Sthavira nikāya

The Sthavira nikāya (Sanskrit "Sect of the Elders"; ; ) was one of the early Buddhist schools. They split from the majority Mahāsāṃghikas at the time of the Second Buddhist council.

Scholarly views

Origin

The Sthavira nikāya was one of the early Buddhist schools. The Sthavira nikāya was separated from the majority Mahāsāṃghikas during the Second Buddhist council resulting in the first schism in the Sangha.Harvey, Peter (2013). ''An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.).'' Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pg. 89-90.

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). The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya. However, this text is not fully accepted by some Buddhist schools, such as the Theravāda, which instead claim that it was the Mahāsāṃghika who altered the original rules.

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.

Some scholars therefore agree that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest, although some other scholars think that it is not the case. 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. According to Bhante Sujato, there is no strong evidence that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest; both the Mahāsāṃghika and Theravāda Vinayas developed in parallel from shared ancient sources, each containing both older and later elements. Declaring one as definitively “the earliest” is an oversimplification not supported by the academic evidence.

Language

The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub (1290–1364) wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas used Prakrit, the Sarvāstivādins used Sanskrit, the Sthaviras used Paiśācī, and the Saṃmitīya used Apabhraṃśa.

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:

* Mahīśāsaka
* Dharmaguptaka
* Kāśyapīya
* Tāmraparnīya, later called " 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''. This has led early Western historians to assume that the two parties are identical. 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.

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. 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.

Theravādin accounts

Starting with the '' Dīpavaṃsa'' chronicle in the 4th century, the Theravādins of the Mahāvihāra in Sri Lanka attempted to identify themselves with the original Sthavira sect. The Theravādin ''Dīpavaṃsa'' clarifies that the name ''Theravāda'' refers to the "old" teachings, making no indication that it refers to the Second Council. Similarly, the name ''Mahāsāṃghika'' is in reference to those who follow the original Vinaya of the undivided Saṃgha. The ''Dīpavaṃsa'' chronicle lauds the Theravāda as a "great banyan" and dismissively portrays the other early Buddhist schools as thorns (''kaṇṭaka''). ''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

According to the ''Mahāvaṃsa'', a Theravādin source, after the 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.

Bhante Sujato explains the relationship between the Sthavira sect and the Theravāda:

See also

* Early Buddhist schools
* Schools of Buddhism
* Buddhist councils

References

; Citations

; Bibliography

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

External links

Sects & Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools'', Santi Forest Monastery, 2006
by Bhikkhu Sujato

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sthavira nikaya
Nikaya schools
Sthaviravāda
Early Buddhist schools
ko:상좌부