Australian Brahmic Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by PeterB » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:33 pm

I think his doctrinal departure and his unilateral decision to ordain Bhikkhunis are all of a piece psychologically.
The latter is an acting out of the former.

darvki
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by darvki » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:30 pm

Ñāṇa wrote: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 Theravāda 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.
Now I must retract my statement: I do understand. Thank you, Geoff.
PeterB wrote:Erm..... yes it is rather a big deal darvki. He's gone troppo.
Oh, please. It's not like he said he subscribes to Tathagatagarbha teachings or quoted the Lotus Sutra. He used Mahayanist ideas as poetic devices.

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Nyana » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:10 pm

mikenz66 wrote:I believe I've heard Ven Sujato (on recording) explicitly state that he considers himself an "early Buddhist" (or some similar term), rather than "Theravada".

Of course,this is a possible approach (which seems to be popular among some members). I.e. considering all possible evidence to attempt to get a picture of what was actually taught by the Buddha by comparing surviving texts from all schools and gleaning information from other sources (Jain and Brahminic).

As I know from the extensive examples you've offered here, it's clearly not a trivial task to make sense of the consistency, or lack thereof, of the various parts of the Theravada Cannon, and the ancient and modern Theravada Commentaries. So this task of "figuring out exactly what the Buddha taught" by extending one's range to all possible sources seems to me to be extremely challenging. It's full-time PhD level stuff (which is what Ven Huifeng/Paññāsikhara, for example, is engaged in), and something I only have time to take a passing interest in.

I take it you are advocating picking a particular school (Theravada) and sticking with it? But do you see any reason (apart from difficulty) why the "early Buddhism" approach is not viable?
Well, the Pāḷi Tipiṭaka is the Theravāda Canon. And it's the Theravāda Canon for a reason. The treatises of the Khuddakanikāya and the Abhidhammapiṭaka present the parameters of the Theravāda as a unique doctrinal school (vāda). These are the "baseline" doctrines which distinguish the Theravāda from the other Sthaviravāda and non-Sthaviravāda schools. To dismiss most or all of these Canonical doctrinal teachings is to reject the Theravāda as a vāda. When this is done we often see the Suttapiṭaka -- usually without a comprehensive survey of the entire Suttapiṭaka -- being used to justify all sorts of pet theories. This creates a wild west situation where almost anything goes. Just find a sutta or two to justify one's pet theory and this makes one's interpretation is just as valid as any other.... This is quite an ill-conceived and unfortunate approach to Buddhist hermeneutics.

This isn't to say that text critical analysis is entirely unjustified. But to limit text critical analysis just to the sutta strata of received tradition and use this methodology to dismiss the abhidhamma strata of received tradition is problematic for a number of reasons. It fails to acknowledge just how indebted we all are to the entirety of the canonical, para-canonical, and commentarial texts for our understanding of Pāḷi as a language. It also implies (and is sometimes explicitly stated) that the compilers of the Abhidhammapiṭaka had already lost the realization of the dhamma within one or two hundred years of the Buddha's parinibbāna. These are just two of many faults and dubious assumptions which could be mentioned. IMO the bar should be set higher.

All the best,

Geoff

Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Kenshou » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:21 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:It fails to acknowledge just how indebted we all are to the entirety of the canonical, para-canonical, and commentarial texts for our understanding of Pāḷi as a language.
That's a good point.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16452
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:02 am

Thanks Geoff,

As you have probably gathered, I agree with you, though I guess it is always prudent to be aware that the compilers and commentators of the Canon can make errors (which various modern commentators turn up from time to time).

:anjali:
Mike

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

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Dan74 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:08 am

appicchato wrote:
Dan74 wrote:...he simplifies matters and makes things sound too simple and easy...
Forgive me...I'm basically speechless...what's wrong with taking a simple approach?...we might not be as screwed up as most of us (myself included) are now...

Be well...
I am sorry, Bhante, I didn't make myself clear - I was trying to figure out why people find Ajahn Brahm so objectionable. So I meant "too simple for some people".

From my point of view, there is nothing wrong with making things simple for his purpose, but sometimes they do convey a misleading perception of it all being too easy without giving the necessary details, the grit of practice, so to speak.

This is not a criticism of Ajahn Brahm, simply a downside to popular general audience expositions of the Dhamma. But they do serve their purpose and I am sure in different settings those details are provides.

As I understand now, the main concern about Ajahn Brahm is his perceived rejection of the Commentarial literature. This may place him outside the Theravada orthodoxy, but is still teaching the Dhamma, is he not?
_/|\_

User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:25 am

Kenshou wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:It fails to acknowledge just how indebted we all are to the entirety of the canonical, para-canonical, and commentarial texts for our understanding of Pāḷi as a language.
That's a good point.
I've heard Bhikkhu Sujato say on several occasions just how indebted we are to the commentaries for our understanding of Pāḷi as a language....I think you guys are going a bit overboard in your condemnation of two people who both have an obvious and genuine dedication to the Dhamma....and I'm a little surprised at all this venom...you are talking about ordained Bhikkhus after all...

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by PeterB » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:39 am

I think Adeh that if we label all plainly expressed views with which we disagree as " venom" we risk falling into a breach of right speech...

User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:42 am

I wasn't talking about the views, I was talking about the tone....

User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:45 am

I haven't communicated with Ajahn Brahm, but I have with both Bhikkhu Sujato and Ajahn Bramali and they are two very kind men who take the time to answer peoples questions....

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by PeterB » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:48 am

Which unless you are telepathic you cannot detect. You are " hearing" a tone that YOU project.
It could be being voiced with great sadness, great compassion, humorous detachment, concern...we dont know do we ?

Its just pixels on a screen...we give it life.

User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by adeh » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:55 am

Yeah...what ever you say Peter....

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 6241
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by bodom » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:56 am

:focus:

:anjali:
To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo


With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

- Upasika Kee Nanayan

User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by pilgrim » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:35 am

What makes one a Theravadin? Do I have to unequivocally accept all 3 baskets, everything in the Commentaries, the Visuddhimagga and also reject the idea of bhikkhuni ordination? :rolleye:

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Australian Brahmic Buddhism

Post by Sylvester » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:38 am

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 Theravāda 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AgarikaJ, anthbrown84, auto, Bing [Bot], Johnnymac, Yahoo [Bot] and 97 guests