Talk:Mahāsāṃghika

message: "and also asserted that the historical Buddha was a manifestation of a transhistorical Buddha, and phenomena are illusory and empty.
The Mahasamghaka are often regarded as one of the sources of Mahāyāna doctrines."
Sorry but I invoke verifiability policy. The above part could be fanciful historical revisionism. FWBOarticle
There's a good looking section on Mahasanghika doctrines in Paul Williams' intro to Buddhism, and probably more in his other books. From what I remember of skimming that section, it seems the Mahasamghikas did not all believe in Lokuttaravada, only the Mahasamghika-Lokuttaravadins, and also the detailed meaning of 'lokuttaravada' is uncertain but probably not the same as the later Mahayana doctrines about the Trikaya. If anyone else has the book and has time, please read that section and input the ideas there briefly here. Thanks.
--Bhikkhu Santi 22:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: Hi, all. I edited the article for consistency and spelling. I was also wondering if it were possible to use a word other than "recension" in the introductory paragraphs, as it's quite an obscure word outside of religious contexts. I understand that it might be English Buddhist canon to use the word, but if so, it should (I think) be defined/explained. Though I understand the word, I don't feel comfortable defining it in the context of Buddhist history. Thanks --Storkk 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for polishing this article.  But I disagree with you about the word "recension".  It is not confined to religious contexts by any means, but is part of the standard vocabulary for textual criticism or editing, so it is not that obscure.  There is a stub of an entry elsewhere on Wiki for "recension" which needs to be expanded.  That done, a link could be provided here for those too lazy to use a dictionary. If you really think it should be dumbed down, then how about "textual variant" or similar.--Stephen Hodge 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary

message: I see on 16:36, 26 April 2006 the diacrits for this article's title word were changed from  to .  Since this word is then translated into "Great[er]-Community," I was wondering if this diacrit change was correct.  I then checked the following on-line resources:
* Google:  results in 782 matches while  results in 242 matches (including matches keyed off this WP article).
* PTS PED: spells the term's second word as Sangha (Pali, no diacrits).
* Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: also spells the term's second word without a diacrit over the a, saMgha.
* Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary: also no diacrit over second word's a, saMgha.
So, what would be the basis for our not undoing the aforementioned change -- or at least for our not including the old spelling as primary and the new spelling as secondary?  Thanks for any confirmation or education! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sacca - thanks for the quick response. If I may just check, when you say "the first spelling," do you mean the first spelling as in this article's initial spelling of the word (without the diacrit over the "a" in sangha) or the first spelling as in the title of this talk page entry (with the diacrit over the "a" in sangha)? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahāsāṃghika is the correct spelling -- it's the -ika suffix that causes the long vowel in the third syllable.--Stephen Hodge 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thanks so much Stephen!  (Obviously, I have a way to go in my Pali primer ... :-) )  I'll leave the word as it is here then. Thank you again.  Best wishes. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{IAST|Mahās}}<span style="color:red;">ā</span>{{IAST|ṃghika}} or {{IAST|Mahās}}<span style="color:red;">a</span>{{IAST|ṃghika}} ? 

message: I'm admittedly not a Sanskritist, but doesn't the Nagari currently read "Mahāsāṃghaki" rather than "Mahāsāṃghika"? Natalie indeed 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devanagari incorrect? 

message: If it's in Pāli, Mahāsaṃghika is correct. If it spells as Mahāsāṃghika, then it would be against the rule of the Pāli language. It shouldn't be a long vowel before 'ṃ' or 'ṅ'.
Buddhosavaka (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another opinion on the spelling 'Mahāsāṃghika' 

message: According to the Sanskrit Pratimoksa Sutra of MahaSamgikas discovered by Rahula Sankrtyayana in Tibet in 1934 and translated into English by Charles S. Prebish (Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The sanskrit Pratimoksa Sutras of the Mahasamghikas and Mulasarvastivadins by Charles S. Prebish, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt.Ltd, Delhi, 1996), all its VInaya rules except the 75 Sekhiya rules of training are exactly the same as the Theravada. Similarly, according to Buddhist Monks and Monasteries in India (Page 79) by Sukumar Dutt. , Frauwallner, who made a study of the similarities and divergernces of the vinaya of the six schoold, namely: Theravada, mahasanghika, Mula-sarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Dharmagupta and Sarvastivada, concluded: "We can see at once that the agreement of the text reaches deep into particulars"
That means that the Schism is not resulted from the differences in Vinaya, which also meant that the 2nd Council was closed and the matter was resolved.
According to Buddhist Sects in India by Nalinaksha Dutt. Motilal Banarsidass, 2nd Edition, Delhi (1978), page 28, the schism was caused by the founder of Mahasanghika, known as Mahadeva who put forward his 5 theories about arahants. It was due to the disagreements to this 5 theories that lead to the Schism.  
Buddhosavaka (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another cause for the Great schism 

message: The following bibliography has existed on the Mahasamghika page for quite a long time, and nobody has contributed much (if anything) using these works as reference. I am moving them to the talking page now, as they fill up a lot of room in the article that would be better used for content. They may still be referenced on this page. Tengu800 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with the previous ~ these titles are essential exactly for the reasons Kester states ~ they cover much of recent scholarship on the Mahasanghikas.  The criteria for inclusion has nothing to do with anybody using them or not as reference materials for the article.  They should be restored immediately under a heading "Further Reading".-- अनाम गुमनाम 17:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I did not notice this earlier, but it makes no sense, and I'm going to restore it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mahāsāṃghika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614174936/http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/On_the_Eschatology_of_the_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_and_Related_Matters.pdf to http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/On_the_Eschatology_of_the_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_and_Related_Matters.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216092445/http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/why-devadatta-was-no-saint/ to http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/why-devadatta-was-no-saint/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified