Dhammawiki's article on Theravada Buddhism

The Watercooler
42

I made an update to that page, keeping Gunasakera’s points in there for now and then adding this:

The article by Dr. Gunasakera is very good, but out-dated for the 21st century where Buddhism is practiced in numerous places and numerous ways, including online with various forums and blogs. An updated version of the major forms Theravada takes in modern times:

A. Secular existentialist In this form people use Buddhist techniques for improving mental, psychological well being and may also use Buddhist mindfulness in a corporate setting, known as “Corporate Mindfulness.” Those who follow this form may not even meet at a temple and might meet online, in an office, or in a yoga studio. Belief in rebirth is optional and most are at least skeptical of rebirth and generally don’t follow many Buddhist practices other than meditation.

B. Traditional Temple Buddhism In this form, Buddhism is practiced at the temple and includes Refuge and Precepts ceremonies, Poya and Upsosatha day activities and other generally religious practices including blessings, funeral chanting, etc and all temple activities are performed by ordained monks and nuns.

C. Modern Theravada In this form the focus is on the Pali Canon, especially the Suttas. Those who follow this are sometimes referred to as “Suttanta.” They might still hold the Abhidhamma and Commentaries in some regard, but their main focus of study and practice are the five Nikayas of the Suttas. The members of this form are Buddhist, generally accept rebirth and simply focus on the Suttas rather than what they feel are some of the later writings and teachings.

D. Classical Theravada In this form, the Classical Theravada Buddhists hold the entire Tipitaka in highest regard along with Buddhaghosa’s Path of Purification and all the other Commentaries of the Elders in very high regard. They tend to take a more literal interpretation of the texts and strong adherence to the Vinaya.

The above is just a cursory overview and of course there can be some overlaps in one or more of the above forms showing up with some practitioners.

2 Likes
43

That is already much better, though under A simply is not Theravada.

44

In my opinion this is much more misleading than the first.

Problem nr 1: “secular existentialism” is not a term. It means nothing. There are secular buddhist (budhaddasa followers) and existentialist buddhist (nanavira/nanananda/nanamoli). All those who “follow an existentialist approach to buddhist teachings” believe in rebirth. It is a version of buddhism obtained by combining the ideas of famous postmodernist like Heidegger, Husseler, Satre, etc. with buddhism. They have nothing to do with secular buddhist.

Secular buddhist are not existentialist, they have nothing to do with solipsism, world created through assumption, Heidegger, Satre etc. On the other hand existentialist buddhist have nothing to do with secular buddhism. All believe in rebirth.

In my opinion they should be presented as 2 different versions of buddhism or not present the existentialist at all. They are small and insignificant. The article is about main views in the west.

Problem nr 2: Sutta followers do not exist. They are much more invisible even than the existentialist. The article is about main interpretations present in the west.

Problem nr 3: Meditation center buddhism is not mentioned anymore. They are still the main group of western buddhist and the previous descriptions was very good. In such a short passage Gunasakera managed to describe them so good.

Main views in the west are: Secular buddhism, traditional temple buddhism, meditation center buddhism. And people from nr 2 and 3 of these main groups might have a commentarial or suttanta or even existentialist understanding of buddhism. But this does not make them a group.

And the underlying tendency of all western buddhist is been Zen to the bone. The “just sit” or “just practice” attitude. Zen used to have a monopoly on the west but now it has been replaced by theravada meditation center buddhism witch is very similar. And even those found in other groups have the same Zen attitudes.

45

dxm wrote: "All those who follow an existentialist approach to Buddhist teachings believe in rebirth"
That is a pretty sweeping statement; but I suppose the reverse is also pretty sweeping, so I’ll remove that.

I updated again to this:

The article by Dr. Gunasakera is very good, but out-dated for the 21st century where Buddhism is practiced in numerous places and numerous ways, including online with various forums and blogs. An updated version of the major forms Theravada takes in modern times:

A. Secular Mindfulness movement In this form people use Buddhist techniques for improving mental, psychological well being and may also use Buddhist mindfulness in a corporate setting, known as “Corporate Mindfulness.” Those who follow this form may not even meet at a temple and might meet online, in an office, or in a yoga studio. Belief in rebirth is optional and most are at least skeptical of rebirth and generally don’t follow many Buddhist practices other than meditation.

B. Meditation center Theravada / vipassana In this form the members practice vipassana and other forms of Theravada Buddhist meditation at lay, peer-led groups and retreat centers. They might meet occasionally at Buddhist temples, but mostly meet at yoga studios, rented facilities or each others’ homes. Typically there is a leader of the group who is a lay Dhamma teacher who might also have a regular full-time job and teaches and leads the group during his/her times off from work.

C. Traditional Temple Buddhism In this form, Buddhism is practiced at the temple and includes Refuge and Precepts ceremonies, Poya and Upsosatha day activities and other generally religious practices including blessings, funeral chanting, etc and all temple activities are performed by ordained monks and nuns.

D. Modern Theravada In this form the focus is on the Pali Canon, especially the Suttas. Those who follow this are sometimes referred to as “Suttanta.” They might still hold the Abhidhamma and Commentaries in some regard, but their main focus of study and practice are the five Nikayas of the Suttas. The members of this form are Buddhist, generally accept rebirth and simply focus on the Suttas rather than what they feel are some of the later writings and teachings.

E. Classical Theravada In this form, the Classical Theravada Buddhists hold the entire Tipitaka in highest regard along with Buddhaghosa’s Path of Purification and all the other Commentaries of the Elders in very high regard. They tend to take a more literal interpretation of the texts and strong adherence to the Vinaya.

The above is just a cursory overview and of course there can be some overlaps in one or more of the above forms showing up with some practitioners.

1 Like
46

Very very good now in my opinion. Just one more little think that I would like to add: Maybe a little line at sutta followers about “These kind of buddhist tend to go with the suttas when there are contradictions between suttas and other writings” so that people don’t understand that people are sutta followers just because of historical studies or some form of fundamentalism. There is a reason why people are sutta followers.

But it’s good the way it is anyway.

47

I like this from dhammawiki:

Modern Theravada is actually the “modern movement of getting back to the earliest teachings of >the Buddha / Buddhism” and thus, could more accurately be called Original Buddhism.

I find that term much more appropiate. I never understood where the name “modern theravada” appeared. When we are speaking modern, we are speaking about secular buddhism or existentialist buddhism or vipassana movement - all who appeared in the 19th century - because the term “modern” implies teachings added in the modern period. Budhist following books of post 19th century teachers such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Nanavira, Nanananda, Stephen Batchelor etc.

“Original buddhism” is much more appropiate in my opinion since sutta followers do not follow any modern additions to the dhamma.

48

I like Early, rather than Original, which has all sorts of connotations. And Early seems to be the accepted term here…

SuttaCentral aims at facilitating the study of Buddhist texts from comparative and historical perspectives. It focuses on the texts that represent “Early Buddhism”, texts preserved not only in the Pali Sutta and Vinaya Piṭakas but also in Chinese and Tibetan translations and in fragmentary remains in Sanskrit and other languages.
…
SuttaCentral

1 Like
49

This seeing that there are two terms that are exchanged, Theravada and Early. The Theravada appears after the fourth century CE, and as a result of a long list of sectarian schisms.
Early Buddhism is supposed to be presectarian.
I do not understand

50

In any case the oldest School is not the Early School. Even the Canon Pali is more modern. The oldest school is to which the Buddha himself belonged, and many others before him. And it is the school that today gives the best fruits.
As usual.

51

It is the school that has no teacher

52

that 's too broad a generalisation to be factual…there are facts and there are opinions…sati sampaja…?

53

ajahn kukrit…the mahamevnawa tradition, A.B & A.S and the western E.b.t tradition

54

l.p man l.p sao is as good as its gonna.get until metteya

55

I could not find LP Man. But LP Sao seems to be a famous magician well known for blessing amulets. Le Venerable Luang Phor Sao du Wat Rat Sanoon.

Everybody teacher is an arahant because in that way, we too are advanced by associacion.

56

To learn more about Ajahn Mun (aka Luanpor Man) check this link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/mun/

57

To learn more about Ajahn Sao (aka Luanpor Sao) check this:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/phut/sao.html

58

For a high level list of key Ajahns from Thai forest tradition (at least those who got to be translated into English) check this link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/index.html

59

That doesn’t look like the anapanasanti 16 step meditation. Why not do the meditation taught by the Buddha ? And how about the been an expert in blessing amulets part ?

Also, meditation should be done at a particular point in practice. Check MN 39, MN 107, MN 125

60

I suppose I you are mixing up two different persons. Luang Por Sao @Gabriel_L and @Bhante_Darma referred to has been dead for over 65 years. Ajahn Sao you found information about was a different person altogether, but as far as I could glean from the page you linked he was (or still is?) a good person. Of course, I cannot approve of selling amulets and wouldn’t really consider the younger Ajahn Sao a very accomplished meditation master, but from what I learnt about him I can say he is (was?) a person worthy of respect.