Would this be considered a "schism"?

[ccharles]

Would a person who believes that the Theravada sect is more likely to preserve the word of the Buddha, and that Mahayana and Vajrayana sects do not, and tells other people that Mahayana and Vajrayana sects do not follow the word of the Buddha, have created a "schism" in doing so?

[polarbuddha101]

The schism already happened, that's why we have theravada, mahayana, and vajrayana. So I would say no. Although if you were to bring up such a subject I would do it with courtesy in mind and focus on historical facts and findings to make your point. The best thing to say would just be to say that the Pali Nikayas and the corresponding Chinese Agamas are the earliest strata of buddhist texts and therefore the most reliable, IMHO.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Would a person who believes that the Theravada sect is more likely to preserve the word of the Buddha, and that Mahayana and Vajrayana sects do not, and tells other people that Mahayana and Vajrayana sects do not follow the word of the Buddha, have created a "schism" in doing so?

No.

The issue is that of a "schism in the Sangha" and effectively constitutes a breakaway faction forming under a particular leader. The classic example of this is Devadatta, who briefly attempted to place himself in opposition to the Buddha as the leader of his own sasana.

The formation of other schools and traditions does not necessarily constitute a "schism" either.

Therefore advising Mahayanists that their sutras are not Buddhavacana has no bearing on "schism".

Metta,
Retro.

[Cittasanto]

[whynotme]

Greetings,

Would a person who believes that the Theravada sect is more likely to preserve the word of the Buddha, and that Mahayana and Vajrayana sects do not, and tells other people that Mahayana and Vajrayana sects do not follow the word of the Buddha, have created a "schism" in doing so?

No.

The issue is that of a "schism in the Sangha" and effectively constitutes a breakaway faction forming under a particular leader. The classic example of this is Devadatta, who briefly attempted to place himself in opposition to the Buddha as the leader of his own sasana.

The formation of other schools and traditions does not necessarily constitute a "schism" either.

Therefore advising Mahayanists that their sutras are not Buddhavacana has no bearing on "schism".

Metta,
Retro.

Well, I don't know any English source, but in Vinaya there is a part the Buddha talked about schism. He said if there are nine or more than nine people who make a vote: this is dhamma, that is not dhamma, this is patimokha, that is not, then there is the schism. Less than nine people doesn't consider a schism. That is his (the Buddha) definition, the schism doesn't need a leader, just need more than nine monks make a distinction.

And he said, only monk can create the schism, not nun, not lay people. So no matter lay people say, not important, only monk counts. And the person who can unite the sangha creates kamma in bharma realm for the rest of aeon (IIRC, like the schism, only monk can create this kamma). If anyone has ever read vinaya would have seen that the Buddha emphasized very much about the unity of the sangha on every event (uposatha, parivasa..).

Also on other occasion, the Buddha said, if there is a schism in the sangha, lay people should give alms to both side, then hear their teaching. After that, see which side fits to the dhamma, then do as those one say. So, the most important thing for lay people is the ability to recognize which one is dhamma

Regards