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

**Lictimind** · 10-26-2011, 05:00 AM

Access to Insight is wonderful, I agree, but the author here is uncritically repeating a sectarian myth.

On what evidence are you basing this assertion?

Theravadin, Sarvastivadin and Mahayana sources have differing (and equally self-serving) accounts of what exactly happened at the Second Council. Scholarly examination, though, has yielded the consensus that the Mahasanghika Vinaya was the more orthodox, with the Sthaviran version containing additions and deviations. About the Mahasanghikas:

The Mahāsāṃghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the fallibility of arhats.[14] They held that the teachings of the Buddha were to be understood as having two principle levels of truth: a relative or conventional (Skt. saṃvṛti) truth, and the absolute or ultimate (Skt. paramārtha) truth.[14] For the Mahāsaṃghika branch of Buddhism, the final and ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words", and words were merely the conventional exposition of the Dharma.[15]

A doctrine ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas is, "The power of the tathāgatas is unlimited, and the life of the buddhas is unlimited."[16] According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in Mahāsāṃghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through skillful means.[17] For the Mahāsaṃghikas, the historical Gautama Buddha was one of these transformation bodies (Skt. nirmāṇakāya), while the essential real Buddha is equated with the Dharmakāya.[18] This is hardly an "orthodox view", and hardly in line with the Buddha's teachings.

If you're interested, there's a discussion of the whole convoluted story in Andrew Skilton's "A Concise History of Buddhism," pages 47-49. Here's a link to the relevant section.

The problems posed by these contradictory accounts may be solved by a Mahasanghika text The proto-mahayana "mahasanghika" are hardly an unbiased source.

Theravada as a distinct school got its start around the time of King Asoka, and it picked up state sponsorship. It seems there were purges of monks from other sects, and no doubt certain parts of early Buddhist history were retrofitted to make them favor Theravada's claims to greater authenticity. That is merely your own conjecture.

10-26-2011, 05:00 AM	#6
Lictimind Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 682 Senior Member	Access to Insight is wonderful, I agree, but the author here is uncritically repeating a sectarian myth. On what evidence are you basing this assertion? Theravadin, Sarvastivadin and Mahayana sources have differing (and equally self-serving) accounts of what exactly happened at the Second Council. Scholarly examination, though, has yielded the consensus that the Mahasanghika Vinaya was the more orthodox, with the Sthaviran version containing additions and deviations. About the Mahasanghikas: The Mahāsāṃghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the fallibility of arhats.[14] They held that the teachings of the Buddha were to be understood as having two principle levels of truth: a relative or conventional (Skt. saṃvṛti) truth, and the absolute or ultimate (Skt. paramārtha) truth.[14] For the Mahāsaṃghika branch of Buddhism, the final and ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words", and words were merely the conventional exposition of the Dharma.[15] A doctrine ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas is, "The power of the tathāgatas is unlimited, and the life of the buddhas is unlimited."[16] According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in Mahāsāṃghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through skillful means.[17] For the Mahāsaṃghikas, the historical Gautama Buddha was one of these transformation bodies (Skt. nirmāṇakāya), while the essential real Buddha is equated with the Dharmakāya.[18] This is hardly an "orthodox view", and hardly in line with the Buddha's teachings. If you're interested, there's a discussion of the whole convoluted story in Andrew Skilton's "A Concise History of Buddhism," pages 47-49. Here's a link to the relevant section. The problems posed by these contradictory accounts may be solved by a Mahasanghika text The proto-mahayana "mahasanghika" are hardly an unbiased source. Theravada as a distinct school got its start around the time of King Asoka, and it picked up state sponsorship. It seems there were purges of monks from other sects, and no doubt certain parts of early Buddhist history were retrofitted to make them favor Theravada's claims to greater authenticity. That is merely your own conjecture.
	Quote