Difference between "Modern" and "Classical" Theravada ...
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:13 am
... can anyone tell me what the differences are? Thank you.
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
While I'm sure one could locate some who put more authority on the Abdhidhamma, I think that in general it would be more accurate to say that the Classical works use the Abhidhamma model to aid interpretation of the suttas. The various "Modern Theravada" interpretations use a variety of interpretive models and come to a variety of conclusions, some quite traditional (such as Ajahn Brahm) and some quite non-traditional (such as the "Secular" approach of Stephen Batchelor and others.Modus.Ponens wrote: So, in general, the classical theravada places more authority on the abidhamma than in the discourses. The "modern" theravada is whatever teachings that are not bounded by this traditional view; and it includes different aproaches.
Which also vary dramatically between modern interpreters (with, again, Ajahn Brahm having quite a traditional interpretation of jhana relative to some other interpreters).Modus.Ponens wrote: What matters are the pratical consequences of this difference. The crucial one I'm aware of is how each group (with few exceptions) practice jhana.
I wrote "with few exceptions" thinking precisely of Ajahn Brahm and his followers.mikenz66 wrote:Which also vary dramatically between modern interpreters (with, again, Ajahn Brahm having quite a traditional interpretation of jhana relative to some other interpreters).Modus.Ponens wrote: What matters are the pratical consequences of this difference. The crucial one I'm aware of is how each group (with few exceptions) practice jhana.
Personally, I've got a lot of useful advice from the interpretations of teachers from all over the spectrum. I generally see most of the variations as differences in technique, rather than differences in Dhamma.
Mike
Which is pretty much what the the "Classically based" Mahasi approach teaches. (As in U Pandita's "Vipassana Jhana" terminology, or the ancient Classical description of "dry insight with access concentration"). So, as I said, I don't really see a need to focus on making a difference out of it. To me it's all just advice on how to apply Dhamma, and personally I'm happy to get some guidance from any competent interpreter, ancient or modern.Modus.Ponens wrote: Pragmaticaly the interpretations of jhana don't vary dramaticaly. The important difference is that in one interpretation insight practice is not possible during jhana, while the other interpretation says that insight is possible (and highly recomended) during jhana.
mikenz66 wrote:Which is pretty much what the the "Classically based" Mahasi approach teaches. (As in U Pandita's "Vipassana Jhana" terminology, or the ancient Classical description of "dry insight with access concentration"). So, as I said, I don't really see a need to focus on making a difference out of it. To me it's all just advice on how to apply Dhamma, and personally I'm happy to get some guidance from any competent interpreter, ancient or modern.Modus.Ponens wrote: Pragmaticaly the interpretations of jhana don't vary dramaticaly. The important difference is that in one interpretation insight practice is not possible during jhana, while the other interpretation says that insight is possible (and highly recomended) during jhana.
So there are these different techniques: Develop very strong, absorbed, concentration (Ajahn Brahm/Visuddimagga jhana) then use that as a basis for insight, or develop the insight with a lighter concentration (Classical dry insight, Mahasi, many "modern" teachers). I don't see those as disagreements over Dhamma. Besides many teachers (and the Visuddhimagga) teach both approaches.
But this has been discussed many times on this forum...
To get back to the topic, I would suggest that the biggest differences between Classical and some Modern interpretations is that some of the modern interpreters (particularly those at the "secular" end of the spectrum) seek to distinguish which parts of the suttas are "essential Dhamma" and which are "cultural baggage". In this case, the debate is over what exactly is Dhamma.
Mike
Pure as possible. Interestingly, I have very few (if any) "back to the sutta" people here working from a place of having mastery of Pali, not to mention a strong working knowledge of the history of early Buddhism. Also, there is no historical reason why we should favor the Pali texts over the corresponding texts preserved in various other languages.Modus.Ponens wrote: However, thinking as a comunity and in the long term preservation of the teachings, I think you can quickly conclude that it is important to also have a first priority reference, a golden standard, which is as pure as possible _ the suttas _ so that the dhammic idiossincrasies of a miriad of meditation techniques don't outweigh the original dhamma _ and divide it into different factions.
In the same way a chemistry teacher doesn't need to have a PhD in chemistry to teach the subject, we don't all need to be pali experts to understand the results of the scholarship in this subject. No physicist has mastery over all knowledge of physics so he has to rely on his colleagues' expertise to referee a paper. That's how the most scrutinized human endeavour works. I see no reason for us to try to do better _ it would be impossible.tiltbillings wrote:Pure as possible. Interestingly, I have very few (if any) "back to the sutta" people here working from a place of having mastery of Pali, not to mention a strong working knowledge of the history of early Buddhism. Also, there is no historical reason why we should favor the Pali texts over the corresponding texts preserved in various other languages.Modus.Ponens wrote: However, thinking as a comunity and in the long term preservation of the teachings, I think you can quickly conclude that it is important to also have a first priority reference, a golden standard, which is as pure as possible _ the suttas _ so that the dhammic idiossincrasies of a miriad of meditation techniques don't outweigh the original dhamma _ and divide it into different factions.
How do we determine what is "original Dhamma?" By whose criteria, by whose interpretation is "original" Dhamma determined?
We have seen, for example, the idea that the 12 link version of paticcasamuppada is not properly interpreted as involving 3 lives. This is now a "classic" modern vs classical area of contention. I have yet to see with the modern "timeless," in this moment, interpretation of the 12 links an argument showing that the 3 life interpretation does not lead to awakening.
I was losing sight of the topic _ and of what is reasonable. Of course there will always be different interpretations of the dhamma. But the most important thing is that it needs to be determined what texts are original and what texts were forged _ inside or outside the sutta pitaka. This, I think, is the most valid contribution of western civilization to the dhamma: applying peer reviewed scholarship to determine what are the most important texts. And this is the foundations on which every "modern theravada" interpretation is built, even if modern theravadins are not directly aware of it.tiltbillings wrote: We have seen, for example, the idea that the 12 link version of paticcasamuppada is not properly interpreted as involving 3 lives. This is now a "classic" modern vs classical area of contention. I have yet to see with the modern "timeless," in this moment, interpretation of the 12 links an argument showing that the 3 life interpretation does not lead to awakening.
In addition, not all of the 'modern' interpretations necessarily invalidate the three-life interpretation. And the three-life model was not the only interpretation used by the Ãcāriyas of the past. If anything, the three-life model was provided as an illustration of a more general principle.tiltbillings wrote:We have seen, for example, the idea that the 12 link version of paticcasamuppada is not properly interpreted as involving 3 lives. This is now a "classic" modern vs classical area of contention. I have yet to see with the modern "timeless," in this moment, interpretation of the 12 links an argument showing that the 3 life interpretation does not lead to awakening.
The differences are...cookiemonster wrote:... can anyone tell me what the differences are? Thank you.