Talk:Theravada/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Pronunciation

i've deleted the statement about this, as it's just 1 of many, & not given in most English dictionaries. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual

I've deleted the following sentence.

"Amongst westerners it is very common for the focus to be more to the actual practice and theory of Theravada Buddhism, and this attitude is spreading amongst Asians as well."

For the article to say that some things are actual Theravada & others not is not NPOV. Probably quite a bit of this section needs rewriting in accordance with this principle. I've already corrected a misleading impression of Spiro's work by pointing out that he points out that all 3 aspects of Buddhism are rooted in the Pali Canon.

While I'm here, is there any authority for the article's statement that there is more lay participation (or something) in other forms of Buddhism? If not, it's biased & should be deleted. Peter jackson (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the bit about reduced role for the laity was meant in the context of becoming an arhat/enlightened- the Milindapanha says that a lay person who becomes an arhat will inevitably be ordained that day or buy the farm. Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions in a footnote in his intro to his Anguttara Nikaya compilation that this seems to accord with the Canon, which does occasionally depict laypeople becoming arhats, but follows it up with their subsequent ordination or death. I'm guessing this was intended as contrast with some of the Mahayana traditions that allow for the possibility of enlightened persons continuing in living a non-monastic lifestyle (Zen, some of the Tibetan traditions, etc.) The statement should probably be clarified, if nothing else, to avoid the impression that lay Theravadins have fewer festivals to attend or something. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of the fundamentals of Theravada

I decided to start this section because the current level of description about the principles of Theravada is almost woeful. There are some distinctions of Therevada which distinguishes it from other related branches of Buddhism and from other religions. These distinctions in essence are those that make up the heart of principles of Therevada. It is Therevada.

For clarity and brevity, I would like to list down several concepts that I believe are ill-treated in this particular article.

1. Karma - This is one of the commonest concepts that is discussed in several branches of Buddhism and Hinduism. I believe the article does well to describe the concept, but fails to distinguish what Theravada says about Karma. The Theravada concept of Karma is not the same as it is in Hinduism and in some branches of Buddhism. It is merely one of the five factors that govern the outcome of a result by a specific cause. About those that are known as "Pancha Niyaama", which literally means "the five regulating factors", nothing worthy is mentioned here.

2. Samsara - This is another topic that can do a lot better, though I appreciate the effort taken to describe the concept. I understand that desribing the Theravada concept of Samsara can be quite a duanting task, and I am ready to sympathize with the authors who do their best. Nevertheless, it deserves special attention, if this section about the so-called philosophy of Therevada is to be of any real value. The key distinction to make here is that the Theravada concept of Samsara views it as a continuous process, often with the analogy of a running river. To put it in a nutshell, "You cannot swim in the same river twice, as the river flows, and if you did, then it cannot be a river, for it cannot have been flowing" (Taken as a direct translation from a Sutra). Samsara is not just the past, not just the present, it is not just rebirth or reincarnation, it happens now, it is happening now. I do not see it mentioned anywhere here.--Cjdrox (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

3. The Four Noble Truths - Woeful and Revolting. To describe in the utmost brief fashion, the author could have used just for terms: The problem, the cause, the solution and the pathway (or the implementation) towards the solution. These are the four Noble Truths. These apply in everyday life. That is what Why use a lot of uncomprehensive words that say nothing, nothing about the Theravada concept of the Four Noble Truths? In fact, the current description of dukkha (suffering) alone is enough to reveal the editor's lack of knowledge and competentness of the subject. Though I respect the effort taken to create the article, I cannot help but strongly disagree with what is told here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdrox (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Again in principle I agree that the article is probably inadequate, but here you give some cases to look @.

The 5 niyamas are a very tricky concept. The Milinda seems to understand them as saying that some events are caused by 1 thing, some by another. The abhidhamma on the other hand says everything that happens to you is caused by karma, whatever other causes it may have.

Utter nonsense. I expected you to have better standard, Peter. Nowhere in the whole of the Pali Canon does it say that the sole cause of events is Karma. In fact, Theravada is the one branch to have raised the most objections against the topic. I propose it as a challenge for you to prove that anywahere in Abhidhamma it says that the sole reason for events is Karma. Whay not read something as the Brahma Jaala Suthra to reassure? That Karma is the sole cause is what Nighanta Natha Puththa or the Jaina Mahaveera taught. 5 Niyamas are NOT a tricky concept. It is a concept much misused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdrox (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Read what I said. I didn't say karma was the sole cause. I said "everything that happens to you is caused by karma, whatever other causes it may have." In other words:

1. everything has many causes
2. in the case of experiences an individual has, those causes always include karma (except experiences of psychic power

This is standard abhidhamma. I can dig out the sources if you really want. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what sutra you think you're quoting here. I'm pretty sure that's not in the Pali Canon. As far as I know, it's simply a quotation from the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, with interpretation.

On the 4NT, you might look @ the treatments in Buddhism & Four Noble Truths & start thinking from there.

A final thought on the balance of the article. It's generally accepted in the tradition that the Visuddhimagga is the standard summary of the traditional understanding of the Canon. Here's an outline of its contents, in 23 chapters.

Just tell me who taught you to take Visudhdhimagga as the "standard summary of the traditional understanding of the Canon"? For your information, Visudhdhimagga is a summary intended for those who have a broad level of understanding of the underlying key concepts. Plus, nowhere in its entirity does it state that the sole reason for existence ( and for that matter, sole reason for anything) is Karma. The moment you state it, you literally destroy the essence of Theravada.

I agree with your outline given below, though. --Cjdrox (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've put a citation for that in Pali Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1-2 morality (almost entirely monastic)
• 3-11 samatha meditiation
• 12-13 psychic powers
• 14-17 doctrine (mostly abhidhamma)
• 18-22 vipassana meditation
• 23 benefits of arahantship

Worth thinking about space for different topics in relation to this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I strongly disagree. Theravada and its concepts may not be so important for some out there, but it is vastly important for some who have literally grown up with the subject. This is an article about Theravada, in a public encyclopedia. Encyclopedic content must be accurate and precise. --Cjdrox (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All I said was it's worth thinking about. I'm not sure what you think you're strongly disagreeing with.

I've had to make quite a few changes to the material you added. Apart from departure from the standard transcription of Pali spelling in English (I haven't bothered with your English spelling as anyone can deal with that), most of the corrections are to statements you included that represent the views of only some Theravadins. This article is supposed to be about Theravada as a whole, not what you or I might think to be the "true" teachings. It should therefore reflect mainly the traditional view given by Buddhaghosa &c, but also mentioning modern and other non-standard ideas.

Also, WP should never state that the Buddha historically said something, as there's no consensus among historians as to what he said. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are the one who edited the section on 'Anatta', I am ready to forget any disputes of opinion, at least for now. It is a pretty nice polish up of what deserved further editing.

If I read wrong what you said about Karma being the cause, I owe you an apology, but the meaning you suggest is also void of any use. Read this carefully:

1. There are five regulatory factors, termed the 5 Niyama, that govern the outcome of an event.
2. Karma is but one factor among the rest, which also have an equal governing power over the outcome of the said event.
3. To say that Karma has a sole influence is fundamentally wrong, but I guess we both agreed on the point.
4. Karma has no more effect on the outcome of an event than the other four.
5. As for what one experiences, Karma does have an influence, but we are talking about a generalized event here, not just about something one experiences.
6. Finally, it is essential that one mentions the equal contribution of all the five regulatory factors, and avoids hinting (even unintentionally) that Karma has a greater influence to change the outcome of the said event.--Cjdrox (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One more point: A person comes here to have an idea what Theravada is. Therefore as an editor, I find myself duty-bound to report what Theravada is. I should not be tempted to provide a distorted article that is correct in facts but inaccurate in fundamentals. Should one be tempted to introduce fundamentally wrong concepts into the article (and create controversy within the same article) so as to reflect mainly the traditional view as you put it?

The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:V). It's not our job to decide what the true Theravada is.

1. I'm not sure whether "govern the outcome of an event" has a clearly defined meaning.
2. What authority is there for saying "equal"?
3. Again, what authority is there for this statement?
4. See below for more detail.
5. Why should the sutta listing of 5 niyamas be regarded as more (or less) fundamental than the abhidhamma analysis in terms of 24 paccayas?

My use of the term "experience" was rather loose. To be more precise, every time you see, hear, smell, taste or physically feel something,

1. the pure sense consciousness,
2. the immediately following receiving consciousness &
3. the immediately following investigating consciousness,

together with their associated mental factors, are vipaka, ie result of karma. This doesn't mean they're not caused by other things as well. As far as I know, the tradition has never bothered to try to work out a theory of how all the different causes interact to influence events.

OK, here are the answers you needed. Please refer to the Pali Canon more closely, partly because what I say is a collection of arguments mentioned in many places and sections.

1. The term "outcome of an event" is totally abstract. It applies to any hypothetical "thing" that "is", or any "process" that "happens". Please look up Abhidhamma, this is a tedious task to explain all the fine points. To put it in the simplest wordings, anything that exists has a cause, that is, the "thing" we are referring to is the "result",the "outcome" that is "caused" by a "reason" or "cause". The "event" is when a specific collection of "causes" (to use the jargon, "hethu" and "pacca") bring out a specific "outcome/result" ( or "phala"). A little more explanation: a seed, when germinated, brings out a plant. The seed is the cause (hethu), the plant is the result(phala). But apart from the seed, there are other secondary causes (pacca) that aid in the process. Sunlight, water and so on. As far as I see, you have not made the fine distinction between "hethu" and "pacca". Remember the old quote "Hethu paticca sambhootham - Hethu bhanga nirujjthi".
2. Abhidhamma.
3. Abhidhamma.
4. See below
5. Niyamas are fundamental, and so are paccayas. Why do you refer to Niyamas as though they are mentioned only in Suthras? It is neither appropriate nor efficient to go into the finer details between Niyamas and paccayas. Please read MN:Sathipattana Suthra and the Pali commentry about it, as both (especially the Pali commentry) contain elegent arguments about this. It is a matter of the level of resolution, so to speak. Niyamas are easy to grasp and logical at the same time, so it is more appropriate (in my opinion) than the more abstract and demanding-of-thought treatment in Abhidhamma.

Yes, now I think your meaning of "experience" is clear. What you say is true, that when one "experiences" something, Vipaka caused by Kamma(not Kamma itself) inevitably is involved. What you fail to understand, in my opinion, is that to bring out the Vipaka, caused by Kamma, several other factors contribute.

In a nutshell, Kamma is what you do, think and say, and Vipaka is the outcome. Kamma invovles in the process of perception (or experience, as you put it), but in bringing out the outcome (Vipaka) of a Kamma, other four factors are critical. (Please do not ask me to cite references, dozens of Suthras and sections in Abhidhmma will verify what I say), so altogether, the 5 Niyamas have an "additive" property. Neither one is superior than the other four, but at times, one (or more) factors can be "deciding".--Cjdrox (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're now saying 2 apparently contradictory things: that all 5 niyamas are equal, & that hetu (in an unspecified but presumably sutta based sense) is more fundamental than the others. & you don't cite any authority for either of them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Once more, you show you are not familiar with the concepts in detail. Please read this very carefully:

Hetu is the general and abstract term used to describe any root cause that results in, well, a result, which is generally termed as Phala. Hetu-Phala Vaada (literally, the Theory of Cause and Result), is what Buddha and his pupils used to describe their philosophy. "Ye dhamma hetuppabhava - Thesam hetum Thathagatho aaha - Thesancayo nirodho - Evam vadi Mahasamano" was what Sariputta, one of the two chief pupils of Buddha uses to describe Buddha and Buddhism. (I have used appropriate capitalization to denote names of people). Literally, this menas "Whatever entity that is the result of a [root]cause - The Enlightened one preaches its root cause - Plus, its [the root's] elimination - That is what the Great Shramana teaches".

So, the 'Hetu' is not more or less fundamental than anything, for Hetu is a general term used to describe a root cause of a result. But Hetu-Phala Vada is fundamental, in fact more fundamental than anything else. I guess you would be astonished (and even shocked) if I say that the Four Noble Truths also are a variation of the same theory. So, I hope, that your first apparent contradiction is resolved.

For your second claim, let me say this: All five Niyamas have an inherent equal effect on the "outcome of an event". Neither one is inherently more superior than the other. But at any given time, there will be at least one (among the five) factor that has a "deciding" effect, but since all five have an equal chance of being the "key" or "deciding" factor, what I say remains intact. However, for any given event, there always exists at least one "key" factor, (saying which put you under the illusion that I was saying one Niyama can be superior, while saying that all five are equal also).

What if I say (with the whole of Pali Canon to back me up) that even the Five Niyamas are a variation on the same theory of Hatu-Phala Vada?--Cjdrox (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hetu in abhidhamma means specifically mula: greed, hate, delusion & their opposites.

What is your authority for saying there's 1 key factor?

What if you do say it? You keep on saying things but never cite any specific authority for them. Peter jackson (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In Abhidhamma itself, it mentions two protocols, on ways to explain things: sammuthi desana and paramaththa desana. (Literally, context-based definitions and abstract definitions). The word Hetu, has only one possible ultimate meaning in the Pali Canon (including Abhidhmma, which, for some reason you seem to consider superior to Suttas, in my personal opinion): The Root Cause. Nothing else. Period.

But you deserve credit for bringing up the definition of Hetu, in the context of explanation of the cause os suffering, which Abhidhamma consideres understood in that particular context. That is natural, for the ultimate goal of Theravada is to attain Nibbana, freedom from suffering. So with that aim in mind, it is natural for a writer to mantion Hetu as Hetu for the suffering, which is caused by the reiterative cycle of life and death, which in turn is caused by Kamma, which has only six possible roots: Lobha (greed), Dosa (hatred), Moha(delusion) and their opposites. But still, the most basic and abstract meaning of the word Hetu remains the same: The Root Cause (for a specific result).

I cited the best translation I could find on the web, with no words or phrases twisted, and with each and every word keeps in close proximity in the meaning based on the context the words were used. If reading them did not make you happy, I cannot help but ask you to read a good translation of Wedana Pariggaha Sutta and Antta Lakkhana Sutta, alongwith somewhat not-so-abstract Asivisopama Sutta and Wedananupassana Sangaha (on the commentries)--Cjdrox (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Under Wikipedia policies, you must accept a statement by a scholarly source as "fact", not just opinion, unless you can find another scholarly source that contradicts it (or, I think, that raises doubts about it). Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One should also refer to the Wiki NPOV Tutorial page under the expertise heading:

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works

The venues in which the expert propounds his or her views (e.g., peer-reviewed academic journals as compared with op-ed columns or self-published outlets)

Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones

Whether the expert's disciplinary specialization matches the topic at hand

Whether the expert has responded to criticisms or has failed to do so

Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims

I have highlighted one criteria that is a sometimes a problem here, when a Mahayana area specialist comments on non-Mahayana topics or vice versa when a non-Mahayana specialist comments on Mahayana -- areas outside their disciplinary specialization. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One very straightforward point to look for in that connexion is simply to ask what languages the scholar knows.

We have to work with handicaps. We've only come across a small & possibly unrepresentative selection of what scholars have said. We have to consider questions like: if a specialist source & a non-specialist 1 contradict each other, is that because the non-specialist 1 doesn't know what it's talking about, or because it represents the views of other specialists we haven't come across yet? There seems no straightforward way of answering. In general it's probably safest to give both views & say who asserts them, giving whatever information we have that seems relevant to the readers' assessment of the credibility of the sources. Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Anam Gunam says here; that when a specialist on one particular topic comments on a different, yet related topic, the question should be asked that whether the explanation provided matches the topic. But what happens when a person who is qualified to explain a topic is confronted by another who is not-so-thorough with the topic in question? Especially if the first in question can prove that the other's explanation has flaws that contaminates the quality of the article with inaccurate knowledge, even when the sources the second himself puts up speak against him? Here's the section I would like to highlight:

Whether the expert has responded to criticisms or has failed to do so--

Cjdrox (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a criterion, but its application varies according to context. Eg a textbook writer will generally spend little time discussing different views & the arguments for & against, which makes it hard to tell whether they've taken others' views into account. Peter jackson (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain. I am fairly new to Wiki, but I am concerned about the over-reliance on the "Indian Buddhism" book by Warder (among other things) in many of the articles -- especially those concerning Mahayana. As far as Buddhism is concerned, Warder is only a reputable Pali language specialist (his kavya interests are irrelevant here) -- I find no evidence in the form of research books or articles that he is qualified to speak authoritatively about Mahayana (in fact, his hostility to Mahayana is quite well known in academic circles). Just because he has put together a book on Indian Buddhism does not make him a reliable NPOV source for Mahayana --it is obvious that he just did what everybody else here is doing -- read a handful of books, filtered out the main points and then regurgitated them in a pot-boiler book. As far as I can see, the over-reliance on Warder is a clever way of circumventing the POV rule by users who are hostile towards Mahayana -- I say this though I am not specifically pro-Mahayana (I am not even a Buddhist). --Anam Gumnam (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an overreliance on Warder because one editor has been particularly enthusiastic about adding his views to articles, and, I suppose, because no one else has revised all of those articles with additional citations.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, all sources kept alongside, Warder's work does have a significant amount of correct facts (correct in the sense that they are not re-phrased or twisted out of context), but I agree with what you say, that citing him where Mahayana is mentioned is not altogether OK. But that does not nullify the reliabilty of his work. The best way is to mention Warder's work where applicable, and to mention clearly that his idea is not equally agreed upon by all, and (if ok, to mentions some alternative sources). That is what we have been doing for decades when discussing Theravada.--Cjdrox (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above remark on over-reliance. We should avoid over-reliance on any 1 source. The specific remarks about Warder may be correct, but generally it's not for us on Wikipedia to decide such things. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is entirely within Wikipedia's purview to determine the quality of particular source. Our job here is to provide the reader with the facts and opinions of reliable sources. This presupposes that some sources are more reliable than others, and that we are able to differentiate them.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Warder may be OK for the area he knows best (early Buddhism / Theravada) but I have a suspicion that he is a bit out-dated in some respects even there. I have no objection to using him were appropriate, if his views have not been superceded. The thing is, Buddhist studies have moved on a quite a bit since he put together stuff for his book, based on yet earlier materials. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new article

I have put up this suggestion earlier in another section, but I took it here for clarity. I suggest opening a new article by the title "Meditation in Theravada", and cross-referencing to that from here. There are several reasons, but the most important is that Theravada meditation differs from many related branches by the way it implements meditation as a tool.--Cjdrox (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection, tho' I think Theravada meditation would be a better title. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, having agreed on the fact that there should be a new article, can we have a consensus on what the structure of the article should be? I am happy with the title you proposed, albeit the former emphasizes meditation as a tool.--Cjdrox (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)