Talk:Early Buddhist schools

message: I've been told that "Nikaya Buddhism" and "Early Buddhist Schools" would not be synonymous because not all early schools followed the Pali Nikayas--some, like the Sarvastivada, followed the similar Sanskrit Agamas instead. Is this fair to say? Sylvain1972 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The word "nikaya" has a number of meanings. In this context, it means a "group" or "fraternity" -- it  has nothing to do with the usage of "nikaya" for a set of Pali scriptures, although one can understand the derivation.--Stephen Hodge 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nikaya v Agama

message: I want to know if there are existing Japanese and Chinese Buddhist sects that do not regard Mahayana sutras as authentic, and that trace their tradition to one of the early schools. Specifically, did Ritsu (see also Toshodaiji) exist as a distinct sect having a distinct canon? Does it still exist as a sect, and does it still have a distinct canon? With regard to Lu-tsung, is there a still a distinct sect in China, or does this now refer exclusively to a field of discipline within mainline Mahayana and Vajrayana denominations?  --munge 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm chiming in here without much expertise, but I did a bit of research about this a year or so ago for Schools of Buddhism (which mostly was never incorporated into the article), and, from what I recall, all the quasi-"Hinayanist" schools of Buddhism in China (past the very early formative period) incorporated Mahayanic materials rather early and freely. Lü-tsung was probably the most conservative of these, but it nevertheless failed to clearly differentiate itself on canonical grounds. There appears to have been a general cultural consensus in China that the Mahayana literature could simply be ignored. The status of Ritsu today in Japan today is an interesting question, of which I know nothing other than what I read in the Wikipedia article, Ritsu. It's interesting that most of Ritsu was forced to merge with Shingon of all things; this implies that there had been considerable accretion of non-Nikayan practices. As for Lü-tsung is modern China, I don't think there are any distinct sects in China anymore (and haven't been since well before the tumult of the 20th century), so I suspect that "a field of discipline within mainline Mahayana and Vajrayana" would be a good description of its current situation.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 08:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risshu and Lu-tsung 

message: These trees are great!  But they really need to be graphics.  brain 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lineage trees 

message: The name of this article is "early Buddhist schools," but actually this name is inaccurate for a few reasons. The most important of these is that these "schools" were not really schools, but more like monastic fraternities, with the most important common element being the vinaya. Nikayas with different vinaya traditions had their own rules which were mutually incompatible, but which established a common basis for discipline within the monastic community. The term "school," however, implies that the most important common element was Dharma or doctrine, and that this was what distinguished each of these groups. This is certainly not the case, as we know from the Chinese pilgrims such as Faxian, Xuanzang, and Yijing. Each of these pilgrims mentions that "Hinayana" sravakas and Mahayana bodhisattvas often occupied the same monasteries and lived in relative peace with one another. There is even mention of both types of students attending the same lectures. The difference was in the books they read, their individual aspirations, and their individual practices. Furthermore, three nikayas still exist: Theravada, Dharmaguptaka, and Mulasarvastivada. Their vinayas still serve the basic function of providing a set of rules for their respective monastic communities, and thus serve their original basic purpose. However, this article seems to frame the nikayas as doctrinal schools first and foremost, and as being historical Indian relics rather than a basic tradition of Buddhism that is still present in most Buddhist countries. For these various reasons, I would recommend that the name of this article be changed to "Buddhist Nikayas," which accurately represents these groups with the original word, which is not so misleading. Tengu800 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy of article name