Talk:Theravada/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Theravada & The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi

Hi, I would like to know why the sutra is not recognized by the Theravada school, while there are several sholars who wrote articles about the buddha

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/rsr/2006/00000032/00000003/art00194

http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/toModule.do?prefix=/search&page=/search_detail.jsp?seq=87521

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mahavairocana-Sutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.190.40 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I raise this question is that the book by David Daniel Kennedy Feng Shui for Dummies has mentioned the protocol of the buddha's practice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.190.40 (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Mahavirocana Sutra isn't part of the Pali Canon; it likely originated in India after the Theravada had already split off and settled in Sri Lanka. The Mahavirocana also claims to have been spoken by Vairocana Buddha, rather than Shakyamuni; the Theravada generally do not regard any other Buddhas as having been active in the world during the time of Shakyamuni Buddha- Maitreya dwells in the Tushita heaven awaiting his final rebirth, but the proliferation of other Buddhas is characteristic of Mahayana cosmology, and not generally recognized by the Theravada. I don't know that the Theravada attitude on this particular text is any different from their attitude towards the other Mahayana sutras; non-commentarial compositions not found in the Pali Canon are generally regarded by the Theravada as later compositions. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well although I don't agree with the stubbonness of Theravada, I can see their point which is related to the aspect of the sutra validation. I believe that once the sutra is validated, then all the associated problem will be solved. In addition to that, the practice protocols need to be validated as welll. Are their any published papers including commentaries related to the work of validation?--202.173.190.40 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the author's website is http://www.daviddanielkennedy.com/

and I found this article is interesting http://www.jstor.org/pss/3519694 --202.173.190.40 (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No 'validation' is really possible as the original versions of the text no longer exist- the oldest versions of the text available are Chinese and Tibetan translations, so the dating of it is going to be approximate. The academic view is that it is a composition that dates from several hundred years after the Buddha, based I imagine on references to it in other works and the translation. The Theravada don't generally take positions on the status of specific non-Theravada texts in any formal way; they have their canon and the Mahayana schools have theirs, and when they overlap they overlap, and when they don't they don't. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, in this case, why don't we leave the sutra alone and just validate the protocol of the practice which is easy to do. Since the outcome of the practice has theraputic functions, it really need to go through clinical trials which are the validation work. The preliminary experiments could use vegetarian groups and non vegetarian groups as I believe there may bring up different results--202.173.190.40 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC) According to the Mahayana tradition and experiences, non-vegetarian people who practice the buddha's method could have severe hinderances than those of vegetarian groups. Maybe, vegetarians who practice the method results in differenent side effects. To my knowledge, there have been disputes regarding the practice and there are some insidents happened, which could be avoided by going through clinical trials. A spiritual practice is like a drug prescription whose side effects maybe unavoidable. However, the result of validation work can keep the side effects to minimum.--202.173.190.40 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to make a comment on is that Great Sunshine Buddha's practice is a fire method which specifically targets the people who has got a YING body. There is another buddha's water method which targets the people who has had a YANG body. Therefore either of the above methods is only a part of the methodology.--202.173.190.40 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC) If a people's body is neutral and they wish to do the practice, then both of the methods should be performed at least within a day, in coporating to the method of fire-water balance, which was mentioned somehow in the book called THREE SECRETS REINFORCEMENT. In Chinese buddhist tripitaka or Manjushri's sutra of Tibetan version, the whole methodology has been mentioned. The above comment is just my personal opinion and I could be wrong.--202.173.190.40 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is really just for discussing changes or improvements to the Theravada article. You would probably be better served by taking this to a forum of some sort that discusses Buddhist practice. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. However, the above issues are all related to what the Theravada dismisses--202.173.190.40 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My question is what you are proposing to add or change about the article. There is a sentence at the end of the 'Scriptures' section right now that sums up the general Theravada view of the non-Agama Mahayana scriptures- that they are later creations, and not the words of the Buddha- which would also apply to the Mahavirocana. I don't personally believe that there is sufficient difference between Theravada attitudes towards that particular text and their attitude towards other Mahayana sutras for some special mention to be warranted; in which case, there really isn't anything to say in the article regarding the Mahavirocana Sutra. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I have got your point. One element of the Theravada definition is that they only accept what Siddhartha Gautama taught not else, right? The Mahayana's point is that Siddhartha Gautama is only one of the founders of buddhism and one element of the Mahayana definition is that any enlightened being is of a CHANCE to be the founders of buddhism. That maybe the difference between Theravada and Mahayana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.147.130 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In another word, Theravada is Monotheism or Polytheism which does not accept the BUDDHA whom Siddhartha Gautama did not mention, whereas Mahayana is a true Polytheism. Do you agree?

I partly agree with what you say, that Mahayana considers all that is taught by any buddha, not only Siddhartha Guathama, as valid and true, whereas Theravada says the opposite. The reason is simple enough to get. According to Buddhism, including Theravada, Mahayana and their various braches, the time period between two 'enlightened ones' (or Buddhas) is immeasurably long. It is termed as a 'Maha Kalpa'; One 'Maha Kalpa' equals four 'Kalpa's; one Kalpa alone is far far too long to be measured in years or decades or centuries even. I dont exactly remember the definition (yes, there is one) for a Kalpa, but I'll soon find it and put it up here, with references.

The point is, how can you be sure of a suthra that has been handed down from beyond the measure of time? The reason is twofold: one, we theravadins believe that what one buddha taught is more than enough for a person to find the truth and attain Nibbana (the ultimate freedom). Two, there has been two many innovations, additions, deletions and replacements of what Siddhartha Guthama Buddha alone taught, we simply cannot be sure about the integrity of yet another sutra that has a mirky and vague lineage in the past, no offense for Mahayanas.--Cjdrox (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Theravada doesn't require scriptures to be taught by the Buddha himself any more than Mahayana does. The Pali Canon includes teachings of disciples & accounts of events after the Buddha's death. The disagreement is over what satisfies the criteria. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a longer explanation is due. I will break down the question into parts.

Q: What is the validation procedure of Theravadins for a sutra? How come one sutra is termed 'accepted' or 'authentic' and another is not? A: If any piece of Dhamma is (a) either recorded to be taught by Lord Buddha himself or, (b) stated by someone else and recorded to be approved by Lord Buddha, or (c) inferred or derived by means of translations or renderings only, with no additions, deletions, altering of contexts, that particular piece is accepted to be authentic.

Q: How is the recording done? What is the annal, if there is any, which records who told what and who approved what? A: Every (or almost every) Theravada sutra starts with a journal-like statement, which states when, where and why that sutra was told. This may not be satisfactory for some people. Someone might be skillful enough to imitate a sutra with records and all, and claim it is authentic. That is where the word Theravada comes into play. Theravadins are claimed to have had these concourses, or 'sangaayana' where the learned, attained monks gather periodically, (not a very common occasion) and go through each sutra everyone remembers. One recites what he remembers and at the same time, all the others analyze it (much like wikipedia). Theravadins are called thus partly because they rely only on these cross validated sutras. 'Thera' literally means 'monk' and 'Vada' is (among many meanings) for 'what is claimed'. Theravada consists only of such sutras which are supposedly validated many hundreds of years ago, and they are very stubborn about accepting a sutra without a consensus.

Q: I know a sutra that should be accepted by Theravada, but currently it is not. What can I do? A: Well, unless you are a monk, there is very little you can do about it. Basically, if I have such a claim, I would call for a concourse and present it to the gathering. It is the gathering of monks, as a whole, decide whether there are sufficient evidence to accept the sutra.

Q: But how can they validate if it is correct? What is the methodology? A: Basically, it should satisfy several things. (a) it should not contradict with itself, or any existing body of sutras, either conceptually or practically. (b) it should be traceable, which means, its origins, and records should be verifiable, to a degree that deems okay to the gathering. (c) it should be aligned with the existing body of sutras' style and content to a satisfiable degree. (d) it should clearly be 'above suspicion' that it is not artificial, or if it is, it should only be a compilation of existing knowledge.

Seems pretty conservative and stubborn but I hope I have done my best to explain it. Cjdrox (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Meditation

Your wording places too much emphasis on breathing as against other forms of meditation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete his list? Mitsube (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The former text placed almost a misleading amount of emphasis on Anapanasathi. That is why I added the few lines at the beginning to make clear to the reader the fact that Anapanasathi is but one method, or kammatthana. It is I who restructured the para and removed some of the exaggerant emphasis on Anapanasathi.--Cjdrox (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a little more explanation is appropriate here: Meditation is a means, a tool, a stratergy, designed to train one's mond to see through the veils of deception, or ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. The classical terminology of Pali Canon recgnizes two broad "categories" (so to speak) of meditation, namely Samatha and Vipassana. Strictly speaking, it's only and explicitly by Vipassana that one can attain the "states" of mind, leading to freedom, named "magga-phala"; Samatha is but a methodology to facilitate one's mental (and spritual) skill to think abstract. The word "samatha" literally means "to make skillful".

To put things in parellel, practitioners of Theravada (through meditation) are classified into two groups based on what method they use to attain magga-phla; Samathayanika and Shushka Vipassaka (Sanskrit: Shushka Vidarshaka). Samathayanika are the people who elect first to enskill their minds, and only then to move on to Vipassana. Shushka Vipassaka are those who prefer only Vipassana, as opposed to Samathyanika. Traditionally, Theravadians, (at least in Sri Lanka, the country that boasts the "purest" form of early Theravada) have preferred the Shushka Vipassaka pathway to Samathayanika. (This statement is not 100% correct, as through time, Therevada in Sri Lanka is also affected by various influences.)

Coming back to the main topic in question, I suggest that the section "Meditation" be promoted to a complete article under the name "Meditation in Therevada", and a cross-refernce be added to the current section, which in my opinion, falls very low below the standards of the Pali Canon when it comes to explaining what meditation is. Of course, further explanation would result a lengthy section and that is why I suggested the above solution. --Cjdrox (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should put up some references to as what I wrote. Here follow a list of links on various topics concerned with Theravada Meditation.

• Anapanasathi (concentration on breathing) : http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/118-anappanasati-e.html
• About what not to entangle one's mind when meditating: http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/063-cula-malunkhyaputta-e1.html--Cjdrox (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• An excellent Suthra covering how one should train one's mind by improved concentration: http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta5/44-Magga-Samyutta/01-Avijjavaggo-e.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdrox (talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceylon may "boast" the purest form of Theravada, but that doesn't make it true. In any case, meditation was rare until modern times, everywhere. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it's Sri Lanka now, not Ceylon anymore.

I am fully aware that just by "boasting" something does not become true. What I said was in Sri Lanka, the country that deserves attention as an ancient preserver of early (yes, maybe not necessarily true) Theravada teachings, Shushka Vipassaka pathway has been predominating compared to Samathayanika. (I am not sure whether you knew there are two different pathways before I mentioned it here.)

As an informal and comment, nothing personal, Peter: your understanding of basic Theravada concepts is highly appreciable,even admirable in some aspects, but when going into further details, you exhibit your ignorance in fine details with every word you say (or write). Please take your time to read and research Theravada concepts more. The statement you made on Anatta alone is enough for an impartial reader, who is familiar with the concepts, to see that.--Cjdrox (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What did Sinhalese-speakers call it before 1972? Did they use the English name Ceylon? As far as I'm aware, Ceylon is simply the English form of Srilanka, just as Spain is the English form of Espana.

On your last paragraph, see my remark in the previous section. Peter jackson (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, if it pleases you, do continue Ceylon. But what I wanted to highlight was that even a name is not free from the law of Change.--Cjdrox (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just another suggestion: although the article describes meditation, and appreciates its value as a tool in attaining mental purity, I see no in-depth explanations on the 'implementation' of it. For example, Anapanasathi, one of the most commonly used 'kammattana', deserves a fuller explanation, in my opinion. At least the following terms do need to be incorporated into the article: levels of 'Samadhi'; 'Uggaha Nimitta', 'Patibhaga Nimitta', 'Upacara samadhi', 'Aparnaa samadhi', etc.

Can we have a collective opinion about this issue? Because I feel the treatement on meditation, especially as an encyclopediac article, seems very inadequate here. --Cjdrox (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should probably list some of the major methods, but I would avoid in-depth discussion of particular styles or of terms specific to certain forms of meditation. There are so many topics to potentially cover under the heading of 'Theravada' that I think summary style precludes including too much detail on particular meditation styles. Considering the number of additional articles that are available to link off to for meditation, our coverage of that area is very good compared to, say, ritual and devotional practice. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why the bulleted list in the opening of this section places Anapanasathi in the same level as Samatha and Vipassana. Samatha and Vipassana are the two main categories og Theravada Meditation, and Anapanasathi is but one of the 40 Samatha themes (Kammaththanas). Would it not be nice if we can have a hierarchical list of the 40 Samatha themes, and list Anapanasathi under that? Because otherwise a reader might get the impression that they are somehow in the same level of classification. The fact that the following text explains it thoroughly is not of any help since the text is in stark contrast to the preceding list structure. Plus, the list may suggest that those are the only Themes of Theravada meditation. --112.135.74.0 (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have taken the first steps in streamlining the topic. Inserted a new paragraph that explains the two categories samatha and vipassana, and added the crucial link to Kammaṭṭhāna without which the article is not complete at all. But still the article does not incorporate the concept of Pancha-nivarana (five defilements). Also, linked the terms jhana and samadhi in proper context. --Cjdrox (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Author of Theravada Wikipedia Article

Who's the author of the article and does he have email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is the continual effort of many authors, there are no one single to be isolated; you can have a look at all the names appearing in this discussion page, tho', for the people who write are the ones who (usually) discuss and debate about it. --Cjdrox (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thai vs Burmese approaches to samadhi & vipassana

It would be good if someone knowledgeable could add something about these issues.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. The main article on Samadhi has them spelled out somewhat OK, so when I restructured the article on Meditation, I cross-referenced to that. Maybe the topic on meditation could accommodate the issue you suggested, as a separate sub-topic.--Cjdrox (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Influences -- etymology please

I'd like to see more explicit justification for the suggestion that "therapeutae" is derived from "theravada". We need more than a two-syllable similarity. If the reference cited actually describes etymology, let's see it summarized in the text! Martindo (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably a fringe theory. See Buddhism and Christianity for a whole pile of such, & for a citation from Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism dismissing them all, if it hasn't been deleted again. Peter jackson (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This section should probably just be eliminated from what appears to be a fairly good article. However, as both Thundy and Kersten do have academic credentials to attach to their fantasies, I hesitated to just delete the thing. Instead I have probably added material that is fairly irrelevant. However, there is more to clarify here than just a lack of influence on Christianity. It probably should all be excised. Gnuwhirled (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the inclusion of a large block of text that seems to have very little to do with Theravada Buddhism, and a lot to do with a description of early Christianity, with not cross-referencing as to how it's relevant to Theravada. If there is some relevance, perhaps it needs to be explained. If not, it should probably be deleted. I do not want to fiddle with it, in case I'm somehow missing something very obvious, but perhaps someone better informed than myself can take it out.Foxi tails (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this section to Buddhist influences on Christianity. And I too think it's fringe - so it's better of there... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Insight, practice, Nirvana

I've arranged the teachings-section under the headers of insight, practice & Nirvana, but I'm seriously if this is correct. It gives an accessible lay-out to the section, but it's different from the traditional sequence of sila, samdha, prajna. Any opinions on this? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To my surprise I found additional info. Gombrich writes: "In Ceylonese tradition, Buddhism (the Sasana) has three constituents: learning, practice and realization". (Gombrich, "Theravada Buddhism, 1996, p.150) "Learning" is not the same as "insight", which has a soteriological aspect, but it comes close. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the new layout is suitable for the Theravada encyclopedia article. The traditional sequence of Sila, Samadhi & Panna is more on the actual training, may not be suitable to put the same lay-out sequence in an encyclopedia article. The new version of the article is a great improvement over the old version, great works. Sawadeekrap (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) It was worth the effort; learned new facts about Theravada myself. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Theravada Path starts with insight, to be followed by practice, culminating in Nirvana." This statement is a bit confusing. From my understanding it more like "Learn, practices, mundane insight, more practice, supramundane knowledge & nivarna." You need to learn & practice first before you can gain any insight. May be it should be clarify. For more info > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch5 Sawadeekrap (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Theravada Introduction

"The name comes from the ancestral Sthaviravada, from which the Theravadins claim descent. After unsuccessfully trying to modify the Vinaya, a small group of 'elderly members' i.e. sthaviras broke away from the majority during the Second Buddhist council, giving rise to the Sthaviravada."

The information about the origin of Theravada is already in the History section, it should not be repeated in the introduction. The cause of split should be put inside Sthaviravada & Mahāsāṃghika page not inside Theravada page. Any issue pls discuss here.Sawadeekrap (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

An edit war has broken out involving multiple participants. Can someone please explain why citing this book is being dismissed as "spam"? Brahmana, Metteyya (2013), Why God Became a Buddha, Anagami Publishing, ISBN 978-0-9887083-1-0 Thank you in advance. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I only strongly suspect that it is spam, but in any event it is self-published and not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. I've analyzed that issue at length in this edit at Talk:Gautama Buddha#Concerning primary sources, so rather than repeat it here let me refer you to that discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is very helpful to have that link here, for those of us who don't have the other page on our watch lists. Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

About the spam issue, per se, you might be interested in what has been said here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Why God Became a Buddha book is definitely not spam, as it is of high quality, well researched, and highly relevant to the discussion in the section. But after reviewing the reliable sources info on Wiki, there is a bar to using self-published work regardless of the quality of research or the expertise of the author. Self-publishing has become a sound business decision with today's Print-On-Demand quality printers and access to national and international book distribution channels, not a reflection on quality, but Wiki 'authorities' are still under the false belief that self-publishing is a quality issue. Obviously, this restriction only hurts Wikipedia's effort to improve the quality of its content. User:103.247.49.184 20:19, 13 June 2013‎

No, you're missing the point of the reliable source policy. It has nothing, per se, to do with quality. The point is that unlike a paper encyclopedia Wikipedia doesn't have a board of professional editors to review the truth, accuracy, and importance of material. Instead, we only use sources which other professional publishers have reviewed through fact-checking and editorial review and deemed important enough to publish. By doing so, we avoid becoming embroiled in endless debates — since we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit — over whether things are true or false, accurate or inaccurate, important or unimportant. Material in self-published works, if it is significant and important enough, will eventually be discussed in third party reliable sources and will, via those references and discussions, become able to be included here. And there are no "Wiki authorities." All policies here have been formulated and reviewed and revised by everyday users like you and me and are always subject to being changed or revoked through community consensus. Just like everyone in the world can edit articles, everyone can participate in the formation and revision of policy and except for a few policies affected by legal issues, such as libel, copyright, and child protection, and a few others about how the programming behind Wikipedia works, there is no one who has the right to force any policy to be adopted, modified, or changed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of therapeutic

Sometimes, there is a theory that the word therapeutic comes from theravada. Just letting people know. Komitsuki (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)