Mangaka wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:31 am
I would like to say my thanks for your answers.
Why I was asking is because I wanted to know if it is allowed to learn from more than one teacher and after that when I posted this topic it occurred to me (there appeared worry in me exactly):
Won't I cause problem by this act (like schism in sangha) because one of teachers may don't like that?
I don't want to do something like that...
Hi, Mangaka.
You can read this.
https://suttacentral.net/an10.37/en/suj ... ript=latin
Sanghabheda (or Schism of the Order) only happened when a monk or group of monks broke off from what was prescribed by the Buddha and form their own Dhamma-Vinaya. Can see the Sutta above for more details.
Generally as we can see from the history of Buddhism, only monastic is capable to cause the Sanghabheda effectively (eg: Devadatta, Vajjian monks, 17 early schools of thought). Though others such as layperson could be a supportive cause. The outcome of causing Sanghabheda is, similar to other ānantarika-kammas, only one, that is: direct rebirth to Avici Niraya during next rebirth for a long long time. Once a person did it successfully, it is said that it is impossible for this person to develop for Path and Fruition.
This is why we layperson need to be careful if we want to side with monks. IMO, you can listen to all Dhammatalks by different monks or attending meditation events organised by different monks at various temples. No harm in it. But don't just believe all what those monks said, but to see if it accords to Dhamma-Vinaya, can it stand the Mahāpadesa test? is the Dhamma taught by that particular monk leading to dispassion or instead proliferation of views? does it leading to one of the 62 wrong views in Brahmajala Sutta? Does it speak aligning with extremism such as Sassatavada or Ucchedavada? Does it applicable in real life situations for the purpose of develop Path & Fruition?
Throughout my life as a Buddhist, I have seen
1) some monks preaching about bizarre teachings that wasn't from Pali Tipitaka;
2) some monks advocating cultural belief mixing with Buddhism;
3) some monks practising witchcrafts and when questioned, they said it was allowable;
4) I have seen some monks practising palmistry and Fortune-telling;
5) some monks speak with anger and racial or religious discrimination;
6) a monk decides to cut down Vinaya rules, claiming that his decision was consistent with Buddha vacana;
7) some monks come out with his personal interpretation of Paticca Samuppada that totally bring down the consistency of what Buddha taught;
8) some monks changed meaning of Pali words and put them in different meaning;
9) some monks were advocates of "only-Sutta-approach" or "Suttavada" or "Sauntrantika", yet inevitably form their own personal interpretation.
10) monk teaches that being vegetarian is necessary.
That's why Pariyatti aspect is so important for us layperson. Only with a good basis in Pali Tipitaka canon we can be decisive that: "This is Sadhamma, we follow; This is Adhamma, we don't follow." Without proper Pariyatti, we can be a lost cause.
While supporting the Sangha, I do exercise caution. This is my practice so far:
1) Normally when I listen to a monk, I will listen patiently first. Then, if it is what Buddha taught in Pali Tipitaka, I will rejoice in it gladly.
2) If I listen and found out something doubtful yet I wasn't able to solve it due to insufficient Pariyatti or Patipatti, there without agree or disagree, I go back and do some research and verify by myself or asking other Theras. Once clarify it, only then I make decision whether to agree or disagree.
3)If I listen to a monk preaching what was not in the Pali Tipitaka and possible a new interpretation (which is not tenable with Pāli Tipitaka), I listen patiently and then leave at once when opportunity comes.
4) If a monk preaching on something that is directly contradict with what was stated in Pali Tipitaka, siding with Sassatavada and/or Ucchedavada and somehow put the new teachings in Buddha's lips, and I am fully aware and understand that topic, there I will raise questions. But if the monk failed to see the contradiction, there I will not visit or associate with that monk again.
In the past when Arahants are present, layperson can still refer to them wherever doubts arise. But now it seems Arahants are no longer available for us, then we have to full rely on Pali Tipitaka that preserved from The First Council till the Third Council.