commentaries/later teachings, rather then the conclusions one draws...tiltbillings wrote: So, in other words, there is a very wide range of stuff that could be called "standard Theravada" that does not always agree with each other.
Metta
Mike
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
That is interesting. So one could be a "classical Theravadin" claiming one's inspiration is from the "Tipitika/Commentaries/later teachings" but be at odds with others who make the same claim.mikenz66 wrote: Yes, which was why my definition was in terms of approach to the Tipitika/Commentaries/later teachings, rather then the conclusions one draws...
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
The other question: Is "classical Theravada" a living or a dead tradition?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
(This is not aimed at the above posters, particularly not Tilt!)
Regarding the "modern" approaches, perhaps I could add that, while I think it is healthy to carefully examine the commentarial work (and the pronouncements of modern teachers) against the Tipitika, I find the attitude in some circles that the Commentaries are not relevant somewhat curious, since they are presumably, at least in some cases, transmissions of explanations by highly realised beings. They at least deserve to be read carefully and compared against modern interpretations of the Suttas. In many cases they seem to be the same sort of practical advice you'd expect from a modern teacher. Of course, this is not surprising if the ancient and modern teachers understand the Dhamma correctly...
Mike
Regarding the "modern" approaches, perhaps I could add that, while I think it is healthy to carefully examine the commentarial work (and the pronouncements of modern teachers) against the Tipitika, I find the attitude in some circles that the Commentaries are not relevant somewhat curious, since they are presumably, at least in some cases, transmissions of explanations by highly realised beings. They at least deserve to be read carefully and compared against modern interpretations of the Suttas. In many cases they seem to be the same sort of practical advice you'd expect from a modern teacher. Of course, this is not surprising if the ancient and modern teachers understand the Dhamma correctly...
Mike
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
So, present day "classical Theravadins" would reject any sort of input from modern historical research.mikenz66 wrote:(This is not aimed at the above posters, particularly not Tilt!)
Regarding the "modern" approaches, perhaps I could add that, while I think it is healthy to carefully examine the commentarial work (and the pronouncements of modern teachers) against the Tipitika, I find the attitude in some circles that the Commentaries are not relevant somewhat curious, since they are presumably, at least in some cases, transmissions of explanations by highly realised beings. They at least deserve to be read carefully and compared against modern interpretations of the Suttas. In many cases they seem to be the same sort of practical advice you'd expect from a modern teacher. Of course, this is not surprising if the ancient and modern teachers understand the Dhamma correctly...
Mike
Are commentaries the final word on what the sutta might mean? They can never be wrong?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi Tilt,
I told you I was worried about tricky questions...
As I said in another thread, it is not a logical impossibility that the Theravada got it correct, and the others got it wrong. In that case historical comparisons may not be as useful as they seem at first...
And even if the others are not wrong it might be more useful to stick to one coherent exposition from one source...
Also, as you know, figuring out exactly what the Suttas and Commentaries are actually saying is by no means a trivial task, so there is plenty of room for discussion of meaning and implications that could keep us going for a while yet...
Metta
Mike
I told you I was worried about tricky questions...
Not according to my definition, because new ideas would be examined.tiltbillings wrote:The other question: Is "classical Theravada" a living or a dead tradition?
Well, I can't really speak for "Classical Theravada", though I'm definitely not in the: "Forget the commentaries, Buddhagosa was just confused" camp.tiltbillings wrote: So, present day "classical Theravadins" would reject any sort of input from modern historical research.
Are commentaries the final word on what the sutta might mean? They can never be wrong?
As I said in another thread, it is not a logical impossibility that the Theravada got it correct, and the others got it wrong. In that case historical comparisons may not be as useful as they seem at first...
And even if the others are not wrong it might be more useful to stick to one coherent exposition from one source...
Also, as you know, figuring out exactly what the Suttas and Commentaries are actually saying is by no means a trivial task, so there is plenty of room for discussion of meaning and implications that could keep us going for a while yet...
Metta
Mike
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi Tilt
My take on it is that there maybe a divergence of interpretation and focus claiming the Classical territory. Regardless of this seeming discrepancy, Classical Theravada seems to be those teachings which are in accord with the Tipitaka (inc. the Abhidhamma), the ancient commentaries and the works of later scholars who are also in keeping with the Tipitaka and ancient commentarial literature. Those teachers or teachings which criticise and/or abandon the abhidhamma and the commentaries I would consider 'modern'.
The fact that you have adherents of Sujin and practitioners of Mahasi Sayadaw, U Ba Khin et al, occupying the same territory, to me, seems to me that Classical Theravada is a spectrum of teachings where one or other teacher gives importance of one aspect over another.
Is the Classical a dead tradition? I don't think so.
Is the Classical informed by modern research and analysis? I think so.
Is the point of view outlined in the commentary the final word? First of all, I think the Buddha encouraged us all to discover the reality of nama and rupa for ourselves. Dhamma, seems to me, a path of self exploration. The commentaries are important because the help to explain and guide. But the final word should always be our own nana, knowledge. Secondly, I want to also point out that the origin of the 'commentarial tradition' began with the Buddha himself when he directed questions from younger monks to Mahakassapa 'the expositor' who would unpack the meaning of terse suttas the Buddha gave, and he often gave these explanations in the company of the Buddha. Forgive me if I don't provide a reference right now.
metta
Ben
My take on it is that there maybe a divergence of interpretation and focus claiming the Classical territory. Regardless of this seeming discrepancy, Classical Theravada seems to be those teachings which are in accord with the Tipitaka (inc. the Abhidhamma), the ancient commentaries and the works of later scholars who are also in keeping with the Tipitaka and ancient commentarial literature. Those teachers or teachings which criticise and/or abandon the abhidhamma and the commentaries I would consider 'modern'.
The fact that you have adherents of Sujin and practitioners of Mahasi Sayadaw, U Ba Khin et al, occupying the same territory, to me, seems to me that Classical Theravada is a spectrum of teachings where one or other teacher gives importance of one aspect over another.
Is the Classical a dead tradition? I don't think so.
Is the Classical informed by modern research and analysis? I think so.
Is the point of view outlined in the commentary the final word? First of all, I think the Buddha encouraged us all to discover the reality of nama and rupa for ourselves. Dhamma, seems to me, a path of self exploration. The commentaries are important because the help to explain and guide. But the final word should always be our own nana, knowledge. Secondly, I want to also point out that the origin of the 'commentarial tradition' began with the Buddha himself when he directed questions from younger monks to Mahakassapa 'the expositor' who would unpack the meaning of terse suttas the Buddha gave, and he often gave these explanations in the company of the Buddha. Forgive me if I don't provide a reference right now.
metta
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi Ben,
Perhaps you mean Mahākaccāna, as in:
MN18 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
MN 133: Venerable Mahākaccāna's Explation of the Single Auspicious Attachment
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... tta-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[A rather odd (not to mention mis-spelled) translation of the title, Thanissaro translates "Single Auspicious Attachment " as "An Auspicious Day" in his translation of MN131 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html]
Mike
Perhaps you mean Mahākaccāna, as in:
MN18 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
MN 133: Venerable Mahākaccāna's Explation of the Single Auspicious Attachment
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... tta-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[A rather odd (not to mention mis-spelled) translation of the title, Thanissaro translates "Single Auspicious Attachment " as "An Auspicious Day" in his translation of MN131 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html]
Mike