The most important element of these texts are the higher teachings, not the practice. It is because Buddha discovered these higher teachings and established a religion to preserve them - we do not need to rediscover them again and become silent buddhas by ourselves witch would be much more difficult and fewer would do it.
This is why the work done by the Theravada tradition is so important. They are the guardians of the dhamma. Without these higher teachings, there would still be nice people in the world but little would be more than that.
my opinion is based on the description of the type rather than its title, and thereâs a mismatch between them
I too think the âThe Secular Buddhist Society Model.â does not refer to secular buddhism if we read the description. Secular does not necessarily mean âatheistâ. It might mean âtolerant model of societyâ. But indeed misleading choice of words.
I was quoting Dr. Gunasakera in that article. Those are his words, not mine, not that they are bad or wrong, though. I quoted him and placed him in the references in that article:
Dr. V. A. Gunasekara. âEthnic Buddhism and Other Obstacles to the Dhamma in the Westâ. Retrieved on 5 Oct 2008.
Also, if you read the whole article on Dhamma Wiki, I wrote: The main doctrines of Theravada are from the teachings found in the Pali Canon of early Buddhism. These include the Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Middle Path, and the Hindrances to Enlightenment.
If you are a traditional Buddhist who focuses on the Pali Canon, that is good, so do I; but then what do you see wrong with the âOriginal London Vihara Modelâ? That is not the secular version.
That was not clear to me as the superscript â1â follows only after the sentence âDr. Gunasekara argues that models A and B are appropriate modes in following the teachings of Buddha whereas models C and D are departures from the teachingsâ.
â>âThis model encompasses the objectives of the secular societiesâ That is quite vague.
â> âIn its interpretation of the Canon it tends to place greater emphasis on Buddhaghosaâs exegesis whereas the secular societies tend to go the original Canon itselfâ
Dr. Gunasakera wrote: B. The Original London Vihara Model. This model encompasses the objectives of the secular societies, but places greater emphasis on the necessity to accommodate ordained monks to expound the Dhamma. In its interpretation of the Canon it tends to place greater emphasis on Buddhaghosaâs exegesis whereas the secular societies tend to go the original Canon itself.
Note, that there are the words you quote âThis model encompasses the objectives of the secular societiesâ however, right after that is the âbutâ ⌠places greater emphasis on the necessity to accommodate ordained monks to expound the Dhamma
I believe Gunasakera is describing a tradtional Buddhism; itâs main difference from other forms is that it is not simply a cultural center nor is it a secularized version. I would say that form he is describing is something very similar, if not even identical to Ajahn Brahmâs center in Australia and others like that.
That is true, but as LXNDR and you say: mismatch/misleading choice of words.
Anyway, Dr. Gunasekara himself argues that Model D is a departure from Theravada -then donât call it a form of Theravada.
As for C, Gunasekara argues that it is a departure from Theravada, too. Maybe, though I would argue that C is a much bigger departure from Theravada than D.
But same ehre: either it is a departure from Theravada, so it is not a form of Theravada, or it is Theravada - you canât have both.
Also, Gunasekara says: âThe London Vihara established in the 1920s provided a model of a Buddhist Vihara operating in a Western land.â
I think it is a little silly to take a Vihara established in the 1920âs and take it as a model.
I think it would be safer to say that there are basically two forms of Theravada: Theravada as practiced in (overwhelmingly) Theravada nations ( culturally influenced) and a âpuristâ Theravada that strictly adheres to the suttas/Pali Canon.
Well, the Dhamma as the doctrine is a set of ârulesâ - though of course not ârulesâ as rules are understood in christianity or islam - with the exception of the Vinaya of course.
The whole text / word choice is confusing/misleading. Take this:
Gunasakera: " In its interpretation of the Canon it tends to place greater emphasis on Buddhaghosaâs exegesis whereas the secular societies tend to go the original Canon itself. "
I would have thought that âTheravadaâ includes an understanding based on the Theravada Commentaries. I think the second option that you are referring to is an Early Buddhist approach (which I understand this site to be about).
As for âculturally influencedâ, every approach has cultural influences. The EBT approach (and a variety of other modern approaches) are influenced by Western concepts of historical analysis, and so on.
Perhaps a little confusing, but Gunasakera is saying that the they include Buddhaghosa, i.e., the Commentaries too and are not just Suttanta Buddhists (at least that is what I believe he is saying).
âWorryâ is a big word, but even when taking into account that within Theravada there are different opinions about what constitutes Theravada - it is misleading to call the Meditation Centre model a form of Theravada (or leave doubt about it) or use the word âsecularâ in the name of a Theravada model, as after all, in Buddhism and above all in Theravada, the goal is supramundane and certainly not of a secular nature.
As for your link to Dhammawheel - Iâm not sure if I can access it
The chief problem for Secular Buddhism, it seems to me, is that it hasnât really come to grips with the issue of worldliness and itâs travails. A primary synonym for âsecularâ is âworldlyâ, and it seems to me that secular Buddhists have a basically optimistic attitude about the potential for happiness in everyday worldly life, as long as one mixes in a bit of meditation, a retreat every now and then, some Buddhist poetry and a reasonable amount of non-violence and restraint.
I think this misses the spirit of the Buddhaâs teaching and path. The Buddha and his circle of followers renounced the world. They gave it up, and they dropped out. No families; no position in the political order; no position in the system of production. They wandered, and lived by alms. That was because the Buddha thought that a true and complete escape from suffering was basically impossible for a person raising a bunch of kids, conducting a busy commercial livelihood, getting embroiled in political strife and contentions, and meeting a whole bunch of personal obligations.
The Secular Buddhists seem to think the fundamental cleavage is between some kind of rationally purified path and superstitious religious trappings. But there is another cleavage as well. That cleavage doesnât pertain to a metaphysical problem about whether there are other realms in a literal sense, or whether merit can be transferred, or whether monks can levitate, or even what happens to an arahant after death. Itâs mainly about what attitude one takes toward the hurly-burly of human social, commercial, family and political life, and in what direction lies the truest happiness human beings can attain.
Well, for me, the trouble with this whole dhammawiki article is this:
If it is already this confusing for us, imagine how difficult and confusing it is for a new-comer.
Such an important article about a Buddhist school/branch should be much clearer.
I think there must be better, clearer ways to define and classify Theravada.
Okay, no problemo. It is a wiki, not written in stone. So I am open to suggestions for improving that article. We could remove the whole Gunasakera part if it is no longer appropriate. What suggestions do you have for the various forms Theravada takes in modern times?
Removing the Gunasakera part would be a good first action, I think.
Maybe it would be better to give a short overview of the different Theravada traditions/âsectsâ, instead. Forest Sangha, Dhammayut, etc.
I think the article is good like that. A little misleading but good. In my opinion, a good way to describe it in 2017 updated terms would be the way I did it in the second message in this topic. But that would make it a personal opinion of the owner of the site and then people would complain even more. So I think itâs better the way it is.
