On 5/10/05, Stephen Hodge <s.hodge@...> wrote:

> 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

----------------------------

For those interested in viewing some evidence that it was Theravada
that increased the number of rules, please see the following:

Prebish, Charles and Jan Nattier, 1977. "Mahasamghika Origins: The
Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism." in History of Religions, Vol
16/3.


I would also like to add, it would be possible for woman to be
ordained in the Mahayana tradition (Dharmaguptaka vinaya lineage) and
still be considered Theravada Bhikkhuni. There are two issues involved
here:
1) Lineage
2) Doctrinal affiliation

So one can belong to a certain lineage and still hold to different
doctrinal views. Afterall, modern Chinese and Korean Bhikkunni/Bhikhu
would not be considered to be holding a Dharmaguptaka position.

Regards

Terry