DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**giturbewan** · 10-25-2011, 07:25 PM

Hi Aloka,

While I agree that the term Hinayana should be dropped, I notice that the booklet's authors indulge in some fairly blatant sectarian propaganda of their own -- in particular, they trot out the highly disputable claim that the Mahasanghikas (precursors of the Mahayana) were the first group to split from the unified sangha, and that the Sthaviras (proto-Theravadins) represented "the original sangha from which the other schools seceded".

In actuality, many scholars now believe it was the Sthaviras who broke away, due to a dispute over vinaya rules. Also, contrary to the authors' claim on page 11, the Buddha's language was not Pali.

10-25-2011, 07:25 PM	#2
giturbewan Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 569 Senior Member	Hi Aloka, While I agree that the term Hinayana should be dropped, I notice that the booklet's authors indulge in some fairly blatant sectarian propaganda of their own -- in particular, they trot out the highly disputable claim that the Mahasanghikas (precursors of the Mahayana) were the first group to split from the unified sangha, and that the Sthaviras (proto-Theravadins) represented "the original sangha from which the other schools seceded". In actuality, many scholars now believe it was the Sthaviras who broke away, due to a dispute over vinaya rules. Also, contrary to the authors' claim on page 11, the Buddha's language was not Pali.
	Quote