Buddhayana

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
SeerObserver
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:52 pm
Location: USA

Re: Buddhayana

Post by SeerObserver »

jcsuperstar wrote:and every sunday here too!
in fact temple is a lot like church.... and 99% of asian buddhists i know dont meditate and more than that if they do meditate its not on any regular basis. they also dont study suttas so in reality the monks could probably teach them whatever...

i think, and one of our thai living monks can confirm this or not, most of the buddhism learned by lay people came from jataka tales up until recently and maybe even these days too, i know the temple is packed when theyre read.
Right, but in these sermons can you really remove traces of particular Buddhist tradition? I don't think it's the same as how a Christian minister can be non-denominational. Even the interpretation of the moral to be learned from a particular will have a certain flavor to it, won't it?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Cittasanto »

just to catch up I go to a group every wednesday where a talk and meditation session is held, not in a temple or Wat as there are none in Aberdeen, but a FWBO group for a bit of company with like minded individuals (its the closest and easiest to get too)

I think the main difference between Buddhist "Sermons" and Christian sermons is that the Buddhist talks are questionable, it isn't a case of a bit of leeway here and there or move to another denomination or what ever, the talks are one persons point of view which we are encouraged to test and then agree with question or dismiss if we find it flawed.

I think if a Theravada version of the FWBO were to form it would be similar to modern/western Theravada except with an actual "Temple" monks, nuns, etc which is not associated directly with another countries tradition.

I think this will take time, and the first steps have started to happen, and I think the Thai forest tradition in the west will be at the fore of this, but for it to be truly balanced all the Theravada groups (Thai, Burmese, etc) should meet up (3 or 4 separate groups all looking for cultural add ons in the same areas) and go through the tipitaka, particularity the Vinaya and remove the area specific rituals, which are solely cultural add ons. but then again all the Vinaya lines should be involved there.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings


It was also a term i came accross in Ajahn Buddhadasa's book "heartwood from the Bodhi Tree" (print version)

Apprently he used it so as to state that he doesnt follow or teach what a certain tradition or school dictates but only what the Buddha himself taught


Metta
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Prasadachitta »

TheDhamma wrote: The FWBO made a vigorous attempt, but at least in the U.S., have not had any success.
Hello TheDhamma,

This may be your opinion but from my point of view it has no real validity. I am not sure what kind of measure you use to look for success.

TheDhamma wrote:Apparently there may have been some sexual misconduct, but I think most of the problems were with getting their Buddhayana doctrines off the ground.
A practitioner can attempt to communicate their understanding of a teaching or their experience of attempting to practice from that understanding but what does it mean to "get a doctrine off the ground"?

Kindly

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhayana

Post by kc2dpt »

clw_uk wrote:It was also a term i came accross in Ajahn Buddhadasa's book "heartwood from the Bodhi Tree" (print version)

Apprently he used it so as to state that he doesnt follow or teach what a certain tradition or school dictates but only what the Buddha himself taught
Which is simply a self-promoting way of saying "I don't teach what tradition teaches but instead teach my own interpretation."
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Peter
it does seam that way doesn't it.
Peter wrote:
clw_uk wrote:It was also a term i came accross in Ajahn Buddhadasa's book "heartwood from the Bodhi Tree" (print version)

Apprently he used it so as to state that he doesnt follow or teach what a certain tradition or school dictates but only what the Buddha himself taught
Which is simply a self-promoting way of saying "I don't teach what tradition teaches but instead teach my own interpretation."
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings Peter


I wouldnt say that, i would say it comes from his own personal glimpse of how un-Buddhist practices have crept into Theravada Buddhism, and so shows his resolve to want to get back to Buddhadhamma as the Buddha himself taught it and not what tradition, that has been accumulated over centuries, told him how he should teach it

For example at that time the tradition was not to teach Suññatā to the lay but Ajahn Buddhadasa broke with this and taught Suññatā to lay people, is this not Buddhadhamma?


But of course your free to decide which teachers you feel teach the Buddhadhamma best


Metta
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhayana

Post by kc2dpt »

clw_uk wrote:I wouldnt say that, i would say it comes from his own personal glimpse of how un-Buddhist practices have crept into Theravada Buddhism, and so shows his resolve to want to get back to Buddhadhamma as the Buddha himself taught it and not what tradition, that has been accumulated over centuries, told him how he should teach it

For example at that time the tradition was not to teach Suññatā to the lay but Ajahn Buddhadasa broke with this and taught Suññatā to lay people, is this not Buddhadhamma?
No, it has nothing to do with Buddhadhamma. Nor does it have anything to do with Theravada. There has never been an "official" Theravada doctrine that suttas can't be taught to lay people. That is just something that certain people in certain cultures decided to do. If one wants to break with that tradition he could just say "I'm breaking with the tradition of not teaching Theravada scripture to lay people. I will teach Theravada scripture to lay people." Then we could see there are Theravadins who teach scriptures and Theravadins who don't.

By rejecting the word "Theravada" and creating a new word "Buddhayana" one is not simply rejecting certain cultural practices but rather one is rejecting an entire body of doctrinal understanding.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings
No, it has nothing to do with Buddhadhamma. Nor does it have anything to do with Theravada. There has never been an "official" Theravada doctrine that suttas can't be taught to lay people. That is just something that certain people in certain cultures decided to do. If one wants to break with that tradition he could just say "I'm breaking with the tradition of not teaching Theravada scripture to lay people. I will teach Theravada scripture to lay people." Then we could see there are Theravadins who teach scriptures and Theravadins who don't.

By rejecting the word "Theravada" and creating a new word "Buddhayana" one is not simply rejecting certain cultural practices but rather one is rejecting an entire body of doctrinal understanding.

Lord Buddhas teachings and Ajahn Buddhadasa's as well were all connected with Voidness, in truth there is no Theravada, no Mahayana, Vajrayana etc there is only Buddhadhamma, by using the term Buddhayana (i assume) Ajahn Buddhadasa was stating that there is no "Theravada" Buddhism or "Mahayana" Buddhism, there is only Buddhadhamma and so in conventional speak, Buddhayana


Lord Buddha wasnt a Theravadin, a Mahayanist or any other label

What Ajahn Buddhadasa did was get down to the core of Buddhadhamma, that which unifies all the schools and so cant be called "Theravada" or "Mahayana"

In short he focused on what is really important in Buddhism, Dukkha and its quenching, those small handful of leaves

Metta
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:24 pm, edited 5 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sadly because of copyright i cant quote the relevant passage so i will have to paraphrase




basicaly it states that Ajahn Buddhadasa was not concerned with petty doctrinal arguments between schools but instead seeked out Buddhayana or the original Dhamma which is at the heart of all schools


It also states that those who cling to dogmatism and narrow-mindness suffer while Suññatā sets people free


This is all from the preface written by santikaro bhikkhu, so while not Ajahn Buddhadasa's words, they do represent his stance since santikaro bhikkhu was his disciple


Metta
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
SeerObserver
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:52 pm
Location: USA

Re: Buddhayana

Post by SeerObserver »

clw_uk wrote:Greetings Peter

I wouldnt say that, i would say it comes from his own personal glimpse of how un-Buddhist practices have crept into Theravada Buddhism, and so shows his resolve to want to get back to Buddhadhamma as the Buddha himself taught it and not what tradition, that has been accumulated over centuries, told him how he should teach it
Peter wrote:...That is just something that certain people in certain cultures decided to do...
clw_uk wrote:In short he focused on what is really important in Buddhism, Dukkha and its quenching, those small handful of leaves
Good points here. It should not necessarily be taken as a rejection of the core, but of much of the cultural practices that have crept in. These often involve esoterism (as mentioned in this thread), and folk superstition.

What we have here is a mix-up over the context in which the word tradition is being used. That's all.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhayana

Post by Ceisiwr »

It should not necessarily be taken as a rejection of the core, but of much of the cultural practices that have crept in.
Correct, this is all Ajahn Buddhadasa taught, which is why i have never understood why he gets so much flak


Metta
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhayana

Post by mikenz66 »

clw_uk wrote: Correct, this is all Ajahn Buddhadasa taught, which is why i have never understood why he gets so much flak
In the case of Bhikkhus such as Ajahn Buddhadasa and Ajahn Chah I think that much of the "problem" stems from overinterpretation and oversimplification of what they taught by some of their followers (particularly Western ones) who pull out soundbites without regard for the context.

As Ven Gavesako said over here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 311#p12777" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes, I think Buddhadasa is simply stressing the immediate result of kamma here & now as a corrective to the usual Thai understanding which focuses almost exclusively on the future results (without paying attention to the mind state in the present moment). Both of these are aspects of kamma-vipaka, it is just a matter of emphasis.
Metta
Mike
Post Reply