What is the significance of linage?

[Bakmoon]

I think some traditions follow the Buddha's teaching more authentically, ...

And, of course, disagree with the others on who is more authentic...

For me, teachers (and, especially, students) who claim to be "more authentic" inspire skepticism rather than admiration. I much prefer those who simply say that "this is the way I see it", and let their teachings and actions speak for themselves. "This is the way my teacher taught it" is also fine. That can inspire confidence. "This is the way my teacher taught it and those others are wrong" doesn't.


Mike

Sadhu! I remember when I first got into Buddhism I was very much concerned with finding what tradition is the most 'authentic' and 'correct' but as I have grown in the Dhamma I have come to understand that obsessing over this point is just a sign of underlying conceit.

Although in principle I think that we can say that some traditions are more authentic than others, in actual practice I think that as long as a tradition isn't teaching blatantly false teachings and the tradition emphasizes actual practice (e.g. keeping the 5 precepts, practicing at least some meditation, etc...) it would be improper to criticize the tradition as a whole, because the strengths and weaknesses are just those of individuals. Every tradition has very sincere practitioners and also some not so good ones as well. The only major Theravada tradition that I would feel comfortable calling inauthentic would be the Dhammakaya movement, and even then it would mostly be in terms of their fundraising, money misuse, centralized style, and such more so than whatever meditation they might be practicing.

[samseva]

Hi Samseva,

The criteria I consider a monastery or lineage with is first according to its adherence to the Vinaya, ...

That's fine. The famous Sri Lankan, Malaysian (such as the monks at Ven Kumara's monastery --- I've met his teacher Ven Aggacitta), Burmese and Thai teachers all seem to have fairly strict Vinaya practice.

... and then how what they actually teach is in accordance with the Suttas. Examples of this would be inconsistencies, false teachings like the pervasive citta doctrine mentioned in your first link, cultural teachings or personal views disguised as Buddhist teachings, misinterpretations, and so on.

Hmm, well if that's your criterion you seem to have ruled out most of the Thai Forest monks from Ajahn Mun on down...

And if you dislike commentaries, then that rules out most of the rest of what you'd find in Thailand (including Ven Dhammanado), Burma (those naughty Mahasi, Pa Auk, etc groups), and Sri Lanka, though Ven Nananada may qualify if you agree with his reading of the Suttas.

The final criteria is general good behaviour, such as exemplified in your third link.

All of these can be assessed rather objectively with good knowledge of the Vinaya, Suttas and common sense.

It's certainly not too difficulty to identify which teachers one disagrees with, which, in your case, would seem to be just about all of them.

I'm being deliberately provocative here, as I'm trying to point to the possible difficulties. It would be easy to be left with no teachers at all, and noone to challenge one's views.


Mike

The citta doctrine is only one part of a criteria. I won't blacklist a whole lineage because of it. As for cultural and personal views, this has nothing to do with the commentaries.

The citta doctrine might be ubiquitous in Thailand, but less so for Mahānikāya, compared to say Dhammayuttika. Even if the citta doctrine is very present in the Dhammayuttika, I still consider them in high regard for their adherence to the Vinaya, the rest of the teachings and their dedication to meditation.

You are trying to paint a picture of me that doesn't fit—even more so with a displeasing and almost mocking tone. I think there are lineages more in accordance to the Buddha's teachings and I don't understand why someone would deny this. If you want to argue and almost ridicule my point of view, find someone else.

[mikenz66]

Hi samseva,

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be mocking. I just don't have much sympathy for the idea that it is obvious that some particular groups have a better grasp of Dhamma and Vinaya than others. In my opinion the well-known Sri Lankan, Malaysian, Burmese, and Thai teachers that I know about all have an excellent grasp of both Dhamma and Vinaya, certainly much better than mine.

I'm grateful that I have had the opportunity to learn Dhamma from the talks and books of such excellent teachers as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Mahasi Sayadaw, Bhikkhu Nanananda, Ajahn Chah, U Pandita, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and dozens of others. And a number of less famous Bhikkhus (including our own Vens Dhammanando and Pesala).

These Bhikkhus have/had different opinions on certain issues, sometimes very different. While I do have preferences, I certainly don't think that any of them have/had a poor grasp of Dhamma or Vinaya.


Mike

[Mr Man]

The citta doctrine is only one part of a criteria. I won't blacklist a whole lineage because of it. As for cultural and personal views, this has nothing to do with the commentaries.

The citta doctrine might be ubiquitous in Thailand, but less so for Mahānikāya, compared to say Dhammayuttika. Even if the citta doctrine is very present in the Dhammayuttika, I still consider them in high regard for their adherence to the Vinaya, the rest of the teachings and their dedication to meditation.

That there is a citta "doctrine" is, in my opinion, for the most part a fallacy.

[samseva]

Hi samseva,

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be mocking. I just don't have much sympathy for the idea that it is obvious that some particular groups have a better grasp of Dhamma and Vinaya than others. In my opinion the well-known Sri Lankan, Malaysian, Burmese, and Thai teachers that I know about all have an excellent grasp of both Dhamma and Vinaya, certainly much better than mine.

I'm grateful that I have had the opportunity to learn Dhamma from the talks and books of such excellent teachers as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Mahasi Sayadaw, Bhikkhu Nanananda, Ajahn Chah, U Pandita, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and dozens of others. And a number of less famous Bhikkhus (including our own Vens Dhammanando and Pesala).

These Bhikkhus have/had different opinions on certain issues, sometimes very different. While I do have preferences, I certainly don't think that any of them have/had a poor grasp of Dhamma or Vinaya.


Mike

I agree there are very good teachers, no matter the lineage they are part of, and I also believe that a lineage does not turn someone into a good teacher or knowledgeable of the Dhamma-Vinaya.

I am simply saying that some lineages or sects, in a very generalized way, follow more the teachings of the Buddha, compared to sects such as say the Dhammakaya or others in some countries where there is barely any knowledge of the teachings at all and a highly lax adherence of the Vinyaya, all the way from the precepts and pācittiya to saṇghādisesa.

Buddhism is mainly divided into Theravāda and Mahāyāna. The usual reason why many prefer Therevāda is that it is closer to the original teachings.

[samseva]

The citta doctrine is only one part of a criteria. I won't blacklist a whole lineage because of it. As for cultural and personal views, this has nothing to do with the commentaries.

The citta doctrine might be ubiquitous in Thailand, but less so for Mahānikāya, compared to say Dhammayuttika. Even if the citta doctrine is very present in the Dhammayuttika, I still consider them in high regard for their adherence to the Vinaya, the rest of the teachings and their dedication to meditation.

That there is a citta "doctrine" is, in my opinion, for the most part a fallacy.

I am interested to know more of this. Could you please elaborate?

[Mr Man]

The citta doctrine is only one part of a criteria. I won't blacklist a whole lineage because of it. As for cultural and personal views, this has nothing to do with the commentaries.

The citta doctrine might be ubiquitous in Thailand, but less so for Mahānikāya, compared to say Dhammayuttika. Even if the citta doctrine is very present in the Dhammayuttika, I still consider them in high regard for their adherence to the Vinaya, the rest of the teachings and their dedication to meditation.

That there is a citta "doctrine" is, in my opinion, for the most part a fallacy.

I am interested to know more of this. Could you please elaborate?

Well some monks may have a way of talking or relating to practice, which others may find odd or at odds with there own understanding of the texts.

What is presented, in my opinion, should not be perceived as a "doctrine". There is not a shared set of views which needs to be adhered to (a belief in an eternal, independent citta).

The essence of these "Forest Ajahns" teaching is not a belief in an eternal soul (or a doctrine) but rather a way and style of practice, in my opinion.

[NotMe]

Hi Samseva,

... and then how what they actually teach is in accordance with the Suttas. Examples of this would be inconsistencies, false teachings like the pervasive citta doctrine mentioned in your first link, cultural teachings or personal views disguised as Buddhist teachings, misinterpretations, and so on.

Hmm, well if that's your criterion you seem to have ruled out most of the Thai Forest monks from Ajahn Mun on down...

Mike

If i may make the conversation more pleasing to my view:
as samseva puts well: " ... and then how what they actually teach is in accordance with the Suttas. Examples of this would be inconsistencies,"
" teachings like the pervasive citta doctrine mentioned in your first link, cultural teachings or personal views disguised as Buddhist teachings, misinterpretations, and so on."

Unable to document every occurrence of "the pervasive citta doctrine", but my exposure was through Ajahn Boowa, and it was always preceded by and followed with: "Now this is the forest dhamma that may or may not be found with scriptural basis." and "Any errors are my own."

metta