[Yb4bulVR]

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".

"Highly disputable"...? -- Perhaps it is seen as such in circles where it is advantageous to claim it as such.

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.
What scholars believe this, and on what evidence? "Many scholars believe..." sound a whole lot like "studies show...", which is usually the precurser to a big fat whopper.