View of Mahayana/Vajrayana

[theravada_guy]

Greetings all,

Would Classical Theravada view the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, sects, etc. heretics? If not, how are they labeled?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I'm not sure of the English rendering, let alone the Pali original, but they would at least be regarded as "schismatic".

I look forward to hearing from our members more learned in the classical perspectives, the range of language that was used traditionally in relation to schismatic sects.

Metta,
Retro.

[Reductor]

EDIT: Oh poop. Does a new publication count here. I wasn't paying attention to the forum this was on.

I think at the time that these other schools of thought departed from the original dissension of the Buddha's teaching they would have been considered schismatic. This is mostly based on this from Thans "BCM1:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .html#Sg10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To qualify as a schism, the division has to meet five criteria:

* 1) The Community is originally united, which means that it is composed of bhikkhus of common affiliation living in the same territory.
* 2) It contains at least nine bhikkhus.
* 3) It becomes involved in a dispute over any of eighteen grounds for a creating a schism. In other words, one of the sides advocates any of the following positions, explaining:

Dhamma as not-Dhamma;
not-Dhamma as Dhamma;
Vinaya as not-Vinaya;
not-Vinaya as Vinaya;
what was not spoken by the Buddha as having been spoken by him;
what was spoken by the Buddha as not;
what was not regularly practiced by him as having been regularly practiced by him;
what was regularly practiced by him as not;
what was not formulated by him as having been formulated by him;
what was formulated by him as not;
an offense as a non-offense;
a non-offense as an offense;
a heavy offense as a light offense;
a light offense as heavy;
an offense leaving a remainder (i.e., not a pārājika) as an offense leaving no remainder (§);
an offense leaving no remainder as an offense leaving a remainder (§);
a serious offense as not serious; or
a not-serious offense as serious.
* 4) There are at least four bhikkhus on either side.
* 5) The dispute reaches the point where the two sides conduct separate Pāṭimokkha recitations, Invitation ceremonies, or other Community transactions within the same territory.

I think the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools would no longer be considered schisms, because of the time and locational distances involved.

[Ben]

A reminder...
Posts that do not conform to the strict criteria of the Classical Theravada forum are deleted without warning.
However interesting a Mahayanist or Vajrayanist pov is, its off-topic in this forum.
Repeat offenders may attract disciplinary action.
Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

AN 2.23: Abhasita Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

I believe there is something from Uttaravipatti Sutta AN.IV.163 that addresses this:

"Whatever is well-spoken [subhasita], all that is the word of the Buddha [Buddhabhasita]."

_/|\_

[tiltbillings]

I believe there is something from Uttaravipatti Sutta AN.IV.163 that addresses this:

"Whatever is well-spoken [subhasita], all that is the word of the Buddha [Buddhabhasita]."

_/|\_

Yes; however, what determines what is "well-spoken?"

[Sanghamitta]

I believe there is something from Uttaravipatti Sutta AN.IV.163 that addresses this:

"Whatever is well-spoken [subhasita], all that is the word of the Buddha [Buddhabhasita]."

_/|\_

Yes; however, what determines what is "well-spoken?"

And the answer is ?

[Kare]

I believe there is something from Uttaravipatti Sutta AN.IV.163 that addresses this:

"Whatever is well-spoken [subhasita], all that is the word of the Buddha [Buddhabhasita]."

_/|\_

Yes; however, what determines what is "well-spoken?"

Since the 37 bodhipakkhiyadammas are common to all schools of Buddhism (according to Warder: Indian Buddhism, p. 81), it may perhaps be reasonable to suppose that any saying that is conforming with these dhammas, is "well-spoken". R.M.L. Gethin: The Buddhist Path to Awakening contains a detailed study of these bodhipakkhiyadhammas.

[Dan74]

And the answer is...... drumbeat.....

.....whatever is conducive to enlightenment!

(bet you didn't see that one coming!)

This is mentioned both in Cullavaga of the Vinaya and in the Anguttara Nikaya (according to Williams p. 42). I am no scholar and most of the references I would mention are not appropriate for this forum, but the point was simply to say that the Buddha may not have intended for the Canon to have been closed with the parinibbana. After all quite a number of discourses in the Nikayas were given by the Buddha's disciples (and approved by the Buddha), so he may have left a possibility for other arahats after the parinirvana to continue to explain the Dhamma and to make some of these explanations canonical. And the sutta I cite above appears (to me) to support that.

But I am no scholar (as you know).

_/|\_

PS But Kare is, and he appears to have beat me to the punch, although I don't know what the 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas are (factors conducive to enlightenment??)

PPS With apologies, I will bow out of this discussion, since my learning of Classical Theravada is not going to be enough to keep up.

[Paññāsikhara]

Although the 37 are common to all schools, they are usually only used as further expressions of the path. I think at least we'd need to include the other three truths, too, wouldn't we?

Those definitions from the Pali Vinaya above, could be used - by those inclined to literal meanings - to justify each and any school considering every other school schismatic. Personally, such an attitude would probably exacerbate any problems or differences in understanding.

[Kare]

Although the 37 are common to all schools, they are usually only used as further expressions of the path. I think at least we'd need to include the other three truths, too, wouldn't we?

Yes, of course. But they are already included ... in Right View.

[tiltbillings]

And the answer is...... drumbeat.....

.....whatever is conducive to enlightenment!.

That is the real question: What, outside of the Buddha's teachings, is conducive to awakening?

[Paññāsikhara]

Although the 37 are common to all schools, they are usually only used as further expressions of the path. I think at least we'd need to include the other three truths, too, wouldn't we?

Yes, of course. But they are already included ... in Right View.

Okay, that is one way of looking at it. Kind of leads to having those three other truths already in the fourth truth, but that's not an insurmountable problem.

[Dan74]

And the answer is...... drumbeat.....

.....whatever is conducive to enlightenment!.

That is the real question: What, outside of the Buddha's teachings, is conducive to awakening?

Hmmm... Not really possible to answer this question and remain within the terms of the Classical Theravada forum. At least not for me.

So I will maintain the (ig)noble silence.

_/|\_