LISTEN >>>
B.P.G 301 Lectured by ven. Ilukewela Dhammarathana, recorded by ven. Mon monk Nai Suriya, 26th of May,2011
LISTEN >>>
recorded by ven. Mon monk Nai Suriya, 2nd of June, 2011
LISTEN >>>
recorded by ven. Mon monk Nai Suriya, 9th of June, 2011
LISTEN >>>23th of June, 2011 (it has no recording) if someone has the record on that day, please give it to Monksarana.
LISTEN >>>
recorded by ven. Mon monk Nai Suriya, 30th of June, 2011
Atthadhammaniruttipaṭibhāna Arahants were those, who could participate at the first Buddhist Council. No other monks could participate there. However, there were other monks who have heard other Dhamma preachings of the Buddha, but they were not allowed to participate in the Theravāda council. There was therefore another council, were Arahants together with non-Arahants participated, and that led to emergence of Mahāsaṃghika school.
- Lokottaravādīns were those, who believed that the Buddha was a supernatural being.
About a century after the Buddha's death, there was a great division in the Buddha's order. The 'conservative' and 'liberal'.[1] The hierarchic and the democratic were the names given to those two divisions. It is in this division, that the germs are traceable with regards to the Mahāyāna doctrines and the Hīnayāna schools. The details about this schism are found in the Ceylon chronicles, such as Mahāvaṃsa as well as in Pāli Vinaya texts and Buddhist Sanskrit works. Further, the Kathāvatthu of Moggaliputtatissa Thera states the division of the schools. According to the facts found in the Cūḷavagga Pāḷi, the ten rules of discipline, caused the conflict between Theravāda and Mahāsaṃghika. Traditionally there are controversies with regards to the ten points. However, Theravāda Vinaya texts introduce the following ten points:[2]
1. Siṅgiloṇakappo,
2. Dvaṅgulakappo,
3. Gāmantarakappo,
4. Āvāsakappo,
5. Anumatikappo,
6. Āciṇṇakappo,
7. Amathitakappo,
8. Jaḷogiṃ pātuṃ,
9. Adasakaṃ nisīdanaṃ,
10. Jātarūparajatanti.
The Kathāvatthu, which received its final shape at Ashoka's Council (the Third Buddhist Council), had been growing since the holding of the council at Vesālī (the Second Buddhist Council). The text attributes a few differences in canons to the Mahāsaṃghika school. Bhavya, Vasumitra, Vinītadeva and Tārānāta trace the origin of the school. There are Mahādeva's five articles of faith:
1. An Arahant may commit a sin under unconscious temptation.
2. One may be an Arahant and not know it.
3. An Arahant may have doubts on matters of doctrine.
4. One cannot attain Arahantship without the help of the teacher.
5. The noble way may begin with a shout/an exclamation.
- It is conceivable, that these articles are based on Tipiṭaka and Aṭṭhakathā of Theravāda tradition. However, the first article does not tally with the Aṭṭhakathā story where a woman decides to have sex with a deep sleeping Arahant and during it she wonders that no emission of semen happens.
The first four of the above mentioned articles of faith have been found in Kathāvatthu. Prof. Poussin, after examining the works of Bhavya, Vasumitra and others sums up the issue with five articles thus: “Several traditions indicate, that there was a council concerning the five points and that this controversy was the origin of the Mahāsaṃghika sect.”
- Therefore we may think, that Mahāsaṃghika arose due to the five articles, not due to the ten unlawful points.
Yuan Chwang believes, that Mahādeva enunciated five dogmas (the above mentioned five articles), which formed the subject of bitter controversy among the Bhikkhus. Mahādeva also criticized the fact, that the Arahants at the First Buddhist Council could not even recognize what are the 'major' and 'minor' rules, which led to their decision to keep all the rules, though they, as the Buddha said, didn't have to.
At the Second Buddhist Council Arahants voted against the five dogmas (articles), while inferior brethren sided with Mahādeva.
- There is a theory, that while four of the five points were mentioned in the Tipiṭaka and commentaries, the Arahants rejected them because they didn't know that they are mentioned in their scriptures. There is a theory, that the Arahants were less erudite than the Mahāsaṃghika.
Regarding the ten points of the rules of discipline and the five dogmas of Mahādeva the Chinese traveler goes very far to prove that a schism did happen in the Buddhist order/church at or around the time of the Second Buddhist Council. The agreement between the Vasumitra's work and the Kathāvatthu with regards to the essential tenets of the Mahāsaṃghika school proves beyond doubt, that the school existed before the time of composition of Kathāvatthu or around the time of the Second Buddhist Council.[3]
Mahāsaṅghika School (lectured by ven. Ilukkevela Dhammaratana) 2nd of June, 2011
In the Ceylon chronicles and various versions of Vinaya state, Mahāsāṅghikās appeared as a result of the (unlawful) ten points of the discipline, while in the Tibetan and Chinese versions of later Buddhist Sanskrit books state that Mahāsaṅghika school appeared because of Mahādeva's 'five articles of faith'. Accordingly, some words state the rules of discipline, while the other words state the doctrinal disputes.
In the course of time Brāhmaṇas came and embraced Buddhism, and finally became the followers. According to the findings, Mahādeva's followers are mostly Brahmins. Therefore, the logical propositions were used by them. As a result of that Mahāsaṅghikās found a justification for their contact by using logical statements. The final results of them was, that they could find a force of the body (they tried to examine Buddhist teachings according to logical thinking). The first to begin the campaign against the tendencies of Arahants came naturally from the monks belonging to the democratic spirit, Vajjiyans. It was decided by the orthodox Arahants to make their decision at a council. According to the procedure, only the Arahants could be present at the council, while the non-Arahants could not. When by application of this method of decision, the new party was outvoted, the later rejected the decision of the majority and convened another council called Mahāsaṅgīti. It is called Mahāsaṅgīti because it included both the Arahants and non-Arahants. After the council they themselves took the name Mahāsaṅghika.
Mahāsaṅghikās revised the Dhamma and Vinaya in their own way. The revised collections were known as Ācariyavāda as distinguished from the Theravāda of the First Buddhist Council. Dīpavaṃsa says, that the Mahāsaṅghikās did not stop after changing the Vinaya rules. They went further by laying down for themselves new doctrines contrary to the established ones. They recited for their purposes the sūtras and Vinaya, they made alterations in the texts and their arrangements and interpretations.
- There are four kinds of teachings, that can be accepted as the Buddha's words – sutta, suttānuloma, ācariyavāda, attanomati. In Parinibbāna Sutta there are other four kinds of teaching – Buddhāpadesa, Saṅghāpadesa, Sambahulattherāpadesa, Ekattherāpadesa. They are not contradicting each other.
They also replaced portions of the text by others according to their liking and even rejected certain parts of the canon though they have been accepted according to the tradition of Mahā Kassapa's council. They refused Parivāra and Abhidhamma Pakaraṇa, Paṭisambhidā, Niddesa and Jātaka.
Mahāsaṅghikās divided their canon into five parts: 1. Sūtra, 2. Vinaya, 3. Abhidhamma, 4. Miscellaneous, 5. Dhāranīs. Fa Hien took away away from Pātaliputra to China with the complete transcript of Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya in 414 AD and translated it into Chinese two years later. According to the Yuan Chwang, the Vinaya of the Mahāsaṅghikās was the same as the one rehearsed in the First Council (though today we must accept, that there are certain differences). The Pāli authorities also mentioned, that the difference between orthodox school and Mahāsaṅghikās lays only in the ten rules of discipline. At present, we have practically no information regarding the Abhidharma literature of Mahāsaṅghikās. The only work of the Mahāsaṅghika school now available is the Mahāvastu, partly in prose and partly in verse. The Mahāvastu is the Vinaya of the Lokuttaravāda school. Lokuttaravāda (Lokottaravāda) is a branch of Mahāsaṅghika. They depict the life of the Buddha according to Lalitavistara and the Abhiniśkramaṇa Sūtra of the other schools.
A comparative study of Mahāvastu with the Pāli Vinaya of the Theravādins shows the great doctrinal affinity existing between the two schools. One of the objects common to both treatises being the delineation of the early part of the Buddha's missionary carrier. The same discourses have been recorded in each, the difference lying only in linguistic garbs. These discourses embody the essence of the Buddha's teachings and faithfully preserved as they are in the Vinaya of the two schools. It is apparent, that Mahāsaṅghikās and the Theravādins had no different views regarding the most important portion of the Buddha's teachings. The discourses are based on the Four Noble Truths and their interpretations, the Eightfold Path leading to the emancipation; the absence of soul as a separate entity; the kamma being the motivating force in transmigration; the theory of Paṭiccasamuppāda; the method of imparting spiritual teachings by gradual stages commencing from the simple dānakathaṃ sīlakathaṃ saggakathaṃ; kāmānaṃ ādīnavaṃ okāraṃ saṃkilesaṃ, nekkhamme ānisaṃsaṃ[4]and ending in the higher truths. 37 bodhipakkhiyā dhammās etc. However, the schools differed in their buddhological speculations.
Two Branches of the Mahāsaṅghikās(lectured by ven. Ilukkevela Dhammaratana) 9th of June, 2011
The Mahāsaṅghikās migrated from Magadha into two streams – (1) towards the North and (2) the others towards the South. The Northern, rather, the North-Western section later became subdivided into five on account of minor doctrinal differences among them. The five branches are:
1. Ekavyavahārikas
2. Kaukulikās/Kaurukullukās
3. Bahuśrutiyās
4. Prajñaptivādins
5. Lokottaravādins
Their offshoot, the Lokuttaravādins, developed lineages towards Mahāyānism, and in fact prepared the ground for the advent of the Mahāyāna school. Buddhaghosa, in his commentary on Kathāvatthu, distinguished Mahāsaṅghikās by the words »ekacce mahāsaṅghikās«[5] implying thereby, that all Mahāsaṅghikās did not subscribe to the same doctrines. In the Kathāvatthu, the views discussed are mostly of the Mahāsaṅghikās, who migrated to South, settled down in Andra Pradeś around Amarāvatī and Dhānyakaṭaka. They are subbranches concentrated at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, dwelling on the mountains around. These were (according to ven. Moraṭuve Sāsana):
1. Pubbāseyyās/Uttaraseyyās
2. Aparāseliyās
3. Siddhattikās
4. Rājagirikās
5. Caityikās
Ven. Buddhaghosa collectively designated them as the Andhakās (as they were in Andhra Pradeś).
Conception of the Buddha A
In the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta of Majjhima Nikāya is mentioned, that the Buddha attained omniscience and that He did not seek Arahanthood, He sought Sammā Sambuddhahood in order to propound, preach and promulgate hitherto (according to) unknown religious and philosophical views. He became a seer and visualized the highest truth, or the reality. As Mahāsaṅghikas claim, the truth was so deep and subtle that He was at first hesitant to preach the same to people at large as it would do more harm to them than good.[6] The Buddha stated:
»Sabbābhibhū sabbavidūhamasmi.
Sabbesu dhammesu anupaditto,
Ahaṃ hi arahā loke, ahaṃ satthā anuttaro,
eko'mhi saammāsambuddho sītibhūto'smi nibbuto.«[7]
“I am the all conquered, I am omniscient,
I am untouched by all worldly objects,
I am perfect in this world, I am teacher incomparable, I am the only enlightened, tranquilized and have extinguished everything.”
Such utterances may well be the basis of the Mahāsaṅghika conception of the Buddha.
Conception of Buddha B (lectured by ven. Ilukkevela Dhammaratana) 23rd of June, 2011
The Theravādins and Sarvāstivādins along with their off-shoots conceived of Buddha as a human being, who attained perfection or enlightenment (Buddhahood) and became omniscient at Bodhgaya. The Mahāsaṅghikās did not subscribe to this view as they contended, that how could one, who was the best of all divine beings, in merit and knowledge, in His existence just prior to His birth as prince Siddhattha, became an ordinary human being.
- According to Dhajagga Paritta and Suriya Sutta there are certain possibilities to gain the Buddha's protection just by reciting those suttas. Thus there may be a conclusion (as Mahāsāṅghikas claim) , that the Buddha was a supernatural being.
The Mahāsāṅghikās, therefore, attributed to Gotama Buddha, not only supra-mundane existence, but also all perfections and omniscience from His so-called birth in the womb of queen Maya and not from His attainment of Bodhi at Bodhgaya. The Mahāsāṅghikās and their off-shoots, specifically the following:
1. Buddha's body is entirely supra-mundane (lokottara), the vocal, physical and mental actions are dissociated from impurities. The body has nothing worldly (lokika).
2. His material body is unlimited as a result of His unlimited past merits. Paramārtha explains, 'unlimited' as 'immeasurable' and 'innumerable'. It can be either large or small, it can also be of any number. In His created body, He can appear anywhere in the Universe.
Considering the above explained, Theravādins account the following statement, from which they wrongly interpreted:
»Bhagavā loke jāto, loke sambuddho, lokaṃ abhibhuyya viharati, anupaditto, lokenāti.«
The Buddha, born and enlightened in this world, overcame this world and remained untouched by the things of the world. This is discussed in Kathāvatthu as follows:
»Na vattabbaṃ buddho bhagavā manussa loke aṭṭhāsīti.«
“It should not be said, that the Buddha lived in the world of men.”
(said by Vaitulyakās)
»Sabbādisā buddhā tiṭṭhantīti.« - “The Buddha exists in all corners of the world.”
(said by Mahāsaṅghikās)
»Abhinimmitena desitoti.«– “The discourses are delivered by the created form.”
(certain Mahāsaṅghikās)
These show, that according to the opponents of Theravādins. The Buddha is omnipresent and as such, beyond the possibility of location in any particular direction or sphere, and that all the preachings of Buddhism has been done by the apparitional images of the Buddha.
BONUS: Early Buddhist schools (from offline Wikipedia
The early Buddhist schools are those schools into which, according to most scholars, the Buddhist monastic saṅgha initially split, due originally to differences in vinaya, and later also due to doctrinal differences and geographical separation of groups of monks.
The original saṅgha split into the first early schools (commonly believed to be the Sthaviravādins and the Mahāsaṃghikas ) a significant number of years after the death of Gautama Buddha; according to scholar Collett Cox "most scholars would agree that even though the roots of the earliest recognized groups predate Aśoka, their actual separation did not occur until after his death."[1] Later, these first early schools split into further divisions such as the Sarvāstivādins and the Dharmaguptakas, and ended up numbering, traditionally, about 18 or 20 schools. In fact, there are several overlapping lists of 18 schools preserved in the Buddhist tradition, totalling about twice as many, though some may be alternative names. It is thought likely that the number is merely conventional.
The arising of the Mahāyāna Buddhism in the 1st and 2nd century CE coincided with the writing of the new Mahāyāna sutras . The Mahāyāna movement only very occasionally referred to early Buddhist schools as "the lesser vehicle" ("Hīnayāna"). The much more common and politically correct term used in Mahāyāna texts to refer to those practicing according to the original teachings of the early schools, was "Śrāvakayāna".[2]
The schools sometimes split over ideological differences concerning the "real" meaning of teachings in the Suttapiṭaka , and sometimes over disagreement concerning the proper observance of vinaya. These ideologies became embedded in large works such as the Abhidhammas and commentaries. Comparison of existing versions of the Suttapiṭaka of various sects shows evidence that ideologies from the Abhidhammas sometimes found their way back into the Suttapiṭakas, to support the statements made in those Abhidhammas.
Developments in history
The first council
Main article: First Buddhist Council
Three months after the passing of Buddha, according to scriptures[ citation needed ], the first council was held at Rajagaha by some of his disciples who had attained arahantship (enlightenment). At this point, Theravāda tradition[ citation needed ] maintains that no conflict about what the Buddha taught occurred, the teachings were divided into various parts and each was assigned to an elder and his pupils to commit to memory.
The accounts of the council in the scriptures of the schools differ as to what was actually recited there. Venerable Purāṇa is recorded as having said: "Your reverences, well chanted by the elders are the Dhamma and Vinaya, but in that way that I heard it in the Lord's presence, that I received it in his presence, in that same way will I bear it in mind." [Vinaya-pitaka: Cullavagga XI:1:11].
Some scholars deny that the first council actually took place.[3][4]
The second council
Main article: The Second Buddhist Council
The second council did not cause a split in the saṅgha, as is sometimes claimed. It was strictly about the misbehavior of a group of monks, who changed their behaviors after the council.
Period between the second and third councils
Most scholars believe that the first split occurred in the intervening period between the second and third councils, and was probably about monastic discipline. Generally, it is believed that the first split was between the Sthaviravāda and the Mahāsaṃghika. However, after this initial division, more were to follow.
Third council under Aśoka
Main article: Third Buddhist Council
Tradition largely holds that Buddhism split into 18 schools, but different sources give different lists of them, and scholars conclude that the number is merely conventional.
In the 3rd century BCE, Theravādin sources state that a third council was convened under the patronage of Emperor Aśoka , but no mention of this council is found in other sources.[5] Some scholars argue that there are certain implausible features of the Theravādin account which imply that the third council was ahistorical. The remainder consider it a purely Theravāda/Vibhajjavāda council. It is generally accepted, however, that one or several disputes did occur during Aśoka's reign, involving both doctrinal and disciplinary (vinaya) matters, although these may have been too informal to be called a "council". The Sthavira school had, by the time of King Aśoka, divided into three sub-schools, doctrinally speaking, but these did not become separate monastic orders until later.
According to the Theravādin account, this council was convened primarily for the purpose of establishing an official orthodoxy. At the council, small groups raised questions about the specifics of the vinaya and the interpretation of doctrine. The chairman of the council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book, the Kathavatthu, which was meant to refute these arguments. The council sided with Moggaliputta and his version of Buddhism as orthodox; it was then adopted by Emperor Aśoka as his empire's official religion. This school of thought was termed "Vibhajjavāda" ( Pāli ), literally "thesis of [those who make] a distinction". The distinction involved was as to the existence of phenomena (dhammas) in the past, future and present. The version of the scriptures that had been established at the third council, including the vinaya, sutta and the abhidhamma (collectively known as "tripiṭaka"), was taken to Sri Lanka by Emperor Aśoka's son, the Venerable Mahinda. There it was eventually committed to writing in the Pāli language. The Pāli canon remains the most complete set of surviving Nikāya scriptures, although the greater part of the Sarvāstivādin canon also survives in Chinese translation, some parts exist in Tibetan translations, and some fragments exist in Sanskrit manuscripts, while parts of various canons (sometimes unidentified), exist in Chinese and fragments in other Indian dialects.
Developments during and after the third council
Whatever might be the truth behind the Theravādin account, it was around the time of Aśoka that further divisions began to occur within the Buddhist movement and a number of additional schools emerged, including the Sarvāstivāda and the Sammitīya . All of these early schools of Nikāyan Buddhism eventually came to be known collectively as "the eighteen schools" in later sources. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Theravāda, none of these early schools survived beyond the late medieval period by which time several were already long extinct, although a considerable amount of the canonical literature of some of these schools has survived, mainly in Chinese translation. Moreover, the origins of specifically Mahāyāna doctrines may be discerned in the teachings of some of these early schools, in particular in the Mahāsāṅghika and the Sarvāstivāda.
During and after the third council, elements of the Sthavira group called themselves "Vibhajjavādins". One part of this group was transmitted to Sri Lanka and to certain areas of southern India, such as Vanavasi in the south-west and the Kañci region in the south-east. This group later ceased to refer to themselves specifically as "Vibhajjavādins", but reverted to calling themselves "Theriyas", after the earlier Theras or " Sthaviras ". Still later, at some point prior to the Dipavamsa (4th century), the Pāli name " Theravāda " was adopted and has remained in use ever since for this group.
The Pudgalavādins were also known as " Vatsiputrīyas " after their putative founder. Later this group became known as the " Sammitīya " school, after one of its subdivisions. It died out around the 9th or 10th century CE. Nevertheless, during most of the early medieval period, the Sammitīya school was numerically the largest Buddhist group in India, with more followers than all the other schools combined. The Sarvāstivādin school was most prominent in the north-west of India and provided some of the doctrines that would later be adopted by the Mahāyāna. Another group linked to Sarvāstivāda was the Sautrāntika school, which only recognized the authority of the sutras and rejected the abhidharma transmitted and taught by the Vaibhāṣika wing of Sarvāstivāda. Based on textual considerations, it has been suggested that the Sautrāntikas were actually adherents of Mūlasarvāstivāda. The relation between Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda, however, is unclear.
Between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, the terms "Mahāyāna" and "Hīnayāna" were first used in writing, in, for example, the Lotus Sutra.
The Chinese pilgrims
During the first millennium , monks from China such as Faxian, Yijing and Xuanzang made pilgrimages to India and wrote accounts of their travels when they returned home. These Chinese travel records constitute extremely valuable sources of information concerning the state of Buddhism in India during the early medieval period.
By the time the Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang and Yi Jing visited India, there were five early Buddhist schools that they mentioned far more frequently than others. They commented that the Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda, Mahāsaṅghika, and Saṃmitīya were the principal early Buddhist schools still extant in India,[6] along with the Theravāda. The latter by then had largely emigrated to Sri Lanka but was also still prominent in Kanchi . The Dharmaguptakas, who had been so influential in the early spread of Buddhism to Central Asia and China, had almost completely disappeared.
The eighteen schools
It is commonly said that there were eighteen schools of Buddhism in this period. What this actually means is more subtle. First, although the word "school" is used, there was not yet an institutional split in the saṅgha. The Chinese traveler Xuanzang observed even when the Mahāyāna were beginning to emerge out of this era that monks of different schools would live side by side in dormitories and attend the same lectures. Only the books that they read were different.[7] Secondly, no historical source can agree what the names of these "eighteen schools" were. The origin of this saying is therefore unclear.
What follows are the lists given by each of the different sources.
According to the Dipavamsa
This list was taken from the Sri Lankan chronicles, Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa.
· Sthaviravāda/Vibhajjavāda/Theravāda · Mahāsaṃghika
· Mahīśāsaka - First schism · Kaukutika - First schism
· Sarvāstivāda - Third schism · Prajñaptivāda - Second schism
· Kāśyapīya - Forth schism · Bahuśrutīya - Second schism
· Ekavyahārikas - First schism
· Sankrantika - Fifth schism · Caitika - Third schism; According to Dipavamsa, but in the Mahavamsa it is said to have arisen from the Pannati and Bahussutaka)
· Sautrāntika - Sixth Schism
· Dharmaguptaka - Third schism
· Vatsīputrīya - First schism
· Dharmottarīya - Second schism
· Bhadrayānīya - Second schism
· Sannāgarika - Second schism
· Saṃmitīya - Second schism
In addition, the Dipavamsa lists the following six schools without identifying the schools from which they arose:
· Hemavatika (Sanskrit: Haimavata)
· Rajagiriya
· Siddhatthaka
· Pubbaseliya
· Aparaseliya (Sanskrit: Aparaśaila)
· Apararajagirika
According to Vasumitra
This list was taken from Samayabhedo Paracana Cakra, the author of which was Vasumitra a Sarvāstivādin monk.
· Sthaviravāda
· Haimavata - First schism; referred to by Sarvāstivādins as "the original Sthavira School", but this school was only influential in the north of India.
· Sarvāstivāda - First schism
· Vatsīputrīya - Second schism
· Dharmottarīya - Third schism
· Bhadrayānīya - Third schism
· Saṃmitīya - Third schism
· Sannāgarika - Third schism
· Mahīśāsaka- Forth schism
· Dharmaguptaka - Fifth schism
· Kāśyapīya - Sixth schism
· Sautrāntika - Seventh Schism
· Mahāsaṃghika
· Ekavyahārikas - First schism
· Lokottaravāda - First schism
· Kaukutika - First schism
· Bahuśrutīya - Second schism
· Prajñaptivāda - Third schism
· Caitika - Forth schism
· Apara Śaila - Fourth schism
· Uttara Śaila - Fourth schism
According to Vinitadeva
Vinitadeva (c. 645-715) was a Mūlasarvāstivādin monk.
· Sthaviravāda
· Jetavaniya
· Abhayagirivasin
· Mahaviharavasin
· Sammatiya
· Kaurukullaka
· Avantaka
· Vatsīputrīya
· Sarvastivadin
· Mūlasarvāstivādin
· Kasyapiya
· Mahisasaka
· Dharmaguptaka
· Bahuśrutīya
· Tamrasatiya
· Vibhajyavadin
· Mahāsaṃghika
· Purvasaila
· Aparasaila
· Haimavata
· Lottaravadin
· Prajñaptivāda
According to the Sariputrapariprccha
The Sariputrapariprccha is a Mahāsaṃghikan history.
· Sthaviravāda
· Sarvāstivāda
· Mahisasaka
· Dharmaguptaka
· Suvarsa
· Vatsīputrīya
· Dharmottarika
· Bhadrayaniya
· Sammatiya
· Sannagarika
· Kāśyapīya
· Sutravadin
· Samkrantika
· Mahāsaṃghika
· Vyavahara
· Lokottaravāda
· Kukkulika
· Bahuśrutīya
· Prajñaptivāda
· Mahadeva
· Caitika
· Uttarashaila
Twenty schools according to Mahayana scriptures in Chinese
Sthaviravāda (上座部) was split into 11 sects. These were: Sarvāstivādin (説一切有部), Haimavata (雪山部), Vatsīputrīya (犢子部), Dharmottara (法上部), Bhadrayānīya (賢冑部), Sammitīya (正量部), Channagirika (密林山部), Mahisasaka (化地部), Dharmaguptaka (法蔵部), Kāśyapīya (飲光部), Sautrāntika (経量部).
· Sthaviravāda, later Haimavata
· Sarvāstivādin
· Vatsīputrīya
· Dharmottara
· Bhadrayānīya
· Sammitīya
· Channagirika
· Mahisasaka
· Dharmaguptaka
· Kāśyapīya
· Sautrāntika
Mahāsaṃghika (大衆部) was split into 9 sects. There were: Ekavyahārika (一説部), Lokottaravādin (説出世部), Kaukkutika (鶏胤部), Bahuśrutīya (多聞部), Prajñaptivāda (説仮部), Caitika (制多山部), Aparaśaila (西山住部), and Uttaraśaila (北山住部).
· Mahāsaṃghika
· Ekavyahārika
· Caitika
· Lokottaravādin
· Aparaśaila
· Kaukkutika
· Uttaraśaila
· Bahuśrutīya
· Prajñaptivāda
Hypothetical combined list
· Sthaviravāda
· Pudgalavāda ('Personalist') (c. 280 BCE)
· Vatsīputrīya (during Aśoka ) later name: Saṃmitīya
· Dharmottarīya
· Bhadrayānīya
· Sannāgarika
· Vibhajjavāda (prior to 240 BCE; during Aśoka )
· Theravāda (c. 240 BCE)
· Mahīśāsaka (after 232 BCE)
· Dharmaguptaka (after 232 BCE)
· Sarvāstivāda (c. 237 BCE)
· Kāśyapīya (after 232 BCE)
· Sautrāntika (between 50 BCE and c. 100 CE)
· Mūlasarvāstivāda (third and fourth centuries)
· Vaibhāṣika
· Mahāsaṃghika
· Ekavyahārikas (during Aśoka )
· Lokottaravāda
· Golulaka (during Aśoka )
· Bahuśrutīya (late third century BCE)
· Prajñaptivāda (late third century BCE)
· Caitika (mid-first century BCE)
· Apara Śaila
· Uttara Śaila
· Cetiyavāda
Legacy The Theravāda School of Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand is descended from the Sthaviravādin and (more specifically) the Vibhajjavāda School. It underwent two more changes of name. In the Indian accounts it is sometimes called the "Tāmraparnīya" (translation: Sri Lankan lineage), but there is no indication that this referred to any change in doctrine or scripture, while it is very obvious that it refers to geographical location. At some point prior to the Dipavamsa (4th century) the name was changed to "Theravāda", probably to reemphasize the relationship to the original "Sthaviravāda", which is the Sanskrit version of the Pāli term "Theravāda".
The Theravāda school is the only remaining school which is exclusively aligned with the philosophic outlook of the early schools. However, significant variation is found between the various Theravādin communities, usually concerning the strictness of practice of vinaya and the attitude one has towards abhidhamma. Both these, however, are aspects of the Vibhajjavādin recension of the Tipiṭaka, and the variation between current Theravāda groups is mainly a reflection of accent or emphasis, not content of the Tipiṭaka or the commentaries. The Tipiṭaka of the Theravāda and the main body of its commentaries are believed to come from (or be heavily influenced by) the Sthaviravādins and especially the subsequent Vibhajjavādins .
The legacies of other early schools are preserved in various Mahāyāna traditions. All of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism use a Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya and study the Sarvāstivādin abhidharma, supplemented with Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna texts. Chinese schools use the vinaya from the Dharmagupta school, and have versions of those of other schools also. Fragments of the canon of texts from these schools also survive such as the Mahāvastu of the Mahāsānghika School.
References 1. ^ Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence. by Collett Cox. The Institute for Buddhist Studies. Tokyo: 1995. ISBN 4-906267-36-X pg 23
2. ^ Isabelle Onians, "Tantric Buddhist Apologetics, or Antinomianism as a Norm," D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford, Trinity Term 2001 pg 72
3. ^ Hoiberg, Dale; Indu Ramchandani. "Early Buddhist schools" entry in Students' Britannica India, p. 264. Popular Prakashan, 2000. ISBN 0-85229-760-2 .
4. ^ Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, Routledge, 1989, page 6
5. ^ Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism
6. ^ Encyclopedia of Buddhism. edited by Edward Irons. Facts on File: 2008. ISBN 978-0-8160-5459-6 pg 419
7. ^ Elizabeth Cook. Light of Liberation: A History of Buddhism in India. Dharma Publishing, 1992. p. 299
[1] This is an idea of N. Dutt.
[2] Mentioned in Vinaya Piṭaka – Cūḷavaggapāḷi - 12. Sattasatikakkhandhakaṃ – 1. Paṭhamabhāṇavāro
[3] This is also mentioned in “Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools” by N. Dutt.
[4] Mentioned in Dīgha Nikāya (Ambaṭṭha and Mahāpadāna suttas), in Majjhima Nikāya (Upāḷi and Brahmāyu suttas) and in many other places throughout the Tipiṭaka.
[5] Ekacce means 'some', 'certain', 'few'
[6] This view, which indicates that teaching of Dhamma would cause harm to people, and that it was the Buddha's idea, is exclusively view of Mahāsaṅghikās. According to Theravāda the Buddha at first refused to teach the Dhamma as He saw that it would be 'difficult'.
[7] Complete passage is: »‘Sabbābhibhū sabbavidūhamasmi, sabbesu dhammesu anūpalitto; Sabbañjaho taṇhākkhaye vimutto, sayaṃ abhiññāya kamuddiseyyaṃ.‘Na me ācariyo atthi, sadiso me na vijjati; Sadevakasmiṃ lokasmiṃ, natthi me paṭipuggalo.‘Ahañhi arahā loke, ahaṃ satthā anuttaro; Ekomhi sammāsambuddho, sītibhūtosmi nibbuto.‘Dhammacakkaṃ pavattetuṃ, gacchāmi kāsinaṃ puraṃ; Andhībhūtasmiṃ [andhabhūtasmiṃ (sī. syā. pī.)] lokasmiṃ, āhañchaṃ amatadundubhi’nti.« (Majjhima Nikāya – 26. Pāsarāsi/Ariyapariyesanā Suttaṃ ; Majjhima Nikāya – 85. Bodhirājakumāra Sutta ; Khuddaka Nikāya – Dhammapada – 353. (only the until 'kamuddiseyyaṃ') ; Vinaya Piṭaka – Mahāvaggapāḷi – 1. Mahākhandhako – 6. Pañcavaggiyakathā ; Abhidhamma Piṭaka – Kathāvatthupāḷi – 4. Catutthavaggo – (40) 8. Niyāmokkantikathā)