Why schism?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: Why schism?

Post by Dhammavamsa »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:09 pm
Dhammavamsa wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:05 pmAnd how you differentiate which is the true teachings and which is not?
A Buddhist that has taken proper refuge has chanted the Dhamma Refuge many times, which is:
The Dhamma is perfectly spoken by the Blessed One, visible here-&-now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, leading onwards (to peace; Nibbana), experienced individually by the wise for themselves.
In SN 56.11, for example, Kondanna realised the True Dhamma, which was:
All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.
Kondanna did not realise what Buddhaghosa declared, namely:
Twelve-fold eternal voidness; all that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising. :x :roll:
:smile:
Chanting don't make you a real Buddha follower. That's clearly Silabbata paramasa.
Deleted
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Why schism?

Post by confusedlayman »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:58 pm
confusedlayman wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:45 pm
Dhammavamsa wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:31 pm

That doctrine gave me a "nihilism" vibe. I don't subscribe to it.
To be honest, i find vism ,vimut ,middle way school, abhidhamma all 100% follow ebt buddhism... they are one and same teaching ... i dont see any contradiction
I take the Pali Tipitaka that finalised during 3rd council as orthodox canon. Since Visuddhimagga is aligned with Suttanta, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma, I take this postcanon work as an orthodox book too.

For Vimuttimagga, I put it a 50%-50% since it was from the controversial Abhayagiri sect.
What contrivorsy?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: Why schism?

Post by Dhammavamsa »

confusedlayman wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:40 pm
Dhammavamsa wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:58 pm
confusedlayman wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:45 pm

To be honest, i find vism ,vimut ,middle way school, abhidhamma all 100% follow ebt buddhism... they are one and same teaching ... i dont see any contradiction
I take the Pali Tipitaka that finalised during 3rd council as orthodox canon. Since Visuddhimagga is aligned with Suttanta, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma, I take this postcanon work as an orthodox book too.

For Vimuttimagga, I put it a 50%-50% since it was from the controversial Abhayagiri sect.
What contrivorsy?
This Abhayagiri sect is not to be confused with the current Abhayagiri temple.

This is ancient Abhayagiri sect in Sri Lanka. My understanding is when Arahant Mahinda Thera brought forth the Master's Dispensation, along with many other great Arahant Theras, King Devanampiyatissa of that time helped to established a Vihara and dedicate to the Mahasangha. The Vihara was named Mahameghavana Vihara (or commonly known as Mahavihara). Now Mahavihara was occupied by the Arahants, pure and progressive, able to quickly establish Dhamma among aristocrats and common people in Sri Lanka and establish Bhikkhu lineage. Then Arahant Sanghamitta Theri brought forth the Maha Bodhi Tree for Sri Lanka, and established the Bhikkhuni lineage.

Everything is peaceful and progressive, until many years (hundred, maybe more, did not remember the exact time gap) later, during the reign of Mahasena King, under the influence of a Indian monk called Sanghamitta, the king begin to glorify the later built Abhayagiri sect and despise the Mahaviharavins. And abhayagiri sect adopted the Vetulya doctrine, which is considered a heresy.

Full version can read Dipavamsa or Mahavamsa. Free pdf available on internet Google.
Deleted
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 14220
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Why schism?

Post by DNS »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:19 am Furthermore, isn't the schism causing the appearance of new Buddhist schools?

There were many of them such as The Sautrāntika or Sutravadin (Sanskrit, Suttavāda in Pali;), Sarvastivada, Vibhajjavada, Pudgalavada, Mulasarvastivada, then later Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Tantrayana, secular Buddhism, Dhammakaya, and many more...

How is it possible for a modern Buddhist to go through all these Buddhist schools, knowing that there are culprits among them?

And how you differentiate which is the true teachings and which is not?
Early Buddhist schools:

Sthaviravāda
Pudgalavāda ('Personalist') (c. 280 BCE)
Vatsīputrīya (during Aśoka) later name: Saṃmitīya
Dharmottarīya [zh]
Bhadrayānīya
Sannāgarika
Vibhajjavāda (prior to 240 BCE; during Aśoka)
Theravāda (c. 240 BCE)
(Kāśyapīya (after 232 BCE))[note 1]
(Mahīśāsaka (after 232 BCE))[note 1]
(Dharmaguptaka (after 232 BCE))[note 1]
Sarvāstivāda (c. 237 BCE)
(Kāśyapīya (after 232 BCE))[note 1]
(Mahīśāsaka (after 232 BCE))[note 1]
(Dharmaguptaka (after 232 BCE))[note 1]
Sautrāntika (between 50 BCE and c. 100 CE)
Mūlasarvāstivāda (3rd and 4th centuries)
Vaibhāṣika
Mahāsāṃghika
Ekavyahārikas (during Aśoka)
Lokottaravāda
Gokulika (during Aśoka)
Bahuśrutīya (late third century BCE)
Prajñaptivāda (late third century BCE)
Caitika (mid-first century BCE)
Apara Śaila
Uttara Śaila

There were many other early schools besides Theravada; it's just that the Theravada was the most successful in surviving and spreading to Southeast Asia.

What if one of the other schools was the original Dhamma-Vinaya or closest to it? :stirthepot:

Until we attain full awakening, we won't know for sure, so for myself, that is why I focus on EBTs.
Red Belly
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 2:07 pm

Re: Why schism?

Post by Red Belly »

DNS wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:49 pm
Dhammavamsa wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:19 am Furthermore, isn't the schism causing the appearance of new Buddhist schools?

There were many of them such as The Sautrāntika or Sutravadin (Sanskrit, Suttavāda in Pali;), Sarvastivada, Vibhajjavada, Pudgalavada, Mulasarvastivada, then later Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Tantrayana, secular Buddhism, Dhammakaya, and many more...

How is it possible for a modern Buddhist to go through all these Buddhist schools, knowing that there are culprits among them?

And how you differentiate which is the true teachings and which is not?
Until we attain full awakening, we won't know for sure, so for myself, that is why I focus on EBTs.
Interesting discussion. Sorry, but what is EBTS?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 14220
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Why schism?

Post by DNS »

Red Belly wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:34 pm Interesting discussion. Sorry, but what is EBTS?
Early Buddhist Texts

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ho ... ts/13953/4
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?ti ... Pali_Canon
Red Belly
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 2:07 pm

Re: Why schism?

Post by Red Belly »

Thank you. I couldn't agree more!
form
Posts: 2315
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Why schism?

Post by form »

The origin of the earliest different schools can probably be traced to different direct disciples of the Buddha. As these lineage is passed down generation by generation, it is something like the game of Chinese whispers.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 13243
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Why schism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

DNS wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:49 pm [There were many other early schools besides Theravada; it's just that the Theravada was the most successful in surviving and spreading to Southeast Asia.

What if one of the other schools was the original Dhamma-Vinaya or closest to it?
Studying and comparing what we know of the other schools against what Theravāda teaches and what’s found in the suttas and Agamas helps. When we do this, Theravāda seems to be the closest to early Buddhism. If we take Sarvāstivāda or Pudgalavāda, it’s clear that Theravāda is closer to the Buddha than the Sarvāstivādins with their eternalist theory of time and 3 unconditioned elements or Pudgalavāda with their “person”. It’s also quite surprising how many of the early schools accepted the rot of substance metaphysics. Certainly the Sarvāstivādins did and even the Mahāsāṃghika accepted it as part of their proto-Mahāyāna idea of an eternal cosmic Buddha. Theravāda seems to have been one of the few to have resisted said corruption of the Dhamma, as the Abhidhamma makes no room for it and the commentaries in turn go to great lengths to erase the idea. This of course chimes with the Buddha’s own epistemology.

Also many of the schools you mentioned are merely sub-traditions or regional variations of a major tradition such as Pudgalavāda, whom seemed to have developed many internal sub-schools all based off different interpretations of 1 passage. I’ll post it soon.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Besides the two categories of paramattha (the real) and paññatti (concept), a third category does not exist. One who is skilful in these two categories does not tremble in the face of other teachings."

Abhidhammāvatāra by Ven. Buddhadatta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 13243
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Why schism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

DNS wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:50 pm ...
So as mentioned here is the passage that lead to the development of a few schisms within the Pudgalavāda tradition:

"Being already delivered, one falls again.
The fall comes from craving; one returns again.
Having attained the place of calm joy, there is happiness.
If one follows the practices of happiness, there is perfect happiness."

According to Bareau, who cites, Vasumitra, the numerous sub-schools that developed out of Pudgalavāda in part centred around different interpretations of this one stanza. Even more interesting is that the Sammatīyas, which were a major sub-school of Pudgalavāda, also disagreed with the Śāriputrābhidharma (which Pudgalavāda seems to have accepted, if in part) and so developed their own version by explaining it with the "meaning of the sūtras". Sounds familiar, doesn't it. It seems there is a pattern in Buddhism where an Abhidhamma of sorts is developed, then, once it is established, a sub-tradition develops in opposition to it yet in turn develops an Abhidhamma of it’s own. We see evidence of this in Pudgalavāda, we know it happened in Sarvāstivāda with the Sautrāntikas and now we see it happening today with Theravāda and it's own developing Suttavādin sub-tradition (which seems to be highly influenced by western Progressivism). It's almost as if relying on the suttas is not enough, and that the Abhidhamma is inevitable. The question then is of course, which Abhidhamma is best?

:reading:

This also suggests that Buddhist Protestantism is something of a folly. Those who reject orthodoxy merely end up creating their own, but usually without the foundational wisdom of those who came before.
"Besides the two categories of paramattha (the real) and paññatti (concept), a third category does not exist. One who is skilful in these two categories does not tremble in the face of other teachings."

Abhidhammāvatāra by Ven. Buddhadatta
Post Reply