Would this be considered a "schism"?

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
Tom
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:50 pm

Would this be considered a "schism"?

Postby Tom » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:28 pm

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?
Last edited by Tom on Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Would this be considered a "schism"?

Postby polarbear101 » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:03 pm

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.

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Would this be considered a "schism"?

Postby retrofuturist » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:44 pm

Greetings,
ccharles wrote: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. :)
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Never again...

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Would this be considered a "schism"?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:04 am

:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

whynotme
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Would this be considered a "schism"?

Postby whynotme » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:21 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
ccharles wrote: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
Please stop following me


Return to “Discovering Theravāda”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine