Chú thích Kāśyapīya

  1. 1 2 3 Warder, A.K. Indian Buddhism. 2000. p. 277
  2. Warder (1970/2004), p. 277.
  3. See, e.g., Mahāvaṃsa (trans., Geiger, 1912), ch. 5, "The Third Council," retrieved 27 Nov 2008 from "Lakdiva" at http://lakdiva.org/mahavamsa/chap005.html.
  4. Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 51
  5. Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 52
  6. Yijing. Li Rongxi (translator). Buddhist Monastic Traditions of Southern Asia. 2000. p. 19
  7. 1 2 Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. p. 55
  8. Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. pp. 55–56
  9. 1 2 Sujato, Bhante (2012), Sects & Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools, Santipada, tr. i, ISBN 9781921842085
  10. Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 54
  11. Malalasekera (2003), p. 556, entry for "Kassapiyā, Kassapikā" (retrieved 27 Nov 2008 from "Google Books" at https://books.google.com/books?id=LEn9i9pnRHEC&pg=PA556&lpg=PA556&dq=Kassapiya&source=bl&ots=5Yok7NZCEu&sig=963iBUcouWirVo7UT4zgpWigqJc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA556,M1).
  12. See, e.g., Brough (2001), pp. 44–45: ... We can with reasonable confidence say that the Gāndhārī text did not belong to the schools responsible for the Pali Dhammapada, the Udānavarga, and the Mahāvastu; and unless we are prepared to dispute the attribution of any of these, this excludes the Sarvāstivādins and the Lokottaravāda-Mahāsānghikas, as well as the Theravādins (and probably, in company with the last, the Mahīśāsakas). Among possible claimants, the Dharmaguptakas and Kāśyapīyas must be considered as eligible, but still other possibilities cannot be ruled out.
  13. Warder, A.K. Indian Buddhism. 2000. p. 6