Modern Thai Forest Buddhism may not be Buddhasasana

[Zans]

@bksubhuti

Basically, when you ask this question, you are distrusting what we have

I think I completely misinterpreted this question. Based on these replies, I wasn’t even asking what they’re answering lol! My mistake! Apologies for my lack of clarity, and failure to properly interpret the question.

I was essentially thinking it meant, and was asking: What existing modern traditions of Buddhism hold the orthodox/classical position of keeping the commentaries, and entire Pali Canon, including the Abhidhamma, as authoritative?

I meant, for example, what are the names of groups, lineages, traditions (I’m not sure what words to use), that hold these as authoritative.

Thus, the EBT stuff is necessarily excluded from even being considered, ditto for all the other modern groups that throw out the commentaries and Abhidhamma.

@bksubhuti

Classical Theravada does not concern itself with these fringe groups.

I was essentially asking what groups are not concerned with these fringe groups, through virtue of accepting the commentaries and Abhidhamma as authoritative.

@RobertK

As far as I can tell I have good trust in the suttas and Commentaries. I have many friends who do too- see my recent thread about my trip to Bangkok.
If a teacher deviates from the tradition or is in conflict with the Commentary then that would be a red flag for me although I could still appreciate, possibly, the parts of their teaching that is useful.

Agree 100%.

[Trobinson465]

@Zans

I was essentially thinking it meant, and was asking: What existing modern traditions of Buddhism hold the orthodox/classical position of keeping the commentaries, and entire Pali Canon, including the Abhidhamma, as authoritative?

I meant, fore example, what are the names of groups, lineages, traditions (I’m not sure what words to use), that hold these as authoritative.

I would say almost all existing Theravada schools (including most of Thai forest) take these as authoratative. It would be easier to name the ones who dont: Buddhadasa’s lineage, secular Buddhists, EBT and Suttanta afaik.

[Zans]

Thanks. I was under the impression Thai Forest generally doesn’t hold them as authoritative? Is this just an issue with Western Theravada, and in Theravada majority countries they are generally orthodox?

[Trobinson465]

The doubting of the commentaries and certain canonical texts such as the jataka or abhidhamma is a largely modern western phenonenon from my understanding, except for Buddhadasa in Thailand. Western followers of the TFT have sometimes adopted such views and thats why you see such at western Thai forest centers sometimes. AFAIK Thai forest tradition temples that are actually thai culturally and are not western centers that are simply influenced or traced to the TFT lineage do not deny the authority of the theravada canonical texts or commentaries for the most part.