Ñāṇa wrote:pilgrim wrote:Every teacher has his own style of teaching and his particular emphasis. I don't think it is fair or even accurate to say this constitutes a new tradition.
darvki wrote:As for the link to Ajahn Sujato's article on the Agamas, I don't see how subscribing to a different transmission of the Buddhavacana because one finds it to be more reliable brings one outside the Theravada.
Ven. Brahmavamso's explicit contradiction (and tacit rejection) of the doctrines contained in the Canonical Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and major parts of the Canonical Theravāda Khuddakanikāya, and Ven. Sujato's explicit rejection of the same doctrines, leaves very little "Theravāda" in what they are presenting. The doctrines contained in the Theravāda Abhidhammapiṭaka and Theravāda Khuddakanikāya texts such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga are what constitute the Thera
vāda as a unique doctrinal school (vāda). These treatises are all specific to the Theravāda. They have no parallel counterparts even amongst the other Sthaviravāda schools such as the Sarvāstivāda. Therefore, whatever it is that Ven. Brahmavamso and and Ven. Sujato,
et al, are teaching, it cannot be called Theravāda. To call it Theravāda renders the designation quite meaningless.
All the best,
Geoff
One can still call it "Critical Theravada Buddhism" to the extent that such a Buddhism acknowledges the stratification and assign different soteriological value to the different strata of texts.
But, that might sound politically-incorrect and imply that other Theravada strains were uncritical or unthinking, so not quite useful.
Perhaps "Critical Textual Theravada"?
Which actually brings us to the nub of another issue. Is Theravada a "Sangha" that can be a "vada"? Is Ajahn Chah's lineage a "Sangha"?
One could of course insist that one need not fret about Vinaya technicalities, but I always thought that the Vinaya describes a "sangha" as being defined by a siima, and the Buddha clearly prohibited over-sized siimas. So, at best Ajahn Chah's lineage can describe themselves as a Nikaya, of which Ajahn Brahm is
persona non grata.
As for the "vada" that is Theravada, even if a 7th Council were held to pass a resolution making it a creed of faith in the provenance of the Abhidhammic material and the authority of the Commentaries, that sanghakamma is limited to within the sangha seated inside that siima. It's too far easy to brandish the "schism" (sanghabeda) spectre without regard to what it actually entails.