Talk:Theravada/Archive 8

Apocrypha
Theravāda Buddhists consider much of what is found in the Chinese and Tibetan Mahayana scriptural collections to be apocryphal, meaning that they are not authentic words of the Buddha. This is sourced from Macmillan encyclopaedia, but I question it's provenance. Moreover, it doesn't really offer much in the way of identifying what is meant by it.

For instance, if we accept that Arahants are perfect (which is reasonable) and that the 'level of realisation' of any Arahant (including that of the Buddha) is the same, then in what way should one distinguish the words of one Arahant over the words of another?

Likewise, what are distinguished as 'words'? If a sutta describes the actions of Lord Buddha in great detail, without necessarily having much (or any) content regarding his words, how can that be identified as being 'authentic words of the Buddha' ?

If we accept that actions of a Buddha are enough to represent a valid sutta, then are not his actions of being a Buddha not enough to demonstrate the validity of the Mahayana path?

A strong component of the Mahayana path is the concept of Bodhicitta - a continuum of intention to become a Buddha. It would be hard to reject this idea, by looking at the actions and previous lifetimes of the Buddha alone, regardless of the fact that he didn't necessarily discuss it.

In brief, I guess I am looking for something about what criteria are used for acceptance and rejection in the Theravada canon. (20040302 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Only one being can be a Supreme Buddha at any one time/era. The next Supreme Buddha can only exist if the current Buddha-Dharma become extinct. Supreme Buddha is someone who have rediscovered the lost 8 Fold Path & teach it to other. Those who have achive Enlightement by practicing the Path which have been redicovered by Supreme Buddha would be labelled as Arahant (Savaka Buddha). If you aspire to be come a Supreme Buddha then you'll have to wait until current Buddha-Dharma become extinct...but Maiterya already booked that seat. You will have to wait for your turn....that would be a loooooooong wait. Supreme Buddha is a person who have Rediscovered the lost Path, while Arahant is a person who followed the Path which have been Rediscovered by other. Supreme Buddha is only a Teacher not a Savior. Even during the lifetime of the Supreme Buddha only a tiny world population benefited from His teaching...2500 years later only 10% of world population is Buddhist. As for Gotama Buddha past life...there is no witness who can verify whether it is true or not...but for his current teaching/discourse, there is thousand of witness whose then memorize and pass it down to us...althought some of it may be lost & become corrupted. It also goes againts the concept of Karma. Every sentient beings is reponsible to save/liberate themself from Greed, Hatred & Delusion. Gotama the Supreme Buddha could not 'save' all his disciple during his lifetime, what make you think other being who have practice Bodhicitta and become a Buddha could save all sentient being during their lifetime? During the previous world era/aeo, there is also many other previous Supreme Buddha, but even they could not 'save' all sentient being. Or are there a new category for a Super Duper Supreme Buddha? Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The section Doctrinal differences with other schools is a mess.
The whole section needs a rewrite, this can't be the best you can do. I have no axe to grind, other than to expect Wikipedia present a coherent explanation of the topic under discussion. Let me point out where this section is inadequate(I limit my criticism to it, although other parts are also inadequate, especially the lede). 1. It starts out talking about Sthaviravanda saying it differed from other "early" schools on a "variety" of teachings which are maintained in the Theravada schools. Rather than making vacuous claims about it, why not place it chronologically and geographically? As is, this statement is useless in distinguishing it from other schools.

2."The differences resulted from the systemization of the Buddhist teachings, which was preserved in the Abdhidhammas of the various schools. The Abhidhamma is "a restatement of the doctrine ..." Sorry? WHAT was preserved? The differences (which this section SHOULD be addressing) or the systemization? Or perhaps the Abdhidhammas? Or is it "the" Abhidhamma? In English, "the" specifies a specific thing (the thing under discussion). Is it Abdh or Abh (a typo)? Or are these unrelated things? This is profoundly confusing, and needs someone to edit it who is a native English speaker (and who can spell). To expose my ignorance, I suggest that IF Theravada doctorine is contained in "the Abhidhamma" then perhaps that should be the starting point in discussing the differences of doctrine, rather than some vague mention of its precursor.

3.The Arahant is perfect The Mahāsāṃghika believed that Arahants could regress, while the Theravāda believes that the Arahant has an "incorruptible nature". The Arahant? This section fails to clearly explain what is being compared. Theravada doctrine compared with Mahāsāṃghika is relevant why? how? Why aren't the other recognized or major doctorines enumerated and then compared? I think it means "the Arahant have". 4.Insight is sudden and perfect This section makes NO distinctions between Theravada and anything else. I assume that the alternative to "sudden and perfect" is gradual and imperfect. Which schools hold either? What does "imperfect" mean in the context of insight? Logically, if insight is perfect, then it can only happen once, meaning each individual can only have one true insight. I doubt if this is the correct interpretation, or is it? If so, how can you reconcile 7 stages with a single perfect insight?

5.DharmasThe commentaries gave a new definition of "a 'principle' or 'element'.←This section either should be removed or some reason articulated for it being present. First, there is no context explaining how the Dharmas fit into doctrine. Second, again, there is no contrast between Theravada doctrine and any other. 6.The whole section seems to be the result of very disorganized thinking and an inability to articulate a coherent argument.Abitslow (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Need a more nuanced outlook on claims of Theravada being "Oldest" or "Most Authentic"
Theravada Buddhism is a term which was first used 1000 years after the Buddha's death, and only came into widespread use to refer to Southern forms of Buddhism in 1950. It is radically different from one country to another, is often filled with superstitions from the cultures it is associated with that have no Pali scriptural basis, and claims of being "the oldest" have as much to do with historically powerful schools with government support legitimizing themselves in the face of competing schools. This is what modern scholarship agrees. Claims that it's "authentic" ignore the fact that we have no contemporary information on the 400 years following the Buddha's death, yet the second sentence of this article repeats this misleading view. I would recommend the authors of this article check out this book, among others: Theravada Buddhism: Continuity, Diversity, and Identity 50.129.227.144 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary, Indic scripts
It is considered standard when reverted to take it to talk: this is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. First, you are wrong. Wikipedia states unequivocably that "[t]here is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." The use of devanagari in lead is against policy. The use of devanagari is also ahistoric, as devanagari was not invented until approximately the 10th century and was only adopted for Sanskrit on any wide basis in the 1900s under the British colonial scholars. Use IAST, as it is reasonably legible to Latin alphabet users and this is the English wikipedia. Second, hotlinking an article title is inappropriate. This is the lede: we make it simple. There is no cause to hotlink Theravada: you should include the definition in the article directly. Ogress smash! 08:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You left this comment on my talk page: "Hello, you should read MOS:FOREIGN and Writing better articles, regards. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)" I was unaware I was using other languages unsparingly? I do not understand how either relates to this issue. Ogress smash! 08:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see that you replied here, seems you have a point, the links that you showed said that there is no consensus but is recommendable to use IPA instead, until we have the IPA translation should be used this. The external link should stay because it helps readers to research for the etymology of the word. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we should include the etymology of the word in the article. I'd note that all the wiktionary page actually says is "From Pali थेरवाद (theravāda), from Sanskrit स्थविरवाद (sthaviravāda); compare वाद (vāda)." This is not actually correct! It's not derived from Sanskrit (although there is a clear Sanskrit equivalent). Instead, it was coined by Buddhists who used Pali as their liturgical language. Other Buddhist schools Sanskritized their texts, as it was long-dead as a spoken language before Buddha was born; the form "sthāviravāda" never actually appeared. There's a reason the Sanskrit of Mahayana Buddhism is called Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, as it was Sanskrit learned by Apabhramsa and Prakrit speakers, who stapled Sanskrit forms onto their native grammars.
 * How about we write Theravāda (Pali, literally "school of the elder monks") ? That is one of the recommended ways of opening a lede where translation might be useful. Ogress smash! 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I support that. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add it and see if anyone reacts. BRD! Ogress smash! 20:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
I'm posting this here in the hope of getting more eyes on this question regarding the best exposition of the four noble truths, a central teaching in modern Buddhism.

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest to write a section about the Bodhisattva ideal in Theravada?
The Buddhist Publication Society published recently a book "The Bodhisattva Ideal – Essays on the Emergence of Mahayana", ISBN: 978-955-24-0396-5. Its a very good exploration about the Bodhisattva ideal in Theravada and I think this article needs a section about it. So far, two articles of the book are online: Both are updated or revised articles of earlier versions. For the time being, I will link Samuels’ article in the link section. Hope this is ok for you guys. Kt66 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda Theory and Practice by Jeffrey Samuels and
 * Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas – Bhikkhu Bodhi

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Theravada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204105319/http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~religion/thailand/ordination.shtml to http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~religion/thailand/ordination.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206044757/http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/summer/dhammananda.html to http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/summer/dhammananda.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331102337/http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm to http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm
 * Added tag to http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2%3A1%3A3558.pali
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716001724/http://203.113.86.149/stat/pk/pk53/pk_53.pdf to http://203.113.86.149/stat/pk/pk53/pk_53.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229013140/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theravada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704102316/http://202.28.52.45/vesak50/article/pdf_file/13_Buddhist_%20Meditation_Practices_West.pdf to http://202.28.52.45/vesak50/article/pdf_file/13_Buddhist_%20Meditation_Practices_West.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

supramundane2
with this edit you introduced an empty reference, "supramundane2". Could you add the reference itself? Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for catching that, its meant to be https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html Javierfv1212 15:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:GenoV84
A few problems with the claims of the edits of this user. He claims that the Theravada "preserved the teachings of Gautama Buddha in the Pāli Canon". This is historically untrue and without citable scholarly sources. The Pali Canon was put into writing before the Theravada school existed. The source cited (Bhikkhu Bodhi) makes no such claim. Furthermore, he claims that Theravada is "the most ancient branch of Buddhism still existent today". Once again the sources cited for these claims make no such pronouncement. Thus wikipuffery is compounded by scholarly inaccuracy. The user is unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue. regards. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see "vandalism" in the edits of IP82~. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The view that Theravada is the most ancient school is historically unsupportable. - Tom Kent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.157.235 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Theravada → Theravāda – This is the spelling used throughout the article. Khiikiat (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The choice of article titles isn't supposed to follow usage in the article, but the WP:Article titles policy. Theravada (without diacritics) does appear to be widely adopted in general English usage, and probably should be preferred per WP:USEENGLISH. However, this does seem to conflict with the preference of some contributors to treat such names and words as technical Pali-language terms and follow the IAST transliteration. Maybe this is a wider issue that should be discussed at WP:BUDDHISM? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, but I think it looks a bit odd if the article and the title do not match. Theravāda is the spelling most commonly used in serious publications (for example, Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo by Richard Gombrich). Khiikiat (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is going to be tricky to determine. While the book uses the diacritic, even the publisher's webpage for the book doesn't. It does raise another question though. Would Theravada Buddhism (or Theravāda Buddhism) be a more natural form of reference to the subject? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Theravāda Buddhism would be a better title for the article than Theravāda. The publisher's failure to spell the title of Gombrich's book correctly doesn't really prove anything. It's just diacritical laziness. Khiikiat (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't prove anything; I was thinking more about how this could lead to incorrect conclusions from glancing at Google results. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the diacritic form is not the COMMONNAME. Neutral on including "Buddhism" in the title. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Theravāda is the correct spelling. Le Duan is more common than Lê Duẩn, but the article (a good one) is entitled Lê Duẩn because that is the correct spelling. Khiikiat (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move. The current title is common and concise, and correct by our article naming policy. Redirects from the other possibilities already exist. The only problem to solve is to stop edits like this one that just muddy the waters. Hopefully this RM will help to bring stability. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How did I "muddy the waters"? I changed the redirect because I had already moved the page from Theravada to Theravāda. Changing the redirect was the right thing to do. Khiikiat (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was just one link in a chain of well-intended but misguided actions, and I see no point in untangling them. This RM is the right way to go to sort it all out. Thank you for raising it. Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.