Dear Bhante,

> But the Mahasamghika ideas that are thought to influence the
> Mahayana are not the lax Vinaya issues as such.

Regarding the hoary old "lax Vinaya issue", one should also note that the
standard account of the Mahasanghika / Sthavira split is derived from later
Theravada sources. It is natural that the Theravadins would portray
themselves the orthodox party. However, if we look at alternative accounts,
such as that included in the Shariputra-pariprccha, we get an opposite view.
It was the Mahasanghikas who were the conservative party trying to preserve
the Vinaya as it was at the time from the over-zealous reformist agenda of
the Sthaviras who wante to make the Vianya even more strict and demanding.
Thus it would seem from this account that it was the minority Sthavira camp
that caused the spit, not the other way round. And for the minority party
to claim that they were the "victors" is rather ludicrous -- how could they
be the victors if matters were decided by consensus ?

> I do not know of any particular evidence that the Indian Mahayanists
> were any more lax in the Vinaya than their Theravadin brothers,
> although it seems that at the time when the Mahayana emerged the
> level of Vinaya and practice was declining generally.

Indeed. It may surprise some here to learn that many early and mid-period
Mahayana sutras devote many pages to extensive and sometimes extremely
outspoken criticism of laxity in Vinaya matter -- they were obviously people
who cared a lot about the inegrity of adherence to the Vinaya. Indeed, the
Mahayana monk or nun probably had a more onerous task since they would have
also taken the bodhisattva commitments in addition to the standard Vinaya
rules. People not familiar with Mahayana should really get it into their
heads that there is no Mahayana Vinaya per se -- all Mahayana monks / nuns
in India and elsewhere followed the Vinaya of whichever of the traditional
schools into which they became bhiksus / bhiksunis.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge