imported>JimRenge: Undid revision 1034307103 by Kirtiiyadav (talk) editing test?

2021-07-19T08:50:46Z

Undid revision 1034307103 by Kirtiiyadav (talk) editing test?

New page

{{Short description|early Buddhist school}}{{EarlyBuddhism}}
The '''Sthavira nikāya''' (Sanskrit "Sect of the Elders"; {{CJKV|t=上座部|p=Shàngzuò Bù}}) was one of the [[early Buddhist schools]]. They split from the majority [[Mahāsāṃghika]]s at the time of the [[Second Buddhist council]].<ref>Harvey, Peter (2013). ''An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.).'' Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pg. 89-90.</ref>

==Scholarly views==
===Origin===
The '''Sthavira nikāya''' ([[Sanskrit]]: "Sect of the Elders"; {{CJKV|t=上座部|p=Shàngzuò Bù}}) was one of the [[early Buddhist schools]]. The Sthavira nikāya split away from the majority [[Mahāsāṃghika]]s during the [[Second Buddhist council]] resulting in the first schism in the [[Sangha]].<ref>Harvey, Peter (2013). ''An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.).'' Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pg. 89-90.</ref>

The Mahāsāṃghika ''Śāriputraparipṛcchā'', a text written to justify this school's departure from the disciplinary code of the elder monks, asserts that the council was convened at Pāṭaliputra over matters of vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by the minority (Sthaviras).{{sfn|Skilton|2004|p=48}} The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya.{{sfn|Skilton|2004|p=64}}

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.{{sfn|Skilton|2004|p=48}} Modern scholarship therefore generally agrees that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest.{{sfn|Skilton|2004|p=48}} According to Skilton, future scholars may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dhamma-Vinaya than the [[Theravada]] school.{{sfn|Skilton|2004|p=64}}

===Language===
The Tibetan historian [[Buton Rinchen Drub]] (1290–1364) wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas used [[Prakrit]], the [[Sarvastivada|Sarvāstivādins]] used Sanskrit, the Sthaviras used [[Paisaci|Paiśācī]], and the [[Saṃmitīya]] used [[Apabhraṃśa]].{{sfn|Yao|2012|p=9}}

===Legacy===
The Sthaviras later divided into other schools such as:

* [[Sarvāstivāda]]
* [[Vatsīputrīya]]
* [[Vibhajyavāda]] (Pali: ''Vibhajjavāda'')

The Vibhajyavāda branch gave rise to a number of schools such as:{{sfn |Sujato|2006|p=61}}

* [[Mahīśāsaka]]
* [[Dharmaguptaka]]
* [[Kāśyapīya]]
* Tāmraparnīya, later called "[[Theravada|Theravāda]]"

==Relationship to Theravāda==

===Scholarly accounts===
The Theravāda school of [[Sri Lanka]] and Southeast Asia has identified itself exclusively with the Sthaviras, as the Pali word ''thera'' is equivalent to the Sanskrit ''sthavira''.{{sfn |Skilton|2004|p=66-67}} This has led early Western historians to assume that the two parties are identical.{{sfn |Skilton|2004|p=66-67}} However, this is not the case, and by the time of [[Ashoka]], the Sthavira sect had split into the Sammitīya [[Pudgalavada]], Sarvāstivāda, and the Vibhajyavāda schools.{{sfn |Skilton|2004|p=66-67}}

The Vibhajyavāda school is believed to have split into other schools as well, such as the Mahīśāsaka school and the ancestor of the Theravada school.{{sfn |Skilton|2004|p=66-67}} According to [[Damien Keown]], there is no historical evidence that the Theravada school arose until around two centuries after the Great Schism which occurred at the Third Council.{{sfn|Keown|2003|p=279-280}}

===Theravādin accounts===
Starting with the ''[[Dipavamsa|Dīpavaṃsa]]'' chronicle in the 4th century, the Theravādins of the [[Mahavihara|Mahāvihāra]] in Sri Lanka attempted to identify themselves with the original Sthavira sect.{{sfn |Morgan|2010|p=113}} The Theravādin ''Dīpavaṃsa'' clarifies that the name ''Theravāda'' refers to the "old" teachings, making no indication that it refers to the Second Council.{{sfn |Williams|2004|p = 56-57}} Similarly, the name ''Mahāsāṃghika'' is in reference to those who follow the original [[Vinaya]] of the undivided Saṃgha.{{sfn |Williams|2004|p = 56-57}} The ''Dīpavaṃsa'' chronicle lauds the Theravāda as a "great [[banyan]]" and dismissively portrays the other early Buddhist schools as thorns (''kaṇṭaka'').{{sfn|Morgan|2010|p=113}} ''Dīpavaṃsa'', 4.90–91 says:
:These 17 sects are schismatic,
:only one is non-schismatic.
:With the non-schismatic sect,
:there are eighteen in all.
:Like a great banyan tree,
:the Theravāda is supreme,
:The Dispensation of the Conqueror,
:complete, without lack or excess.
:The other sects arose
:like thorns on the tree.
:— ''Dīpavaṃsa'', 4.90–91{{sfn |Sujato|2006|p=i}}

According to the ''Mahāvaṃsa'', a Theravādin source, after the [[Second Buddhist Council|Second Council]] was closed those taking the side of junior monks did not accept the verdict but held an assembly of their own attended by ten thousand calling it a Mahasangiti (Great Convocation) from which the school derived its name Mahāsāṃghika. However, such popular explanations of ''Sthavira'' and ''Mahāsāṃghika'' are generally considered folk etymologies.{{sfn |Williams|2004|p = 56-57}}

[[Bhante Sujato]] explains the relationship between the Sthavira sect and the Theravāda:
{{quote|The term ''sthavira'' (meaning "elder") is the Sanskrit version of the term better known today in its Pali version ''thera'', as in ''Theravāda'', the "Teaching of the Elders." The original Sthaviras, however, are by no means identical with the modern school called Theravāda. Rather, the Sthaviras are the ancestor of a group of related schools, one of which is the Theravāda.<ref>{{cite web|last=Sujato|first=Bhante|authorlink=Bhante Sujato|title=Why Devadatta Was No Saint|url=http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/why-devadatta-was-no-saint}}</ref>}}

==See also==
* [[Early Buddhist schools]]
* [[Schools of Buddhism]]
* [[Buddhist councils]]

==References==
; Citations
{{Reflist|30em}}

; Bibliography
{{refbegin}}

* {{Citation|last1=Hirakawa|first1=Akira|last2=Groner|first2=Paul|title=A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass|year=1998|ISBN=9788120809550}}
* {{Citation|last=Dutt|first=Nalinaksha|title=Buddhist Sects in India|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass|year=2007|ISBN=978-8120804289}}
* {{Citation|last=Keown|first=Damien|authorlink=Damien Keown|title=A Dictionary of Buddhism|year=2003|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|ISBN=978-0198605607}}
* {{Citation |last=Morgan|first=Diane|title=Essential Buddhism: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice|year=2010|publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group|Praeger]]|ISBN=978-0313384523}}
* {{Citation|last=Skilton|first=Andrew|title=A Concise History of Buddhism|year=2004|publisher=Windhorse Publications|ISBN=978-0904766929}}
* {{Citation |last=Sujato|first=Bhante|authorlink=Bhante Sujato|title=Sects & Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools|publisher=Santi Forest Monastery|year=2006|url=https://sites.google.com/site/sectsandsectarianism/home}}
* {{Citation |last=Williams|first=Paul|authorlink=Paul Williams (philosopher)|title=Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. 2.|year=2004|publisher=[[Routledge]]|ISBN=978-0415332262}}
* {{Citation|last=Yao|first=Zhihua|title=The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition|year=2012|publisher=[[Routledge]]|ISBN=978-0415544382}}

{{refend}}

==External links==
*[https://sites.google.com/site/sectsandsectarianism/SSlulu11.pdf Sects & Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools'', Santi Forest Monastery, 2006] by Bhikkhu Sujato

{{Buddhism topics}}

{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Sthavira nikaya}}
[[Category:Nikaya schools]]
[[Category:Sthaviravāda]]
[[Category:Early Buddhist schools]]
[[ko:상좌부]]

Sthavira nikāya - Revision history

imported>JimRenge: Undid revision 1034307103 by Kirtiiyadav (talk) editing test?