Early Traditions and the First Arahants

[Ceisiwr]

I find it interesting that all the early traditions seemed to have a particular persuasion, speaking of the main traditions at least. Theravāda tended towards textual analysis and exegesis, Sarvāstivāda tended towards reason and logical arguments (I believe they sometimes even called themselves the school of logic), the Mahāsāṃghikas more towards the devotional side of the Dhamma whilst the Pudgalavādins seemed more concerned with what was pragmatic. If I'm correct here I wonder why this is? Perhaps there is something in each main tradition stemming from one of the disciples during Buddhas time? We already know from the suttas that different Arahants had their own group of students, and had different ways of teaching with a likely difference in emphasis on different aspects of the Dhamma. Over time perhaps these differences in emphasis become more doctrinal, and fed into the various Abhidhammas?

Any thoughts on this?

[confusedlayman]

I find it interesting that all the early traditions seemed to have a particular persuasion, speaking of the main traditions at least. Theravāda tended towards textual analysis and exegesis, Sarvāstivāda tended towards reason and logical arguments (I believe they sometimes even called themselves the school of logic), the Mahāsāṃghikas more towards the devotional side of the Dhamma whilst the Pudgalavādins seemed more concerned with what was pragmatic. If I'm correct here I wonder why this is? Perhaps there is something in each main tradition stemming from one of the disciples during Buddhas time? We already know from the suttas that different Arahants had their own group of students, and had different ways of teaching with a likely difference in emphasis on different aspects of the Dhamma. Over time perhaps these differences in emphasis become more doctrinal, and fed into the various Abhidhammas?

Any thoughts on this?

Students of different arhants had same teaching.. what difference is there?