Atisha was ordained in this School...maybe his life story would yield something `besides his mission to Tibet...Anyway, what are the best sources to find out more about the Mahāsāṃghika School?
Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
.
Last edited by louhi on Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
This would be an important point to clarify. My recollection was that the mahayana emerged mostly out of the stharvira group, which is why the sarvastivadin abdhidhamma and other sarvastivadin canonical works are preserved in Chinese. I hope someone more knowledgeable will chip in and clarify this point.Ytrog wrote:To get things clear: the non-reformists became the mahayana and the reformists the theravada? I always thought it was the other way around. This is about that schism, right?mikenz66 wrote:I'm sure one of our resident scholars will chime in eventually, but here's a summary of reasonably modern opinion from Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism (1998).
He says that the situation is not certain but...
The puggala-vardin (personalists), sarvasti-vadin (all things past, present and future exist), vibhajayavadin, and theravadins were products of later splits of the reformist stharvira group.Gethin wrote:It seems clear that at some point after the Vaisali meeting the primitive Sangha formally divided into tow parties each of which henceforth had its own ordination traditions. The ancient accounts are inconsistent as to what provoked the split. Some suggest that it was the result of a dispute over five points, later associated with a monk named Mahadeva, concerning the nature of the arahat. That this was indeed the cause of the division is accepted by Bareau (a French scholar). Other ancient sources attribute the division to a disagreement over questions of Vinaya, and the more recent scholarship suggests that this is the explanation to be preferred. According to this view a reformist group in the Sangha proposed tightening discipline on certain matters of Vinaya, while the majority were happy to leave things as they stood. Since the two parties failed to come to an agreement, the Sangha divided into two: the reformist sthaviras (Pali: thera) or 'elders' and the majority mahasanghaikas or 'those of the great community'. The dating of this important event ... is ... problematic [probably before or maybe during Ashoka's reign.]
Mike
Mike
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
Ah, I understand. I was confused by the maha in mahasanghaikas, thinking that this group must have formed mahayana and:
Which is also similar to theravada, so I assumed this was the forbearer of theravada.sthaviras (Pali: thera) or 'elders'
Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.
If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
I think you're right about "sthavira", but "maha" just means "great", more or less, you see that prefix everywhere in Pali or Sanskrit, has nothing to do with Mahayana inherently.
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
I just assumed because of the similarities on both sides (thera and maha) that they became theravada and mahayana respectively.Kenshou wrote:I think you're right about "sthavira", but "maha" just means "great", more or less, you see that prefix everywhere in Pali or Sanskrit, has nothing to do with Mahayana inherently.
Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.
If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
Have a look at:
Prebish, Charles S. and Jan Nattier 1977 Mahasamghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism. History of Religions Vol 16/3
and
Prebish, Charles S.
2010 "The Role of Prātimokṣa Expansion in the Rise of Indian Buddhist Sectarianism." Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies Vol 9
Prebish argues that the Theravadins split from the majority because of a dispute over the addition of vinaya rules.
Bankei
Prebish, Charles S. and Jan Nattier 1977 Mahasamghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism. History of Religions Vol 16/3
and
Prebish, Charles S.
2010 "The Role of Prātimokṣa Expansion in the Rise of Indian Buddhist Sectarianism." Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies Vol 9
Prebish argues that the Theravadins split from the majority because of a dispute over the addition of vinaya rules.
Bankei
-----------------------
Bankei
Bankei
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
That latter Prebish article if available in pdf:Bankei wrote:Have a look at:
Prebish, Charles S. and Jan Nattier 1977 Mahasamghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism. History of Religions Vol 16/3
and
Prebish, Charles S.
2010 "The Role of Prātimokṣa Expansion in the Rise of Indian Buddhist Sectarianism." Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies Vol 9
Prebish argues that the Theravadins split from the majority because of a dispute over the addition of vinaya rules.
Bankei
http://www.shin-ibs.edu/documents/pwj3- ... bish39.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The elders added extra rules and the misbehaving youngsters didn't like it? Nothing new under the sun...
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
This is from Dictionary of Pali Proper Names http://palikanon.com/english/pali_names ... nghika.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:
Mahāsanghikā, Mahāsangītikā
One of the Buddhist schools which separated out from the Theravādins at the Second Council. The members rejected the Parivāra, the six sections of the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhidamagga, the Niddesa and some portions of the Jātakas (KvuA. p. 4; Dpv.v.32ff).
The school was so called owing to the great number of its followers, which made a great assembly or "Mahāsangitī." They were counted among the Anātmavādins, and later gave rise to the following schools: the
* Mahāsanghika
* Pubbasela
* Aparasela
* Rājagiriyā
* Hemavatas
* Cetiyavādins
* Sankantivādins
* Gokulikas
Originally they had only two divisions - the Ekabbohārikas and Gokulikas (Rockhill, op. cit., 182ff).
Their separation from the orthodox school was brought about by the Vajjiputta monks, and was probably due to difference of opinion on the ten points (for these see Vin.ii.294f) held by the Vajjiputta monks. According to Northern sources, however, the split occurred on the five points raised by Mahādeva:
* (1) An arahant may commit a sin under unconscious temptation;
* (2) one may be an arahant and unconscious of the fact;
* (3) an arahant may have doubts on matters of doctrine;
* (4) one cannot attain arahantship without the help of a teacher;
* (5) the "Noble Way" may begin with some such exclamation as "How sad!" uttered during meditation (J.R A.S. 1910, p. 416; cf. MT 173).
These articles of faith are found in the Kathāvatthu (173ff., 187ff., 194, 197), attributed to the Pubbaselas and the Aparaselas, opponents of the Mahāsanghika school.
According to Hiouen Thsang (Beal.ii.164), the Mahāsanghikas divided their canon into five parts: Sūtra, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, Miscellaneous and Dhāranī.
Fa Hsien took from Pātaliputta to China a complete transcript of the Mahāsanghika Vinaya. (Giles, p. 64, Nañjio's Catalogue mentions a Mahāsanghika Vinaya and a Mahāsanghabhiksunī Vinaya in Chinese translations, Cola. 247, 253. Ms. No.543).
The best known work of the Mahāsanghikas is the Mahāvastu. Their headquarters in Ceylon were in Abhayagiri vihāra, and Sena I. is said to have built the Vīrankurārāma for their use. Cv.1.68.
I'm sorry if my words are not understandable and it is in impolite expression, because my native language is not English....
Mettacitena
_/\_
Mettacitena
_/\_
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
For accounts of the divisions of early Buddhist schools, it really pays not to use the history of one school alone (be it any school). All of them are somewhat biased in their own favor (naturally!) Rather, it requires a careful study of all the material. I recommend the studies of Bareau (1955) and Yinshun (1971) in particular, for they are some of the few studies that use all the sources.
Otherwise we bizarre conclusions like "They were counted among the Anātmavādins", and "the Mahāsanghikas ... [t]heir headquarters in Ceylon were in Abhayagiri vihāra". But I guess, great though Malalasekera's dictionary is, it is now pretty dated...
Otherwise we bizarre conclusions like "They were counted among the Anātmavādins", and "the Mahāsanghikas ... [t]heir headquarters in Ceylon were in Abhayagiri vihāra". But I guess, great though Malalasekera's dictionary is, it is now pretty dated...
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
What I learnt is the opposite, Mahayana emerged mostly out of the Mahasanghika instead of the Sthavira group. And, works preserved in Chinese are not exclusively Mahayana, it does contain other pre-Mahayana contents.mikenz66 wrote:This would be an important point to clarify. My recollection was that the mahayana emerged mostly out of the stharvira group, which is why the sarvastivadin abdhidhamma and other sarvastivadin canonical works are preserved in Chinese. I hope someone more knowledgeable will chip in and clarify this point.Ytrog wrote:...
To get things clear: the non-reformists became the mahayana and the reformists the theravada? I always thought it was the other way around. This is about that schism, right?
Mike
Perhaps the term "reformist" is rather confusing. I find at least in one context it refers to "attempts to restore a supposed earlier, ideal state of Buddhism". Mahayana was certainly not a "reformism" in that sense.
Anyway, this seems to be a bit off-topic from the OP. Perhaps we should discuss that in another thread if needed.
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
Thx for the info, Bhante....Paññāsikhara wrote:For accounts of the divisions of early Buddhist schools, it really pays not to use the history of one school alone (be it any school). All of them are somewhat biased in their own favor (naturally!) Rather, it requires a careful study of all the material. I recommend the studies of Bareau (1955) and Yinshun (1971) in particular, for they are some of the few studies that use all the sources.
Otherwise we bizarre conclusions like "They were counted among the Anātmavādins", and "the Mahāsanghikas ... [t]heir headquarters in Ceylon were in Abhayagiri vihāra". But I guess, great though Malalasekera's dictionary is, it is now pretty dated...
I don't have the references as you say. I primary depend on Googling and I find this interesting DPPN of Malaasekera from palikanon.com....
Btw, what the meaning of "Anatmavadins" here, Bhante? Is it same with "adherents of Anatma/Anatta doctrine"?
I'm sorry if my words are not understandable and it is in impolite expression, because my native language is not English....
Mettacitena
_/\_
Mettacitena
_/\_
Re: Which texts did the Mahāsāṃghikas dispute?
They(The Arya Mahasangika Sect.) didn't disputed the Sutta Pitaka text but have comments on the 10 different Vinaya codes that the Theravada hold.