Sects and Sectarianism

[conebeckham]

As long as we're unenlightened, there will be sectarianism. Even active efforts to circumvent sectarianism, i.e., the "Rimay Movement" can be seen to have sectarian bias, quite frankly. Such is samsara, folks.

[Blue Garuda]

I guess we're always going to need to return to the key issue of 'intent'. I see two aspects to sectarianism - the creation of schisms and the creation of closed self-interested sects.

If a schism is created in order to help others to follow Buddha's path more easily or more successfully then at least it is well-motivated. If the outcome is also positive then so much the better.

If a schism is created in order to punish people and exclude them for being 'wrong', then the motivation is negative. Again, the outcome may still be positive if they then find another successful path.

In terms of protectionism, it is obviously sectarian to prohibit disciples from reading books or attending teachings from outside the sect. It is also sectarian to insist that people from outside are denied entry because of their membership of a different sect.

The worst 'intent' of all is to be divisive for reasons of power and wealth, heedless of harm to others and lacking all compassion.

There are several current situation which are sensitive and upsetting, but this seems always to have been so.

What to do?

Well, I've observed (and carried out) different actions towards sectarianism:

- Work from within to create the changes you see as beneficial to others.
- Work from outside to create changes by various means.
- Criticise adversely but do nothing; except maybe make it it clear how superior you are/your sect is/your guru is.
- Ignore it and focus on your own practice because that is more likely to benefit others.
- Ignore it and work on your practice because you simply don't care and you come first.

The best response IMHO is to examine your own intent and the consequences others may experience as a result of the actions you may take.

If you're anything like me that sequence instead tends quite often to be:

Think I'm right, act, upset people, realise I should have thought it through first, promise myself to do better. Repeat until something or someone presses the 'pause' button and you learn a little compassion and humility. Humble and compassionate people are incapable of sectarianism. We know the path but I know few pure disciples (or even gurus) free from the odd bit of self-cherishing.

[Astus]

The article "View from the Center" starts with these two quotes:

"Don't be an arahant, don't be a bodhisattva, don't be anything at all – if you are anything at all you will suffer"
Ajahn Chah

A student of Buddhism asked, “Which do you think is the best path: that of the arahant or that of the bodhisattva?”
“That kind of question is asked by people who understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism!”
Ajahn Sumedho

[Tilopa]

A student of Buddhism asked, “Which do you think is the best path: that of the arahant or that of the bodhisattva?”
“That kind of question is asked by people who understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism!”
Ajahn Sumedho

So there's no path that leads to Nirvana and no path that leads to Enlightenment?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tiloka,

I don't think that's what's being implied.

The quotations are about being/becoming (bhava) and if you "be" anything, if you "be" a "being" (satta), you will suffer.

Metta,
Retro.

[Heruka]

im not really following the narative with this topic, as i find it always steers in one direction with no resolution, but it kind of reminds me of a way of saying that through ill deeds of sectarianism, one finally regrets and sucumbs to a acquiessense of silence about sectarianism, a false peace of mind, which eventually turns around and bites you. very circular and reinforcing.

[Heruka]

The article "View from the Center" starts with these two quotes:

"Don't be an arahant, don't be a bodhisattva, don't be anything at all – if you are anything at all you will suffer"
Ajahn Chah

is Ajahn Chah suffering because he is a teacher?

[Caz]

Sectarianism, Sure there plenty of that about Ive noticed. There are people who have stopped talking to neighbours, refused to give them the same service as everyone else, mistreat and scorn them and even go so far as to cross the road when they walk by. This happens all across the world and I ask these people do they really think they are improving their loving compassion or equnimity to treating their kind mothers with such distain, No matter what religious affiliation you profess shouldnt we look past this BS matters and concentrate upon what is most apparent, That people are suffering and it is our duty to help rather then hinder.

Read on a friends FB page he wad denied service in a shop because of sectarian attitudes...some people.

[gregkavarnos]

As long as we use practices, lineages and teachings to bolster our sense of self, as a source of personal identification: I am a......, you are a ......, I believe in......, you believe in......, my practice, your practice ad nauseum...... as long as sentient beings act out of a false sense of dualism then there will be sects and sectarianism. It's that simple.

[Astus]

So there's no path that leads to Nirvana and no path that leads to Enlightenment?

Another way to say the same thing:

"Followers of the Way, make no mistake! All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty.
All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That's all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles' twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
(Record of Linji, 2.18, tr. by RF Sasaki, p. 221-222)

[Tilopa]

So there's no path that leads to Nirvana and no path that leads to Enlightenment?

Another way to say the same thing:

"Followers of the Way, make no mistake! All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty.
All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That's all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles' twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
(Record of Linji, 2.18, tr. by RF Sasaki, p. 221-222)

You're right - the same ridiculous nonsense expressed in a slightly different way.

[muni]

So there's no path that leads to Nirvana and no path that leads to Enlightenment?

Another way to say the same thing:

"Followers of the Way, make no mistake! All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty.
All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That's all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles' twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
(Record of Linji, 2.18, tr. by RF Sasaki, p. 221-222)

Nature, no base for a labeled something.

blackstone (coarse relative mind), even hard trying turns not into gold.

[Astus]

OK, here's another one, perhaps this will be clearer:

"In cultivating the Dharma, you may cultivate Dhyana, the teachings, the precepts, the secret school or the Pure Land, but it is all in order to bring your thoughts to a halt so that you do not produce a single thought."

(Buddhism in the Space Age by Hsuan Hua)

[Indrajala]

There is the irreconcilable difference between Arhatship and Bodhisattvahood.

Unless those Bhikku accept the latter as legit and possible, it will always be a thorny issue between the two major divisions of Buddhism.

Bodhisattvahood is also included in the Southern School but Arhantship is emphasized. Their view seems to be that Bodhisattvahood cannot be accomplished for ordinary beings and it will take 3 eons (which is correct) and that Arhantship could be accomplished in seven lifetimes in the best cases.

So from their POV it's a practical matter of efficiency it would seem.

Kirt

However, the Theravāda conception of Buddhahood is different from that of the Mahāyāna. They do not accept the existence of nirmānakāya, saṃbhogakāya and the dharmakāya, otherwise known as the trikāya. The Mahāsāṃghika did not specify a dharmakāya as far as we know, but they had a conception not unlike it. However, the Theravāda rejects such theories.

Again, if one seeks Arhatship, then the Theravāda tradition offers a solid, tried, tested and true path. However, if one is driven by a motivation to be of great benefit to all beings and continually take rebirth for their sake with a vision of attaining the dharmakāya in mind, then the Mahāyāna is the optimal route.

The issue of sectarianism between Śrāvakayāna and the Mahāyāna is by no fault of the latter. I have never met or heard of a single Mahāyāna leader alive today that would forbid their disciples from reading or studying Theravāda.

[Josef]

OK, here's another one, perhaps this will be clearer:

but it is all in order to bring your thoughts to a halt so that you do not produce a single thought."

(Buddhism in the Space Age by Hsuan Hua)

No thank you.
A vacuous state of mind is not Buddhahood.
I find this interpretation makes me feel sectarian.
(supposed to be a joke)

[Astus]

There are three views regarding the trikaya in Mahayana. 1. there is no trikaya mentioned in the early Mahayana; 2. the dharmakaya is developed by wisdom and the rupakaya is developed by merits; 3. the rupakaya is inherent in dharmakaya, i.e. the buddha-nature is both empty and non-empty. Therefore the difference between Mahayana and Theravada regarding the trikaya occurs only in case of the second view.

[Astus]

A vacuous state of mind is not Buddhahood.

"Far from a mind blank of all thoughts, the “thoughtless” mind is able to see and to know all dharmas free from attachment. It pervades everywhere, functioning freely and smoothly without any fixation, attachment or hindrance. The crucial difference between the wunien state and the ordinary person’s mind is that the thoughts in wunien no longer produce defilement nor attachment in the process of cognition. Huineng emphatically pointed out that suppressing all thoughts and refraining from thinking of anything is a misunderstanding of the dharma, and indeed one who did that was being tied up by the dharma, instead of being liberated by it."
Does No-Thought Mean No Thought?

[Josef]

A vacuous state of mind is not Buddhahood.

Huineng emphatically pointed out that suppressing all thoughts and refraining from thinking of anything is a misunderstanding of the dharma, and indeed one who did that was being tied up by the dharma, instead of being liberated by it."
Does No-Thought Mean No Thought?

That makes me feel better.

[mañjughoṣamaṇi]

Hello,

I am a fan of Bhikkhu Bodhi's line of thinking here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

Wishing you all the best.

[ground]

Greetings TMingyur,

Also: practicing for the benefit of self and others is the Theravada ideal laid down in suttas.

Yes, but the emphasis on "others" in the Theravada sense is not such that the other attains nirvana as a direct or indirect consequence of your actions... but rather that through one's own morality (sila), harmlessness, compassion and kindness, the shravaka bring happiness and joy to those they encounter simply by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

Metta,
Retro.

I am aware that the intent on "benefit for others" does entail quite different conclusions in Theravada and Mahayana and that it is this what makes the difference.
When you say that "but rather that through one's own morality (sila), harmlessness, compassion and kindness, the shravaka bring happiness and joy to those they encounter simply by following the Noble Eightfold Path" this holds true for a bodhisattva too because it is not only the verbal teachings that are the manifestations of the skillful means of a bodhisattva but also the way she/he appears to others.

Kind regards