Noble ones and true Dhamma as one group

Can it be that Arahants and Nobles ones have been in others groups and sects, such as the mahā Sanghika after the second Sangīti and dispatched in different sects after the third council also?

My question is here to discuss the possibilities of few groups who have preserved the true Dhamma, or only one, the Theravāda.

I believe it can not be many groups,only one group has preserved the correct and complete true Dhamma said by the Buddha wich leads to Nibbāna.
Why?
Because those who have better kamma, stronger kusala in the past, have de facto better opportunity to meet the Sappurisa, the true persons, and to hear the Sadhamma than those who less powerful supportive kamma.
To be in contact with Dhamma, to hear Dhamma, to see Noble Sangha: this is kusala vipāka. If your past kusala is better (your past training in sīla samādhi paññā and related kusala) then
-the Dhamma wich you will hear and the persons who teach it will be better, especially according to your wishes
-your faculties of saddhā vīriya sati samādhi paññā will be better because of the quality of your patisandhi citta (reborn mind) produced by the kusala of the mind at death (maranasanna vīthi).

  • your inclination, adhimutti, will bend towards high Dhamma qualities
  • your paññā (wisdom) will be stronger and you will be able to understand Dhamma with more clarity.

Shortly said, your pāramī will be better.

Therefore this a law, a natural and necessary process, that after the Buddha Parinibbāna, after the many schisms due to wrong views of misleaded people, only one group hold the Sadhamma, because wise people with strong faculties and high inclinations towards Dhamma will follow it.
Those who have lower merit will have less pure Dhamma as result, less faculties to recognise it, and lower inclination towards Dhamma.

That is why, according to this process due to kamma, the only correct method is to follow the Dhamma contained in Theravāda, the only true Dhamma, and to reject the others. In the past also the many other sects didn’t have enough wisdom to recognise the truth.

And it means nowadays, if some people try to mix Dhamma, to change it by comparing with others sects and so on, their inclinations is low, as well as their merit and wisdom.

This is how i understand this matter.
What about you?

1 Like

Monks who broke the contract (i.e. breaking any of vinaya rules and precepts) cannot attain anything, not even samadhi. Hence, it goes this way: Sila, Samadhi, Panna.
Other Buddhist schools have their own set of vinaya and sila. Are these sets complete? If not, how would they practice vinaya perfectly? Without such perfection, how would they attain Samma Samadhi?
But if one is not a monk, one does not need to perfect vinaya. But lay-lifestyle is too lax if compared with monks practicing vinaya. Yet attaining lower magga-phala is possible. But cannot become arahants. Dhutanga must be practiced to become arahant - at least one should dwell in a forest monastery.
Past and present parami cannot help anyone who is not qualified.

I think the other schools, or Paths… were based on Bodhisatva vows. If this is true, then it would be impossible to be an ariya.

More likely, if they have done so in the past, they are doing so today. while the teacher is subjected to great negative kamma and could not exist today, it is likely that they were followers of such sects in the past and then wished to be teachers of that view in today.

The EBT’ers seem to forget that their great and reliable Chinese sources include Mahayana teachings.

As for vinaya, the great split in sangha was based on the 2nd council with the widespread use of money as the cause for the 2nd council as noted in the culavagga. If you go to a museum or read about it they will list all 10 reasons for the council and it appears diluted. However, in Abhidhamma, the last rupa listed in a kalapa is the defining and most important rupa. Here we could say the “The 10 reason second council meeting with using money as the tenth.”,

2 Likes

For me, I believe only one group could have possibly preserved the Dhamma correctly, but I dont think any existing group preserved the true Dhamma completely and without any distortion at all, and that is the cause of the lack of arahants in this world in the present day. I dont even believe Classical Theravada follows or preserved the true dhamma, I just believe they are the group that follows what is closest to the sadhamma as you can get in this day and age. Same with the Theravada scriptures, i dont see any reason, out of the dozens of different versions of the tripitaka, that the Theravada tripitaka was completely 100% right. There is no reason to think that because the fact that there were dozens of versions at one point of time at all implies record keeping was understandably poor back then. I just think (classical) Theravada was the most right and the best we got for our time period without a living Buddha to teach us directly.

Also a reminder that just because something is not 100% correct or complete does not make it wrong or useless. Virtually every scientist and historian has been wrong about something, but science and established history are still worthy fields to study because you can still achieve a lot with “mostly” right knowledge. Virtually every medicine is not 100% effective yet it is still worth to take it to treat ailments since it still usually makes you better off than without medicine.

Sorry, You think Dhamma is not correct… It was correct at the Buddha’ s time… But not now.

Then sorry, but this argument is not powerful. It lacks a precise reflexion, observation. Just to say that nowadays our world lack Arahants is not enough. It is normal that with time going, pāramī of people are less powerful and automaticaally adhigama, especially Arahant, becomes rear.

This is your idea… But it’s puting everybody on the same level… That is for me a mistake. The fact that some people poorly learned understood and translated Tipitaka (the sects of wrong views teachers) has nothing to do with Arahants who were Tipitakadhāra and who had patisambidhā ( analytical knowledge ). I gave a reason : kamma, people who have strong faculties protect true Dhamma, people who have weak one can not do so. I find my idea better because it does not find fault with Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, it finds fault with persons only, those who have weak inclinations (puggalika dosa). Your method, on the opposite, find fault with Dhamma (Dhamma dosa). My method tries to explain with kamma, your method not.

Sorry, but having faith in Dhamma, seeing great and deep knowledge in it, trusting it… When i see someone to reject it because of lack of faith (asaddhā) i can only reject what you are saying.

I also notice you are saying that with "almost right " Dhamma one can practice…I think to be successful one need correct pariyatti and patipatti… i think you are definitely wrong in your analysis… The Vinaya, and also the method for samādhi and vipassanā is complete and correct.
Not only that, i think this is better to have saddhā and to think Dhamma is correct from begining to the end for all practioners and future generations as well well… On a doubtful base one can not develop Dhamma well.

But im doing it with mettā : may you be happy :slightly_smiling_face:
May you practice well and understand Dhamma :blush:

2 Likes

You can rely on the sixth Sangayana Pali version. sixth Sangayana Pali - Google Zoeken

1 Like

I think that it is best to focus on what is correct and floats your boat.
As I have said before, the paṭibhāga nimitta appears when there are no more faults to be seen (because they are ignored).

1 Like

I never said the Dhamma is not correct. The teachings as preserved by Theravada are not 100% in line with the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha, and is therefore not 100% correct. The Dhamma is timeless and perfect.

Why do you think the Theravada vinaya and texts is 100% right? isnt it logical to assume there were some mistakes in record keeping over the past 2 millenia? To say that every other school got it wrong and Theravada got it 100% right seems far fetched. Other Buddhist schools still line up with Theravada texts 70-80% of the time, I see no reason other schools would make mistakes in record keeping but Thevavada never did.

I still believe Classical theravada is certainly the most correct and the gold standard we should follow given its high degree of accuracy, I just dont think its reasonable to think its as infallible as the Dhamma set forth by the Buddha 2500 years ago. They were texts compiled and preserved by imperfect humans to the best of their ability, not something written by and all powerful God. It is neither reasonable nor necessary to believe the Theravada canon is as infallible as christians believe the Bible is.

Furthermore, all things are impermanent and theres no reason to think things just fall off the face of the earth in an instant. Most things fade gradually and i’d say the Dhamma is the same. doubting the historicity of Theravada keeping a 100% perfect record of the teachings in its tripitaka and commentaries is not doubting the Dhamma itself.

There were efforts to keep Dhamma unchanged, unaltered. Also there were efforts to change it. Those are recorded in text to let us know who put those efforts.
We don’t have the exact pronunciation and accents of Buddha time. Other than that texts were put into TiPitaka so they may last forever.
Commentaries were added, but are recognized as they are. Never mixed with TiPitaka.

Precisely, while doing that, you are finding fault with Dhamma, without realising it.

“Svakkhāto Bhagavatā Dhammo”
The Dhamma is well taught. And the authority given by the Buddha in term of Dhamma, it is the Buddha ’ s words.

When you say " Dhamma is not correctly kept, records are fautly, real Dhamma is different " then you are saying Dhamma didn’t have the quality of been well said, because it implies it could not been protected despite the Buddha ’ s efforts to establish Dhamma Vinaya, and the many Sangha councils. You are finding weaknessess also with the Dhamma you are working : thinking its not pure Dhamma. In consequence of that, your ability to respect Dhamma may be limited, because you think the Pariyatti is not correct, real Dhamma is different. Same thing with Sangha.

That is why you are finding faults and you are not able to give duly respect to the Dhamma and to make connection with the Lokuttara Dhamma, patipatti Dhamma, and pariyatti: you are making limitations in pariyatti Dhamma, you limit the power of truth to reach your heart: it is quite unfortunate, so i please suggest to consider if your view point is beneficial in anay way.

Also, you are saying that since 2500 years went since the Buddha’ s time, then just because of that you consider our Dhamma incorrect, without any other reflexion. Just saying " its old, then it must be wrong" i don’t agree at all. On the opposite if people protect the Buddha vacana by considering it with due respect- as Truth and highest authority - then we can protect it, even after 5000 years after the Buddha.
But by following this attitude : “Dhamma must have faults” we can neither protect it nor respect Dhamma.

Even if you think your doubt is " reasoned" or “legitimate” according to your views, still it is real doubts. Doubt is hindrance. Why real doubt? Because you are not giving authority in the present Dhamma. You are doubting the power of Dhamma. And also doubts towards the Sangha : doubts about their abilities to protect, and to understand and correctly practice Dhamma.

There is the whole practice of Vinaya, samatha and vipassanā methods in the Theravāda. It is complete and quite precise, the way to attain Nibbāna is there. It is golden Dhamma.
If you think there are faults, its your personal idea, your view. But again, please notice that i will reject your words out of faith and respect for Dhamma.
Nothing personal.

Therefore may you be well and happy, and may you build faith and understanding towards Triple Gems

The Buddha never advocated for blind faith. one of the qualities of the dhamma is literally “encouraging investigation” (ehipassiko). I do have full undoubting faith in the triple gem, because i have good reason to have such. I do not have full undoubting faith in the theravada canon and commentaries as it is just not reasonable to expect record keeping to be completely infallible. The Buddha already achieved paranibbana, its not like he watched over the 26 or so early Buddhist schools and used divine intervention to make sure that exactly one of them would keep a completely perfect record of the Dhamma, therefore i do not believe the record could be perfect, even if they are the best records we have. Something doesnt have to be perfect for you to get benefit from it.

If you have faith that Theravada did keep an infallible record of the Dhamma than go ahead. I was simply conveying my understanding of the matter and the reasons for it.

Your original post did say

But it depends of what do you mean by saying completely infallible.

Again if you consider Vinaya to be not correct, the method to attain jhāna and abhiññā to be wrong, the methods of vipassanā… Or you consider it to be good enough to be correct and trusted? between these two there is a big gap.

It depends the extent of the faults you find.
Some people makes their own interpretation of jhāna, of paticca samuppada by reading the suttas and comparative studies with chinese Tipitaka and so on.
They say " i rediscovered the old Buddha 's words meaning ", until the modify the satipatthāna, they make their own system…

Very different from someone who has the attitude of Subhūti Bhante and says "let’s focus on what is right " and ignore the faults, with faith and understanding that the theory and practice enshrined in Theravāda is correct and leads to Nibbāna.
This is not blind. This is correct. As he said, If someone focus on the faults of the kasina, he can never obtain the complete nimitta to reach absorption. Therefore the attitude to focus on what is right and forget faults is done with knowledge, not blind at all.
Saddhā is always encouraged by the Buddha as bodhipakkiya, never as maker of blindness.
But viccikiccā is always a nīvarana, a maker of blindness.

It is something that fails to understand many faults finder of the Tipitaka. And to accuse faith to be “blind”. That’s not correct. The Buddha always praised faith, it is indriya and bala, you need it to practice. In Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha… It implies faith in the lineage of correct practioners.

No.
But individuals are different, so faith occurs to them differently.

  • Some have blind faith.
  • Some have confidence.
  • Some have mixed emotion.

Blind faith of some individuals is similar to faith in a parachute. They would wear that parachute and jump off a plane. That way many became Buddhists, Buddhist monks, etc.

  • And with faith in teacher(s), they would train in vinaya, scripture and samatha-vipassana and would become ariya-puggala and full confidence is developed.
  • Before enlightenment, we cannot be 100% confident in anything.

For some, blind faith is based on overwhelming respect, admiration, after seeing, hearing, (with/without) understanding the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, but leads to confidence/conviction: believing they must be good, they must be one’s refuge.

Yes the records correct enough to be trusted overall. just like modern medicine, has flaws but correct enough to be trusted.

I do ignore potential faults. but having faults at all implies its not 100% correct. I just ignore the faults, I acknowledge there may be some in the records but ignore them.

2 Likes

It means you consider it as quite pure, and the potential faults would be trifle… As minor faults in a mandala would not affect a skilful yogi concentrating on a kasina…
Then it is very good…
Sādhu sādhu sādhu :pray::pray::pray: