Jump to content

Early Buddhist schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Map of the major geographical centers of major Buddhist schools in South Asia, at around the time ofXuanzang's visit in the seventh century.
·Gray:Dharmaguptakaschool
·Red:non-PudgalavādaSarvāstivādaschools
·Yellow:Mahāsāṃghikaschool
·Green:Pudgalavādaschool(s)
·Orange:non-DharmaguptakaVibhajyavādaschools(ancestral toTheravada)
Part ofa serieson
EarlyBuddhism
Scriptures
Early sangha
Pre-sectarian Buddhism
Early Buddhist schools

Theearly Buddhist schoolsare those schools into which the Buddhistmonasticsaṅghasplit early in thehistory of Buddhism.The divisions were originally due to differences inVinayaand later also due to doctrinal differences and geographical separation of groups of monks. The original saṅgha split into the first early schools (generally believed to be theSthaviraand theMahāsāṃghika) during or after the reign ofAśoka.[1]Later, these first early sects were further divided into schools such as theSarvāstivādins,theDharmaguptakas,and theVibhajyavādins,eventually proliferating into—according to traditional accounts—18 (or, less-commonly, 20) different schools.[2]

The textual material shared by the early schools is often termed theearly Buddhist textsand these are an important source for understanding their doctrinal similarities and differences.

Formation and development

[edit]

The first council

[edit]
Main article:First Buddhist council

According to the scriptures (CullavaggaXI.1 ff), three months after theparinirvanaofGautama Buddha,a council was held at RajagahaRajgir) by some of his disciples who had attainedarahantship,presided over byMahākāśyapa,one of his most senior disciples, and with the support of kingAjātasattu,reciting the teachings of the Buddha. The accounts of the council in the scriptures of the schools differ as to what was actually recited there. Purāṇa is recorded as having said: "Your reverences, well chanted by the elders are theDhammaandVinaya,but in that way that I heard it in the Lord's presence, that I received it in his presence, in that same way will I bear it in mind. "[Vinaya-pitaka:CullavaggaXI:1:11]. According toTheravādatradition, the teachings were divided into various parts and each was assigned to an elder and his pupils to commit to memory, and there was no conflict about what theBuddhataught.

Some scholars argue that the first council actually did not take place.[3][4][5]

Divergence between theSthaviravādaand theMahāsāṃghika

[edit]

The expansion of orally transmitted texts in early Buddhism, and the growing distances between Buddhist communities, fostered specialization and sectarian identification.[1]One or several disputes did occur during Aśoka's reign, involving both doctrinal and disciplinary (vinaya) matters, although these may have been too informal to be called a "council". The Sthavira school had, by the time of Aśoka, divided into three sub-schools, doctrinally speaking, but these did not become separate monastic orders until later.

Only two ancient sources (the Dīpavaṃsa and Bhavya's third list) place the first schism before Aśoka, and none attribute the schism to a dispute on Vinaya practice. Lamotte and Hirakawa both maintain that the first schism in the Buddhist sangha occurred during the reign of Ashoka.[6][7]According to scholar Collett Cox "most scholars would agree that even though the roots of the earliest recognized groups predateAśoka,their actual separation did not occur until after his death. "[1]According to the Theravada tradition, the split took place at theSecond Buddhist council,which took place atVaishali,approximately one hundred years after Gautama Buddha'sparinirvāṇa.While the second council probably was a historical event,[8]traditions regarding the Second Council are confusing and ambiguous. According to the Theravada tradition the overall result was the first schism in thesangha,between theSthavira nikāyaand theMahāsāṃghika,although it is not agreed upon by all what the cause of this split was.[9]

The various splits within the monastic organization went together with the introduction and emphasis onAbhidhammic literatureby some schools. This literature was specific to each school, and arguments and disputes between the schools were often based on these Abhidhammic writings. However, actual splits were originally based on disagreements onvinaya(monastic discipline), though later on, by about 100CEor earlier, they could be based on doctrinal disagreement.[10]Pre-sectarian Buddhism, however, did not have Abhidhammic scriptures, except perhaps for a basic framework, and not all of the early schools developed an Abhidhamma literature.

Third council under Aśoka

[edit]
Main article:Third Buddhist council

Theravādin sources state that, in the 3rd century BCE, a third council was convened under the patronage of Aśoka.[11]Some scholars argue that there are certain implausible features of the Theravādin account which imply that the third council was ahistorical. The remainder consider it a purely Theravāda-Vibhajjavādacouncil.[12]

According to the Theravādin account, this council was convened primarily for the purpose of establishing an official orthodoxy. At the council, small groups raised questions about the specifics of thevinayaand the interpretation of doctrine. The chairman of the council,Moggaliputta Tissa,compiled a book, theKathavatthu,which was meant to refute these arguments. The council sided with Moggaliputta and his version of Buddhism as orthodox; it was then adopted by Emperor Aśoka as his empire's official religion. InPali,this school of thought was termed Vibhajjavāda, literally "thesis of [those who make] a distinction".

The distinction involved was as to the existence of phenomena (dhammas) in the past, future and present. The version of the scriptures that had been established at the third council, including theVinaya,Suttaand theAbhidhamma Pitakas (collectively known as the "Tripiṭaka"), was taken toSri Lankaby Emperor Aśoka's son, the VenerableMahinda.There it was eventually committed to writing in thePalilanguage. ThePāli Canonremains the most complete set of survivingNikāyascriptures, although the greater part of the Sarvāstivādin canon also survives inChinese translation,some parts exist in Tibetan translations, and some fragments exist in Sanskrit manuscripts, while parts of various canons (sometimes unidentified), exist in Chinese and fragments in other Indian dialects as inGāndhārī.

Further divisions

[edit]

Around the time of Aśoka that further divisions began to occur within the Buddhist movement and a number of additional schools emerged.Etienne Lamottedivided the mainstream Buddhist schools into three main doctrinal types:[13]

  1. The "personalists", such as thePudgalavādinVātsīputrīyas and Saṃmittīyas
  2. The "realists",namely theTheravādaandSarvāstivādaĀbhidharmikas
  3. The "nominalists",e.g. theMahāsāṃghikaPrajñaptivādins, and possibly non-AbhidharmaSthaviravadins.

One of them was faction of the Sthavira group which called themselves Vibhajjavādins. One part of this group was transmitted to Sri Lanka and to certain areas of southern India, such as Vanavasi in the south-west and the Kañci region in the south-east. This group later ceased to refer to themselves specifically as "Vibhajjavādins", but reverted to calling themselves "Theriyas", after the earlier Theras (Sthaviras). Still later, at some point prior to theDipavamsa(4th century), the Pali name Theravāda was adopted and has remained in use ever since for this group.

Other groups included theSarvāstivāda,theDharmaguptakas,theSaṃmitīya,and thePudgalavādins.The Pudgalavādins were also known as Vatsiputrīyas after their putative founder. Later this group became known as the Sammitīya school after one of its subdivisions. It died out around the 9th or 10th century CE. Nevertheless, during most of the early medieval period, the Sammitīya school was numerically the largest Buddhist group in India, with more followers than all the other schools combined. The Sarvāstivādin school was most prominent in the north-west of India and provided some of the doctrines that would later be adopted by the Mahāyāna. Another group linked to Sarvāstivāda was the Sautrāntika school, which only recognized the authority of the sutras and rejected the abhidharma transmitted and taught by the Vaibhāṣika wing of Sarvāstivāda. Based on textual considerations, it has been suggested that the Sautrāntikas were actually adherents of Mūlasarvāstivāda. The relation between Sarvāstivāda and theMūlasarvāstivāda,however, is unclear. All of these early schools of Nikāya Buddhism eventually came to be known collectively as "the eighteen schools" in later sources. With the exception of the Theravāda, none of these early schools survived beyond the late medieval period by which time several were already long extinct, although a considerable amount of the canonical literature of some of these schools has survived, mainly in Chinese translation. Moreover, the origins of specificallyMahāyānadoctrines may be discerned in the teachings of some of these early schools, in particular in the Mahāsānghika and the Sarvāstivāda.

The schools sometimes split over ideological differences concerning the "real" meaning of teachings in theSutta Piṭaka,and sometimes over disagreement concerning the proper observance of vinaya. These ideologies became embedded in large works such as theAbhidhammasand commentaries. Comparison of existing versions of theSuttapiṭakaof various sects shows evidence that ideologies from theAbhidhammas sometimes found their way back into theSuttapiṭakas to support the statements made in thoseAbhidhammas.[citation needed]

Some of these developments may be seen as later elaborations on the teachings. According to Gombrich, unintentional literalism was a major force for change in the early doctrinal history of Buddhism. This means that texts were interpreted paying too much attention to the precise words used and not enough to the speaker's intention, the spirit of the text. Some later doctrinal developments in the early Buddhist schools show scholastic literalism, which is a tendency to take the words and phrases of earlier texts (maybe the Buddha's own words) in such a way as to read-in distinctions which it was never intended to make.[note 1]

The eighteen schools

[edit]
The Eighteen Schools
TheŚāriputraparipṛcchā( "Questions of Śāriputra" ) is aMahāsāṃghikanhistory, which gives the following list:
TheSamayabhedo Paracana Cakra,composed by theSarvāstivādinmonkVasumitra(d. 124 BCE) gives the following list:
The Sri Lankan chronicles,Dipavamsa(3rd–4th century CE) andMahavamsa(5th century CE), discern the following schools.

In addition, theDipavamsalists the following six schools without identifying the schools from which they arose:

  • Hemavatika (Sanskrit: Haimavata)
  • Rajagiriya
  • Siddhatthaka
  • Pubbaseliya
  • Aparaseliya (Sanskrit: Aparaśaila)
  • Apararajagirika
Vinitadeva(c. 645–715), aMūlasarvāstivādinmonk, gives the following list:
Twenty schools according to Mahayana scriptures in Chinese:


During thefirst millennium,monks from China such asFaxian,Xuanzang,and Yijing made pilgrimages to India and wrote accounts of their travels when they returned home. These Chinese travel records constitute extremely valuable sources of information concerning the state of Buddhism in India during the early medieval period.

By the time the Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang and Yijing visited India, there were five early Buddhist schools that they mentioned far more frequently than others. They commented that theSarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda,Mahāsāṃghika,andSaṃmitīyawere the principal early Buddhist schools still extant in India, along with theSthavirasect.[14]TheDharmaguptakascontinued to be found inGandhāraand Central Asia, along the Silk Road.

It is commonly said that there were eighteen schools of Buddhism in this period. What this actually means is more subtle. First, although the word "school" is used, there was not yet an institutional split in thesaṅgha.The Chinese travelerXuanzangobserved even when the Mahāyāna were beginning to emerge from this era that monks of different schools would live side by side in dormitories and attend the same lectures. Only the books that they read were different. Secondly, no historical sources can agree what the names of these "eighteen schools" were. The origin of this saying is therefore unclear.

A.K. Warderidentified the following eighteen early Buddhist schools (in approximate chronological order):Sthaviravada,Mahasamghika,Vatsiputriya,Ekavyavaharika,Gokulika (a.k.a.Kukkutika,etc.),Sarvastivada,Lokottaravāda,Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya,Sammitiya,Sannagarika,Bahusrutiya,Prajnaptivada,Mahisasaka,Haimavata (a.k.a.Kasyapiya),Dharmaguptaka,Caitika,and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila. Warder says that these were the early Buddhist schools as of circa 50 BCE, about the same time that the Pali Canon was first committed to writing and the presumptive origin date of the Theravada sect, though the term 'Theravada' was not used before the fourth century CE.[note 4]

A hypothetical combined list would be as follows:

Innovations of the sects

[edit]

The classic sets of ten, six or fourparamitas(perfections) were codified and developed by these various schools in later sources.[note 6][note 7]Though the actual ideas of these virtues (likedhyana,sila,prajña,etc) and the idea of the Buddha's past lives are drawn from early Buddhist sources (such as earlyjatakas), they were developed further into specific doctrines about thebodhisattvapath and how exactly the Buddha undertook it.

The new schools also developed new doctrines about important Buddhist topics. The Sarvastivadins for example were known for their doctrine oftemporal eternalism.Meanwhile the Mahasamghika school was known for its doctrine of "transcendentalism" (lokottaravada), the view that the Buddha was a fully transcendent being.

Abhidhamma

[edit]

As the third major division of the various canons, theAbhidharma collectionswere a major source of dispute among the various schools. Abhidharma texts were not accepted as canonical by theMahasanghikaschool[16][17]and several other schools.[note 8]Another school included most of their version of theKhuddaka Nikayawithin their Abhidharma Pitaka.[16]Also, thePali version of the Abhidhammais a strictly Theravada collection, and has little in common with the Abhidhamma works recognized by other Buddhist schools.[18]The various Abhidhamma philosophies of the various early schools disagree on numerous key points[19]and belong to the period of sectarian debates among the schools.[19]

The earliest texts of the Pali Canon (theSutta Nipataand parts of theJataka), together with the first four (and early)Nikayasof theSuttapitaka,have no mention of (the texts of) the Abhidhamma Pitaka.[20]The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned at the report of theFirst Buddhist Council,directly after the death of the Buddha. This report of the first council does mention the existence of theVinayaand the fiveNikayas(of theSuttapitaka).[21]

Although the literature of the various AbhidharmaPitakasbegan as a kind of commentarial supplement upon the earlier teachings in theSuttapitaka,it soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life.[note 9][22]The various Abhidharma works were starting to be composed from about 200 years after the passing away of the Buddha.[note 10]

Traditionally, it is believed (in Theravadin culture) that the Abhidhamma was taught by Buddha to his late mother who was living in Tavatimsa heaven. However, this is rejected by scholars, who believe that only small parts of the Abhidhamma literature may have been existent in a very early form.[note 11]The Sarvastivadins also rejected this idea, and instead held that the Abhidharma was collected, edited, and compiled by the elders (sthaviras) after the Buddha's death (though they relied on the Buddha's words for this compilation).

Some schools of Buddhism had important disagreements on subjects of Abhidhamma, while having a largely similar Sutta-pitaka and Vinaya-pitaka. The arguments and conflicts between them were thus often on matters of philosophical Abhidhammic origin, not on matters concerning the actual words and teachings of Buddha.

One impetus for composing new scriptures like the Adhidhammas of the various schools, according to some scholars[who?],was that Buddha left no clear statement about theontologicalstatus of the world – about whatreallyexists.[note 12]Subsequently, later Buddhists have themselves defined what exists and what not (in the Abhidhammic scriptures), leading to disagreements.

Late texts in the Theravada Khuddaka Nikaya

[edit]

Oliver Abeynayake has the following to say on the dating of the various books in the Khuddaka Nikaya:

The Khuddaka Nikaya can easily be divided into two strata, one being early and the other late. The textsSutta Nipata,Itivuttaka,Dhammapada,Therigatha(Theragatha),Udana,andJataka talesbelong to the early stratum. The texts Khuddakapatha, Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu, Niddesa, Patisambhidamagga, Apadana, Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka can be categorized in the later stratum.[23]

The texts in the early stratum date from before the second council (earlier than 100 years after Buddha’s parinibbana), while the later stratum is from after the second council, which means they are definitely later additions to the Sutta Pitaka, and that they might not have been the original teachings by the Buddha, but later compositions by disciples.

The following books of the Khuddaka Nikaya can thus be regarded as later additions:

And the following three which are included in the Burmese Canon:

The original verses of the Jatakas are recognized as being amongst the earliest part of the Canon,[20]but the accompanying (and more famous) Jataka Stories are commentaries likely composed at later dates.

Parivara

[edit]

TheParivara,the last book of theVinaya Pitaka,is a later addition to the Vinaya Pitaka.[note 13]

Other later writings

[edit]

Hinayana and Mahāyāna

[edit]

Early Mahayana came directly from "early Buddhist schools" and was a successor to them.[24][25]

Between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, the terms "Mahāyāna" and "Hīnayāna" were first used in writing, in, for example, theLotus Sutra.The later Mahayana schools may have preserved ideas which were abandoned by the "orthodox" Theravada, such as the Three Bodies doctrine, the idea of consciousness (vijnana) as a continuum, and devotional elements such as the worship of saints.[26][27][note 15]

Although the various early schools of Buddhism are sometimes loosely classified as "Hīnayāna"in modern times, this is not necessarily accurate. According to Jan Nattier, Mahāyāna never referred to a separate sect of Buddhism (Skt.nikāya), but rather to the set of ideals and doctrines for bodhisattvas.[28]Paul Williams has also noted that the Mahāyāna never had nor ever attempted to have a separatevinayaor ordination lineage from the early Buddhist schools, and therefore eachbhikṣuorbhikṣuṇīadhering to the Mahāyāna formally belonged to an early school.

Membership in thesenikāyas,or monastic sects, continues today with theDharmaguptakanikāya in East Asia, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda nikāya inTibetan Buddhism.Therefore, Mahāyāna was never a separate rival sect of the early schools.[29]Paul Harrison clarifies that while Mahāyāna monastics belonged to a nikāya, not all members of a nikāya were Mahāyānists.[30]From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side.[31]Additionally, Isabella Onians notes that Mahāyāna works rarely used the termHīnayāna,typically using the termŚrāvakayānainstead.[32]

The Chinese Buddhist monk and pilgrimYijingwrote about relationship between the various "vehicles" and the early Buddhist schools in India. He wrote, "There exist in the West numerous subdivisions of the schools which have different origins, but there are only four principal schools of continuous tradition." These schools are namely the Mahāsāṃghika nikāya, Sthavira, Mūlasarvāstivāda and Saṃmitīya nikāyas.[33]Explaining their doctrinal affiliations, he then writes, "Which of the four schools should be grouped with the Mahāyāna or with the Hīnayāna is not determined." That is to say, there was no simple correspondence between a Buddhist monastic sect, and whether its members learn "Hīnayāna" or "Mahāyāna" teachings.[34]

Timeline

[edit]

Timeline: Development and propagation of Buddhist traditions (c. 450 BCE – c. 1300 CE)

450 BCE[note 16] 250 BCE 100 CE 500 CE 700 CE 800 CE 1200 CE[note 17]

India

Early
Sangha

Early Buddhist schools Mahāyāna Vajrayāna

Sri Lanka&
Southeast Asia

Theravāda

Tibetan Buddhism

Nyingma

Kadam
Kagyu

Dagpo
Sakya
Jonang

East Asia

Early Buddhist schools
andMahāyāna
(viathe silk road
toChina,andocean
contact from India toVietnam)

Tangmi

Nara (Rokushū)

Shingon
Chan

Thiền,Seon
Zen
Tiantai/Jìngtǔ

Tendai

Nichiren

Jōdo-shū

Central Asia&Tarim Basin

Greco-Buddhism

Silk Road Buddhism

450 BCE 250 BCE 100 CE 500 CE 700 CE 800 CE 1200 CE
Legend: =Theravada =Mahayana =Vajrayana = Various / syncretic

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^Gombrich 1997,pp. 21–22: "I would also argue that unintentional literalism has been a major force for change in the early doctrinal history of Buddhism. Texts have been interpreted with too much attention to the precise words used and not enough to the speaker's intention, the spirit of the text. In particular I see in some doctrinal developments what I call scholastic literalism, which is a tendency to take the words and phrases of earlier texts (maybe the Buddha's own words) in such a way as to read in distinctions which it was never intended to make."
  2. ^Sarvāstivādin(Nói hết thảy có bộ),Haimavata(Tuyết sơn bộ),Vatsīputrīya(Con bê bộ),Dharmottara(Pháp thượng bộ),Bhadrayānīya(Hiền trụ bộ),Sammitīya(Chính lượng bộ),Channagirika(Rừng rậm sơn bộ),Mahisasaka(Hóa mà bộ),Dharmaguptaka(Pháp tàng bộ),Kāśyapīya(Uống quang bộ),Sautrāntika(Kinh lượng bộ).
  3. ^Mahāsāṃghika(Đại chúng bộ) was split into 9 sects. There were:Ekavyahārika(Vừa nói bộ),Lokottaravāda(Nói ra thế bộ),Gokulika(Kê dận bộ),Bahuśrutīya(Thấy nhiều biết rộng bộ),Prajñaptivāda(Nói 仮 bộ),Caitika(Chế nhiều sơn bộ),Aparaśaila(Tây Sơn trụ bộ), andUttaraśaila(Bắc Sơn trụ bộ).
  4. ^See Ajahn Sucitto,"What Is Theravada"(2012); see also A.K. Warder,Indian Buddhism,3rd rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000), chapters 8 and 9).
  5. ^abcdefAccording to Buswell and Lopez, theKāśyapīyaandMahīśāsakawere offshoots of the Sarvastivadins, but are grouped under theVibhajjavādaas "non-sarvastivada" groups.[15]
  6. ^Buswell 2003,p. 632: "Theravada Buddhism, in texts such asCariyapitaka,Buddhavamsa,andDhammapadatthakatha,postulates the following ten perfections "
  7. ^Dutt 1978,p. 251: "It is evident that the Hinayanists, either to popularize their religion or to interest the laity more in it, incorporated in their doctrines the conception of Bodhisattva and the practice of paramitas. This was effected by the production of new literature: the Jatakas and Avadanas."
  8. ^Buswell 2003,p. 2: "several schools rejected the authority of abhidharma and claimed that abhidharma treatises were composed by fallible, human teachers."
  9. ^"Although begun as a pragmatic method of elaborating the received teachings, this scholastic enterprise soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life."
  10. ^Buswell 2003,p. 2: "Independent abhidharma treatises were composed over a period of at least seven hundred years (ca. third or second centuries B.C.E. to fifth century C.E.)."
  11. ^Buswell 2003,p. 2: "These similarities (between the Abhidhammas of the various schools) suggest either contact among the groups who composed and transmitted these texts, or a common ground of doctrinal exegesis and even textual material predating the emergence of the separate schools."
  12. ^Gombrich 1997,p. 34: "If I am right in thinking that the Buddha left no clear statement about the ontological status of the world – about what 'really' exists – this would explain how later Buddhists could disagree about this question."
  13. ^"This work (the Parivara) is in fact a very much later composition, and probably the work of a Ceylonese Thera." from:Book of the Discipline,vol. VI, p. ix (translators' introduction).
  14. ^Buswell 2003,p. 493: "would throw the earliest phase of this literature (the Mahayana Sutras) back to about the beginning of the common era."
  15. ^See alsoAtthakavagga and Parayanavagga
  16. ^Cousins, L.S. (1996); Buswell (2003), Vol. I, p. 82; and, Keown & Prebish (2004), p. 107. See also, Gombrich (1988/2002), p. 32: “…[T]he best we can say is that [the Buddha] was probably Enlightened between 550 and 450, more likely later rather than earlier."
  17. ^Williams (2000, pp. 6-7) writes: "As a matter of fact Buddhism in mainland India itself had all but ceased to exist by the thirteenth century CE, although by that time it had spread to Tibet, China, Japan, and Southeast Asia."[35](Originally 1958), "Chronology," p. xxix: "c. 1000-1200: Buddhism disappears as [an] organized religious force in India." See also, Robinson & Johnson (1970/1982), pp. 100-1, 108 Fig. 1; and, Harvey (1990/2007), pp. 139-40.

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcCox 1995,p. 23.
  2. ^Hanh 1999,p. 16.
  3. ^Prebish 2010.
  4. ^Hoiberg & Ramchandani 2000,p. 264.
  5. ^Williams 1989,p. 6.
  6. ^Lamotte, Étienne (1988).History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era.Translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Louvain: Peeters Press.
  7. ^Hirakawa 1990.
  8. ^Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica 1998.
  9. ^Skilton 2004,p. 47.
  10. ^Harvey 1990,p. 74.
  11. ^Berkwitz 2009,p. 45.
  12. ^Dube, S. N. (1972)."The Date of Kathāvatthu".East and West.22(1/2): 79–86.ISSN0012-8376.JSTOR29755746.
  13. ^Huifeng 2013,pp. 175–228.
  14. ^Irons, Edward, ed. (2008).Encyclopedia of Buddhism.Facts on File. p. 419.ISBN978-0-8160-5459-6.
  15. ^Buswell & Lopez 2013,p. 859.
  16. ^ab"Abhidhamma Pitaka".Encyclopædia Britannica.Chicago. 2008.{{cite encyclopedia}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  17. ^Dutt 1978,p. 58.
  18. ^"Buddhism".Encyclopædia Britannica.Chicago. 2008.{{cite encyclopedia}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  19. ^abHazra 1994,p. 415.
  20. ^abHazra 1994,p. 412.
  21. ^Horner, I. B.Book of the Discipline.Vol. 5. p. 398.[full citation needed]
  22. ^Buswell 2003,p. 1.
  23. ^Abeynayake, Oliver (1984).A textual and Historical Analysis of the Khuddaka Nikaya.Colombo: Karunaratne. p. 113.OCLC70908931.
  24. ^Oliver, Joan Duncan (April 2019).Buddhism: An Introduction to the Buddha's Life, Teachings, and Practices(1st ed.). New York:St. Martin's Essentials.pp. xi.ISBN978-1-250-31368-3.
  25. ^Acri, Andrea (20 December 2018)."Maritime Buddhism".Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion.Oxford:Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.638.ISBN978-0-19-934037-8.Archivedfrom the original on 19 February 2019.Retrieved30 May2021.
  26. ^Lindtner 1997.
  27. ^Lindtner 1999.
  28. ^Nattier 2003,p. 193–194.
  29. ^Williams 1989,p. 4–5.
  30. ^Xing 2004,p. 115.
  31. ^Williams & Tribe 2000,p. 97.
  32. ^Onians, Isabelle (2001).Tantric Buddhist Apologetics, or Antinomianism as a Norm(D.Phil. dissertation). Oxford, Trinity Term. p. 72.
  33. ^Walser 2005,p. 41.
  34. ^Walser 2005,pp. 41–42.
  35. ^Embree 1988.

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related toBuddhism.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_Buddhist_schools&oldid=1246390307"