Why did you choose Theravada?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

pink_trike wrote:It is just as likely as not that the Theravada suttas provenance is as unknown as the the Mahayana sutras.
The more recent scholarship cannot say with 100% certainty that the Pali suttas in all cases are reflective of the Buddha's teachings, but it does push things much closer to the Buddha than previously thought.

Mahayana sutras are literary compositions ranging from a little over 100 BCE to 1000 + CE.
>> 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
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by BlackBird »

pink_trike wrote: In my opinion/experience, most Mahayana practitioners, like most Theravada practitioners, don't think or ask about the how/who/when of the sutras/suttas of their own tradition. The whole point of religious institution and religiosity is that the teachings should be accepted at face value on faith which is how most approach them.
Thank you Jeff, good post. Although I don't know if I agree that:
The whole point of religious institution...
I mean isn't the point of the Theravadin institution to preserve the Buddha-sasana and to create environments that allow others to aspire and attain to the path and fruits of the holy life?

Perhaps we have different understandings of the term 'religious institution'

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by pink_trike »

BlackBird wrote:
I mean isn't the point of the Theravadin institution to preserve the Buddha-sasana and to create environments that allow others to aspire and attain to the path and fruits of the holy life?
Ideally.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

BlackBird wrote:I'd be quite interested in knowing how Mahayana practitioners see and or explain the creation of the Sutras. What is the general out look in Mahayana circles? I imagine that critical thinking is not exclusive to Theravada.

This is my opinion - Mahayana sutras are certainly not the word of the historical Buddha, and are clearly a later invention by some very intelligent individuals. These Sutras put their credibility on the fact that the Buddha is speaking them, do they not? Now if these Sutras are not the word of the historical Buddha, what is the logical implication of that? Can a Mahayana practitioner know and accept that the Sutras are not the word of the Buddha and still practice accordingly?

metta
Jack
Just a short and non-exhaustive response:
The whole idea of a "historical" buddha is kind of a new one, really.
The term "buddhavacana" is a technical term, which only superficially means "that spoken by the (historical) buddha".
A number of other texts in the Theravada canon are not taught by the "historical" buddha, either.
But, they conform to what the Buddha taught, and so many have been considered as "buddhavacana".

The Anguttara Nikaya (have found this before, but can't quite place it right now) has a statement:
What is spoken by the Buddha is well spoken,
What is well spoken is spoken by the Buddha.

The idea of the "historical" buddha is only the former, not the latter statement.

Similarly, an important statement from an early Mahayana sutra:

The Lord said to the Venerable Subhuti, the Elder: Make it clear now,
Subhuti, to the Bodhisattvas, the great beings, starting from perfect wisdom, how
the Bodhisattvas, the great beings go forth into perfect wisdom!
Thereupon the Venerable Sariputra thought to himself: [4] Will that
Venerable Subhuti, the Elder, expound perfect wisdom of himself, through the
operation and force of his own power of revealing wisdom, or through the
Buddha’s might?
The Venerable Subhuti, who knew, through the Buddha’s might, that the
Venerable Sariputra was in such wise discoursing in his heart, said to the
Venerable Sariputra: Whatever, Venerable Sariputra, the Lord’s Disciples teach,
all that is to be know as the Tathagata’s work. For in the dharma demonstrated by
the Tathagata they train themselves, they realise its true nature, they hold it in
mind. Thereafter nothing that they teach contradicts the true nature of dharma.
Whatever those sons of good family may expound as the nature of dharma, that
they do not bring into contradiction with the actual nature of dharma.


One who has realized what the buddha (realized one) has realized, can also teach the Dhamma.

Many have the idea that the canon was "closed" with the first council, but this is almost certainly not the case. Whole collections like much of the KN and parts of other Nikayas, are obviously a couple of centuries later. At this time, there are a number of other texts that were not accepted by the Mahaviharins, but may have been accepted by other schools. And vice versa, there are parts of the Mahaviharin canon that other schools rejected as not "buddhavacana".

There was probably quite a debate and struggle going on for definitions of this term. To just say "what was taught by the "historical" buddha" is far too simplistic, and usually ends up in fallacies like circular arguments or begging the question.

When one says that they are taught by the "buddha", as non-native speakers of Indic languages, living millenia later, we are often confused. We think, "Oh, the word "buddha" means Gautama, he is the historical buddha". But this is not really so. The word "buddha" was originally simply the word "awoken" or "realized", a regular adjective that could be applied to any spiritual figure. The Jaina was also a buddha, according to the Jains. Probably even in the Buddhist tradition itself, anybody who had bodhim buddhyate is also a buddha, ie. anyone who has awoken to awakening is also an awakened one. Similar for jina, arahant, sugata, etc.

This is even more likely that groups which formed early during the teachers teaching career would have such more generalized usage, before later groups came along and tried to limit the usage of the "buddha". These groups would also possibly not have heard the teachings on the Vinaya, because they came later too. But they would live like the teacher - and remember, it appears that the teacher's ascetic forest practice was more prevalent during the early years of his teachings - and probably have great insight too. They may have been soon led by their own teachers who may have only had minimal contact with the Teacher, maybe hearing just a few basics. They would have had to give their own explanations. But, they would have had insight.

It is only later that there was a tendency amongst some groups to only use the word "buddha" for the teacher himself. There were probably quite a few groups that continued to use the word "buddha" to describe anybody who had woken up. But other groups, those that heard a lot from the buddha during his later years, heard all his vinaya, his more systematized teachings, they would have narrowed the meaning of "buddha" to the Teacher.

(Imagine when later, younger members from this group who heard vinaya and narrow meaning of "buddha", would have encountered the Teachers earlier students, still living in the forest, and using the word "buddha" to refer to somebody else! and they don't practice Vinaya, either! Oh, horror of horrors!)

Now, this is particularly relevant when we have recently had debates about mahayana and hinayana, as these debates have often stressed that the theravada definition (unlike the so-called "hinayana" one) states that the awakening (bodhi) of an arhat is the same as that of a buddha. (Actually, most of the Mahayana agrees, but says that the difference is elsewhere, not in bodhi.) Well, then sariputta is also buddha, and so is moggallana, and ..., like that little Mahayana sutra above, so is Subhuti.

So, the words that Subhuti, who is a buddha, teaches, are also buddhavacana.
And those teachings of Subhuti in that Mahayana sutra (the portion considered by scholars to be the oldest core) is very similar to the sort of things that the Sthaviras say that Subhuti said, too.

:popcorn:
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Oh, I think that the AN quote above may be AN 4:164: "Evamevaṃ kho, devānaminda, yaṃ kiñci subhāsitaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ tassa bhagavato vacanaṃ arahato sammāsambuddhassa." "So it is, O King of the Gods!, whatever is well spoken, all that is is the speech of the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Fully Awakened One." (translation my own)
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

From the defunct Grey Forum:
Loppon Namdrol's comments for consideration:

Likewise, while the Mahayana sutras were inspired by the blessings of the Buddha, I don't believe he actually taught a single one of them. Nevertheless, I think the teachings in them are profound and stand on their own. I apply the same standard to gter mas. Some are more profound than others. That has to do with the realization of the gter ton, and very little to do with their imputed source of authorship.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... t&p=677197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"So for example, it is spiritually meaningful that the PP sutras are set on Vulture's Peak-- but it sure is not a historical reality. Even though Shakyamuni Buddha certainly never actually taught Mahayana, nevertheless, Mahayana stands on its own and is valid as a spiritual path and practice because the folks that wrote the Mahayana sutras down were realized persons. The source of these teachings are all realized beings-- their assumed historical settings are merely skillful means to instill faith in the teachings in those person's who need to crutch of historical literalism."

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... t&p=683801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In general, if a sutra is crucial to one's own schools exegesis, but is of questionable provenance, it cannot be used in a general discussion to bolster one's own school's position since the text upon which one is basing one's position is not accepted as a valid text by all parties.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... t&p=878591" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Certainly not all Mahayanists view things this way. For some the sutras are starkly the literal truth. While Mainstream Schools in India were likely to dismiss the Mahayana suitras as being made up, it is really in the modern times with Western converts do we get the hairier discussion of the nature of the Mahayana texts, often being informed (albeit unconsciously) by the Protestant concerns of literally truthness of a text. (We can see this play out among Theravadins as well.)
>> 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
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by BlackBird »

Hi Bhante, just to clear up a quick possible misconception. If I made the inference that the Pali Canon is clear cut Buddhavacana, then that was not the intention. I quite agree that there are parts of KN that are later compositions. Even in the first four Nikayas there is the odd sutta of questionable authenticity, Maurice Walsh points out at least 1 in his translation of the Digha Nikaya (which I don't currently have on hand)

Tilt, thank you for that post - Interesting stuff.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

BlackBird wrote:Hi Bhante, just to clear up a quick possible misconception. If I made the inference that the Pali Canon is clear cut Buddhavacana, then that was not the intention. I quite agree that there are parts of KN that are later compositions. Even in the first four Nikayas there is the odd sutta of questionable authenticity, Maurice Walsh points out at least 1 in his translation of the Digha Nikaya (which I don't currently have on hand)

Tilt, thank you for that post - Interesting stuff.
Okay. I think that that makes my point - you take the "historical buddha" as your definition for buddhavacana. That's a modern criteria.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Okay. I think that that makes my point - you take the "historical buddha" as your definition for buddhavacana. That's a modern criteria.
Which seems to be part of what Buddhism, in general, is going to have to contend with as it comes West.
>> 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
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by BlackBird »

I feel like I am missing something here :shrug:
So the importance of whether the Buddha (or his Canonical disciples) actually spoke X discourse isn't important to people?

I don't mean to say the Suttas or Sutras that are ascribed to the Buddha, but we're not actually spoken by him don't have value, or can't serve as profound teachings capable of leading to insight. Nor do I think we should fuss excessively over what parts of the Tipitaka were actually spoken by the Buddha... If it the shoe fits, cool. I don't think we could ever come to a definite conclusions on that one. My concern I guess has been with the... I dunno actually.

I don't know what to think really...
Will sleep on it.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

BlackBird wrote:I feel like I am missing something here :shrug:
So the importance of whether the Buddha (or his Canonical disciples) actually spoke X discourse isn't important to people?

I don't mean to say the Suttas or Sutras that are ascribed to the Buddha, but we're not actually spoken by him don't have value, or can't serve as profound teachings capable of leading to insight. Nor do I think we should fuss excessively over what parts of the Tipitaka were actually spoken by the Buddha... If it the shoe fits, cool. I don't think we could ever come to a definite conclusions on that one. My concern I guess has been with the... I dunno actually.

I don't know what to think really...
Will sleep on it.

metta
Jack
Hi Jack

To recap, my long post was a response to a post from you. It included the statement:
These Sutras put their credibility on the fact that the Buddha is speaking them, do they not? Now if these Sutras are not the word of the historical Buddha, what is the logical implication of that?


You seem to be saying, their claim to credibility is that they are be "buddhavacana", but they are not the "buddhavacana", so the implication is ... And I guess we are meant to then conclude that they have no credibility. That is where you definitely seem to be going with such a statement to me.

And I am saying, yes their claim to credibility is that they are "buddhavacana". But, this does not mean historical-buddha-vacana. Therefore the issue of whether or not the historical-buddha taught then or not, does not effect their credibility in any way.

I wanted to clarify how buddhists themselves - in virtually all schools - have understood the term "buddhavacana".
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by BlackBird »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Hi Jack

To recap, my long post was a response to a post from you. It included the statement:
These Sutras put their credibility on the fact that the Buddha is speaking them, do they not? Now if these Sutras are not the word of the historical Buddha, what is the logical implication of that?


You seem to be saying, their claim to credibility is that they are be "buddhavacana", but they are not the "buddhavacana", so the implication is ... And I guess we are meant to then conclude that they have no credibility. That is where you definitely seem to be going with such a statement to me.
Yes that's correct, and the statement was indeed based on my assumption that "buddhavacana" meant "historical-buddha-vacana"
Paññāsikhara wrote: And I am saying, yes their claim to credibility is that they are "buddhavacana". But, this does not mean historical-buddha-vacana. Therefore the issue of whether or not the historical-buddha taught then or not, does not effect their credibility in any way.

I wanted to clarify how buddhists themselves - in virtually all schools - have understood the term "buddhavacana".
Thank you Bhante for the clarification. To the old kiwi idiom: You learn something new every day.

P.S. I hope I haven't offended anyone with my opinions tonight, apologies if I have.

:anjali:
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by Ben »

tiltbillings wrote:Richard Gombrich states: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali suttas] is not the work of one genius."
He is one wise monkey that Gombrich fella!
“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 ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by Dan74 »

I can only speak for myself as a Mahayana (Korean Zen) practitioner, but my understanding is as follows:

Although a great respect is accorded to Shakyamuni Buddha, there is no belief that he was the only fully enlightened master and that other masters could not have transmitted the Dharma. In essence if you are fully enlightened, there is no difference between you and the Buddha (at least as far as the Dharma goes).

So the provenance of Mahayana sutras never really bothered me. Whether they were attributed to the Buddha by their authors who felt that they were transmitting the Buddha's teachings, or by their later followers to give these scriptures more weight, I don't really care.

And though there may be a difference in emphasis and approach, the more I read the Pali Canon and Mahayana sutras, the more I see them agreeing in the core message of the Dharma/Dhamma. There may be subtle but deep differences I am overlooking at the stage in practice that I am at, however.

_/|\_
_/|\_
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Why did you choose Theravada?

Post by alan »

One of these days I'll figure out the whole quote unquote thing.
pink_trike wrote on page 8 "..most don't think about the how/who/when...of their own tradition.
Well that is a shame if it is true; I can't imagine such an attitude.
"the whole point of religious institution... is that the teachings should be accepted at face value..."
That really left me scratching my head.

The rest is a complicated--perhaps overly complicated--some would say pointlessly overcomplicated--paragraph which you're best to read yourself and see if it works.
Oh no! I'm in for it now!
Post Reply