Mahayana split

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Dan74 »

I think over the years, scholars here and elsewhere have tried to share the current understanding of the emergence of Mahayana which was unlikely due to any "splits."

This "one Buddhadhamma" notion is neither the reality as it is (even within Theravada) nor is it necessarily desirable - as it is said - 84000 teachings to cure 84000 afflictions. Different strokes for different folks.
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Mahayana split

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Dan74 wrote:This "one Buddhadhamma" notion is neither the reality as it is (even within Theravada)
"As it is" as in the year 2012 is a fair statement, but it wasn't always this way...
Bhikkhu Dhammavihari, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, p33 wrote:It is clear from the evidence relating to the early history of the Buddhist Sangha that the first hundred years of the Sangha knew of only a single body of disciples, more or less homogenous. One does not discover at this stage any traces of groups with distinct names which indicate their partisan loyalties or sectarian teachings.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:
Bhikkhu Dhammavihari, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, p33 wrote:It is clear from the evidence relating to the early history of the Buddhist Sangha that the first hundred years of the Sangha knew of only a single body of disciples, more or less homogenous. One does not discover at this stage any traces of groups with distinct names which indicate their partisan loyalties or sectarian teachings.
The Third Council was called at the most 150 years after the Buddha's death. I think venerable's assessment is a bit too rosy.

"The reason for convening the Third Buddhist Council is reported to have been to rid the Sangha of corruption and bogus monks who held heretical views." *

The various notions refuted during the Third Council did not spring up overnight, and one must keep in mind it was at the Second Council that gives us the Mahāsāṃghikas which was 100 years or less after the Buddha's parinibbana, depending how one dates the Buddha's death, and, again, it is rather likely that the issues debated during the Second Council had been brewing for quite sometime before the council.

"If, as is now almost universally accepted by informed Indological scholarship, a re-examination of early Buddhist historical material, ..., necessitates a redating of the Buddha's death to between 411 and 400 BCE...." —Paul Dundas, The Jains, 2nd edition, (Routledge, 2001), p. 24.

The Dating of the Historical Buddha
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply