Epistemology – The Theory of Knowledge

Introduction

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It attempts to answer us the basic question: what distinguishes true (sufficient) knowledge from false (insufficient) knowledge? Practically, wee see this questions translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories? It also forms one of the pillars of the new sciences of cognition, which developed from the information processing approach to psychology, and from artificial intelligence, as an attempt to develop computer programs that mimic a human’s capacity to use knowledge in an intelligent way.

When we look at the history of epistemology, we can determine a clear trend, in spite of the confusion of many seemingly contradictory positions. The first theories of knowledge stressed its absolute, permanent character, whereas the later theories put the emphasis on its relativity or situation-dependence, its continuous development or evolution, and its active interference with the world and its subjects and objects. The whole trend moves from a static, passive view of knowledge towards a more and more adaptive and active one.

On the other hand in Buddhism, when we talk about the epistemology, we can say justifications for knowledge, or Pramana – Buddhism recognizes a set that is smaller than the others'. All accept perception and inference, for example, but in Buddhism the received textual tradition is an epistemological category equal to perception and inference.

Some schools of Buddhism, on the other hand, rejected an inflexible reverence of accepted doctrine. As the Buddha said, according to the canonical scriptures:

Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves – these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness – then do you live acting accordingly.

The Perception

The Buddhist concept of perception is that perception itself is fleeting as they themselves are caused by feelings. So the best way to understand the Buddhist standpoint we can say the "Paticca-samuppada" is one of the important perception in Buddhism. That is briefly as the dependent co-arising - From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

On the other hand, it can be also the Sa¤¤a which is included in the Five Aggregates. That is the Perception which is nothing but the act of perceiving. Thus it is a dynamic process, an activity. What does it perceive? It perceives colors such as blue, yellow, red, white, etc. This definition of sa~n~na seems to imply that the linguistic ability of man is associated with sa~n~na. The word sa~n~na also means symbol, and symbolization is closely associated with language. It is language that helps us to form ideas, and that is the reason why sa~n~na is sometimes translated as ideation. According to one's perception, one forms a point of view, an idea.

We identify ourselves with our ideas too: "This is my point of view, this is my idea, this is my opinion, this is what I meant" — these are all expressions identifying ourselves with ideation and perception. Sometimes this identification is so strong that we are ready to sacrifice our lives for the sake of an idea. Many wars are waged in the world propagating or defending ideas. As this is such a dominant form of clinging it has been singled out by the Buddha as ditth'upadana, clinging to a particular view one chooses to believe in. Identifying ourselves with various points of view we call ourselves democrats, socialists, eternalists, annihilationists, positivists.

Our ideas change due to changing emotions and circumstances. A friend becomes a foe, an enemy becomes an ally, a stranger becomes a spouse. Therefore in ideation too there is nothing constant and permanent; it is not possible to hold them fast as "I" and "mine" without coming to grief.

Memory is also associated with sa~n~na. That is why we are able to recognize a person we have met before. Through the faculty of memory we recall having existed in the past experiencing such and such events. By projecting the same kind of experience into the future we anticipate that we will exist in the future. Thus through the memory aspect of sa~n~na we posit the illusion of a self continuing through the three periods of past, present and future. But we little realize that the retrospection of the past and the anticipation of the future are both in fact done in the present moment itself.

How does sa~n~na form a wall in our private prison? Each one of us perceives the world around us through our own preconceived ideas. Let us take a very gross example. A doctor's perception of the world will be quite different from the perception of a politician or a businessman. A doctor looking at an apple might think of its nutritional value, a politician of the advantages and disadvantages permitting importation, the businessman of the commercial value. Thus we are so much conditioned by our interests and ideologies — some absorbed from upbringing, some from the culture we are exposed to, some from the academic and professional training we have acquired — that no two people can have identical perceptions. There are sufficient common factors in these aspects to allow us to form general superficial agreements with other individuals, but when we take into account all ramifications we have to conclude that as regards perception too each one of us lives in a private prison. If we wish to experience wisdom and happiness welling within ourselves, we have to give up clinging to our ideas, unlearn what we have spent years to learn, decondition ourselves and empty our minds.

Causes of Epistemology

What some consider the original positive Buddhist contribution to the field of metaphysics is Paticcasamudpada. It states that events are not pre-determined, nor are they random, and it rejects notions of direct causation, which are necessarily undergirded by a substantialist metaphysics. Instead, it posits the arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable, such that the processes in question at no time are considered to be entities.

Paticcasapudpada goes on to posit that certain specific events, concepts, or realities are always dependent on other specific things. Craving, for example, is always dependent on, and caused by, emotion. Emotion is always dependent on contact with our surroundings. This chain of causation purports to show that the cessation of decay, death, and sorrow is indirectly dependent on the cessation of craving.

Naagaarjuna asserted a direct connection between, even identity of, dependent origination, anatta, and śuunyataa. He pointed out that implicit in the early Buddhist concept of dependent origination is the lack of any substantial being (anatta) underlying the participants in origination, so that they have no independent existence, a state identified as emptiness (śuunyatā), or emptiness of a nature or essence (sva-bhāva). That is what we can say about the causes of Epistemology in Buddhism.

Consideration of Truth

As we know that the Truth in Buddhism is called in Pali known as ‘Sacca’. Also it is come under the perfection in Buddhism. So in the Buddhist Perfection, it is the Truth which is known as follows: “Without truthfulness, virtue, etc., is impossible, and there can be no practice in accordance with one's vows. All evil states converge upon the transgression of truth. One who is not devoted to truth is unreliable and his word cannot be accepted in the future. On the other hand, one devoted to truth secures the foundation of all noble qualities. With truthfulness as the foundation, he is capable of purifying and fulfilling all the requisites of enlightenment. Not deceived about the true nature of phenomena, he performs the functions of all the requisites of enlightenment and completes the practice of the bodhisattva path.”

Furthermore, in Buddhism we can see that they are two kinds of Truths as:

1. The Ultimate Truth - This is the ultimate state of reality that is devoid of all ephemeral, temporal, transitional things that are found on this Earth. This is the destination of the perfect, enlightened being, and the ultimate liberation of all suffering.

2. The Relative Truth - This is the perception of reality as it exists on this Earth. So named because social conditions, human wisdom, lifestyles and human achievements are constantly in a state of flux. Growing an attachment to any Relative Truth is a cause of suffering.

Also other than the Eightfold Paths, Buddhism introduces Absolute and Relative Truth.

Abhidharmamaha-vibhasa-shastra defines that all understandable phenomena based on worldly common sense or rational traditions and customs that people agree upon with is the Relative Truth and that the truth of the reality that is clearly observed by those Saints without any defilement is the Absolute Truth. The commentary of the Middle Path (Mulamadhyamaka-karika) explains the absolute and relative truth by the empty nature of interdependent origination. The understanding of interdependent origination, that is, all phenomena arise or cease based on co-existing interdependent relationship, is called the Relative Truth. Interdependent origination is a temporary phenomenon. All things do not have permanent and unchangeable nature. Therefore, arising or ceasing is just a false image that has false name and function but no real substance. The arising is not real arising and ceasing is not real ceasing. The reality of no arising and no ceasing is called the nature of emptiness. Realizing the empty nature is the Absolute Truth.

The Absolute Truth and the Relative Truth, one is the empty nature of all phenomena and the other the temporary occurrence and function of all things, are in truth an indivisible method of non-duality. Even though the Relative Truth is not the ultimate, yet we may rely on it to search for the Absolute Truth. For example, language, action, ideal, and concept etc. are all Relative Truth. Yet, if we do not apply them, we are not going to be able to explain the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the Relative Truth, to sentient beings. If there is no way to realize the Absolute Truth, then there is no way to enter the Nirvana.

Conclusion

In my opinion I understand that epistemology in Buddhism is something which is the theory of knowledge that we gain from different angles in Buddhism. As in Buddhism we see that Buddhism teaches there are two ways of getting knowledges that are practically and theoretically.

As in Buddhism the theory of knowledge is mostly focus of the Paticcasamudpada that goes on to posit that certain specific events, concepts, or realities are always dependent on other specific things. Craving, for example, is always dependent on, and caused by, emotion. Emotion is always dependent on contact with our surroundings. This chain of causation purports to show that the cessation of decay, death, and sorrow is indirectly dependent on the cessation of craving.

The End

Read more...

The Differences Between Mahayana and Theravada School in Buddhism

Emerge Of Mahayana and Theravada School

As we look at the history Of Buddhism, it seems Buddhism was founded by Guatama the Buddha / Shakyamuni Buddha. It was originated in Jambudiipa / India around 623 B.C. As a unique founder of the new Dhamma, the Buddha taught his philosophy for 49 years alone with his many Ordain disciples and lay followers. As to preserve the Dhamma and the Vinaya after the Parinibbaana of the Buddha immediately the disciples of the Buddha held the great rehearsal/council known as Sangiiti. The purpose of holding the rehearsal was to organize, arrange & to preserve the propound teachings of the Buddha.

After the Parinibbaana of the Buddha in about the 100 years of the Era, the disciples of the Buddha held another rehearsal; at that time Buddha’s teaching was interpreted in various ways. As a result Buddhism was divided into several schools and sub-schools, after the manifestation of the schisms. The original Sangha reassembled forming several groups, two of which became firmly established in the five hundred years following. They are known as Sthavira and Mahasanghika.[1]

Sthavira

According to Bhikshu Thich Thien Chau – in the second council “Who contested the five propositions and the majority (Mahasamghikas) who approved them.”[2]

On the other hand, in the Sthavira School “The First Schism in the School of the Sthaviras was provoked by the Vaatsiiputriiyas[3] at about the end of the second century EP. Later, in the reign of the emperor Asoka, another major schism was started by the Sarvastvadins. After becoming detached from the Stravira trunk, these two branches later gave rise to other sub-schools.”[4]

The two sub-Schools of Sthaviras are: Sarvaastivaadins, Sautraantikas & Kaaśyapas. According to this Scholar he also says:

“The orthodox Sthavira were henceforth known as Vibhajyavaadins in order to distinguish them from their adversaries.”[5]

Later on Theravaadins develop in Ceylon, and became one of the oldest and orthodox, the Mahiiśaasakas and the Dharmaguptakas. The Haimavatas is another small school descending from the Sthaviras. In this way, there were fourteen schools belong to the Sthavira tradition.

Mahasanghika

Mahasanghika is one of the early schools. After one hundred years after the 1^st Buddhist Council, at the 1^st Century B.C. to the 1^st century A.D., at this period the two terms Mahayana and Theravada emerged or appeared. The Mahaasaa.nghika sect was formed in the first Buddhist schism around 320 B.C.E.

As we talk furthermore, in Mahayana school, they developed into two periods, as Early Development of the Mahayana sect and late development of the Mahayana sect. So the early development of the Mahayana sect was emerged during the second century after the Buddha’s death, it seems that this sect was split up into many sub-schools as Ekavyaahaarika[6], Kukku.tika (Gokulika), Bahuśrutiiya and Praj~nptivaada and shortly after wards appeared the Saila schools.[7] The Caityakas were so called because of their cult of the caityas (shrines). Both of them paved the way for the growth of Mahaayaanism.[8]

On the other hand, when we look at the late development of the Mahayana School, we can observe that late Mahayana Buddhism divided into two schemes of thought as MŒdhyamika and Yogaacaara sect. It was emerged from the 5^th century onwards, Mahayana was strong moment in India, possibly owning to support by the Gupta dynasty. It spread from India to South East Asia and towards the north to Central Asia and Far East. At the early time than in India, the influence of the Mahayana in China, and remained an obscure group until the 5^th century.[9]

Basic contradictory Philosophy of Mahayana & Theravada

Here I will show the contradictory Philosophy of Mahayana and Theravada schools and how they differ from each other. Also I will show in below the different Philosophy of the both Schools Mahayana and Theravada.

Mahayana	Theravada
Bodhisattva ideal - Mahayana is for the Bodhisattvahood which leads to Buddhahood.	Arahantship – The Buddha, Pacceka Buddha, & disciples are called Arehants free from defilesments & cycle of birth and death (Samsara).
For the Attainment they used the term as: Bodhisattvayana, Prateka-Buddhayana, and Sravakayana.[10]	Here these three are called the Bodhis
They rejected certain portions of the canon which had been accepted in the first Councial, and did not recognize, as the Buddha’s sayings (Buddhavacana), the Parivaara, the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhidaa, the Niddesa and parts of the Jaatakas. They don’t accepted these three things as Buddhavacana.[11]	Here they did not change and accepted Buddhavacana as Buddha words.
Bodhisattva Concept - The ideal of the Mahayana school is that of the Bodhisattva, a person who delays his or her own enlightenment in order to compassionately assist all other beings and ultimately attains to the highest Bodhi. [12] In Mahayana Concept all Bodhisattva which is enlightened One from Raga, Dosa.	Bodhisattva Concept – here it teaches for the welfare of the people should seek their own salvation. The Theravada considers a Bodhisattva as a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, ultimately becoming a fully Enlightened Buddha for the welfare of the world, for the happiness of the world.
Concept Of Buddha - The Buddhas are considered to be lokottara (supramundane) and are connected only externally with the worldly life. This conception of the deification of the Buddha contributed much to the growth of the Mahayana philosophy. According to them the Buddhas are lokottara (supramundane); they have no saasrava dharmas (defiled elements); their bodies, their length of life and their powers are unlimited; they neither sleep nor dream; they are self-possessed and always in a state of samadhi (meditation); they do not preach by name; they understand everything in a moment (ekaksanika-citta); until they attain parinirvana, the Buddhas possess ksayaj~naana (knowledge of decay) and anut-paadaj~naana (knowledge of non-origination). In short, everything concerning the Buddhas is transcendental. The Mahasanghika conception of the Buddhas contributed to the growth of the later Trikaaya theory in Mahayana. Thus the Mahasanghikas conceived of the Buddha decetically and gave rise to the conception of the Bodhisattvas.	Concept Of Buddha - The Buddhas are considered to be lokottara (supramundane).
Viewpoint on Meditation - The Mahayana school gave more emphasis on meditation especially the Pure Land sect, whose essential teaching is that salvation can be attained only through absolute trust in the saving power of Amitabha and the followers should be longing to be reborn in his paradise through his grace.[13]	Viewpoint on Meditation – They say ‘ Samadhi, meditation, is to be attained by means of one or other of the forty objects of meditation. The Purpose of this meditation is to keep one’s mind perfectly balanced so that it may be possible to gain a proper insight into the real nature of things. This is done by cultivating insight (Praj~naa).[14] The cultivation of Praj~naa helps one to understand at one and the same time the …,’ fundamental teachings in Theravada Buddhism.
Sunyata - Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna in his remarkable book; Madhyamika Karika is purely a Mahayana teaching. But it is actually based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, non-attachment and also on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts.[15] Mahayana Buddhism is emptiness (sunyata), which is ... referred to as suchness (tathata), the body of essence (dharma-kaya) or even nirvana.[16]	Sunyata - Here they talk about the idea of Anatta or non-self, non-attachment and also on the Paticcasamuppada.[17]

Philosophy of Mahayana – here they also have some of the principles are same like the Theravadins, accept the cardinal principles of Buddhism, and were, in this regards, not different from them.

• The Fundamentals are the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the non-existence of the soul, the theory of karma, the theory of pratiitya-samutpada, the thirty-seven Bodhipaksiya-dharmas, and the gradual stages of spiritual advancement.

• Here when they talk about the consciousness in Mahayana; they have one main Consciousness that is ‘Alaya consciousness’. They believe under this one all other consciousnesses are store on it.

• They also beliefs that: the five Vij~n.naanas (sense-perceptions) conduce both to saraaga (attachment to worldly matters) and viraaga (non-attachment to the same state).[18]

• The rūpendriyas (organs of sense are more flesh. They themselves cannot perceive the vij~n.naanas of the organs.)[19]

• One can eliminates suffering and obtain the highest bliss (nirvana) through knowledge (praj~n.naa).[20]

• A srotapanna (one who has entered the path of sanctification) is liable to retrogress while an that is not. He is capable of knowing his own nature (svabhava) through his citta and caitasika dharmas. He is also liable to commit all kinds of offences except the five heinous crimes (pa~ncaanantayaani), namely, matricide, patricide, the murder of an Arahant, shedding the blood of the Buddha and creating a split in the Sangha.[21]

• Nothing is indeterminate (avyaakrita), i.e., the nature of things must be either good or bad for it can not be neither good nor bad. That’s to say Non-duality.[22]

• The original nature of the mind is pure; it becomes contaminated when it is stained by upaklesa (passions) and Œgantukarajas (adventitious defilements). [This view of the Mahaasanghikas may be considered the precursor of the idealistic philosophy of Yogaacaara, in which the AAlayavij~naana is the storehouse of pure consciousness which becomes impure only when it is polluted by worldly objects.][23]

• After death and before rebirth a being has no existence.[24]

Thus Mahasanghikas (Mahayana) differ considerably from other sects in doctrinal matters as well as in their rules of disciples’ line. The followers of the schools wore a yellow robe, the lower part of which was polled tightly to the left.[25]

Philosophy of Theravada –

• All worldly phenomena are subject to three characteristics- they are anity, or impermanent and transient; duhkha or full of sufferings; and anaatma, that is there is nothing in them which can be called one’s own, nothing substantial, nothing permanent.[26]

• All compound things are made up of two elements naama, the non-material part, and rūpa, the material part.

• They are further described as consisting of nothing but five constituent groups (skandhas),…

• These elements are also classified into twelve organs, & objects of sense (AAyatanaani) and eighteen dhaatus.

• In the later classification, one must add six consciousness to the list of the twelve AAyatanas,… and thus arrive at eighteen dhaatus.

• The number of the constituent increases gradually from two to five, then twelve, and finally to eighteen.

• In Abhidhammaṭṭha-saṅgaha (about 8th – 12th centuries A.D.) of the psycho-ethical philosophy of School, … gives the following as the four ultimate categories: consciousness (citta), mental properties (caitasika), material qualities (rūpa), and nirvaa.na. Consciousness is further classified into eighty-nine types (a hundred and twenty-one types according to another classification), mental properties into fifty-two, and material qualities into twenty-eight. Nirvaa.na is a happy state which is free from passion, ill-will and delusion; in reality it is a state which is beyond description.[27]

Difference in Attainment in Mahayana & Theravada

When we talk about the attainment in both School beliefs ultimate goal is Nirvana. But they differ in the method of Practice only as follow:

• There are several ways in which Mahayana Buddhism differs from Theravada Buddhism.

• Perhaps the most prominent difference is their views on salvation and liberation.

• In Mahayana they believe: three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple.[28]

• They believe the attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two.[29]

• Theravada is considered to be somewhat of a “selfish” religion because it focuses on total self-reliance to reach Nirvana.

• On the other hand, Mahayana Buddhists believe in helping each other reach enlightenment.

• Bodhisattvas, although prevalent in both sects, take on different roles in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

• Theravada Buddhists view Bodhisattvas as merely a guide in helping to reach individual enlightenment, while Mahayana Buddhists see Bodhisattvas not as a command for individual perfection, but to save all beings from suffering.

• In Theravada, they believe - No distinction is made between nibbana attained by a Buddha and that of an Arahant or Pacceka-buddha.

• Also known as 'liberation from Samsara,' there are subtle distinctions in the level of attainment for the three situations.

• The main goal of Theravada Buddhism is personal liberation from suffering and that of Mahayana Buddhism is liberation of all living beings from suffering.[30]

So here those are the differences that Mahayana and the Theravada School that we can see here. These are the basic difference that I show here today in this paper.

Conclusion

According to my opinion I believe that The Mahayana - The Great Vehicle. This form of Buddhism emerged somewhere between 150 BCE and 100CE. Its distinctive features include the new emphasis given to compassion and the Bodhisattva ideal, the three-bodies of the Buddha doctrine, emptiness and skill in means.

In Mahayana Buddhism the Bodhisattva - Enlightenment Being, this is a being whose Buddhahood is assured but who postpones his/her own entry into Nirvana to help all other sentient beings attain to it first. The Buddha himself was described as a Bodhisattva in stories of his previous lives.

In Theravada sect - The Theravada school of Buddhism was the first one to emerge after the Buddha's parinirvana (Death). Over the centuries, it has retained its unique approach to the search for Nirvana, relying closely on the word of the Buddha as it appears in the Pali Canon.

In Buddhism Arahant (Noble one) is an arahant is an individual who has realized Nirvana, brought an end to his own suffering and the cycle of birth and death. Nirvana (to cease blowing) – In both school Nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhism, the third noble truth. In nirvana, the suffering and the desire that causes suffering have come to an end, as has the cycle of birth and death. Sometimes nirvana is referred to by the Buddha as 'unborn' and 'unconditioned', in contrast to the phenomenal world we experience in our unenlightened state.

Theravada and Mahayana traditions share many basic principles, practices, and institutional structures. Theravada more unified, coherent tradition based on conservation of early teachings (Pali Canon). Mahayana more diverse; inspired by new body of scriptures and new Buddha/bodhisattva cults. Mahayana represents itself as a ‘higher’ path. Mahayana has an expanded conception of the Buddha, distinctive teachings and texts (especially bodhisattva ideal), and a more diverse sangha.

On the other hand, Mahayana Buddhism evolved in East Asia giving rise to many new traditions. Theravada preserved in Southern Asia.

---

[1] Lee, Yuan Chin, Elder, Ven. Dharma Master Lok To, Sutra Translation Committee of the U.S. & Canada, New York – San Francisco – Toronto, 1995

[2] Chau, T. T. Bhikshu, Wayman, A., The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1996

[3] The original Vatsiputriyas seem to have remained in the East, settling in Kosala, Varanasi and being (as were the Sammitiyas) one of the early schools which still flourished in the homeland of Buddhism in the time of the Pala Empire (8 - 12^th centuries A.D.)

[4] Chau, T. T. Bhikshu, Wayman, A., The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1996, P. 03

[5] Ibid. P. 03

[6] This school also known as = Lokottaravaadins, emerged 200 years after the passing away of the Buddha.

[7] Bapat, Prof. P. V., 1956, 2500 Years of Buddhism, The Publication Division, Delhi -8

[8] Ibid. P. 112

[9]Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#Early_Mahayana_Buddhism - Viewed on 21/11/2009

[10] Urbandharma, Ven. Dr. W. Rahula, http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html -Viewed on 10/12/2009

[11] Bapat, Prof. P. V., 1956, 2500 Years of Buddhism, The Publication Division, Delhi -8, P. 110

[12] Ibid Viewed on 10/12/2009

[13]Buddhistdoor, Ankur Barua, http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/2482 - Viewed on 21/11/2009

[14] Bapat, Prof. P. V., 1956, 2500 Years of Buddhism, The Publication Division, Delhi -8, P. 102

[15] Ibid, Viewed on 21/11/2009

[16]LYCOS RETRIEVER, http://www.lycos.com/info/mahayana-buddhism--theravada-buddhism.html - Viewed on 22/11/2009

[17] Urbandharma, Ven. Dr. W. Rahula, http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html - Viewed on 11/12/2009

[18] Bapat, Prof. P. V., 1956, 2500 Years of Buddhism, The Publication Division, Delhi -8, P. 115

[19] Ibid, P. 115

[20] Ibid. P. 115

[21] Ibid, P. 115

[22] Ibid, P. 115

[23] Ibid, P. 115

[24] Ibid, P.115

[25] Ibid, P. 115

[26] Ibid, P. 102

[27] Ibid, P. 102-103

[28] Urbandharma, Ven. Dr. W. Rahula, http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html - Viewed on 21/11/2009

[29] Ibid, Viewed on 21/12/2009

[30] Buddhistdoor, Ankur Barua, http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/2482 - Viewed on 12/12/2009

The End

Read more...