Hi forum,
is it true that Vibhajjavada (Moggaliputta Tissa) was the seed of later Tambapani Srilanka religion called Theravada?
was Vibhajjavada started as a group of monks who went away from another group which later become Mahayana movement?
is it true that Srilanka Theravada 100% same as Vibhajjavada?
is it true that nowadays Theravada is actually Srilanka religion?
was Srilanka Theravada avoid to mention or study whatever Mahayana studied in?
was Srilanka Theravada allergic to everything sounds Mahayanic?
if so, what is the cure or medicine for this type of allergy?
Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
Last edited by circuit on Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
Theravada doctrine is in completion before Mahayana forms. It doesn't know of Mahayana.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
don't put in the effort... it's a wind up.Jack19990101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:51 am Theravada doctrine is in completion before Mahayana forms. It doesn't know of Mahayana.
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
OP wrote
Was not Dr. Kalupahana who studied Nagarjuna a Sri Lankan, he praised Nagarjuna?
Once I read a book edited by Rupert Gethin and some others... The title of one chapter was "Was Buddhaghosa a mahayanist?" Where do you draw the line?
I thought I will answer these questions, to kill my boredom. It was not cured by this vain attempt. If I meditate on 4 brahma viharas, that might offer some respite.
Best
PS Good news is that the basic doctrine: The elements, the aggregates, sense fields, dependent origination and 8-fold path are common to all sects. No sect could do without these.
I really don't know if Moggaliputts Tissa was the seed? it is very hard to find out how Theravada began. Alexander Wynne says as much.is it true that Vibhajjavada (Moggaliputta Tissa) was the seed of later Tambapani Srilanka religion called Theravada?
There were many sects, each selecting one thing over another, to one up the other. I hear competition was intense during the early Nalanda period, scholars thrashing one another, so un-buddhistic. It is useful to read what each sect selected, from the original pile of Abhidahmma. Based on that one can come up with one's own sect. If that leads to end of pain, what more do you want?was Vibhajjavada started as a group of monks who went away from another group which later become Mahayana movement?
So says some scholars. Is there only one sect in Sri Lanka?is it true that Srilanka Theravada 100% same as Vibhajjavada?
Theravada of Thai Forest Tradition is quite different. Who can answer such specific questions without much research? Do we have the data?is it true that nowadays Theravada is actually Srilanka religion?
I don't know.was Srilanka Theravada avoid to mention or study whatever Mahayana studied in?
Was not Dr. Kalupahana who studied Nagarjuna a Sri Lankan, he praised Nagarjuna?
hmm....don't know about allergies.was Srilanka Theravada allergic to everything sounds Mahayanic?
Once I read a book edited by Rupert Gethin and some others... The title of one chapter was "Was Buddhaghosa a mahayanist?" Where do you draw the line?
allergies of samsara can only be cured by the 8-fold path.if so, what is the cure or medicine for this type of allergy?
I thought I will answer these questions, to kill my boredom. It was not cured by this vain attempt. If I meditate on 4 brahma viharas, that might offer some respite.
Best
PS Good news is that the basic doctrine: The elements, the aggregates, sense fields, dependent origination and 8-fold path are common to all sects. No sect could do without these.
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
The formless attainments too
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
I think Pulsar is misremembering "Was Buddhaghosa a Theravādin? Buddhist identity in the Pali commentaries and chronicles" by Rupert Gethin. It appears in the collection "How Theravāda is Theravāda?" as Chapter 1. Rather than edited by him, the essay is written by him, and the anthology as a whole is edited by Peter Skilling, Jason A. Carbine, et al.
The contents of the essay in question are to do with when and how Sri Lankan Buddhists start self-identifying as "Theravādin," not whether or not Ven Buddhaghosa was a Mahāyānika. Asking if Ven Buddhaghosa was a Mahāyānika would be a positively bizarre paper. I don't imagine it would be published easily in a journal of serious repute or alongside articles of good repute from a non-partisan compiler. From the conclusion of Gethin's paper:
"Vibhajjavāda" is the product of a schism that occurs later than this first schism, and is a schism in the community that gets called "Stharivavāda" today. AFAIK, the Vibhajjavādins are formed in a Sarvāstivāda-Vibhajjavāda schism from the wider Stharivavāda community. Does anyone have something that disputes this?
The "allergen" is no longer causing "allergies." The violent crackdown doesn't "come out of no where," so-to-speak, and happens at the end of a back-and-forth of mutual aggression vaguely similar to the "Wars of Religion" between Protestants and Catholics in Europe on a lesser scale (unless I'm quite wrong and to be corrected by someone here). I do believe that it was either the Sri Lankan Mahāyānikas or their supporters that they were geopolitically tied to that "struck first" in the sectarian conflicts. In all likeliness, the conflicts were geopolitical and the religious aspects were secondary and only to legitimize geopolitical concerns. That being said, I am not widely read in Sri Lankan history and could be wrong.
The contents of the essay in question are to do with when and how Sri Lankan Buddhists start self-identifying as "Theravādin," not whether or not Ven Buddhaghosa was a Mahāyānika. Asking if Ven Buddhaghosa was a Mahāyānika would be a positively bizarre paper. I don't imagine it would be published easily in a journal of serious repute or alongside articles of good repute from a non-partisan compiler. From the conclusion of Gethin's paper:
(p.54-55)8. Conclusions
I suggested above that in defining its Buddhist identity Laṅkā Buddhist tradition made reference to four things:
(1) a lineage of Theras,
(2) a set of Buddhist missions associated with the famed Moggaliputta Tissa,
(3) the tradition of the ‘Analysts’ or Vibhajjavādins, and
(4) the principal monastic establishments of Anurādhapura
(the Mahāvihāra, Abhayagirivihāra and Jetavana).
On the basis of the material considered above it seems possible to distinguish four different phases in the development of Buddhist identity referring to these four things:
(1) An initial phase when the Buddhists of Laṅkā see themselves as connected to an important lineage which they regard as pan-Indian. Through Mahinda and Moggaliputta Tissa, this lineage can trace itself back directly to the elders who presided at the first and second councils; yet, significantly, it does not define itself by reference to other Buddhist lineages. Such an initial phase is exemplified especially by the Background Story of the Samantapāsādikā.
(2) From this develops a more specific sense of identity which takes this lineage as that of the Theras from whom the Mahāsaṅghikas and others split after the second council. This phase is exemplified especially by the Kathāvatthu commentary and the Dīpavaṃsa.
(3) Next there is the development of the claim on the part of the Mahāvihāravāsins that they alone in Laṅkā are the authentic heirs of this Thera lineage. This phase is exemplified especially by the Mahāvaṃsa.
4) Finally there is a phase in which the Theras of Laṅkā come to be seen as the only surviving representatives of the Theras from whom the Mahāsaṅghikas and others split after the second council. This perspective is explicit in the writings of mainland Indian Buddhists and implicit and probably assumed in later Pali commentaries.
The characterization vibhajjavāda is present and part of this identity, especially in the first and second phase, yet since it is never explained in the sources quite how the term vibhajjavāda relates to the list of schools preserved by the tradition, it remains unclear how precisely it contributed to the sense of belonging to a specific lineage and school. We should no doubt be wary of seeking one fixed formulation as finally defining the sense of Buddhist identity embodied in the ancient Pali sources. After all, our sense of ourselves shifts depending on context and on what sense of identity we feel we need to project. The different senses of Buddhist identity that developed in Laṅkā overlie each other in a way that does not entail that what is later totally obscures what is earlier.
Distantly, yes.
The early split is between a group allegedly called the "Mahāsaṁghika" and another group allegedly called the "Sthaviravāda." The word "Theravāda" is Pāli for "Stharivavāda." However, in reality, on the ground, many sources (not necessarily early ones) state that both sides of the schism identified themselves as both possessing the doctrine of the Sthaviras of old and being the "Great Saṁgha" of the Buddha, such as Ven Gyōnen in his Vinaya Treatise etc., which does strike me as reasonable. Clearly, if such a thing is true, over time, one camp would start to favour more the one name and the other camp would favour more the other name perhaps.
"Vibhajjavāda" is the product of a schism that occurs later than this first schism, and is a schism in the community that gets called "Stharivavāda" today. AFAIK, the Vibhajjavādins are formed in a Sarvāstivāda-Vibhajjavāda schism from the wider Stharivavāda community. Does anyone have something that disputes this?
No. Independent sectarian documents from other sects (like Abhidharmakośakārikā) testify that continental (i.e. "from the Indian mainland") Vibhajjavādins and insular (i.e. "from the island") Vibhajjavādins are distinct at least by the time of Ven Vasubandhu.
No. It is also Burmese and Thai and Laotian and Cambodian.
I can't follow your grammar here.
Sri Lankans, AFAIK, dispersed and disrobed their Mahāyānika saṁgha, confiscated their stūpas and temples, and burned their heretical libraries of sūtras and śāstras. There are statues of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva still standing in Sri Lanka, but worship/veneration of him is reinterpreted as of a guardian diety of Sri Lanka named "Nātha" iirc. That's what I've read at least.
The "allergen" is no longer causing "allergies." The violent crackdown doesn't "come out of no where," so-to-speak, and happens at the end of a back-and-forth of mutual aggression vaguely similar to the "Wars of Religion" between Protestants and Catholics in Europe on a lesser scale (unless I'm quite wrong and to be corrected by someone here). I do believe that it was either the Sri Lankan Mahāyānikas or their supporters that they were geopolitically tied to that "struck first" in the sectarian conflicts. In all likeliness, the conflicts were geopolitical and the religious aspects were secondary and only to legitimize geopolitical concerns. That being said, I am not widely read in Sri Lankan history and could be wrong.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
Oh i meant
"...Srilankan Theravada don't study the subjects which are already studied by Mahayana, example=
"... Srilanka Theravada don't study or make academic papers about the functions of "Bodhisattva-Mahasattva" in Theravada monks,..."
like that.
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
I don't know if "bodhisattva mahāsattva" is even used in the Pāli texts that the Theravāda tradition works with. On the ground, in Thailand or Sri Lanka etc., they might call monks bodhisattvas or mahāsattvas or both, but I certainly wouldn't know about it.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
To OP, I would say the answer is "No". Vibhajjavada isn't a reaction to Mahayana uprising. Mahayana did not fully developed yet at that period of time. The term "Vibhajjavada" is given by Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera during the Third Council only to distinguish the orthodox Sangha group from other schools of Buddhism at that time, especially on the controversial points.
From Mahavamsa, it was said that King Asoka asked the monks "what Buddha taught?" The monks gave a lot of different views and teachings that sided with 62 wrong views. Then King Asoka gave them white robes and expelled them. Then King Asoka asked the left over monks again, now the remaining monks said "The Blessed One taught The Doctrine of Analysis (Vibhajjavada)", the King asked Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera for confirmation. Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera confirmed so. The King was very happy, there announced the community is purified. Later, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera there selected 1000 Arahants completed with Patisambhidā & Chalabiññā, and conduct the Third Sangayana Council.
Sharing some good reading materials about "Vibhajjavada":
'Bahira Nidana' section from Samantapasadika
https://archive.org/details/sacredbooks ... 1/mode/2up
http://www.suttas.com/3rd-buddhist-council.html
http://phounkham3.blogspot.com/2012/10/ ... n.html?m=1
http://tilawkanyarna.blogspot.com/2007/ ... m.html?m=1
https://buddhism-guide.com/vibhajjavada/
However, it is quite interesting how Sarvastivada criticised Vibhajjavada as "The type of heretics who "make objections, who uphold harmful doctrines and attack those who follow the authentic Dharma" quoted from Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajyav%C4%81da
There were two main schools in ancient Sri Lanka. First comes the Mahavihara school (first established by Arahant Mahinda Thera and then strengthen by Arahant Sanghamitta Theri by establishing Bhikkhuni Sangha). It flourished for many years and the line of Arahants established well.
But many years later, there was a Sinhalese king built Abhayagiri Vihara and it becomes Abhayagiri sect (upholding Vetulya doctrines) and at the same, oppressed Mahavihara and even forbidden laypeople to provide almsfood to the Mahaviharavasin monks. Faxian, a traveller bhiksu from ancient China, went to Abhayagiri Vihara for scripture study.
From Mahavamsa, it was said that King Asoka asked the monks "what Buddha taught?" The monks gave a lot of different views and teachings that sided with 62 wrong views. Then King Asoka gave them white robes and expelled them. Then King Asoka asked the left over monks again, now the remaining monks said "The Blessed One taught The Doctrine of Analysis (Vibhajjavada)", the King asked Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera for confirmation. Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera confirmed so. The King was very happy, there announced the community is purified. Later, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera there selected 1000 Arahants completed with Patisambhidā & Chalabiññā, and conduct the Third Sangayana Council.
Sharing some good reading materials about "Vibhajjavada":
'Bahira Nidana' section from Samantapasadika
https://archive.org/details/sacredbooks ... 1/mode/2up
http://www.suttas.com/3rd-buddhist-council.html
http://phounkham3.blogspot.com/2012/10/ ... n.html?m=1
http://tilawkanyarna.blogspot.com/2007/ ... m.html?m=1
https://buddhism-guide.com/vibhajjavada/
However, it is quite interesting how Sarvastivada criticised Vibhajjavada as "The type of heretics who "make objections, who uphold harmful doctrines and attack those who follow the authentic Dharma" quoted from Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajyav%C4%81da
There were two main schools in ancient Sri Lanka. First comes the Mahavihara school (first established by Arahant Mahinda Thera and then strengthen by Arahant Sanghamitta Theri by establishing Bhikkhuni Sangha). It flourished for many years and the line of Arahants established well.
But many years later, there was a Sinhalese king built Abhayagiri Vihara and it becomes Abhayagiri sect (upholding Vetulya doctrines) and at the same, oppressed Mahavihara and even forbidden laypeople to provide almsfood to the Mahaviharavasin monks. Faxian, a traveller bhiksu from ancient China, went to Abhayagiri Vihara for scripture study.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
-
- Posts: 10172
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Was Theravada a reaction to Mahayana movement?
In the future they'll probably be asking questions like "Was Secular Buddhism a reaction to Theravada?"
Nobody will agree then either.
Nobody will agree then either.
Buddha save me from new-agers!