Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The material on patheos.com doesn't explain over what issues the schism occurred, and what other authority besides the Vinaya and suttras the break-away group wanted to validate. It does say that in AD400 the tradition of discovery of secret, hidden texts begins in the Mahayana tradition. But the schism happened approx. 600-700 yrs. before that.
CW, which schism are you referring to? I have a link from Jason's blog talking about another, earlier schism posted on the first page. I also posted a link to a Google search for "buddhist schism". Looks to me like there's plenty of info on the net.
I think my problem the last time I searched for this topic was that I didn't use the word "schism". I used 'separation, sects, division," etc. Using Schism clearly brings up a lot more results.
I thought the patheos article was a good basic description actually, although I disagreed with a couple of uses of words such as "magic", etc. I have never seen a Buddhist of any school imply the use of magic.
I also didn't realize, like SherabDorje said, that there was more than one schism. So I have a lot of research to do to learn more about this!
Well, there was an early schism caused by one of the Buddha's main disciples, but that one was remedied. I thought the subject of this thread was the one where the forerunners of Mahayana broke off from what later would become the southern tradition. That one took place after the 1st 100 yrs after the Buddha's death. So this first major schism created two groups that eventually evolved into northern and southern traditions. Then after that, there was another schism dividing the southern group into two.
@laurajean--the use of magic was popular in medieval India, and made its way into Buddhism from there, according to this book, "Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement", but this isn't the only source. I've seen references to that elsewhere. Anyway, Vajrayana is said to use magic. They have the additional influence of the Tibetan shamanic tradition. Vincenzi said once that there are references to magic and paranormal powers in one of the suttras.
I won't mention any names (Dakini), but someone really wants me to start a thread on the Schism of the schools, Theravada, Mayahana, etc. From my understanding, this is an okay topic to discuss as long as it's on an appropriate thread, so here it is. Hope it's in the correct section.
SO: Schism between the schools..... Discuss.
That's a pretty complicated topic, especially when trying to sift through all the available historical evidence and minutia of what technically constitutes a schism. I don't really have the time to join this discussion right now, but if you're interested, a good place to start is Sujato's Sects & Sectarianism.
Jason is one of the new moderators, formerly known only as God Emperor.
I've been a moderator here since 2006.
Also, just for reference, the whole 'God Emperor' thing is an old joke. My original screen name was Elohim, and we were discussion Frank Herbert's Dune series a lot right around the same time as I became a moderator (e.g., here, here, and here).
Eh, leaves in the hand is mainly just a place to collect my thoughts and better forum posts for future reference, but I'm not opposed to people actually reading it, either. The above link, for example, was an edited forum post I made here back in 2005.
I think these tensions have been around since the Buddha's time, people always want to interpret things differently. People can get quite attached to the ideas of a particular school, also perhaps we want to feel we've made the best choice.
I used to desire to know which teaching was really Buddha's. And even asked how do we know?For me it began to become a stumbling block, a reason to leave Buddhism just as it was for Christianity. I thought that I had to be in a religion or teaching that had all of the truth. Period. Not finding it, I left, but I left for other reasons as well. And so I wrote to David Brazier who wrote, "The Feeling Buddha" and "The New Buddhism." He wrote back:
"This is what I think. The most important teaching is love...So no particular belief system is going to be ultimate or final, but many are actually useful. People become hung up on whether the Christian perspective is right or whether the Buddhist one is, or about what is the correct interpretation of, say, Buddhism..Each individual does have to select what path he or she is going to follow, but doing so does not make the other paths 'wrong'...More important is whether one has a sense of the love that one receives from the spiritual source."
But if a person just desires to know for other reasons, other than why I wanted to know, then that is different. For me, as I said, it was a stumbling block. All Buddhists as far as I know teach the same basic teachings. I think it is up to the student as to which path feels best to them and go with that. I came back when I found a teacher whose lineage I found to be closest to my heart and to what I believed when I was studying Buddhism in a different lineage and silently disagreeing.
I don't think there is such a thing. Sure, a rottweiler dog is very different from a chiwawa. They look different, they sound different, they act different, but they are both the same thing...a dog. Some people like rottweilers. Some people like chiwawas. However, they both bark, they both chase cats and they both crap on the floor. They are the same thing!
It looks like the schism came about in part because some monks supported a literal interpretation of the Buddha's words, whereas others were in favor of honoring the intent behind the words. Also, a body of text called the Abidharma Pitaka wasn't accepted as canonical by some, and was accepted by others. (This, from the "pre-sectarian Buddhism" reference SherabDorje provided.)
I used to desire to know which teaching was really Buddha's. the spiritual source." But if a person just desires to know for other reasons, other than why I wanted to know, then that is different.
This topic isn't about pinpointing what the Buddha really taught, or about resurrecting old debates, or anything of that nature. It came up on another thread, simply as intellectual curiosity regarding the historical evolution of Buddhism and the split that eventually lead to the creation of northern and southern traditions. I hope intellectual curiousity is ok.... :-/
This is really interesting, SD. It says that although the causes of the schism are disputed, many scholars agree that a major point of difference was that the Mahasanghikas (later to evolve into Mahayanists) objected to the others' adding rules to the Vinaya. The Mahasanghikas adopted the Vinaya as they were given by the Buddha. And they also believed in the "transcendental and supramundane nature" of bodhisattvas and Buddhas, believing that the historical Buddha was an emanation of a primordial Buddha, whose nature was the Dharmakaya. So we can see how this belief could eventually result in belief in multiple Buddhas.
Comments
I thought the patheos article was a good basic description actually, although I disagreed with a couple of uses of words such as "magic", etc. I have never seen a Buddhist of any school imply the use of magic.
I also didn't realize, like SherabDorje said, that there was more than one schism. So I have a lot of research to do to learn more about this!
@laurajean--the use of magic was popular in medieval India, and made its way into Buddhism from there, according to this book, "Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement", but this isn't the only source. I've seen references to that elsewhere. Anyway, Vajrayana is said to use magic. They have the additional influence of the Tibetan shamanic tradition. Vincenzi said once that there are references to magic and paranormal powers in one of the suttras.
Pre-sectarian Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism
Mr. Google and I have been friends for a long time.
:-/
Also, just for reference, the whole 'God Emperor' thing is an old joke. My original screen name was Elohim, and we were discussion Frank Herbert's Dune series a lot right around the same time as I became a moderator (e.g., here, here, and here).
P
"This is what I think. The most important teaching is love...So no particular belief system is going to be ultimate or final, but many are actually useful. People become hung up on whether the Christian perspective is right or whether the Buddhist one is, or about what is the correct interpretation of, say, Buddhism..Each individual does have to select what path he or she is going to follow, but doing so does not make the other paths 'wrong'...More important is whether one has a sense of the love that one receives from the spiritual source."
But if a person just desires to know for other reasons, other than why I wanted to know, then that is different. For me, as I said, it was a stumbling block. All Buddhists as far as I know teach the same basic teachings. I think it is up to the student as to which path feels best to them and go with that. I came back when I found a teacher whose lineage I found to be closest to my heart and to what I believed when I was studying Buddhism in a different lineage and silently disagreeing.
I don't think there is such a thing. Sure, a rottweiler dog is very different from a chiwawa. They look different, they sound different, they act different, but they are both the same thing...a dog. Some people like rottweilers. Some people like chiwawas. However, they both bark, they both chase cats and they both crap on the floor. They are the same thing!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasanghika
Thanks for the assist.