Why does it depend on which communities are available in your area?
It’s interesting that you said “which Sangha,” implying that there is more than one.
I thought the Buddha founded one Sangha based on one Dhamma-Vinaya.
This seems to be an tall order, especially for beginners.
Furthermore, it seems like the EBTs are a much more reliable “basic foundation” than the “basics of each of the traditions/sects,” since those basics may or may not have been taught by the Buddha himself.
Like to what degree they have actually been preserved?
Good point. But how can a beginner tell what are “adaptations” of Dhamma-Vinaya and what are “alterations,” especially if they don’t even know what the Dhamma-Vinaya even is in the first place, and are then presented with a wide variety of different, sometimes contradictory representations of it?
How so?
I ask because, to me, the most suitable way to do this seems to be to first learn what the early sources of Dhamma-Vinaya are, and then based on that foundation, standard, and criteria, gauge how contrary or in accordance all the traditions are - i.e. how off the mark or on the mark each of them are.
When I was just reading the different concepts in the different sects/traditions, I don’t think I was that capable of accurately gauging what was “off the mark” and what was “on the mark” - how could one figure that out simply by studying all the different traditions, without any sort of objective standard or criteria to gauge things by?
Why is this necessary?
Especially when the Dhamma-Vinaya itself is such an extremely clear guideline for ethics and morality?
Maybe I am underestimating just how helpful anti-cult literature can be, but it seems to me that if one deeply learns the Dhamma-Vinaya and it’s opposite, Adhamma-Avinaya, then one would automatically develop the “basic skill set to identify all harmful behavior,” let alone “harmful cultic behavior” specifically.
From previous experience, I noticed that members of the Tibetan tradition often seem to emphasize this. I wondered if this is due to the number of teachers in that sect, like Chögyam Trungpa and Drukpa Kunley.
I also wondered if the Dhamma-Vinaya was “altered” (though claimed to be “adapted”) to such a degree that the protection afforded by learning the Dhamma-Vinaya against such harmful cultic behaviors is significantly reduced and mitigated.
Equally legitimate? Completely 100% legitimate? How do you define “legitimate”?
I agree with you completely. I think all the sects/traditions contain the Dhamma-Vinaya to at least some degree - i.e. it is more than 0%, but I also think all of them are less than 100%.
Do you think all the traditions are equally or roughly equally authentic?
If yes, on what basis do you think that?
Again, I agree with you completely here.
The phrases “innovations” and “developments” seem quite positive.
I wonder if it would be suitable to objectively look at “alterations” and “changes” that go contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya along with innovations and developments that accord with Dhamma-Vinaya.
Basically, take a cold, hard, sober, objective, unbiased, and clear-sighted look at all negatives and positives of each religion - i.e. be both open-minded and thinking critically too.
Wouldn’t it be better to consult accurate and reliable sources of Dhamma-Vinaya?
Why limit oneself to the groups that are close by?
Why prioritize say “proximity” and “convenience” over “accuracy” and “accordance with Dhamma-Vinaya” when it comes to figuring out which tradition or traditions to follow - or whether to follow any of them at all?
I am asking these follow-up questions, which I wish that I had the guts to ask those who gave me advice about which tradition of Buddhism to follow.
I hope that your or other’s answers to these questions can provide more information by which those of us who are confused about what was actually taught by the Buddha can carefully consider and use to make the most suitable decision for ourselves, in this case, in terms of which tradition to follow.