The Theravāda tradition, rooted in the Pāli Canon, emphasizes the Buddha’s teachings as a guide to liberation, framed within the broader context of humility, self-awareness, and the acceptance of the vastness of the Dharma. Yet, within the contemporary Buddhist landscape, certain individuals or groups—be they Theravādins, neo-Theravādins, or revisionist Theravādins—have made absolutist claims about their understanding of the Dharma, asserting the exclusivity of their interpretations and declaring all other perspectives false. Such assertions not only contradict the principles of the Dharma but may also, under the Vinaya, constitute violations of the Uttaramānasikā rule. This essay will argue that those who claim definitive authority over the Dharma to the exclusion of all other interpretations are implicitly claiming a superhuman understanding akin to Buddhahood. As such, if these claims are untrue, they result in the expulsion (pārājika) of the claimant from the Buddhist monastic order.
The Nature of the Vinaya and Uttaramānasikā
The Vinaya, the code of monastic discipline, exists to maintain the integrity and harmony of the Sangha. Among its gravest prohibitions are the Pārājika offenses, which, when violated, result in immediate and irreversible expulsion. One such rule concerns Uttaramānasikā, or the making of false claims about spiritual attainments, including the assertion of enlightenment, superhuman knowledge, or other advanced states. The Buddha, as the founder of the Sangha, was uniquely endowed with perfect understanding of the Dharma (sammāsambodhi). While his disciples are encouraged to strive toward awakening, none can claim to match his omniscient insight without risking a falsehood of the gravest order.
When a monastic or group asserts that their understanding of the Dharma is complete and infallible to the extent that all other interpretations are definitively false, they imply an understanding that exceeds the bounds of human limitations and approaches the Buddha’s omniscience. Such a claim, if untrue, qualifies as a violation of Uttaramānasikā. This principle is critical in evaluating modern Theravadin absolutists who dismiss all other interpretations of the Dharma.
Absolutism as a Violation of Humility
Central to Buddhist practice is the cultivation of humility and the recognition of the limitations of individual understanding. The Buddha himself, when teaching the Dharma, often used skillful means (upāya), adapting his teachings to the specific capacities and circumstances of his audience. This flexibility underscores the Buddha’s awareness of the profound and multifaceted nature of the Dharma, which defies rigid dogmatism.
In contrast, modern Theravadin absolutists or revisionists who dismiss alternative interpretations as false exhibit a hubris that contradicts the Buddhist path. Their claims of definitive authority over the Dharma fail to acknowledge the Buddha’s unique insight, implying instead that they themselves possess a perfect understanding that can override all others. Such behavior is inconsistent with the qualities of a true disciple, who must recognize the vastness of the Dharma and the impossibility of any one individual comprehending it in its entirety.
By asserting that their interpretation alone is correct, these individuals reject the Buddhist principle of dependent origination, which recognizes the interconnectedness and conditionality of all phenomena, including the evolution of doctrinal interpretations. Such rigidity undermines the spirit of inquiry and self-reflection that the Buddha encouraged.
The Implied Claim of Buddhahood
For a Theravadin or any other Buddhist to claim that all other interpretations of the Dharma are false, they must necessarily assert an absolute grasp of the Dharma. This claim implicitly elevates the individual to a status akin to that of a Buddha, as only a Buddha possesses the omniscient insight necessary to adjudicate all possible interpretations of the Dharma. Such an assertion, whether explicit or implied, constitutes a claim to a superhuman quality and, if untrue, falls squarely under the Uttaramānasikā rule.
The Buddha explicitly warned against such behavior. In the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1), he criticized those who become attached to views, insisting that attachment to dogmatic positions—whether true or false—leads to suffering. Absolutist claims, therefore, not only misrepresent the Dharma but also contradict its core teachings on non-attachment and self-transcendence. By falsely asserting omniscience, absolutists betray both the letter and spirit of the Buddhist path.
The Danger to the Sangha
The Pārājika rules were instituted not only to preserve the ethical purity of individual monastics but also to safeguard the unity and harmony of the Sangha. Absolutist claims about the Dharma, particularly when combined with the rejection of all other interpretations, risk creating division and discord within the monastic community. The Sangha is meant to be a refuge for all practitioners, regardless of their level of understanding or doctrinal orientation. Attempts to monopolize the Dharma by dismissing alternative perspectives undermine this inclusivity and threaten the cohesion of the community.
Moreover, such absolutism can lead to the erosion of public trust in the Sangha. When monastics or Buddhist leaders are perceived as dogmatic or inflexible, they alienate lay practitioners and tarnish the reputation of the tradition as a whole. By contrast, the Buddha’s teachings emphasize openness, dialogue, and the ability to adapt the Dharma to the needs of diverse communities. Absolutist claims, therefore, are not only ethically and spiritually flawed but also strategically detrimental to the preservation of Buddhism.
Conclusion: Expulsion as a Consequence
Those who assert that their understanding of the Dharma is so definitive that it invalidates all other interpretations are, in effect, claiming a superhuman authority that they do not possess. Such claims, if untrue, constitute violations of the Uttaramānasikā rule, resulting in pārājika—the expulsion of the claimant from the monastic order. This consequence is not punitive but protective, serving to preserve the purity of the Sangha and the integrity of the Buddha’s teachings.
In rejecting the absolutism of Theravadin revisionists and others who claim exclusive authority over the Dharma, we reaffirm the Buddha’s legacy of humility, openness, and the acknowledgment of the vastness of the path to liberation. The Dharma is not the property of any one person or group; it is a universal teaching, open to all who seek freedom from suffering. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand its essence and, ultimately, to defeat oneself.
Dharmata 