Where outside of Dhammawheel can one ask Orthodox Theravada questions and get Orthodox answers?

[zan]

Is there another forum? An email for a temple or Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni or some other source?

[cappuccino]

life will always reflect


(we may learn from life)

[DNS]

Even many temples would not be an alternative. I remember reading one of Bhante D's posts that the eternalism found in Maha Boowa, Ajahn Mun view is ubiquitous in Thai temples.

Maybe Burmese tradition temples?

[SDC]

Not trying to bust chops, but you could just read more commentarial material to get a better idea about what constitutes "orthodoxy" in Theravada. If you ask people, you'll just keep getting different degrees of interpretation and opinion. Or in the very least just make sure you ask many people to make sure you get a solid consensus.

What are you trying to figure out?

[cappuccino]

the eternalism found in Maha Boowa, Ajahn Mun view is ubiquitous in Thai temples.

what you call eternalism is Buddhism


eternalism is about identity, not eternity

[zan]

Not trying to bust chops, but you could just read more commentarial material to get a better idea about what constitutes "orthodoxy" in Theravada. If you ask people, you'll just keep getting different degrees of interpretation and opinion. Or in the very least just make sure you ask many people to make sure you get a solid consensus.

What are you trying to figure out?

Thanks. You're absolutely right and if the commentaries were available in English I'd be doing what you suggest.

I'm trying to figure out many things.

[zan]

Even many temples would not be an alternative. I remember reading one of Bhante D's posts that the eternalism found in Maha Boowa, Ajahn Mun view is ubiquitous in Thai temples.

Maybe Burmese tradition temples?

Thanks.

[robertk]

https://groups.io/g/dsg

[zan]

https://groups.io/g/dsg

Thanks! Aren't there other groups? I feel like I've seen Abhidhamma/commentary groups but can't remember where.

[SDC]

Not trying to bust chops, but you could just read more commentarial material to get a better idea about what constitutes "orthodoxy" in Theravada. If you ask people, you'll just keep getting different degrees of interpretation and opinion. Or in the very least just make sure you ask many people to make sure you get a solid consensus.

What are you trying to figure out?

Thanks. You're absolutely right and if the commentaries were available in English I'd be doing what you suggest.

I'm trying to figure out many things.

Well perhaps you have strict definition of "commentary". This is how I see it: a commentary by definition is an explanatory note on a text. More specifically, an exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. History has a funny way of establishing a hierarchy of legitimacy when it comes to commentary - that somehow, whatever is oldest is most accurate. With the Pali Canon itself excluded from this particular scrutiny - being the focus of the commentary - there is no reason to assume that an ancient commentary is more valuable than the assessment of a present day scholar or learned monastic, or that a present day account of an ancient commentary (commentary on a commentary) is somehow too far dissociated from the original to be trustworthy.

If the focus remains on understanding what was committed to memory in the oral tradition, and is recognized - more than anything else available - as a likely account of what the Buddha said (the canon), then it does not seem necessary to uphold the comprehension of an ancient commentary as the utmost permissive condition for access to the scriptures. I say this to you because it seems you put a lot of pressure on yourself to line up many ducks before you make a pursuit, but please never forget that such provisions are reasoned from a position of pre-comprehension, and will not serve you beyond a certain point. Clarity on the matter of reliability and trustworthiness of the content of the canon is *always and forever* the achievement of the goal itself, and not in the accuracy or value determined prior to making the effort.

In short, I don't think that a lack of availability of certain translated material is a legitimate hindrance to access and I would at least suggest you question your reasons for upholding it that way.

[zan]

Not trying to bust chops, but you could just read more commentarial material to get a better idea about what constitutes "orthodoxy" in Theravada. If you ask people, you'll just keep getting different degrees of interpretation and opinion. Or in the very least just make sure you ask many people to make sure you get a solid consensus.

What are you trying to figure out?

Thanks. You're absolutely right and if the commentaries were available in English I'd be doing what you suggest.

I'm trying to figure out many things.

Well perhaps you have strict definition of "commentary". This is how I see it: a commentary by definition is an explanatory note on a text. More specifically, an exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. History has a funny way of establishing a hierarchy of legitimacy when it comes to commentary - that somehow, whatever is oldest is most accurate. With the Pali Canon itself excluded from this particular scrutiny - being the focus of the commentary - there is no reason to assume that an ancient commentary is more valuable than the assessment of a present day scholar or learned monastic, or that a present day account of an ancient commentary (commentary on a commentary) is somehow too far dissociated from the original to be trustworthy.

If the focus remains on understanding what was committed to memory in the oral tradition, and is recognized - more than anything else available - as a likely account of what the Buddha said (the canon), then it does not seem necessary to uphold the comprehension of an ancient commentary as the utmost permissive condition for access to the scriptures. I say this to you because it seems you put a lot of pressure on yourself to line up many ducks before you make a pursuit, but please never forget that such provisions are reasoned from a position of pre-comprehension, and will not serve you beyond a certain point. Clarity on the matter of reliability and trustworthiness of the content of the canon is *always and forever* the achievement of the goal itself, and not in the accuracy or value determined prior to making the effort.

In short, I don't think that a lack of availability of certain translated material is a legitimate hindrance to access and I would at least suggest you question your reasons for upholding it that way.

Thanks.
My definition is the orthodox Theravada commentaries; the Atthakatha. Maybe sub commentaries too; the tikas, though I'm less familiar with them.

[DNS]

robertk's forum:

http://www.abhidhamma.org/

[zan]

robertk's forum:

http://www.abhidhamma.org/

Awesome thank you!

[bazzaman]

I don't know if this is suitable... https://old.reddit.com/r/theravada/ ; but it might lead to other links.

[zan]

I don't know if this is suitable... https://old.reddit.com/r/theravada/ ; but it might lead to other links.

Thanks!