Greetings,
Whilst not specifically the question asked, in the context of the forums here at Dhamma Wheel, the Mahavihara Classical section is to be representative of Theravada as explained by the ancient Theravada commentarial tradition.
The Modern Theravada forums include that Classical perspective but also include the full breadth of Theravada perspectives that exist in modern times.
Any alternative perspectives that contradict the commentarial positions, are excluded from these Classical Theravada forums.
Metta,
Retro.
What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Thank you Mike for your kind correction.
metta
Ben
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]..
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- 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
In my opinion, a very important current event, the bhikkhuni ordination issue seen here in this thread:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
provides some examples of some of the differences between the so-called Classical and Modern. The Modern view point includes Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato, and Bhikkhu Bodhi and use what some might call a "modern" interpretation to allow full bhikkhuni ordinations to occur once again (as they did during the time of Buddha), while the vast majority (nearly all?) of those holding the Classical view feel that the Vinaya is the final say and the monks could not agree what are minor rules at the First Council, end of story.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
provides some examples of some of the differences between the so-called Classical and Modern. The Modern view point includes Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato, and Bhikkhu Bodhi and use what some might call a "modern" interpretation to allow full bhikkhuni ordinations to occur once again (as they did during the time of Buddha), while the vast majority (nearly all?) of those holding the Classical view feel that the Vinaya is the final say and the monks could not agree what are minor rules at the First Council, end of story.
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi DavidDavid N. Snyder wrote: provides some examples of some of the differences between the so-called Classical and Modern. The Modern view point includes Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato, and Bhikkhu Bodhi and use what some might call a "modern" interpretation to allow full bhikkhuni ordinations to occur once again (as they did during the time of Buddha), while the vast majority (nearly all?) of those holding the Classical view feel that the Vinaya is the final say and the monks could not agree what are minor rules at the First Council, end of story.
I'm not sure the heart of the issue has much to do with the Vinaya at all, but perhaps more the cultural bodies the govern the Sanghas at present.
Anyway I'm sorry, my post is off topic here.
"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
'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
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi David
However, and with great respect, I think its simplistic to label those who are in-favour of Bhikkhuni ordination as 'modern' and those who oppose it as 'Classical'.
One of the things with raising the Bhikkhuni Ordination event is that none of us are in a position of having all the facts. The situation appears to be quite delicate with potential far-reaching effects. My opinion is that which-ever camp we support, we should out of a sense of compassion and loving kindness, focus on supporting not only those sangha and lay members who share our particular stand, but those who disagree with us.
We're all the sons and daughters of the Buddha.
With metta and karuna
Ben
Like you, I consider it a significant event as well.David N. Snyder wrote:In my opinion, a very important current event, the bhikkhuni ordination issue seen here in this thread:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
provides some examples of some of the differences between the so-called Classical and Modern. The Modern view point includes Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato, and Bhikkhu Bodhi and use what some might call a "modern" interpretation to allow full bhikkhuni ordinations to occur once again (as they did during the time of Buddha), while the vast majority (nearly all?) of those holding the Classical view feel that the Vinaya is the final say and the monks could not agree what are minor rules at the First Council, end of story.
However, and with great respect, I think its simplistic to label those who are in-favour of Bhikkhuni ordination as 'modern' and those who oppose it as 'Classical'.
One of the things with raising the Bhikkhuni Ordination event is that none of us are in a position of having all the facts. The situation appears to be quite delicate with potential far-reaching effects. My opinion is that which-ever camp we support, we should out of a sense of compassion and loving kindness, focus on supporting not only those sangha and lay members who share our particular stand, but those who disagree with us.
We're all the sons and daughters of the Buddha.
With metta and karuna
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]..
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- 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
It is just one of the issues and from what I have seen, most of those who might be called or labeled Classical, tend to lean against the ordinations and among those who lean toward supporting the ordinations, they tend to be called or labeled Modern, just from my limited observations. But there are other issues too.Ben wrote: Like you, I consider it a significant event as well.
However, and with great respect, I think its simplistic to label those who are in-favour of Bhikkhuni ordination as 'modern' and those who oppose it as 'Classical'.
Well said.Ben wrote: The situation appears to be quite delicate with potential far-reaching effects. My opinion is that which-ever camp we support, we should out of a sense of compassion and loving kindness, focus on supporting not only those sangha and lay members who share our particular stand, but those who disagree with us.
We're all the sons and daughters of the Buddha.
With metta and karuna
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Hi David,
I agree with BlackBird and Ben. You appear to appropriate the label "modern" to mean those you agree with. While Bhikkhu Bodhi certainly points out where the ancient, and not so ancient, commentaries may have overlooked something, he's certainly someone who takes them seriously. Similarly, he quotes modern scholarship as suggesting that the Abhidhamma in it's present form was developed after the Buddha's parihibbana, but certainly does not reject it. Regarding Bhikkhuni ordination he has not suggested rejecting texts, but has expressed the opinion that the Tipitaka and Commentaries do not form a basis for denying the ordinations.
Furthermore, one could argue that Ajahn Chah represents an aspect of "modern Buddhism". So are the decisions of his successors "modern" or "classical"?
Metta
Mike
I agree with BlackBird and Ben. You appear to appropriate the label "modern" to mean those you agree with. While Bhikkhu Bodhi certainly points out where the ancient, and not so ancient, commentaries may have overlooked something, he's certainly someone who takes them seriously. Similarly, he quotes modern scholarship as suggesting that the Abhidhamma in it's present form was developed after the Buddha's parihibbana, but certainly does not reject it. Regarding Bhikkhuni ordination he has not suggested rejecting texts, but has expressed the opinion that the Tipitaka and Commentaries do not form a basis for denying the ordinations.
Furthermore, one could argue that Ajahn Chah represents an aspect of "modern Buddhism". So are the decisions of his successors "modern" or "classical"?
Metta
Mike
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
I should also note, no disrespect at all intended there David
"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
'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
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- 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
Hi Mike,mikenz66 wrote: I agree with BlackBird and Ben. You appear to appropriate the label "modern" to mean those you agree with. While Bhikkhu Bodhi certainly points out where the ancient, and not so ancient, commentaries may have overlooked something, he's certainly someone who takes them seriously. Similarly, he quotes modern scholarship as suggesting that the Abhidhamma in it's present form was developed after the Buddha's parihibbana, but certainly does not reject it.
As opposed to seeing it as Buddhavacana, which would seem to make it a 'Modern' approach.
Yes, you're right, I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi on this. And from my limited observations, those who take this position tend to be called or labeled 'Modern' but I am open to seeing examples of monastic and lay people who take the 'Classical' label and also take this position.Regarding Bhikkhuni ordination he has not suggested rejecting texts, but has expressed the opinion that the Tipitaka and Commentaries do not form a basis for denying the ordinations.
It depends upon which view they take. They don't all agree, for example, apparently Ajahn Sumedho is attempting a very rigid garudhamma that is more severe than the original, while Ajahn Sujato opposes that list and they are both students of Ajahn Chah.Furthermore, one could argue that Ajahn Chah represents an aspect of "modern Buddhism". So are the decisions of his successors "modern" or "classical"?
I don't think the Classical and Modern views are all that black-and-white and I believe there is considerable overlap. I probably fall within the 'Modern' view, but on some issues, someone might see me as quite Classical, including, but not limited to the Triple Gem, monasticism, the Patimokkha, and others.
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
The difference is their Priority given to the following Four Authorities.
Classical Theravada:
1. Sutta (Meanings are derived according to Acariyavada)
2. Sutta Anuloma (Meanings are derived according to Acariyavada)
3. Acariyavada (Ancient Atthakata existed before Acariya Buddhaghosa summarized)
4. Attanomati (Views of Anyone Later than the Ancient Atthakata)
Modern Theravada:
- Places [4] over [3] :(Considers the wisdom of some later or modern people to be higher than Acariyavada)
- Places [4] over Part of [1] and [2] : (Interprets some Suttas according to a non-classical way)
In conclusion Modern Theravada is not Theravada. It is Attanomati-vada.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Greetings Eko Care,
Your post revealed nothing other than your prejudices against non-sectarian followers of the Buddha.
Metta,
Paul.
In conclusion, creating junk arguments leads to a junk conclusion.
Your post revealed nothing other than your prejudices against non-sectarian followers of the Buddha.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Whether you like it or not, there is a classical way already set up in the books.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:23 pm Your post revealed nothing other than your prejudices against non-sectarian followers of the Buddha.
Anything other than the Atthakatha, is considered Attanomati.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- 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
Wrong again. The "Modern Theravada" Buddhists place emphasis on the Suttas, could even be called Suttanta. They focus on the EBTs, not the later, modern writers. It is arbitrarily called "Modern Theravada" there is no official term for those who prefer the Suttas or EBTs.
They focus on the first five Nikayas of the Pali Canon, not necessarily rejecting the rest.
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
It is not Suttanta. Suttantikas had not any different intrpretation.
They focus on what they defined as EBTs.
But with different interpretations (many of them).
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Greetings,
Classical Theravada
1. Sutta (Including Vinaya and Abhidhamma)
2. Sutta Anuloma (Meanings derived from #1)
3. Acariyavada (Ancient Commentary)
4. Attanomati (Not-so-ancient Commentary)
Modern Theravada
1. Sutta (including Vinaya)
2. Sutta Anuloma (Meanings derived from #1)
3. Attanomati - any other potentially relevant source, including Abhidhamma, Acariyavada, Attanomati and contemporary scholarship
The above could be summarised by saying that Classical Theravada gives the Abhidhamma and the Commentaries an explicit degree of authority and precedence (over other opinions and perspectives), whereas Modern Theravada does not. Come to think of it, that's pretty much what the guidelines for this site's Classical section say.
Metta,
Paul.
Exactly. A more accurate account of the difference is...
Classical Theravada
1. Sutta (Including Vinaya and Abhidhamma)
2. Sutta Anuloma (Meanings derived from #1)
3. Acariyavada (Ancient Commentary)
4. Attanomati (Not-so-ancient Commentary)
Modern Theravada
1. Sutta (including Vinaya)
2. Sutta Anuloma (Meanings derived from #1)
3. Attanomati - any other potentially relevant source, including Abhidhamma, Acariyavada, Attanomati and contemporary scholarship
The above could be summarised by saying that Classical Theravada gives the Abhidhamma and the Commentaries an explicit degree of authority and precedence (over other opinions and perspectives), whereas Modern Theravada does not. Come to think of it, that's pretty much what the guidelines for this site's Classical section say.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."