Change Classical to Commentarial

[User13866]

As i see it "Commentarial Tradition" is a much more accurate terminology.

[Eko Care]

It is natural that Non-Classical inventive traditions want it in that way.

But sorry.

[User13866]

It is natural that Non-Classical inventive traditions want it in that way.

But sorry.

What do you mean by inventive? What have i invented?

The commentators on the other hand have invented quite a lot, but we don't need to call it Inventive Tradition.

I think that calling it Inventive Tradition isn't a good idea, it's somewhat deragatory & confusing as i see it but Commentatial would be most accurate.

I will include it in the poll anyway since you brought it up.

Not-Canonical is also an option but i think it's definitely too broad of a term.

'Classical' gives the impression of orthodoxy as in 'being canonical' which it isn't.

Also not that many Theravadins subscribe to it, afaik most do not and it has never been otherwise.

[Spiny Norman]

Thinking of how "classical" is applied in other contexts, I don't understand why it's defined here as being consistent with the commentarial tradition.

[Eko Care]

'Classical' gives the impression of orthodoxy as in 'being canonical' which it isn't.

Ha ha .., that is why you are jealous, aren't you?

The cat jumped out of the box.

Also not that many Theravadins subscribe to it, afaik most do not and it has never been otherwise.

The truth is always something that is not subscribed by many, it has never been otherwise.

It is a good argument to ensure the value of Classical Theravada.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you would do a better service, if you could suggest changing section-names as below:

Early Buddhism to Later Buddhism (since the EBT movement is the latest form invented by Theosophists, Romanticists, Feminists and Expelled monks)

Early Buddhism to Ego Buddhism (since the EBT activists and many followers are famous for having higher ego in creative thinking)

Early Buddhism to Tearavada (since the EBT movement is tearing the parts out of the Tipitaka)

Early Buddhism to Attanomati (since the EBT movement is pure Own-opinions of modern people)

Early Buddhism to Western Buddhism (if you want a politically appealing name)

General Theravada to General Tearavada (since it is generally tearing the parts out)

General Theravada to Pan-Theravada (since it is considered a Fruit Salad and if you want a politically appealing name)

[User13866]

'Classical' gives the impression of orthodoxy as in 'being canonical' which it isn't.

Ha ha .., that is why you are jealous, aren't you?

The cat jumped out of the box.

Also not that many Theravadins subscribe to it, afaik most do not and it has never been otherwise.

The truth is always something that is not subscribed by many, it has never been otherwise.

It is a good argument to ensure the value of Classical Theravada.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you would do a better service, if you could suggest changing section-names as below:

Early Buddhism to Later Buddhism (since the EBT movement is the latest form invented by Theosophists, Romanticists, Feminists and Expelled monks)

Early Buddhism to Ego Buddhism (since the EBT activists and many followers are famous for having higher ego in creative thinking)

Early Buddhism to Tearavada (since the EBT movement is tearing the parts out of the Tipitaka)

Early Buddhism to Attanomati (since the EBT movement is pure Own-opinions of modern people)

Early Buddhism to Western Buddhism (if you want a politically appealing name)

General Theravada to General Tearavada (since it is generally tearing the parts out)

General Theravada to Pan-Theravada (since it is considered a Fruit Salad and if you want a politically appealing name)

I am not jealous in the slightest. I think it's confusing new people and it was confusing to me when i joined this forum.

Another point is that "Classical Buddhism" is often used as a term denoting not-secular Buddhism, as a term generally denoting common schools like Theravada/Mahayana.

Are you going to muster any argumentation other than ad-hominem?

[Ceisiwr]

Are you going to muster any argumentation other than ad-hominem?

Those weren’t ad homs.

[User13866]

Are you going to muster any argumentation other than ad-hominem?

Those weren’t ad homs.

Don't talk to me please. Since you are rejecting sutta as fake i've no interest in conversing.

He suggested that i brought this up because i am jealous, that's ad hominem..

[asahi]

Does saying other jealous a kind of ad hom ? Probably , i guess .

[Ceisiwr]

Are you going to muster any argumentation other than ad-hominem?

Those weren’t ad homs.

Don't talk to me please. Since you are rejecting sutta as fake i've no interest in conversing.

He suggested that i brought this up because i am jealous, that's ad hominem..

He made a statement there, not an argument as far as I can see. Regarding “rejecting suttas as fake”, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

[User13866]

Those weren’t ad homs.

Don't talk to me please. Since you are rejecting sutta as fake i've no interest in conversing.

He suggested that i brought this up because i am jealous, that's ad hominem..

He made a statement there, not an argument as far as I can see. Regarding “rejecting suttas as fake”, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

He made a statement in order to invalidate my position. It's obviously bad form of discussion, as a matter of fact he has not contributed to the discussion i any other way other than suggesting that i am bringing this up due to a flaw in my character.

He also asserted his commentaries to be a truth not widely recognized, which has not been established as a truth by him, which makes it an unsubatantiated claim.

As to Sutta, iirc you questioned the authenticity of AN 10.7 Sariputta Sutta did you not?

[TRobinson465]

As i see it "Commentarial Tradition" is a much more accurate terminology.

I dont think so. because classical also means you accept things like abhidhamma and the jatakas, which are not commentaries. Classical is basically just what the early Theravada Buddhist councils defined as Theravada, so the name fits. Commentarial tradition should be for those who accept commentaries but rejects the other stuff associated with classical theravada (if any such people exist, which im sure there are some people somewhere who do)

[TRobinson465]

Id also like to point out its called Classical Theravada, not Classical Buddhism. All of the points above against it being called Classical is acting like its called Classical Buddhism, rather than the Theravada classified as such by Theravada Buddhist councils.

[User13866]

I'll wrap it up here.

This forum doesn't have a section wherein the Theravadin canon can not be disputed but the commentaries can be disputed separating the two.

The way the forum is setup is Sutta vs Commentary, which is dumb as it leaves out the canonical Theravada Abhidhamma books as if it's not a part of the canon.

There should be a canonical section and a commentarial section.

If the canonical is called canonical then the comentarial can be called cassical or whatever.

As it is now, this board generally misrepresents Theravada school by lumping it's canon with commentaries and calling it "classical theravada".

[User13866]

Don't talk to me please. Since you are rejecting sutta as fake i've no interest in conversing.

He suggested that i brought this up because i am jealous, that's ad hominem..

He made a statement there, not an argument as far as I can see. Regarding “rejecting suttas as fake”, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

As to Sutta, iirc you questioned the authenticity of AN 10.7 Sariputta Sutta did you not?

Found the one you dismissed, for the record

Hello all,

I am rereading Anupada sutta.

It says that there is something happening in the saññāvedayitanirodha that results in liberating wisdom, and that after emerging from it one can recollect those qualities. Shouldn't this state be TOTALLY devoid of all and any conscious activity?

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, Sariputta entered & remained in the cessation of feeling & perception.

Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment.

On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Any ideas?

I think it’s nonsense, and that the sutta is a later composition.