Original teachings of the Buddha

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6551
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Mkoll »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
Caodemarte wrote:Several of the Mahayana Agamas predate the Pali Nikayas.
Would you mind providing some references for this? Thanks.
I hope I am not unwelcome barging in here to contribute my two cents in this subdiscussion concerning āgama-nikāya parallels, and "Early Buddhism", if indirectly.
Not at all! Thank you for your contribution---I will read it later when I have some more time. And thanks for your consideration as it helps maintain the cordiality this thread has so far been consistent with and is pleasing to see.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Javi »

I don't think one can make the blanket claim that the Agamas (also which ones? there are Tibetan and Sanskrit materials as well as Chinese) are older. In the Nikayas and the Agamas, there are many different layers of material.

Ultimately though, this is an impossible claim, because the Agamas we have in Chinese and Tibetan are translations which date to much later than the original Indic material. In some cases, they are translations of translations - ie - translations of Sarvastivada Sanskrit material - which was a translation form the prakrit/middle indic material.

So ultimately the only thing one can say here is that some material in the Agamas can be traced to or have their source in early Buddhist material.

The uniqueness of the Pali material is that it is a complete canon preserved in a middle Indic language - the closest we can get to what the Buddha spoke in. Only some Gandharan fragmentary material can make that claim and of course, it is incomplete. So in that sense, the earliest layer of the Pali Nikayas and the Gandharan prakrit fragments are the closest thing we have to the 'original teachings' of the Buddha.

This is not to say that the Agamas are not an important source and are not authentic. It is great we have so many sources on early Buddhism, but language matters and translation is a messy thing - especially between totally unrelated languages like Chinese and Sanskrit.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Caodemarte »

I think we can fully agree that this is a historical question, not really a religious or doctrinal one. After all, “As we have said, each school considered itself to be simply original Buddhism, and its canon the original word of the Buddha. Scholars have great fun comparing these different versions of the canons, but while there are differences in detail their differences are not normally so great as to suggest very radical divergence in doctrine.” (Paul Williams with Anthony Tribe, Buddhist Thought, 2000) and “… as Etienne Lamotte pointed out forty years ago, the doctrinal basis common to the Chinese Agamas and Pali Nikayas is remarkably uniform; such variations as exist affect only the mode of expression or the arrangement of topics…..” (Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998)

So, in that light and purely for historical interest:

“The concept of canon for Mahyanists and in Tibet and China differs. Some traditions include texts which are canonical and non-canonical by Theravadin standards, and there was the possibility of making additions at a late date, so that it was, for example, possible for a translation, and a bad translation at that, ….to be added to the Chinese canon at the end of the eleventh century C.E.” K.R. Norman, A Philological Approach to Buddhism: The Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai Lectures,1994, SOAS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, 1997). At least in the Chinese traditions, there are also different canonical lists with some texts wandering on and off a list at different times. Here we are speaking of the pretty generally agreed on texts.

“It is also apparent that the Chinese and Tibetan canons do not represent en bloc translations of ancient Indian canonical collections of Buddhist texts, but rather libraries of translations of individual Indian works made over the centuries…. In the case of the Chinese canon this process of translating Indian texts began in· the second century CE" (Gethin). "Indian" texts would have been in a variety of Central and South Asian languages (Ganharian texts were certainly included).

What came to compose the Chinese Mahayana Agamas, for example, can be clearly traced back to the fourth century CE, but just as clearly existed before. “The Chinese Agamas were translated into Chinese from Sanskrit or Middle Indo-Aryan dialects around the end of the fourth century CE, but the texts upon which they rest must like the Nikayas date from the centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.” (Gethin).

We can clearly trace the heavily edited Theravada canon, which are also translations of sectarian source material, back to the fifth century CE (although the source material must have been older, of course). “Theravada Buddhist tradition traces the Pali canon back to a recension of Buddhist scriptures brought from northern India to Sri Lanka in the third century BCE by Mahinda, a Buddhist monk who was the son of the emperor Asoka. Mahinda and his company brought no books, the texts being in their heads, but the tradition is that the Pali texts were subsequently written down for the first time in the first century BCE. The historical value of this tradition is uncertain. Most scholars would be skeptical of the suggestion that the Pali canon existed exactly as we have it today already in the middle of third century BCE. We know, however, that what the commentators had before them in the fifth century CE in Sri Lanka corresponded fairly exactly to what we have now.”
(Gethin).

The Chinese canon, for example, preserves some things lost in the Theravada. “In some cases, portions of Buddhist history seem not to have reached Sri Lanka at all, e.g. the early history of Devadatta's hostility to the Buddha, and the reason why the Buddha called him "lickspittle.” Buddhaghosa does not know the reason and the incorrect explanation he gives…is followed by modern translators and commentators…. Some of the Chinese versions of the Vinaya, however, do know the correct meaning …”(Norman).

“There was a tendency to think that Pali sources gave the most reliable picture of early Buddhism, being the oldest and the most complete, while Sanskrit sources, being mainly Mahayana, were late and suspect, with their grain of truth overlaid with a thick cover of mythology. This view had, of course, been quite untenable since the discovery of Sanskrit Hinayana material in Chinese Turkestan and Gilgit, etc.,… So a recent publication, intended, according to the publishers, as a textbook specifically for students of Religious or Asian Studies, deals with the four noble truths and other Buddhist doctrinal matters in their Pali versions, without making it clear that these are not necessarily the original forms of these terms, and that in some cases the Sanskrit equivalents are perhaps nearer in form and meaning to the Buddha's own words…” (Norman).

So, “It would be wrong, however, to think unquestioningly that the Theravada school is original Buddhism, and its Canon is the original word of the Buddha…There were other early schools of Buddhism, and very substantial sections of their versions of the canons survive either in original fragments or in Tibetan or more importantly here Chinese translations.” (Williams with Tribe).

Again, Theravada's or Mahayana's utility, truth, or faithfulness to Buddhism depends on the age of texts or any of the above. The real measurement of any Buddhist sect should primarily be determined by the Buddhist questions (is it true and is it useful?), not primarily by historical questions or appeals to authority. Or so I have heard.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Dhammanando »

Caodemarte wrote:However, after it jelled into something clearly distinct that indisputably called itself Mahayanist, we have pretty good dates for Mahayana diatribes against the 18 (more or less) non-Mahayana "Hinayana" rivals. Theravada is never mentioned by name.
In mainland Indian Buddhism, both mainstream and Mahāyāna, the Theravāda was referred to by other names, usually either Vibhajyavāda or names like Tambapaṇṇiya, Tāmraparṇīya and Tāmraśāṭiya, derived from old names for Sri Lanka.

As for the name 'Theravāda' (or its Sanskrit cognate), this was generally used in mainland India in the same way that it's used in Pali chronicles like the Dīpavaṃsa, i.e., as a collective name for all of the non-Mahāsaṅghika schools.
Anabhirati kho, āvuso, imasmiṃ dhammavinaye dukkhā, abhirati sukhā.

“To not delight in this dhammavinaya, friend, is painful; to delight in it is bliss.”
(Sukhasutta, AN 10:66)
pyluyten
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by pyluyten »

Caodemarte wrote:I think we can fully agree that this is a historical question [...]

as Etienne Lamotte pointed out forty years ago, the doctrinal basis common to the Chinese Agamas and Pali Nikayas is remarkably uniform; such variations as exist affect only the mode of expression or the arrangement of topics…..”
still there is this question, is vipassana something emerging from dhyana or a different practice? ask this and people will start quarelling :tongue: . I believe comparisons of different materials did lead to this question.
Everyone will agree some insight is necessary for dhyana, and everyone will agree practicing dhyana will offer some insight, but questioning the nature of vipassana seems to me like questioning the heart of the day to day practice ; and modern teachings versus early text seem to offer different story here.
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Caodemarte »

Dhammanando wrote:
Caodemarte wrote:However, after it jelled into something clearly distinct that indisputably called itself Mahayanist, we have pretty good dates for Mahayana diatribes against the 18 (more or less) non-Mahayana "Hinayana" rivals. Theravada is never mentioned by name.
In mainland Indian Buddhism, both mainstream and Mahāyāna, the Theravāda was referred to by other names, usually either Vibhajyavāda or names like Tambapaṇṇiya, Tāmraparṇīya and Tāmraśāṭiya, derived from old names for Sri Lanka.

As for the name 'Theravāda' (or its Sanskrit cognate), this was generally used in mainland India in the same way that it's used in Pali chronicles like the Dīpavaṃsa, i.e., as a collective name for all of the non-Mahāsaṅghika schools.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthavira_nik%C4%81ya) cites Bhikkhu Sujato from "Why Devadatta Was No Saint" as saying.The term sthavira (meaning "elder") is the Sanskrit version of the term better known today in its Pali version thera, as in Theravāda, the "Teaching of the Elders." The original Sthaviras, however, are by no means identical with the modern school called Theravāda. Rather, the Sthaviras are the ancestor of a group of related schools, one of which is the Theravāda.

AFAIK:
The Sthaviras apparently and ironically in light of their name broke away because they wanted a newer version of the vinaya, not the more conservative version in use by the majority.

Although Theravada traditionalists claim that they are the Sthavira, there is no historical evidence (the 7th century claims of the Dīpavaṃsa are simply claims and not evidence). There is an indirect descent, a spiritual descent, and inspiration, but not a direct equivalence.

Non-Mahayana schools were identified as part of the Theravada sect by Theravada and many early Western scholars who thought all non-Mahayana were part of Theravada. However, the Indian Mahayanist polemisists (since they identify themsleves as Mahayanists and attack other schools for not being Mahayana we can say that Mahayana certainly existed as a separate shool or collection of sects at this point) do not mention Theravada as a particular sect.

They do not call all non-Mahayana “Theravada,” as they would have considered themselves as the way of the elders. Naturally, every sect thinks it represents "original" Buddhism. Often, they are all right as there is far more agreement than disagreement (Buddhist sects seem to split far more over lineage questions or on vinaya than on doctrinal questions).The Sthavira are called "Elder" only as their claimed sect name, not as acceptance that they are the "elders."

Theravada’s putative ancestor then had a name which is a cognate in Sanskrit, but it is obviously not the Theravada sect itself (which is the breakaway of a breakaway from that group and likely others). The explanation for this is that it was not in competition because it did not exist as such yet (the most likely reason), was too far south to be of concern, or was too tiny to think of. The last two explanations are problematic as tiny and far away would not seem reasons enough to deter such polemicists.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6551
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Mkoll »

It is clear that some of the teachings found in the Theravada suttas are of the most ancient origin. The evidence for this is literally rock solid in the form of the Asokan edicts from the 3rd century BCE which mention teachings found in the suttas by name, such as the Buddha's advice to Rahula on false speech (MN 61):
Asokan Minor Rock Edict wrote:Piyadasi, King of Magadha, saluting the Sangha and wishing them good health and happiness, speaks thus:[36] You know, reverend sirs, how great my faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and Sangha is. Whatever, reverend sirs, has been spoken by Lord Buddha, all that is well-spoken.[37] I consider it proper, reverend sirs, to advise on how the good Dhamma should last long.

These Dhamma texts -- Extracts from the Discipline, the Noble Way of Life, the Fears to Come, the Poem on the Silent Sage, the Discourse on the Pure Life, Upatisa's Questions, and the Advice to Rahula which was spoken by the Buddha concerning false speech -- these Dhamma texts, reverend sirs, I desire that all the monks and nuns may constantly listen to and remember.[38] Likewise the laymen and laywomen. I have had this written that you may know my intentions.
If one has read a significant number of suttas, reading the translations of the edicts treads over very familiar doctrinal ground and stock phrases.

From the above, it is reasonable to think that many of the other teachings found in the suttas were similarly extant at that time. This evidence supports the theory that some of the teachings of Theravada, or at least some of those of its direct ancestors, are as close as we temporally have to the "original teachings of the Buddha."
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Caodemarte »

Mkoll wrote:It is clear that some of the teachings found in the Theravada suttas are of the most ancient origin. The evidence for this is literally rock solid in the form of the Asokan edicts from the 3rd century BCE which mention teachings found in the suttas by name, such as the Buddha's advice to Rahula on false speech (MN 61):
Asokan Minor Rock Edict wrote:Piyadasi, King of Magadha....
From the above, it is reasonable to think that many of the other teachings found in the suttas were similarly extant at that time. This evidence supports the theory that some of the teachings of Theravada, or at least some of those of its direct ancestors, are as close as we temporally have to the "original teachings of the Buddha."
Sure, but they are also found in Mahayana and other non-Theravada schools. All sects claim to come from "the original teachings of the Buddha" and I would think all are fundamentally correct tbat their basic teachings are what the Buddha taught. No existing Buddhist school teaches that there is an eternal soul, cause and effect do not apply, etc.Nagarajuna, for example, clearly thought that all his work was an explication and defense of (not an addition to) the Buddha's teaching, especially those on cause and effect. You can disagree with his teachings, but it would be unfounded to claim that they are not a re-statement (in his eyes) of the historical Buddha's teaching. They are variants on a theme, albeit sometimes clashing, discordant, or out of tune.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6551
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Mkoll »

Caodemarte wrote:
Mkoll wrote:It is clear that some of the teachings found in the Theravada suttas are of the most ancient origin. The evidence for this is literally rock solid in the form of the Asokan edicts from the 3rd century BCE which mention teachings found in the suttas by name, such as the Buddha's advice to Rahula on false speech (MN 61):
Asokan Minor Rock Edict wrote:Piyadasi, King of Magadha, saluting the Sangha and wishing them good health and happiness, speaks thus:[36] You know, reverend sirs, how great my faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and Sangha is. Whatever, reverend sirs, has been spoken by Lord Buddha, all that is well-spoken.[37] I consider it proper, reverend sirs, to advise on how the good Dhamma should last long.

These Dhamma texts -- Extracts from the Discipline, the Noble Way of Life, the Fears to Come, the Poem on the Silent Sage, the Discourse on the Pure Life, Upatisa's Questions, and the Advice to Rahula which was spoken by the Buddha concerning false speech -- these Dhamma texts, reverend sirs, I desire that all the monks and nuns may constantly listen to and remember.[38] Likewise the laymen and laywomen. I have had this written that you may know my intentions.
If one has read a significant number of suttas, reading the translations of the edicts treads over very familiar doctrinal ground.

From the above, it is reasonable to think that many of the other teachings found in the suttas were similarly extant at that time. This evidence supports the theory that some of the teachings of Theravada, or at least some of those of its direct ancestors, are as close as we temporally have to the "original teachings of the Buddha."
Sure, but they are also found in Mahayana and other non-Theravada schools. All claim to come from "the original teachings of the Buddha" and I would think all are fundamentally correct tbat their basic teachings are what the Buddha taught.
By "they," you mean the Agamas?

Can you tell me which Mahayana schools hold the Agamas as canonical and actively teach directly from them?
Caodemarte wrote:Nagarajuna, for example, clearly thought that all his work was an explication and defense of (not an addition to) the Buddha's teaching, especially cause and effect. You can disagree with his teachings, but it would be unfounded to claim that they are not a re-statement (in his eyes) of the historical Buddha's teaching.
I don't really disagree with his teachings because I haven't actually studied them enough to rightly come to that conclusion. I find his work muddying, not clarifying, and this is why I don't have much desire to study them. But as I've said, different strokes for different folks.
Caodemarte wrote:No existing Buddhist school teaches that there is an eternal soul, cause and effect do not apply, etc.
I'll have to take your word for that as I haven't studied all of the existing Buddhist schools so i can't say much about their doctrines.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Caodemarte »

Mkoll wrote:
...By "they," you mean the Agamas? Can you tell me which Mahayana schools hold the Agamas as canonical and actively teach directly from them?
By "they" I meant the fundamental teaching of the Buddha, but that would include the Agamas. Agama is a generic term for scripture. In this context the Agamas refer to the collections of scripture from early Buddhist schools in the various canons. The Chinese and Tibetan Mahayana Agamas are slightly different from the Theravada Pali Nikayas (see previous discussion) since they were collected from different sects from different regions at different times. However, the doctrinal differences between Theravada Pali Nikayas and the Mahayana Agamas are regarded by scholars as insignificant, if they exist at all.

I don't know of any school that does not teach from the Agamas in its canon. Remember these are slightly differently versions from different languages. They are not fundamentally different doctrines. If any "Buddhist" school did not share these foundational teachings, they would not be Buddhist by definition.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6551
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Mkoll »

What exactly do you believe are the "fundamental teachings of the Buddha" and the "foundational teachings"?

edit: This question nicely brings us back to the OP's original question: "Could someone please point me to a website or book that presents, in as approachable/concise a form as possible, the original teachings of the Buddha?"
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Caodemarte »

Mkoll wrote:What exactly do you believe are the "fundamental teachings of the Buddha" and the "foundational teachings"?

edit: This question nicely brings us back to the OP's original question: "Could someone please point me to a website or book that presents, in as approachable/concise a form as possible, the original teachings of the Buddha?"
The Nikayas and or the Mahayana Agamas would contain the shared fundamental or foundationial teachings such as not self/no self, the 8 fold path, the 4 Noble Trurths, and cause-and-effect. Every sect believes that it best understands these tenets and best represents "Original Buddhism," but all share these tenets so I would call them foundational or fundamental. However, it is difficult to understand them with no guide whatsoever. I would use reason and experience to find a reliable guide, but bear in mind that you are using a guide and not an agreed upon "Original Buddhism. Hence my original response to the OP: "You'd be better off picking one school or group of texts and then contrasting that with Krishnamurti. So the "Buddhism as taught by Ledi Sayadaw or John Doe in such and such texts," rather than wade into the morass of implicty or accidentally claiming that you personally know what "Original Buddhism" is."
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6551
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Mkoll »

Caodemarte wrote:
Mkoll wrote:What exactly do you believe are the "fundamental teachings of the Buddha" and the "foundational teachings"?

edit: This question nicely brings us back to the OP's original question: "Could someone please point me to a website or book that presents, in as approachable/concise a form as possible, the original teachings of the Buddha?"
The Nikayas and or the Mahayana Agamas would contain the shared fundamental or foundationial teachings such as not self/no self, the 8 fold path, the 4 Noble Trurths, and cause-and-effect. Every sect believes that it best understands these tenets and best represents "Original Buddhism," but all share these tenets so I would call them foundational or fundamental.
Again, I don't know enough to come to the conclusion that all Buddhist schools proclaim those tenets as fundamental to their teachings. This is quite a claim, but I don't expect or ask that you provide evidence for every school making this claim. But my impression based on what I actually have read and seen is that this is not the case. What I know for sure is that all schools and teachers emphasize and actively teach the fundamental teachings to different degrees. If at all.
Caodemarte wrote:However, it is difficult to understand them with no guide whatsoever. I would use reason and experience to find a reliable guide, but bear in mind that you are using a guide and not an agreed upon "Original Buddhism. Hence my original response to the OP: "You'd be better off picking one school or group of texts and then contrasting that with Krishnamurti. So the "Buddhism as taught by Ledi Sayadaw or John Doe in such and such texts," rather than wade into the morass of implicty or accidentally claiming that you personally know what "Original Buddhism" is."
The danger of this approach is that one may not have the wisdom to discern a reliable guide from an unreliable one, a guide who shows you the right way vs. a guide who shows you the wrong way. It is easy to be misled by exactly the kind of people who claim to know what "Original Buddhism" or the "best Buddhism" or the "superior Buddhism" is.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Dhammanando »

Caodemarte wrote:The Chinese and Tibetan Mahayana Agamas are slightly different from the Theravada Pali Nikayas (see previous discussion) since they were collected from different sects from different regions at different times. However, the doctrinal differences between Theravada Pali Nikayas and the Mahayana Agamas are regarded by scholars as insignificant, if they exist at all.
By Mahāyāna Āgamas I take it you mean the Dīrgha-, Madhyama-, Saṃyukta and Ekottara-āgamas, right? But if so, why do you call them Mahāyāna Āgamas?
Anabhirati kho, āvuso, imasmiṃ dhammavinaye dukkhā, abhirati sukhā.

“To not delight in this dhammavinaya, friend, is painful; to delight in it is bliss.”
(Sukhasutta, AN 10:66)
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 1798
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Original teachings of the Buddha

Post by Assaji »

Caodemarte wrote:Although Theravada traditionalists claim that they are the Sthavira, there is no historical evidence
There's a lot of evidence. Rupert Gethin writes:
Buddhists from the Indian mainland appear originally to have regarded the Buddhists of Laṅkā as simply the ‘Laṅkā school’, thus Vasubandhu writing in the fourth century cites the notion of the bhavāṅga-vijñāna of the Tāmraparṇīya-nikāya as a forerunner of the ālaya-vijñāna. But beginning with Yijing’s account of his travels in India (671–695 ce ) and Vinītadeva’s eighth-century summary of the divisions of the Buddhist schools (Samaya-bhedoparacana- cakra-nikāya-bhedopadarśana-cakra), we find north Indian sources describing the Buddhist Saṅgha as comprising four nikāyas: (1) the Mahāsāṃghikas, (2) the Sthāviras, (3) the Sarvāstivādins, and (4) the Saṃmatīyas. Significantly, the Sthāviras in turn comprise three sub-nikāyas: the Jetavanīyas, the Abhayagirivāsins, and the Mahāvihāravāsins. The Buddhists of Laṅkā are thus no longer regarded as the ‘Laṅkā school’, they are the Sthāviras, despite the fact that both the Sarvāstivādins and the Saṃmatīyas were also understood as tracing their lineage to the Sthāvira side of the original split with the Mahāsāṃghikas.

https://www.academia.edu/24142416/Was_B ... chronicles
See also an unfinished work by Steve Farmer:

http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Nikaya.pdf
Post Reply