At 12:19 PM 30-05-05, Stephen Hodge wrote:
>If by "Second Council" you mean the so-called Vaisali Council, this matter
>was already discussed here a couple of weeks ago. Non-Theravadin sources
>suggest that it was the the so-called "Theravadin" party who caused the
>problem in their attempts to make the Vinaya stricter than it was in
>contrast to the conservative Mahasanghikas who wanted to maintain the Vinaya
>as it was.
For certain parts of the ten points, I have long had some suspicion about this. But I've also read from one Mahayana source that say that they did insist on certain changes, though with some variance compared to the Pali in describing certain points, like the one on not eating after midday.
FYI, this tightening of Vinaya practice is still happening e.g. in a certain strict forest tradition in Sri Lanka. So much so that some foreign monks who are themselves already strict in Vinaya are dumbfounded by them.
When DhammaVinaya becomes a part of a tradition, it can mutate to almost anything and still be followed by the majority like the gospel truth. May may like to read an article related to this:
Anna and the retarded education
>It would seem that the situation is quite confused and I feel
>that no reliance should be placed on any single account which would tend to
>be biased Hence your earlier admonishment to "read up the history by
>objective scholars" is most apposite and welcome.
Good idea. Any suggested reading on this?