At 11:31 PM 27-05-05, abhidhammika wrote:

>How are you?

Better. Thank you.

>You wrote:
>"Perhaps even more interesting & important would be to learn about
>the history of the sponsor, i.e., the Mahavihara sect,
>which is moulded much of the present Theravadin teachings."
>
>The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English defines the
>term "sect" as follows.
>
>---------------------
>
>sect
>
> • noun 1 a group of people with different religious beliefs
>(typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to
>which they belong. 2 a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical
>or political ideas.
>
> — ORIGIN Latin secta `following, faction', from sequi `follow'.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Please explain how Gotama Buddha's Saasana that is Theravada can be
>called a sect in light of the definitions of the term "sect" given
>by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English.

Please forgive me. I didn't know that there are dictionaries that have a rather negative connotation of the word. But perhaps the first meaning, minus the optional words in brackets, does seem to apply quite well. Anyhow, since it is not well-favored, I'll take it back.

How about "subdivision" then? Or perhaps more accurately, "sub-sub-sub-division"? I'm not merely trying to give a tongue-in-cheek reply. Again, please read up the history by objective scholars. You'll have a better idea.

>Recently, Sayadaw Dhammanando Bhikkhu explained how the First
>Congress Recital (Pathama Sangiiti) came to be called Theravada, the
>Teachings of the Five Hundred Powerful Senior Arahants.

So, what did the Venerable say about how the name "Theravada" came about?

>Thus, the term "Theravada" is a reserved word that signifies Gotama
>Buddha's Saasanaa.

Don't you think that this is somewhat too presuming a claim? I've seen enough evidence to know "Theravaada" does not equal "Buddha Saasana".

>
>Of course, Paravaadiis (deviating breakaway sects) such as the
>members of so-called Mahasangika may want to downplay the mainstream
>status of Arahants's Teachings, and may want to claim the equal
>position. But, that can never happen because Paravaadiis are merely
>puthujjanas, not Arahants.

Again, don't you think that this is somewhat too presuming a claim? Even in the additions to the Vinaya Pitaka, i.e., on the Second Council, it speaks only about the Mahasanghika's stand on loosening some parts of the Vinaya.

The split was of course an unfortunate event which led to a whole lot of later splits, apparently more so on the "Theravada" side. (I'm trying to avoid to unfair "Hinayana" term here. Can anyone suggest a better alternative?) I wonder if it could have been better dealt with (if it's possible) with the final Adhikara.nasamatha, i.e., Ti.navatthaarakoti (a “covering with grass” decision). Oh well, it's history!


mettâ,
kb