Mahayana split

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Dan74 » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:14 am

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: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Mahayana split

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:18 am

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. :)
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Never again...

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 21276
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:42 am

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
.


++++++++++++++++
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


Return to “Early Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine

cron