//honeypot demagogic

 Forum DhammaCitta. Forum Diskusi Buddhis Indonesia

Author Topic: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada  (Read 28585 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« on: 18 February 2012, 04:49:28 PM »
In adalah kutipan dari Abhidharma-mahāvibhāsā-śāstra, teks sastra (komentar) Abhidharma aliran Sarvastivada yg diterjemahkan Xuanzang (Hsuan Tsang) [lebih dikenal sbg Tong Sam Cong] pd abad ke-7 Masehi. Isinya tentang kisah hidup Mahadeva, seorg pemuda yg telah melakukan incest dg ibunya, membunuh ayah dan ibunya, membunuh seorg Arahat, kemudian memasuki Sangha utk memperbaiki kesalahannya tsb. Tetapi ia yg terpelajar malah mengubah ajaran Buddha dg mengajarkan pandangan salah bhw Arahat masih memiliki ketidaktahuan, keragu2an, harus disadarkan oleh org lain, dst. Ini menimbulkan perpecahan dlm Sangha menjd 2 kelompok: kelompok bhikkhu yg mendukung ajaran para sesepuh (Sthraviravada/Theravada) yg menyatakan ajaran tsb menyimpang/salah dan berjumlah kecil, dan kelompok pendukung Mahadeva yg berjumlah banyak (maka disebut Mahasanghika/Perkumpulan Besar).

Krn kelompok yg berjumlah banyak didukung oleh raja [menurut para ahli sejarah, raja di sini walau tidak disebutkan namanya, kemungkinan besar adalah Raja Asoka, krn vihara tempat kejadian ini bernama Kukkutarama, sebuah nama vihara yg terkenal di masa Raja Asoka yg disebut jg Asokarama dlm teks Pali], kelompok para sesepuh  yg mrpk para Arahat akhirnya mengundurkan diri ke daerah Kashmir di mana aliran Sarvastivada kemudian berkembang di sana. Akhirnya, akibat karma buruknya, Mahadeva meninggal dunia dan dikremasi dg cara yg menyedihkan, yaitu dibakar bersama dg tumpukan kotoran anjing.

Teks ini berbahasa Inggris dan sengaja tidak saya terjemahkan [gak sempat]. Beberapa istilah di sini masih menggunakan istilah Inggris yg non-Buddhis, misalnya "sin" yg berarti "dosa" tetapi di sini bermakna karma buruk/kesalahan, mungkin krn penerjemahnya non-Buddhis yg belum menguasai istilah teknis Buddhis dlm bhs Inggris.

Tujuan saya memposting ini semata2 sebagai pengetahuan kita semua ttg sejarah kemunculan aliran2 Buddhis menurut sumber Sarvastivada krn selama ini kita hanya mengetahui perpecahan Buddhisme awal berdasarkan teks Pali (Theravada) yg menyatakan terjadinya perpecahan pada saat Konsili II pd masa Raja Kalasoka krn 10 aturan menyimpang dr para bhikkhu Vajjiputtaka. Ini bukan dimaksudkan untuk menjelekkan aliran tertentu dlm Buddhisme. Walaupun ada yg mengatakan bahwa Mahayana berasal dari Mahasanghika krn ada kemiripan ajaran, tetapi aliran Mahayana baru berkembang seratus tahun kemudian ketika teks2 Mahayana spt Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra muncul di India.

Semoga bermanfaat.
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #1 on: 18 February 2012, 04:53:15 PM »
The Sins of Mahādeva

Translated by Xuanzang
From the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāsā-śāstra[/b]

Once upon a time, there was a merchant in the kingdom of Mathurā. He married while still a youth and soon his wife gave birth to a baby boy. The child, who had a pleasing appearance, was given the name Mahādeva.

Before long, the merchant went on a long journey to another country, taking with him rich treasures. Engaging in commercial ventures as he wended his way, a long time passed without his return. The son, meanwhile, had grown up and committed incest with his mother. Later on, he heard that his father was returning and he became fearful at heart. Together with his mother, he contrived a plan whereby he murdered his father. Thus did he commit his first cardinal sin.

This deed of his gradually came to light, whereupon, taking his mother, he fled to the city of Pātaliputra where they secluded themselves. Later, he encountered a monk-arhat from his native land who had received the support of his family. Again, fearing that his crime would be exposed, he devised a plan whereby he murdered the monk. Thus did he commit his second cardinal sin.

Mahādeva became despondent. Later, when he saw that his mother was having illicit relations, he said to her in a raging anger: “Because of this affair, I have committed two serious crimes. Drifting about in an alien land, I am forlorn and ill at ease. Now you have abandoned me and fallen in love with another man. How could anyone endure such harlotry as this?” Thereupon he found an opportune time to murder his mother. He had committed his third cardinal sin.

Inasmuch as he had not entirely cut off the strength of his roots of goodness, Mahādeva grew deeply and morosely regretful. Whenever he tried to sleep, he became ill at ease. He considered by what means his serious crimes might be eradicated. Later, he heard that Buddhist monks were in possession of a method for eradicating crimes. So he went to the monastery known as Kukkutārāma. Outside its gate, he saw a monk walking slowly and meditating. The monk recited a hymn which went:

If someone has committed a serious crime,
He can eradicate it by cultivating goodness;
He could then illuminate the world,
Like the moon emerging from behind a screen of clouds.

When Mahādeva heard this, he jumped for joy. He knew that, by converting to Buddhism, his crimes could certainly be eradicated. Therefore he went to visit a monk in his quarters. Earnestly and persistently, Mahādeva entreated the monk to ordain him as a novice. When the monk saw how persistent Mahādeva's entreaties were, he ordained him as a novice without making an investigation or asking any questions. He allowed him to retain the name Mahādeva, and offered him instruction in the Buddhist precepts and prohibitions.

Now Mahādeva was quite brilliant and so, not long after he had entered the priesthood, he was able to recite and adhere to the text and the significance of the Buddhist canon. His words were clear and precise and he was adept at edifying others in the faith. In the city of Pātaliputra, there were none who did not turn to Mahādeva in reverence. The king heard of this and repeatedly invited him into the inner precincts of the palace. There he would respectfully provide for Mahādeva's needs and invite him to lecture on the Law of the Buddha.

Mahādeva subsequently went to live in the monastery.

Mahādeva wished to make his disciples like him and be intimately attached to him. He cleverly created opportunities whereby he was able to note and differentiate the degree of achievement each monk had attained along the four stages of religious perfection. Whereupon one of his disciples kowtowed to him and said: “The arhat ought to have experiential knowledge. How is it that none of us have this sort of self-awareness?”

Mahādeva informed him, saying, “But arhats also have ignorance. You should not, then, lack faith in yourselves. I tell you that, of the various forms of ignorance, there are broadly two types. The first is that which is defiling; the saint is without this type. The second is that which does not defile; the saint still has this type of ignorance. On account of this, you are unable to have full awareness of yourselves.” This is termed “the origin of the second false view.”

At another time, his disciples said to him: “We have heard that the sages have transcended all doubts. How is it that we still harbor doubts in regard to the truth?”

Again, Mahādeva informed them, saying, “The arhat also has his doubts and suspicions. Of doubts, there are two types. The first is that of muddleheadedness; the arhat has excised this type. The second derives from mistakes in judgment; the arhat has not yet excised this type. The self-englightened have made great accomplishments in spite of this. How, then, can you who are mere listeners be without doubt regarding the manifold truths and thereby allow yourselves to feel humbled?” This is termed “the origin of the third false view.”

Later, when the disciples opened the sūtras to read, they learned that the arhat is possessed of the eye of sage wisdom. Through self-emancipation he is able to attain experiential knowledge of self. And so they spoke to their master, saying, “If we are arhats, we ought to have experiential knowledge of self. How is it, then, that we must be initiated by our master into that fact and are without the direct insights that would enable us to have experiential knowledge of the self?”

To this, Mahādeva replied: “Though one is an arhat, he must still be initiated by others. He cannot rely on self-awareness. Even for the likes of Śāriputra who was foremost in wisdom and Maudgalyāyana who was foremost in supernatural power, if the Buddha had not remarked upon their abilities, they would not have gained self-awareness. How, then, can those who are initiated by others into that fact have self-understanding of it? Therefore you should not be endlessly inquiring in regard to this.” This is termed “the origin of the fourth false view.”

Mahādeva had, indeed, committed a host of crimes. However, since he had not destroyed his roots of goodness, during the middle of the night he would reflect upon the seriousness of his crimes and upon where he would eventually undergo bitter sufferings. Beset by worry and fright, he would often cry out, “Oh, how painful it is!” His disciples who were dwelling nearby were startled when they heard this and, in the early morning, came to ask him whether he were out of sorts.

Mahādeva replied, “I am feeling very much at ease.”

“But why,” asked his disciples, “did you cry out last night, ‘Oh, how painful it is!’?”

He proceeded to inform them: “I was proclaiming the holy way of the Buddha. You should not think this strange. In speaking of the holy way, if one is not utterly sincere in the anguish with which he heralds it, it will never become manifest at that moment when one's life reaches its end. Therefore, last night I cried out several times, ‘Oh, how painful it is!’” This is termed “the origin of the fifth false view.”

Mahādeva subsequently brought together the aforementioned five false views and made a hymn:

Enticement by others, ignorance,
Hesitation, initiation by another,
The Way is manifested because one shouts:
This is called the genuine Buddhist teaching.

With the passage of time, the Theravāda monks in the Kukkutārāma gradually died off. Once, on the night of the fifteenth of the month when the monks were holding their regular spiritual retreat, it was Mahādeva's turn to ascend the pulpit and give the reading of the prohibitions. He then recited the hymn which he had composed. Of those in the company of monks at that time, be they learners or learned, be they of much wisdom, attentive to the precepts, or cultivators of wisdom, when they heard what Mahādeva said, there was no one who refrained from reproving him: “For shame! Stupid man! How could you say such a thing? This is unheard of in the canon.” Thereupon they countered his hymn, saying:

Enticement by others, ignorance,
Hesitation, initiation by another,
The Way is manifested because one shouts:
What you say is not the Buddhist teaching.

Upon this, an unruly controversy erupted that lasted the whole night long. By the next morning, the factions had become even larger. The folk of all classes, up to and including important ministers, came from the city one after another to mediate but none of them could bring a halt to the argument.

The king heard of it, and himself went to visit the monastery. At this point, the two factions each stated their obstinate position. When the king had finished listening, he too, became filled with doubt. He inquired of Mahādeva, “Who is wrong and who is right? With which faction should we align ourselves?”

“In the Sūtra on Regulations,” replied Mahādeva, “it is said that, if one wishes to terminate controversy, one should go along with the voice of the majority.”

The king proceeded to order the two factions of monks to separate themselves. In the faction of the saints and sages, although there were many who were elders, the total number of monks was small. In Mahādeva's faction, although there were few who were elders, the total number of common monks was large. So the king followed the majority and allied himself with Mahādeva's crowd. The remainder of the common monks were reproved and made to submit. The matter concluded, the king returned to his palace.

The controversy in the Kukkutārāma, however, did not cease. Afterward, the monastery split into two groups in accordance with the two different views. The first was called Sarvāstivāda and the second was called Mahāsamghika. When the saints and sages realized that the mass of monks were going counter to their principles, they departed from the Kukkutārāma with the intention of going to another place.

As soon as the ministers heard of this, they rushed to the king and reported. Hearing this, the king was outraged and issued an edict to his ministers which stated: “Let them all be taken to the edge of the Ganges River. Put them in a broken boat so that they will capsize in midstream. By this means, we shall test whether this lot is made up of saints or commoners.”

The ministers carried out the test as directed by the king's words. The saints and sages each brought into play his spiritual powers. They were like the Goose King vaulting through space. Furthermore, using their miraculous strength, they rescued from the boat those who had left the Kukkutārāma with them but who had not yet attained supernatural power. They manifested many miraculous transformations and assumed various shapes and forms. Next they mounted the heavens and went off to the northwest. When the king heard this, he was deeply abashed. Stifled with regret, he fell on the ground in a swoon and revived only when water was splashed on his face. He swiftly dispatched a man to find out where they had gone. Upon the return of the envoy, the king learned that they were in Kashmir. He persistently entreated them to return but the monks all refused to obey his command. The king then donated to them the whole of the land of Kashmir and constructed monasteries to accommodate the large group of saints and sages. The monasteries were given names in accordance with the various shapes the monks had assumed during their flight—for example, “Pigeon Garden.” Altogether there were five hundred such monasteries. Again he dispatched envoys to contribute precious jewels and make arrangements for the articles of daily living so that the monks would be provided for. Ever after this, the land of Kashmir has had large numbers of saints and sages who have upheld the Law of the Buddha. Its transmission and reformulation there are still very much in evidence to this day.

Having lost this large group of monks, the king of Pātaliputra took the initiative in providing for the monks of Kukkutārāma. After some time, as Mahādeva was making an excursion into the city, a physiognomist chanced to see him and secretly told his fortune: “Seven days from today, the life of this disciple of Buddha will certainly come to an end.”

When Mahādeva's disciples heard this, they were frightfully worried and informed him of it. He then declared to them, “I have known this for a long time already.”

After they had returned to the Kukkutārāma, he sent his disciples to spread out over the whole of the city of Pātaliputra. When the king, his ministers, and the ascetics heard the words, “In seven days I shall enter Nirvana,” there was none but who sighed with grief.

With the arrival of the seventh day, Mahādeva died as he had predicted. The king, his ministers, and the folk of all classes from the city were saddened and filled with affectionate longing. They all undertook to provide fragrant firewood as well as ghee, floral incense, and similar materials. These were assembled in a given place where the cremation was to take place. Each time the man who held the fire to light the wood approached it, his fire would go out. All sorts of plans were devised but it simply would not light. A soothsayer who was present spoke to the crowd: “The deceased cannot consume such splendid crematory materials as those you have provided. It is fitting that the excrement of dogs be smeared on him.”

They acted in accordance with his words and the fire erupted in flames. In seconds, the blaze had burned itself out. Suddenly, there was nothing but ashes. In the end, a howling wind blew by and scattered them everywhere till nothing was left. This is due to his having been formerly the originator of the false views. All who have wisdom ought to pay heed to this example.

Translated by Victor H. Mair.

Source: Mair, Victor H., ed. The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.
« Last Edit: 18 February 2012, 04:56:43 PM by ariyakumara »
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #2 on: 18 February 2012, 05:16:01 PM »
Dari Wikipedia:

Quote
In sources deriving from the Sthaviravada branch, he [Mahadeva] is taken to be the founder of the Mahāsāṃghikas, and the figure who caused the split between the two branches.[1] According to this account, some 35 years after the Second Buddhist Council at Pāṭaliputra, there was another meeting over five points allegedly held by a figure named Mahādeva.[2] These five points were essentially regarding doctrines of the fallibility and imperfection of arhats, which were opposed by some.[3] In this account, the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) sided with Mahādeva, and the minority (Sthaviras) were opposed to it, thus causing a split in the Saṃgha.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahadeva_%28Buddhism%29
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline will_i_am

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 5.163
  • Reputasi: 155
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #3 on: 18 February 2012, 07:59:18 PM »
thx infonya, sangat bermanfaat.. :)
sayang ga bisa klik..
hiduplah hanya pada hari ini, jangan mengkhawatirkan masa depan ataupun terpuruk dalam masa lalu.
berbahagialah akan apa yang anda miliki, jangan mengejar keinginan akan memiliki
_/\_

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #4 on: 18 February 2012, 08:17:25 PM »
thx infonya, sangat bermanfaat.. :)
sayang ga bisa klik..


Maksudnya gak bisa klik????
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline adi lim

  • Sebelumnya: adiharto
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.993
  • Reputasi: 108
  • Gender: Male
  • Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #5 on: 18 February 2012, 08:26:49 PM »
sepertinya benar kejadiannya
Seringlah PancaKhanda direnungkan sebagai Ini Bukan MILIKKU, Ini Bukan AKU, Ini Bukan DIRIKU, bermanfaat mengurangi keSERAKAHan, mengurangi keSOMBONGan, Semoga dapat menjauhi Pandangan SALAH.

Offline will_i_am

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 5.163
  • Reputasi: 155
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #6 on: 18 February 2012, 08:27:46 PM »
Maksudnya gak bisa klik????
maksudnya I can't repeat karma action without waiting for 720 hours (alias ga bisa kasih GRP)  ;D ;D ;D

mungkin nanti deh..  :)
hiduplah hanya pada hari ini, jangan mengkhawatirkan masa depan ataupun terpuruk dalam masa lalu.
berbahagialah akan apa yang anda miliki, jangan mengejar keinginan akan memiliki
_/\_

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #7 on: 18 February 2012, 09:26:17 PM »
5 pandangan yg disebut itu gak ada di mahayana yg kupelajari sekarang.

kashmir, itu jg merupakan tempat berkembangnya mahayana.
jadi curiga sarvastivada itu juga merupakan leluhurnya mahayana dan aliran2 lain yg ada banyak itu
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #8 on: 18 February 2012, 10:49:55 PM »
5 pandangan yg disebut itu gak ada di mahayana yg kupelajari sekarang.

kashmir, itu jg merupakan tempat berkembangnya mahayana.
jadi curiga sarvastivada itu juga merupakan leluhurnya mahayana dan aliran2 lain yg ada banyak itu

Lima pandangan itu disebut lima poin Mahadeva (Five Points of Mahadeva) dlm teks2 Sarvastivada, dlm teks Pali Kathavatthu disebut Lima Poin saja tanpa menyebut nama siapa pencetusnya, kecuali dikatakan bhw itu dianut oleh aliran Mahasanghika.

Mahayana Cina mewarisi teks2 Agama dan Abidharma dr aliran Sarvastivada krn teks2 ini bnyk diterjemahkan ke Mandarin oleh para peziarah Cina spt Xuanzang. Aliran Mahayana Yogacara yg menitikberatkan pada Abhidharma mengambil pembahasannya dari teks2 Abhidharma Sarvastivada. Pendiri Yogacara Asanga mengubah keyakinan saudaranya Vasubhandu yg seorg ahli Abhidharma dr Sarvastivada menjadi seorg Mahayanis.

sepertinya benar kejadiannya

Menurut para ahli, krn dlm teks Pali tdk menyebut nama Mahadeva, kemungkinan besar kisah ini fiktif, rekaan aliran Sarvastivadin utk merendahkan aliran Mahasanghika. Dari Wikipedia dikatakan:

Quote
The Samayabhedoparacanacakra records that Mahādeva was a completely different figure who was the founder of the Caitika sect over 100 years later.[11][12] A number of scholars have concluded that an association of "Mahādeva" with the first schism was a later sectarian interpolation.[13] Paul Williams and Jan Nattier state that Mahādeva was the later founder of the Caitikas, stating, "Mahādeva has nothing to do with the primary schism between the Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviras, emerging in a historical period considerably later than previously supposed, and taking his place in the sectarian movement by instigating an internal schism within the already existing Mahāsāṃghika school."[14]

Dalam teks Pali Dipavamsa & Mahavamsa ada seorg bhikkhu Arahat bernama Mahadeva yg hidup pd masa Raja Asoka dan dikirim menyebarkan ajaran Buddha ke Mahimsaka oleh Tissa Moggaliputta (yg menyusun teks Kathavatthu, kitab terakhir Abhidhamma Pali) setelah berakhirnya Konsili III. Mahadeva dlm teks Pali mrpk salah satu penahbis Mahinda, putra Raja Asoka. Menurut penelitian Bhikkhu Sujato, walau ada kesamaan nama dan kesamaan daerah, kedua Mahadeva ini org yg berbeda dan mungkin Mahadeva dr Mahasanghika tidak sejahat digambarkan aliran Sarvastivada:

Quote
We have seen that Bhavya, Vasumitra, and the Śāripūtraparipṛcchā, none of whom mention the original Mahādeva, all mention the later Mahādeva II, a few generations after Aśoka. He is associated with the formation of the later Mahāsaṅghika branches in Andhra. Bhavya and Vasumitra specify that Mahādeva II was an ascetic converted from another sect,which does not agree with the story of Mahādeva I. [Ada 2 org Mahadeva berbeda yg sama jahatnya dlm teks2 Sanskerta yg disebutkan di sini]

Lamotte argues against the identification of the good Mahādeva of the Pali tradition with the Mahāsaṅghika Mahādeva on two grounds. His minor reason is the geographical argument: Mahādeva the vibhajjavādin [ Vibhajjavada adalah nama aliran yg dibawa Mahinda ke Sri Lanka dan kemudian berkembang menjadi Theravada saat ini ] is sent to Mahiṁsaka, while Mahādeva the later Mahāsaṅghika reformer is in Andhra. Lamotte dismisses as ‘vain’ attempts to locate Mahiṁsaka in Andhra, but later more moderately regards it as ‘possible’. Certainly, the canonical Pali sources locate a ‘Mahissati’ near Ujjeni in Avanti. But the Pali commentaries locate Mahiṁsaka in Andhra. The inscriptions confirm that the Mahāvihāra had a branch or branches in Andhra, and indeed there are references to the ‘Andhra Commentary’, so we can assume that they knew what they were talking about, and that it is plausible that the Pali commentarial sources think of Mahiṁsaka as Andhra, regardless of what other sources may say. Indeed, there are several inscriptions referring to the Mahīśāsakas [ Mahisasaka adalah nama aliran yg berkembang di Mahimsaka yg diduga dibawa oleh Mahadeva Pali ] in Andhra, and inscriptions in Andhra region that refer to the ‘Ruler of Kaliga and Mahisaka’. About 200kms to the South-west of Nāgārjunikoṇḍa there is a reference to Mahiṣa-visaya. I would therefore suggest we have reasonable grounds for assuming that Mahiṁsaka can be Andhra, at least from the Sri Lankan point of view.

The more important consideration is the obvious doctrinal point: how could the orthodox Moggaliputtatissa, an avowed Vibhajjavādin, have associated with a heretic like Mahādeva? But we have just seen that the evidence for Mahādeva’s heresy is thin indeed. It seems the whole legend is based on the Mahāvibhāṣā, written 400 or more years after the events. And – I know I am being pedantic, but it is an important point – Moggaliputtatissa is not ‘an avowed Vibhajjavādin’. While he may have thought of himself as belonging to a school called Vibhajjavāda, the evidence does not make this explicit. Rather, he said the Buddha was a Vibhajjavādin, probably opposing the heretical teachers of a ‘self’,which was not a Mahāsaṅghika doctrine or anywhere imputed to Mahādeva. In the end I am inclined to accept two Mahādevas. The first lived at the time of Aśoka, was one of Mahinda’s teachers, and went on a mission to Mahiṁsaka (= Andhra), where he became a leading figure in the formation of the Mahīśāsaka school. The second lived a couple of hundred years later in the same area, and was a local leader of one of the subsects of the Mahāsaṅghikas. Neither had anything to do with the original schism or the five theses. The similarities of the names and areas of activity led to their conflation, and the story of the corrupt unnamed monk from the Aśokavadāna was incorporated to explain how the most orthodox school – from the Sarvāstivādin point of view, i.e. themselves – came to be relocated away from the power-centre of original Buddhism.

One further point to consider: if Mahādeva was not originally associated with the 5 heresies,why was his name
singled out? One reason could be the similarities in names and locations with the one or two other Mahādevas. But we might also ask, who else in Buddhism is reviled in this way? There is only one monk in Buddhist history whose name comes in for such treatment: Devadatta. He was closely associated with Ajātasattu, king of Magadha, just as Mahādeva was associated with Aśoka. And Devadatta also proposed a set of ‘5 theses’ in order to provoke a schism. There is a lot of mythic assimilation going on between these two pairs. Without wishing to linger on this point, I would raise the question whether Mahādeva fits the evil role simply because his name is similar to Devadatta.


[... dst baca sendiri di http://sites.google.com/site/sectsandsectarianism/]
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline adi lim

  • Sebelumnya: adiharto
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.993
  • Reputasi: 108
  • Gender: Male
  • Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #9 on: 20 February 2012, 06:08:10 AM »
Menurut para ahli, krn dlm teks Pali tdk menyebut nama Mahadeva, kemungkinan besar kisah ini fiktif, rekaan aliran Sarvastivadin utk merendahkan aliran Mahasanghika. Dari Wikipedia dikatakan:

menurut para ahli toh ! para Ahli itu siapa ?
bisa juga pembelaan para ahli aliran Mahasangika juga !
Seringlah PancaKhanda direnungkan sebagai Ini Bukan MILIKKU, Ini Bukan AKU, Ini Bukan DIRIKU, bermanfaat mengurangi keSERAKAHan, mengurangi keSOMBONGan, Semoga dapat menjauhi Pandangan SALAH.

Offline rooney

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.750
  • Reputasi: 47
  • Gender: Male
  • Semoga semua mahluk berbahagia...
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #10 on: 20 February 2012, 08:30:26 AM »
Loh, sarvastivada itu juga termasuk cikal bakal mahayana kan ?

Dimanakah vibajjhavada ?

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #11 on: 20 February 2012, 07:16:47 PM »
menurut para ahli toh ! para Ahli itu siapa ?
bisa juga pembelaan para ahli aliran Mahasangika juga !

Baca dulu penelitian Bhikkhu Sujato yg saya berikan di atas. "Para ahli" di sini maksudnya para scholar (sarjana) modern yg meneliti sejarah perkembangan aliran Buddhis dr berbagai teks Buddhis (tidak hanya teks Pali), salah satunya Bhikkhu Sujato ini. Saya meragukan ada scholar modern yg berasal dr aliran Mahasanghika krn aliran ini sudah tidak ada lagi saat ini.... :)

Loh, sarvastivada itu juga termasuk cikal bakal mahayana kan ?

Dimanakah vibajjhavada ?

Beberapa teks Sarvastivada memang digunakan sbg teks kanon Mahayana shg beberapa ahli menyatakan Sarvastivada jg memberikan sumbangsih bg perkembangan Mahayana. Silahkan liat di http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada

Tentang Vibhajjavada, menurut Mahavamsa, merupakan kelompok yg tidak menganut ajaran menyimpang dari aliran Buddhis lain, termasuk Mahasanghika dan Sarvastivada. Jadi dianggap aliran Buddhis yg sejati (non-schismatic) dlm teks Pali. Tetapi dlm teks non-Pali, justru Vibhajjavada dianggap bukan aliran asli (schismatic). Silahkan liat di http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajjavada
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #12 on: 06 January 2013, 09:45:25 AM »
Berikut adalah terjemahan teks di atas oleh Bhikkhu Sujato dalam bukunya "Sects and Sectarianism" dari sumber teks Sarvastivada yang sama:

Quote
Di masa lampau terdapat seorang pedagang dari Mathura. Ia memiliki seorang istri muda yang cantik yang melahirkan seorang putra. Wajahnya sangat menawan, maka mereka menamakannya Mahādeva. Tidak lama setelah itu, sang pedagang membawa banyak kekayaan dan pergi ke sebuah negeri yang jauh. Di sana ia sibuk berdagang selama waktu yang lama tanpa kembali. Ketika putranya tumbuh dewasa ia melakukan hubungan tidak senonoh dengan ibunya. Setelah itu, mendengar bahwa ayahnya sedang kembali, pikirannya menjadi takut. Dengan ibunya ia membuat rencana, kemudian membunuh ayahnya. Demikianlah ia melakukan satu perbuatan salah ānantarika.

Perbuatan itu perlahan-lahan diketahui. Maka dengan membawa ibunya mereka bersiap-siap untuk melarikan diri dan bersembunyi di Pāṭaliputta. Di sana ia bertemu dengan seorang bhikkhu Arahat, yang telah ia berikan persembahan di negerinya sendiri. Lagi ia takut perbuatannya akan terungkap, dan maka ia membuat rencana dan membunuh bhikkhu itu. Demikianlah ia melakukan perbuatan salah ānantarika yang kedua.

Pikirannya menjadi sedih dan khawatir. Belakangan ia melihat ibunya melakukan persetubuhan dengan orang lain. Maka dengan marah ia mengatakan: “Untuk kepentinganmu aku telah melakukan dua kesalahan berat. Kita telah pindah ke negeri lain, dan masih tidak menemukan ketenangan. Sekarang engkau telah meninggalkanku dan menyenangkan dirimu sendiri dengan laki-laki lain! Bagaimana aku dapat menahan perbuatan-perbuatan kotor darimu!” Kemudian dengan cara yang sama ia membunuh ibunya. Demikianlah ia melakukan perbuatan salah ānantarika yang ketiga.

Tetapi tidak ada pemotongan dari kekuatan akar kebajikan karena alasan itu, maka ia menjadi sangat bersedih dan tidak dapat tidur dengan tenang, [dengan berpikir]: “Bagaimana seseorang dapat melenyapkan kesalahan berat diri sendiri?” Ia mendengar didesas-desuskan bahwa para pertapa, putra dari Sakya, mengajarkan sebuah Dhamma untuk melenyapkan kesalahan masa lalu. Kemudian ia pergi ke vihara Kukkuṭārāma. Di luar pintu gerbang ia melihat seorang bhikkhu yang sedang berlatih meditasi berjalan, dengan melantunkan syair berikut:

“Jika seseorang melakukan kesalahan yang berat
Dengan melakukan kebajikan, ia membuatnya berakhir
Kemudian orang itu menyinari dunia
Bagaikan bulan yang muncul dari awan.”

Ketika ia mendengar hal ini, hatinya melompat kegirangan, mengetahui bahwa dengan berlindung dalam agama Buddha ia pastinya akan mengakhiri kesalahan itu. Maka ia mendekati bhikkhu itu dan sangat ingin meminta penahbisan. Kemudian bhikkhu itu, ketika ia melihatnya memohon dengan percaya diri, memberikan penahbisan kepadanya tanpa bertanya dengan hati-hati. Ia mengizinkannya untuk tetap memakai nama Mahādeva dan memberikannya ajaran.

Mahādeva cerdas, sehingga tidak lama setelah penahbisan ia dapat mengulangi dari ingatannya seluruh Tripitaka dalam huruf dan maknanya. Ucapannya pintar dan terampil, sehingga ia dapat mengajar, dan semua orang di Pāṭaliputta tanpa kecuali menganggapnya sebagai pembimbing mereka. Raja mendengar hal ini dan sering memanggilnya ke dalam istana, memberikan persembahan kepadanya dan meminta ajaran Dhamma.

Setelah meninggalkan istana, ia pergi untuk tinggal di vihara. Karena pemikiran tidak lurus, dalam mimpi ia mengeluarkan kekotoran [ejakuasi]. Namun, sebelumnya ia telah dipuji sebagai seorang Arahat. Kemudian ia meminta salah seorang muridnya untuk membersihkan jubahnya yang kotor. Sang murid berkata: “Seorang Arahat telah melenyapkan semua āsava.  Jadi bagaimana guru sekarang masih mengizinkan hal ini terjadi?” Mahādeva menjawab: “Ini adalah perbuatan onar Māra Devaputta, kamu tidak seharusnya berpikir ini aneh. Terdapat, secara singkat, dua jenis pengeluaran āsava. Yang pertama adalah kekotoran batin. Yang kedua adalah kekotoran [fisik]. Arahat tidak memiliki kekotoran batin āsava. Tetapi bahkan mereka tidak dapat menghindari mengeluarkan āsava kekotoran. Untuk alasan apakah? Walaupun seorang Arahat telah melenyapkan semua kekotoran, bagaimana mungkin mereka tidak memiliki zat-zat seperti air mata, ludah, dan seterusnya? Lebih lanjut, semua Māra Devaputta terus-menerus iri dan membenci Buddhisme. Ketika mereka melihat seseorang berlatih kebajikan, mereka oleh sebab itu akan mendekat untuk menghancurkannya. Mereka bahkan akan melakukan hal ini kepada para Arahat, inilah sebabnya mengapa aku mengeluarkan kekotoran. Itulah apa yang terjadi, maka sekarang kamu tidak seharusnya memiliki sebab untuk keragu-raguan.” Itulah yang disebut “munculnya pandangan salah yang pertama”.

Lagi bahwa Mahādeva ingin mengajarkan para muridnya untuk bergembira dalam keterikatan personal [padanya]. Ia dengan salah menetapkan suatu sistem dengan penjelasan perlahan-lahan atas 4 buah pertapaan. Kemudian muridnya bersujud dan berkata: “Semua Arahat memiliki kebijaksanaan pencerahan. Bagaimana mungkin kami semua tidak tahu diri kami sendiri?” Kemudian ia menjawab demikian: “Semua Arahat memiliki ketidaktahuan. Kalian sekarang seharusnya tidak kehilangan keyakinan atas diri kalian sendiri. Dikatakan bahwa semua ketidaktahuan dapat dirangkum dalam dua jenis. Yang pertama adalah yang mengotori; Arahat tidak memiliki ketidaktahuan ini. Yang kedua adalah yang tidak mengotori, di mana Arahat masih memilikinya. Oleh sebab itu kalian tidak dapat mengetahui diri kalian sendiri.” Itulah yang disebut “munculnya pandangan salah yang kedua”.

Kemudian semua murid kembali dan berkata: “Kami baru saja mendengar bahwa seorang mulia telah melampaui keragu-raguan. Bagaimana kami masih memiliki keragu-raguan tentang kebenaran?” Kemudian lagi ia berkata: “Semua Arahat masih memiliki keragu-raguan. Keragu-raguan ada dua jenis. Yang pertama adalah kecenderungan yang melekat pada keragu-raguan; Arahat telah meninggalkan hal ini. Yang kedua adalah keragu-raguan tentang kemungkinan dan ketidakmungkinan;  seorang Arahat belum meninggalkan hal ini. Bahkan para Pacceka Buddha adalah sama dalam hal ini yang juga terjadi pada kalian para murid, walaupun mereka tidak memiliki keragu-raguan yang disebabkan oleh kekotoran yang berkaitan dengan kebenaran. Maka mengapa kalian masih memandang rendah diri kalian sendiri?” Itulah yang disebut “munculnya pandangan salah yang ketiga”.

Setelah itu para murid itu membaca sutta-sutta, yang mengatakan seorang Arahat memiliki mata kebijaksanaan yang mulia, dan dapat merealisasinya bagi diri sendiri berkaitan dengan pembebasan seseorang. Karena alasan ini mereka berkata kepada guru mereka: “Jika kami adalah Arahat kami seharusnya merealisasi untuk diri sendiri. Dan jadi mengapa [sebagai contoh] guru ketika memasuki kota tidak terlihat memiliki kecerdasan untuk merealisasi sendiri [apa jalan benar yang harus diambil]?” Kemudian lagi ia berkata: “Seorang Arahat masih belajar dari orang lain, dan tidak dapat mengetahui dengan sendirinya. Sebagai contoh, Sāriputta adalah yang terkemuka dalam kebijaksanaan; Mahāmoggallāna adalah yang terkemuka dalam kekuatan batin. Tetapi jika [kata-kata] Sang Buddha tidak diingat, mereka tidak dapat mengetahui hal ini dengan sendirinya.  Inilah suatu keadaan ketika seseorang dapat belajar dari orang lain dan kemudian ia sendiri akan mengetahui. Oleh sebab itu mengenai hal ini kalian tidak seharusnya berselisih.” Itulah yang disebut “munculnya pandangan salah yang keempat”.

Tetapi Mahādeva, walaupun ia telah melakukan sejumlah besar kejahatan, tidak memotong dan menghentikan semua akar bermanfaat sebelumnya. Setelah itu sendirian di tengah malam kesalahannya membebaninya [dengan berpikir]: “Di tempat apakah aku akan mengalami semua penderitaan yang hebat itu?” Merasa tertekan dan takut, ia seringkali berteriak: “Oh, betapa menderitanya!” Murid pelayannya mendengar teriakan itu dan terkejut. Di pagi hari ia berkunjung dan bertanya: “Bagaimana kabar anda hari-hari ini?” Mahādeva menjawab: “Aku sangat berbahagia.” Sang murid lanjut bertanya: “Tadi malam apakah anda berteriak ‘Oh, betapa menderitanya!’” Ia kemudian menjawab: “Aku meneriakkan jalan mulia – kamu tidak seharusnya berpikir ini aneh. Dikatakan bahwa jika seseorang tidak melakukannya dengan penuh kesungguhan meminta penderitaan yang mendatangi [seluruh] kehidupan [seseorang], maka jalan mulia tidak akan muncul. Itulah sebabnya tadi malam aku seringkali berteriak ‘Oh, betapa menderitanya!’” Itulah yang disebut “munculnya pandangan salah yang kelima”.

Setelah itu, Mahādeva mengumpulkan dan mengajarkan 5 pandangan salah ini. Ia membuat syair ini:

Orang lain membawa [kekotoran untuk mengotori jubah];
Ketidaktahuan; keragu-raguan; ia belajar dari orang lain;
Sang jalan disebabkan oleh suatu ucapan:
Inilah yang disebut dispensasi Buddha yang sejati.

Setelah itu, para bhikkhu sesepuh di vihara Kukkuṭārāma satu demi satu meninggal dunia. Pada hari ke-15, datanglah waktunya untuk uposatha.  Pada giliran ini Mahādeva mengambil tempat duduk untuk mengajarkan sila. Kemudian ia membacakan syair yang telah ia buat. Pada waktu itu dalam perkumpulan itu terdapat siswa yang masih berlatih dan sudah tidak berlatih lagi yang sangat terpelajar, kokoh dalam sila, dan mengembangkan jhana. Ketika mereka mendengar ajaran itu, tanpa kecuali mereka terkejut dan keberatan. Mereka mengkritik bahwa hanya orang bodoh yang membuat pernyataan yang demikian, dengan mengatakan: “Ini tidak ditemukan dalam Tripitaka!” Mereka segera membuat kembali syair yang berbunyi demikian:

Orang lain membawa [kekotoran untuk mengotori jubah];
Ketidaktahuan; keragu-raguan; ia belajar dari orang lain;
Sang jalan disebabkan oleh suatu ucapan:
Apa yang kamu katakan bukanlah dispensasi Buddha!

Kemudian sepanjang malam dipenuhi dengan perdebatan yang membuat gaduh, sampai akhirnya kelompok-kelompok muncul. Di dalam kota, berita ini tersebat sampai ke menteri negara. Masalah ini perlahan-lahan menyebar, dan tidak akan berhenti. Raja mendengar dan secara pribadi datang ke vihara, tetapi masing-masing kelompok bersikukuh pada pembacaannya sendiri. Kemudian raja, mendengar hal ini, ia sendiri mulai ragu-ragu. Ia bertanya kepada Mahādeva: “Pihak manakah yang harus kita percayai?” Mahādeva berkata kepada raja: “Dalam kitab aturan dikatakan untuk menyelesaikan masalah, seseorang seharusnya bergantung pada apa yang dikatakan mayoritas.” Raja kemudian memerintahkan kedua kelompok Sangha untuk berdiri terpisah. Kelompok orang mulia, walau tua dalam usia, berjumlah sedikit. Kelompok Mahādeva, walau muda dalam usia, berjumlah banyak. Raja kemudian mempercayai kelompok Mahādeva, karena mereka adalah mayoritas, dan menekan kelompok yang lain. Ketika ini telah diselesaikan ia kembali ke istana.

Pada waktu itu, di vihara Kukkuṭārāma masih ada perdebatan terbuka yang tidak dapat dipadamkan dengan mereka yang berpandangan lain, sampai terdapat pemisahan menjadi dua kelompok: yang pertama adalah aliran Sthavira;  yang kedua adalah aliran Mahāsaṅghika.

Pada waktu itu semua orang mulia, mengetahui bahwa komunitas [Sangha] sedang berargumentasi, meninggalkan vihara Kukkuṭārāma, berkeinginan untuk pergi ke tempat lain. Ketika para menteri mendengar hal itu, mereka segera memberitahukan raja. Raja, mendengar hal ini, menjadi marah, dan memerintahkan para menterinya: “Bawa mereka semua ke sungai Gangga. Masukkan mereka ke dalam perahu yang rusak dan apungkan mereka pada arus sungai agar tenggelam. Maka kita akan mengetahui siapakah yang adalah orang mulia, dan siapakah yang adalah orang biasa!” Menteri itu dengan patuh menjalankan perintah raja dan melaksanakannya. Kemudian semua orang mulia naik ke atas dengan kekuatan batin, sama seperti seekor raja angsa yang terbang di udara, dan mereka pergi. Sekembalinya, mereka menggunakan kekuatan batin mereka untuk membawa yang lain di perahu yang bersamanya mereka meninggalkan vihara Kukkuṭārāma, dan yang tidak memiliki kekuatan batin. Menunjukkan keajaiban, mereka membuat berbagai wujud. Kemudian mereka berjalan melalui udara menuju barat laut dan pergi.

Ketika raja mendengar dan melihat hal ini, ia sangat menyesal. Ia pingsan dan jatuh ke tanah. Mereka memerciki air kepadanya, dan barulah ia sadar. Dengan segera ia mengirimkan para pengiring untuk mengikuti [para Arahat] ke mana mereka pergi. Seorang menteri kembali setelah menemukan mereka tinggal di Kaśmīr. Tetapi ketika Sangha diminta untuk kembali, semuanya menolak permintaan yang bersikeras itu. Raja kemudian meninggalkan Kaśmīr, membangun sebuah vihara untuk para orang mulia tinggal. Setiap vihara dinamakan sesuai dengan berbagai bentuk yang diubah yang sebelumnya diwujudkan oleh masing-masing [ketika melarikan diri]. Dikatakan bahwa terdapat 500 “Vihara Angsa”. Lagi ia mengirimkan seorang utusan dengan banyak kekayaan untuk mengatur kebutuhan materi mereka dan persembahan. Karena hal ini, tanah tersebut sampai sekarang memiliki banyak makhluk suci yang menegakkan Buddha Dhamma, yang telah diturunkan sejak saat itu sampai saat ini dan masih berkembang.

Setelah raja Pāṭaliputta telah kehilangan komunitas tersebut, membawa yang lain ia pergi memberikan persembahan kepada Sangha di vihara Kukkuṭārāma.

Setelah itu, Mahādeva kadangkala pergi ke dalam kota, di mana terdapat seorang peramal. [Mahādeva] bertemu dengannya; [sang peramal] melihatnya, dan secara diam-diam meramalkan bahwa:  “Sekarang putra Sakya ini pasti akan meninggal setelah tujuh hari.” Ketika para murid [Mahādeva] mendengar, mereka menjadi tertekan dan berkata [kepada Mahādeva]. Ia menjawab: “Aku telah mengetahui hal ini sejak lama.” Kemudian ia kembali ke vihara Kukkuṭārāma dan mengirim para muridnya untuk menyebarluaskan dan memberitahukan raja dan semua perumah tangga yang kaya di Pāṭaliputta: “Setelah tujuh hari pengasingan diri aku akan memasuki Nibbana.” Ketika mereka mendengar, raja dan semuanya tanpa kecuali mulai meratap.

Ketika tujuh hari telah tercapai, kehidupannya berakhir. Raja dan semua penduduk kota dipenuhi kesedihan dan penyesalan. Mereka membawa kayu bakar wangi, bersama dengan banyak minyak, bunga dan persembahan. Mereka menumpukkannya di satu tempat untuk membakarnya. Tetapi ketika mereka menyalakan api di sana, api langsung padam. Berkali-kali mereka mencoba dalam berbagai cara, tetapi tidak dapat membuatnya terbakar. Dikatakan bahwa seorang peramal berkata kepada orang-orang: “Ini tidak akan terbakar dengan barang-barang kremasi berkualitas bagus ini. Kita harus menggunakan kotoran anjing dan olesan kotoran.” Setelah mengikuti nasehat ini, api segera menyala, dengan seketika membakar dan menjadi abu. Angin kuat bertiup dan menyebarkan sisa-sisanya. Ini karena ia sebelumnya telah membuat pandangan-pandangan salah tersebut. Semua yang memiliki kebijaksanaan seharusnya tahu melenyapkan pandangan-pandangan salah.

"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #13 on: 06 January 2013, 10:28:07 AM »
Dalam suatu perselisihan, sebaiknya kita tidak mengandalkan informasi hanya dari salah satu pihak.

 [at] Ariyakumara, apakah Sujato juga membahas penjelasan dari pihak Mahasangika?

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.469
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Asal Mula Aliran Mahasangika Menurut Teks Sarvastivada
« Reply #14 on: 06 January 2013, 10:43:47 AM »
 [at] Indra: Ada, malah berkebalikan dr kisah kelompok Sthavira. Dlm teks Mahasanghika justru kelompok bhikkhu sesepuh yg menambah Vinaya dan kelompok Mahasanghika yg mempertahankan Vinaya (jadi bukan perselisihan ttg ajaran)....

Tapi sabar ya bukunya masih dlm tahap terjemahan n blm selesai... :)
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa