Articles by alphabetic order
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Theravada is Materialism, not Buddhism

From Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Passig away.jpg

 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. Bhikkhu Bodhi (Theravada’s mouthpiece) makes implication (unfounded) that there are “mundane aggregates” as opposed to ‘supermundaneaggregates 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 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 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 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 Theravadaaggregates 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] “Him who finds any delight in the five aggregates is not one who is freed of suffering.”[SN-A 1.194] “Suffering is none other than the five aggregates.” For Theravada to posit only namo-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.” 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); nor will they admit to anything other than the aggregates themselves, which is materialism/atomism itself by definition: “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.” [[[Wikipedia:Dictionary|Dictionary]] of Philosophy; edited by D.D. Runes. Philosophical Library of N.Y. cpyrt: 1942; Philosophical Library Inc.]

In admitting to contingent, consubstantial and causally composite phenomena alone, the Theravada become ensnared in emancipation and Witness paradoxes, 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 by jhanas and wisdom, is said: [DN2-Att. 2.479] “the light (joti) within one’s mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano).” [SN 3.25]“The five aggregates are indeed the burden [1st Noble Truth], the pudgala 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 [[[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.]. One can be assured, despite all citations to the contrary against Theravada nihilism, that original Buddhism did not become popular by espousing the ultimate non-existence of beings in any sense of the term, but that him, the fool (puthujjana), has suffered “many rounds of birth/death” due to mistaking his Soul, his Self (attan) 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


A.P. Buddhadatta, the well known Sinhalese Pali scholar and head of the Aggarama at Ambalangoda in Ceylon (appointed as the Agga-Mahapandita at the Council of Rangoon) wrote on 4th March 1947 concerning the English edition of George Grimm's main work in a letter to his daughter:
" I read that book [DOCTRINE OF THE BUDDHA by George Grimm] , and (found it to be) as you have stated in your letter that ‘he (Grimm) recovered of the old genuine doctrine of the Buddha which had been submerged'. When we (Theravada) read our Pali texts (Abhidhamma) and commentaries (Buddhaghosa, Vishudhamagga), we get the idea that Buddhism is a sort of Nihilism….Thus I was puzzled for a long time to understand the true meaning of Buddhism though I was born a Buddhist. Many peoples do not go so far in these matters (of doctrine)." [[[Doctrine]] of the Buddha, ISBN 81-208-1194-1; publ. Montilal Banarsidass publishers. First Edition: Berlin, 1958; reprint 1999. Preface, page 9]

The accurate description of Theravada heresy [The Advaita tradition in Indian Philosophy , Chandradhar Sharma Motilal publishers ISBN 812081312X 1996]
“The Hinayana schools missed the Buddha’s advaitavada and elaborated a metaphysics of radical pluralism. The inner contradictions in their metaphysics led to the rise of Mahayana” page: 3

“The Hinayana (Theravada) interpretation of Buddha’s silence on the avyaakrta (inexpressible questions; i.e. is, is not, both, neither) questions is in accordance with its view of radical pluralism. According to the Hinayana, the Buddha advocated the theory of elements and denied the ultimate reality of souls and God (Brahman/Absolute)”page: 21

“The Abhidhamma treatises of the Pali canon, though called ‘the word of the Buddha’ (buddhavacana) are really the Theravada interpretation that misses the deeper truth in the Buddha’s teachings” page:16

“Hinayana’s reduces the self to a series of fleeting mental states which are taken as real…Hinayana rejects the eternal (empirical) ego but (ignorantly) glorifies the uchchheda-drsti (nihilistic view) by accepting the reality of mental states.” page: 26-27

“Even Hinayana which ignored the absolutism of the Buddha and elaborated a system of radical pluralism and which was emphatic in denying the Self , admitted Nirvana as an eternal positive reality, calm and blissful. But Hinayana degraded Nirvana to the level of an eternal substance (asamskrta dharma) set over and above the worldly objects (samskrta dharmas) in which there was cessation of misery. This (view) was corrected by Mahayana which revived the absolutism of the Buddha and treated Nirvana as the transcendental Absolute at once immanent in the phenomena, the ‘dharmata’ of all dharmas” page: 29

“Even if, as some scholars do, the word atta (atman) in attadipa (light of Soul) is interpreted as meaning just ‘oneself’ without any reference to an ontological reality called “Self” and the phrase ‘attadipa’ is taken to mean ‘you yourself are your light’, it has to be admitted that the Buddha is asking his disciples to seek light within and not outside. Now, if there is no true “Self/Atman”, then who is to seek the light and where? And if all objects, as the Buddha says, are perishable (anicca) and miserable (dukkha) and the light is to be sought only in the subject, then the reality of the transcendent subject is clearly implied in the passage” page: 30

“It is incorrect to hold that the Buddha starts with a spirit of opposition to the Upanishads and initiates a new tradition of anatmavada (no-Soul-ism) against the Upanishads tradition of atmavada. Anatmavada is nirahankara-nirmamavada, the removal of the false notion of the (ego) ‘I’ and the ‘mine’, which the Upanishadic seers themselves unmistakably voice and which all systems of Indian philosophy accept.” page: 31

Hinayana schools of Theravada (Sarvastivada), due to an imperfect understanding of the teachings, forgot the Absolutism of the Buddha and created a metaphysics of radical pluralism in the form of the theory of momentary elements in their Abhidhamma treatises and commentaries” page: 35