[QuidQuoPro]

I'm interested in investigating the doctrinal differences regarding the status of the arhat (rather than the vinaya spat) which occurred at or subsequent to the second council.

I've found odds and ends on Google but does anyone know what caused one section of the sangha to reappraise it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Buddhist_council

[Unlopssesuj]

One thing I have encountered is that some monks of that time seemed to expect that an arhat should be infallible or omnicient. I wondered if the subsequent "disappointment" was the impetus for the down grading of this attainment vis a vis that of a Boddhisattva?

Some random examples that I have heard in my time as a monk: Can an arahant smoke? Can an arahant walk into the hall patting a dog and forget to wipe his feet? Can an arahant cry during a Dhamma talk? Can an arahant announce his attainment – on TV? Can an arahant suffer from Alzheimer’s? Can an arahant express support for a prime ministerial candidate who turns out to be grossly corrupt? And not least – can an arahant have wet dreams? These arise in exactly the kind of real-life context that is depicted in the Mahāvibhāṣā’s story of Mahādeva, and I think it is extremely likely that this represents the kind of context within which these questions arose and became controversial. &

Mahāvihāravāsin commentary, even while insisting on the unimpeachablility of the arahant, is developing the conceptual framework that would eventuate in a significant erosion of the arahant’s status. The ultimate outcome of this process would be the belief, normative in modern Theravāda, that an arahant might not attain jhana. From here:
http://sites.google.com/site/sectsan...6thefivetheses

Has anyone encountered this before?