Sthavira rules

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Post Reply
User avatar
ddeck
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:26 am

Sthavira rules

Post by ddeck »

I’ve been doing a bit of a deep dive into the schism of the second Buddhist council and am struggling to find many English resources regarding it (ordering a book on learning Pali… thus it begins).

One thing I’m curious about that I just can’t happen to find is what the particular rules that caused the schism were. That being, what some claim were added by the “reformist” sthavira sect. I’m also curious what the current Theravada take on this reformist theory is.

Thank you!
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Sthavira rules

Post by Ontheway »

https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd22/en ... ript=latin
......the salt-in-horn practice; the two fingerbreadths practice; the next-village practice; the many-monasteries practice; the consent practice; customary practices; the unchurned practice; palm-juice drinking; sitting mats without borders; and gold, silver, and money.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sthavira rules

Post by Coëmgenu »

As a clarification, the Theravadin narrative that Ontheway posted does not present the Sthaviranikāya as being rigourists who wish to increase the strictness of the rules of the vinaya. Instead, they describe an unknown (AFAIK) sect of Vajji Buddhists as having ten practices that contravene the vinaya. These is a meeting and it is decided that all of the ten practices are not allowed according to the existing vinaya.

A few interesting points. If I've made any mistakes, please correct me.

1) There is no account of a schism in the text itself. It is quite long, and I very quickly read it. I didn't see an account of a schism. It also doesn't seem to take place at a Buddhist council. If these details in my analysis are wrong I'll look like a proper fool and will deserve it.

2) The ten practices of the unknown Vajji sect (one of which is handling money) are not Mahāsāṃghika practices substantiated in their vinaya.

3) In the Mahāsāṃghika account, which portrays the Sthaviranikāya as rigourists who want to add extra rules, they claim that the Sthaviranikāya wished to add rules dictating how money is to be handled by the monks (source: The Date and Cause of the First Schism, Ven Sujāto, p. 214).

Therefore, both accounts are likely remembering the same event, both the Mahāsāṃghika and Sthaviranikāya, and they are reading a later sectarian dispute into this older event. It's possible. This would suggest that both the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Sthaviranikāya were "on the same side" of this specific crisis, which is then obscured after the passage of time. They both remember some errant sect where the bhikkhus handled money and other practices and both of them conflate their opposite with this errant sect. The Sthaviranikāya thinks that these Vajjis were early Mahāsāṃghikas. The Mahāsāṃghikas identify the Sthaviranikāya as essentially the same schismatics.

Lastly, note that I cited a paper by Ven Sujāto that I actually highly disagree with. It is an interesting paper all the same. I cited it merely to establish, via his scholarship, Item 3 of the points. My "therefore" suggestions are directly contradicted by that paper's conclusion.
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.
Post Reply