Lords of the Left-Hand Path by Dr. Stephen Flowers

[crossfire]

For LHP moreso Theravada's experimental innovations I think.

In Theravada there is no "individual" much less "coming" or "going" anywhere. Core difference between Theravada and Mahayana is that Theravada rejects any essential Self. Mahayana sneaks in the notion of Buddha-nature or primordial Mind underneath experience in contrast. So in a sense if a philosophy centers on an essential Self, Theravada would be more unfamiliar. Theravada is also almost exclusively renunciate. Mahayanists can achieve enlightenment without monasticism, and Tantra is even less renunciate -- focusing on using everyday sensory world, emotions, and non-monastic religious teachers.

Not sure if Pali Canon is older. It probably is, but it can also be debatable. You're right; Theravada is more "scientific," but that was an outcome of foreign influence. The incentive to use only the Pali Canon, read it as an instruction manual, and recreate from it Buddha's meditation techniques as central to the Buddhist path arose in dialogue with the 19th/20th century West (by way of Protestantism; same 'sanitization' happened with yogic religion in India). For a talk on this see "Is Mindfulness Buddhist? And Why it Matters.", and "Theravada Reinvents Meditation".

Actually, the view of having no self is considered to be just as incorrect as the view of having a self. (But this doesn't have anything to do with Dr Flower's book)
The following post link is in reference to a Pali text.
The suttas don't negate atman.... | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Kemble]

Hmm. I feel what the Buddha "really" said is beside the point. The suttas can be ambiguous that any interpretation can be valid depending on point of view. Clinging to anything seems contraindicated in all Buddhisms, but for Theravada more precisely self or innate mind is severely contraindicated (Thanissaro Bhikkhu: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature).

 

[crossfire]

Hmm. I feel what the Buddha "really" said is beside the point. The suttas can be ambiguous that any interpretation can be valid depending on point of view. Clinging to anything seems contraindicated in all Buddhisms, but for Theravada more precisely self or innate mind is severely contraindicated (Thanissaro Bhikkhu: What is Wrong with Buddha Nature).

Well, there really isn't much ambiguity in the Theravadan sutta referenced in the above linked thread. But then we are getting off topic. However, that sutta does describe the Advaita technique of meditating/contemplating on the Self as "being unfit for attention," so it does show the incorrectness of Dr Flowers presentation of Advaita as Buddhism in his book.

 

[Kemble]

Even the anapanasati sutta, the lifeblood of Theravada practice, is ambiguous enough to cause a variety of interpretations and meditation lineages that don't agree with each other.

I have no idea what that Flowers book says about Buddhism.