Why Theravada?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
nibbuti
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by nibbuti » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:13 am

Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
Because it does not agree with yours? ;)

Sounds quite reasonable to me what Dhammavuddho said (in his other videos as well). Much unlike this:
MR: Why do you think there is such a division between the Theravada and the Mahayana schools?

Ajahn Sundara: I think the divide came up very early ... Maybe ... Maybe ... maybe ...
:popcorn:

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Dan74 » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:49 am

I guess certainty and simplicity tend to appeal more than lack of such. If you have a question, or have interest in a dialogue, I will be happy to engage, nibbuti.
_/|\_

Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Reductor » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:04 pm

Ben wrote:
Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion. I would rather listen to the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ajahn Amaro.
Yes, I agree. I have seen that video before and it does Ven Dhammavuddho no favours.
How so?

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by kirk5a » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:56 pm

Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
I can't see how that judgment is called for. He is simply sharing his experiences. With a good sense of humor about it all, so it seems to me.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by kc2dpt » Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:50 pm

Dan74 wrote:This Venerable is spreading his delusion.
Could you be more specific as to which part are delusion?

When he learned Theravada he was unhappy with what he had learned in Mahayana. Do you have reason to believe he is delusional about his own feelings on the matter?

He wrote about Vinaya, the practice of which is undeniably different between the two traditions.

He wrote about vegetarianism which is something T and M disagree on.

He wrote how Mahayana teachings developed much later than the Buddha, which is widely accepted among Buddhist scholars.

He talked about how people were unhappy with what he wrote. Probably this is true.

Which part is his delusion?
What about this video causes you to say something so aggressive?
Dan74 wrote:I would rather listen to the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ajahn Amaro or Ajahn Sundara
I think what they say is very nice. I also don't see how what one says contradicts what the other says. I think it is a non-delusional thing to have the opinion that while there may be praiseworthy things in Mahayana there may also be blameworthy things. I think one person can have the opinion that Mahayana is a perfectly acceptable path and another person can have the opinion that it is not an acceptable path yet there is no cause to call one of these people delusional in an otherwise polite conversation.

I will add that saying Theravada is the original teaching of the Buddha is stretching a point. It might be closest to the original teaching, but that's as far as I think I'd go. Still, just this comment doesn't strike me as worthy of hostility, especially when said on a Theravada discussion board.
Last edited by kc2dpt on Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Dan74 » Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:59 pm

Peter,

When the Venerable says that 'Mahayana sutras don't have a taste of liberation' he is spreading his delusion and the worst kind of sectarianism. I am not saying he is wrong in everything, nor that he is a bad monk, etc. But on this point he is plain wrong and spreading his delusion which serves to undermine people's Dharma practice and is therefore very harmful. I am just calling him out on it, not being aggressive.

If a Mahayana monk says that Theravada doesn't have a taste of liberation, is a despicable vehicle, etc I think I would word my reply even more strongly. It is not simply a matter of his opinion when it is a youtube video made for public consumption. It is propaganda. And as such it must be called out.

Edit: I may have had another one of his videos in mind, Folks. I have watched several and can't recall which is the nasty one.
_/|\_

nibbuti
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by nibbuti » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:34 am

Dan74 wrote: I am not saying he is wrong in everything, nor that he is a bad monk, etc. But on this point he is plain wrong
I'm not sure "right or "wrong" does apply to taste.

Mahayana Sutra, those I've read, had a taste of pomposity (like the Lotus Sutra) and well-meant confusion (Heart Sutra), rather than freedom.

Just my taste. :shrug:
Dan74 wrote: and the worst kind of sectarianism.
Actually, the suttas he says have a taste of freedom are pre-sectarian.

:popcorn:

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by daverupa » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:57 am

nibbuti wrote:Actually, the suttas he says have a taste of freedom are pre-sectarian.
As I recently discovered on the other DW, the mere hint that pre-sectarian texts predate & are not Mahayana texts is enough to drum up a defensive formation prior to clearing a room.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Dan74 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:12 am

nibbuti wrote:
Dan74 wrote: I am not saying he is wrong in everything, nor that he is a bad monk, etc. But on this point he is plain wrong
I'm not sure "right or "wrong" does apply to taste.

Mahayana Sutra, those I've read, had a taste of pomposity (like the Lotus Sutra) and well-meant confusion (Heart Sutra), rather than freedom.

Just my taste. :shrug:
Dan74 wrote: and the worst kind of sectarianism.
Actually, the suttas he says have a taste of freedom are pre-sectarian.

:popcorn:
Nibbuti, not sure if you heard the Venerable. The way he meant it was in the context of a sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html rather than his personal taste. And when you say that the Heart Sutra has a taste of well-meant confusion, you should insert the words "for me' because what you are really conveying is your (lack of) understanding rather than the import of the Sutra. The problem arises when these two are confused and the subjective is sold as the objective. Saying "I don't get ..." is very different to saying "... is crap". I think this is all fairly obvious.

I am not sure if I am reading you right, but my impression is that your mind is pretty much made up on this matter.

Dave, some people will of course feel strongly about it and even a few scholars still hold to the traditional Mahayana notion of the genesis of the Sutras. Hardly surprising in traditions where devotion plays a strong role and not necessarily bad if efficacy is to be considered as the prime good. Since we cannot know the precise genesis of all texts, I prefer to be agnostic and defer to the current consensus as to the most likely origin. But for me this is not very important.
Last edited by Dan74 on Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_

nibbuti
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by nibbuti » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:21 am

daverupa wrote:As I recently discovered on the other DW, the mere hint that pre-sectarian texts predate & are not Mahayana texts is enough to drum up a defensive formation prior to clearing a room.
Hi dave. Who says they're not Mahayana text?

The Agamas/Nikayas are lost from the Tibetan Kangyur (canon) and hardly noticed in the other branches, but still officially apply for all Buddhists including Mahayana. Whereas the Mahayana Sutras apply only for Mahayanists (non-Mahayanists have no obligation to acknowledge them).

What do honorable leaders of Mahayana say about the original suttas? :spy:

"In due course, these recitations from memory were written down, laying the basis for all subsequent Buddhist literature. The Pali Canon is one of the earliest of these written records and the only early version that has survived intact. Within the Pali Canon, the texts known as Nikayas have the special value of being a single cohesive collection of the Buddha's teachings in his own words."

Venerable Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama
May 10, 2005

Image

http://books.google.de/books?id=11X1h60 ... &q&f=false

Sutta and Vinaya portion of the Tipitaka shows considerable overlap in content to the Agamas, the parallel collections used by non-Theravada schools in India which are preserved in Chinese and partially in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Tibetan, and the various non-Theravada Vinayas.

Thich Thien Son

Image

http://www.phathue.com/buddhism/the-thr ... f-buddhism

:bow:

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by daverupa » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:28 am

nibbuti wrote:
daverupa wrote:As I recently discovered on the other DW, the mere hint that pre-sectarian texts predate & are not Mahayana texts is enough to drum up a defensive formation prior to clearing a room.
Hi dave. Who says they're not Mahayana text?
Pre-sectarian texts are non-Mahayana because they pre-date Mahayana. Furthermore, the Nikayas/Agamas aren't used by any Mahayana practitioner that I've ever spoken with - they seem to prefer Mahayana Sutras exclusively, and when these two textual groups are in conflict they tend to interpret the earlier material in light of the later material, rather than the other way around - which is to say, they tend to do things opposite the way which is recommended in the Nikayas/Agamas when it comes to assessing textual authority.

:shrug:

Just the taste I've experienced, I suppose. (Note, in terms of the OP, that Theravada in toto doesn't fare much better when held against pre-sectarian materials - rotten ol' ksanas, etc...)
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Dan74 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:34 am

daverupa wrote:
nibbuti wrote:
daverupa wrote:As I recently discovered on the other DW, the mere hint that pre-sectarian texts predate & are not Mahayana texts is enough to drum up a defensive formation prior to clearing a room.
Hi dave. Who says they're not Mahayana text?
Pre-sectarian texts are non-Mahayana because they pre-date Mahayana. Furthermore, the Nikayas/Agamas aren't used by any Mahayana practitioner that I've ever spoken with - they seem to prefer Mahayana Sutras exclusively, and when these two textual groups are in conflict they tend to interpret the earlier material in light of the later material, rather than the other way around - which is to say, they tend to do things opposite the way which is recommended in the Nikayas/Agamas.
There is actually quite a few Mahayana teachers who also teach Suttas and vice versa. My teacher trained in Korean Zen but prior to that was a student of Phra Khantipalo who himself became a Dzogchen practitioner later on. She has taught material straight out of Suttas many times.

What I have found in many good Buddhist teachers is that they hold these labels very lightly if at all. It is mostly on web forums that people seem to like to dig trenches... Perhaps we can take a leaf out of Ajahn Sumedho's book (who is probably the older Western-born monastic now - 47 years ordained) and consider his deep bond to the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, and friendship with Ven Hsuan Hua.
Last edited by Dan74 on Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_

nibbuti
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by nibbuti » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:44 am

daverupa wrote:Pre-sectarian texts are non-Mahayana because they pre-date Mahayana. Furthermore, the Nikayas/Agamas aren't used by any Mahayana practitioner that I've ever spoken with - they seem to prefer Mahayana Sutras exclusively, and when these two textual groups are in conflict they tend to interpret the earlier material in light of the later material, rather than the other way around - which is to say, they tend to do things opposite the way which is recommended in the Nikayas/Agamas.
Sure dave, everyone can do whatever they think is right. And many prefer to stick to what their own teacher taught them exclusively, rather than look beyond the borders. But if someone did things generally opposite the way which is recommended in the earliest coherent sources, there would be no point in referring to the Buddha, teacher of all Buddhists, at all. Then it is the duty of a kalyanamitta to kindly point that out. Out of compassion for that person and gratitude for the Buddha.

:thanks:

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:18 am

nibbuti wrote:
daverupa wrote:Pre-sectarian texts are non-Mahayana because they pre-date Mahayana. Furthermore, the Nikayas/Agamas aren't used by any Mahayana practitioner that I've ever spoken with - they seem to prefer Mahayana Sutras exclusively, and when these two textual groups are in conflict they tend to interpret the earlier material in light of the later material, rather than the other way around - which is to say, they tend to do things opposite the way which is recommended in the Nikayas/Agamas.
Sure dave, everyone can do whatever they think is right. And many prefer to stick to what their own teacher taught them exclusively, rather than look beyond the borders. But if someone did things generally opposite the way which is recommended in the earliest coherent sources, there would be no point in referring to the Buddha, teacher of all Buddhists, at all. Then it is the duty of a kalyanamitta to kindly point that out. Out of compassion for that person and gratitude for the Buddha.

:thanks:
Hi, everyone,
This difference is another version of a difference of views about Buddhism that I have mentioned in other threads. That is,
(1) If Buddhism is a Revealed Religion then the Words of its Founder are the primary source of all Wisdom, and any later additions are mere commentaries at best, heresies at worst.
(2) If Buddhism is a field of study (like medicine, anthropology or literature) then the words of its founder are important but it is expected that each generation will build on them, add to them, improve them and eventually supersede them.

That way of framing the two models is exaggeratedly polarised, of course, but I think we need to work where we sit on the spectrum between them. (I lost control of my metaphors in there! Drat! :tongue: )

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Why Theravada?

Post by Kusala » Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:49 am

Kim OHara wrote:
nibbuti wrote:
daverupa wrote:Pre-sectarian texts are non-Mahayana because they pre-date Mahayana. Furthermore, the Nikayas/Agamas aren't used by any Mahayana practitioner that I've ever spoken with - they seem to prefer Mahayana Sutras exclusively, and when these two textual groups are in conflict they tend to interpret the earlier material in light of the later material, rather than the other way around - which is to say, they tend to do things opposite the way which is recommended in the Nikayas/Agamas.
Sure dave, everyone can do whatever they think is right. And many prefer to stick to what their own teacher taught them exclusively, rather than look beyond the borders. But if someone did things generally opposite the way which is recommended in the earliest coherent sources, there would be no point in referring to the Buddha, teacher of all Buddhists, at all. Then it is the duty of a kalyanamitta to kindly point that out. Out of compassion for that person and gratitude for the Buddha.

:thanks:
Hi, everyone,
This difference is another version of a difference of views about Buddhism that I have mentioned in other threads. That is,
(1) If Buddhism is a Revealed Religion then the Words of its Founder are the primary source of all Wisdom, and any later additions are mere commentaries at best, heresies at worst.
(2) If Buddhism is a field of study (like medicine, anthropology or literature) then the words of its founder are important but it is expected that each generation will build on them, add to them, improve them and eventually supersede them.

That way of framing the two models is exaggeratedly polarised, of course, but I think we need to work where we sit on the spectrum between them. (I lost control of my metaphors in there! Drat! :tongue: )

:namaste:
Kim
The Buddha warned that a "counterfeit Dhamma" will eventually take over... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Image

"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bundokji, kamui, Kim OHara, MrKoala, paul, robertk, Volovsky, xofz and 127 guests