Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

whynotme wrote:Hi everyone,

This is a therevada forum, so I assume most of you are Therevadists. What do you think about Mahayana? Do you consider it part of Buddism? Do you consider ordination under those traditions?

Regards

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The Mahayana resulted from a schism within the early sangha after Buddhas death.

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The Mahayana resulted from a schism within the early sangha after Buddhas death. They have the right to call themselves what they wish. Since the disagreements were primarily due to differences regarding the Vinaya Rules for Monks, I see no problem so long as they do not change Bubbha's core teachings re. The Four Noble Truths and their supporting factors: impermanence, dependent arising, kamma, and emptiness.

Cittasanto wrote:

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The Mahayana resulted from a schism within the early sangha after Buddhas death. They have the right to call themselves what they wish. Since the disagreements were primarily due to differences regarding the Vinaya Rules for Monks, I see no problem so long as they do not change Bubbha's core teachings re. The Four Noble Truths and their supporting factors: impermanence, dependent arising, kamma, and emptiness.

I believe you are confusing the first schism with the mahasangha (dont know the sanskrit spelling off hand) and the development of the Mahayana which is a different thing.

Early Mahayana Buddhism
Main article: MahāyānaThe origins of Mahāyāna, which formed between 100 BCE and 100 AD,[149] are still not completely understood.[150] The earliest views of Mahāyāna Buddhism in the West assumed that it existed as a separate school in competition with the so-called "Hīnayāna" schools. The split was on the order of the European Protestant Reformation, which divided Christians into Catholic and Protestant.[149] Due to the veneration of buddhas and bodhisattvas, Mahāyāna was often interpreted as a more devotional, lay-inspired form of Buddhism, with supposed origins in stūpa veneration.[151] The old views of Mahāyāna as a lay-inspired sect are now largely considered misguided and wrong.[152]


There is no evidence that Mahāyāna ever referred to a separate formal school or sect of Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas.[153] Initially it was known as Bodhisattvayāna (the "Vehicle of the Bodhisattvas").[149] Paul Williams has also noted that the Mahāyāna never had nor ever attempted to have a separate Vinaya or ordination lineage from the early schools of Buddhism, and therefore each bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī adhering to the Mahāyāna formally belonged to an early school. This continues today with the Dharmaguptaka ordination lineage in East Asia, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda ordination lineage in Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore Mahāyāna was never a separate rival sect of the early schools.[154] From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side.[155]

Ñāṇa wrote:

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The Mahayana resulted from a schism within the early sangha after Buddhas death.

No, it didn't. The Mahāyāna didn't result from any schism, and has nothing to do with sectarian Buddhism. The Mahāyāna isn't an ordination lineage and has never "split" from any ordination lineage. There are three existing ordination lineages: Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda. All three are descended from the ancient Sthaviravāda.

100 -444/-380
100 years after the Buddha's Parinibbana the Second Council convenes in Vesali to discuss controversial points of Vinaya. The first schism of the Sangha occurs, in which the Mahasanghika school parts ways with the traditionalist Sthaviravadins. At issue is the Mahasanghika's reluctance to accept the Suttas and the Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings. This schism marks the first beginnings of what would later evolve into Mahayana Buddhism, which would come to dominate Buddhism in northern Asia (China, Tibet, Japan, Korea). {1}

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Apparently "Access to Insight" does not agree with you:

100 -444/-380
100 years after the Buddha's Parinibbana the Second Council convenes in Vesali to discuss controversial points of Vinaya. The first schism of the Sangha occurs, in which the Mahasanghika school parts ways with the traditionalist Sthaviravadins. At issue is the Mahasanghika's reluctance to accept the Suttas and the Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings. This schism marks the first beginnings of what would later evolve into Mahayana Buddhism, which would come to dominate Buddhism in northern Asia (China, Tibet, Japan, Korea). {1}

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron-The-Elder wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The Mahayana resulted from a schism within the early sangha after Buddhas death.

No, it didn't. The Mahāyāna didn't result from any schism, and has nothing to do with sectarian Buddhism. The Mahāyāna isn't an ordination lineage and has never "split" from any ordination lineage. There are three existing ordination lineages: Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda. All three are descended from the ancient Sthaviravāda.

Apparently "Access to Insight" does not agree with you:

100 -444/-380
100 years after the Buddha's Parinibbana the Second Council convenes in Vesali to discuss controversial points of Vinaya. The first schism of the Sangha occurs, in which the Mahasanghika school parts ways with the traditionalist Sthaviravadins. At issue is the Mahasanghika's reluctance to accept the Suttas and the Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings. This schism marks the first beginnings of what would later evolve into Mahayana Buddhism, which would come to dominate Buddhism in northern Asia (China, Tibet, Japan, Korea). {1}

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

• What is important is that the picture which now emerges is one in which the earliest division of the saṅgha was primarily a matter of monastic discipline. The Mahāsāṅghikas were essentially a conservative party resisting a reformist attempt to tighten discipline. The likelihood is that they were initially the larger body, representing the mass of the community, the mahāsaṅgha.

Ñāṇa wrote:Concerning the first schism, Lance Cousins, The ‘Five Points’ and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools:

• What is important is that the picture which now emerges is one in which the earliest division of the saṅgha was primarily a matter of monastic discipline. The Mahāsāṅghikas were essentially a conservative party resisting a reformist attempt to tighten discipline. The likelihood is that they were initially the larger body, representing the mass of the community, the mahāsaṅgha.

Another informative paper on this subject is Śaikṣa-dharmas Revisited: Further Considerations of Mahāsāṃghika Origins by Charles S. Prebish.

Ron-The-Elder wrote:You will note that your citations are cited as hypothesies, which means that it remains conjecture.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Ron-The-Elder wrote:You will note that your citations are cited as hypothesies, which means that it remains conjecture.

This isn't conjecture: The first schism had nothing to do with the eventual rise of the Mahāyāna.

It's erroneous to equate the Mahāsāṅghikas with the Mahāyāna.