Talk:Second Buddhist council

Buddhism Mid‑importance

	This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

scholars in agreement?[edit]

From the article: "Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya."

Why is it believed that one school increased the rules by ten rather than the other school decreased the rules by ten? I find it more reasonable to believe that some wanted to eliminate the rule against accepting money rather than that some rogue monks wanted to deny the right to accept money. Likewise for following the rules of one's teacher rather than the standard vinya of the sangha. This doesn't pass the straight face test. Particularly that the article (and article specific to each school) is pretty cagey about the actual rules, differences in question. -Alex 3 Dec 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.247 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exact rules that differ between the pratimoksas are not a big mystery, and scholars have already reviewed the differences between the Mahasamghika and Theravada vinayas. The type of rules that differ are saiksa-dharmas (as stated in the sentence following the one you quoted). These are minor guidelines concerning good manners for walking, eye contact, stretching, traveling here and there, etc. They are not related to carrying money. For more of the nitty gritty, you can read the original studies which are referenced in the article. Tengu800 04:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

factual accuracy[edit]

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)[reply]

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