Talk:Theravada/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Overview of Philosophy

To make the matter clear i change it to "assume those mental defilements as part of their own “Self”". Ultimate Reality mean the dhamma, it can also translated as the Truth...."The way the nature work". Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Human is consist of the Five Aggregates, i only explain 2 (Feeling & Physical Body) out of 5. If human being did not identify Anger, Greed & Hatred as part of themself...there would be peace all over the world. if you practice mindfulness u can detect the arising of defilement, then it up to u whether u wana cling on that defilement & start acting in the way the defilement want you to act...like bashing youw own wife when u get angry. If you gain direct insight into the true nature of the defilement, the defilement will be completely uprooted, once every defilement has been uprooted you would realize nibbana. As simple as that. Sawadeekrap (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What is ultimate reality? Kamma, rebirth, Nibbana, anicca, dukkha, anatta, samsara...basicaly encompas the whole doctrine of Buddhism...especially about the true nature of the world, the way nature work, they way the world work, the law of nature & etc . Tsunami? don't blame satan, god or kamma...Tsunami is part of the nature. It the way nature work...but some deluded being assume it as the act of "God/Satan". Sawadeekrap (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting a very vague term in there in quotation marks will only mislead people. Let's keep it simple. And the Buddha said that people identify with the skandhas. You are trying to make the point that people are not their thoughts. That's good but it must be stated clearly and probably belongs more in the three marks section. Mitsube (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yamaka Sutta

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He gets attached to form, clings to form, & determines it to be 'my self.' He gets attached to feeling... He gets attached to perception... He gets attached to fabrications... He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, & determines it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss & suffering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

When u see the 3 dot "..." in the above statement, it meant there is some repeating wording based on the first statement. eg: "He gets attached to form, clings to form, & determines it to be 'my self.' He gets attached to feeling clings to feeling, & determines it to be 'my self.'

Sawadeekrap (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with this section is not the specifics of wording over what misconceptions of self are or aren't. It's that it relies too much on primary sources (the suttas), which is always going to produce disagreement over interpretation and OR. There are good neutral sources of information on Theravada philosophy in text books, etc. We need to be incorporating these sources, rather than quoting from the tipitaka. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What about this source from Venerable Acharn Maha Boowa, which basically explain the above sutta:

The bodily aggregate is fashioned and put together and is thus also destined for eventual breakup. Just that. This can be irrefutably seen once wisdom is brought to bear, and then any possessiveness seems altogether pointless. We can then let go our grasp and allow the body to follow its own nature; whether it's still holding together or has entered the inevitable final phase of dissolution.

This world is full of cemeteries awaiting each person and animal. Examining the truth we can no longer doubt the reality of our reserved plot, or, indeed, the inevitability of our future death. Clearly acknowledging this mortality means we can then let go of our worries and concern. Death is a fundamental part of the law of nature that can neither be denied or defied. Let nature take its course, and the earth, water, air and fire will follow their own essential natures

That which knows should genuinely know and not mistake water, fire and air as 'myself'. This acts like a parasite hooking in and trapping the heart in turmoil. We mis-take them for self and thereby fall into suffering.

But the painful feeling in the heart — this is important. When there is bodily pain there is also pain and suffering in the heart that arises because of the source14 of suffering. This is the way that the defilements trick all beings in the world with their beguilements. The deception of taking this body as myself must be cleared by a thorough analysis of the true nature of the body. The investigation of pleasant and unpleasant feeling is aimed at erasing from the heart the notion that this feeling is myself.

Let things be as they truly are: feeling is feeling while this is me, which is that knowingness. Don't mix them up. But anyway, that's not possible as they are intrinsically different. How can they become merged together into one? Can two individuals be combined as only one? Having to bear the burden of one person is heavy enough — but to have the extra weight of two, three, four or five others... We don't just take up the body but also shoulder the other four aggregates, which press down with the weight of attachment. It's the heart that takes responsibility and so the heart alone must bear the consequences. That is suffering — and there's no compensation to be found. And yet we still persist with such hanging on. This needs looking at to see the true nature of pain.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/boowa/tolastbr.html

By Lily de Silva

The body is composed of the material elements of solidity (earth), cohesion (water), heat (fire), and motion (air). There is nothing worth grasping in any of these elements. They are found abundantly in the external world too, but we cling to this fathom-long blob of matter as "I" and "mine." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/bl120.html

By Bhikkhu Bodhi

The other analytical contemplation deals with the body in a different way. This meditation, called the analysis into elements (dhatuvavatthana), sets out to counter our innate tendency to identify with the body by exposing the body's essentially impersonal nature. The means it employs, as its name indicates, is the mental dissection of the body into the four primary elements, referred to by the archaic names earth, water, fire, and air. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html

Sawadeekrap (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "ultimate reality" would denote first and foremost something like "world soul". Since this is a concept rejected by the Buddha as pointless we should not use the term "ultimate reality." Mitsube (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

May be should be changed to "gain insight into the true nature of phenomenon." Btw, the content of the Overview of Philosophy have been there for nearly a year. if the 2 Pali expert (Cjdrox & Peter jackson) which i belived have read most of the Pali canon & may have a completed set of the Pali Canon in their own personal library did not find any problem with it. Why should u? None of them ever put the tag on it or challenge it validity. Are u more expert that those 2 ? Sawadeekrap (talk)

Because they don't care about possible confusion the wording of this article could cause as much as I do, it seems. No one here is disputing what you are saying here. It is just the wording and placement. Mitsube (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then instead of deleting it, you should just reword it to avoid the confusion. Your own statement "Unskillful behavior in turn can strengthen the defilements, but skillful behavior can weaken or eradicate them." is confusing & too simplistic which only make the matter worst. What "skillful behavior" mean?For some people, it mean "by altering their behaviour into wholesome behaviour it can make them eradicate greed, hatred & delusion". Sawadeekrap (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. Mitsube (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, please don't read things into my silence. I can't do everything. Peter jackson (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Source for Numbers

The intro lists the number of Theravada adherents worldwide at over 100 million- does anyone have a source for that claim? --Clay Collier (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eg [[1]], World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford UP), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

It may not suit Westernized Theravadins to have it known that their religion is largely derived from Western scholars rather than the Buddhist tradition, but censoring that fact is contrary to WP policy. Peter jackson (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please expand on the term 'Westernized Theravadans'? Are you refering to Theravada as a whole, or to 'Modern Theravada'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.251.185 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

*No* mention of "Hinayana"!?

I came here from Chinese-history articles, and the first thing I wanted to verify was whether this was the same as what's known in historiography of China as Hinayana or Lesser Vehicle Buddhism. Apparently it is, but I was only able to confirm that because I remembered the word "Hinayana" and looked it up elsewhere in Wikipedia. Even if "Hinayana" is seen as a derogatory term by Theravada Buddhists (and it appears that no one's quite sure whether it's a derogatory term or just a descriptive one), should there really be *no* mention of the phrase that's the mainstream term for this denomination in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, Vietnamese, Mongolian, and so on, and that's standard in Far Eastern studies? It seems to me that this is as if there was no mention of the word "Miao" in the Hmong_people article, or if the disambiguation page for Kaffir didn't mention that it was historically an ethnic designation. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually,the 2 terms aren't synonymous. The term Hinayana covers all the early schools of Buddhism, of which Theravada is the only survivor, so the present-day reference is the same. I agree that it ought to be mentioned. Perhaps you can think of suitable wording.

As an aside, I think Kaffir was originally the Arabic word for infidel. Peter jackson (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The two terms were not synonymous in the beginning (by which I refer to the time that the Mahayana ideas were starting to take form), but nowadays the two terms Hinayana (also spelled Heenayana) and Theravada mean the same thing, as Theravada is believed to be the sole survivor.

However, considering the fact that most of the early Hinayana schools vanished (in fact, some of them are now known only by written work done by them), one might resort to the option of not using the term to mention Theravada only. It's purely a question of choice of classification.--Cjdrox (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a question of classification. We have to mention common terminology. It even works backwards. Some writers, having been told they must say Theravada, not Hinayana, use Theravada when they're referring to all the early schools, not just Theravada. Quite confusing. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I prefer to say it is a problem of both classification and terminology. What my main question is, what knowledge do we expect an average reader (who is assumed to know nothing about the fine details of Buddhist history) to gain about what Theravada is by reading this article? I vote for clarity and preciseness over generality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a handbook. --Cjdrox (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but we'd have to look @ particular cases. Peter jackson (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll think up and insert a suitable phrasing. Perhaps a sub-section "In Chinese history"? Thanks for the disambiguation on how this isn't the only school of Buddhism that would be referenced by the term. I'll have to read up more on the differences between these schools and Mahayana before I write the summary; but I'll do that.

On "Kaffir" -- yes, it's derived from Arabic kufr, "unbelief;" I'm surprised my phrasing didn't say that. Thanks again, though. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a mention in "History of the tradition" of how it never had much influence in China, in contrast to Southeast Asia, and how "Hinayana" is the usual (though evidently impolite) term for it in Chinese historiography. This isn't meant to be a prominent part of the article; it's just meant to provide a Find-In-Page hit for people like myself, Chinese history buffs (expert or, like myself, amateur/hobbyist) who think this sounds familiar and want to ensure they aren't completely at sea. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few changes which I don't think you'llobject to. I'm not sure about the atatement on origins of the term. perhaps it should be deleted. Peter jackson (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the changes you made. Just be sure not to delete the term "Hinayana" or the gloss "Lesser Vehicle" -- that was what I came here for. On the scholarly uncertainty as to whether Hinayana is descriptive or abusive, see the article "Hinayana"; and it sounds like "Hinayana" is sometimes used respectfully in the Far East, as "the version of Buddhism without all the Chinese fancruft." ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, correction, I don't think I like the phrasing "many Western works on Buddhism." To put it simply, I don't know whether that statement is true or not, but I know that in the Western works on China that I'm familiar with, Theravada and other traditional schools of Buddhism are lumped together as Hinayana. Again, it's like how the Hmong are referred to as the Miao: it's the ordinary Chinese name, and it's very important to mention that unequivocally to avoid confusion. Remember, too, Wikipedia is not censored, and I'm trying to make a very modest change compared to what Muslim Wikipedians have to put up with (look on the right side of the page).

However, I want to get your input before I make any further changes. You care much more about the subject than I do (and I do not mean that offensively), and so I don't want to blunder on ahead and find myself reported as the only combatant party in one of those.

By the way, is "school" the right term for a branch of Buddhism? I'm a Catholic, and I'm constantly fighting an urge to say "denomination." To me, "denominations" are what religions are divided into, and "schools" are more characteristic of philosophers and fish -- but on the other hand, I've never seen "denomination" used of non-Christians. ("Sect" would work, technically, but the connotations are outrageously inappropriate.) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

'School' is more standard than denomination in the Buddhist context. The definitions of both are flexible enough that there's not a concise answer as to why one is better than the other, but convention seems to favor school. Buddhist denominations even redirects to Schools of Buddhism. I do think we should at least mention the fact that Hinayana was used as a synonym or parent school for Theravada historically- while that usage is currently considered inaccurate or derogatory, someone reading older works on Buddhism would be likely to encounter that usage and might be curious about it. I added a note to that effect to the Hinayana article earlier tonight under the 'Hinayana and Theravada' section. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a subtle thing, but it is indeed better to talk about schools of Buddhism as opposed to sects or denominations. For one thing, some circles use sect as a derogatory term in Buddhist contexts. But the main reason is because school emphasizes the perception that a Dharma teacher is responsible for what he teaches and should not assume (nor be assumed) to be just using slight variations of other teachings. This is an important point, because a Buddhist is supposed not to rely on supernatural aid to know whether his religion is worth his attention. As for Hinayana, all my sources make it clear that the word itself is clearly meant to be derogatory. It is however true that Theravada (which is a single school and therefore could never be understood to be one and the same thing as Hinayana, which is a far more abstract concept) has been confused with Hinayana so often that many people speak respectfully of Hinayana because they actually mean to address Theravada. Luis Dantas (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see -- so "school" is the correct term because Buddhism really does put high emphasis on the individual teacher, as opposed to emphasizing continuity of tradition in the manner of Christianity or Islam.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hinayana is derogatory, now that I think about it. After all, it's not as if Miao isn't; giving insulting names to foreign things and peoples seems to have been par for the course in Imperial China -- but I just want to make sure that the term is in the article and clearly associated with it, to make sure, again, that people like me don't start wondering if they're going insane. I think that my most recent edit works for that purpose, although I seem to have invented a new three-letter acronymn, "HMC" -- "Historically Mahayana Country" -- to refer to members of what I'd prefer to call Greater China or the Chinese world, in the idiom of Spengler, Toynbee, and the (unrelated) Annales school. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you adding the mention of Hinayana, but I think you should dig up the references for some of your claims. I believe they are mostly correct, but the use of absolute qualifiers such as "never" and "always" beg to be supported by published literature. Aaron Lee (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made sure to keep absolute claims out of the addition to the article itself. The "never" and "always" claims, which I only made on the talk page, are my personal experiences -- I had never heard the word "Theravada" until I encountered it on the Wikipedia page on Buddhism in Southeast Asia -- so I hope you'll pardon my lack of references. ;) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards schools, the situation is far more complicated than is allowed for in such simplistic terminology. There are a variety of overlapping classifications of Budhism:

1. The most popular among scholars seems to be geographical/cultural:
   1. Theravada
   2. East Asian: China, Korea, Japan & Vietnam
   3. Tibetan
2. The main organized denominational groupings are as follows:
   1. 3 main monastic nikayas:
      1. Theravada
      2. Dharmaguptak: China, Korea & Vietnam
      3. Mulasarvastivada: Tibetan
   2. 5 main denominational families of Japanese lay Buddhism:
      1. Jodo (Pure Land)
      2. Nichiren
      3. Zen
      4. Shingon
      5. Tendai
3. Dominant doctrinal traditions:
   1. Theravada abhidhamma
   2. Madhyamika: Tibetan
   3. Tiantai: China & Japan (& Vietnam?)
   4. Hwaom: Korea
4. Practice traditions:
   1. According to Erik Zürcher (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol 2, page 440):
      1. Theravada
      2. Mahayana
      3. Vajrayana
   2. According to Ruben Habito (Experiencing Buddhism, Orbis, 2005):
      1. Theravada
      2. Zen
      3. Tantra
      4. Pure Land
      5. Lotus/Nichiren (probably including Tendai)
   3. According to Carl Olson (The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005):
      1. Theravada
      2. Mahayana
         1. Bodhisattva
         2. Emptiness
         3. Pure Land (including Nichiren)
         4. Tibetan
         5. Zen
         6. Recent movements
   4. Probably others
5. Possibly others

Nearly all Chinese Buddhism now is Pure Land, which is also followed by ordinary Vietnamese. Monastics & educated lay people in Vietnam follow Zen, as do, at least officially, Korean Buddhists. Shingon is usually classified under Vajrayana, which is usually considered synonymous with tantra.

As you can see, the situation is far from straightforward. & the above is itself an oversimplification. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article's current sentence, "Scholars are uncertain as to whether 'Hinayana' was originally a derogatory term or a descriptive one....": I'd like to offer that, according to W. Rahula, the first instance of Hinayana is in the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Pundarika Sutra), where, for instance, the Buddha tells Sariputra: “I should be guilty of envy, should I, after reaching the spotless eminent state of enlightenment, establish any one in the inferior vehicle [hinayana]. That would not beseem me.” (II.56, trans. H. Kern, 1884.) Regardless of how one might translate hinayana in this statement, is it not reasonable to deduce that the context provides for interpreting the word pejoratively? - 24.136.229.74 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated above, my involvement was just a desire to ensure that the term "Hinayana" appears on this page, for the benefit of people like me with an amateur interest in Chinese history and a desire to make sure that neither they nor the world are going insane. :) I think that the addition of this last paragraph to "History of the tradition" is sufficient for that purpose; is it safe for me to unwatch the page and trust the paragraph, or at least the word "Hinayana," to stick around in this article? Let me emphasize that I am not qualified to state whether or not the term is derogatory; I'm only confident in saying that this is the term I encountered in the context of China.

So, again, can I be confident about the future of the paragraph, or at least the presence of the term Hinayana? If so, I don't really have anything else to discuss here. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I tried to move the uncertain material to an end note, adding citations from A.K. Warder and Walpola Rahula but regretably, admittedly, adding some unquantified claims. (Thus, I tried to increase the scholarship but left some significant uncited statements in it. If someone can provide pertinent scholarship, please modify as appropriate.)

Ex ottoyuhr, I think you made your point, a meaningful point worthy of others' consideration. Personally, I'm not going to watch this page to ensure that "hinayana" stays in the text, but I'll certainly acknowledge that I think such a desire is worthwhile and hope others would abide by your expectation here. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone already. Time to add it again... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the current wording, what does "in Chinese historiography" mean? Chinese language sources about world history? Those would not be using "Hinayana", but the Chinese calque, which is "xiaosheng". Or does it mean Eurolang sources about Chinese history? Since Theravada has almost no presence in Han history (or any of the other large ethnic groups), it's hard to imagine that it comes up enough to be worth mentioning.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't answer the very interesting question about "historiography" but I touched up the mention of Hinayana to note that it was created to "elevate" Mahayana. More significant than touching up content would be to get WP to change its redirect so that "Hinayana Buddhism" leads to "Theravada" rather than the tricky page "Hinayana" which recycles the old justifications for the H word. (See K. A. Lie's 2005 web article "The myth of Hinayana" for a strong argument against Vajrayana claims about "levels of practice".) Martindo (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hinayana shouldn't really redirect to Theravada, as it also refers to other Indian non-Mahayana schools. It's certainly a notable enough term to warrant its own article, if only to retrace how it's used (and misused) in Mahayana and contemporary sources. Regarding Nat's question, I have seen (been a while) in English translations of Mahayana sutras the word 'Hinayana' used. There's no indication that they're referring specifically to Theravada and not one of the other schools though, which would have been more likely to be known to the authors of the Mahayana sutras. I had a conversation with a professor several years ago on this topic; he mentioned that for practical purposes the only Hinayana presence for much of Chinese Buddhist history was in the form of the Agama and Vinaya texts that had been brought over from India. I'm guessing that in Chinese history, Hinayana would be more likely to be applied to Chinese Buddhists who for some reason championed the primacy of those texts (someone who noted, for instance, that some of the 'skillful means' and other phenomena in the Mahayana sutras appear to contradict the non-Mahayana texts). Since there isn't a reference for that particular line, I'd kind of like to see it replaced by something else. I've seen the Theravada referred to as Hinayana in much more recent sources (and, for that matter, know Tibetan monks who think that is the proper term for Buddhism in SE Asia), but I haven't been able to locate it recently. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, here's a more contemporary source that continues the equation of Theravada and Hinayana: [2] --Clay Collier (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This source says "A more contemporary rendering of this sect is Theravada Buddhism", which is incoherent—would the authors' editor had corrected it. If it is supposed to mean that Theravada is a contemporary rendering of the name Hinayana, this is also factually inaccurate, since I don't think any scholars treat "Theravada" and "Hinayana" as synonyms; the former might be treated as a subset of the latter.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just what they're saying- that the updated and PC name for Hinayana Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. This matches the incorrect usage that I used to see more frequently- I think the recognition among scholars of the relationship between the term 'Hinayana' and the modern Theravada school hasn't trickled down completely to the popular press. In other places, texts like this say Hinayana when what they actually mean is contemporary Theravada (like this). I think it's worth noting in the article that this sort of confusion exists in some sources- that historically, Hinayana has been used incorrectly as a synonym for Theravada, outside of this nebulous Chinese historiography that we have mentioned now. I really think that something like the 'Relationship between Theravada and Hinayana' section of the Hinayana article would be beneficial here. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone familiar with the following article: Lie, Kåre A. 'The Myth of Hinayana' http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm ? It may shed some light on this debate, if it has not already been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.251.185 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)