hi Jack, Paññāsikhara & All
Paññāsikhara wrote:
Although earlier studies which focused almost exclusively on the Pali tended to suggest that the Pali Vinaya was perfectly unaltered and it was the others that had been "tampered" with (and other loaded words), there is also very good evidence to suggest that many schools had added a few more precepts to their Vinayas. Mostly fairly minor stuff, actually. The major precepts are largely left unchanged in all the schools.
Without looking for the quote, the Buddha did allow for minor rules to be discarded or altered, but didn't mention what they are,in the Parinibbana sutta, if I remember correctly?
but jack contact Ashin! our teacher, Ashin Nyanissara, has talked about certain differences such as the rules regarding vegetarianism and why they developed in a video I watched a while ago, plus he is the head/patron(?) of the International Buddhist Missionary university in Burma, so may have some more specific info.
There is a book about the Bhikkhuni rules of the six schools, but don't know a direct link & it is only mentioned not linked to on A2I
BlackBird wrote:What is growing on me is the idea that Buddhavacana does not have to be the word of the historical Buddha (as we discussed in a previous thread)
I wonder if you were thinking of the Abhiddhama Authenticity debate (pinned thread)? myself and retro were talking about this there.
personally I think anyone can say something which could be considered Buddhavacana, but it shouldn't necessarily be considered as such, even if they
are enlightened. only if it rouses samvega and conforms to what the Buddha Taught (Dhp 183/samsipa sutta) should it be considered as such on a personal level, and I tend to agree with retro on the general side, i.e., the Buddha gave his stamp of approval.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill