Virgo wrote:I disagree.
I know you disagree. We've been down this road at least once before.
Virgo wrote:What the "Theravada" school is is precisely defined by it's commentarial literature.
The Theravāda is a diverse living tradition, with far more variations than you are willing to accept. The only common ground is the Tipiṭaka. By your criteria, most of the learned Theravāda monks who I've listened to and read would not be "Theravāda." It should be quite obvious that I consider your criteria too limited to be taken seriously (and I think that monks as diverse as Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Ñāṇananda, Ven. Sumedho, & Ven. Ṭhānissaro would agree with me).
Virgo wrote:Following your line of logic, Mahayana schools cannot be understood or defined by their specific Commentaries either. So your thinking just doesn't add up.
Most of the Mahāyāna schools are every bit as diverse as the living Theravāda tradition.
Jnana wrote:aren't you the fellow who insists that a Theravādin cannot be a mahāyānika, i.e. cannot accept, study, or practice in accord with any bodhisattvapiṭaka sūtras?
Yes (that would put then outside of the realm of how things are explained in the Theravada Abhidhamma and commentaries to the three baskets).
By your criteria no Sarvāstivādin (or Mūlasarvāstivādin) would be able to be a mahāyānika either.