They are the texts compiled and preserved by the Theravadin tradition.
In a sense they are ‘sectarian’ texts, but they are also generally considered to be the closest to what the Buddha actually taught.
Spending time with these texts, particularly in the ‘original’ (?) Pali is tremendously valuable.
In my humble opinion, spending tons of time trying to discover the most pure, original, non-sectarian forms of these texts is not really worth the effort; one’s time is better spent figuring out what is actually happening in one’s mind in the present moment- i.e. meditating.
They don’t perform any new deeds, and old deeds are eliminated by experiencing their results little by little. This wearing away is apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.
so navañca kammaṃ na karoti, purāṇañca kammaṃ phussa phussa byantīkaroti.sandiṭṭhikā nijjarā akālikā ehipassikā opaneyyikā paccattaṃ veditabbā viññūhīti.
So, Result of past kamma results (vipaka) in vedana (as per Sivakasutta). But based on understanding of thier Anicca nature a meditator does not make new reaction of craving or aversion and maintains equanimity. This way by not making new deed(reaction) old deeds are eliminated by experiencing their results little by little. (as per Nigaṇṭhasutta)
When in the Saṅgha they don’t engage in motley talk or low talk.
Either they talk on Dhamma, or they invite someone else to do so, or they respect noble silence.
They act with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent.
Yes, in Kolitasutta, Noble silence is defined in terms of 2nd Jhana. In above examples it is clear that “Noble silence” is used in realtion to “tuṇhībhāva”
I think the distinction is that “noble silence” (in its sīla context rather than samādhi) means “not talking unnecessarily”. What was banned was taking a vow of silence, i.e. not talking at all.
The relationship between doctrine and practice is highly flexible and personal, so I don’t think it’s possible to generalize about this. If we take, say Theravadin ideology of patriarchal control over monasteries, then yes, that’s harmful for women especially, and more generally because it creates an ossification in monastic life.
OTOH, something like, say, the two truths doctrine probably doesn’t have much effect on practice, except if it is treated as a fundamentalist dogma. But that isn’t really a problem with the idea as such, but how it’s held. You can easily have the same problem with a fundamentalist insistence on “early Buddhism”.
Thank you Bhante for taking the time to respond and I see what you’re getting at here. Curious though would some of the doctrinal aspects such as two truths, rua kalapas, sabhava, or others come under right view and if so would the differences in doctrine ultimately affect one’s practice?
