2 Likes
Might one suggest that perhaps we seem to be doing two or three magic tricks things at once: setting up a straw man and begging the question, whilst in addition relying on a few hidden assumptions. First, skepticism is a healthy attitude of a critically thinking human, it is not negative in essence. So for seeking some truth value, we might want to be careful about lumping this together with conspiracy theories (a rather specific thing, and clearly, in the current has a negative connotation). Otherwise it is impossible to affirm one aspect without automatically agreeing with another (which could, however, be an unacceptable proposition â probable result â silence or confirmation bias).
To discuss constructively, and without falling into labeling unidentified âothersâ as âmaterialistsâ or even adding an evaluation of âcynicalâ (thus setting up an enemy, a second straw man), and w/o assuming that anything with six letters âs a n g h aâ is automatically holy and exempt from scrutiny, it may be useful to dissect the terms used. To top it off, one could in fact argue the exact opposite â any religious body is subject to double, triple, quadruple or even centiduple scrutiny, because they assume positions of preaching morality and elevate themselves (wittingly or unwittingly). Such kayas or organisms are, after all, human made and run and reflect human qualities. Can do great things, can also become corrupt to the core. In any tradition.
I would suggest something odd: thinking: UD 6.4 
Could it be that there are already 4 âsanghasâ at play in this discussion here. Kattame cattÄro? Here:
- There is the case of Sangha (S) (mythical, perfect, canonical),
- there is the case of Sanghaâ (Sâ) (in our private heads, idealistic individual images, imagined blameless),
- there is the case Sanghaââ (Sââ) (a kusala reality, where S and Sâ have joined hands to the extent possible, exists, harder to find, making sometimes inhumane efforts to counter the next category) and there is
- the case the sanghas (s) (akusala, human realities, factually corrupt, possibly off the path, very much in existence â one just needs to peek whatâs really going on in SE-Asia, prevalent, easy to bump into).
Trying to be somewhat fact based â Iâm only aware of one specific movement, it is online, Dhm Ovrgrnd (intended misspelling, to ward of Google sentinels and completely undue conflict) with a vibrant online community, where the critique of the non-revelation of the âsuper human knowledgesâ is criticized by definition, and in turn, used as an identity generating device. The founder there calls himself an Arahant. I believe, other healthy skeptics (=questioners), âmaterialistsâ, âcynicistsâ, questioners, âBatchelorsâ rather base their critique on the actual corruption we find nowadays or have found otherwise (anything further from here would possibly equal wrong speech for me, possibly up to a criminal offence). And then perhaps try to intellectually trace back âwhere it all went wrongâ, maybe drawing conclusions from old materials, maybe from deduction or induction.
I have found this comment to highly relevant: A Thai friend of mine once suggested that both Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Buddhadasa (whatever one thinks of one or the other â both were extremely Venerable Bhikkhus) probably arose roughly in the same and with somewhat similar agendas, although with completely different hand-writings and personalities, independently of each other, as a direct reflection of the demise of the ideals and the near-complete corruption of much of the ways of monastic life a propos the teaching (careful with words here, again). The person suggested, they were an inevitable rebound. A syptom, or a solution to a symptom. Arisen to clean up the mess, to return to the âsourceâ. Either took his own way. But both did return to humble forests and lived the humblest of lives. And this person was an example of the younger higher-middle class âanti-Buddhistâ one can meet in Bangkok â who saw the reality and were just turned off by it, despite the B stamp in the passport. The international/nanachat missionary agenda of Ven. Chah really took off (and we now have this forum ;)), the nanachat school of the Ven. Buddhadasa did not do so well but his scriptural and scholarly work still became influential both in the West (more quietly) and in his home country (I heard a witty Thai monk recently claim that Tipitaka was not even completely translated into Thai language before his work, if I understood correctly).
Summa summarum, I think it will be difficult for the discussion to not become scattered or move away from OPâs intention to stick to EBTs, as the situation and flourishing of âsâ as opposed to much rarer Sââ (not to mention Sâ and S) dictates not only healthy skepticism but upright condemnation amongst the âmaterialistsâ almost by mechanical definition. And I think it can easily overshadow any other aspect, really, and whilst skeptical approaches, would not qualify as conspiracy theories to be âaddressedâ, suggesting that something needed protection. 
4 Likes
I think key words here are that lay people decided it lol
I deleted some of my previous posts because I originally misconstrued this thread. I just wanted to say is I agree with its general theme; that there is often views that try to negate the necessity & value of the monastic Sangha. 
2 Likes
I do not think this is enough protection.
âWho is the Buddha in three refugesâ
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21220&hilit=
Actually I see the silver lining in the rain cloud.
We should not forget that the Dhamma we have today is preserved by the Sangha irrespective of whether they are Ariya or not. Even if the Sangha is not Ariya, it is worth taking the refuge of them as there are many monks with inspiration qualities.
1 Like
I like the idea of thinking of Sangha not in terms of the people who it is made up of but instead the model of right livelihood it preserves.
By this way, it works like a refuge, a shelter - just like the Pali saraáša implies:
saraáša
neuter
shelter, house; refuge, protection
2 Likes
Yes, sometimes I think in the same line of thought.
âTaking refuge in attachment, aversion and ignorance?â
1 Like
Ok. So it seems we are somehow all on the same page in terms of elephant in the room. Maybe we still donât fully agree on its size, shape⌠but thatâs good enough! 
In order to move on, I would like to suggest we try to tackle the other topic originally suggested:
To what extent EBTs suggest the Buddha or the early Sangha were met with similar skepticism and/or conspiracy theories, and how they addressed (or not) to it?
The only text that comes to my mind is the Sunakkhattaâs address to the Vajjian Assembly in the MN12. âŚ
A paradox is that Banthe Dhammika and the committed monastics in Perth would possibly not have their opportunity if it were not for a monastic Sangha that, as individuals, did not follow the letter and the spirit of the Buddhaâs teaching as understood by modern day EBT wallahs.
1 Like
Would DN1 answer your question?
What Buddha said
âIf, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?â
âCertainly not, Lord.â
âIf, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: âFor such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.â
âAnd if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: âFor such and such a reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this is found among us.â
3 Likes
Yes, it does! 
So, what we could and should do is to just stick to the facts and not get affected by criticism. 
2 Likes
Precisely! If someone criticizes you and they are wrong, no need to get angry.
If they criticize you and they are right, also no need to be angry 
7 Likes
One who is stained with defilements
and yet dons the ochre robe
who lacks restraint and speaks not the truth
Is unworthy of the ochre robe.
One who has cleansed all moral defilements
who is established in the precepts
is endowed with restraint and speaks the truth
Is truly worthy of the ochre robe.
Dhammapada Verses 9 and 10
(I read there is a play on words here. Since robes are stained to give them a color.)
1 Like
"And again, there will be in the course of the future monks undeveloped in body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment. They â being undeveloped in body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment â will take on others as students and will not be able to discipline them in heightened virtue, heightened mind, heightened discernment. These too will then be undeveloped in body⌠virtue⌠mind⌠discernment. They â being undeveloped in body⌠virtue⌠mind⌠discernment â will take on still others as students and will not be able to discipline them in heightened virtue, heightened mind, heightened discernment. These too will then be undeveloped in body⌠virtue⌠mind⌠discernment. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma.
A counterfeit of true dhamma:
"Thatâs the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world**, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world.**[1]
"Itâs not the earth property that makes the true Dhamma disappear. Itâs not the water property⌠the fire property⌠the wind property that makes the true Dhamma disappear.[2] Itâs worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear. The true Dhamma doesnât disappear the way a boat sinks all at once.
Rather than tackling the whole as a conspiracy theory, itâs better to tackle an idea at a time. For example :
Without this rule Buddhism as we know would have perished long time ago, imagine magicians in robes attracting followers. So itâs more like preventing bad apples from being seen as good apples.
5 Likes