--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...> wrote:

> Dear Robertk,
>
> all you are doing is making a faith-based
> claim -- from your comments, here and elsewhere, I assume that you

have made

> no substantial study of all the textual evidence such as the

Vinayas etc of

> the other schools. You really should try and somehow get hold of

a copy of

> Frauwallner's "The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist
> Literature" (ISMEO 1956) --

=================
Robert:> > "Ten thousand of the of the Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus[after
spliting

> > from the good monks] seeking adherents among themselves, formed a
> > school called the Mahasanghika

===========================
Stephen: This is completely erroneous: the Vatsiputrikas were
Pudgalavadins, the

> Mahasanghikas were not -- there is absolutely no doctrinal

connection

> between them.

============
Dear Stephen,
I see you reject Venerable Dhammanando's explanation of this-
apparently becuase it disagrees with one of your historians?


I am still quite happy that the citation from the Pali is accurate.
Why? Because I find them convincing and real on almost all matters.
There is no reason for me to believe that your findings are true.
RobertK