What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
- one_awakening
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
I thought modern Theravada focused exclusively on the suttas and ignored everything else
“You only lose what you cling to”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27859
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Greetings,
The Modern approach essentially comes down to what can most realistically be attributed to the Buddha and his immediate disciples, and giving that and that alone precedence. Both venerable Nanavira and Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, are agreed that this includes:
Sutta Pitaka: Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā
Vinaya Pitaka: Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga
Obviously, the Classical approach is different, granting "top billing" not just to these books, but to anything in the Tipitaka, and then granting the Pali commentaries an intellectual monopoly over their interpretation.
Metta,
Paul.
It may appear that way, because the "two basket" approach of Sutta and Vinaya, effectively becomes Sutta for one who is not a monastic, but it's not the case that "everything else" is "ignored"... it's just that nothing else is granted formal precedence.one_awakening wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:00 am I thought modern Theravada focused exclusively on the suttas and ignored everything else
The Modern approach essentially comes down to what can most realistically be attributed to the Buddha and his immediate disciples, and giving that and that alone precedence. Both venerable Nanavira and Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, are agreed that this includes:
Sutta Pitaka: Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā
Vinaya Pitaka: Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga
Obviously, the Classical approach is different, granting "top billing" not just to these books, but to anything in the Tipitaka, and then granting the Pali commentaries an intellectual monopoly over their interpretation.
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."
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27859
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Greetings Tilt,
It's dead to the extent that an intellectual autonomy has been granted to the Pali commentaries, and that no other subsequent interpretation can ever be allowed to supplant its ancient interpretations. As a "school" or "doctrinal lineage", it has therefore been ossified, and the door permanently shut on subsequent refinement.
Yet, it's alive to the extent that it can those ossified interpretations can be practiced as a "tradition" today.
Metta,
Paul.
(Old question, I know, but...)tiltbillings wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:25 pm The other question: Is "classical Theravada" a living or a dead tradition?
It's dead to the extent that an intellectual autonomy has been granted to the Pali commentaries, and that no other subsequent interpretation can ever be allowed to supplant its ancient interpretations. As a "school" or "doctrinal lineage", it has therefore been ossified, and the door permanently shut on subsequent refinement.
Yet, it's alive to the extent that it can those ossified interpretations can be practiced as a "tradition" today.
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
Hi ECEko Care wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:04 pmThe 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.
Please give the source reference for your conclusion.
This will avoid debate, as it is not your opinion.
All these classifications are a result of ignorance. Because we don't know what is right and what is wrong.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Modern suttanta Includes agama also
No bashing No gossiping
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm
Re: What's the difference between Classical and Modern Theravada
Agree on this too. But I think we need to screen the commentaries with Suttas too for consistency. Meanwhile, we also need to read Suttas carefully and not being too extreme.Eko Care wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:04 pmThe 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.
I often saw people here in Malaysia either is too obsess with the commentaries or grasping the Suttas in extreme ways.
For example, I heard LP Dhammavuddho' s Dhamma talk on YouTube and quite shock to know that: he is actually believe the existence of everchanging Soul in our body and confirm the Antarabhava state. Meanwhile, he is the one that against ancient commentaries and focus only on Suttas. I can't recall any single sutta I have read talks about Antarabhava or everchanging Soul.
I think that we shouldn't ignore the ancient commentaries that don't contradict with Dhammavinaya.
Deleted