Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Schism Between The Schools...
I won't mention any names (Dakini), but someone really wants me to start a thread on the Schism of the schools, Theravada, Mayahana, etc. From my understanding, this is an okay topic to discuss as long as it's on an appropriate thread, so here it is. Hope it's in the correct section.
SO: Schism between the schools..... Discuss.
SO: Schism between the schools..... Discuss.
0
Comments
That's how it seems, anyway. And that's all I'll say to it!
Jason is our go-to-guy for the earliest real schism in the pre-Theravada sangha. If somebody can get him to join in here, he would doubtless be able to tell us about that.
I read some of Jason's blog yesterday and today and it's pretty good stuff.
I realize of course that I don't HAVE to choose a path, but understanding the fundamentals behind the differences are important for me to learn. More out of the desire to be educated on the history of Buddhism I suppose, than it is for my personal practice.
We may have to wait for him to come along or hunt him down on the site here- I didn't bookmark his blog. Somebody will know how to find him pretty promptly, I think.
Time has passed and of course the world has changed. Nobody from 2000 years ago is here today. It is naive to think things haven't changed.
http://leavesinthehand.blogspot.com/2010/12/puggalavada-brief-look.html
So I guess Jason is still just God Emperor then?
Emptiness: emptiness of self vs empty of thought or "imputing"
Nirvana: end of greed, hated & delusion vs nothingness
Dependent origination: 12 conditions for suffering vs interconnectedness/interbeing
Monks: only give free teachings & not allowed to use money vs monks charging money for teachings & possessing money
Monks: not allowed to eat after noon v monks eating anytime
Monks: disrobed for having sex vs monks getting a slap on the wrist for only bad sex
Honor: the Eightfold Path vs angels, gods, gurus, bodhisatvas, etc
Salvation: via own efforts vs via angels, gods, gurus, bodhisatvas, Jesus, etc
Politics: prohibition vs being the political leader of a feudal nation
Longevity: firmly established in Sri Lanka, Burma & Thailand vs basically destroyed in Tibet, China & Japan due to involvement in politics
The Teacher: The Lord Buddha vs Nargajuna, Atisha, Shantideva, etc
Nirvana: Nirvana vs Samsara
Samsara: Samsara vs Nirvana
Liberation: dispassion vs non-imputing
Vipassana: direct seeing vs analytical reasoning
:wtf:
Unfortunately, this only increases my confusion.
But that is exactly the type of breakdown I was looking for, but I'd like one based on scripture I suppose vs. someone's opinion.
Example: the Dalai Lama was the political leader of feudal nation (and is still actively engaged in attempting to reclaim that role). Such a role is forbidden in Theravada
Example: The Heart Sutra teaches nothingness. The arguement it teaches no inherent existence is obviously false because the Heart Sutra includes Nirvana in it and Nirvana has inherent existence
Each of my assertions are plainly obvious
Emptiness: emptiness of self vs empty of thought or "imputing"
Where do you get that?
Nirvana: end of greed, hated & delusion vs nothingness
Why do you say nothingness? Can you support?
Dependent origination: 12 conditions for suffering vs interconnectedness/interbeing
are you aware that Mahayana teaches 12 conditions for suffering?
Honor: the Eightfold Path vs angels, gods, gurus, bodhisatvas, etc
Are you aware the eightfold path is taught in the mahayana.
Salvation: via own efforts vs via angels, gods, gurus, bodhisatvas, Jesus, etc
Are you aware that effort is part of the 6 paramitas?
The Teacher: The Lord Buddha vs Nargajuna, Atisha, Shantideva, etc
Are you aware that the mahayana also venerates buddha? And his teachings?
Nirvana: Nirvana vs Samsara
Samsara: Samsara vs Nirvana
8 worldly winds you are attached to...
Liberation: dispassion vs non-imputing
Vipassana: direct seeing vs analytical reasoning
this is not how meditation is taught in my sangha
Dispassion is the concentration paramita and insight is the wisdom paramita...
What do you mean by non-imputing?
100 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, the 2nd Council (sangayana) convened in Vesali, India, to discuss controversial points of the Vinaya. The first schism occurs, over reluctance of some to accept the suttras and Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teaching. [what other possible authority there could be wasn't give in my source--D] Those who don't accept the suttras and Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings later evolve into the Mahayana tradition.
www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html
@DD: Celibacy for monks is the rule for both southern and northern Buddhists. Application of sanctions appears to be more lax for northern Buddhists, but southern Buddhists are hardly free of scandal and misconduct themselves.
Does anyone know anything about this business of the schismatics refusing to accept the suttras and Vinaya as the final authority on the BUddhas teaching? What other authority would there be?
This is what the buddha meant at his death 'be a light unto yourself'.
The Catholic Church also makes the argument that it is the true doctrine relative to the protestants. And then there are jews. And universal universalists. Mormons.
Yeah, it seems to be human nature to argue and split off.
Maybe those that split off didn't like how things were going down.
I don't know, it's a tough one. I am very interested in the history/original teachings, but I don't know if it'll ever be really possible to know.
But if I am going to follow the path of the Buddha, it's a logical question to wonder exactly what that path was, and if anyone deviated from it against his teachings, I'd want to know.
I wish you well on your search. The origin of buddhism is the present moment.
Why post something cryptic?
You seem to not like the discussion of wanting to know the history of Buddhism. To me, that's like telling someone I enjoy doing genealogy research (which I do) and then when they ask what got me into genealogy saying to them "Never mind about that; the point is that I like it now".
Just don't see what's wrong with wanting to understand the history of a major part of our lives. Maybe YOU don't care about the schism of it, but I for one find it very interesting. I feel like you're mocking us a bit here. Why?
But still, why not respect those who are interested in the historical aspects of Buddhism? It's not fast food, it's something near and dear to peoples' hearts.
To some, the historical aspect of it is very important.
By the way, I never made any equation with original and pure, just for the record. I'd have to read back to see who did, but it doesn't really matter, it's still their opinion.
In that case you will definitely find it.
I'm not into history. My mom always tries me to get excited about being related to Genghis Khan or something but I don't get it.
I think I over reacted. Carry on. We all make mistakes. :buck:
Anyway, no harm no foul.
But I think SherabDorje put it best when he said "...I think it's completely fair and appropriate historical/technical question. Can we just get on with answering it?..."
So back to the topic...
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Buddhism/Historical-Development/Schisms-Sects.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=buddhist+schism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a