Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AncientGlory" data-source="post: 7854399" data-attributes="member: 262433">Hmm, I don't think this is accurate. I'm almost sure that origin of the "Mahayana" has never been clearly established, but all sources indicate it began before the time of Third Buddhist council. There have been 18 sects of "Heenayana" at the time of Ashoka and it is fair to assume one of these sects may have evolved to "Mahayana". However most of the unbiased sources agree that precise origin of the mahayana is unclear. Just because we learned that Vajjiputtaka bikkus formed mahayana after the third buddhist council, in grade 9 buddhism book does not make it a fact.Also the name "Heenayana" has nothing to do with "Mahayana" people hating other buddhist sects.Also please note that the dispute arose because of a "vinaya" karana, not a dharma karana. It is fair to assume that Moggalipuththa tissa thero and some of Vajjiputtaka bikkus may have attained "arahath" state at the time. There is no evidence to say otherwise. It seems that the reason for the council was not only to take a decision about the "dasa akapa wasthu" but to purify the 'sangha' from the corrupted and bogus monks. To me it seems 'dasa akapa wasthu' are simple 'vinaya karana', which could have been resolved without a council. However because of the emperors generous contributions to the buddhism, many people have joined the 'sangha' for personal gain. This was why the third council was held.Your answer does not provide a clue to why you consider theravada as the originally disclosed path. It seems that you are biased to an opinion because you were born to "Theravada" and you were taught it all your life. I think with out taking a side we need to walk in the middle line and look at the both sides, fairly. Do not believe anything because you were taught, or because it comes to you by tradition or by birth.-Buddha</blockquote>

Verification: Hath warak paha keeyada? (hatha wadikireema paha)

Top Bottom