Doctrinal debates are an intrinsic aspect of Buddhist evolution. Resultant splits have been active for thousands of years with possibly over a thousand divisions. This process can be seen as a kind of evolution creating treasures like Zen.
Doctrinal departures occurring in current times offer a valuable window into the processes that may trigger splits in Buddhism.
It may be insightful to consider the wider phenomenon of sectarian splits in the broader religious context, by considering Christian reformist movements, that have features such as:
a charismatic leader
supreme confidence
revelation of the âtrueâ or âpureâ teaching
re-translations of scripture to support the reinterpretation of the teaching
a reformist stance
a superior moral authority
social isolation from the wider Christian community
criticism of established worship practices
emotionally invested followers
missionary zeal and conversion strategies
Splits are therefore endemic across diverse religions. They can also occur in secular fields like politics, often driven by similar dynamics.
Given this process is not intrinsically religious, is it simply an expression of human nature and socially driven phenomena?
EDIT: This thread was kindly started by a moderator, as a split. I didnt expect that. It made this post in need of extensive re-framing.
I just want to clarify the above post was just me wondering about the non-religious aspects of divisions that happen in any organizations, eg political fractions.
It had nothing to do with Buddhism.
I must apologize that I had naively used the word schism from my standard knowledge of English where it is used in many secular contexts. Ive since been kindly informed it has been given a very significant meaning in Buddhism. What might be called a âloadedâ term with extra hidden layers of meaning not associated with the usual meaning.
masc. splitting apart of the community; schism in the monastic order [saáš gha + bheda]
Im concerned the term splitting is also used and wonder if split is a word with similarly strong meaning, that a lay Vinaya naive user should also avoid?
If anyone has insights into the psychological and sociological processes of divisions please do share.
Not at all. Well not schisms in the general English use of the word:
Schism: a division into two groups caused by a disagreement about ideas, especially in a religious organization Cambridge Dictionary
Its been kindly pointed out to me that schism is loaded word in the EBT and best avoided, even when placed in the context of the usual meaning. Lets call them divisions?
Such divisions are endemic and continual. I see them as potentially enriching. Particularly when they reform stagnation. Reading about the evolution of the Burmese Dry Insight or Thai Forest movements is illustrative.
Im not that interested in starting a new thread myself, but go ahead if you wish by all means.
Well, itâs not so much loaded as specific and serious in meaning. Causing a schism in a united Sangha means conducting a separate official sangha act separately within the same official boundary. In modern times this is a bit tricky to pull off logistically simply because of the current practice of boundary making.
In any case, when people want to do something different in their community, they simply go off and start a new thing usually. This avoids not only the official possibility of schism but also any conflict in the ordinary sense. That is, of course, until the new group becomes popular, or even more popular than the original group/community.
Splitting off into different monastic communities is sometimes the result of conflict, sometimes the result of racism/castism.
In Sri Lanka the Nikayas are based on caste exclusivity. For example the Siam Nikaya is exclusive to people from high caste families.
Cut to modern day⌠You will often see in larger cities outside of Asia that there are multiple Sri Lankan temples. I had assumed that there was one for each nikaya. I was later informed that, no, the are often all from the same nikaya and simply breakaway groups caused by some kind of internal conflict. But never for doctrinal reasons. Just petty grievances.
Isnât that what âloadedâ means? The term is âloadedâ with specific and serious import within a particular social context?
I guess âloadedâ is a bit autological online, as here it carries a bit of a dismissive tone, but I donât think thatâs how the OP was using it. I assume he was using it in exactly the sense you defined above.
Furthermore, a mendicant reflects: âCurrently, the Saáš gha lives comfortably, in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, with one recitation. But there will come a time of schism in the Saáš gha. When there is schism in the Saáš gha, itâs not easy to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas, and itâs not easy to frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest.
In this sutta Buddha explains how sangha without schism is in harmony,friendly and without quarrel, and holding one recitation.
AN10.37
âSir, they speak of âschism in the Saáš ghaâ. How is schism in the Saáš gha defined?â âUpÄli, itâs when a mendicant explains what is not the teaching as the teaching, and what is the teaching as not the teaching. They explain what is not the training as the training, and what is the training as not the training. They explain what was not spoken and stated by the Realized One as spoken and stated by the Realized One, and what was spoken and stated by the Realized One as not spoken and stated by the Realized One. They explain what was not practiced by the Realized One as practiced by the Realized One, and what was practiced by the Realized One as not practiced by the Realized One. They explain what was not prescribed by the Realized One as prescribed by the Realized One, and what was prescribed by the Realized One as not prescribed by the Realized One. On these ten grounds they split off and go their own way. They perform legal acts autonomously and recite the monastic code autonomously. That is how schism in the Saáš gha is defined.â
Basically changing dharma and holding Patimokka separately is defined as schism.
AN5.156
Furthermore, thereâs a schism in the Saáš gha. When the Saáš gha is split, they abuse, insult, block, and forsake each other. This doesnât inspire confidence in those without it, and it causes some with confidence to change their minds. This is the fifth thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
Regarding harmony,
They give up divisive speech. They donât repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony.
What sort of person who causes a schism in the Sangha isnât irredeemably destined to an eon in hell?â âIn this case a monk proclaims whatâs contrary to the Teaching as being in accordance with it. He has the view that what he says is legitimate and the view that the schism is legitimate. He doesnât misrepresent his view of whatâs true, his belief of whatâs true, his acceptance of whatâs true, or his sentiment of whatâs true. He makes a proclamation and distributes ballots, saying, âThis is the Teaching, this is the Monastic Law, this is the Teacherâs instruction; take this, approve of this.â When such a person causes a schism in the Sangha, heâs not irredeemably destined to an eon in hell.
So intentionally creating a division will lead to an eon in hell, but legitimately believing that would not lead to hell, but still creates a division.
Whoever causes a schism in a united Sangha does a bad act with effect for an eon. Heâs boiled in hell for an eon.
But whoever unites a divided Sangha generates the supreme merit. He rejoices in heaven for an eon.
It is perfectly possible to have doctrinal/idealogical splits without having a technical/problematic schism.
Schism is about dividing the harmony of the sangha.
The definition of Saášgha is also quite specific. Itâs a group of 4 or more bhikkhus or bhikkhunis living within one boundaried area (sima). To have schism you need to form two sanghas (group of 4 or more bhikkhu/nis) within one sima. A fair amount has already been discussed on this basis under the search term âschismâ.
I think what Jara was actually getting at was the idea of how doctrinal understandings can create broader sectarian difference. These might be taken up by more than one sangha and are more broadly a group of people who also gather around certain ideas. This could happen without any disharmony within a particular sangha and can naturally emerge as schools of thinking around particular terms emerge. We could look at someone like NÄgÄrjuna as someone who lead Buddhist thought in such a way. We can also see this in the reformist ideas which lead to certain forest traditions.
In Vinaya, Cullavagga (Vin. II, PTS, p. 139), the Buddha advises bhikkhus not to use Vedic language (Chanda; i.e. Vedic Sanskrit) for the Buddhaâs teachings, but use instead your own language/dialect for the Buddhaâs teachings.
There are, therefore, now different textual languages for the teachings and stories in Early Buddhism and beyond.
Does that mean Devadatta could have avoided this schism by living in another area? What do you call mutation of teaching another area? Doesnât this both prevent others from hearing Buddhaâs teachings and how is that not an offense?
Devadatta was the first offender- the reason the rule was created. Before him the rule didnât exist. There was no rule to govern his behaviour. Also, at that time, the Buddha was the head of the sangha, so by harming/discrediting the Buddha he was destabilising the sangha. Before the Buddhaâs parinibbana, he said that the sangha would now be in charge. Hence the function of the sangha became even more important.
Sectarianism, interpretation differences or schools of thought. Think of savastivadins or puggalavadins or theravadins; these are all doctrinal differences.
Intentionally misrepresenting the Buddha is a pretty bad thing karmicly for that reason. The teachings will degrade eventually, such is the nature of transmission. Think about photocopying a photocopy. Even while technically accurate, it loses quality.
The closest vinaya rule I can think of about false teachings is bu-vb-pc68 which is about Arittha who said that things which were obstructions were not. I guess that actively telling people to do bad is the real problem here.
I think the list in your first post is pretty good though i think a shorter way to say it is âegoâ.
BTW, I donât see why your post was flagged either. It seemed clear to me that you were using the term in a general sense. We need to mellow out a bit.
Sadhu! Yes, this is a problem actually. The amount of confusion among lay people that comes from various monastics from âthe same traditionâ teaching completely contradictory things is vast. People want to downplay this problem of contradictory teachings by saying itâs not really schismatic, but I think it is, even if not in formal sense, then in the spirit.
From my observations the problem lies in that everyone is prone to bias based on their personality type. So letâs say more relaxed personality tend to have more samatha oriented approach to Dhamma, more tough characters tend to be more âvipassanaâ oriented etc.
Problem is when the personality of a charismatic leader is so strong, that they start to contradict the suttas.
I think the Dhamma and Sangha are in sort of a crisis. Personally I think metta sutta is the key to solve it. Just stop arguing about what is right and what is wrong, stop clincing to fixed/speculative views and really start caring for each other. I think itâs important to have this selfless loving kindness in the heart, and when it is really present, only coming from this space we can âsense the truthâ and contemplate the suttas according to reality. Otherwise I think the hindrance of aversion is bending the truth a lot. Hence I think itâs better to just do a lot of metta practice and do acts of kindness in real life than to do hard discussions.
Thatâs why I follow teachers who âlight the candleâ rather than having strong opinions and bashing other teachings. For me itâs the atmosphere of loving kindness and real actions of kindness (not just talking) that shows me that a teacher is worth following, no matter the traditions they come from or the colour of robe they are wearing.
I imagine people and humans are sophisticated enough that true evil usually doesnât call itself as such itâs usually âfor their safteyâ no matter what horrible thing happens to the victim
Similarly I assume the kind of thing which could be called a schism would originate in a base of being ânon sectarianâ and creating âunityâ
From 15 years of shared ownership in co-ops and also my experiences in activist spaces and hacker collectives one of the funniest observations I ever heard about naive consensus decision making was âMy favourite thing about consensus decision making is when the charismatic leader convinces we all already agreeâ [1] this is one of the reasons voting is so good, we consent to resolve to go along with what others think but can register difference: this actually requires a mature solidarity and deep trust: it is consensus. But not like an adolescent type where if you like see the best truth as goth music and I like think electro is the true one vibe thereâs a problem. In maturity, we consent to difference, in form of groups there may be a vote, strong and dissenting opinions, but requires under neath a trust and solidarity, implemented this just to get on and do things: so schism is not going to look like difference of approach or different music, only in naive implementations: ironically schism or sectarianism may be thinking a difference in approach is schismatic or sectarian
all the best: âmay sangha relations become completeâ
Edit: I think that quote about consensus comes from the governance documents at noisebridge hacker space in san Fran and it might of been Naomi IIRc
Edit 2: [1] In Keagans theory of human development this would be a stage 3 group - stage 4 would have concept of natural justice and procedural fairness and stage 5 would recognise the issues of how process can be abused and is inefficient or âfunnyâ / understanding the ontology of law as a sort of myth - so would consent to the myth making⌠in this example itâs âwe consent to have a voteâ etc âwe consent to Ajahn saysâ etc issue is while a community might be stage 5 stage 5 can look like stage 3 to stage 4 individuals, but if itâs a real stage 5 community, would be able to address doubts or stage 4 individuals about procedural fairness also called natural justice.
