Talk:Second Buddhist council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original author had errorneous views on the subject. Apparently he did not take note from an important book: "Points of Controversy" in the Pali Canon, which recorded the entire debate in the Third Great Buddhist Council.

This version is taken from the exerpt at the beginning of the Sixth Buddhist Council. What is more authentic than this that is approved by all the venerable monks of the world?

Deepti, I'm a little worried about loosing some of the information in the previous article, so I'm going to go over previous versions and try to incorporate some of the previous editors work in here. Obhaso 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I ended up removing quite a bit of your edit. The long telling of the circumstances around this seemed too much, but I would love it if you could work it in the main portion of the article, maybe a bit shorter though. Also, I think it's important to leave the Mahasanghika version, as I haven't heard this before and it seems highly relavant. I'll look around and see if I can find any sources to add to this article. Obhaso 06:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] factual accuracy

The second council did not lead to schisms in the Sangha, the account states the monks agreed at he end. The schisms were from a later time, but before the third council. I will change edit the article later.Greetings, Sacca 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for a much improved account of the Second council. Re this last statement, the idea that the schisms happened between the Second and Third councils is rooted in the Dipavamsa, produced over 500 years after the events. But there is in fact no serious evidence that the schisms took place before Asoka. The textual situation is of course complex, but the undeniable fact is that Asoka said 'the Sangha has been made unified'. Since he nowhere refers to schools of Buddhism, it is only reasonable to think he meant THE Sangha, the unified Sangha of all Buddhism, not that of one school. I am aware that these claims disagree with the traditional accounts and those of many modern scholars, but there you have it! See my http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/home for full details. I would suggest that, given the uncertain nature of the material and the variety of theories proposed, the best policy for a Wikipedia article is simply to summarize the primary sources (including the archaeological evidence)and mention, giving sources, the main theories, whether traditional or modern. Sujato