Put another way, if "Theravada" denotes strictly vinaya, and the suttas are not strictly Theravada, then Mahayana schools could be called Theravada as well, since some of them share the same vinaya (and/or nearly identical).
Even if not, the term "Theravada" meaning anything unique about doctrine has been defeated by this forum, and, so, the next logical step is to forget it as a separate entity entirely, because "Mahayana" is a much broader umbrella term, and, per the proofs on this forum, Theravada fits under this umbrella, and has no defining characteristics to set it aside otherwise.
Without any agreed upon delineation of what Theravada denotes as far as doctrine, the word is meaningless, especially for the overwhelming majority of the laity unconcerned with vinaya, and there is no rational reason to draw a line between the so called "Theravada" and the Mahayana, as there is no doctrinal line between them. Per the users of this forum, a "Theravada" belief can be eternal citta, which is identical to Buddha-nature, it can be subjective idealism/the external objective world doesn't exist, which is identical to Yogacara, it can be that that nothing exists, which is identical to the common (probably mis)understanding of Madhyamaka, and it can be that nibbana is eternal life, which is identical to many Mahayana schools beliefs, and so all of the main branches of Mahayana have no conflict with "Theravada" at all. It is just silly to pretend like we are a separate school while not disagreeing on any points specifically, and having a title that we agree is meaningless; the only ostensible differences being mere superficialities, rather than hard doctrinal incompatibilities that have always delineated religions, yet apparently do not exist at all within "Theravada."
If nothing else, there is no logical reason to keep the word "Theravada" front and center on this forum, and at least this should be removed, since the idea of "Theravada" meaning anything has been defeated entirely. This forum's subtext should read "A Buddhist discussion forum on the dhamma of the Pali language suttas" or "A Buddhist discussion forum on the early Buddhist texts." or something similar. Because it could be said that the delineation between this site and Dharmawheel, or even Mahayana and whatever this is, is the use of the Pali suttas and possibly other EBT's while throwing out all Theravada and Mahayana documents entirely. But the case cannot be made that this is a "Theravada" site any longer, now that this title has been proven meaningless repeatedly and all related doctrine to what was commonly known as "Theravada" has been thoroughly disproven.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40699
Indian Mahāyāna never had nor ever attempted to have a separate Vinaya or ordination lineage from the early schools of Buddhism, and therefore each bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī adhering to the Mahāyāna formally belonged to one of the early Buddhist schools. Membership in these nikāyas, or monastic orders, continues today, with the Dharmaguptaka nikāya being used in East Asia, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda nikāya being used in Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, Mahāyāna was never a separate monastic sect outside of the early schools
-Wikipedia page on Mahayana
Much of the material in the Canon is not specifically Theravādin, but is instead the collection of teachings that this school preserved from the early, non-sectarian body of teachings. According to Peter Harvey, it contains material which is at odds with later Theravādin orthodoxy. He states that "the Theravādins, then, may have added texts to the Canon for some time, but they do not appear to have tampered with what they already had from an earlier period."[27] A variety of factors suggest that the early Sri Lankan Buddhists regarded canonical literature as such and transmitted it conservatively.
-Wikipedia page on the Pali Canon
Nibbandam wrote:An interesting reading on this regard is "How Theravāda is Theravāda?" https://books.google.com/books?id=houcu ... AF6BAgHEAI
A possible answer to this question is that the term Theravada per se only represent a monastic ordination lineage. Monastics adopting Theravada Vinaya does not necessarily need to adopt the same doctrines.
Spiny Norman wrote:Modern "Theravada" is a fiction, a messy hotch-potch of schools and teachers.
Discussions like this are pointless.
dharmacorps wrote:Agreed. Theravada is a label. Like all labels, it has limited use.