![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original author had errorneous views on the subject. Apparently he did not take note from an important book: "Points of Controversy" in the Pali Canon, which recorded the entire debate in the Third Great Buddhist Council.
This version is taken from the exerpt at the beginning of the Sixth Buddhist Council. What is more authentic than this that is approved by all the venerable monks of the world?
From the article: "Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya."
Why is it believed that one school increased the rules by ten rather than the other school decreased the rules by ten? I find it more reasonable to believe that some wanted to eliminate the rule against accepting money rather than that some rogue monks wanted to deny the right to accept money. Likewise for following the rules of one's teacher rather than the standard vinya of the sangha. This doesn't pass the straight face test. Particularly that the article (and article specific to each school) is pretty cagey about the actual rules, differences in question. -Alex 3 Dec 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.247 ( talk) 03:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The second council did not lead to schisms in the Sangha, the account states the monks agreed at he end. The schisms were from a later time, but before the third council. I will change edit the article later.Greetings, Sacca 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for a much improved account of the Second council. Re this last statement, the idea that the schisms happened between the Second and Third councils is rooted in the Dipavamsa, produced over 500 years after the events. But there is in fact no serious evidence that the schisms took place before Asoka. The textual situation is of course complex, but the undeniable fact is that Asoka said 'the Sangha has been made unified'. Since he nowhere refers to schools of Buddhism, it is only reasonable to think he meant THE Sangha, the unified Sangha of all Buddhism, not that of one school. I am aware that these claims disagree with the traditional accounts and those of many modern scholars, but there you have it! See my http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/home for full details. I would suggest that, given the uncertain nature of the material and the variety of theories proposed, the best policy for a Wikipedia article is simply to summarize the primary sources (including the archaeological evidence)and mention, giving sources, the main theories, whether traditional or modern. Sujato
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original author had errorneous views on the subject. Apparently he did not take note from an important book: "Points of Controversy" in the Pali Canon, which recorded the entire debate in the Third Great Buddhist Council.
This version is taken from the exerpt at the beginning of the Sixth Buddhist Council. What is more authentic than this that is approved by all the venerable monks of the world?
From the article: "Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya."
Why is it believed that one school increased the rules by ten rather than the other school decreased the rules by ten? I find it more reasonable to believe that some wanted to eliminate the rule against accepting money rather than that some rogue monks wanted to deny the right to accept money. Likewise for following the rules of one's teacher rather than the standard vinya of the sangha. This doesn't pass the straight face test. Particularly that the article (and article specific to each school) is pretty cagey about the actual rules, differences in question. -Alex 3 Dec 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.247 ( talk) 03:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The second council did not lead to schisms in the Sangha, the account states the monks agreed at he end. The schisms were from a later time, but before the third council. I will change edit the article later.Greetings, Sacca 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for a much improved account of the Second council. Re this last statement, the idea that the schisms happened between the Second and Third councils is rooted in the Dipavamsa, produced over 500 years after the events. But there is in fact no serious evidence that the schisms took place before Asoka. The textual situation is of course complex, but the undeniable fact is that Asoka said 'the Sangha has been made unified'. Since he nowhere refers to schools of Buddhism, it is only reasonable to think he meant THE Sangha, the unified Sangha of all Buddhism, not that of one school. I am aware that these claims disagree with the traditional accounts and those of many modern scholars, but there you have it! See my http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/home for full details. I would suggest that, given the uncertain nature of the material and the variety of theories proposed, the best policy for a Wikipedia article is simply to summarize the primary sources (including the archaeological evidence)and mention, giving sources, the main theories, whether traditional or modern. Sujato