Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Kenshou wrote:I think you're right about "sthavira", but "maha" just means "great", more or less, you see that prefix everywhere in Pali or Sanskrit, has nothing to do with Mahayana inherently.

Bankei wrote:Have a look at:
Prebish, Charles S. and Jan Nattier 1977 Mahasamghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism. History of Religions Vol 16/3
and
Prebish, Charles S.
2010 "The Role of Prātimokṣa Expansion in the Rise of Indian Buddhist Sectarianism." Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies Vol 9

Prebish argues that the Theravadins split from the majority because of a dispute over the addition of vinaya rules.

Bankei

Mahāsanghikā, Mahāsangītikā

One of the Buddhist schools which separated out from the Theravādins at the Second Council. The members rejected the Parivāra, the six sections of the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhidamagga, the Niddesa and some portions of the Jātakas (KvuA. p. 4; Dpv.v.32ff).

The school was so called owing to the great number of its followers, which made a great assembly or "Mahāsangitī." They were counted among the Anātmavādins, and later gave rise to the following schools: the

* Mahāsanghika
* Pubbasela
* Aparasela
* Rājagiriyā
* Hemavatas
* Cetiyavādins
* Sankantivādins
* Gokulikas

Originally they had only two divisions - the Ekabbohārikas and Gokulikas (Rockhill, op. cit., 182ff).

Their separation from the orthodox school was brought about by the Vajjiputta monks, and was probably due to difference of opinion on the ten points (for these see Vin.ii.294f) held by the Vajjiputta monks. According to Northern sources, however, the split occurred on the five points raised by Mahādeva:

* (1) An arahant may commit a sin under unconscious temptation;
* (2) one may be an arahant and unconscious of the fact;
* (3) an arahant may have doubts on matters of doctrine;
* (4) one cannot attain arahantship without the help of a teacher;
* (5) the "Noble Way" may begin with some such exclamation as "How sad!" uttered during meditation (J.R A.S. 1910, p. 416; cf. MT 173).

These articles of faith are found in the Kathāvatthu (173ff., 187ff., 194, 197), attributed to the Pubbaselas and the Aparaselas, opponents of the Mahāsanghika school.

According to Hiouen Thsang (Beal.ii.164), the Mahāsanghikas divided their canon into five parts: Sūtra, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, Miscellaneous and Dhāranī.

Fa Hsien took from Pātaliputta to China a complete transcript of the Mahāsanghika Vinaya. (Giles, p. 64, Nañjio's Catalogue mentions a Mahāsanghika Vinaya and a Mahāsanghabhiksunī Vinaya in Chinese translations, Cola. 247, 253. Ms. No.543).

The best known work of the Mahāsanghikas is the Mahāvastu. Their headquarters in Ceylon were in Abhayagiri vihāra, and Sena I. is said to have built the Vīrankurārāma for their use. Cv.1.68.

mikenz66 wrote:

Ytrog wrote:...
To get things clear: the non-reformists became the mahayana and the reformists the theravada? I always thought it was the other way around. This is about that schism, right?

This would be an important point to clarify. My recollection was that the mahayana emerged mostly out of the stharvira group, which is why the sarvastivadin abdhidhamma and other sarvastivadin canonical works are preserved in Chinese. I hope someone more knowledgeable will chip in and clarify this point.

Mike

Paññāsikhara wrote:For accounts of the divisions of early Buddhist schools, it really pays not to use the history of one school alone (be it any school). All of them are somewhat biased in their own favor (naturally!) Rather, it requires a careful study of all the material. I recommend the studies of Bareau (1955) and Yinshun (1971) in particular, for they are some of the few studies that use all the sources.

Otherwise we bizarre conclusions like "They were counted among the Anātmavādins", and "the Mahāsanghikas ... [t]heir headquarters in Ceylon were in Abhayagiri vihāra". But I guess, great though Malalasekera's dictionary is, it is now pretty dated...