Template talk:EarlyBuddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was created at the request of and based on the ideas of Sacca. For more information regarding this template's background, please see User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld#template_on_early_buddhism.3F and User_talk:Sacca#template_on_early_buddhism.3F. May all interested parties ultimately find this of benefit. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. Arrow740 10:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools

While User:Sacca deserves all merit for this template's creation; for better or worse, I truncated some of his initial ideas. I suspect one of the more potentially contentious truncations I put forth was for the listing of only a handful of Early Buddhist schools. I thought the traditional list of 18 (or 20, etc.) would be too cumbersome and thus would make this sidebar significantly less useful or readable. The handful of schools I listed were ones -- based on my extremely limited knowledge -- that I thought had existing sanghas. If someone would like to change this list, I'm totally open to it but request that you first educate me (and others?) about the reasons here on this talk page. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 existing sanghas: Theravada, Mulasarvastivada (whose relation to Sarvastivada is unclear) & Dharmaguptaka. Historically, the schools important in later Indian Buddhism (7th century pilgrims) were Theravada, Sammitiya, (Mula)Sarvastivada & Mahasanghika (who seem by that time to be mostly Mahayana). Peter jackson 11:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea in principle, and I agree with simplifying, but the 'tree' of which sect divided from which sect is based on the modern Theravada sect's position on sectarian history, but that is very unlikely to be a NPOV and very unlikely to be 'historical'! I would suggest just listing them, without attempting a tree diagram, and I would list them just in alphabetical order to be nuetral. Peter Jackson is exactly right about the three extant schools, and as he says the relationship or distinction between Mulasarvastivada and Sarvastivada is extremely unclear. Mahasamghika cannot possibly have been the 'Vajjiputtakas' of the second council (in the Theriya scheme) because they have pretty much the same account of the council and disagree with all the points supposedly put by the Vajjiputtakas. Their rule against use of money by monks is even more explicit than the Pali. Bhante Sujato, in his book about early sectarian history "Sects and Sectarianism", concludes that the Mahasamghika's own account of their history is the most likely to be historical. It states that the Theriyas divided because they re-edited the Vinaya in a new structure - which is exactly what we know they did, according to the Mahasamghika account both sides seem to have acknowledged that the meaning was the same, but they could not go on living and studying together with different editions of the texts to learn. This hardly seems to fulfil the definition of a legal 'schism' in the Vinaya sense. As for the later distinctions between Theriya schools, probably none of them were 'schisms' in the full legal (Vinaya) sense either. I've tried several times before on Wikipedia asking partisan Theravadins to accept that presenting the sect's version of Buddhist history without so much as mentioning the other accounts is not a NPOV. I've failed to get heard every time so far, or my changes have been reverted. So please let me know if you're willing to listen first before I spend more time discussing a new edition. Kester ratcliff (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you've given this a lot of thought, have a good knowledge base and are committed to representing this in a thoughtful manner. Have at it. Just a wisp of a thought: I wonder if it's possible to represent the schools in some sort of timeline, if not a hierarchy? Either way, I make no claim to any valuable knowledge regarding Buddhist history. So, my two cents (prompted by your e-mail), especially given my recently vastly diminished WP time, is do as you like with this template (in collaboration with Sacca, Peter and other sincere participants). I appreciate the mini-tutorial. Let me know if you need help with the HTML. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kester makes a number of useful & well-informed points. I'm not sure about modern Theravada, which he mentions, but the tree here is not that given in traditional Pali sources such as the Dipavamsa & Kathavatthu commentary. It seems to be what most scholars would say. Indeed the Mahasanghikas aren't Vajjiputtakas, but the account of the schism Kesterr gives is only 1 theory. Bechert says the schools avoided sanghbheda, & the Abhidharmakosa says it can only take place in the Buddha's life. More when I have time. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I have a bit more time. The selection of schools for inclusion in the table does seem somewhat arbitrary. No mention of Puggalavada/Sammatiya, a major school in India, or Mahisasaka & Kasyapiya, important in the far NW/Central Asia. If it's because they're extinct, then Mahasanghika shouldn't be there.

Another issue that might be considered here is Schopen's radical theories on early Buddhism, which challenge most of what we thought we knew on the subject. Nearly everything is theory, not fact. In this context he points out that there's no mention of Buddhist schools in inscriptions before the 2nd century AD, & implies this is because they didn't exist. If he's right, would they still count as early Buddhism? Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)