DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Does Buddhism need different traditions, schools and sects?

**jinnsamys** · 07-23-2010, 06:22 AM

What a delicate issue...

I will try to be as clear as I can with the ideas and with my written english...

The urge to declare some people "real" Buddhists and some people less so seems to me far more sectarian than merely having different ways of doing things.

First I agree here with Cobalt...

Differences are all over and we can't avoid to be different. Maybe the challenge it is not to vanish differences but to dissolve the hierarchies that all us tend to build from those differences. I think this is an important aspect of any topic about differences...

Traditions are necessarily different because cultural traits, context, historical momentum, level of understanding at the moment when the tradition is into development and also racial tendencies and environmental influence and intercation with other cultures... all this can explain differences.

The problem being that there are folks in the Tibetan religions pointing at us and saying "those aren't really Buddhists", and "that's just 'dharma lite'." And since especially the Tibetan religions are all about blind, unquestioning obedience to, and worship of, one's guru, a lot of people believe that out-of-hand.

but this is the other, and very important aspect about traditions. I agree with Stuka here. I dislike Tibetan Buddhism because of this kind of needed worship to a guru and that absolute obedience that permeates the atmosphere of Tibetan traditions and Tibetan way of practice. We also can see how often people that practice Tibetan Buddhism becomes tightly attached to the opinions of her/his guru being unable to seek by him or herself into the Dharma and to develop insight by personal experience. It seems that she or he are completely shaped by the guru in her/his understanding.

So, the real issue is that even when traditions are because cultural additions, traditions should not divert or should not get away from the core Dharma teachings and understand that cultural additions are not the fundamental aspect of the practice. I feel this is the real challenge for the traditions issue.

Who is better than the Buddha, in your opinion? In all honesty, if you know of a school or sect whose teachings are more worthy of study and practice than those of the Buddha, I would like to check them out.

I agree with Snowmelt... as our practice is more near to the original source of the teachings the more we will need to develop insight and the more we can really understand the core aspect of that teaching. Once we have touch that core aspect of a teaching the better the results we can get.

What is real interesting here is that traditions should be, in first instance, a way to reach that original teaching not in the written text but in the development of insight and the practice of it. Traditions should become, in this line of reasoning, a guide or a mean to develop that learning about what the Buddha really taught and not the opposite... to divert us from the original teaching. Tradditions should be just the raft, the mean to reach what Buddha taught and not the end of a practice by itself. Once we have reach what Buddha taught we can give away the whole tradition and the cultural additions that made it so particular.

07-23-2010, 06:22 AM	#7
jinnsamys Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 418 Senior Member	What a delicate issue... I will try to be as clear as I can with the ideas and with my written english... The urge to declare some people "real" Buddhists and some people less so seems to me far more sectarian than merely having different ways of doing things. First I agree here with Cobalt... Differences are all over and we can't avoid to be different. Maybe the challenge it is not to vanish differences but to dissolve the hierarchies that all us tend to build from those differences. I think this is an important aspect of any topic about differences... Traditions are necessarily different because cultural traits, context, historical momentum, level of understanding at the moment when the tradition is into development and also racial tendencies and environmental influence and intercation with other cultures... all this can explain differences. The problem being that there are folks in the Tibetan religions pointing at us and saying "those aren't really Buddhists", and "that's just 'dharma lite'." And since especially the Tibetan religions are all about blind, unquestioning obedience to, and worship of, one's guru, a lot of people believe that out-of-hand. but this is the other, and very important aspect about traditions. I agree with Stuka here. I dislike Tibetan Buddhism because of this kind of needed worship to a guru and that absolute obedience that permeates the atmosphere of Tibetan traditions and Tibetan way of practice. We also can see how often people that practice Tibetan Buddhism becomes tightly attached to the opinions of her/his guru being unable to seek by him or herself into the Dharma and to develop insight by personal experience. It seems that she or he are completely shaped by the guru in her/his understanding. So, the real issue is that even when traditions are because cultural additions, traditions should not divert or should not get away from the core Dharma teachings and understand that cultural additions are not the fundamental aspect of the practice. I feel this is the real challenge for the traditions issue. Who is better than the Buddha, in your opinion? In all honesty, if you know of a school or sect whose teachings are more worthy of study and practice than those of the Buddha, I would like to check them out. I agree with Snowmelt... as our practice is more near to the original source of the teachings the more we will need to develop insight and the more we can really understand the core aspect of that teaching. Once we have touch that core aspect of a teaching the better the results we can get. What is real interesting here is that traditions should be, in first instance, a way to reach that original teaching not in the written text but in the development of insight and the practice of it. Traditions should become, in this line of reasoning, a guide or a mean to develop that learning about what the Buddha really taught and not the opposite... to divert us from the original teaching. Tradditions should be just the raft, the mean to reach what Buddha taught and not the end of a practice by itself. Once we have reach what Buddha taught we can give away the whole tradition and the cultural additions that made it so particular.
	Quote