[mr.calisto]

.


Are different traditions, schools and sects essential for the study and practice of Buddhism ?

What are your thoughts about this ... and what would your solution for the future be if you feel that the present day situation is confusing ?

[Ankeseiband]

Greetings Aloka-D,

It would be best if there were no sects at all. What makes a sect a sect is their deviation from the Buddha's teachings. Why anyone would want to deviate from the teachings of an unsurpassable Buddha is beyond me. Yet they did, and they do. Despite what some would have you believe - we can have Dhamma without sectarianism!

It is a choice available to us, should we wish to take it. It is a choice worth making others aware of, so that can turn their back of sectarianism, should they choose to do so.

Metta,
Retro.

[Jenisoisy]

I agree with Retro, but the only reason the Dhamma has been widely available since the Buddha's death or some shortish time thereafter is due to those sects. The Dhamma seems not to have been transmitted down the centuries in a form unmixed, unadulterated, without imaginative accumulations. Would it have survived without acculturation and so many adding their own take and spin on it? Without a very large number of people adhering only to the Dhamma (as opposed to Buddhism), what would happen to awareness of the Dhamma from now on into the future without the sects? How do we increase awareness of the core, pure Dhamma, and help people see through cultural additions? I guess I already know the answer: we just have to put our point of view out there where as many people as possible can get at it, and make our arguments as simple and clear as possible.

[gimffnfabaykal]

Just because a teaching came first does not mean it is the best. Even traditions which don't need to change much should not be afraid of change. Everything changes, whether it's intended by its originators to do so or not, but it's the traditions which are comfortable with change that survive and remain relevant.

I disagree with a lot of the sects out there, and I do think that they've tacked on a lot of stuff to Buddha's teachings that doesn't actually need to be in there. However, a tradition doesn't need to be perfect by my standards and according to my needs, because I am not everyone. Yeah, there's a lot of superstitious stuff that's gotten mixed in, but it's hard for me to look at a tradition like Tibetan Buddhism (with which I strongly disagree on several points) and say, "Man, I wish you weren't out there, you heretics, you. Why can't you be real Buddhists?"

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.

[altosburg]

Yeah, there's a lot of superstitious stuff that's gotten mixed in, but it's hard for me to look at a tradition like Tibetan Buddhism (with which I strongly disagree on several points) and say, "Man, I wish you weren't out there, you heretics, you. Why can't you be real Buddhists?"

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.

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.

That attitude prevailed at the now-thankfully-defunt E-Sangha, and also prevails at E-Sangha West, where we see a moderator (and supposed 40-year practitioner of Buddhism) bristling at the name of Nanavira, and expressing his desire to poke what he calls "Nanavira-wallahs" (and apparently everyone else who sees the Dhamma differently than he does) with pointy sticks.

[PVaQlNaP]

Just because a teaching came first does not mean it is the best.

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.

[jinnsamys]

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.

[Clarissa]

Stuka: Yeah, I hear you on the "dharma lite" stuff. That bothers me as well. It would be better if more skeptical Buddhists did not have to constantly defend themselves from the people who have a huge hard-on for being seen as The Real Buddhists(TM), but it does indeed seem to be the case. I'm just wary of drawing lines for who "counts" and who doesn't. If there is somebody who has the knowledge and authority to do that, it's not me.

Originally Posted by Cobalt Just because a teaching came first does not mean it is the best.

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. Early Buddhism could be pretty misogynist, actually. Still can be, depending on which tradition we're talking about and where. Yes, it's better than a lot of traditions, and yes the Buddha relented on the whole "ordination of women" thing, but Buddhism as a collection of established traditions still has some ground to cover on being equally accessible for men and for women.

I cannot stress enough, as a woman, how quickly it rings false for me when people assume things must have been so much better back in the day when everybody knew what was what and had everything right. Not for me, they didn't. Buddhism got a better start than a lot of traditions, but that doesn't mean we should uncritically accept anything in it just because it happens to be the oldest bit.

[errolurberozy]

Nothing is constant. The idea seems to be to say, "Change will happen, effects will come after causes, and nothing stays exactly as it started, so get over it." So.... the idea that we could be discussing Buddhist doctrine and be afraid of changes to it is so hilariously ironic that I don't even know what to do.

[Kennypor]

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.

That is very well said, Kaarine: in a manner analogous to the discarding of the Dhamma itself once the stream has been crossed, we discard the particular characteristics of any form of Buddhism once it has done its job of guiding us toward the Dhamma, assuming it does so.

I found the rest of your post very good to read, also.

[boanuatiguali]

Yes, it's better than a lot of traditions, and yes the Buddha relented on the whole "ordination of women" thing, but Buddhism as a collection of established traditions still has some ground to cover on being equally accessible for men and for women.

I cannot stress enough, as a woman, how quickly it rings false for me when people assume things must have been so much better back in the day when everybody knew what was what and had everything right. Not for me, they didn't. Buddhism got a better start than a lot of traditions, but that doesn't mean we should uncritically accept anything in it just because it happens to be the oldest bit.

There I agree with you. I am in the habit of telling anyone who will listen how crazy it is to oppress half of a society's population, and thus a great part of their potential contribution to the society. And now I think of it, this is an aspect of the Canon that has never sat with me entirely comfortably; it is not evenhanded.

[neerewed]

Things I am unable to accept, just off the top of my head:
- relics of the Buddha (a "tooth of the Buddha" greatly revered in Sri Lanka was examined by a scientist and found to be a cow's tooth - this revelation did not faze its devotees in the slightest)
- amulets (these can be purchased in Thailand, I hear, and are purported to make the wearer invulnerable to bullets)
- kamma & rebirth (despite trying to find various ways of crediting these, when I am honest with myself I have to admit that I have never succeeded).

I am sure I could extend this list quite a bit, but these are enough to make my point for the moment. The first two, especially, I will never believe were promoted by the Buddha: they are nothing more than silly superstitions.

[maclaudser]

Nothing is constant. The idea seems to be to say, "Change will happen, effects will come after causes, and nothing stays exactly as it started, so get over it." So.... the idea that we could be discussing Buddhist doctrine and be afraid of changes to it is so hilariously ironic that I don't even know what to do.

You are right, of course, about how everything is liable to change, and this can be said of what people present as the Dhamma (as opposed to the Dhamma itself, the laws that lead to Nibbana, which do not change), which logically would eventually result in the true Dhamma becoming lost, as the Buddha predicted. Changes to what is presented as the Dhamma mean that it will eventually lose its efficacy. Burying it under vast amounts of cultural baggage will have the same effect, since we will be wasting time and effort on useless side issues. But the fact that change is inevitable does not mean we have to credit Buddhist doctrines that are contrary to what the Buddha said; we still have a duty to see through what is false, and what is unnecessary. Why would we want to spend vast amounts of effort on practices that do not lead to Nibbana?

[unioneserry]

Changes to what is presented as the Dhamma mean that it will eventually lose is efficacy. Burying it under vast amounts of cultural baggage will have the same effect, since we will be wasting time and effort on useless side issues. But the fact that change is inevitable does not mean we have to credit Buddhist doctrines that are contrary to what the Buddha said; we still have a duty to see through what is false, and what is unnecessary. Why would we want to spend vast amounts of effort on practices that do not lead to Nibbana?

I agree.

[Slonopotam845]

I agree.

Haven't said hello to you in ... oh, at least 3 or 4 days, Aloka. Hello.

[insoneeri]

Haven't said hello to you in ... oh, at least 3 or 4 days, Aloka. Hello

Hello Snowmelt .......and back to topic again !

[18holesin]

Are different traditions, schools and sects essential for the study and practice of Buddhism ?

My answer is 'yes' because even the Buddha himself taught different kinds of teachings for human beings of different dispositions.

[soyclocky]

My answer is 'yes' because even the Buddha himself taught different kinds of teachings for human beings of different dispositions.

Just Great!

Thanks Element...

[Sipewrio]

My answer is 'yes' because even the Buddha himself taught different kinds of teachings for human beings of different dispositions.

While teaching these people of different dispositions, did he ever utter anything that contradicted, belittled, or rendered unimportant, meaningless, or inferior something he had said in another place or time? For example, I looked up the Lotus Sutra in Wikipedia yesterday and found that the Sutra itself is supposed to hold that it was spoken by the Buddha during his lifetime, then stored for five hundred years in a realm of nagas before being published in our world, because it was beyond the understanding of the humans of the Buddha's time. Maybe this is true, but it does not ring true in my ears; not even a tiny little bit.

[blackjackiisre]

I looked up the Lotus Sutra in Wikipedia

stored for five hundred years in a realm of nagas

Also said to be hidden in "the Dragon Realm" for 500 years.


From Ch. 15 of the Lotus Sutra

"At that time the Bodhisattvas Mahasattvas, who had come from other lands in numbers exceeding the grains of sand in eight Ganges Rivers, rose up in the great assembly, placed their palms together, made obeisance, and said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, if you will allow us, after the Buddha's tranquillity, here in this Saha world we will with ever-increasing vigor protect, maintain, read, recite, write out, and make offerings to this Sutra, and we will speak it far and wide throughout this land."

The Buddha then told the host of Bodhisattvas Mahasattvas, "Stop! Good men, you do not need to protect and maintain this Sutra. Why not? Within my Saha world itself there are Bodhisattvas Mahasattvas equal in number to the sands of sixty thousand Ganges Rivers, each of whom has a retinue equal in number to the sands of sixty thousand Ganges Rivers. After my tranquillity, all of them will protect, uphold, read, recite, and vastly speak this Sutra."

Just as the Buddha said this, the earth in the three thousand great thousand lands in the Saha world trembled and split open, and from its midst limitless thousands of tens of thousands of millions of Bodhisattvas Mahasattvas simultaneously welled forth.

All of those Bodhisattvas possessed golden-hued bodies, the thirty-two marks, and limitless light
They had been dwelling beneath the Saha world in the empty space belonging to that world.
Upon hearing the sound of Shakyamuni Buddha's voice, all the Bodhisattvas came up from below.

Each one of the Bodhisattvas was a leader who instructed and guided a great multitude. Each had a retinue numbering as many as the sand grains of sixty thousand Ganges Rivers. Still others had retinues numbering as many as the sand grains of fifty thousand, forty thousand, thirty thousand, twenty thousand, or ten thousand Ganges Rivers.

Others had retinues numbering as many as the sand grains of one Ganges River, one half a Ganges River, one fourth, and on down to one thousandth of a ten thousandth of a millionth of a nayuta of a Ganges River.

Other has retinues numbering in the billions of nayutas. Others had retinues numbering in the hundreds of millions. Others had retinues numbering in the tens of millions, the millions, and on down to the tens of thousands. Others had a thousand or a hundred and on down to ten. "

...............etc etc

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...ts/Lotus15.htm


It's a lot different to the Pali Canon.