The only reason for the huge diversity of viewpoints in Theravada is its historical connection to the Buddha

Lounge
1

There is a school of Buddhism for virtually every view one may have.

For the “all is mind” people there is Yogacara, Zen, and plenty of others.

For the “nothing exists” people there is Madhyamaka and others.

For the “we have souls and want to live forever” people there are Tathatagharba focused schools that interpret that teaching as such, Pure Land, and others.

And so on.

Yet, for some reason all of them are found on almost every Theravada discussion group.

Why is this?

It’s entirely because Theravada is generally agreed upon to be the currently existing school with the most direct connection to the historical Buddha.Thus, it has a draw of authenticity no other school does. So, people who would otherwise be on a Mahayana forum are here, where they overlay their non Theravada views onto Theravada scripture. I am certain most don’t realize this, but it’s quite clearly the case.

I’m old enough to remember when Zen was all the rage, and other Mahayana schools, and Theravada was considered archaic or simply unknown by many. The wild, riddling, exciting Mahayana teachings and iconoclast teachers were seen as the ideal schools to get into.

Then the internet happened and became widely available and full of information over time. It connected people all over the world with scholarly information and suddenly we all were aware that the Mahayana teachings have no direct connection to the historical Buddha, and only Theravada does. And, boom! Theravada is hot. And suddenly all Mahayana views are apparently within Theravada! Previously rare, niche views within Theravada are now extremely common. Anywhere you look you find plenty of Theravadins that believe things that, 50 years ago, would have been extremely rare among Theravadins.

To be clear this is not any negative statement against other schools nor people who like them. This is about human nature and desire for authenticity. I should know the process, I was one of these people, and I certainly don’t feel negative about myself over it. I was into Zen, and other Mahayana schools, then discovered Theravada, overlayed Mahayana onto it, and finally realized what I was doing and became Classical Theravada. Even where I still may be interested in non Classical Theravada ideas I am very careful to not lump them together.

For the rest who weren’t consciously aware of this process it still influenced them. They sincerely don’t even see that they’re overlaying non Theravada ideas onto the school and probably never will. They believe that Theravada really does teach that all is mind and we have souls/eternal consciousness, nothing exists, or whatever. They believe there is zero influence on them from Mahayana. And that’s fine. But the sheer odds that this is true are infinitesimally low. It would be a profound coincidence for them to somehow have a view that is unique among Theravada (at least traditionally), and identical to Mahayana, without any influence at all. There, of course, are exceptions. Some believe in souls/eternal consciousness due to unrelated religions or philosophies, and an extremely rare few surely believe in these things for other reasons. But, the vast majority are influenced by Mahayana in some way or another and drawn to Theravada with these Mahayana views in tow due to Theravada’s unparalleled claim to authenticity.

Something similar actually has already happened with Zen and Mahayana itself. When we look at older books about Buddhism and see that many do shoehorn ideas onto Zen that are entirely foreign to it. It became a catch all for whatever people wanted to jam into it. “Zen and the art of golf, business, negotiation,” and many others were everywhere back when Zen was hot. It was also combined with theism, and plenty of other things.

It would happen to any school. If some other school, like Huayan, for example, was agreed upon by modern scholarship to be the school most historically likely to be directly connected to the Buddha then that school would be the one that people from unrelated traditions would flock to. They would then reinterpret its teachings to be about their own personal positions, and those from other schools. For example, in this alternate reality, a previous Theravadin might go to a forum for Huayan. They would declare that they are Huayan and that Huayan teachings support a down to earth, realist position. They would claim that, bafflingly, and inexplicably, even the Huayan teachings that say, “All is mind” don’t mean that. Rather, they mean, “All is not mind,” and support a realist worldview. They would reinterpret Huayan teachings about Nirvana to be identical to Theravada Nibbana, and so on. And all the while the traditional Huayan people would be bewildered by these bizarre views.

However, it is not bewildering when we see it for what it is: natural human tendency to seek authenticity and inability to let go of views not found in the authentic source.

It’s people thinking, consciously or unconsciously, “I have this view. It agrees 100% with school A. However the authentic school, school B, doesn’t have this. I want to be within the authentic school. Wait, if I look at it like this then it IS in the authentic school B!” Then it snowballs as others do the same.

1 Like
2

Me, I haven’t noticed the same trends you are talking about. I don’t agree that religious affiliations change as quickly as you’re suggesting (within a few decades).

It’s more to do with geography: in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka it’s all Theravada, and further north it’s all Mahayana.

These things have changed over time, but not in living memory.

3

Nama and rupa are the same - a view (Diṭṭhi).

4

I think we are lucky we live in an age when you can see and experience all the genus and species of Buddhism and have access to the history that can lead you back to the beginning if you want to make an effort to follow it back just like evolutionary taxonomy.

Humans have their own leanings and views and join together because of a common element but they never achieve unanimity.

The great thing about the Buddha was that he warned us that people would keep adding things until the Dhamma disappeared. No other religious leader has pre-warned like that. That shows a deep understanding of impermanence and our minds are pretty easy deluded.

But things don’t miraculously change and we likely have all those wrong views in our own past lives to contend with.

If you look at quantum physics you will find all the metaphysical schools of buddhism in it in another form. There are only so many permutation and combinations of logic that can be run out. You will also see that abhidhamma is a quantum system.

So I was at Pa Auk when the Mahayana monks first started coming there. One told me that in Taiwan they had all these books and study but the methods of original meditation had been lost and they came to Myanmar to find out about them. Pa Auk Sayadaw went to Taiwan and those Taiwanese monks and donors paid for a a lot of things at Pa Auk they had a lot of financial support coming from a wealthier nation. They paid to publish Pa Auk Sayadaw’s 3500 page treastise in Burmese that explains his method in visuddhimagga style detail. It took him 10 years to write it by hand and I was part of the process that got it published in Taiwan and then sent back to Myanmar. We could not get permission to have it published in Myanmar. Which is a long story in itself.

I wrote the talks that Sayadaw gave in Taiwan on his first trip based on stuff I was already translating of his and with some new stuff that he explained to me and then I wrote the talk and he checked and corrected it.

One of the keys to this is as I said lots of bookish knowledge in Taiwan and yet a loss of practical meditation practice.

Evolution of buddhist practises and thoughts happen over time and without contact with each other the new species develop with time and transfer. The increase of contact should lead to cross fertilization to an extent. But if you have 2 humans you are likely to have 3 opinions.

2 Likes
5

How do you mean? Are you suggesting that there is no mind independent reality? Because in Classical Theravada rupa is composed of dhammas and

It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.

-Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

6

You don’t remember Zen being all the rage? And you don’t agree that it’s less popular today? And that Theravada is much more known in the West than it was decades ago? I don’t think these are opinions but rather are uncontroversial facts.

“Zen Buddhism became one of the powerful images of this religion for the Western audience… thanks to its popularity among the subcultural movements of the 1950s and 1970s.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382847643_PHILOSOPHICAL_AND_CULTURAL_TRENDS_OF_BUDDHISM_IN_THE_WEST_THERAVADA_MAHAYANA_VAJRAYANA

Yet in more recent times studies are skewed away from Zen dramatically “37% of the Zen studies, and 75% for mindfulness meditation. Mindfulness is clearly the method currently receiving significant research attention.”

And early there was no Theravada info widely available. Then accesstoinsight came online in 1993 and grew exponentially over time. Buddhist publication Society in the mid to late nineties, dhammawheel around 2007, suttacentral mid 2000’s, dharmaseed mid 2000’s, Vippasana research mid 2000’s, Insight Meditation Center mid 2000’s, the list goes on.

Theravada conclusively can be viewed becoming visible online rapidly in recent times.

1 Like
7

All is mind - is a (understandable) view (to let go - and as you said no view which is taught by people who call themselves Theravadin - at least I did not encounter this until now)

The concept a world independent (or separated) from consciousness and the mind would represent another extreme standpoint*.*

8

I think there has definitely been an emphasis shift toward Theravāda in western circles over time.

R

1 Like
9

Well then by your statement Classical Theravada is an extreme standpoint because that’s what our system holds as ultimate reality. The dhammas are mind independent and exist from their own side.

10

I believe there are certainly points of reference within the Theravada teachings for the stance you have presented. However, there are also indications—particularly in the discourses—not to insist on the view that mind and matter are entirely separate spheres. For an inexperienced person, such a distinction could lead to the simplistic notion: world and self (the mind?) are two different entities.

Furthermore, this would imply that forms could not truly be perceived if they were so completely separate from or independent of the mind. Likewise, the body and its senses could not function as a condition for the corresponding consciousness. In that case, the Buddha’s explanations would cease to make sense.

I therefore assume that this view—mind and world are completely separate spheres that do not interlock or influence one another—is either a view in need of clarification, or a distinction I have interpreted too strictly, which you perhaps did not intend to draw in such a way.

11

It’s pretty well known. Classical Theravada is a realist school. There is no conflict, nor any of the ostensible paradoxes you suggest. The dhammas exist and can be perceived by mind. The dhammas also exist regardless of whether they are perceived or not. They exist from their own side. Classical Theravada is not phenomenalism where only perceptions exist and so matter only exists when observed. And obviously it isn’t idealism either. It’s realism.

Of note, the suttas are also realist. The Buddha explicitly stated matter exists, that the eye and rupa both exist even absent consciousness, and that the external world, including even distant visible objects like stars, exists for the blind.

Further, per the Buddha’s system, if external reality was not mind independent we could not be conscious of the world at all. For example, the material, unconscious eye must make contact with unconscious material external reality before consciousness can even arise at all. So if there were no objective reality we would be senseless.

What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas
is a critical realism, one which (unlike idealism) recognises
the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject
yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that
truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that
owe their being to the act of cognition itself.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, page 38

dhamma theory is best described as dhamma realism
-The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality
By Y. Karunadasa, chapter 2

This theory ensures that the object of direct and immediate
perception is not an object of mental interpretation but something that is
ultimately real.
-Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 149.

Thus the Theravādins were able to establish the theory
of direct perception of the external object despite their recognizing the
theory of momentariness.
-Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, page 146

"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters. The whole Buddhist practical doctrine and discipline, which has the attainment of Nibbana as its final goal, is based on the recognition of the material world and the conscious living beings living therein.
Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 14, 172

It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…
…
Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…

…

…the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as “things which bear their own intrinsic nature” (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).
…
…concretely produced matter…possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.
…
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260

They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing (dháraóa) their own characteristics
and owing to their so bearing (dháraóa) for the length of the moment appropriate
to them.39
39. This alludes to the length of duration of a moment of matter’s existence, which is
described as seventeen times as long as that of consciousness (see Vibh-a 25f.).
-Visuddhimagga XI.104

If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.” “Now there comes a time when the external water element is disturbed. It carries away villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries.”
-MN 28

Student, suppose there were a man born blind who could not see dark and light forms, who could not see blue, yellow, red, or carmine forms, who could not see what was even and uneven, who could not see the stars or the sun and moon. He might say thus: ‘There are no dark and light forms, and no one who sees dark and light forms; there are no blue, yellow, red, or carmine forms, and no one who sees blue, yellow, red, or carmine forms; there is nothing even and uneven, and no one who sees anything even and uneven; there are no stars and no sun and moon, and no one who sees stars and the sun and moon. I do not know these, I do not see these, therefore these do not exist.’ Speaking thus, student, would he be speaking rightly?”

“No, Master Gotama. There are dark and light forms, and those who see dark and light forms…there are the stars and the sun and moon, and those who see the stars and the sun and moon. Saying, ‘I do not know these, I do not see these, therefore these do not exist,’ he would not be speaking rightly.”

“So too, student, the brahmin Pokkharasāti is blind and visionless.
-MN 99

And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists."
-SN 22.94

Bhikkhus, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on the eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.:
-SN 35.93

A given instance of perceptual consciousness is said to arise only in dependence upon two conditions: the sense organ and its corresponding object-field. This implies that perceptual consciousness arises only in conjunction with an appropriate and existent object; perceptual consciousness of a nonexistent object or without an object is, therefore, impossible.
-Disputed Dharmas
Early Buddhist Theories on Existence
An Annotated Translation
of the Section on Factors Dissociated from Thought
from Sanghabhadra’s Nyayanusara
Collett Cox
p 136-137

Tejo is the element of heat. Cold is also a form of tejo.
Both heat and cold are included in tejo because they possess the power of maturing bodies. Tejo, in other words, is
the vitalizing energy. Preservation and decay are also due
to this element. Unlike the other three essentials of matter,
this element has the power to regenerate matter by itself.
-Narada Thera, A Manual of Abhidhamma p 319

All form is that which is…

void of idea,
neither feeling, nor perception, nor synthesis,
disconnected with thought,”
“form exists which is not due to karma having been wrought”

-Dhammasangani 2.2.3

Points of Controversy
9.3 Of Matter as Subjective
Controverted Point: Whether matter should be termed subjective or objective.

Theravādin: If that is so, you must also affirm of matter or body, that it has the mental features of “adverting”, ideating, reflecting, co-ordinated application, attending, willing, anticipating, aiming—things which you would, on the contrary, deny of matter.

All, or any of them you can rightly affirm of mental properties, such as contact (mental reaction), feeling, perception, volition, cognition, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, understanding, lust, hate, illusion, conceit, erroneous opinion, doubt, mental inertia, distraction, immodesty, indiscretion—all of which you admit as subjective. But matter is not one of these, and therefore such things may not be affirmed of it.

You deny in the case of matter all those mental features—adverting, etc.—but claim for it the term “subjective”, which is really applicable to “contact”, sensation, etc. These, as you admit, do not lack those mental features named.

…

1 Like
13

I created the text above with the help of an AI. This is not intended to overshadow the care and caution I exercised throughout the process. All essential explanations and arguments, therefore, do not merely originate from an AI. I would be more than happy to address the arguments presented in my native language (German). In the spirit of a friendly exchange about the Dhamma, as well as about suffering and the cessation of suffering.

Kind regards, pops

14

Zen is actually a fairly small minority even in Japan, where Pure Land and Nichiren are far more influential.

China is a complex one to assess: it may have the largest Zen/Chan population. But Chinese culture doesn’t neatly divide sects the way a stats book would: they don’t worry themselves about whether they’re Chan or something else. (Same in Japan, indeed: many Shinto adherents are Buddhists too.) You could make the case that Chan has waned since 2012 with the changes in that great country, but that’s also pretty questionable.

15

while we allow Ai translations of pali texts, members composing Ai posts is not permitted (editing posts for grammar and so on is ok with ai).. Also please be very careful that you do not promote any non-Theravada ideas here.

17

Ok. The only issue at hand is: Classical Theravada and the suttas themselves are realist. External reality is mind independent. By “mind independent” I mean things like trees, the moon, rocks, and so on continue existing even when no one is observing them. They existed before humans did. These and other things exist in outer space, too, where no one is around to observe them. External reality does not rely on humans for its existence.

If you have some other position on reality, such as idealism, where external reality is imaginary, or phenomenalism, where external reality is purely sensory and does not exist outside human perception, that is not Theravada.

The only German quote I know of is,

"Wer an allem zweifeln wollte, der würde auch nicht bis zum Zweifel kommen. Das Spiel des Zweifelns selbst setzt schon die Gewißheit voraus.”

-Ludwig Von Wittgensten, On Certainty, 115

That’s very relevant because if you can’t be certain that reality exists independent of your mind you cannot even form a coherent argument. This is because if reality did NOT exist independently of your mind your argument would disappear the moment you close your eyes. Thus, we all assume reality is mind independent. Even philosophers who preach idealism and such assume this, else they wouldn’t bother preaching. Things existing is axiomatic to all philosophy. Period. There are no exceptions. The only philosophers who manage without axiomatic existence are those who do not have a position at all, such as Ajnana and Pyrrhonists. In other words, one may say, “I don’t know whether external things exist or not, I have no position.”

However, one may never say, “I know external things do not exist. They are purely imaginary.” as such would be incoherent and self refuting. This is because the words of the speaker, the person listening, the computer on which the statement is typed, the world, the universe, everything would not exist. Then what they really said is, “I know that this sentence does not exist,” which is incoherent nonsense.