Theravada (Pali language: thera "elders" + vada "word, doctrine") means the "Doctrine of the Elders." [The "elders" are the first disciples -- enlightened monks and nuns -- of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama.]
NOTE: "Theravada" in American English is pronounced "terra vodda" becuase the "th" sound in Pali is pronounced like the "th" combination in "hothouse."
"Theravada" is the name for the school of Buddhism that draws its scriptural inspiration from the Pali canon, or Tipitaka ["Three Baskets" containing the sutras, monastic discipline, and Higher Teaching], which scholars generally accept as the oldest record of the Buddha's Teachings or Dharma.
For many centuries, Theravada has been the predominant religion of Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia; today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide. In recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West -- primarily in Europe, Australia, and the United States.
The many names of Theravada
The Buddha addresses the Five Ascetics and sets rolling the Wheel of the Dharma.
Theravada Buddhism goes by many names. The Buddha himself called the spiritual movement he founded Dhamma-Vinaya, "the Doctrine and Discipline," in reference to the two fundamental aspects of the system of ethical and spiritual training he taught.
Owing to its historical dominance in southern Asia (India/Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos), Theravada is also identified as "Southern Buddhism." By contrast "Northern Buddhism" migrated north from India/Afghanistan into Tibet, China, Japan, Korean, Mongolia, Siberia, Russia (the USSR's Central Asian "stans" and North Asia).
Theravada is sometimes misidentified as "Hinayana" (the "Lesser Vehicle"), in contradistinction to the self-proclaimed "Mahayana" (the "Great Vehicle"), which is usually a synonym for Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, Ch'an, and other expressions of Chinese Buddhism.
But the use of "Hinayana" as a pejorative insult has its origins in earlier schisms within the monastic community that ultimately led to the emergence of what would later become Hindu-influenced Mahayana.
Today, however, scholars of every Buddhist (and non-Buddhist) persuasion often use the term "Hinayana" without pejorative intent [-- and attempt to attach it to Theravada as the only remaining early school. The actual Hinayana schools all, such as the Sarvastivada, all went extinct.]
Pali (not Sanskrit): the language of Theravada
Students help revive ancient Pali language in modern India (indiatimes.com).
.
The language of the Theravada canonical texts is Pali, a relative of Magadhi, the language probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time. Most of the sutras the Buddha delivered were memorized by Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and close personal attendant.
Shortly after the Buddha's final-nirvana around 480 BCE, the monastic community -- including Ananda -- convened to recite all the sutras they had heard during the Buddha's 45 years of teaching.
Each recorded discourse therefore begins with the indicator/disclaimer, Evam me sutam -- "Thus have I heard." The teachings were passed down within the monastic community following a well-established oral tradition. By about 100 BCE the Tipitaka was first fixed in writing in Sri Lanka by Sinhalese scribe-monks.
Of course, it can never be proven that the Pali canon contains the actual words uttered by the historical Buddha (and there is ample evidence to suggest that much of the canon does not). The wisdom the canon contains has nevertheless served for centuries as an indispensable guide for millions of followers in their quest for enlightenment or awakening from delusion and dream-like suffering.
Many students of Theravada find that learning the Pali language -- mainly just a little bit here and there -- greatly deepens their understanding of the Buddha's path of practice toward the realization of nirvana in this very life.
A brief summary of the Buddha's Teachings
What follows is a brief synopsis of some of the key teachings of Theravada Buddhism, leaving out a great deal, but leaving in enough that even this much will be enough to get one started on the way of investigation and exploration.
Shortly after his great awakening, the Buddha ("the Awakened One") delivered his first discourse, in which he laid out the essential framework upon which all later teachings were based. It consists of the Four Noble Truths, four fundamental principles of nature (Dharma) that emerged from the Buddha's penetrating assessment of the human (and deva) condition that serve to define the entire scope of Buddhist practice.
These ennobling truths are not fixed dogmatic principles, but living experiences to be explored individually in the heart of the sincere spiritual seeker:
1. The Noble Truth of [the Truth of] dukkha (disappointment, unsatisfactoriness, suffering, distress): life is fundamentally fraught with unsatisfactoriness and disappointment of every description.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of dukkha: the cause of our dissatisfaction is craving (tanha) in all its forms.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of dukkha: an end to all that unsatisfactoriness can be found through the relinquishment and abandonment of craving.
4. The Noble Truth of the Path leading to the cessation of dukkha: there is a way of achieving the end of all unsatisfactoriness, namely the Noble Eightfold Path.
To each of these Four Noble Truths the Buddha prescribed a specific task the practitioner can carry out: the first Noble Truth is to be comprehended; the second abandoned; the third realized; the fourth developed.
The full realization of the third Noble Truth paves the way for the direct penetration (personal experience) of nirvana, the transcendent freedom (liberation, deliverance, emancipation, release, moksha) that stands as the final goal of all of the Buddha's varied teachings.
The ultimate Noble Truth -- the Path -- contains a prescription for the relief of all unhappiness and for our directly experienced release, once and for all, from the painful and wearisome cycle of rebirth and death (samsara) to which -- through our own ignorance (avijja) of the Four Noble Truths -- we have been bound for countless aeons. CONTINUED IN PART 2
Dr. W. Rahula (Gems of Buddhist Wisdom, additional editing by WQ)
.
What is the difference between Mahayana [the Buddhist school prevalent in China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, and Vietnam] and Theravada [the Buddhist school prevalent in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos]? To put things in perspective, let us turn to the history of Buddhism and trace the emergence and development of Mahayana and Theravada.
History The Buddha was born in the 6th Century B.C. From the attainment of enlightenment at the age of 35 until his final nirvana at the age of 80, he spent his life teaching. He was energetic: for 45 years he taught day and night, sleeping for about two hours a day.
The Buddha spoke to all kinds of people: kings, farmers, beggars, brahmins, wanderers, and ordinary everyday people. His discourses were tailored to the experience, understanding, and mental capacity of his audience. What he taught was called Buddha-Vacana, that is, “the word of the Buddha.” There was nothing called Theravada or Mahayana at that time.
After establishing the Order of monks and nuns, the Buddha set down disciplinary and procedural rules called the Vinaya to the guide the Order. The remainder of his Teaching was called the Dharma, which included discourses, sermons, and sayings to monastics and lay people.
The First Council Three months after the Buddha’s final nirvana, his immediate disciples convened a council in Rajagaha, India. Maha Kassapa, the most respected and elderly monk, presided over that council. Two very important Great Disciples (mahatheras) who specialized in the two distinct areas of the Teaching (the Dharma and the Vinaya) were present. The first was Ananda, the Buddha’s closest companion and disciple over the preceding 25 years. Endowed with a remarkable memory (even in an age of remarkable memories), Ananda was able to recite all the discourses the Buddha had uttered. [When sutras begin “Thus have I heard,” Ananda is that “I” and he made this statement in front of the First Council of enlightened elders]. The other monastic was Upali, who had committed all of the Discipline to memory.
Only these two sections, Discourses and Discipline, were recited at the First Council. Although there were no differences of opinion on the Dharma (no mention was yet made of the Abhidharma, “Higher Teaching,” the metaphysical and psychological explanations), there was some discussion about the Rules.
Before the Buddha’s was to pass into nirvana, he told Ananda that if the Order wished to amend or modify some “minor” rules after his passing, they could do so. But on that occasion Ananda, overpowered by grief on hearing of the Buddha’s impending passing, it did not occur to him to ask what the “minor” rules were.
As the members of the First Council were unable to agree as to what constituted those minor rules, Maha Kassapa finally ruled that no disciplinary rule laid down by the Buddha should be changed and that no new ones should be introduced. No intrinsic reason was given. Maha Kassapa did say one thing, however: “If we changed the rules, people would say that Ven. Gautama’s disciples changed them even before his funeral pyre had gone out.”
At the First Council, the Dharma was divided into various sections, and each section was assigned to an Elder (a Thera) and his pupils to commit to memory. The Dharma (or “Teaching,” the Vada) was then passed on from teacher to pupil orally.
.
The Dharma was recited daily by groups of monastics who often cross checked each other to ensure that no omissions or additions were made. Historians agree that an oral tradition is more reliable than a report written by one person from memory several years later.
The Second Council One-hundred years later, a Second Council was held to discuss some Rules. There was no need to change the Rules three months after the final passing of the Buddha because little to no political, economic, or social changes took place during that short interval. But a century later, some monastics saw the need to change certain minor rules. The orthodox Order said that nothing should be changed, while others insisted on modifying some Rules.
.
Finally, a group of monks left the Second Council and formed the Mahasanghika, the “Great Community.” Even though it was called the Mahasanghika, it was not known as “Mahayana.” During the Second Council, only matters pertaining to the Rules were discussed, and no controversy whatsoever about the Teaching is reported.
The Third Council In the 3rd Century B.C.E., during the reign of Emperor Asoka, the Third Council was held to discuss the differences of opinion among the monks of [18] different sects that had arisen. By the Third Council the differences were not confined to the Rules but were also connected with the Teaching. At the end of the Third Council, the president of the council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book he called Kathavatthu refuting the heretical, false views and theories held by some sects.
.
The Teaching approved and accepted by the Third Council was known as Theravada -- the “Teaching of the Elders” or what the Buddha’s original-hearers (those Theras) had rehearsed and passed down through the students dedicated to memorizing, reciting, and cross checking the various sections of the Dharma. The Abhidharma collection -- the Higher Teaching, that is, the philosophical commentaries and metaphysical treatises as distinct from the bare discourses -- was also included at the Third Council.
After the Third Council, Asoka’s son, Venerable Mahinda, brought the Three Collections (Tripitaka: Teaching, Rules, and Abhidharma) to Sri Lanka, along with the commentaries and explanations which were recited at the Third Council. The texts brought to Sri Lanka were preserved to the present day without losing a single page. The texts were written in the Pali language, which was based on the Magadhi dialect spoken by the Buddha. There was still nothing known as “Mahayana.”
The Coming of Mahayana Between the 1st Century B.C.E. to the 1st Century A.D., the two terms Mahayana (the “Great Vehicle”) and Hinayana (the “Inferior Vehicle”) appeared in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra, the “Discourse of the Lotus of the Good Law.”
About the 2nd Century A.D., Mahayana became clearly defined. Nagarjuna developed the Mahayana philosophy of Sunyata (Emptiness or nonexistence) and proved that everything is Void [devoid of personality or identity] in a small text called the Madhyamika Karika.
.
About the 4th Century, Asanga and Vasubandhu wrote many additional works on Mahayana.
After the 1st Century AD., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then were the opposing terms Mahayana and Hinayana introduced and propagated, the latter as a foil or strawman for the former. [Mahayana teachings were a criticism of those now defunct Indian sects (not of Theravada) particularly the Sarvastivada School, which taught the theory that all exists].
Therefore, one must not confuse Hinayana with “Theravada,” the Teaching of the Elders, because the terms are not synonymous. Theravada Buddhism had gone to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C.E. when there was no Mahayana at all. Hinayana schools [among the 18 sects that had] developed in India [200 years after the Buddha’s passing] and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka.
Today there is no “Hinayana” sect or school in existence anywhere in the world.
Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo, Sri Lanka unanimously decided that the term “Hinayana” should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc. [sometimes referred to as “Southern Buddhism”].
This is the brief history of Theravada, Mahayana, and Hinayana.
Mahayana and Theravada Now, then, what can be said of the difference between Mahayana and Theravada?
I have studied Mahayana for many years, and the more I study it the more I find there is hardly any difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regard to the fundamental Teaching.
Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the teacher.
The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
The Eightfold Path (to enlightenment) is exactly the same in both schools.
The teaching of Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
Both reject the idea of a supreme being who creats and governs this world.
Both accept the teachings of Impermance, Unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha), Impersonality (Anatta) as well as Morality, Concentration, and Wisdom without any difference.
These are the most important teachings of the Buddha, and they are all accepted by both schools without question.
Differences There are also, however, some points of difference, or at least of emphasis. An obvious one is the “Bodhisattva ideal.” Many people say that Mahayana is for a Bodhisattvahood that will lead to Buddhahood, while Theravada is for Arahantship (immediate enlightenment as taught by the Buddha). I must point out that the Buddha was an arahant (an enlightened one). A Nonteaching (Prateka or Pacceka) Buddha is also an arahant.
A disciple can also be an arahant. Mahayana texts never use the term “Arahant-yana,” the Arahant Vehicle. Instead, Mahayanists use three terms: Bodhisattva-yana, Prateka-Buddha-yana, and Sravaka-yana (the Bodhisattva-vehicle, the Nonteaching-Buddha vehicle, and the Disciple-vehicle). In the Theravada tradition these three are called Bodhis.
Some people mistakenly imagine that Theravada Buddhism is “selfish” because it teaches (what the historical Buddha taught) that people should diligently work towards their own salvation without helping others. But how could a selfish person ever gain enlightenment? (It would be impossible because selfishness precludes the compassion and wisdom necessary for realizing the truth that leads to enlightenment and the liberation of nirvana). Both schools accept the three Yanas or Bodhis and consider Bodhisattvahood the ideal, the highest.
The difference is Mahayana Buddhism has created many mystical Bodhisattvas, while Theravada Buddhism considers a “bodhisattva” a person among us who devotes his or her entire life to the attainment of perfection, ultimately attaining buddhahood [enlightenment] for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of the world.
Types of Buddhahood
There are three types of Buddha:
Samma Sambuddha (a supremely enlightened one), who gains full enlightenment [by perfecting ten qualities and gaining the magical ability to teach] by one’s own effort alone
Pacceka Buddha who is fully, independently enlightened but has not developed the Ten Perfections to a lesser degree than the Samma Sambuddha [and therefore is not skilled in showing others the way to enlightenment], and the
Savaka Buddha who is an arahant-disciple of a perfectly enlightened Buddha.
The nirvana of the three types is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities (paramitas,paramis, or perfections) and capacities which are useful in teaching than the other two types.
Emptiness Some people think that the Voidness (Sunyata) discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. However, it is based on the Buddha’s teaching of Impersonality (anatta) or no-self and Dependent Origination, both found in the original Theravada, Pali language texts.
On one occasion Ananda asked the Buddha, “People say the word Void. What is Void (Sunya)?” The Buddha replied, “Ananda, there is no self, nor anything belonging to a self in the world. Therefore, the world is empty.”
This idea was used by Nagarjuna, who wrote the small remarkable book, Madhyamika Karika.
Apart from the idea of Voidness, the concept of the “store-consciousness” in Mahayana Buddhism also has its seed in Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have simply developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.
PHOTOS: Map showing distribution of the two Buddhist schools (Feng Shui Times); the Buddha sending out the first Buddhist missionaries (who were arahant-savakas or "enlightened disciples"); modern day Theravada monks on almsround in Sri Lanka; ornate and elaborate golden Bodhisattva (Nepal); Theravada Sangha (Order) living as simply as the Buddha originally set out (Kare Lie); Mahayana-Vajrayana Sangha in front of many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas on an altar (thubtenchodron.com); anthropomorphic depiction of a Bodhisattva of "perfect wisdom."
Edited by WQ with parenthetical explanations added to original
Ther-a-va-da (\terra-VAH-dah\) means the "Teaching of the Elders." The "elders" (male theras and female theris) are the enlightened direct disciples of the historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama.
This school of Buddhism is based on the Ti-pitaka("Threefold Collection" of sutras and texts), the Pali language canon, which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the historical Buddha's teachings [Note 1].
For many centuries, Theravada has been the predominant Buddhist tradition of continental Southeast Asia (Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, and Laos) and Sri Lanka, those countries surrounding ancient India.
Today, Theravada Buddhists number well over 100 million worldwide [2]. In recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West.
Many Buddhisms, one Dharma-Vinaya
The Buddha — or "Awakened One" — called the teaching revealed the Dharma-Vinaya, "the Doctrine and Discipline" leading to awakening or enlightenment and complete liberation (nirvana).
To provide a social structure supportive of the practice of Dharma-Vinaya, or Dharma (PaliDhamma) for short, and to preserve these teachings for humans and devas (light beings), the Buddha established the monastic order of monks and nuns — the Sangha ("Community") — which continues to this day to pass the teachings on to subsequent generations.
As the Dharma continued its spread across ancient pre-India after the Buddha's passing into final nirvana, differing interpretations of the original teachings arose. This led to schisms within the monastic community and the emergence of as many as 18 distinct schools or sects of Buddhism [3].
One of these schools eventually gave rise to a reform movement that called itself Mahayana (the "Great Vehicle" [4]). It disparagingly referred to all other Buddhist schools as inferior Hinayana ("Lesser Vehicle") schools.
They all went extinct, and Theravada is a revival of the original teachings of the historical Buddha, a getting back to basics of what the Buddha taught. It is not one of the early non-Mahayana schools [5].
But it is often treated as such because it is closer to them than the very Hindu-influenced syncretism that is Mahayana, which amounts to a kind of Asian Catholicism, Christianity, or Krishna-centric Hinduism hybrid.
To avoid the pejorative and incorrect assumption that Theravada is a Hinayana school, the terms Lesser Vehicle and Great Vehicle are avoided. More neutral language distinguishes these two branches of Buddhism.
Because Theravada historically dominated Southern Asia, it is sometimes nicknamed "Southern Buddhism," while Mahayana, which migrated northwards from Central Asia and India into China, Tibet, Japan, and Korea, is loosely called "Northern" Buddhism [6].
Pali: The Language of the Buddha and Theravada Buddhism
The language of the canonical Theravada texts is Pali (Magadhan, lit., "text"), which is based on a dialect of Magadhi, a Middle Indo-Aryan likely spoken in what was to become central India during the Buddha's time [7].
Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's relative and close personal attendant, committed the Buddha's sutras to memory and became a living repository of the teachings [8].
Shortly after the Buddha's passing into final nirvana (circa 480 BCE), a large number of the most senior monastics — including Ananda — convened to recite and verify all the sutras they had heard during the Buddha's 45 year teaching career or dispensation [9].
Most of these sutras therefore begin with the words Evam me sutam, "Thus have I heard." Ananda is declaring that he heard these firsthand from the Buddha himself, who either said them to an audience with Ananda present or repeated what he had said to an audience when Ananda was not present.More
1. Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction (5th edition) by R.H. Robinson, W.L. Johnson, and Ven. Thanissaro (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005), p. 46. 2. This estimate is based on faulty data appearing in CIA World Factbook 2004. South Asia's largest Theravada Buddhist populations are found in Thailand (61 million Theravadans), Burma (38 million), Sri Lanka (13 million), and Cambodia (12 million). [Over 1 billion Buddhists are left uncounted in officially communist China.] 3. Buddhist Religions, p. 46. 4. Mahayana today includes Zen, Ch'an, Nichiren, Tendai, and Pure Land Buddhism [and Vajrayana traditions of Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, Siberia, Mongolia]. 5. Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka by Ven. Nyanatiloka Mahathera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1971), pp. 60ff. 6. A third major branch of Buddhism emerged much later (ca. 8th century CE) in India: Vajrayana, the "Diamond Vehicle." Vajrayana's elaborate system of esoteric initiations, tantric rituals, and mantra recitations eventually spread north into Central and East Asia, leaving a particularly strong imprint on Tibetan Buddhism. See Buddhist Religions, pp. 124ff. and chapter 11. 7. Modern scholarship suggests that Pali was probably never spoken by the Buddha. [Because he moved to the kingdom of Magadha, he would have certainly spoken Magadhan or Magadhi Prakrit, a form of Pali.] In the centuries after the Buddha's passing, as Buddhism spread across India into regions using different dialects, Buddhist monastics increasingly depended on a common tongue for their Dharma discussions and recitations of memorized texts. It was out of this necessity that the language now known as Pali emerged. See Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction in Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1999), pp. 1ff, and n. 1 (p. 275) and "The Pali Language and Literature" by the Pali Text Society (palitext.com/subpages/lan_lite.htm, 15 April 2002). 8. Great Disciples of the Buddha by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker (Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 1997), pp. 140, 150. 9. Buddhist Religions, p. 48. 10. Brahmanism's Vedas, for example, predate the Buddha by at least a millennium (Buddhist Religions, p. 2). [They became the basis of later Hinduism or Indus-ism.]
Is racist white supremacy behind "Aryan" claims, a term Goebbels, Himmler, and Hitler appropriated from India and so abused that the term can probably never be redeemed?
According to the blog Aryan Buddhism, "Theravada [the earliest existing form of Buddhism] is Materialism, not Buddhism." What then is Buddhism? It is what the blog calls "Aryan Buddhism."
In contradiction to the suttic doctrine of Buddhism, Theravada negates a substratum of autonomy [‘natho’ KN 2.380] apart from corporeal, psycho-physical existence as per its own Abhidhamma which contradicts: [SN 2.17] “Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms) [SN 2.77],” both are heresies of Annihilationism. By positing only ephemeral matter without an animating autonomous but inchoate (unmediated) foundation (citta/mind), emancipation/illumination becomes empirical, external, and worldly; therein positing a humanistic dogma where merit making and superficial piety are the highest obtainable absolute.
The hyperinflated language only undermines what is being said. The "suttic doctrine" means the sutras or discourses (Sutta Pitaka). These are the conventional teachings of the Buddha. They differ from the higher or ultimate teachings (Abhidhamma Pitaka). One speaks conventionally of a "self," "soul," or "ego." The Buddha is frequently seen trying to disabuse a very spiritual Indian audience of this common view. Understanding the doctrine of "not-self" (anatta) is crucial to enlightenment.
Therefore, the early Buddhists compiled the Abhidharma texts that speak in absolute and ultimate terms. There is no self. What is there then? Ultimately speaking there are particles (kalapas, the characteristics of form) and mind (cittas, consciousness moments).
Five Aggregates Another approach is to explain "being" as Five Aggregates of Clinging: There is form (body, kalapas), feeling (sensation), perception (recognition), volition (mental formations, the most important of which is intention), and consciousness (cittas and cetasikas, mental factors). What we refer to as myself, yourself, an essential entity undergoing rebirth is not real in the ultimate sense [it certainly is in the conventional sense] is always in terms of the aggregates of existence. We speak of "my body, my feelings...my awareness." But if we were to look closely -- with a mind purified by "right concentration" (which the Buddha defines as a mind capable of entering the first four absorptions, jhanas, at will) -- we would not find an autonomous, independent self.
Dependent Origination We would find the other approach to explain being, namely, Dependent Origination. Our sense of self, these physical and mental aggregates (materiality and mentality) are dependent. They all arise depending on conditions. This is directly observable, directly knowable, directly open to verification. Of course, verification to our scientific culture means empirical-impersonal "data." What Buddhism, particularly the ancient meditative traditions of Theravada Buddhism, is concerned with is personal empirical "experience."
There is no dogma, nothing to take on blind faith. But that does not keep the blog from lambasting the great American scholar-monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi. Liberation is an experience. Unfortunately, for many Buddhism has become a religion to identify with rather than what the Buddha set out -- a path to practice. There is a verifiable-faith (saddha), confidence or conviction, in those who have seen this Dharma, namely the Buddha and the enlightened or aryan ("noble," "accomplished," "attained") Sangha.
Bhikkhu Bodhi (Theravada’s mouthpiece) makes implication (unfounded) that there are “mundane aggregates” as opposed to ‘supermundane’ aggregates in addition to a non-Suttic dogmatic claim that “…there is implication that there are aggregates which are anasava (taintless)”; this however is not supported by any means scripturally [SN 3.48 Footnote #65 by Bhikkhu Bodhi; Wisdom Publ. p. 1060].
The Commentaries It should be noted that Bhikkhu Bodhi rarely speculates in his translations. What he commonly does is reference and bring forward Buddhist commentarial literature, most of which has not been translated widely disseminated. If there is an implication and it is noted as such, one would do well to look at the source material, the ancient commentaries, rather than at the modern messenger.
In this way, one is easily able to follow the thread teased out over centuries. Commentarial work is not fiat (as in currency, military) -- the whimsical dictate of some authority or a specious theory constructed by an idiosyncratic commentator.
It follows a principle laid down by the Buddha, reconciling the texts regarded as authentic scripture handed down by oral tradition. That principle is laid out as a means of testing claims: Does it accord with the rest of the teaching? Question it, examine it, investigate it. Do not simply accept it on authority or dismiss it out of hand.
The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dharma can enlightenment be realized. This teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self.
Neither one monk, even a great scholar, nor one discourse can speak for an entire tradition. Theravada is rich, varied, and complex. It is a consistent view worked out by countless experiencers, redactors, and writers. It is revered by lay people and practiced by the wise who set out to see for themselves. Since the time of the Buddha it has been that there are two ways of showing reverence, adoring and practicing. The Buddha praises practice, for the one who practice is really the only one showing honor, regard, and reverence.
The only thing within sutta which is said to be “taintless” (anasava) and “without clinging” (anupadaya) is the mind (citta): [DN 2.35, MN 1.501, MN 3.20, SN 3.45, SN 4.48, SN 5.24, AN 1.240, AN 2.155, AN 3.354, AN 4.126, SN 5.233, etc.]. [AN 1.198] “The non-clinging mind (citta) which is liberated.” [MN 3.72] “And what is the Aryan taintless supranormal path? The Aryan-mind (citta), the Aryan path endowed with the taintless mind (citta).” Engaging in a Self-negation paradox and both admitting to emancipation (vimutta) but not that which obtains it, either in quantification or qualification, Theravada contradicts every tenet of Buddhism itself as found in sutta
Not to speak unkindly or uncharitably, but are the thinkers over at the Aryan Buddhism blog silly? We have to presume that they are sincere. But is their main issue the old and already settled argument between two forms of speaking? There is conventional language and ultimate (paramattha). For one lacking understanding, words seem to be contradicting one another. So the first question that has to be asked is, Are we speaking in the conventional or ultimate sense? Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth Conventionally, there IS a "self." We must improve ourselves, develop ourselves, examine ourselves, behave ourselves, help ourselves, and help others to become free of suffering and experience nirvana. But what is the nature of this "self"?
Ultimately speaking, it is empty. That is to say, it is not what it seems. What does it seem? It seems permanent. It seems capable of satisfaction. It seems personal.
But systematic meditative examination (supported by absorption) and guided by mindfulness (particularly Dependent Origination exercises) reveals that this "self" we take for granted and consider unquestionable is in fact radically impermanent (passing away at every moment both physically and mentally and in terms of the rise and fall of breath so "spiritually" but it is re-arising, not identical to what it was before, but more or less the same so that there is enough continuity to cause us to thoughtlessly and painfully cling to it components).
It is distressing.
It is impersonal -- merely a collection of aggregates dependently originated from causes that can be traced back.The causes are impersonal; the resultants are impersonal; only are assumptions and language treat it as utterly personal, the most personal thing in the world, and not components but a compact of some kind, a soul).
This is exactly what the Buddha was trying to point out as the missing understanding that leads to enlightenment and liberation from all suffering. There is, ultimately speaking, no self. The things we call a "self" are not-self. They are impersonal and devoid of a permanent-pleasant-personal animating principle. It may be impossible to believe, but it is verifiable.
And that verification is wholesome, liberating, and leads to enlightenment. The wrong view held by Vedic Brahmanism (and essentially every other religion/spiritual philosophy in the world) is that there is an eternal "soul" or that one is merely material and exists now to be annihilated at death. Both are mistaken views.
Yes, BOTH are mistaken views. Buddhism is the Middle Path that avoids these two extremes. These views are not mistaken because the Buddha spent so much time and exerted so much effort to establish people in the right view of selflessness (anatta).
They are mistaken and anyone who attains even the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) is perfectly convinced of that, has verified it, has experienced it. Life and our existence is not what it seems! The whole of Theravada Buddhism promotes this understanding -- but only if one can take the first baby step in distinguishing two forms of speaking, conventional truth and ultimate truth.
Physics and Psychology Examples The distinction is easy today. Most educated people will have heard of Newton and Newtonian physics as distinct from Quantum physics. Newtons laws -- which may or may not be true but are taken as such and used as the basis for ordinary or classical mechanics. These are the "physical laws" of how physical things operate at the level of things. So from a Newtonian view a solid table is a solid.
But, ultimately, from a Quantum perspective, that "solid" is mostly empty space. A solid table is not a solid. Contradiction! Contradiction? There is no contradiction at all. It certainly appears solid, but by definition and experiment, it is revealed to have far more space than solidity, the space being the gap between atomic particles and subatomic particles. Newtonian axioms do not apply, the math does not work, at the atomic level. When things are that small, at the level of quanta, a whole new physics, a whole new math is needed to describe and predict movement.
To give a psychological example, we may be asked to explain our motives. And we may say what we honestly think is motivating us. But an experiment reveals that we are mistaken; we are, in fact, being motivated by something else. For instance, why is a commercial effective? Why do we choose to buy something being advertised? We choose it because it is a value, we have rationally examined it as necessary or useful for us, and that decision is in line with our ethical standards, rights? Not a chance. If this were the case, commercials to be effective would talk about the ingredients and remain logical.
Effective commercials are appeals to emotion, status, irrationality. Since caveman days, women -- which have nothing to do with the item being sold -- help sell things by simply associating them with it. Today a bikini-clad beauty sits on the hood of a car as she once sat next to a wheel. If we were being rational and unemotional, this appeal would not work. It would insult us and help us see that we are being manipulated. Things appear one way, but experience reveals they are quite another. No matter what we believe, the truth is the truth. And a delusion shall not set anyone free.
...in addition to the fact that the implication that one may obtain freedom from both transmigration and suffering without positing a non-khandhic nexus for that same liberation cannot be so, either scripturaly (sic) or philosophically: [MN 1.140] “Even though I proclaim things thusly, followers, and I point out things thusly, there are recluses and brahmins who falsely, vainly, and slanderously proclaim of me: ‘The recluse Gotama is an anti-foundationalist (venayika) who preaches the annihilation (ucchedavada) of an existing being (satta) and the oblivion (vibhava) of an existing being’.” [SN 3.30] “The satta escapes the five aggregates.” [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I teach nothing but suffering’s origin and its subjugation.” The Theravada “aggregates only” heresy is found only in their 3rd century invention known as the Abhidhamma, which post-dates Buddhism’s suttas by 700+ years. [SN 3.31]
So it is good to settle the issue so easily. The Abhidharma is derived from the discourses and says the same thing -- but in ultimate terms. Just as the Buddha shows that, although we think/feel certain there is a self, soul, or ego that carries on or dies [ceases to exist] at death, BOTH views are wrong. Both are mistaken. Something carries on -- there is life after death, there is rebirth, there is the result of karma. But what carries on is not identical to what was even a moment before. We (the clung-to idea of ourselves in relation to the aggregates of clinging, whether in them, apart from them, enmeshed in them, independent of them)
“Him who finds any delight in the Five Aggregates is not one who is freed of suffering [unsatisfactoriness].” [SN-A 1.194] “Suffering is none other than the Five Aggregates.” For Theravada to posit only nama-rupa/psycho-physicality and it becoming somehow ‘purified’ is not only refuted in Buddhist sutta but is the praise of evil itself by proxy: [SN 3.195] “What venerable is Mara/Evil (‘Satan’)? The Five Aggregates are Mara.” [SN 3.195] “What venerable is the dharma of Mara/Evil (maradhamma)? The Five Aggregates are the dharma of Mara (Bhikkhu Bodhi glosses the word 'dhamma' here with 'subject to' as a dodge to the bare facts).” [SN 3.195-196] “What venerable lacks permanence, is suffering, is not the Soul? The Five Aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta [impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal].” The mere notion of somehow purifying phenomena resulting in some form of empirical and nominal perfection is negated by the very Buddhist path (magga) itself: [SN 3.61] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is for making cessation of the Five Aggregates.” The quickest way to destroy any follower in debate of this evil dogma ‘Satanism/Mara-ism’, i.e. Theravada, is to posit the question as to what they admit to other than the Five Aggregates themselves. They cannot say kamma (karma), for there cannot be karma without a karmin (carrier of said karma);
Going from silliness to nonsense, from Buddhism back to pre-Buddhist Vedic Brahmanism (as sometimes happens in Mahayana), the blog runs counter to the Buddha's teaching saying karma needs a karmin (a carrier of karma). There is a transmission of influence, but no being, no soul, no self. There is a continuity of process, but no being, no soul, no self. There are ever-changing conditional elements, particles, and moments, but no being, no soul, no self. The distinction is language, conventional versus ultimate.
In a conventional sense, there is a self, a carrier (or at least an inheritor of the results) of karma, those profitable and unprofitable deeds engaged in that bear their result. Could the Aryan Buddhism blog really be suggesting there is a self, as Mahayana suggests and as Vedic Brahmanism (as commemorated in modern Hinduism) asserts without hesitation?
nor will they admit to anything other than the aggregates themselves, which is materialism/atomism itself by definition:
Of course, Theravada does not assert that the Five Aggregates are real in an ultimate sense. They are fleeting, distressing, and empty. They lead to clinging, are themselves what is ultimately clung to, and they themselves do the clinging. There is no being asserted without reference to them. That does not make them real. Kalapas and cittas are empty. Not only do they not constitute a "self" (as in a living being), they do not constitute themselves. They bear their own nature, but that nature is conditional, fleeting, distressing, empty. A particle (kalapa) has characteristics; a particle is not the characteristics themselves. A particle, therefore, depends on characteristics. It is dependently arisen, impermanent, unpleasant, empty.
What is real? Nirvana is real. Nirvana alone is the "unconditioned element." All other elements (dhatu) are conditioned. Theravada does not assert the ultimate reality of anything but nirvana. It is true that particles and moments are what is really behind the phenomenal world we see and experience.
But they themselves do not constitute a reality that can be relied on. They are radically transient, suffering, and devoid of identity (empty, not-self, impersonal). Nothing comes into being, nothing goes out of being, other than ignorance. Suffering is based on ignorance; other than that, everything is okay right now.
“Materialism: (1) A proposition about the existent or the real: that only matter (q.v.) is existent or real; that matter is the primordial or fundamental constituent of the universe/atomism; that only sensible entities, processes, or content are existent or real; that the universe is not governed by intelligence, purpose, or final causes; that everything is strictly caused by material (inanimate, non-mental, or having certain elementary physical powers) processes or entities (mechanism); that mental entities, processes, or events (though existent) are caused solely by material entities.” [Dictionary of Philosophy; edited by D.D. Runes. Philosophical Library of N.Y. cpyrt: 1942; Philosophical Library Inc.]
To accuse Theravada of being Materialism, then to define Materialism using a non-Buddhist source when the Buddha defined the term and a Buddhist source could therefore have been used, is disingenuous. The entire argument seems based on the misunderstandings of early European and British translators of Buddhist texts who did not practice or penetrate the teaching. They therefore mistook the conventional for the ultimate. After all this time, this blog can do no better than quote outdated/refuted sources?
On countless occasions Theravada doctrine rejects Materialism, which ends in Annihilationism, just as it rejects Eternalism that posits the existence of an eternal soul, which is exactly what the Buddha and the commentators were explaining as ultimately nonexistent. Something may exist. But it does not constitute a self. It is not real. It is not worth clinging to. It is not personal.
In admitting to contingent, consubstantial, and causally composite phenomena alone,...
Which Theravada Buddhism does not do.
the Theravada become ensnared in emancipation and Witness paradoxes,...
Which Theravada does not become.
become ensnared in mediation and differentiation closed loops of the Knower of knowing, and the Seer of the seen, not to mention running contrary to the entire corpus of anti-experiential (sensory) sutta doctrine wherein the inchoate mind imbued with nescience is the axis-mundi of liberation, which when made choate (sic) [fully developed?] by jhanas and wisdom, is said: [DN2-Att. 2.479] “the light (joti) within one’s mind (citta) is the very Soul (atta).” [SN 3.25] “The Five Aggregates are indeed the burden [1st Noble Truth], the pudgala [ordinary, uninstructed worldling] is the burden carrier [the sufferer]. When taking up the burden, this (designates) suffering in the world [2nd Noble Truth], laying down the burden is blissful [3rd Noble Truth]. Having laid down the weighty burden (aggregates), and without having taken up another burden; (the pudgala) has extracted clinging and its root, this is the eternal Soul, utter Purification.” Theravada itself is a heretical remnant of a failed 3rd century Indian sect of Atomism/Materialism: “Sarvastivada: The doctrine (vada) of Hinayana [not][Theravada] Buddhism according to which "all is" [phenomena comprise totality, and is ultimately not] (sarvam asti), or all is real, that which was, currently is, and will be but now is, potentially.” [-- K.F.L.,. Dictionary of Philosophy; edited by D.D. Runes. Philosophical Library of N.Y. cpyrt: 1942; Philosophical Library Inc.].
"Lesser Vehicle" (Hinayana) is a pejorative word hurled at various defunct sects like the Sarvastivada. This term was only used by another sect that formed centuries after the Buddha and posited itself as the "Greater Vehicle" (Mahayana). Such terms are not appropriate now and do not refer to Theravada ("The Teaching of the Elders," the enlightened disciples of the Buddha). But here Theravada is being negatively compared with a defunct school.
One has to wonder what is being asserted. There is a self? All that the Buddha said -- so unpopular and unfathomable but exactly needing to be understood and penetrated in order to stop clinging and be liberated from ignorance and suffering -- is being rejected? The Buddha says there is a soul, and the soul goes on to a happy heaven called Nirvana? This is certainly a popular view. We can call that heaven the "Pure Land." We can get there by devotion and vows. We can live forever (even though we cannot live for two consecutive moments) and call ourselves Vedic Brahmins or Christians. What would be the difference?
Is it very nice if people have a sincere misunderstanding of the Awakened One's (Buddha's) profound teachings (Dharma). But it is offensive to find argument for argument's sake or to hear someone decry others' sacred beliefs or, worse, to see someone assert the superiority of one race (say, the Caucasian) over another (say, the Asian). We are not personally familiar with the "Aryan Buddhism" blog's founder. We can only hope that we have mistaken his states with his traits.
"Life is Beautiful" (La Vita è Bella)
Old Fashion Racism? Two continents meets and are separated by the Caucasus Mountains. Why would latter-day racists be ashamed of Buddhism but proud of "Aryan Buddhism."
The Buddha was aryan (a "noble one," which meant a warrior-caste royal but came to mean noble in the sense of accomplished, enlightened, purified by actions not birth). He was very likely Central Asian (not Nepalese). Central Asians (such as Afghans, Iranians, Tajiks) look white, live near the Caucasus. But they have golden skin and are more Asian than European. The Buddha went East toward South and Southeast Asia (not West toward Greece, Turkey, and Israel, not south toward Egypt, not north toward Russia or Sumeria). He was culturally "Indian" only because India was culturally dominant in his adjacent country (the Land or Province of the Shakya clan).
The Buddha was not a racist. He did not assert the superiority of any race over another. His eyes were blue, his skin golden. The Nazi/German use of the word "aryan" makes us at Wisdom Quarterly ashamed. Discovering the Buddha's Central Asian roots holds out the hope of uniting Caucasians (Whites or Pinks) and Asians (Yellows). The darkness of many Indians, then as now, holds out the hope of fully including Africans (Blacks). The very-very early appearance of Buddhism in America as well as the similarity of non-East Indian "Indians" (with Siberian, Tibetan, Mongolian roots) means Browns and Reds are included. We have the whole rainbow brotherhood of humans. Of course, the colors are only a stand-in reference to genetic "race" we, like the Nazis, imagine is a real or scientific delineator of human beings. "Race" is not a scientific term. But it is a real cultural phenomenon that gives us racism. There are cultural, national, sociological, complexion, and appearance differences, which are more individual than familial (phenotype vs. genotype), and people make mountains out of these mole hills.
As American Buddhists (speaking on behalf of everyone at Wisdom Quarterly without exception), we reject the racism of our Judeo-Christian roots, our European ancestry, our drunken fathers and scared mothers, our xenophobic CIA-sponsored US propaganda TV and "news." We embrace all living beings and accept everyone whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist. The Buddha's message has nothing to do with "race" or exclusion. All are capable of eventual enlightenment and liberation. Many are capable of it right now in this very life! No one is doomed. It is our mission to freely spread the liberating teachings to all with the eyes to see, ears to hear, heart to feel, mind to comprehend, and body to touch. Truth is truth for everyone. Believe as you like, but the ultimate Truth remains the same. And it is that truth that sets us free.
One can be assured, despite all citations to the contrary against Theravada nihilism,...
Nihilism, like Annihilationism, is a wrong view Theravada clearly rejects.
that original Buddhism did not become popular by espousing the ultimate non-existence of beings in any sense of the term,...
That is true. Buddhism gained in popularity by the Buddha's skillful means in addressing all problems. Buddhism does not limit itself to nirvana or heaven, to worldly problems or metaphysical issues. The Buddha helped everyone -- including his enemies. He condemned no one, even if he admonished some for tarnishing the message or the Sangha who are meant to preserve the teaching for the benefit of the many now and in the future.
but that him, the fool (puthujjana), has suffered “many rounds of birth/death” due to mistaking his Soul, his Self (atta) for that (phenomena) which was not-Self (anatta). Surely “Gotama the great physician” who aimed to “point out the path to freedom” was not Dr. Kevorkian who taught the end of the sufferer himself, but rather the subjugation (nirodha) of suffering’s source (tanha, desire, syn. avijja, nescience, ignorance). These are the teachings, this is Buddhism as it was; not Theravada with its suicidal ‘nothingism,’ its absolute negation of the sufferer himself, this pessimistic nihilism which the wise guffaw, and which attracts only the most ignorant and pathetic sorts of whom most would be deemed ‘clinically depressed/suicidal’ individuals caught in a world of materialism they see no escape from. -Copyright 2003 Aryasatvan
Maybe there is hope for the "Aryan Buddhism" blog. Surely Theravada could seem that way to someone who does not meditate or who does not reflect on the teachings, but merely ponders them and hammers out views by reasoning as it occurs to him. Is the author of the blog "Aryasatvan"? Are all the swastikas on the site just good luck charms with no Nazi, German, European, white supremacist connotations? We hope so. Theravada is deep. Theravada is the Middle Way. Mahayana has much to teach even if it takes a different approach. There is no irreconcilable teaching between the two main schools of thought. Few, very few, people are dogmatic scholars of either tradition. The followers follow the cues of the scholars. If the scholars fight and are full of venom, then surely the followers will bear a grudge and go at it like Protestants and Catholics. That is not the case today, and there is no reason for it to be.
Aryasatvan, "Aryan Buddhism" blog, readers, love. The answer to all questions -- as Gary from Against the Stream quotes Father Boyle -- "The answer to all questions is compassion."
Let meditation be everyone's measure of how well s/he is understanding and practicing the Buddha's twin message of wisdom and compassion.
Theravada, the "Doctrine of the Elders," is the school of Buddhism that draws its scriptural inspiration from the Tipitaka, or Pali canon, which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the Buddha's teachings.1 For many centuries, Theravada has been the predominant religion of continental Southeast Asia (Thailand, Myanmar/Burma, Cambodia, and Laos) and Sri Lanka. Today Theravada Buddhists number well over 100 million worldwide.2 In recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West.
Many Buddhisms, One Dhamma-Vinaya The Buddha — the "Awakened One" — called the religion he founded Dhamma-vinaya — "the doctrine and discipline." To provide a social structure supportive of the practice of Dhamma-vinaya (or Dhamma for short [Sanskrit: Dharma]), and to preserve these teachings for posterity, the Buddha established the order of bhikkhus (monks) and bhikkhunis (nuns) — the Sangha — which continues to this day to pass his teachings on to subsequent generations of laypeople and monastics, alike.
As the Dhamma continued its spread across India after the Buddha's passing, differing interpretations of the original teachings arose, which led to schisms within the Sangha and the emergence of as many as eighteen distinct sects of Buddhism.3 One of these schools eventually gave rise to a reform movement that called itself Mahayana (the "Greater Vehicle")4 and that referred to the other schools disparagingly as Hinayana (the "Lesser Vehicle"). What we call Theravada today is the sole survivor of those early non-Mahayana schools.5 To avoid the pejorative tone implied by the terms Hinayana and Mahayana, it is common today to use more neutral language to distinguish between these two main branches of Buddhism. Because Theravada historically dominated southern Asia, it is sometimes called "Southern" Buddhism, while Mahayana, which migrated northwards from India into China, Tibet, Japan, and Korea, is known as "Northern" Buddhism.6
Pali: The Language of Theravada Buddhism The language of the Theravada canonical texts is Pali (lit., "text"), which is based on a dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that was probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time.7 Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and close personal attendant, committed the Buddha's sermons (suttas) to memory and thus became a living repository of these teachings.8 Shortly after the Buddha's death (ca. 480 BCE), five hundred of the most senior monks — including Ananda — convened to recite and verify all the sermons they had heard during the Buddha's forty-five year teaching career.9 Most of these sermons therefore begin with the disclaimer, "Evam me sutam" — "Thus have I heard." More>>
Author Winston L. King (amazon.com); Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
Yoga ("Union" with Breath or Supreme Consciousness) became more about real liberation.
Theravada Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga has 5.0 out of 5 stars with 4 ratings. The first book in English to relate modern forms of Theravada meditational practice to its Indian roots, Theravada Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga rectifies the publishing imbalance toward Mahayana and Zen.
Buddhaghosa in Sri Lanka studying ola texts
The classic Theravada pattern in Buddhaghosa's Path of Purification (circa A.D. 500) is shown to be relevant to the present Buddhist world.
Beginning with a general description of similarities and differences between the Upanisadic-Yogic and Early Buddhist viewpoints, the author goes on to analyze Siddhattha Gotama's rejection-acceptance-modification of the Upanisadic-Yogic method of striving for moksa (liberation) in his search for Buddhahood (supreme enlightenment) as related in the Pali canon.
Contents:
Preface
Yogic Factors in Gotama Buddha's Enlightenment
Conditions
Preparations and Lower Levels of Meditation
The Jhanic and Formless States
The Jhanic Related "Buddhist" Meditation
Vipassana Meditation
The Attainment of Cessation (Nirodha-Samapatti)
Contemporary Theravada Meditation in Burma
Appendix "A Buddhist Pilgrim's Progress"
Notes
Selected and Annotated Bibliography
Index
A second major section analyzes the meditational method of Buddhaghosa, showing the interaction between Upanisadic-Yogic jhanas (modes of concentration) and Buddhist vipassana (insight meditation).
Attention is given to the highest attainable state, nirodha-samapatti (cessation of thought and perception), held by Theravada Buddhism to be an actual experience of Nibbana (nirvana or world-escape) in this life.
The final chapter discusses the attraction of Theravada meditation in parts of the contemporary world, notably Burma, drawing on materials little known in the West.
In Burma and to some degree in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and Thailand, emphasis is on a simplified meditational method open to laypeople as well as monastics yet viewed as fully orthodox.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
The language of the Theravada canonical texts is Pali, a relative of Magadhi, the language probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time. Most of the sutras the Buddha delivered were memorized by Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and close personal attendant.
