Is there a difference between framing it that way and merely claiming it, than actually teaching what the Buddha taught?
Yes, it definitely seems so!
If the Sangha never left what the Buddha taught, what would be the need to return? Shouldn’t the Sangha have been staying with that the Buddha taught from the day one, since Kondonna attain Nibbana?
If one doesn’t attempt to return to what the Buddha actually taught - then it begs the question, what is one turning to for guidance? What the Buddha’s disciples taught? Isn’t the Sangha supposed to trust the Buddha’s judgment as opposed to individual monastic teachers within the Sangha and building schools around such teachers instead of around the Buddha.
Is the sectarian attempt of the conservative tradition Theravada sect to frame their teachings “as what the Buddha really taught” equivalent to Early Buddhist evidence-based methodology used to attempt to figure it out?
Are they merely different in name and label as you seem to be suggesting, or is their something fundamentally different between the Theravada sect and the focus on the EBTs?
Is there any attempt to “return to what the Buddha’s actually taught” ever bad at all?
You seemed to criticize “framing it that way” - but are you are suggesting that the actual return to the “what the Buddha’s actually taught” - whatever that may be - can ever be bad even a little bit?
Agreed. It seems one can say the same for the various sects and schools as well.
Just to clarify, this post is not criticizing “diversity,” it is criticizing “division.”
The Buddha criticized the action of dividing the Sangha and praised the action of unifying the Sangha.
My concern is the decrease the former and increase the latter.
It doesn’t seem to be a one-time action of dividing or unifying, but a constant process to unifying and ensuring unity. Even those who divide the Sangha often don’t do so spontaneously, but plot and scheme to do so.
My concern and interest is trying to learn how to decrease division and increase unification of the Sangha both based on Dhamma-Vinaya (whatever that may actually be, as the common foundation) as well as in accordance with the Dhamma-Vinaya (i.e. taking the proper steps to work towards this end.
Even if the Sangha was or is relatively unified, my concern would still remain in terms of trying to prevent the conditions for future potential divisions and to ensure even further and deeper unity within the Sangha. Hence my question in this post.
Does this make sense?
This might increase diversity, but does this necessarily entail division?
Is there a way for this to happen without sacrificing unity based on the Dhamma-Vinaya, despite language, cultural, etc. differences?
I don’t think external diversity is considered problematic - the Buddha’s goal wasn’t to make everyone in the world more culturally Indian.
My concern comes when this external diversity becomes a guise and excuse for making significant changes to the Dhamma-Vinaya itself - did the Buddha authorize and allow such changes? If yes, then there is no problem. We can all or certain people are allowed to make changes as they wish - the Buddha would have permitted and allowed for that.
But if the Buddha didn’t allow for this - then condemning the “criticism against diversity” would be a red herring - that criticism was never made in the first place - the criticism was against division within the Sangha.
No, none of these are the kinds of things that I am talking about.
I agree that each of these are problematic in their own right.
However, these are all off-topic, so perhaps create a separate post for these or express these concerns in the existing thread devoted to these topics?
Perhaps this underlying assumption might have been what caused a bit a resistance in your mind to the idea of attempting unity?
Is this assumption fully valid?
Is there any way to attempt unity without code-speaking “for maintaining the status quo, whatever the cost”?
My question wasn’t code-speak at all lol, just in case you were wondering.
The Buddha criticized division and praise unity within the Sangha that is based on the Dhamma-Vinaya - not the “agree-to-disagree” apparent unity that seems to be the norm today.
I am simply trying to learn and become aware of what the steps would be to facilitate unity within and unite the Sangha in a proper way that is in accordance with the Dhamma-Vinaya because that seems to be better than at least sitting aside and not trying at all!
The Buddha said that dividing the Sangha (causing a schism) is a very harmful action.
So I simply reasoned that perhaps uniting the Sangha (healing schisms) sees to be a very beneficial action. That’s all.
If this is code-speak, then the EBT’s seem to be way to crack this code. I don’t think code-speakers usually tell others how to crack the code though, right? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of speaking in code in the first place?