Beliefnet Discussions - Beliefnet.com

Theravada vs. Mahayana

These forums have moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.

<Prev | Next> First Page | Last Page

This is a read-only area.

Messages: 54 - 54 (444 total)

	etoro 2/10/2003 2:30 PM	54 out of 444
	Part 2 With respect to the Canonical doctrines, there is a set of Suttas or Sutras known as the Nikayas / Agamas. The former version was compiled by the Theravada / Sthaviravada, while the latter is derived from the Sarvastivada and has been included in the Chinese Tripitaka. While both versions originated in Northern India in gatha poetic formats under the 1st council, the former is the version which spread to the Southern region of India and South East Asia through the initiative of king Ashoka (100-200 years later) who sent his children to Sri Lanka. These Suttas were actually codified much latter as the Nikayas during the first 500 years of the Christian Era. By this time many new teachings had also been added by the Theravada itself. The same teachings with some slight variations within their respective Abhidharma commentaries where codified by offshoots of the Mahasamghikas and later Sarvastivadins. The criticism that many within the ordained schools had with these early teachings were that the Vinaya code was too rigid with many disputes going unresolved. These critics also were confident that the Buddha taught a kind of wisdom that could eradicate dualistic inequalities between people. They were critical of the fact that in the Agamas neither women nor laymen could ever attain enlightenment until they were reborn into more favorable rebirths. The Sthaviravada leadership also taught that the Buddha�s enlightenment was beyond the ability of regular common mortals and so instituted as the highest authority the lesser form of enlightenment expounded by the Arharts and allowed social imperfections to persist within the governing rules of the order and in the sangha itself. These schools even taught that there were a class of people that could never attain enlightenment. And there was also the view by the "Elders" that Shakyamuni was merely a man that had eliminated all traces of his existence in the universe and so was no longer a source of access nor authority in Buddhism. These were some of the problems and imperfections in the early Canon that needed addressing and the reason they were criticized as "small vehicle" views. These views were essentially discriminatory to various classes of people in society. It is an important principle of Buddhism that so long as there is even a trace of discrimination against a class of people evidenced within a sutra, or theories of Buddha nature which remain philosophically unresolved or inconsistent with the laws of logic that it is classified as a "provisional teaching". These early schools were also highly analytical schools which required a certain degree of intellectual capacity and preparation for which only the most privileged classes of people could hope to participate and master. These ordained monks were called learners (Sramana) and adepts (pretyaka). The schools themselves where highly hierarchical and regimented. The rigid structure and philosophical preoccupations that developed became institutionalized and since the Buddha was no longer present to apply his wise discretions, many disputes began to surface from within the ordained orders of monks.

<Prev | Next> First Page | Last Page

This is a read-only area.