Sthavira nikāya

Origin

The Sthaviras were a group of reformists who split from the conservative majority Mahāsāṃghikas at the Second Buddhist council, resulting in the first schism in the Sangha. After unsuccessfully trying to modify the vinaya, a small group of "elderly members", i.e. sthaviras, broke away from the majority Mahāsāṃghika during the Second Buddhist council, giving rise to the Sthavira sect.

The Mahāsāṃghika Śāriputraparipṛcchā states the council was convened at Pāṭaliputra over matters of vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by the minority (Sthaviras). The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya.

Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. Modern scholarship therefore generally agrees that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest. According to Skilton, future scholars may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravada school.

Language

The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas used Prakrit, the Sarvāstivādins used Sanskrit, the Sthaviras used Paiśācī, and the Saṃmitīya used Apabhraṃśa.

Legacy

The Sthaviras later divided into other schools such as:

Sarvāstivāda

Vatsīputrīya

Vibhajyavāda (Pali: Vibhajjavāda)

The Vibhajyavāda branch gave rise to a number of schools such as:

Mahīśāsaka

Dharmaguptaka

Kāśyapīya

Tāmraparnīya, later called "Theravāda"

Modern scholarly accounts

The Theravāda school of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia has identified itself exclusively with the Sthaviras, as the Pali word thera is equivalent to the Sanskrit sthavira. This has led early Western historians to assume that the two parties are identical. However, this is not the case, and by the time of Ashoka, the Sthavira sect had split into the Sammitīya Pudgalavada, Sarvāstivāda, and the Vibhajyavāda schools.

The Vibhajyavāda school is believed to have split into other schools as well, such as the Mahīśāsaka school and the ancestor of the Theravada school. According to Damien Keown, there is no historical evidence that the Theravada school arose until around two centuries after the Great Schism which occurred at the Third Council.

Ancient Indian scholarly accounts

Buddhists from the Indian mainland appear originally to have regarded the Buddhists of Laṅkā as simply the ‘Laṅkā school’, thus Vasubandhu writing in the fourth century cites the notion of the bhavāṅga-vijñāna of the Tāmraparṇīya-nikāya as a forerunner of the ālaya-vijñāna. But beginning with Yijing’s account of his travels in India (671–695 ce ) and Vinītadeva’s eighth-century summary of the divisions of the Buddhist schools (Samaya-bhedoparacana- cakra-nikāya-bhedopadarśana-cakra), we find north Indian sources describing the Buddhist Saṅgha as comprising four nikāyas: (1) the Mahāsāṃghikas, (2) the Sthāviras, (3) the Sarvāstivādins, and (4) the Saṃmatīyas. Significantly, the Sthāviras in turn comprise three sub-nikāyas: the Jetavanīyas, the Abhayagirivāsins, and the Mahāvihāravāsins. The Buddhists of Laṅkā are thus no longer regarded as the ‘Laṅkā school’, they are the Sthāviras, despite the fact that both the Sarvāstivādins and the Saṃmatīyas were also understood as tracing their lineage to the Sthāvira side of the original split with the Mahāsāṃghikas. The reason for referring to the three Buddhist nikāyas of Laṅkā as the Sthāviras is probably not so much a recognition of an exclusive claim to be the authentic theravāda, as a reflection of the simple fact that the Laṅkā schools alone of the various Sthāvira schools continued to refer to themselves as theriya or theravāda in certain contexts.

Theravādin accounts

Starting with the Dīpavaṃsa chronicle in the 4th century, the Theravādins of the Mahāvihāra in Sri Lanka attempted to identify themselves with the original Sthavira sect. The Theravādin Dīpavaṃsa clarifies that the name Theravāda refers to the "old" teachings, making no indication that it refers to the Second Council. Similarly, the name Mahāsāṃghika is in reference to those who follow the original Vinaya of the undivided Saṃgha. The Dīpavaṃsa chronicle lauds the Theravāda as a "great banyan" and dismissively portrays the other early Buddhist schools as thorns (kaṇṭaka). Dīpavaṃsa, 4.90–91 says:

These 17 sects are schismatic,only one is non-schismatic.With the non-schismatic sect,there are eighteen in all.Like a great banyan tree,the Theravāda is supreme,The Dispensation of the Conqueror,complete, without lack or excess.The other sects aroselike thorns on the tree.— Dīpavaṃsa, 4.90–91

According to the Mahāvaṃsa, a Theravādin source, after the Second Council was closed those taking the side of junior monks did not accept the verdict but held an assembly of their own attended by ten thousand calling it a Mahasangiti (Great Convocation) from which the school derived its name Mahāsāṃghika. However, such popular explanations of Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika are generally considered folk etymologies.

Bhikkhu Sujato explains the relationship between the Sthavira sect and the Theravāda:

The term sthavira (meaning "elder") is the Sanskrit version of the term better known today in its Pali version thera, as in Theravāda, the "Teaching of the Elders." The original Sthaviras, however, are by no means identical with the modern school called Theravāda. Rather, the Sthaviras are the ancestor of a group of related schools, one of which is the Theravāda.