Hi all - I posted this in the newcomers question pinned post as one of several and it was a cross post from the lengthy Theravada vs EBT checklist post and was told to break out my series of questions into individual posts hence why I’m now creating a third post about this. Apologies if it seems like I’ve spammed this question.
To the extent someone is practicing according to a traditional Theravada style vs EBTs style do these differences highlighted lead to materially different outcomes?
IE does practicing in a Theravada path with its corresponding beliefs that differ from the EBTs impact right view? Or as long as 4NT, N8FP, DO, Kamma are understood at a macro level these finer details don’t make that much of a difference in progressing on the path and attaining.
To be clear, I’m a big fan of the EBTs and have consumed a large amount of Bhikku Analayo’s books and articles as well as works / talks by Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali, but I’m wondering while getting as close to the word of the Buddha that we can is great does it lead to meaningfully different outcomes if someone were to study traditional Theravada vs EBTs.
Additionally, considering the EBTs are a relatively recent phenomenon would the implications be then that Theravada practitioners for centuries have been practicing incorrectly?
This is purely a personal opinion but from what I’ve read from comparisons of the core sutta text’s transmitted in Chinese, Pali, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tibetan and others, is that the core teachings were preserved in all of the four main nikaya, that is Sthavira (including Theravada), Sarvastivada, mahasanghika, puggalavadin.
So if you relied on the vast store of the Buddha’s preserved Sutta (similarly transmitted in each tradition) rather than limiting yourself to those that most affirmed the view of a particular school or dogmatic treatises seeking to show the superiority of your school, then the outcome would be the same.
To answer this, I think the differences between the EBTs and Theravāda listed in the above essay should be categorized into the following three categories:
Pointers that are supported by, or are in line with, the EBTs
Pointers that are neither explicitly supported nor contradicted by the EBTs
Pointers that are contradicted by the EBTs
For example, consider the case of meditation retreats.
The essay states that “the EBTs contain no notion of such an intensive meditation retreat for layfolk.” In my opinion, this point can be placed under Category 1. While formal meditation retreats for lay practitioners may not be explicitly mentioned in the EBTs, they are in principle in line with the EBTs. The Buddha encouraged lay followers to practice the Dhamma diligently and to strive for higher attainments, and there are many examples in the EBTs of lay disciples attaining advanced stages of realization.
Similarly, if all the listed differences are categorized in this manner, it may help in better answering your question.
In my opinion, the pointers that fall under Category 3—those that appear to be contradicted by the EBTs—require further careful reflection and examination.
If right view is aligned with the core EBT themes which are → Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, dependent origination, kamma and its results → then most differences between “EBT-style” and traditional Theravada style rarely produce materially different outcomes. What matters most is integrity of sila (ethics/morality), steady samadhi, and penetrating panna (wisdom) into the three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) and the four noble truths. So however framed those differences are, i don’t think there will be different outcomes.
Somewhere on the forum, here, someone recommended a book by Bhikkyu Kumara, “What You Might Not Know About Jhana and Samadhi”. That can be viewed on Google Drive here, or downloaded from Digital Ocean.
Bhikkyu Kumara’s contention is that the modern Theravadin teachings rely heavily on the Vissudhimaga’s separation of samatha/jhana and vipassana, and having once postulated that the two are separate paths to emancipation, the Theravadin teachers proceeded to denigrate samatha/jhana and elevate vipassana.
Bhikkyu Kumara saw the differentiation of paths as rooted in different understandings of concentration:
To sum up, the “samādhi” of the Suttas is about concentrating the mind itself, while the
“samādhi” of the Visuddhimagga is about concentrating on an object. (p 35)
Bhikkyu Kumara saw two different views rooted in two different interpretations of “one-pointedness” and “one-pointedness of mind”:
For a long time in Theravāda Buddhism, ekaggatā has been commonly translated as “one pointedness”.
… “One-pointedness” has gained such wide acceptance as the translation for ekaggatā
that most people don’t question it. So, people who assume it means “fixing of close, undivided
attention on a spatially limited location”, and believe it’s necessary, will try to practice that. (p 42)
Bhikkyu Kumara proceeds to derive a meaning other than “attention on a spatially limited location” for ekaggatā:
Actually, “agga” has another meaning, as a contracted form of “agāra”. … it’s literally “empty place”, with agāra being simply “place”.
Could this other meaning of agga, i.e. “place”, be the actual meaning in “ekaggatā”?
Let’s join the parts: ekaggatā = eka (one) + agga (place) + tā (ness) = “one-place-ness” or “oneplacedness” (modelling after “one-pointedness”). (p 45)
I agree with his translation. I would point to a definition from modern neurobiology:
A key aspect of the bodily self is self-location, the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one’s bodily borders (embodied self-location).
(Journal of Neuroscience 26 May 2010, 30 (21) 7202-7214)
Consciousness that abides with the self that is “localized at a specific position in space within one’s bodily borders” is one-pointed, yet empty of everything but place.
Bhikkyu Kumara was uncomfortable with his translation of “one-placedness”:
Although I consider “one-placedness” very accurate, it may sound clumsy in English. So, I
propose an idiomatic translation: stillness. (p 45)
The difficulty with “stillness” is that the “specific position in space within one’s bodily borders” of “embodied self-location” doesn’t necessarily hold still. Moreover, in Gautama’s descriptions of the initial concentrations, he described “calm” as a feeling that arose as part of the first concentration, something distinct from “one-pointedness”.
Zen teacher Koun Franz contrasted attention to an object with the experience of a moving “base of consciousness”:
Okay… So, have your hands in the cosmic mudra, palms up, thumbs touching, and there’s this common instruction: place your mind here. Different people interpret this differently. Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. It’s a way of turning the lens to where you are in space so that you’re not looking out here and out here and out here. It’s the positive version, perhaps, of “navel gazing”.
The other way to understand this is to literally place your mind where your hands are–to relocate mind (let’s not say your mind) to your center of gravity, so that mind is operating from a place other than your brain. Some traditions take this very seriously, this idea of moving your consciousness around the body. I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.
Franz called for “an act of letting go”. In his description of the induction of the first concentration, Gautama called for “making self-surrender the object of thought”:
Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness. (The disciple), aloof from sensuality, aloof from evil conditions, enters on the first trance, which is accompanied by thought initial and sustained, which is born of solitude, easeful and zestful, and abides therein.
(SN 48.10, tr. Pali Text Society vol V p 174; parentheticals paraphrase original; Horner’s “initial” [PTS MN 119] substituted for Woodward’s “directed”)
I would have to say that “stillness” ignores a fundamental truth of the concentrations, that they lead to a cessation of willful or volitive activity of speech, body and mind–but not the cessation of activity itself. Now you could call that stillness, except it is only the stillness of will or volition. It is not the cessation of the physical activity of inhalation and exhalation in the fourth concentration, nor is it the cessation of consciousness arising from the contact of the physical senses in the cessation of perceiving and feeling, the final concentration.
Returning to your questions, nebularising, I would say that if modern Theravadin teaching regards concentration as intense focus on an object, then the natural tendency of consciousness to abide with “embodied self-location” wherever self-location takes place is lost and so is the cessation of will or intent in the activity of the “consciousness-informed” body in inhalation and exhalation, the fourth concentration.
There’s many different versions of EBT, depending on what the particular person believes in.
Classical Theravada is more solid, secure due to the commentaries, Abhidhamma being very clear to pin down what’s what.
See the link above for the 2 main differences which is impactful for right view. And it’s right view which determines if one gets right liberation in the end.
The more important one is on the nature of parinibbāna. Nothing vs something. Strictly speaking, without mind or body, there’s no words to describe it, but it’s much closer to nothing that some mysterious thing called eternal mind, unestablished consciousness etc.
Classical Theravada is on the nothing side, but EBT people are diverse, you can find them on the something side. In that case, those people will not get the right liberation as Classical Theravada would get.
Second issue is on the nature of the first Jhāna (and so on). Classical Theravada is absorption, 5 physical senses all shut down. EBT folks are mostly on the side of Jhāna Lite, no need absorption. Only Ajahn Brahm’s influenced disciples are more on the absorption counts as proper Jhāna.
Some EBT teachers are more impartial and would also count the absorptions as Jhānas, as long as the usual Jhāna factors are present. And it could also not affect the path much. However, if one takes the view that only absorption counts as Jhānas, and one has to have Jhānas to fulfill the noble 8fold path, then shortcutting it by being content with Jhāna Lite is not good enough to penetrate reality deep enough to end it.
So that’s it for the main important differences which could lead to different outcomes.
Regarding the quote above, I know and have seen on this forum that it’s a highly debated topic, but wasn’t aware that the classical position was nothing. Both Bhikku Bodhi and Bhikku Analayo (see his Signless and Deathess book and specifically his parts related to the Deathless) are not in the nothing camp and would have thought they are squarely within the Classical and EBT camps respectively.
In your estimation does coming down on the right side of this constitute right view and as a result those on the wrong side have wrong view? Or is it one of those things that despite being potentially wrong on doesn’t impact right view as long as practice in line with N8FP is maintained.
It impacts right view. It’s the 3rd noble truth, understanding what nibbāna is. Then understanding 4 noble truths is right view of the noble 8foldpath.
I didn’t read too much on Ven. Analayo’s understanding of nibbāna, but on Ven. Bodhi, indeed, I once had forum triggered him to write back and I shared it here somewhere too. He clearly is as you described.
Also, to add on for the Jhāna wars. The classical Theravada position is that there’s a pure vipassana path, which doesn’t require absorption Jhānas for enlightenment. Thus in this sense, classical Theravada is aligned with EBT teachers who regard Jhāna lite as Jhānas, in that absorption not required. So only the Ajahn Brahm influenced group of EBT maintains the highest difficulty, that absorption is needed for enlightenment.
This doesn’t impact anything if one chooses to aim for absorption anyway, but it could be a lot of psychological motivation and doubt issues. Any which way one goes.
I’m surprised to see it’s a foundational portion of right view and it’s a bit disheartening for someone so new on the path to see such wide divergence on such a crucial point.
I’ve tended towards leaning quite heavily on Bhikku Analayo’s works and have found them to be immensely illuminating and helpful as someone who’s moved on from the Goenka path.
Why would you insist on such a dichotomy, Bhante? Buddha refuses many obvious or sommon sense polarities: One or Many, Finite or Infinite, etc. Why should we need to think of Nirvana in terms of “something” or “nothing”?
I’m not trying to speak for @NgXinZhao , but just offering that the dichotomy can be seen as final nibbāna = complete cessation while the (or another) understanding is final nibbāna does not equal complete cessation.
That’s all.
While no words or concepts can capture all this, imho this way of framing it reduces the chance of folks misunderstanding final nibbāna as “something” or “nothing” in the way they’re usually understood, (or misunderstood).
Those who have a view of not complete cessation have said: it’s not something, yet it’s ineffable, which indicates “something” remains after the aggregates and senses cease after final nibbāna. But there’s that “something”…So maybe it’s more effective to just say “Not full cessation.”
