Sects and Sectarianism

i iln c enh h T s nl tr ddo t h a tg la at g i n eey f s i t u -provoking book that investigates one of the more obscure periods of Indian Buddhist
history, the period that saw the formation of the early Buddhist sects. Drawing upon sources preserved in several canonical languages, Ven. Sujato has tried to penetrate beneath the myths that prevent clear understanding of this period, giving each of the early schools its own fair hearing. His conclusions are sometimes radical--aI l h ndtl i do f wm no o at every step--but his work is illuminated with many sharp insights and ilu su nis s nl a t l g ci. tcl i a du n e t ym t ss e l i o
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
Sects & Sectarianism
Sects & Sectarianism

The origins of Buddhist schools
Bhikkhu Sujato
2006
This work is copyright 2006 Bhikkhu Sujato. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint may be obtained on application to the author. Available for free download online at http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com Available for purchase from www.lulu.com. This is at COST PRICE ONLY. Neither the author nor Lulu receives any royalties for purchases. This book must not be sold for profit.
Santi Forest Monastery http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com
The Sangha of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis has been made unified. As long as my children and grandchildren shall live, and as long as the sun and the moon shall shine, any bhikkhu or bhikkhuni who divides the Sangha shall be made to wear white clothes and dwell outside the monasteries. What it is my wish? That the unity of the Sangha should last a long time.
K A ai Pri i , oi Et n o M rld S h gk n l c c a ,
Contents
Foreword Abstract 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1 2
The t i 4 Uy c n Et id s The Saints of Vedisa TD vsa ha ea p Monster or Saint? 24 41 54 15
Three Sins & Five Theses
Me t ij d 7 o ne h vn 9 r h bj i o V a s a V a vas d 8 ij dsrt a 9 bj a S h v .vi ? a v Dharmagupta: The Greek Missions 98
The M s sMh 1 as d o a r 1 l vii fta 3 a t n r v u Conclusion 122 Appendix: Chronology 125 Bibliography 128
M ga ir r c a a i upph h k rta sh pa i c
T a a a sa h v Dv e a rd p
TM ghika school diligently h aa e h s study the collected Suttas and teach the true meaning, because they are the source and the center. They wear yellow robes. The Dharmaguptaka school master the flavor of the true way. They are guides for the benefit of all. Their way of expression is special. They wear red robes.
These 17 sects are schismatic, only one sect is non-schismatic. With the non-schismatic sect, there are eighteen in all. Like a great banyan tree, t h v ip e h e s r , e rd s e T aaum
TS s o i g has d h qk a the Dispensation of the Conqueror, e via o ul i rt c lc n v y complete, unobstructed knowledge, for the without deficiency or excess. Dhamma is their guide. They wear black robes. The other sects arose TK aa o diligent hap s o e c l yy h are and energetic in guarding sentient beings. They wear magnolia robes. TM k h pt h aa o ri e hs s o a e c lc a c jhana, and penetrate deeply. They wear blue robes. (CBETA, T24, no. 1465, p. 900, c12-18) like thorns on the tree. (a sa 4.90-91) Dv a p
Foreword
THESE TWO QUOTES, each from essential texts, highlight the radical divergence in perspectives on the Buddhist schisms. Are we to see the emerging schools as a corruption of an originally pure unity, or as unique unfoldings of the potential of the Dhamma?1 My own belief is that both of these perspectives are likely to contain some truth, and yet neither of them contains the whole truth. If we reflect on the basic issues that divided the schools, we find much that is reminiscent of contemporary Buddhist dialogue. It is a shame that the complex and profound history of Buddhist philosophical thought becomes so easily reduced to the facile dismissal of other schools simply b u hdg w t npa o ew h nrA e s ei e ih trt f no py ce y aet e ee o os c ea. at s r h irt n n o i s ts much as we would like to imagine that all the answers are wrapped up, the nature of philosophy is such that the basic issues that generated schools of thought remain, and reappear in varied guises in discussions within the school itself. F e p t M ga bchs a t o x l h aa i r a e e h k a tiw h m, s h s e s i s s e transcendental nature of the Buddha. We might regard some of the extremes of this view with amusement - such as the idea that dirt never c stB h b , h a s nnm w ey l t ed d ue s i coi i v d i o u ao b w e i f t t ea n h ds y t g h t o ry h r y usage it address a genuine Buddhist concern: how do we conceive of but the nature of Buddhahood, so intensely human yet so totally beyond our lives of anxiety and fear? This is a lii w i o n e vs i meT a a eu t s h d hv . e n r rd Wl e fl a a a, d i i -c sn h tc (d t l mes d l) i i ihoi r oi o n m la pt s e f i e r n t r , d s oo a i s t e s i that the Buddha was a perfected human, the devotional perspective of the v m ro es s B hs enuo r a aif rd s t u as tgit. s jyT a ie h d a mh qe e to t h vn e e d o i t h
Iei t ih h t r csio e e t sh s g t u a c m f r g wo a t t r r i h c st o o t u y ae i a p l n p p a hb colors of the various schools should not be taken literally.
1
S e c t s
a n d
S e c t a r i a n i s m
Sl , S s o d h o ce m a i rt as d e u ai pa a t m l ert i s s po hl l h iy a h vi n p e l ir s t v s i t eo a ta j a xn n d t s s t e d tt e l e s ig a o ee , h n t e xn bt t n f ml s a d r er oc e i i s s h v ot e e aba eoipe n m tene a r v ns ta lsi ce bodd a l e ar r i k os s c iese n t ln e ss o o c t o sr a substance. This comes across as nave, but in shaping their philosophy they show a consciousness of a fundamental problem of metaphysics: if we allow t te o tg b m dc te te e o he e nh i cei l d h x n f e i c fei t os ft n ei c xn o s n e f o y i u se t eyn oert i odda es d future vtg tS sne t tp a the eh . has d c ieh h a n ri S vi n sr t v t t e tha se tpe T S s r e xl em e a ee t ert i e x i a tsen s rn h as d w in c s y s h s. vi n e v perfectly aware that this appeared to flaunt the fundamental Buddhist axiom of impermanence. But they were trying to find a coherent philosophical interpretation of impermanence based not on ontology, but oal c: pet s t a nue ib nu ea t rn x t h s dt t t caf y ee ti ja e t frx, sfch s e s s p a u e i su su the present is distinguished in that it is operative or functional. To invoke a modern analogy, compare this with the buttons on the Word doce unm mt I tn ha x, o b m p t wn o tco yg el ib n e eei h Iv hur p; y t tl c o a it l s u y o e r e eh r r v ee s a ee t m ei ernWm q t te t b t : tons sea ui h x o h h mt t pe v m a h et . y e nea s o c f u oohi, te o ds s e rt i o lnfi eb ws l o ah as d ra mt i t d u s a h d o t S s u vi n v themselves did, that is, within a Buddhist context, seeking the best way to articulate Buddhist truths. We would need to address the same question fd t S s as p a th i et a b h as d: l i rn , a te a c y e rt i il m me wt h h e vi n f i e n v s r t connects the past, future, and present? This question is much more than an abstract musing. In a devotional religion like Buddhism, it is crucial in forming our emotional attitude towards our beloved Teacher, so present in oc css t roim T a id iht uo in, set t .es s ts rno e y ome i h vn et e r s u se n e rd, p e e n official doctrine of radical momentariness, still popularly treat the Buddha as somehow still existing, resulting in an uneasy dichotomy between the oi nh oaee e h as da o wl f lde prrc s ert ip a o f a tp l st . S p c u i c a u ppi T v vi n rh d v allow a less fractured understanding throughout the community, which might be one reason behind its extraordinary success in ancient India. A n exp tP asoh sd t so ralh u ld t tr n n e a he e e ga i o e t oh t m, gvn k ia tia e x a r onhit w nsr hs t r i s w i ir n lh r ae et te s po h ee ec i o p t sh h et en s t d i t e a s a from the five aggregates that make up our empirical existence. This o s eilu nttn-Buddhist theorists. p n is a, i t s o en e n c bb s h e f o r idr e t o el h s b f I t s w hpe s f oa ad i t s t hpo h e rc hr f m n h a n i ien i x ie e i k ss r c e nt u t m aw ht c a i l a . eu ld w n b t hdc en i t T P ase o l o ei l i b i h ga i r t i eo rn gvn e n d t ft fi i s u
F o r e w o r d
reconci t t r i he io o l u to s l h h yt e cg -s.ih p i i i e w tth f tf t ept n so h g an n eQe o; e their main philosophical efforts went into a sophisticated articulation of h ts w i c ertdt io o l n o h ena f tce n sd f tf c w e rs a hoc e n g -s. e po nt r u r n n eO a more, this is a key issue in modern Buddhist dialogue. How do we reconcile t iey oeil e c ih n i se h t ca oum ie r et e da e eo l fr p a pe w tu nl n a m rt i r xi c n h eb s e of personal identity? This problem is especially acute in the relation between Buddhist and psychological thought. Much of psychology is conce dtu n c r a ige eaot t r w b iah nnn rd l pe hi n i i g o e dta rc a e hl d et et s, jt s f anathema to a literal interpretation of traditional Buddhism. But the psychological approach has developed in response to a genuine problem, the fractured and alienated modern psyche. This is a very different context to what the Buddha was facing when he critiqued Brahmanical or Jainist theories of a permanent and enduring essence that survived death. As we develop our modern responses to such questions, it would seem sensible to recognize that we are not the first generation to grapple with how to apply B h ih r c ea me o hu aw u i n i i o xr o f t d n d s a t a n t r v r e ds . dm s c t fe d m B ho ol In pursuing the historical inquiry throughout this work, then, I take it for granted that the various sects all attempted to articulate and ptse npa stB h th she i riir trt o ed an W na e a e c irt nf u ae i. ex n c n e ee o h ds cg c i md closely, the doctrines of the schools cannot be explained away as simplistic errors, or alien infiltrations, or deliberate corruptions. It would then follow that more sympathetic and gentle perspectives on the schools are likely to be more objective than bitterly partisan accounts. It seems to me that far too much weight has been ascribed to the Dvsa, the earliest Sri Lankan chronicle. This version of events, despite a p a straining credibility in almost every respect, continues to exert a powerful i e o h h vnn oo u it T f t n n n e e se cm a et ha h f c tT a ie fm n d i ec a l e u rd s ln . y tt some modern scholars have treated it favourably only reinforces this tendency. The research contained in this work was primarily inspired by my il ei ef a o eiuo rt T a a nv n trrt f bk i e i h v . ve t hem o t hh r w i e om n o i h k n d h rd n n While we will only glance upon this issue here, one of the central questions in the revival of the bhikkhuni lineage f tT a ierspective is r h h vn o e e p m rd the validity of ordination lineages in other schools. The traditional T a iiwlaia eiu i i c da h vne o h t t bk i ete ar e v rd w u v t t hh s x ntye d e h h k nn s o e
S e c t s
a n d
a a it is claimed, i sdf t a a M yhn a . a h nM y , s c e o h h de d m e ghikas, en r M s and the D vsa asserts that t a a a p a h h e ghikas are none other than the M s jta h d a tuo o b o , w e Vits o v t h sf n y n a h v auk w a cdee m e m k n o i j a, l p oe y sd were defeated at the Second Council, but who later reformed and made a new recitation. Hence the M are t e a a ipet ot h n e sa fr y s rni v adition whose fundamental principle was to encourage laxity in Vinaya. They are stand it is impossible to accept them as part of the same s mi c a h c i communion. It seems to me that this view, ultimately inspired by the Dvsa, underlies the position taken by mam s mh vn a p a n at T a i y i e es n a rd r tyinoo otD vs pt i c r a o . t th h h aa oos o e n d Ie s a nd w w ep sn ih n d a s i i n et patently implausible, and that a more reasonable depiction of the origins of Buddhist schools can be constructed from a sympathetic reading of all the sources. Recently I was at a meeting where these issues were discussed. A Vietnamese monk acknowledged his lineage from the Dharmaguptaka V yabn o n ds r eot M s ia Tt m k thht f h as d n; i a e a n o ie gr e l via e i a m a t r v V ybtT a icid sk i e iauh h vnon tp a t were simply n ;te esnu o e s h a rd te a fy ah i ire l o i i dt a se M y i u n gt t g i u r de c a . s a ,r b h h s n s b i h nT s t et e u t s e n ln to a , a mtT a i h o h vn a n rh d o rg a o s es v e rd e v e e a f D mu r r h at a p aviant1c l deis acmi M s .c e s o aed i sh a as dO h7 o h b s s st l t e r v hs n me s d i c arb e a sa, and their doctrines had been refuted by the n h s tD v d o h a tn y p Kat au e a need to be informed about the other schools. h t,r s t te no vh h w But the reality is that there has never been a distinctively a ia onol gR ese iu n M y n o ra i ear mbk a a V y r dt n .t, hn a ii e n a h o hh d ks bhikkhunis, having ordained in one of the lineages of the early schools, choose to study and practice certain texts and ethical ideals known as ah ao aenl case in ancient India and it M y i s f s ct the a . s , a w ae h nT w s r l , remains the case today. Today, the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis of the East Asian traditions follow the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptaka school, while the C r s ti slt as d ea i rt f we l via nla a o o h a There is, therefore, no tAn d n l i o Ms t . r v s tg aa bk ohhim en p t u h a a iu bk f tV yo o c i sM y k riu r h iai f hn h n hh k no a n view. The Vinayas themselves are entirely silent on the question of the sects. If we wish to understand the relationship between the existing Sanghas of the various schools, then, we must investigate the relationships
F o r e w o r d
between the early schools of Buddhism from whom the Vinayas and ordination lineages derive. One way of doing this is to examine the origins of the schools in question. Here we enter into the swirling and uncertain world of mythology, where interpretation reigns sovereign, and sectarian bias is not merely expected, but is the driving motivation. Given the contradictory, incomplete, and doubtful nature of the literary sources it is unclear whether we can expect to find even a glimmer of truth. But our surest evidence derives from the happy coincidence of the historical/mythic accounts and archeological findings, and it is here that we begin our search. I have set myself the probably impossible task of attempting to communicate a more realistic picture of sectarian formation to practicing Buddhists. Though I use the methods and results of modern scholarship, I do not wish to speak to a purely academic audience. I hope there are some Buddhists willing to take the time to examine history a little more carefully, and not just to accept the polemics of their school based on ancient sectarian rivalries. It would have been nice if I could have digested the excellent work of modern researchers on the topic and simply presented that in a palatable form. But alas, I find myself unable to accept many of the findings of the moderns, any more than I could accept the traditions of the schools. It seems to me that much modern work, while it has accomplished a great deal, is hampered by the problems that bedevil Buddhist studies in general: uncritical acceptance of textual evidence over archaeological findings; bias in favour of either the southern or northern traditions; reliance on inaccurate or mistaken readings from secondary works and translations; simplistic and unrealistic notions of religious life in general and monastic life in particular; lack of understanding of the Vinaya; backreading of later situations into earlier times; and perhaps most importantly, a lack of a et o y s a i i irt ive ot p co f to ts c nm os od m e pi n mh t o lf a r i a , h h ro i dr f h ta n ic r mythic context that gave it meaning. The reader may judge for themselves to what degree I have been able to surmount these problems. Extraordinary thanks are due to Bhikkhuni Samacitta for her help in the Chinese translations, and Bhikkhu Santidhammo helping me understand the nature of schism and community. Thanks are also due to
S e c t s
a n d
Bhikkhu Bodhi, who gave his time to reading my work and offering his comments. Marcus Bingenheimer, Bhikkhuni Thubten Chodren, Bhikkhuni Chi Kwang Sunim, Bhikkhuni Jampa Tsedron, Terry Waugh, Mark Allon, Rod Bucknell and many others have offered feedback and support. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the many donors who have s odyos ,egee y lci t me u r mm kio imtp in se a a pt pe n l fn e f f r h hc ess t k s a e ih t this work possible: s u d, m ,h n o i d s u ud ! h a m In the course of research I have come across several areas that merited investigation, although they are tangential to the main argument of the book. In some cases these are mere technical remarks, while others critique certain specific interpretations of relevant issues, and still others are sketches toward further study. These essays, together with the text of the current book, may be found on the website: http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com
Abstract
THE CONCEPT OF A HAS BEEN EVOLVING IN MY MIND as I pursue this SCHOOL THAT work has something to do with the notion of a i tl a dn o t group of ic ty s ta t i : Sangha who see themselves as in some sense distinct from other Sangha, and who view their own system as complete, adequate for a full spiritual life. This would involve a textual tradition, devotional centres, lineage of masters, institutional support, etc. When these factors are there to a sufficient degree for a particular portion of the Sangha to agree that they themselves constitute such a distinct totality can speak of a school. , we Let us consider the main evidence for sectarian formation, dividing our sources into two groups, those before and those after the Common Era (about 400-500 AN), and see where such a distinct totality can be observed. Within each group I shall consider the archeological evidence first, as that can clearly be fixed in time. The dates of all of the textual sources are questionable, and most of them probably straddle our divide. Nevertheless, I try to assign a place as best I can. The early period (Before the Common Era) Here our main sources are the ar eglic fe okan c oi ee oh h l avn t A ao c de inscriptions and the Vedisa stupas and inscriptions, the doxographical lae avha V and the Sinhalese Vinaya i t (h t n i a t u K t d j k e r t au r ya), n Commentary (which by its definite links with the archaeological evidence is proved to have roots in this period ei a i dh ) m t ocee oka . W g l n tA hs l u legends which, while lacking such distinct archaeological confirmation as the Vinaya Commentary, nevertheless may have at least some origins in this period. TA h inscriptions do not mention any schools or any e okan explicit occurrence of schism. When the edicts say the Sangha has been e ii gt a ehbeen some conflict, but it falls m ui t s e t te a n dh u sh h as d f,s gs t r e
S e c t s
a n d
short of establishing that a schism had occurred. In any case, even if there had been a schism, the edicts assert that it had been resolved. Nor do the A edicts mention any doctrines, texts, or anything else that might okan even hint at the existence of schools. The main sect-formative factor at work here would appear to be the geographical spread of the Sangha, which was to become a powerful force in the evolution of distinct sectarian identities. The inscriptions on reliquaries retreived from the stupas in Vedisa mention several sectarian-formative factors, such as local saints, local institutions, and the name Hemavata, which at least at some time was taken to be the name of a school. But there is no clear and definitive evidence for the existence of a school. Hemavata may be purely a geographical term here. As Cousins observes, no unambiguous evidence for any Hemavata texts has survived, so the status of this school is doubtful in any case. The emergence of a local identity is a natural progression from the geographical spread under A a we have no evidence that the Vedisa community , oa k nd saw itself as distinct from other Buddhist communities. The doxographical literature likewise evidences sectarianformative factors, particularly the articulation of controversial doctrines that characterized certain schools. But there is no explicit acknowledgement of the existence of schools, with the sole exception of the mt o ega at i a eof P ai e k nnt u ld h j i h gv n V ya. n The Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary was finalized much later, but there is definite archaeological evidence that proves the relevant portions must stem from genuine historical records. This is particularly true in the c o e da iah , iw eey a f S saa is h avn t to China s t u s vyb c sit aken e h ann v w h dl a ts d o a x rt B h o rs oh n rl f d aa r nt m t p agu a s ei fe e e ei d g a v n t t d n d h i s o commentaries in the the 5th Century CE. This details an extensive account of the period in question, and finds no reason to mention even in passing the existence of any schools. Lw tA a a o tD a e give i ih d , kj r iv n t k s eokav n r , y d ,. ee A a sa v a ac a , many elaborate stos A at t o gehs course r o w oil ts oOf i fo iu vi hc l e k h nv n o. these legendary works were much augmented over time, but if anything this strengthens our argument: since these texts were doubtless finalized in the sectarian period, there must have been a temptation to explicitly
A b s t r a c t
ac A with their own school. But this was not done, at least so far si s t oka oe a as I have seen. Summing up this period, there is no evidence unambiguously belonging to the early period that mentions or implies the existence of schools. We find only the mention of various forces that lead to sectarian formation, never to the actual schools that resulted from these forces. This remains true even if we allow texts that are actually finalized later, but which probably have roots in this period. The Middle Period (After the Common Era) For this period our primary sources are the inscriptional evidence, the v u h a u, t a s i c na h stra/commentarial literature. r ss c tn e i cm o s d o The inscriptions, starting in Mathura around 100 CE, regularly mention the names of schools. The (e.g.h aa a, etc.) and commentaries (e.g. stras Airk bh o dm K t a, hb regularly mention schools by avh h t Mh , etc.) t au ah a i h t-ak v name, and discuss their doctrines. The textual sources agree fairly well with each other, and also with the inscriptions. The schism accounts again mention similar names and sometimes similar doctrines as the other sources. It is the schism accounts we must discuss in more detail, as they are the main sources from which the idea of an early schism was derived. The main four texts are closely related and must hark back to the same original in certain respects. But in the form we have them today they represent the perspectives of the four main groups of schools. Certain other lists are disregarded here (such as Bhavya I & II) but I believe they will not change matters significantly. These four main texts are: upph a a ta h r rr c( ghika) i ai p c M s V maay e aa a (viaio a is a h p c ca rt :s u s t S a d rn k S ts l u r m b o a a r as dhh d v b trd er he hb e ee tt w t a i irt oh ih h ) npe ge t M v Dvs a ia bjd t i aa hh / h v / a ) p ( V a Sv a M vr ij ahr a a B yI ga a h a( gv ) a I u ld v I a P These accounts can be further divided into two pairs by date. The up c and Vasumitra are earlier, and probably date around tarip rr ia p c h
10
S e c t s
a n d
200 CE. D vsa and Bhavya III are more like 400 CE (although the text T a h p ea of Bhavya III is later still, 600 CE +). T upph h ta er r r c which is the earliest or second-earliest of i ai , p c the schism accounts, stems from the M ghika. This account, which aa h s attributes the schism to an attempt on the part of the Sthaviras to expand the ancient Vinaya, dates the schism about a century after A a we . As o k have seen, this is in perfect accord with all the inscriptural evidence, and with all the early textual evidence. It has been discounted by scholars who have asserted the text is corrupt and chronologically confused. However, a close examination of the text does not support this. The text is, admittedly, a poor and difficult translation, but the chronology of the period in question fits coherently into an overall narrative. The schism cannot be arbitrarily moved back before A a without destroying this context. o k Indeed, one of the main purposes of the narrative is to claim for the M ghika school the mythic authority of Upagupta, a figure closely aa h s associated with A a . o k Vasumitra places the schism at the time of A a , which for his o k short chronology is 100+ AN. This version, which attributes the schism to a dispute on the points P five a t aliputta, is closely related to the Mh and Bhavya III. But we note that, while these three sources a i hb v describe the same event, only Vasumitra connects this explicitly with A a ed r wsc . tie a f o D o fn y ounting the years between the Buddha and ku f t o e A a dating is hoplessly confused: Vasumitra places the events at , the o k Aa , which it says is 100+ AN; Bhavya III places the same events before o k A a the date is 137 AN. The Mh does not name the king, so , but o k a i hb v provides no support for any particular dating. In addition, the story, which i oa u pm laoM a only found in the s ug s o i a k d a te l lc t n a e, n roy e a t c h vis larger and presumably later Mh , ids l h a a i h a a a a hb c t t s l v w h e e tf millenium after the event. From the Mh we can see how the a i hb v S school used these events to develop a distinctive mythos as da rt vi v explaining how they ce bsl d K would provide a te a hia r. This m o eb e ts n i m ample motivation for t as d t s t schism with A a h rt io o e e vi n ac the S s si v a , o k regardless of any actual historical facts. T D vsa was compiled shortly before Buddhaghosa, and is h a ep a therefore significantly later than the upph Vasumitra. ta r rr c or i ai p c
A b s t r a c t
11
Dating 700 years after the events, it is the first text that claims that the schism was pre-A a n, placing it just after the Second Council in 100 AN. o k The account of the schisms has been inserted from a Vasumitra-style text. However, the cause of the schism (textual corruption), the date, and the pee ) ao ly l ( r l pe a V l e c e different. It has been crudely interpolated c s a lm t l into a retelling of the story of the Councils otherwise preserved in the Sinhala Vinaya Commentaries. There is no need to assume that the original context of the interpolated schism account placed the events in this particular historical context; on the contrary, the setting is obviously incongruous. The D vsdating of the schism just after the Second aa p a s Council was probably an invention of the author(s) of the Dvsa itself, a p a whose aim was to establish an exst t f h a ia ci mh o e hh . The l i y s tM us o r v vr historical credibility of this account approaches zero. Finally, like the D vsa, Bhavya III places the schism before a p a Aa . But the events have nothing to do with the account of the o k Dvsa. Rather it attributt ssthf p t s e a p a eh cmo ev os d seh i t i ao i n e s Vasumitra, with dating inconsistencies as I mention above. The lack of mythic context makes this account harder to assess, but no doubt it was pressed into service to authortP aschool. We note that it is ihu lda z ega e gv the two latest sources (Bhavya III and D vsa) that place the schism a p a pre-A a seems that the schism date is gradually getting earlier, a . It o k natural feature of the mythic process. To summarize this period, then, we have consistent and clear evidence of the Buddhist schools dating from the middle period (post-CE). In all of our accounts of Buddhism of this period, the existence and basic nature of the schools is taken for granted and constitutes an essential component. The agreement of the sources as far as the names of the schools, their interrelationships, and their distinctive doctrines is, all things considered, reasonably high, as we would expect since they are describing contemporary conditions. But their accounts of the origins of the schisms, already in the far distant past from their own perspective, are a mass of contradictions. Of the three schism accounts that supply us with sufficient information ( upph ta r rr c Vasumitra/Mh , D vsa), it i ai , p c a i a hb p v a is indisputable that the primary function of the accounts was not to record history but to authorize their own school. I believe this provides sufficient
12
S e c t s
a n d
reason to explain how the schools came up with their various dating systems. Of course, this does not prove that the dates in these texts are all wrong. It is quite possible and in fact very common to construct a mythology out of real events. But given the evident contradictions I think it is sheer navity to use the dates given in these texts to reach any simple historical conclusions. Like all myths, they are describing the situation in their own time (a situation of sectarian Buddhism) and backdating that in search of archaic authorization. Comparing pre CE and post CE evidence Despite the complexities of the situation, which any account including my own must inevitably distort by simplifying, the overall pattern is remarkably consistent. All the evidence of the early period (pre-CE) seems to be quite happy to talk about Buddhism with no mention of the schools. In stark contrast, in the middle period (post-CE) material the existence of the schools is inherent in how Buddhism is conceived. The textual and archaeological evidence is in good agreement here. I conclude that various separative forces gathered momentum through the early period and manifesten e en o c l d ter c fhs ih mg e o e s o towards the end of the early period, as depicted in the upph ta r rr c i ai p c (and various Chinese and Tibetan works). As the question of sectarian identity became more conscious, mythic accounts of the schisms emerged in the middle period. The Mah rs v ains i v h To find a more realistic description of how the schools may have arisen we shall have to look elsewhere. One of the fullest accounts of the origination of any school is found in the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary, which exists in alr tSap d, annhs aa t Pvi han ia nctie nt h ae nemtsk n aeC e rlne is o a d i n tso i S saa isT 6 u s vyb 1 Shan-Jian-Lu-Pi-Po-Sha). da iah ( 4 ann v 2 The Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary recounts several decisive events that took place in the time of k h wantt a a ts A a e aclnen t w . r soi h g h a oTe fi S h a c resolved by the expulsion of cum ky o tt w t op o b oh i h r t n A age t e r s k er h Er gitso iw h eh C c aet l Mg ut,ln h t d ul sl d o l aa l g i hT o i h o e a ts f w p i o c i nw d r reaffirm communal identity. Subsequently Moggaliputtatissa organized the
A b s t r a c t
13
s i uf s a v ua o dThe main purpose of en ts r t rsr f i n g o ineo i psIa d o mi i a o s o t n. this narrative is to establish the credentials of the Sinhalese school. Today we call this school rd but this name invites Taa hv e, various forms of confusion. In particular it is a mistake to identify this s oi h t i w s f tM ghikas at the first c l he hr hp r h a a h w t vs ol o e h o t S a a im t s ssR eh a iai just one branch of the Sthaviras cm are hh v s h . h tM are i t, vrs n who became established in Sri Lanka with their headquarters at the Min d u I e w e t rr t s s a ia Ar a a tr nx h e t ee hh n u h rn i ts yfo ml vr a p. h o te e h v e as the Ms weih r M ar a Il a iai( e s tG to t dw hh v vrs l n e e ne n i nD l r a s ) y l adopt this term. It should be noted that when I refer to texts of this school this does not imply that the school necessarily created the texts in q t;m mne ts eda s dn uiI p et e c t y adw y e e n i y a ts ap b r peo bh s sl o h xa ce os s t M Io csets ru rbhc l t a ia sestexw a o yeh, hh . m a h e e te ts o u vrn e s t e hd ob many of them are shared in common with other schools, with varying degrees of editorial differences. There are two major pieces of inscriptional evidence that derive f t e po fd B h :e o etn h r h a ed Ia u i t A a d a t o e r r onn d s h n i d e m l i y i dm k c s reliquaries at Vedisa. Strikingly, both of these confirm the evidence found in Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary. The Vedisa inscriptions mention the names of several monks which the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary says were s a ine tHaao f t d uln e s s a t em yo a hT C cA n m ir o t s i h ias t eh o i d o s l ne r i n. r A a ol s d h aa s t the Sangha is -c d h etw htl a h os a s m i ( cclt a ks l c e i c s i u yt t e unified, not schismatic!) mention an expulsion of corrupt bhikkhus, which my osv ef w te t ioe i o i as lh itdt ee prt d ul nca a d i ihv s o h h C c hr e ne h i n rt T r n. Ws ll ot Mg ut n g t m ir eo a n h o l ts s ioo ine h ds t a gi aa en ufs a u o e t a ts p is d s i o s has often been comp d t n g t D m a w A aen ufa a r i os d ooh -ministers; e h ksi m and that the Sri Lankan archaeological record is in general agreement with the picture of the missions. These two evidences, while not decisive, provide further points of agreement between the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary and the archaeological record. This correspondence between epigraphic and textual evidence encourages us to take the missions account of the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary seriously as a source for the origins of the schools. The missions account describes how the Sinhalese school was eb e y n ad nhd h the bhikkhuni sl d A as Mi a ia t t s b os ah i k o ha d s ue n gr
14
S e c t s
a n d
Sa meat th adrd bgn uo g i S r h e e r ei ae s ot h t vl e a r e s e s i e t a t e or cs . c b n t different places. While many of these missions cannot be confirmed, Frauwallner and others have shown that there is a general pattern of plausibility in the account. In the current context of the revival of the bhikkhuni lineage in T a a is worth remembering the mission of So h v , it e rd a and Uttara to Suva h i ii l by Burmese to refer to Burma, and by whbv am h si b , c e ed e Thais to refer to Thailand. This mission, which to this day forms a crucial narrative of self-identity for Buddhists in these regions, was said to result in the ordination of 1500 women. Thus bhikkhuni ordination is intrinsic to south-east Asian Buddhism from the beginning. The Dharmaguptakas One of the other missionaries was Yonaka Dhammarakkhita. He was, as his ne i s r m k to l dAa i nf a i a, e o nvfa a lna et mn ta e n a d e G k ,i a e d) o e c e A n (x r O h s . major figures in the missions narrative, he features in the Pali tradition as a master of psychic powers as well as an expert on Abhidhamma. He went to the Greek-occupied areas in the west of India. Long ago Pryzluski, followed by Frauwallner, suggested that Dhammarakkhita be identified with the founder of the Dharmaguptaka school, since dhammarakkhita and dhammagutta have identical meaning. Since that time two pieces of evidence have come to light that make this suggestion highly plausible. One is the positive identication of very early manuscripts belonging to the D mu ki enro xlh w x tf h a ts tG h en a wr ep tn a g a n a r g, c e e c i r pa h d a i e t y e eo d Yonaka Dhammarakkhita. The second is that the phonetic rendering of his ne tS saa is Chinese version of the Sinhalese a i eda iah (the mn u s vyb h ann v Vinaya commentary) eeye rrga arh vn r e D mu t t it n s h at re a dl d a t h n m r h el n t sr ts yh t D ma i W a o h ea e s t h h aka a kt . s t a vl x a a e o e t e t t D mu k a t dy ca g n Wlh i h a t w s eba r M a a h t s a g a sa r pa r t ei o l i i t n gl . e s traditionally identified with the great disciple of that name, I think it is more reasonable to see this as a reference to Moggaliputtatissa, the patriarch of the Third Council, who is also regarded by the Mstr n . a hpe jfa e a iai s iu re t ec u i s i hh v a eo e vrs h f dW r u r ls ds g n e s fy t t i e e n tMsde aa ts as warring schismatic h a iai nh h g a, e hh v atD mu k not vrs n r pa
A b s t r a c t
15
parties, but as long-lost brothers parted only by the accidents of history and the tyranny of distance. The M rt i l vi n a s sd a vs W rr t h o r o, M s the history ied h i f s ot as dins, t g t e r o c l e l vi h ao t d u hs h a t r v is decidedly murky. In my opinion the most persuasive theory for the origin of this school was again provided by Frauwallner, who argued that they were originally based in Mathura. This would align this school closely with the famous arahants of Mathura: v a Ug a n p p v s d a t s ai n u . ai n features as a revered Elder and Vinaya master in the Vinaya accounts of the Second Council. He is said to have established a major forest monastery, which is called Urumu in the northern sources and Ahoga in the a ga Pali. Later on, it was to this very monastery that Moggaliputtatissa resorted for retreat. The spiritual power Moggaliputtatissa derived from his t i r m ar aev c i got i n s fs o t w ds i n c A a m v s e ne sc e on o e ai ot s n y i n vi k i n entrust him with the task of purifying the Sa and organizing the gha mi.h t eb mt fh M a in Tsh sl e o t a iai n s s u e ts n s o ah i e hh v vrs d n D mu k c l s tw t v l gte h a t ioy o e ih i e i e a g a s s ac dt e s n .s n r pa l si e a h ai e I v n a possible that So , pe r Mg ut rp, a t rp o o l ts per k h e t f gi a a e t i a e co a ts p is co s s lm pn r aka (-v )w hs e hh v iy i l f m as l o p si eg , h c t a iai s i i a h i n c e M vrs n n onoig o b i len f v a t ra l e u er y sd r n h dt n wl dc de do s d e ii e n a d e t c e m ai n forest tradition of Mathura. I aa rh y tdnM u oioh f ul e oh ic a r r s t F wns o fes t ta i fe r l tr e t i hn g n Mas d c l f d bn r,et u s l viah i u t ece t i o e a s o o o irt n wl e s t r v os n oc h d m inevitable that we should seek the origins of this school as somehow related th as d oa hs or a f o of the oert i f .i h oier n tS s K r s o i t o e vi n v m T c lg d m n other A amissionaries, Majjhantika. After serving as Mi n o k ad ha ns ordination teacher i n P aliputra, he wt K i dt s t eta r eb eh no a sl de m n ah i s oa k ns e rt a hau including the c lt n ahS T c n h l o e o r w t as d i c t vi . s o , v association of Majjhantika and Mahinda, agrees with the versions of the northern schools (except they generally place the date earlier). In conclusion, we find that there is no evidence whatsoever of the oii oc lu ocmih aw r a fhs e s n e r l it g o s od ts t no -defined sense nn o h i ry required by the Vinaya. The emergence of Buddhist monastic communities
16
S e c t s
a n d
a ic tip a o r g u a tA a ed ss t a s o l cer a f h n r i tl by uda l t eo po dn o t r b cr dl e t i e y r k i as a natural consequence of geographical dispersion and consequent differentiation. The accounts of conflicts that we possess today are more profitably read as mythic responses to events at the time the accounts were written, not as genuine histories.
Chapter 1
T yi h nE s e id U t c t
AA BH E T THREE PLACES concerning the Sangha, which have O PL E D S IN K UI D I S C b mk n tiEt h s im, if s e e o a e h d i a s e nt w c n s Ss i. s m or d e a o w h cm c T i s n a s l p a i e d te c oo o nhr a A a r bn n b epa smes lt i o lf c y x t nf d ca h nos by l e h et u i r os t k time the Sangha was already fragmented. The edicts depict a state of unity in the Sangha, not a state of schism. T te ti bfcts f d t o hh tan riroa o oh i er alg ini nr u ne n e ni l e s i e n zy p Mr Pri o rh , K m i rg t fr i i Etf n , ca o b v i tsd p, l d a t d s i an a o sa l c S a S hn a n y s a s e i r e snl tret n u, k ct o a and tg nho b ePl t pl A t r ageu e e pa os i tv i u o t w a tA aaa i , n Vedisa. These are all within the older realm of Buddhism. Tetsc osn r aoh ha as hd i u iehn t t n h ei n t kmi s t wa e g a c t A a s t, sr t t Sh been made united, 2 any bhikkhu or bhikkhuni who divides the Sangha s l me wr c e d ep.e etd h d at e al s dlaT S h id ob d ue o a y t a w a t c s l o n h l rh c d a that this united Sangha, both bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, should not be divided as long as my sons and grandsons shall rule, and the sun and moon shall shine, for it is my wish that the united Sangha should remain for a long time.3 The Sarnath edict adds that a copy of this edict is to be made available for the lay devotees, who should review this message each fortnightly uposatha. Ts mt t S ha e auis ea ht e h ha as n dn d gt e t n a en hb ei gs a e tt g em f u sn e actual, not a theoretical event, to which these Edicts respond by warning of the grave consequences of schismatic conduct. The fact that the Edicts are
Sh ](ghe)e*[sa]*mag(e) kate; Kosambi: (sa)ma(ge)* kate* : c[sa sa ghas[i]. 3 I he -ti sa c ik h mi ghe samage cilathits. i ky e
2
18
S e c t s
a n d
found in several places suggests that the tendencies to schism were widespread, and, if the Edicts were implemented, there may have been several episodes. The Sarnath Edict starts with a partially defaced reading: p[ t w he te e g P l ] h s sber t p i e o rr o a u, c m i fn i aliputta. This suggests that, as one might expect, the schismatic forces were at work in the capital, probably centred there. If this is so, then A ai u no s sc s h os tt t i k n i ro ministers would, as usual, be for them to follow his personal example. Thus wcd i o crcs t ct e w b e u tk a nliih a la i y o o h f ear n e p dt t A a l n t s i i a l h k personally, and possibly several lesser repercussions throughout the realm, dealt with by the ministers. There is no precedent in Vinaya for a secular ruler to interfere in t w i en ei. ih iav e S h h a tS h o a sh tV yna an i y ha a p t Wl en ess a a s n gs r n o e a i g g that is competent to look after its own affairs, with a tacit assumption that the governing powers will provide general support, now we have a ruler directly imposing his will on the Sangha. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that the Sangha seems to have welcomed this interference. This could only be explained if the problem was a genuine one, which the Sangha was unable to deal with using its normal procedures (sa ghakamma). These procedures operate by consensus, and so assume a basic level of sincerity and co-operativeness. This is how the dispute was solved at the Second Council. But if the problematic individuals disrupt the very functioning of sa ghakamma, the Sangha is powerless. Schism & Unity To understand the Unity Edicts, we must first consider the nature of schism and unity. In Buddhism, the original and archetypical schismatic is the B h w eon v tthe Judas or the Set of Buddhism. His u a idu D da d c c ie a ds k s at , story is too long and too well-known to repeat here.4 All stories of schism have Devadatta in the back of their mind, and all tellers of those stories are struggling to balance two forces: to justify and authorize their own separate school, while at the same time strenuously avoiding any shadow of s e na er linv t fpt u s t t a o n D da oi gt h h el g e as t s gi t y f w i at o r . o o n
A i oa c t e a s r t a pr o o v t s a y l ua u f at t t p p lc n D d o c a y http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17. An alternative view in Ray.

4
Te U i E i s h n y d t t c
19
Thi p n tUy i ftt i g i a r i e i d , he n y o s pe n s a t h n Eto er o A a t c r s ml o k uses echoes exactly that of the famous passage where the Buddha warns Devadatta that one who divides a unified Sangha will suffer in hell for an a , es e o a uiavd n rejoice in e wr o w en dd e a a o h an hm s i n e k f e i S hwill i d g5 heaven for an aeon. This phrasing occurs repeatedly in the passages that follow.6 When the Sangha, having been divided on one of these issues, holds separate uposatha, p r or sa aa v ghakamma, a schism results.7 This parallels the meaning of schism given in my Oxford Reference DirT sr n a Church into two Churches or the secession in :e ai f c a ea o t yh p t o o o g p i oc ai l ycie s wbn f r o g drl cn ,. fn . iee ao w toi di a e d r e tl o u n t , p rt f c I l n si ,e of our tasks to determine whether all of the historical divisions of Buddhism into different schools, or indeed any of them, were schisms in this sense. Contemporary discussion of this question has emphasized two rather different forms of schism. Bechert uses the terminology of sa ghabheda to refer to a split of an individual community, and ny e ia d kb a h to refer to the process of school formation. Sasaki uses kammabheda and cakkabheda to make a similar distinction: kammabheda occurs when two groups hold uposatha separately within the same boundary, while cakkabheda refers to the splitting of the religious community on doctrinal grounds.8 The key point in these distinction is that the formation of schools does not necessarily imply a sa ghabheda. To clarify this point let us look more closely at the Vinaya passages, starting with the Pali.
Pali Vinaya 2.198: sa gha samagga karoti. Incidentally, these passages also clarify that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the case that all schisms entail that the schismatic will be doomed to hell for an aeon. This only applies if one deliberately and maliciously divides the Sangha, declaring Dhamma to be not-Dhamma, Vinaya to be not-Vinaya, etc., in the manner of Devadatta. 7 Pali Vinaya 2.204. Uposatha is the fortnightly recitation of the monastic code; p r is the mutual invitation for admonition at the end of the aa v yearly rains retreat; sa ghakamma is a general term for such formal o a f c t s t a a ci r t( sp ). h n l g io p md e g, u o a u aa S hi d d i a n n nn 8 My response to Sasaki is at http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/sasakiandschism. In brief, I argue that the historical shift from cakrabheda to karmabheda is not sufficiently established by S k vn awlt steo a i ic n o re e s s s d e d uar h t a ee , dh e e w as representing the informal and formal aspects of the same process: karmabheda is the legal juncture at which cakrabheda is complete.
5 6
20
S e c t s
a n d
D dao c c n tl gw a sa ds e asn t a eh y dn v t c uos de i o of at d ci o a n gi hs e a r p inhe r a t f cm hut s: u rb gel a g i o h .els a l oi td eeio r i T r if s e hi t i t t n ss b a ee yA l unified Sangha, mutually rejoicing, without dispute, with one recital, dwells i mrHere the notion of unity is closely connected with the holding n f c o9 o t . of a unified recital of the p imokkha on the fortnightly uposatha, as signified bhe ror a yey m ne l sentiment is repeated in the concluding tkt c e e i The t . lines to the p imokkha r a h each and every one should train, e l erein c: i tT w uyi u l i ,h dug i n,h tr c w o it. t i t u e i iu si10 ht w m ajn t tpn og But we are a little unclear what exactly is meant here: does unity require all monastics to participate, at least potentially, in the same sa ghakamma, or only those in one particular monastery? The definition of iat e s: n d e an t i tse u e l bw yi a S hh s ha n d i l a f mn a aa o e i t o s f l e Ui e s g tf m cm i siw i emm a b d o u n agt tseo t o a11 This refers to m n ,y i ha ot n h n ni u r s c ny . the Sangha within a particular boundary, rather than the universal Sangha e re n o f dc s f o i i t u r o. h t This is clarified further in the passage where the fortnightly recital is laid down: Now on that occasion the group of six bhikkhus, according to their assembly, recited the p imokkha, each in their own assembly. The Bs ner ed t m e hh ys l l d ec d an aa :iu oh d e O da rrg tt k , o s e l gih t B e r k su u not, according to your assembly, recite the p imokkha, each in your own assembly. Whoever should thus recite, this is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow, bhikkhus, an act of uposatha for those who are unified. A t t hht g Bs nai nh h iu o t e s Ohl de e k s u : l d es n bk h h h e T e a d dnnt o a f w ac uposatha fh w a n d o a o o o hr i wt r s o ui. h te ef T e extent is there unification, as far as one monastery, or for the wl r Bs ner ed t mt h eh hl d ec d an aa : o a? e s Oda rrg tt I e tT e e l gih e e r a ,k s it t t arom ar l bk ,fi o e s a e ne12 l hh uio en f s o t. o iu n a w c n xd a n s y
Pali Vinaya 3.172: samaggo hi sa smanvd g a o aa n h m d oia o o m vm ekuddesh vr i o i t p u a sh ' a. t 10 P i 47 t s e a a h m d i a n .: t a h s g i man l a 2 h b e a g s o i y 0t a b v m e a V a a me h aa i h bt vd n s i a . ia e i t n v m hk a kb i 11 Pali Vinaya 3.172: sa na s a o ag s han s mg m a oma v k o g s a s a hito. anm ma sy 12 Pali Vinaya 1.105
9
21
Thus the notion of unity of the Sangha is closely tied to the fortnightly uposatha r a a r lfa oh a acm a e t s i am o fe n o u ci io at f t tn u i i a r n tSh m n gs l identity. For normal purposes, the Sangha should gather all who live within the same monastic boundary (s ) to recite the p m imokkha each fortnight. Defining schism in this way would seem to narrowly legalistic. But the story of Devadatta (and those of bk oo b dm) t hh fs i Cp h iu K m a a eks a n depicts a gradual deterioration of the harmony of the community, a disintegrative process that persists despite repeated efforts to contain it. The actual performance of the separate uposathas is merely the legal act that sets the seal on schism. While this formal act is technically limited to one local Sangha, there is no doubt the repercussions were felt to be relevant for Buddhism generally. And so despite this localization of sa ghakamma it seems that on major occasions the Sangha would gather in larger groups to perform acts that were valid throughout the monastic community. Such were the First and Second Councils. These Councils combined aspects of Dhamma and Vinaya, which is hardly surprising since for the Sangha, Vinaya is merely the day-to-day application of Dhamma. The form of the dialogue in the Councils echoes that of the sa ghakammas, even though the procedure for a Council is not laid down in the Vinaya as a sa ghakamma. The narratives are included within the Vinaya Skandhakas, and both Councils discuss Vinaya i sr F C chitl rd nrs dh s : t i o i e p ds amo l nt s fh r ul du e u o e s n t see n i u o r e t , s re a e i sr S n o ie n i w ho tte t s ; t e d ul P t h p p hv . s f h c C ch eos i r e ee u oeo e nt T n c md n In each case, the decisions of the Council is clearly held to be valid throughout the whole of the Buddhist Sangha. Startlingly, this has no precedent or justification in the Vinaya itself. As we have seen, the Vinaya treats acts of sa ghakamma as pertaining only to an individual monastery. Only the Buddha laid down rules for the Sangha as a whole. But with the Buddha gone, there is no procedure for universal Sangha decision-making. The Elders no doubt did the best they could, and their procedure has met with general agreement in the Sangha since then. But it must be remembered that they acted without explicit justification from the Vinaya.
22
S e c t s
a n d
This is not so much of a problem as might appear. Actually, for those of us who live the Vinaya every day, it is obvious that much of it operates as guidelines. There are countless situations that crop up constantly which are not explicitly dealt with in the Vinaya. The Vinaya itself includes principles for how to apply precedents in new situations. Very often, the rules of Vinaya are phrased in a legalistic manner which makes them quite easy to get around in practice, if one is so inclined. And s Mnr yy yk tV yoaick. o y a eaI u oh iaunl heI i a t s on en yck n m h : f w a l in ac t is, perhaps, only in the minds of academics that the Vinaya minutely g rey ef os In real life this is simply impossible. o nv ft a n l v se a o m kife. e rc This has nothing to do with the question of whether one takes a rigorist or laxist approach to the rules, emphasizing the letter or the spirit. It is simply to acknowledge the plain fact that the rules only cover a limited amount of contexts, and beyond that we must use our best judgement. As its very name suggests, the Third Council, which we shall see has close connections with the Unity Edicts, stands firmly in the tradition of the Councils. It is presented as an act that is valid throughout the Sangha in exactly the same way as the First and Second Councils. And like them, if one t txitV y sf u iooh o io r o a een if jfif e ul u i e nh ia eo s a e d m a t rt t r C c l i n t n yd c , have a hard time. Nevertheless it is accepted within the Vinaya traditions as a valid act. A a Uy a n o n i k d t W h drlode t h hi iny t eo cf c i xl a o a mds g t s l eyne a wt k d n a h u au sr c l y Aa n i i a n tg hb me is s me quite incredible that h a ase aui I e to e n ae d n dt m Sh n f. e e A a ut ttb oe teiacross a large area of wl khr l ct rEt o o a e u tre ed k d e oe a h c s the Buddhist heartland if he was referring to a mere local dispute. A a o k had a big mind: he was used to thinking in the broadest pan-Indian terms. Surely when he said the g h b me i must have S h ae a ui he a a se d n d n n f e meant the Sangha in a universal sense. Since his language here is derived closely from the well-known story of Devadatta, he was implicitly placing this event in that context, seeing the conflict as a serious one threatening the Sangha as a whole, and the corresponding resolution being a similarly magnificent act (with, need one add, altogether pleasant kammic results for the unifier!). While the
23
problematic e t P vs ea n t aliputta itself may well have involved only one central monastery, 13 the presence of the Unity Edicts in several places me ca hA a atst t p e a nj a ir t mn el n ayn l o s k t t a o e hoi o l e y tt s ei t k n t u o p g r, u l in one monastery. T lu A aeua e i S hwne h n g u, h t i a a h u e g eo ss s u e n es a a k sc h n d g, f d in its technical Vinaya sense, as we have seen, refers to a local Sangha. But this is the only language he has, and he must use this to link the story with the recognized vocabulary. Buddhists at that time, as today, would have understood and used the words in a more informal sense than required by the limited technical definition in the Vinaya. It would, therefore, be going seriously beyond the evidence to assert that the statement that the Sangha has been made unified proves that there had previously been a state of schism. 14 Again, the Vinaya texts usually depict the situations as black & white: either there is a schism or unity. But they are legal texts whose character is to seek clear-cut black & white definitions. Reality, unfortunately, always comes in shades of grey. We shall see that the accounts of the Third Council depict a state of unrest, assau se a rsnu tfti f ns a n d rl t s u irs u i g ei n nod t il tp h n n o i r u e ev h e y e t e c n o o tS ho ays i n r beta nt ha a myaT ch l dc s i y h en f n e. s ay p d ye e g r rh a d e i e u ,t t state of a formal schism is not reached. It is neither schism nor unity. In such a context the Unity Edicts are in fact exquisitely accurate. They depict the arrival at a state of unity, without asserting that there has been a schism. Ws lh a dA ae t h a n d e e o t s i mn a e d i t hd e k d o ah u n , k t h ui h f e Sangha of one particular school, or the Sangha of all Buddhism? The ee o eis saiu t A a sty n vn f et o u boya w er nic t d h n g sh o a i o de h c w m ul t k s nl e sectarian and tolerant in his outlook. No sects are mentioned, either by name or by implication. There is a famous list of texts that o Aa k recommends for the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis to study. While there is some doubt about the exact texts that are referred to, they all belong to the early shared strata of non-sectarian Suttas and are not sectarian texts, such as tAim . B e a a l y s n by a careful h b hm A e r yI ne bh e h a asc t s c cr eo d h s: t a l w analysis of historical records and inscriptions that the king was not partial
13 14
TA aK u m h r o k a eo r kr . km ut Contra Sasaki 1989, 186
24
S e c t s
a n d
15 t r ne nt a aWithout any serious evidence pointing o d y t o en . w s si f S h aa c o h g
in another direction, then, w a nc l t A ae t en lou h mnh c o nd a o a e y ce t k t entire Sangha was unified. A a cglaaa ia a relations. The t n dsc g S h os sa k a il eh e n -state e nn g Sangha was set up as an international self-governing body, and the role of the rulers was to support, not to control. The Vinaya accounts of the First and Second Council mention no royal involvement. Surely it must have tn a it n r f t t r d a l a a jn u aio o o e e r tl k m rtil ir k ir s a iy e o s t cs A a nf o m c . io s e a Could this have arisen due to the sectarian disputes? Could, say, an a mteh x n rfea t n t el t r eo te tt o a a e h mt d g nv e a ae t r n l e n ao u r c u h h i n s g e such a pass? This hardly seems reasonable. We can only imagine that there was a serious crisis w h rail A ah woa e h pol ve . e e k t i en nv o W n l t c s l od k y o h texts we see that there is in fact one such record: the account of the Pali tradition, especially the Vinaya cmt Sapd,ds o er an i a i m ny mtsk n t a a C e vi S saa is In addition, a short passage hs e n da iah . ie r u s vyb n s o ann v16 f t aa r h h Vinaya may give us a clue what actually happened. o e ghika m M s The Third Council Tm syl tTdulP h at t o e i o i e io e f C cn n rl h h s r n i aliputta, held on account of many corrupt, non-Buddhist heretics17 seeking gains and honour, many of whom entered the Sangha fraudulently by ordaining themselves, thus making the normal functioning of the Sangha impossible:
Bechert, Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Mahayana, 26 16 TS s aa is a hsi C mt tn hu s vyb Sa Vyo er kt ed a iah i il n ann v s ne a m ny e e a aa o China and translated by Sa ghabhadra about 489 CE. The title is a reconstruction from the Chinese (at CBETA, T49, no. 2034, p. 95, c3 it is referred to as anb hesl o, S sah ix l k n u s v) s ti n d a is T t it w . t e despite the fact that there is a good English translation by Bapat and Hirakawa. Bapat and Hirakawa follow the Taisho in treating this as a tsof Sap d, o t n t rno rlnt an ia u h o h e cf aa o emts tg e t e s e nt i h a k l h y e pe h many differences from the existing Pali text. In fact Guruge is surely correct igg t S saa is n tslation of the n u t t u s vyb o r a ih h d a iah i t a r n a e ann v s a n Sap d;i eov ui m nef c r an iw t w amhcm, dre e mts h h h a k l t e e c o ohi n a n t f e s e too far-reaching. The passages I have compared would support the thesis that it was an earlier version of the Sinhala commentary that was used by Buddhaghosa, adapted by him in minor ways to conform to the M v ptia i nemr h r a i v i o T me ail p nsc hh s e i h k t qy o tta vr i w n s s uu i t ii an . a ol document. 17 D vsa 6.47: Ty b a p a i h ds c a a , t la ina ra h h h s aka m a i v k r Sa as s i y a t h h a v kh h t a n e s s a Described in more detail at i a s ty a m a . D sa 6.35 as: pa g a a ld, and at p ava i n ' kk araj ci e a l gh a i c D vsa 6.37 as: ka i a p a j dk n a lh n . v a ad
15
25
The heretics, whose gain and honour had dwindled to the extent that they failed even to get food and clothing, 18 went forth in the sn a s seeking gains and honour, each declaring their own twisted a v shsa aiV yT e o ng t i:iD mtin o hi tne e i m ,s iah w d o i wT sh hs a. s d ah going forth, having shaved themselves and putting on the yellow robe, wandered into the monasteries, intruding on the uposatha, p r , and sa aa v ghakamma. The bhikkhus did not perform uposatha together with them.19 The details that these monks were misrepresenting Dhamma and Vinaya, a t t i douposatha, p r , and sa nh h n en da e t d tyr u aa v ghakammavo le en a doubt that the authors of this passage had the Vinaya precedent of the Sa b a a ai ija dn EtThe texts g h k n k mds A a i si20 h e k d a nu s ki h d . a d h h n ,t o d i c s are quite consistent in this point: the good monks did not perform uposatha with the heretics; in fact, the uposatha at the central monastery was interrupted for seven years.21 This clearly means that there was no schism in the legal sense (kammabheda), for this requires that separate uposathas be carried out within the same s . m Accordingly, inep the first account of the troubles 22 tD vsa h a a does not mention schism (bheda). But, in a seeming contradiction, the second version of the same events23 mentions bheda,24 saying that 236 years
C a 6.34: Mhakop b h s , f a sa . v D p a ca r a u a a hb s pjd s n lo k u j de i Pb a rt p ud aah k i u lh. hla k t t dk s i h y h ai 19 Sap d 1.ol hhhst osn r an i .A bweiu yA a ie mtsk 5 l e t k s o k ms a 3s o bk a i: t do r uposatha w h t. ma W ot f e n em pr o ie c a titthiyehi saddhi t rsn y h e a i( uposatha r km i a ot . ) 20 Similar concerns are reflected elsewhere, for example in the Sthavirian San Lun Xuan, composed by Jia-xiang between 397-4 h ii 1A a e 9tt n :tt m Magadha there was an u awho greatly supported Buddhism. Various pk a s heretics for the sake of gains shaved their hair and went forth. Thus there came to be the so-c d iwn hh oh M a s a feg iu fo a ew l t-dlk s wm h v a lh e e l bk , i d t h h i(CBETA, T45, no. 1852, p. 9, a22-24) ee cf . 21 ED vsa 6.36: A p lj psi sa . a gp .a r ej a n p t , i s ln v t oh y aa a i u a i a Sampatte ca vassasate vassa chatti sn .else s tc aa a i Or Sap d 1: km av p t p h an i .a et s i soa i mts 3 o s a n oh cj a k 5 sr t s u a u ci a j . 22 D vsa 6.34-42 a p a 23 D vsa 6.43-5 u ia z cp it a p a 8 e t p a oloh p sa . t h admlne a D o s hr i , Dv a t a frequently includes more than one version of the same events. 24 D vsa 6.43. Nh etv aes i t a p a ia d esa a n a sati, Puna k n u a s v hi k t i s t s ct y b o y ta m a. h ai h v n umOther verses use terms related to e jh e a t o d a rd ' t t
18
26
S e c t s
a n d
a tB ht bheda aerep e ei f h u an e t e d :o r e r d ah r f hu mT a a h o o se h v . s s t r rdT still does not suggest that there were separate uposathas or anything else t m tat e f a h .ep is, of course, h i car arl i T D vsa a g h ci o ss h a t h re z m cm a mythic verse rather than a legal text, and we need not read the use of bheda here as confirming that a schism had in fact occurred. Actually, schism is too strong a word for bheda, as bheda is used very commonly to mean r n v n ai tn ssce while schism in s a ,i , l . ao o n t e t d iay, , lr f ts, p i io nse ilt o x ao s sc English only really corresponds to the more formal idea of sa ghabheda as the deliberate division of a monastic community. I i emtskhw i e c f me t n Sapd t e g x t i o i t an i a m tp tn r s h a t h eod formal mention of schism. But this does not speak of bheda at all. After the p l ae Pl r o l tse t an s re r ipa gi aafs t e om o n u, g ut r ct ai bs s a t M a ts l h i p i e s u (adhikara had arisen in the Sangha. 25 In like manner, the dispute is a) referred to as an adhikara a throughout the following paragraphs. This means that there was a problem demanding resolution by performance of a sa ghakamma.ai s still pending, there cannot have been a I e a f s w ns u schism at this point, because one does not perform sa ghakamma with schismatics. From the Vinaya point of view, there was no schism. What were the heretics teaching? The heretical imposters are depicted as propounding many teachings, such as eternalism, partial eternalism, eel-wriggling, and so on, a list familiar to any learned Buddhist as the 62 views rt neaa Sa ee t r j u. fd h h t The u i Bml t a 26 mention of the 62 views is conventional, and does not represent the actual views of the heretics. We might wonder why the heretics were described in this way: what are the implications or connotations of these views, as the Buddhists of the time would have seen it? In the Pali canon, the 62 views are all seen a ri r tr h sf i al hnpa i s i g m eoey b f itrt s s g f ho r oe i s. s eei p no n te l n eT irt n e f o explicitly stated in the Pali Sat ia ya u Ny tk:
bheda, te y a e s t o e cg . b h t mn t i f ths5 u e h etdr o t e i:3 tr e h e c h an 6-4: un Buddhavacana bhidi visuddhakacana su iva. S et iv v r d a ' bn di ta a bp ha o h v t bi n l e m eo 25 Sap d 1: a na an i .U n d i adhikara, ta mtsk 5 p n d a a 3 p a i a nacirasseva kakkhabhavissati. na kho paneta ki a a s e majjhe a m k s v n ap m n a t v se se at i an a u t 26 D / 1 1s Tt na r f a sa 6.26-33. The N A / , ibndni . v 1 2 2 l i aS k C a D T a ne o a s. D t p S s ayb r:E T n 4 p 4 9 u s vah ae B , , 1 , 8 2 d a iv gs T 2 o 6 . , -b1. ann is e C A 4 . 2 6 a
27
s tt i th t r a ;se T e we e a t h a j te w h 6 i v s g ne h h v s e 2 s w u i B m l e i, d a householder, exist when identity view exists, when identity view
27 d ne t do i o o i eots e ts y net s xh t x .
B tS vio i mSah slnh uh as d e n t se twe iit tert i r f s vi n s v o h a u, ii r o r t lm a e respects, does not mention the 62 views of the Braa .t, t hj I ah x m l sd e t n te a e s leo ss v saiv sa la i y nn i o leobgeos (), views m mtse ff w fe,w fo j p iv w ei , ni u v o esi aisi f a i sd ucs t uc n a i . h p u np u o o 28 This makes us consider whether the emphasis on the 62 views of tB m li b sa b o e hh .c s e h r a m t a t naf M Ooe ea j g e er i t a ia u t h h a ci s h a vr f r h Saes nn aa t, vii n t vi u iff d D mu k as d a o rr s tt iu ih g a S ,dh e n ts o l r pa rt n v e s o and must be regarded as part of the shared heritage. But there is reason for tk t tMs a t pi r c s i h i h h a iai reh a u d u w i ga e hh v tt i r l i r t n n t vrs ed s t a s e h n c o special reverence. I e c nf F C c h a iai a n i c tt i o i e hh vn d tr o o e s ul Ms e h au h r n t t , vrs m tB m l es aus lat s o know of h r a tf ol t uklh c l ea j hi f Sa n l e hs h a r t l t i o r o we , e e p e aa t.iu d u shtpen x t D mu k hh o s e t h lmt c t h g a B k B i gs ts ce e h r pa k h gt a ia is not a matter of chance or of haphazard arrangement, but of deliberate design on the part of the Elders who compiled the canon and set it in its cef . goes on to reflect on the Dhammic relevance of this uno rt m He r r29 pt:ja r t t sioo t st nn oo.s os , e ossna a etc sn.t u ti r fpt,n t ea i i . s u n m t i sd h re u a i to the total collection of discourses spoken by the Buddha, so does its principle message provide a prolegomenon to the entire Dispensation if d , m t g t t Sa rn hif r t. e o i s eh h u re t esc s e n g u s a i t ess f a eI d e h gt ts t pe t r t ln to o e hla rt w h tse nustD a f et p ,hi weeb u Saf t if ti v ,ihu q tto e h h go hg e l d se t h g concentrate on the ethical and meditative components of the path. But while the position of this Sutta fulfils an important Dhammic role, we should not neglect the political dimension of this choice. In asserting that the first priority of the Elders who organized the Dhamma at
S 1i v di a i hjb i; k N. i i s 4:nm d a 3 y c n tb m l a n o hi h r a ht i h i na i g e m , gahapati, di ok a h sh ik a h ai s i t n a y a a h a y i k d i ao s i y y i t k d i sn , y t h ot ni t . 28 (SA 570 at CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 151, a12-13) 29 Bodhi, The Discourse on the All-embracing Net of Views, 1
27
28
S e c t s
a n d
the First Council was to condemn the 62 kinds of wrong view, the Ms a ha t pe t ta o a a iai sl d yce e o et A ad hh v eb e mh rd fhc f kn vrs t s n i i cn r s o Moggaliputtatissa in cleansing the Sangha from the 62 kinds of wrong view at the Third Council. Wbn set t c nl hh vn n e gtu ch h a i M ( e o sta e n c a iaia i p t oa vrs d Dharmaguptaka?) account of the First Council has been adjusted to provide a precedent for the Third Council. 30 This suspicion is confirmed when we l ah n o r tmten ea iai i o te lt Saeo ih hh v F o to h u k y e t nn id t M r vrs s n t C c h h Sa i n nht oj a, o i em a u. s cse rf tta ul Sa patT c e tsy Aat nt , a l th o r o u s powerful king of Magadha, who at the start of his reign had committed a terrible act of violence, but, experiencing dreadful remorse, made a d a p ios o ii t rg n eu a r t u ce nfsn o ee t B h a i b ns m c l fo h s o f ih d c i s k u , ds D ma arg tM sources, later sponsored h a d c it e hh v a , , ono m n cd h a ia vrsin tF C c w a aw uio a h ht hi o i o al pel g Ma ,o t e s ul k so ork f g a a e r n Aa t . s f n dw h start of his reign had committed a terrible act of violence, but, experiencing dreadful remorse, made a dramatic public confession of his sins, took refuge in the B h D ma arg tM sources, u a h a d c it e hh v d a , , ono ds m n cd h a ia vrsin later sponsored the Third Council. May we be forgiven for seeing another possible connection there? T mioom anh h wl e h o t fehz tSa pa us e ti r pi vn a s ge m a o e i al d m tse e g Ar rpn n h f A acoronation, his bloody campaigns, a a t o .t os nr u e k especially at Kalinga, must have aroused widespread antipathy, especially from the peace-loving Buddhists. Politics in those days being exactly as cynical as they are today, it would have taken a great deal to convince people that his conversion and remorse were genuine. The story of Aat u e o amh aif c yd j a cd ik s ycrg o os e a t o b v d a t pd r ks r n t u l ne s i am A ai i nt credibility as a Buddhist sympathizer. This would have been especially cii r t u y n c nted step of actually ran d o s A au e e ul o r jf os pe c e t i k rd ir inen taf add w wh t nvn tS h ir ar dc g o sr a te g ha ann fs ei h aei en i gse l in i a n el c and who was not.
O t g n Ii t a i v a u f ra n e o s e e M c n t e t or u , l h hh s c t h ci h rd b v e vr i o o e i n e an t o of the Vinaya at the First Council was adapted to form a precedent for the Second Council. The symmetry is neat: the Second Council was over a Vinaya dispute, and so corresponds with the Vinaya side of the First Council; the Third Council was over a Dhamma dispute, and so corresponds with the Dhamma side of the First Council.
30
29
After examining the bad monks and hearing of all their wrong v s oasks the good monks what the Buddha taught (kid i, k e Aa w v bhante smau o and they say the Buddha was a va a b h? ms dt m di ) ij d bj i h vn a (va m31 This was confirmed by the hero of the story, ij d a i bj h j hv a rt ). Mg ut ,o tM au ie gl o l ts h h a iai c t tk s gi a a i e hh v c ns i c a tsw n p i vrs o s h n o n s e mentor and adviser, and is regarded by the school as a root teacher. Later we will look more closely at what va means in this context, but for ij d bj a hv a now we will concentrate on those details that can be confirmed in the Edicts. A rg tSapd, k studied Buddhism cd t emtsk had c i o an i A a on h a o under Moggaliputtatissa before the Council and so was able to recognize the false claims of the heretics. He reflected that: srohh t ar s r o rln T ee tiu h re e o t r i. h anbk , yec s m h eo e k se l f u e is g Knowing this, he gave them white clothes and expelled them.32 I i shx w se tSapd a tEt n s e ea o u i emtsknh d t c, e t r s n an i dei h at c d d h a c s differ, but the meaning is identical. 33 After the bad bhikkhus were expelled, A ac dMg ut: da t o l ts o er o gi aa k l e a ts p i , nt apure, may the Sangha perform the N b t eais o h e sn w a, s h uposatha.v gn pe n er hi h i i h rc , ne ey e H n v iot h td c T ag e s t o e e t t i . Sangha in unity gathered and performed the uposatha.34 It seems to me that, a tm dio emtskn a r h a es, Sapd a s a e i t ghan i d fs na t l a the Edicts are in perfect accord:35 the Sangha has been made unified; the
TD vsa does not use the term va here, referring instead h a ea p ij d bj i h vn a t eeaS v .h vnfound in the commentaries, o T a adk d t h v na Vibjd h rd a a a is j i a i d t an i n ed a iah : n ih mts d S saa is c n e ap d at u s vyb lg S u a k h ann v (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 684, b4-5.) 32 Sap d 1. D vsa 4.52: T a si an i .C a mtsk 6 p p a 1 . a h s a e es n r ra t j k u h n a g e as g v s n,Theyyasas iun tg s a a v bk osl n n. hh i a a ak n e a i 33 TSap d r st i o i y t a e han ie t e i f t c es tn emts eo g gwe l s sk a kf r hv n hl o a h :a i v a; the Edicts have: o u i na i a nt t iv t d h dn s s i a td n d a . Being hy pt u physically expelled from the monastery is expressed in the Samantsk a pd i as: u bein the Edicts as: a i sy p bs p i aj ; n s ae a v y. vsi S s aa isa u s vyb s d a iah h (CBETA, T24, no. ann v : 1462, p. 684, b3) 34 Sap d 1 an i . mtsk 6 a 1
31
30
S e c t s
a n d
dividers of the Sangha should be made to wear lay clothes and expelled; this e l is tw tt o r o re ae xs s o e i he r u fo ar n i pi ac dt e p le A at t bg u n si o a h m al k hh n an act of the Sangha; and the event is associated with the uposatha.36 This ver ov s ol uo dt w A a s fe a a s tn sdh i e tl l s u r o n n s o w e n yo a k should interfere. It was he who had so lavishly supported the Sangha, inadvertently creating the crisis. While he may or may not have felt any responsibility for the problems, he would have certainly been unhappy about continuing to furnish imposters with their material needs. The whole story is eminently plausible, and is familiar in many countries where Buddhism flourishes today. As soon as the Sangha attracts lavish support from wealthy and generous patrons, there is an influx of bogus monks who are solely interested in ripping off as much money as they can. These are a persistent nuisance and it is difficult or impossible for the Sangha alone to deal with them. They flourish unchecked unless the Government has the will power to forcibly remove their robes and prevent them from harassing and deceiving Buddhist donors. Tft A ap de e name m v h c a e lt am k d d e et e t t kxlh k o n at rr ah o e e f s h e to lay clothes is a crucial detail. The opponents at this Council were not Buddhist monks who differed in interpretation of certain doctrinal points, they were non-Buddhists, not deserving of being monks at all. Though the Msi t t n o a iai le b el n hh v c d e o n-schismatic sect, even they did vrs a o h y n m not go so far as to assert that members of other schools must be disrobed. E ieetc tea iaioo ha t v f w o c tM pt t l h e w r aph hh v n e e vrs sn a l e n i i t or schools were schismatic in the literal sense defined in Vinaya, this would simply mean the communities could not share the same communal uposatha recitation. It does not mean the opponents are not monks: in fact, only bhikkhus can cause a schism, so if the opponents at the Third Council were really laypeople, there is no way they could cause a schism. The only recourse would be to recognize their fraudulent status and expel them. So
Much academic ink has been spilt on this matter. For alternative points of view see Sasaki, 1989. 36 To s t a f c t f , t l hn ua le e h o o t r e el bn dr ia r kh o -makers are y st i n s t A ae u if e , b bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, whereas for the Sri Lankan accounts some are ordained, while others are theyyasas fraudulent pretenders who just va , i k put the robes on themselves and are not really ordained. But this is a minor point, since these may also be referred to as theyyasas bk , and v aiu hh i ks k the edicts are doubtless not concerned with such legal niceties.
35
31
t syf eh C ci o f t A aot h t o hTdo i n r h nr e eo r t i ul r n s to e o , m k h M p t v ,e o o ss Ia t a iai o o i t syf cm n c h hh v vrs i fe h t n n w r ah . f i te , m s m a iai ia mer n th a n at M V y o ny b tP a ie n a hh vn n cmt, o e l d r vrs a ai h i Chinese versions, does not mention schism at all. Ie t ea e p tsteh c a t m o t ti ioo ei et v s s m h h li f scmd h e t m c n h ss i e a s been brushed aside by scholars due to their predisposition, based primarily oh x lo st a and Vasumitra, to see the schisms ne tau o e a sa t ea c t h p tu c n f D v as pre-A a h C i s: te e d r B h . u on a h w ie u i o Ts us y I e r f n d s k s s f r e f t dt e fraternities at this time, and at least the difference between the Vinaya ti s M ga d e T i se o e e rt o a a i n h v / r i l ba r a o f h k T a a ea ly er dn i sh a rd hy i t k l i than this date, then the king would have taken no c t t. au oh 37 c n fa o t Lo,t qli a p ts a ,y k at w e ll t t jfi s: en mt i u t t au io a T i e h a t e y l m e tt i n sh g c s inn et rdd s rro s s ov h n ts r fes nten l t we i ti w o cie ot t y t H e, eo e o st i u aa u rs o r en f w aryI n k nh A a rs r oo e Wd s: io n wto d w e e tl d r a s t o l . e st o 38 w a k proposed to do about the fact that the Buddhists were already split into at l f s o39 None of these interpretations attempt to grapple e i cl a v hs s e o. t s u w t n i ft n o r i n i e s ih da ah o f kwd v y t r l t e eb c a n A a o g ah i y h u nl t t e os s e n o e that different Buddhist sects existed in his time. A i e h o n Mghika Vinaya? k t aa a h s Sk io h u uag t a a ain u a n ese h h Vinaya may be sp t t t i pai e ghika a os t a q s n M s rrg A anvei etio h a m k er t ven trrg sst o t fnoos omt hen f i i n o e i k il n un cm c s ls sh ea pa a aih a a a t . e ln ag p r t M ghika Vinaya ya T r t se ps e h t u e v s e n s Skandhaka, according to Sasaki, at just the point where it breaks away from the pattern of the other Sthavira Skandhakas. He therefore suggests that t eo bd r e t A ai w ci f c h pd a oe v s ea ull e i ie s na e i os ,s ci e i s s,e l nn k t m ra u n nn su nt ragf e a a t l g e s i ohM ghika Vinaya. Here is his ia h ep mt i hn t h s translation of the relevant passage: If the monks have noticed that a particular monk is going to do sa ghabheda t mt tiVelot h u a h:n bdo e sy m e a,nd y s o re o sa ghabheda. Sa ghabheda is a serious sin. You will fall into an evil state of being or go to hell. I will give you clothes and an alms37 38 39
C iOhij d, on n Va s 8 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 3 a Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 238 Warder, 262
32
S e c t s
a n d
bowl. I will instruct you in the Ssd dtf of tar Sa ru r ne s y I a a ro . yh see n iay oa o q t, l co uv m uiIl hu e s wt o e . If he still does not stop it, they must say to a powerful u a S so is going to do sa p kM o a r-and s: . ghabheda. Go and dissuade hf d g Tu amust say to [the monk]: i o o i hp k m m it e a r n. s elotsa V re nd ghabheda. Sa e a, o n bd o ghabheda is a serious sin. You will fall into an evil state of being or go to hell. I will give you clothes, an alms-bowl, and medicine for curing illness. If you feel dullness in the life of a monk return to secular life. I will find a wife f oni o eci o e o ud eu n se l r ag yt ess i y v h e if . t f If he still does not stop it, the monks must dismiss him by removing the k aa l (voting stick) that indicates his membership [in the Sangha]. After dismissing him, the Sangha must proclaim as f wE y y es a h pt sa o s e o T e m w io g ghabheda. If l : r d h i n o ln l b! ra o v st i hp a s ,t u ep c y w ht a o e ua o rh o c ! If, despite these precautions, he has done sa ghabheda it is
40 c d ghabheda a l sa l e
Ske e a e i p s or u a refers to none ail s t u u he w up k s b vt t n e r el a a i hh q e a p f s o r nohs H cnrd t a o t t t t t A a e it pun ed n o u o h h i l s s eag bm k rr e a k m f ai s i h . s en lay life here come across more like a social security safety net than a shameful expulsion. This would make sense if we see the bad monks as freeloaders and opportunists, rather than heretics trying to destroy Buddhism, or genuine Buddhists trying to establish a new doctrine or practice. If they had simply joined the Sangha to scrounge a living, it may well have been an effective method of non-confrontational problem-solving to offer to support their needs after disrobal, thus averting the possibility of the problem re-arising. Like our other sources, this text falls well short of establishing that a io r dn i F w u emra e ss cr ugosg i e s m bt t cm ce r A ae.s mt ee t h ud i k rn r t r hh c e nt if rsu v nh ag i a o c w A a o u, ct atpam t n t i o s c sp le dese g s ni h k , oe ea , o i s h well refer to something quite different. It only discusses theoretical events, and does not assert that a schism occurred. And the stage of calling upon a
Sasaki, 1989, 193-194. I have modified the translation slightly. Original text at CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 441, a11-23.
40
33
el s ntsn f er iy gbr p ru a i l ec o rpi aseee o f p k s y e d tee n tsf a w u a o h o h l ra m o schism can occur. Even if, as I think quite possible, the passage does in fact refer to the same actual events as the Unity Edicts and the Third Council, there is no need to suppose that all three stages were completed. In fact, our only source on the event as a whole, the Third Council narratives, asserts that the ir t o eor u a was effective and nv i f el a teo t p f p k enn h w u s schism was averted. It is also crucial to notice that if this did refer to an actual schism, iuh b tr ss e eh a a t sa e ho cm t n e h mtv e eo h b e tM ghikas and the e n ti w s Sthaviras. But this is highly problematic. O sc tM ghika uo e h a a ru i e h rs s Vinaya, but the M garta t eocm a a i upph utr ss h k r r c p ho h sh i ai p c s ti much later, which would entail a gross inconsistency on this issue within tM ghikas. Even worse, our three sources h aa e h s from the Sthavira, M ga do p t v take the same side, against a h h, A a os i all sa k n n i o e ia k n fw the schismatic monks who are returned to lay life. It is impossible that these could represent opposing sides in the debate. The simplest interpretation of our sources is to agree that there was no schism at this time.
Chapter 2
The Saints of Vedisa
OUR NEXT EVIDENCE DERIVES FROM THE RELIC CASKETS of the ancient Hemavata teachers, which has recently been clarified by Michael Willis. Here I combine the information Willis gives in his tables 1 and 3. Hemavata Teachers Pali texts Majjhima Kassapagotta
41
Reliquaries at Sr p o a ns 2 t u Majhima Ko u it n a p Kp ou tt a Kp t aa sg ao
Reliquaries at Majhima / Ko u it n a p Kp t aa sg ao
Reliquaries
S hu2at Andher p sa ct
a e lk v aa a a a lg vd i br Sahadeva Dundubhissara Kosikiputa Gotiputa
=? a p) al i (a r g Kkt oia su p Gotiputa Htt p ru i a Mogaliputa Htt p ru i a i Mogaliputa, pupil of Gotiputa Vi y ca h Suvijayita, pupil of Goti[puta] Ma aaa hn vy V ia p , cu ht pupil of Gotiputa
Du sd d u hry d i a ba a
a eaS d a o e e s l a t lk vna e r t f d iy D h a a adh v e h e tm a e ie vd a a b r r o p s vn r S s aa is u s vyb d a iah . ann v

41
T h e
S a i n t s
o f
V e d i s a
35
The reliquaries have been dated to around the end of the second century
BCE,
that is, a little over a cua A a eiroao e rf . s s ts u ny e o T e c i r r t t k h ni n e r p
oldest epigraphic evidence for personal names, locations, and dates of monks. Willis shows that five monks mentioned on the caskets may be itd t v o w,rr i emtsknd d i w f m k ha c en Sapd a ef i i n o ed t an i ne h e s i s od h a o rlus r n t ia rosr t n t Pscw s t em y en p o eo h ao e e e o Haa g aa f A a e i r, e t h ln i th k missionary effort. Additional names are the students and followers of the original missionaries. Thus the Pali sources find important verification in our two oldest sources of epacirt:e o Et i hl oa t A a d g i nm o h n i r af i p n k c s confirm the Third Council, and the Vedisa inscriptions confirm the account of the missions.42 T r ueeiteo a e a rf t he a dr h m ks h ol e el r s ee n t t e ah ii c q s b s s he s l c Haa e w ua st g p tf ia.n e sseh r a e m yHc mtoei o s r l e l s u h aternity that later scwleiahHaa c l a v N y I o e o dr seia S oH aak ) us u s e t ln h i a ia r d c b my o (m t . would question, however, to what extent the epigraphic evidence allows us t nd a ox dt t . o ce t c li a am c l t ahs t t e ou h s et h i o e Clearly, there are many elements that are essential for the creation o o e ah b do af o o h k n f c l s tt o g plwm u a n ah e il u r ,oh wl v o s . e gy n u l oW d e w each other, with common teachers. We see the arising of a cult of worshipping local saints, as well as the Buddha and the great disciples who were honoured by all Buddhists. We see a well-developed and lavishly supported institutional centre. Bte a myi w ot . dt f s u e r s atg e nsW o, a I t r eo nh s d o eens r h al n e o a am aware, see the use of the term ny other terms denoting a school. ia k or We have no evidence of a separate textual lineage, or independently developed doctrines. We have no evidence that this group carried out separate sa ghakamma.
One of the missions is supposed to have gone to Suva hiu ul a m sl b ,a y identified with Thaton in Burma or Nakorn Pathom in Thailand. But Buddhism is usually said to have arrived there much later. Hence Lamotte asserts that the missions account could not have been compiled before the 5th Century. (Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 298) But the identification of Suva hihs isc ihta a a w tr nu r . s l r l a m i ig i e n u ee r o b t he o nt T h t i f a rv Buddhism in South-east Asia, even if true, cannot be used as proof that the mto A a inS hi ntae e na ns t v a m uscS n f o m io a b i h r. i n k o s o u s ii e ol discussion at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tawsein8.htm
42
36
S e c t s
a n d
I would suggest that, simply reading the evidence in the most laas dw tA ad , Vi i ly w iih n i t ea t w ae e r dt eo eth d inscriptions show h k c e s s that a centre was developed around a monastic group that at a later date was known as the Haimavata school. We do not know whether they rr t se a t ots g ar ne ed h es dn s l t se t t s g g e e l a icc h t. h h e a d m v s s th a ia R e a i i o n the Vedisa finds as evidence that schools already existed at this date, we would be better to consider this evidence for what it can teach us regarding how schools emerge. While identification of the Himalayan missionaries is fairly certain, the rest of the names present us with some intriguing questions. Gotiputa Gotiputa was obviously an important monk, and was probably instrumental in establishing the Hemavata presence at Vedisa. Willis puts his date at roughly mid-second century BCE.43 However, this conclusion rests on several quite flexible assumptions, and really Gotiputa and his disciples may have lived any time between the mission period and the erection of the stupas. 44 Gp ii b e i a one of the original five ou sd e y ) of tt s t t h ( ia a o h e d d r missionaries, Dundubhissara. The appellation d d not a regular Vinaya a y is term indicating a direct student-teacher relationship, so Willis takes it to indicate that Gotiputa lived some time after the original mission. However, the meaning of d d a y would seem to rather imply an intimate living relationship, rather than a distant inheritor of a lineage. In the spiritual sense (d m a sn y ) it means one who is truly worthy of h a or a a d d sd d m y aa the living religion. In a more mundane sense, an inheritor is one who is the most worthy to receive the material possessions of one who has died. Thus for laypeople in the patriarchal society of the time, the son is the inheritor rather than the sister.45 When a monk dies, his belongings return to the Sangha. However, since a nurse is of great benefit, the Sangha is e u eo eea os ue tan t n h n rd g td m kes t e e n ow c a ti he n r is htd m k o og v d qi o t a t was looking after the deceased.46 I ea a n M ghika Vinaya the monk t h h s who inherits the requisites is not merely a direct student (s h a a i r or dv i di k h
Willis, 228 For detailed examination, see http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/names%26datesatvedisa. 45 Pali Vinaya 3.66 46 Pali Vinaya 1.303
43 44
T h e
S a i n t s
o f
V e d i s a
37
avn must be also trustworthy and agreed upon by the Sangha. 47 n), but ts ei The word d d not used in this context in the Pali Vinaya. Nevertheless, a y is I think these examples show that a d d more likely to be a special, a y is c l n t h, ht astsd from the same l y oe ereh d n en t o id iara i de n s an r t e n t a ca l gniniae r t t a st nav), i e tsem b oi a h j e ( n . h e t y me i e n t d ts e I ss a n m t us tn i u e for a teacher may have any number of students, and while the teacher and student are ideally supposed to regard each other like father and son, in reality they may not have any specially close relationship. This would also soc eftu x Gp a me e s n u uo xo wl a ou s s r h a es i r t, i d l tt t oi ws a t n tr o et ia t su f e bg ot w hfrg Dd i a in ei e t n u oycy o u bs s a h ih e l r o r ne r y t ai n n h rmi f s n us s s t a o r death. If the relationship of d d something like we have proposed, a y is then it would seem likely that Gotiputa was a younger contemporary of the original Hemavata teachers. We next feel obliged to ask, who then was this Gotiputa? He was clearly an important teacher. But he is mysteriously unknown is he? or The Vinaya commentary account of the Third Council tells the following story. I translate from the Chinese, which in this case is similar to the Pali: A amk A ad e de of ys t t en han t h e 9a t t ,go asd h r o e. hi i k c e tn r r There was one bhikkhu, called Kotaputtatissa48, who became severely ill. Walking for alms for medicine, he received but a pinch of ghee. The illness grew until his life-force was ending. He a o e eiu d d t h r s p a d bk as: h r e , p c t hh na e e a b rh h k s in te l e I m w h, l!v s this, he flew into the air. Seated in af ozH na tu ty agd cl a i i n space, he entered the fire element, burned up his body and entered N a A am i h do skt a in t t e go e p l eo i d b a t t k A aa ee afs b . h i n k r pp hn , t meeg hi e t nanm h ao i. k r c as:e y e dfn T n fe d dvi n f s e gl d r e i E n realm the bhikkhus who nemioa t i e ea c o t. d dt n gt 49 c n n e! i . .
T 1425, 479b23-c23. Translation at Walser, 143-145. (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 682, a15-16) This is, of course, only an approximation of the Indic form. 49 (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 682, a15-21)
47 48
38
S e c t s
a n d
Here we have a teacher whose name would seem uncannily similar to the Haimavata teacher of the inscriptions. Pali variants of his name include Kontiputta, Kuntaputta, and Kontaputta.50 The relic inscriptions include the
51 f stt d ttIt seems that these are two different monks, o Kp aGp . r ou n ou m a ia
for these two forms appear on two reliquaries discovered as part of the same collection of five. But we wonder if there might not be some kind of family connection.52 The language of the inscriptions regularly contracts what are formed as consonant clusters in Pali or Sanskrit; thus, for example, the Pali Dundubhissara becomes Dudubhisara in the inscriptions. We also note several cases on the caskets where the spelling oscillates between i and . Jayawickrama suggests the identification of Goti- a K-, pointing out no dt the change of g > k in North-w eP r (although we are not in the erri s t t n k 53 s North-west!). Without concluding one way or the other, we raise the possibility that these are variant forms of the same name. But if there is a family connection, exactly what kind of family are we talking about? T M sa elaborates the story. Kontiputtatissa is the son of h aa eh v a kinnar (wood-n p c d n w w s c b man from yha Kt h ae e y a m )l u, o sd d l e u Pl t d s s pa e gave birth to two sons, Tissa and Sumitta. u a i m( a t nt i e kira) T b wt tn ter h r 54 (Evidently having a h o ef u re e a a a. e t n r d h l Mu y h o h e d v wood-nymph as mother does not disqualify one from being considered a a e ono h n i f ra purposes.) Kontiputtatissa was bitten by an u bg rdt m n o ii n insect, but although he told his brother that a handful of ghee was needed as cure, he would not go in search of it after his meal. This version agrees w to r tmnoopaa e. versions also ihts h a rKtts dh t eh i e n fnut a All h en e its t is c u a ms h i f sy s dc u o o r t kro i agt t wt i ce n t A aern r o e ra e e a f c h os e e n ho h r sr t him to dramatically increase his already generous support of the Sangha, which was in turn the direct motivation for corrupt elements to enter the Sangha, which necessitated the Third Council. We notice that Ktts bhSia d w i ea h t o opaa reu tl i i ty.io f nut o rma oe t h e T sy its t is t s dh n r sr the wood-nymph and her two ill-fated sons adds an intriguing dimension to
Jawawickrama, 1986, 173 Willis, 223 52 As suggested by Jawawickrama, 105 note 53.1 53 Jawawickrama, 108 54 M v a aa was also the preceptor of Nigrodha, the novice who inspired hr u A ab m B h t ce u i o o o ads k e dt .
50 51
T h e
S a i n t s
o f
V e d i s a
39
our story.55 Bf ot n h nc a e nc a a u rwi o to t tKtap r t n ie g o s u ot h h unp t i t e l eo have been no ordinary family. Mogaliputa Now, Gotiputa had a number of students, prominently a certain a ta h t O l go ca s i w M l an V ia n i efhr tn i oi d p en gu p cu . e a sl a g t os r , t h Cunningham and Geiger, makes the obvious connection between this Mogaliputa and the Moggaliputtatissa of the Pali chronicles. Another lineage, including Lamotte and Willis, dismiss this identification out of hand. Both the reasons for making the equation and those for dismissing it are fairly simple. Here we have a certain monk, clearly associated with the same general period and the missionary activities of the same 5 monks, and sharing the same name. The problem is that in the Pali accounts, Mg ut l ah i o , es eu t o l tsi tem f o wr t se o gi a a e t t a ts v p i d e A a h ah t n f k e d Gotiputa, ii d gcemtvvo any e fl a i rtu al v cul . Wi t s r, s ee e e r t l i oc s n h i d r t a r But when we recognize that such datings are based on assumptions that are flexible if not entirely arbitrary, we cannot be so certain about fixing Gp t t r egl ou d oh c oie tt a ne h l a idence. ia e s aao v c A further problem with identifying Moggaliputtatissa of the Pali tradition with Mogaliputa of the relic caskets is that Moggaliputtatissa was supposed to be the leader of the Hemavata teachers. If we equate the two, however, we end up with Moggaliputtatissa being the student of the heir of the Hemavata teachers. But the placement of Moggaliputtatissa as leader of the missions is t m x t e e n M b.a, r e o et ax s o a iaiiCrte r s ennps f hh v a l y ew o e ri o vrs se h n l e many Elder monks involved. The missions were, in all likelihood, organized by a loosely associated group of Elders who took advantage of the fu lo ts A a e tp d e a an h a re ni o i o r tD m A t v a c i fos g sah h .d e ob d n o k rn e m organizer need not be the most senior: neither at the First nor the Second Councils was the leading monk the most senior. The missionary activity involved at least three generations of monks: Moggaliputtatissa, Mh i a M ar eo Mira , d a nan a e pi v ad ono a jt j k d h v e d e h a dt n a , d s d r ns ii n Mahinda in turn took a number of disciples, including a novice, with him to Sri Lanka. We are perfectly in accord with the texts, therefore, to assume
55
See http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/whoiskunti%3F
40
S e c t s
a n d
that
the
Hemavata
teachers
were
roughly
equal
in
rank
to
Moggaliputtatissa. O u o ami o i ro g t t n n k s pnf l en ih h e se s t pn u o Wi a i s a e l sn s t information on the relic caskets, since it is concrete, dateable, and placable, is likely to be accurate. Of course, this is a reasonable assumption but reasonable assumptions are not always true. From the earliest times, we can assume that the communities were jockeying for position, aiming to have their own lineage regarded as supreme. Those who were writing inscriptions on reliquaries are no more or less concerned with creating an accurate historical record than those who compile edifying chronicles. We know that the positions of prominent elders in the lineage lists are not consistent. A well known example is that of Majjhantika. In the Pali, hs A a in ;t tnh schsu e a n s a b ih oe o e e u l i n o m ir un e rr us isl k s y o tn r a y dc a dc i l f a . i b u hw a et s i di o n a h ie s ea p d a r s e d T s ce i e e c t p n s a s ceoy v a Ug a h e s t Mh o mr o n p p w re tea r n p r f s d a t o pe h ta t a ai n u, rn u l ga t K ig a o ira ih e i en h a rn e d bn p t n e l n ,d e i e h t ec oe t we a m l a o rd l eb e a rl g o i el ih a t c sl d tan e tn nl t e pi t s M u i , cc t w tK r r h ah i h n e n oi a h a d y m ar a b mg h so Sl ,h Sap d ( t e i t er i r t an i a h c n e n. m l e mtsk n e o i iy a a d Sudann v dc g ad saa is et g a C avajji as the teachers of s vyb p Sa n a a iah ) i iv Moggaliputtatissa. But later Chinese sources say Ca avajji was
56 Mg ut d . o l tsse gi a at n a ts u t p is
We can therefore regard the difference in perspective between the Pali texts and the inscriptions as being, not an irreconcilable gulf, but an entirely normal presentation according to the bias of each school. The Ms g eMg ut a hd e f e a iai rr hh v vrs ed o l ts s ee r tr n ad gi aa t f oh a ts p i i n i doctrinal position, and hence wished to place him at the centre of the missionary activity. The Hemavatas, quite understandably, wished to emphasize the importance of their own lineage, so placed their own teachers at a higher rank than Moggaliputtatissa. There is one other minor point that might be felt to strengthen the aco e e h w g usn ep ,o sin t n e o o l t Ih aa , s t b e t t M a t. t D vs k oi w a gi a p a Aa disappointed by the heretics, is said to wonder when he might have the chance to meet a sappurisa, who of course turns out to be Moggaliputtatissa.
(CBETA, T49, no. 2034, p. 95, b26-27). Also at CBETA, T55, no. 2154, p. 535, c19.
56
T h e
S a i n t s
o f
V e d i s a
41
This is a well known canonical term denoting an ariya, one who has reached the noble path. The relic casket refers to the monks as sappurisa, including sapurisa mogaliputa. This shows at least that the term was in common use in these contexts, and might well have been used of the same person. Vi u ct ha p Another striking coincidence in the names at Vedisa i a p , s t cu t V ia h ht student (av) of Gotiputa, has the same name as the founder of the n ts e
57 P a ( s l s o The chief doctrine of this group of u ld oi c l ga a en t hs gv P a o. r s )
schools is that there exis s ( t po puggala) i sts (), s en a r , c na l t w h o t hi ea f and is indescribable, being neither identical with or different from the five aggregates. This group of schools is not clearly differentiated, and it may be t tse o so a ie es t t d e h ha s o k ntta r s r, a ae t m c l n f s c a u anf h i w e th V a t r py r its chief doctrine a u ldja e hh v s k n s ga a s tM a n gv t h a iai r o P a ( s u vrs e w n after their doctrine as va s after their being followers of the ij d, and bj i h vn a rsea E sT i. l hy d a rs e ) Wl e ga ia tru r t tan h t P as d ef d V rr o ih u ld n h o e u e t e gvn i n s a p explicitly mentioned in the Third Council narrative, their chief doctrine is extensively discussed in the K tattributed to Moggaliputtatissa, so avh t au ht there is clearly a strong connection, even if a negative one. The P a na oped B y ls f d n u ld o ti , sey a ,c ho a ga i w rt rr b h aa t u t gvn s d n ev i v pe e n i o o h s o y u i 0AN; he would therefore be f e c l V r n 0 tr h b t t i o s a 2 p approximately contemporary with Moggaliputtatissa. Cousins suggests that ihV iaf e s ts iet f d o h f ep o hiro in d e u r t t cu h t t ni n s d h o e f e ci p e n P ase mth h d t w Moggaliputtatissa in u ld,n u e w i b gth ga it i s e o ei i gvnh t b sa n t avh h t au e h t. K t It might seem strange to find these two monks remembered as students of the same teacher, for Moggaliputtatissa is an avowed antipersonalist, whose main doctrinal legacy according to both the Msdrt is a k ts dr. a iai nas d isaoh en c e hh v aS s it ne r t vrs n vi n h t v c po oi n But a little reflection would suggest that this is in fact most likely, for it is with our closest family and friends that we have our deepest disagreements. If the schools had just drifted apart with no clear doctrinal disagreements, like the Dharmaguptakad hh v se o aM ,r u n a iaite l vrs h w d n
57
Cf. Cousins, Person and Self, 86.
42
S e c t s
a n d
be no cause for disputes. But living close together, sharing students and lay supporters, differences may well harden, leaving a residue of bitterness that lasts through the ages. Xuan-z rrtti t td tn e r a edhrt h h ee t o n c se d na eb ohp n go ao t i a e s er f tclb ett a a D a u r mg r hoi e ehw r n ea n t ed m en tt ne oa t vr , h eo f w c h s am a o o eja a d pe ia f V aG n Vk Cousins notes the similarity of t i k , o a . h y n a r o58 n tne o aia this connection, both evidently derived h as p n ou i em a d tt G Gp n from the root and wonders whether the name of the teacher has gup, replaced that of the pupil.59 Willis and Lamotte dismissed the identification of Mogaliputa with Moggaliputtatissa, with Willis arguing that it is simpler to accept that there were two Elders of the same name. But if not one, but three names Mg u,cu,nu o l t paopaassociated with the Third Council gi a h tKtt a tV it p it narrative appear in the inscriptions, the balance of probabilities shift, and we may want to reassess our conclusions. We shall never be able to attempt more than tantalizing speculations about the true identities of these monks. In life they were complex and paradoxical humans, but they appear to us as mere names, an an echo of an idea, and fragments of burnt bone. So desperate is our groping for knowledge that we are delighted to find just this much. How much more should we appreciate the confidence with which the Vedisa inscriptions confirm the missions account. It is quite remarkable that the only two pieces of substantial epigraphical evidence from this period both agree strongly with the account preserved by the Sinhalese Vinaya commentarial tradition. While we will not take the time to discuss this in detail here, there are further evidences that tend to support the missions account, although they are not as clear-c A a itas o s e( u c s h e u en sr t o l o v n t sg .ka m e t m e ro sa t accomplish his a a t ns s t m ir,a ine ) to s id o s m -v r y h t D m iy n o h h c . ew a oW teeo dn s f A aD m ie w a h n te tue o h a n r hr e e bigh r os a -mi s oe s d s id m k m i s t,
CBETA, T51, no. 2087, p. 898, c15-17. For Xuan-zang it is apparently not impossible for two arahants to disagree over such a fundamental doctrine, suggesting that a difference in conceptual expression of Dhamma does not imply difference in realization. 59 Cousins, Person and Self, 86
58
T h e
S a i n t s
o f
V e d i s a
43
involved in secular social work within the empire. 60 The messengers went outside the empire and were engaged in religious or ethical teaching. Wynne concludes that these were likely to have been the Buddhist monks of the missions. Finally, we should notice that the archaeological record in Sri Lanka conforms with the chronology, events, and places described in the missions account.61 Writing has been discovered in Sri Lanka dating from the 5th Century BCE, earlier than anywhere else in India, and even the pre-Buddhist legends of Sri lankan colonization in this period seem to have some foundation. While there is no definitive reference to the missions yet found, the stones are telling the same kind of story as the missions accounts. In the next chapters we shall see that this evidence just as strongly disagrees with most of the other textual evidence.
60 61
Wynne, 12-21 Allchin, 156-183
Chapter 3
T hps ea a Da v
HAVING CONSIDERED THE EPIGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE, I would like to now turn to the later textual accounts. We have seen that important parts of the Pali tradition have been confirmed by the epigraphical findings. With the possible exception of the passage from th a a e h Vinaya discussed M ghika s earlier, the northern traditions are entirely lacking in archaeological support for this period. But this does not mean that we should accept the M ti in toto. I have already indicated that I have a iairt hh v vrs a o n dn i sr sa sotD vsauo e m o f ee et a t aac nf f a o e v rri b h p c tt o t t e ev n u e a s o o h ri h n schools, and it is this that we now consider. The principle question is wt w c ap t D vs ita o t h e e a c th aa d it fh er h n c e e p efi a s nc n io e M ghikas with the laxist Vajjiputtakas of the Second Council. aa h s R n hr aa tdh tD vst r e t os pu he o ep e . c s l i pd ea f aah y e ca p ls h t h a so But certain scholars, having attended the funeral in the sunny afternoon, return in the deep of night with a shovel. They dig the earth, still soft, and disturb the corpse from the sleep of eternity which it well deserved. With diverse wierdings and incantations they infuse it with a vitality that is unnatural, and set it to its awful task: to destroy the younglings that they should not grow to the fullness of new life. My mission is clear: to cut off t a schism theory like a palm-tree stump, so that it is no longer h p e a sa Dv subject to future arising; then chop the wood into chips, burn the chips, and disperse the ashes in the wind.
45 Obviously I do not wish to criticize the D vsa in general. Nor a p a dw t i eeh a t D vsa uo e t o iot eynb t aac nf ss I h cc v tgo h p c tt e: s ri ri u e a s o i z hc the sequence of arising of sects and their mutual interrelationships is, generally speaking, no less plausible than any other; and the fact that the text ascribes the root schism to a dispute on textual redaction has an element of plausibility. S ilIsof tD vs ar t t pfl w teeep s o h h ec , i rt ca iy h u h aa st a e a s en t i M ghikas originated from a reformed group of Vajjiputtakas who held aa h s a ae e o ithe dul is od n sr a ul e ec C c hs pey eaG t n a tS n o i s u r bo pt r C c f r o n T ip t . other source. It clearly contradicts the central message of the Second Council as recorded in all the Vinayas: the dispute was successfully resolved. Aorio ep shows that the passage on the c en f D vsa l ag t a s d e h a schisms is an interpolation into a separate passage dealing with the Second aTdula 4.68 clearly expresses the conclusion of the n h C c D vsa di o i p r n.a s Second Council: Ame i s ts aa I gm t ii i a hyt n h o s h s n uo oai et n a h dy g h n( i h the Second Counc a ol . e t w nis i s m t) rh o i l cp d H w e e e r h conveys e d completion, telling us that the story was supposed to end here. This terminological hint is backed up with a syntactic feature: the line ends with the particle which indicates the end of a section. Thus the Second ti, C csr d tD vsa (or its source) originally concluded o i na i ep ul at n a na r e h a with the successful resolution of the Council, in accord with all the Vinaya accounts. These textual detail abaiub teme s ye bo u h o m m u,te gs r s r . Following this closure of the Second Council, th a goes on to give e a sa Dv p the account of the emergence of the M ghika and the subsequent aa h s schisms leading to the formation of all eighteen schools. Obviously this must have been a process that took many years. But following all this Dvsa 5.1 links back to the Second Council: a p a In the future, in a hundred years and eighteen, Will arise that bhikkhu, a proper ascetic.62
A a a s v rn , n t sa a n h s c e s t s a a g v ae s a i Uppajjissati so bhikkhu sama i k o pa a r o . p Here pa aoo d n enf i kbu o o a oe t r avs e t n ur p il s m c t i y e .

62
46
S e c t s
a n d
Tpats h rr e i e o si Moggaliputtatissa, and arg tD vs pec c cd t e a a c i o a on h p s chronology td o1e i et period between the h a f8an fr the et ys t ue e 1 r h u is Second and Third Councils. In other words this phrase, though supposedly set after the entire schismatic process, is spoken from the point of view immediately following the Second Council. The entire story of the schisms hb ira h ,v t ys tfr an ae npt e li h1 e i et g se to d ren e 8a n ue n g n el e eag 1 r h u h i without context. We could ask for no clearer indication that the entire auo e i at oa o e h is foreign to c nf ss nh rt f M ghika c tt cm de m o t a a o hhs f i h n s the account of the Councils. Noting that the schisms account is entirely absent from the Vinaya cmt son ou t: i r lu st n o er C ic lsaT sn s e h o m ni us nd h tg gt a a, s e ce t h oy gs t s au oh et s o w ped t cmt l c n fe ie c l a rr ih o er c t t hn hs sev n e m ni o g e o se a a ti o e hh . further rema:i r a rs rt f M63 He a o t a ia dn h i vr r ha l h kE F wn a sr c ul e presented evidence that the account of the formation of the eighteen s oih a does not derive from the old commentarial c l t D vsa hs e p o n a ti oh a ia d an c eo a b ai rt fe hh a m iab r n h g a o t M n y f dn i vr t f m Aa i yr
64 sc. any case, the passage is closely related to Vasumitra, Bhavya o e In u r
Iderta dncr eeo tn , t upph n e l yrs m nh a h r r c ah e a dvf a rr n i ai , p c ce l i r oe source. It is ironic that the same text that so strongly condemns all other schools itself contains a corrupt interpolation. The M o h a ia u a hh wl v vr d e been better off sticking to their own more reliable commentarial traditions. In accepting this northern source and attempting to reconcile it w tr n i ieh rh a ia v l du ih o qefni y e hh ii y ep t e w u d r s , M nt e d hi t f tt t e o vr e b n a with an incoherent account. It is perfectly clear that the authors of the S n o ise oi en sde a sa, intended e dul ss t tV yatD v c C cagb n ia h a o npa, h h a n p this to be read as the story of a significant trauma in Buddhist history, one which nevertheless was surmounted in harmony due to the diligent aio f pc s tV y ra tM ghikas p a o ei l f ia ul h a a p t t ri o en . cy e h li h n e h a C i, cn p l s maintain exactly the same tradition in their own Vinaya. They have the same rules prohibiting the use of money as found in all other schools. Accordingly, they condemn the Vajjiputtakas, refute them in the Second
63 64
Cousins, The 'Five Points' and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools, 56 Cousins, On the Va s 3 ij d, bj i1 h vn 5 a
47 C ca c l tr ulse s g h a ls o in ou h C c ag yy: u ld ul d nd e o i s b a s Er n , ce i n pa i T le n
65 s laohi rn h d i ge h o. o t tt n m y u r er a n
In attempting to fuse the account of the Council and the schisms, t a obscures the plain fact that the problematic issues discussed h p e a sa Dv in relation to the Vajjiputtakas in the Second Council have precisely n ii m n t euc enh a a onn m w ti sn n tM ghikas of the tg c o i hs o rge h h o h s e ci s ao i h e d ulcse j tafe G t ul e c C c ceh auko 1 r C c T S n o i u tVits t 0 e n. o n as j a p h p t l y V y u e rf M ghika schism in the os a iia t syt a a iox nn . t t o e h n fi t aB h o h s Dvsa says nothing about Vinaya. There the crucial issue was a a p a reshaping of the Buddhist scriptures. We must be clear about this: despite statements to the contrary by some modern scholars,66 tDvsa does h a ea p not ascribe the schism to the 10 points. Rather, it relates the Second Council narrative including the 10 points, then proceeds to describe how the da Vitsf e sea a et aukrrd tM ghikas67 and revised the f d j taem ah h e e j a p o s texts en t b etM ghikas and the 10 points is a . c e n t nea a T o c e eh h h ni w o s narrative sleight-of-h :s w o W r nid t a it o fr e c i eye nt h r Ma a ot b d ie k . e dn o h former passage to read the 10 points into the later passage; this is the na inf D vsa. But once we realize the two accounts at n t t a r v t o ep re e h a i have completely different illusion created by the mind. T v i t tM ghikas could have rejected the h e d h h aa er e a e h ya t s texts directly contradicts a crucial assumption of the whole Second Council story, that is, that the Sangha reached agreement regarding the 10 Vinaya issues by referring to their shared disciplinary code. All freely participated in the Council, and all agreed to solve the problem by appointing a committee of eight, whose verdict, since it was carefully justified point by point against the universally accepted Vinaya rules, was accepted by all. If the Vajjiputtakas were interested in textual revision, they would surely have contested the textual references put forward by the committee. A rrf lw t D vs pt ih i f e i t i h aa oo s at u dc t h f y t e p sn t i u h a s i i t assumes that the Vajjiputtakas could happily go about ignoring the Second origins, any connection between the M ghikas and the 10 points vanishes. Like a sky-flower, it was an aa h s
65 66 67
(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 493, c10) E.g. Nattier and Prebish, 200 TD vssl e en msma at . h aau u t y yu r h k ea p u ls h o ot M ga a y s sn e s s i
48
S e c t s
a n d
Council and making their own schism without any response from the rest of the Sangha. This is patently absurd, since the events that triggered the Second Council itself were of less importance than a major schism, yet monks gathered from all over Buddhist India. Every other account we have of the root schism tells of a gathering of monks who disputed at length, and split only after failing to find a resolution. This is particularly telling when compared with the Sapdc twt p d e ec C c h an i auoh a na t e dule mtsk c nfa p ef h o o i a o s h e t Sn n T r . Elders (unnamed) considered whether another disaster would afflict the snast i 8ane e A aam k o a dw a 1ystt o ,n o wl s , ah n e i i f k a n t 1 r hm o my n u s d enter the Sangha seeking gains and fame. They considered how to avert this, and saw that the only being capable was a Brahma named Tissa. They went to the Brahma world, and begged Tissa to descend to save Buddhism. 68 He agreed could it be otherwise? how whereupon the Elders returned to the human realm and organized a couple of young arahants, Siggava and Ca to teach the Brahma when he was reborn as Moggaliputtatissa. avajji, This is a wonderfully dramatic scene-setter for the Third Council. But if we a oc tD vsau t wee e e ag r ap ep c te h tEr r k e c t aac nh ihls e i t e h a s o ,n l dw mn such elaborate preparations for saving Buddhism in the future, under their very noses the Vajjiputtakas were destroying the unity of the Sangha forever. (Perhaps they were away in the Brahma world while this was going on.) After describing the root schism, th a tells us that the ep D vsa a various schools s or e o re o I et nny p f m ct obnt smt a l f a h nyed n eon i f t o he .o i reasons for why this multitude of schisms occurred, nor why they should happen so quickly. Nevertheless, the whole process was over and done with a t t o w aoe eee e A a e nh ie s o e lrd f tt o . dege c l r lm br i fo T e n hs e f h o hm kh Second Council was in 100 AN, dn t D vss a se eaa a n n i h p i l c a o g c ngt,so 1ysrehs f . is h oy x ha s8 afts o or This r l t il 1 e ohc l o 69 oo e t l w r ot m short enough, but if we follow the median chronology we have only 40 years or so. The process of forming a sect in a religion like Buddhism is not easy. It requires a charismatic leader, one who can articulate a convincing
A mythic mirror-i etEe br aa o t h m o e t y B mt mvd a f a y ht te e g hn t r a h i t a Buddha to teach. 69 See Appendix.

68
49 independent interpretation of the teachings, inspiring both monastics and lay followers. It requires a degree of geographical separation for the building of the requisite lay support. It requires building an institutional basis, i.e. at least one monastery, including shrines, meeting hall, residential q t a s nl t h e , on o ep ue n o . oh a n arg tD vsa, ar d oA fi p e cd th a r, s l s p d ci a within one or two generations, leaving not a single physical trace. This cr w o r o seertah g t oa i t au lt upph i i h ns t h c ni h rr c w h ee ts h e c t t k i ai , c v p c process several centuries to unfold. Perhaps even more implausibly, this account implies that in the following centuries there were hardly any new sects. True, the commentaries do mention a few schools that arose subsequently, but we ae c te ea ie s o r a s miy rx t ol t t o ae o met epe b vh e e c l o l t d l ed i e tg n hs s m i a , h e and in a thousand years after that only a small number of new schools gradually came to be. Aul s e o ep e o bht cio q cf D vsv wl t h ra n u e t aa i u ea e cc e n h a s w d t A a in eT a ii er seenha n s sr h vnn noe ,ag se o m i w rd hawn mn t m k s o e es t r s i e s oa t Ms arh t Svs r c lsh a iai re t h t i o h o e hh v , t vrs n h a e hr n aa V a sg r ht h vnl w robo ij d i n l u ees n e e nlr bj in e Ts T a i o r s s f h vn e a a . h rd ae e p i e converting virtually the whole of India to Buddhism, a situation which blatantly contradicts all the available epigraphic and textual evidence. I ae u n uo p t e esee t ye n e s i t tT a i hd ms m g r t u o h vn i eo m e h rd t a that they themselves spread Buddhism over all of India, a perspective of breathtaking conceit. But the main epigraphic evidence for the school from the mainland confirms exactly that. Two inscriptions from the Sinhalese m ar N ri o t ij o dated to around 250 CE, refer to the teachers ne n g n s y k a, u o e ea ij d Msh ab gf f rsbj a a iai w h r h i t T i V a ,hh v ov o tt h hy h v s vrs, , a n eu a h tau n K a Y [ (oo o ein o rs d a r n r an = nk f m i v i ls , d a va Yaa t s o a : m G h , a] l h s o au =eBr Vain i,s A a Va c n G k c ) n s l T lv c t r ai a C-C a a a ta, o s e t, v a , a oi r t , ga, Da[mila], [Pa]lura, and Tambapd. aThis evidence predates the i 70 p Dvsa and the mission accounts, but the similarity of the phrasing, as a p a demonstrated by Cousins, shows that they must derive from a common source, presumably the old Sinhalese tradition.
EI, XX, 1929, pg. 22. See Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 299; C iOhij d, . on n Va s 1 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 4 a
70
50
S e c t s
a n d
TMsn toa eestcr h a iai ad pr hs a en e hh v wt or t l t ee vrs n e t y mv h t e ou i T u uri es tD vsa is to enshrine fd s h n ee en o ep B h .e i ct guf a dm q a v i h a this world-view within the fundamental myth of Buddhism. Right from the outset it declares that the Buddha, during the seven days after his awakening, surveyed the world, saw Sri Lanka, and predicted the advent of his Dhamma there after the Third Council. 71 The unified Sangha is referred tse e f tt o e so i . o trd r hi f F C c n a T a ao e e t i ul 72 There is no h h v m m h r no t doubt, given to ipa, t t tD vsa, with a h pn ag t bh h a e e g se h y i ep n ss a s a mi ii af h oye t h vn t aw a e d g o r l,a h es h r g r s r r oo mn e rd i e r s a r d c ng tl e s T a in no seM) e (a iai n = hh v . s vrs n I in t miol ge t ibr n s t t oe pi ho cm f A a tc e h tf a t o h eeo hox e v r c n r ss o k is clear. If the schisms happe a A ae wl i se n f ,n o b pit e t ot i u e o l d e kh t d m s o r b ar a wtsi an tT a ae u a st t k a eect o e e H o h s t A a s pf r f h v . wl v eh o h c po h rd i d e to be seen as the supporter of Buddhism in general. If the schism was in the t o , i o crc ht p t e i f o t wl oat e i h ms of m e A ah u nd t r a k s d ti u n s m age Mg ut csTdul el l ntu e o l tsse li o i o st i pt gi a au s h C c hn ois t a ts p is cf r n T y u u . o o h ss br .eht s o r pt xdf cm eeo T to r o a m c eu r h sf A a ne e hs i i i o kh h c le l yce o i ld m l tna ,d o b m b el e elt oh h at a A a cey f tsi an t e r v n e s du h pa r fe re i k o a t c po Taa hv . e rd The Heresy of Grammar Iert tD vsa account of the schism cannot refer to the f aea ep w g h h a e t a period immediately after the Second Council, can we establish when and in what context it really did originate? I think we can. To do this, we need to look more closely at the way the schism is actually described in the Dvsa. It emphasizes the interpretative principles used at the Council: a p a Teachings that are metaphorical, and those that are definitive Those with meaning drawn out and with meaning to be drawn out were elucidated by the Sutta experts.73 This verse is mockingl h i ec tt g (a y o n auo ea at r e e t c nf M s G t cd h o h h i e Council) of the Vajjiputtakas:
D vsa 1.14 ff. a p a D vsa 4.11, 18, 31, 32, 33, 54, 84, 88, 90; 5.28; 6.24, 29, 39, 43, 54. a p a 73 D vsa 4.22: P e i o p d a a p a a y s c a na ye r a i t ir as , i dt p h p i y a y i t Nt n a p ut v. a ve t d s t i t ayh s kd a e h y a i u o a
71 72
51 Teachings that are metaphorical, and those that are definitive Those with meaning drawn out and with meaning to be drawn out; without understanding, those bhikkhus [confused]. 74 T D vsa further h a e p a explains (4.77) that the Vajjiputtakas
( h = ghikas) confused the nouns, the genders, and so on. In short, M s aa they were grammatical heretics, whose foremost crime was bad textuality. It would be unkind to linger on this point, but it is ironic that this a s nme tD vsa, perhaps the most badly written book ca iab e a ct s dy a ui o h p in the Pali language. At cica ia ej taa a n e uluis t Vit/h o r ca s nt t auk ghikas h ra ct h h j a M s o p revised the ancient texts, rejecting the rr h i Pv,ex a t sbooks of the i a Abhidhamma,75 the Pa b ed a mo ets d i h, N e se tJ a n s i t is o f , a d h d, m h a a k some of the verses, and went on to compose others. 76 These works are all found in the Pali canon. Without exception, modern scholars are agreed that these works are in fact late and cannot be considered authentic buddhavacana. u hM ghikas may rightly claim to be the Ts e a a h t h s forerunners of an accurate historical-critical approach to Buddhist texts. TD vsdrof rejected texts is a projection of h aa ei n the e a s t o p s c i p tM d s. c cst k fw t te h a ia a iS o ilh n u eh h e hh r d u noy e o l la e vr k e b s , y w l l t s s u texts are late. The virulence of their attack echoed elsewhere demonstrates their fear of admitting this, and the concomitant need to externalize the problem. Why are they so afraid? Why not simply admit, as all the evidence would have it, that some of their texts are not buddhavacana? Admitting the unauthenticity of their own texts would destroy their own self-image as the true bastion of original, pure Buddhism. This in turn would make nonsense of the ideology of Sri Lanka as the m dnwl u t M ci y t D m a o r h a ia rb i h h aa d u i e hh ei n e a p , d n vr s di l t competition for royal favours with the Abhayagiri. The fear is quite real: we need not doubt that a r t s Mh t a f t t t i t a iad sdc ca m h hh ao na o ei e e vr n t e
D vsa 4.73: P dt c a na ye a p a a ye p hir as , r as t p i dt i y i a io p y i a Nt ce'va neyyathabk o a t a h aiaia j nhh . n v kv 75 , a t e t ohav u s cp dt S b u h vh keta , n oo u i e s e e b , K tw o ms n x ce s n o t h t a t h e i l t h C c h i e cio M cng h i o i is r o gt a i rl. e r ul c l a r t e hh s oo T d n w h a cd , t n h vr h oy a 76 D vsa 4.76, 82 a p a
74
52
S e c t s
a n d
face with its own destruction. But the reality of the threat should not blind us to the illusions conjured in response to that threat. T lo xr ti i r eo o ets hi f t j d qee :m f J a et ts e s t c e t s e e e u pi s c s h a, k et ess enn r J a r a f e s o er i lo,t sm r t a o f ve s l wca t f p o e l m h sA wk . ei a o n k th r y corpus of scriptures, while others were added continuously over many ysmrmy tvef Kd aae , e. iy ao er o e u kk ra b aSl ,n f es t h a iaer u ri l a h s h d ny l t y many more are among the latest strata of additions to the canon. In their current form, all these rejected texts are post-A a n o. k While the Abhidhamma project must have been underway in the time of A a s gey gitsAim c e nn s ed Mg ut h a an tsd o a gtb o l a a b hm o c a k us a ts p is d ni o confirmed by substantial similarities among existing Abhidhamma texts the texts as we know them must have been finalized later. Similarly, the Pa b gi t r d0 .77 The Niddesa is an application i hmg ddo 1BCE s i a se u 0 a d a a an m of Abhidhamma methodology to some early poems, and must stem from a sl edh wafl t c nl r oh i rr.u ee m i e ta i po fe m poTs riy hl n c ed t i i a r n a oa i e Mlae dc i s l oo e p i i a iaeu a arg h d kr du n s hh i t, cdl o l f h it t vrt r n on r y uo t se h period. I wtk w tMsr g gt f atn hh a iai e rn i w n e oo oe hh v w a i h w vrs n e u w, tK tcmt, h avho er et aum ny ht a though redacted later, is our main source of information. Overwhelmingly, this mentions disagreements with the Andhakas, 78 a o o a a g pf h r u M ghika schools in the Andhra region, s i d A rt j o etc. Thus we know that the n i mi g n c n aa N ri lg u v , k a, u Ms debated Abhidhamma extensively with the Andhakas, a iai hh v vrs n a i usl l t tAh sj d ea ia nt s r f w a e d aettM d mt e o h h na r eh hh uy l t o k e c vr s Abhidhamma and related literature. But this is perhaps not of such great importance in itself, for it is probable that most of the Indic schools did not ap ea ia h a ain fact, they had probably hardly c t MAim c t hh b hm eh vr d even heard of it. What matters is not so much that the Andhakas rejected te tu a e hh v sehr t h, i h ts t t M k t e e ea t e e, t t a iai n e j d mn s xb h h vrs n w ye t c d hurt. The Pa isambhida a tN eaa ci e g n h isrl ra r mg d e d aes ul e a d o c h, t g a fn a hab i di e u kk , h h d r w.ero n e tKd a o i ie y yet c d h h a ia un f t T e hl n u d ny but each has strong affinities with the Abhidhamma. The pa b i hs s i a d m
77 78
i, The Path of Discrimination, xxxvii ff. amo About half of the disputes are with the Andhakas or their sub-schools.
53 were a minor doctrinal set for the early Suttas. The primary meaning relates skill at textual exegesis with penetration to the Dhamma: dhamma (text); attha (meaning); nirutti (language); pa (eloquence, i.e. the i ba h ability of one who, knowing the text and its meaning, and being fluent in the ways of expression, to spontaneously give an accurate and inspiring teaching). The Pa b g ts i cil o a i hmg a t osa r n s ia a d a k h c n gp d m e s a o u , stretching their application almost beyond recognition, develops the first dn e a ia o ot W s i ac nl ic M kf e a Aw la i st ti i v hh B vr o h y . t l nc h oa Abhidhamma, the emphasis is on precise, clear-cut doctrinal definition. Warder shows that the emphasis on this particular doctrinal category is
79 p l oe hh . ei t a ia c r h u t M vr a
The Niddesas are similarly about textual exegesis. They are a pair of Abhidhamma-style commeni o t K gs Sutta, tsnh h a a r e e av a gi Ak g a Py v a r osb u l m e a g n a a , l e se n cp i h v a d rn g e p a a, ag a y m u q t oi n s ey l d tSap.e t i rs b hm i acr h u N t h s s il h a i s oa et i Tr l coy im c t ns t a iy uu A d e , r t n k t with the casual, natural language of the texts on which they comment. In fact, they come across as an attempt to e me ts t er e which a s a x m o l t y e edrlsn oate c w tM x soi pts tsoc i i h a ia ps c aoo ne r t n i i y rn ol t e hh e h vr s developing stance. Ao e e a a vet us a te r s tl J an es wl e s h w f ha sdr, o e ie e r tt k si d m f s e not so likely to be doctrinally controversial. They mainly deal with the emerging Bodhisattva doctrine, which was prevalent throughout all B h s oa i yn e ue c a a u ic lnf tg wl p M ghika schools, d s hs da h w o x t h dt o, ni d e s such as the Andhakas, to be the forerunners in this movement. Nevertheless, tK td rr vl te s an h avh o ed e cr r rrg et aue c sr oo s ed ht s o ea nvi g i e the Bodhisattva and his career. The Andhakas evidently asserted that the Bodhisattva was born as an animal or in hell of his free will (i ikk t80 which for them was an expression of his s y mu s a a ie a k rh ), r transcendent (lokuttara) nature, but which tMs a h a iai a s e hh v s a vrs w n dafewfm .iouwt tM ghikas el tl oa a s tr h eh a a no i ha km I n s t e ere h h s r t eitsdr b u f t l li s a e e r J a ve cedr i io u s j d t a es a o c a p ts h e ca a n s e s oi m c n c c n k n a these, or simply because they were extra-canonical.
79 80
i, The Path of Discrimination, introduction amo K t 2 av u2 ta 6 ht h
54
S e c t s
a n d
R l t D vs a el h aa ccusations of bad textuality, I am cn e p ag i a s struck by the aptness of a remark by Franklin Edgerton. Previously, Emile Senart had edited one of the most important and difficult works in the M ghika literature, the h si ehfd n a r aa h s Mtn l oa o S k a a, hg ti a n i vu t i t rt l s i t and Pali forms. Edgerton commented that:n ti o on a ene t f S r xs nse e t ev e t s let the reader perceive the despair which constantly threatened to o wl h.F w E r o iso g r vh e e i81 o i d ts r t n e a r m m l n go w , i w n l l g en o k ey l ack lehtM ghika texts are written in a distinctively n e da ea a o d t h h wg t s M ghika aa h s Hybrid Sanskritdett S k BS r , a o s dn iue t a r jb a r t a n n u a s . n t s d a o e trt o y hh v s l b g ei u c hei f M ca r h sr l h e c p w d o a n a a iai hr o t o n vrs os u n , up on the simpler, cleaner Pali tradit,onn t a a iw cre e h o hoo d M ghika n ft h s ts eeos et tD vs a s n f t e. teegta ep cts tu x W h f u s t aa ca o x l t rr g h h a s ui o ea r t abg m w llsilt M ghika e i n ar a e el pfl t a a jo dda r r v dec a e h en c m ee e ca h iy s schools of Andhra, bx s S kc ez B h a yti a r o o ndu i n ennni r d id s d eo s i m re dm t generally, such as the Abhayagiri.82 In the usual mythic style, contemporary debates were backdated to give them a universal relevance. There are certain other sources that likewise attribute the schisms tii va .r al i d gs cause, and ons a i F e p Vtv i this l t ro o x e n e v g i in uc t m, a e a mts e li lu u eS s e a r eo t f w a a ssas d u S k nn h o n n g a:rt i s ni i l g ge g o vi n d s ; v t M gasP rSmitiyas used Apabhra; Sv a a i u ria h k e t s hs d k ; h t i a ehr t as a u Pa TD vsaumts i i hh s s a h aac n u e n tl ,ti e i. e a c t s e n s ta, d 83 c p s o b e hi t i g t highlights a primarily linguistic dispute. But the linguistic differences are merely a consequence of geographical dispersal. It is hardly possible that communities living in the same location would dispute over what language to use. The languages must have diverged as the schools spread over India a f w t B h aco a t D miho n o e h u a de th e a a t ll d l d e d v te h h l o ds i c m n ec a dialect. 84 Notice that the Sri Lankans did not follow this advice, and preserved the Dhamma in a foreign tongue, which they strenuously believed to be literally the language spoken by the Buddha. The fact that the texts were not translated into Sinhalese indicates t t ha na hg oa io vbr an h h at e h d efn z n eee cg a e d ad i eeoa nf rh ty t i g r c nt e i o ei the island. This tendency culminated in the later ideology of linguistic
81 82 83 84
Quoted in Pi rhi e ,k b a s a-Dharmas Revisited, 191 Cf. Roth, lv Pachow, 42 See Edgerton, 1-2; Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 552-556
55
85 enl,e a a g es t g e aes stswr l s a d t r lu oln. sim h Pw rr a e o n gf bg ea i e i ed h o a a li
This means that one who had attained the pa b i hs s i would through a d m their own insight understand that p sor vedano are incorrect h a s n iif s do k t ihessence-lu l o a o a wln h n e m t r n u o a t nv m e d w t a a () n gP gea i these should be phasso and v nFtP s oh a a e o elh, M ghika d . h ac le h a r i ot s Hybrid Sanskrit was not merely a variant dialect, but was a fundamental subversion of the Dhamma.86 The Sri Lankan Context All this makes more sense when we consider the climate in which the Dvsa and subsequent chronicles were composed. The events a p a drdo w t dh k M a o 3 CE, which ei c i h e oi a e a t4 s e l t e a f g hn b 0 c b s h e t n s u follows the tt p fea ia eh b r rivals the hr h tMo trt ei oh hh v e i u m vr r i t e Abhayagiri monastery. This rivalry had started about 400 years earlier, when the Abhayagiri monastery, having been established by king Va ce e mo aasi t f w o m , a t h e B l s s h o e f a i b m h o f hm u a el r a gn e a at , s l o ca ai w we lf tM on o g ei hs h a p d m e hh f b m r Ma o s e r h a ia u ci t n t, s xl o e vr r e n familiarity with lay-folk. This monastery was subsequently regarded as sstr tT a a cmio h h v . Abhayagiri became associated with h af i c m e e87 The rd suspect teachings imported from the mainland. Since little if any of their literature survives, it is unclear exactly how their doctrinal position evolved.88 Both monasteries received royal support until the time of Va sr d0 wne h g s rcef o i i a n3 ,eh b ai n e cd hk s o 2CE h tAa i s w a so r T ,u a yr i e u v i r u ir I u l rmed that these have m t V l s ts isl e pi e ac u. su pu og t n y r et p a y s seno w M a o tel dc icn otg d i a t gh i t i ee . m itot h n h he s l r vn I h h y,u r i e de t e t any case, these scriptures were suppressed. There is no discussion of the doctrines taught or why they are so dangerous. We might even be forgiven
i, Path of Purification 486-487 (XIV 25) amo Cn 1 e o ex os ) a f -oriented self-d i h a i . l ( s k tt l 8 p s he i t et o e hh fo f M in t n i vr a 87 M vsa 33.99 aa h 88 T e rr Sap d 32a p o aif h i ed an i . odu v pt es c i mts 8fit e oo r a on a k5 se r n Vy h, r rlm e tn no eo ia ii e ke ir h f cf A a n , cn m a r n o el et n a w h a abe d f ie u h k pe t s od t i ms I noess e rd, rl b e g iec oc tp a e ew e ey k n ra ta h ag cnas v hn s i. n lt i s t ied a iah ,i n S s aa is h may have an Abhayagiri connection. t u s vyb c h ann v w h
85 86
56
S e c t s
a n d
for wondering whether the actual contents of these texts were at all relevant.89 In a tuow b e nh hh n yshV l b s ru d de iu a c, e ao e r a tbk ee t y k e n ks disgraced. Following this, the ki Vaa o b a n o is G y and g hk s h , s rt , h a i Jet s od ea iauh b a c i u r tM B t Aa i o hs p t h hh .te h g n aa pe s vr yr tinued to i cause trouble. 60 bhikkhus were expelled by Go h f p d the h a o hi y r o g ba u l n V l dte e s en ea aa r ih e a a e a drd t M s s o n e t v ; s r ei ih h atn t u h l c b v hs c u reo e t sep called the Vajjiputtakas o e ln xl tD vsa n r r i90 a a qo i c s g, y h a a a o rci t h s t b a r Mh t t n t ss i r o h a n e u l ,e d h es s tn n e n t ca h e en oso y e . e r N y h f aat 4 ia g a D m( Century) was to turn this purely k sr o h k 1 a a r r th i literary analogy into history, claiming that around 32 BCE, shortly after the Abhayagiri was established, a group of Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus, under the leadership of a certain Dharmaruci, came to Sri Lanka and, being rejected bh a iau s one h g T e r e i ye hh , nu r tAa i h w tl t tMf dp t h b ai e e h x vro pi yr s e a . s Vitsa a aukM ghikas.91 jta h j a/ s p But soon the tables turned. A bhikkhu called Sa ghamitta arrived from India. Pti ertls tMs i aen d e oryea iait id t as o bh hh v ,s n h k cu vrs h n monk helped the Abhayagiri to regroup. He was rejected by king Je hatissa af b t dbohcs o a ehen a nl a o iuneci f h n eten d dc Ia t tas e k n; e n M a rr d o s ud performed the consecration ceremony for the king. Under Sa ma g is ht at i e k M a ru t M t m k e n n i a e pee h a ia eo w f c n h n ecd e hh : l e g s u st vr h n r s e de r t m aro iysnt Aa i s rno h o t fn e,d eb a v s i f v m e ne rn a a h h g , s y e r yr i in together with the evil minister Sos p t M ot at e h a ia i , id e hh f r p vr s treasures to adorn the Abhayagi u r o e hh w s r p t f M e o i pe t a ia r . or h S s vr e appalled that a minister called Meghava abhaya retreated to the Malaya r nh tMs en i arar a e ,e h a iai w i l tenm n g wr e hh v dl e , h d ayd i o e vrs n t x ge e marched on the capital. But those were chivalrous days. The rebel minister
Ie sh to u nt a a there is a n C t h ava ( l cito e h a ee n a f M sa) ta rt i h no v s oc ix ltD mh i ar ho t fe n tlh h a t h wb g r o ar t c d m d u c s u f r y t ea e a a e wh , o tm India. (Cv 41.37ff.) The king, unable to discern what was right and wrong, enshrined it and worshipped it. The doctrines taught in the text are entirely beside the point: we are told that the king did not understand them. What was at stake was the ritual worship of the physical manuscript. 90 M vsa 33.111: v l d bk a yr / aa h ea i hh b ans tvn i h g ii u o k , a i l i n v o g y s i tn s kake. i a m e aa a ht a, s n a tj a v h i 91 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 371. Some modern writers (see Pr 7 n t si et t s ga i T m ea ) n te h V (gvn h a r, c eh w t u a u ld)i y e3 o ce t h s r P as s py . not be wholly unjustified, since by the time o e a f Ny t ia graha there was h ks not a great deal of clarity regarding these sects.
89
57 reflected that he should not eat apart from his good friend the king, so on the eve of battle they shared a meal. The king asked why Meghava abhaya was intent on war, and he answered that he could not bear to see the drioh a iah e c fe hh . e king wisely asked forgiveness and st t o t M T un vr pg tel ea ia e l e pfte o leob tM a xl x l row e d r ih hh : c n a e h h d u d vr n e t m o s e wlah wty tetk v a g eh o wela d Boo e g i wsr de u go r a unf i w ss i s d y o. hn se oe v had Sa ghamitta and So a assassinated. The Abhayagiri was then stripped to ad t a ia o h hh . r e n M vr These events culminated w t dhfa e T i h e o hn h t ea h t M a e s. M sn is nt,d itwdThus did he a aa Ge tsoe w h o: h , errlnn t e r v i g aa i sh s gather to himself mumi dug ,r l cu n c eamh ipe e pag h rn cu fy a l the t l ec n st t t i deeply ambiguous moral world of the Sri Lankan chronicles. Throughout we see a genuine devotion to the ideals of the Dhamma. While there is little evidence of the permeation of advanced teachings and practices through the culture, still the kings make persistent efforts to live up to the ideals of t rt si a e sebA a u hda o h ie k s pedy . t een f e go n h u g re t rn o B t md k s government inevitably compromise these lofty ideals. Having closely intertwined their conception of Buddhism with the Sri Lankan nation, the Sangha finds it impossible to retain an independence from the political arena. While we cannot approve of all we find within these bloodied pages, we must remember that history is like this, everywhere, all the time. On the whole Sri Lanka is no worse than any, and probably better than most. No doubt other Buddhist traditions have faced bitter choices and deadly struggles. The difference is that we know nothing about them, as the Sinhalese are the only Buddhists of ancient India to preserve a historical literature. That literature asserts that without sometimes violent support Buddhism would not have survived. While we must deplore the violence, we cannot deny that the tradition, including the texts that tell us this story, has in fact survived where all others failed. T D vs nM sa were formed in a climate of h aa d a a ep a a h v d ee dcsr l oh o oh a ia e er a v utg F t m k fe hh , sa n i sg.re n t M t pt i o ue s vr h difference between sects was not a gentlemanly disagreement on points of Abhidhamma, but a deadly battle for survival. The formation of the s a o a iaii t chronicles and c i p ef hh v lae the lc h a a s M t u sl vrs e r n r commentaries the direct outcome of this struggle. was
58
S e c t s
a n d
Of course this picture is one-sided and melodramatic. Fa-xian, who spent two years in Sri Lanka a little after the events we have described, sees the Abhayagiri as the main monastery; it had 5000 monks, while the Mcd l ur0 h cia F a iauo mt3 .at tl a does not hh o n s 0 C arc , vr l y e 0 re iy -xian sl speak of any tension, but praises the beauty and devotion he witnesses in both monasteries. The combative spirit of the chronicles is as much a symptom of a frame of mind as it is the record of actual disputes. There is something in these stories of the past that filled an urgent n fha atpe TMs te l e o en i ee t e hh v , h v n e r S h hrn h a iaii o i t d t gn s. vrs n s o n e and intensely politicized e e d eT m bean t s e a t iaees i , d n h. s y s m n e o rh na expression of the va ideology, a need to separate oneself to create ij d bj a hv a a sense of sacredness and purity. Throughout religious and magical thought, a ritualized physical separation is a source and a sustenance for h pe h e t a ita o e h i qe o or efi nd it f es ud l w Td i y . io defi t o r r i i nn nc n h t er n io o r d edef e l h a s eom ih r te a itt e n t d doee d of nd ih eT mi n ten t e i n n y s. f f e e z e i a erio ea iait ar t o rn t d s f Ms ere i t t t a d t hh v : yejn h hs h k e h vrs h n eg c what they fear in themselves. We have already noted the ironies inherent w ihD vswt acs icet b i t aa rntil t csh o a t e p : i h n a t r u, a s e o y o u e fd m textuality; and while one of its central theses is a badly grafted foreign i r a st ndnle e. We shall see in our m t ceh o tugel n p, cse fr c a e t oi u t m i oi i m s n d s o ertaa ep is not alone in i s f upphhtD vsa s i t r r ct h a c o h i ai un p c t a fs oh on bhs . o s ne t iree ci t e t o ry ug n m is te While these ironies may be quaint, even amusing, the same texts contain ironies of a far more dangerous sort. Most obvious is that, despite tti s no rrg i l d s n n , hrt s i cnev i B h u a d e d nn e a o i te pen r au i c g i i s si o n g dm h en fact the burden of the chronicles is to legitimize the fusing of the Church and State, a revolutionary innovation without precedent on the mainland. This is w s u s sl oh ycinn A a ho ct iine t rv io a y mhr sd tmh eeo fo s e a s i nt k c p o e hh ao d sBgg b nh h i f M b dB h . o f e de a o t a iar f dmu i a y t mnh vr n u i tn r o s e p f kpo et a a e ir ni n x l A aan o en o e t r eS h a e nta f S hr n e e n g m oo rg h g v nf c a a e affairs, the chronicles pursue the politicization of Buddhism to its ii ens: B h jfio a h a a nt c l n e d s s a f r e h e b ou t u iu io w T M sa v l ci h dt t t a o i n c . v depicts the guilt-ridden king Dugi en f tbll iunr h a f h m rrg m eti a n ti o te ed and seeking solace from the Sangha for killing thousands of people in battle, just as A a gsco o l ts r md f s h l f Mg ut fh u r o o ta r gi aa t r o k u oe m a tso e e p i
59 tA a n oj a s h l f tB h r h r m k r tt o ta r hu a h eo o ,Aat u sc o ed f i km s u g oe m s d os md f fe ni s. a a rs t i h e u rhar g b a e h s se k t h r o shk B i T r n eu h n a e it i m h a tar e g t r need not feel so bad, since he has really only killed one and a half people: one was keeping the five precepts, the half had taken refuge in the Triple G. rdt n eT e o c t mh s no . e t u Like all good myths, this passage is timeless; hence it has become croe d S a nn s a of war against the ea tme r n S h jfi nl h o ni k a au io tt r L a gs t t i n c Ti h v ,i aa g u y tti , ri as e we ii aa turt i a e m. rd hm ti qieaa on c l a a l nn T n l x ld n pt t i c preserved neither more nor less of true Buddhism than any other school. But the stark contrast between the ideal monk as depicted in the early Suttas and the reality of Buddhism as lived created a tension on a deep lleo h i tod t rc oh t e, nn is rl, iot neh. va s w hn e e u ped to r e ti c o s b s j v e e IaiPk a u(3 t s g r ab I 5 w k ak 1 -1186) who, in the midst of n am h 1 apparently endless military campaigns, finally reconciled the various S hrre h soe ra t: s t a a ti.e a id er h i h n f ns C g a tT ei ava p t n l mk ad t e y s te e p vast efforts made in every way by former kings down to the present day, the [bhikkhus] turned away in their demeanour from one another and took
92 d h ai or. eayt eo C c h e t l dfi Taow tA ao i e l il sse hng ih n ul r ink g n t f l h k ni e s
me x in sh Rr f e D mo w a ei E at u oM d pt v l c : e e l e n h a i a s m k t h Mg ut , h[a m eud e a Er o l tss e aka u ns t g dl gi a ao Pk b ] tt h r a ts p i ra h re n d e

93 Ms F w tA a rd , y te l e a apo i h n e e t g e ah h sa ka . l n e o pe t e ar l l g o k cn h hd t
monks together, questioned them, solved the problems one by one, e ltbm knre ui a a i de t xl ha o , ct n dn hb i e p ded n a ed i S h s ae n e e sd a a f e ga t n h B ht u ai. d e ds 94 m From these few examples which could be expanded indefinitely w aeo h a iai rca enew e hh v c n s built on a structure of cs h tM h i r vrs ol e n e repeating cycles, of recurring parallels. It becomes clear how the Dvsdc o e h aa et f M ghikas as bad Vajjiputtaka monks is a p p o t a a a s in h i s mythic back-rif ts t i e e tD vsa. In enr hi i n t o ep ag m eu n t i f a d o to h m h a a myth time is uroboric, perennially swallowing its own tail: it is like this now, so it must have been like this then. The names and the details display a glinting surface of ever-changing appearances, but the underlying patterns
C s3 T ee a ledi rab a. h e te o odPk a u ava 79 e vs a rr n a ms 1 s n rs ce ak h Galvihara inscription. See Hallisey, 178 93 C sa 78.6 ava 94 C sa 78.27 ava
92
60
S e c t s
a n d
play themselves out with reassuring inevitability, like the changing of the seasons or the stars wheeling in the sky. The Sinhalese chronicles boldly meld the political and cultural history of their own people with the fundamental Buddhist myth, the life of the Buddha. Just as each ordination is a ritu eei o ed nco aga me a dp i f B h r nt,k t ro l r tn t u ae i n i h et i z eo h ds ua m n t t i act real in the present, so each event in the mythic structure informs the eternal now, the immanent sense of history lived as destiny. Thus the scapegoating and expulsion of the Vajjiputtakas becomes a catharsis required whenever the purity of the Sangha is imperilled. W B h o T ai a d ga hv ? s d h a e u as rd n The notion of purity of lineage is an essential element in the strategy of establishing a school of Buddhism. This is despite the fact that the very notion of p mra particular ordination lineage, is absent from the a p, ra a early texts. Of course, it is not unreasonable to infer from the early texts that they ascribe a certain value to the notion of a direct connection of ordinations from teacher to student. But this can hardly be construed as central. Ih a w t Wdadh e j w a n em ah ark wt N raa tse y a r s t e e er g n s h u M i ot se y n t henu a sh a tmi om wd o a t B h o t h n se en a o rwt e d g a e ys , m e xt d h , 5th C u cp oh e t M cmt l e r o i fe fi a iai o er ny m e t d i t l r iv hh vn m ni ne vrs a a tradition, wae i ro s iiig aT a i t sh ra l e sh vn e f onon . rd n m idt e n a There is nothing explicit to go on. The later tradition asserted that he was born in Magadha, but this is a transparent effort to affirm his orthodox background. Interestingly, the Burmese maintain that Buddhaghosa was born in Burma. While no-one but a Burmese would find this plausible, this tradition implies that his ordination would be traced by the Burmese to the mission of So Uttara to Suva m other a and abh In i . words, he came from one of the other missions, not from the mission that eb eh a ia o h t ue ee e c s sl de hh . m ee rs rc o u t s tM F tl B e st f r ah i vr r a r m ppi oe v t il e,t B h o d tno f n d h s rd biu a s ah on a i i aT a au s lh v n d g a ye t o ui d h s i f e form of Buddhism throughout south-east Asia did not exist, and there were in fact many schools in the region. Since Buddhaghosa came from India, and given that the vast m ro d B h w nai w t h vn t a t Iau i e o f e ih es h jy nn d s r ti dt e rd i e o f i dt e f t h T a in i s l a
61 no e r i b e a s M) m w awn er y D v a a iai e y l r se ud t a ( hh v , a e r s qe h p = vrs w n l won wt h ra w r yh vn e e eo d h ei dt a a rd H omt e er ono s lT a i d r h s ii n e l e . s nn i having stayed in a few places on the mainland, some of which have been ta l ef io e Ia a ata yo ety nen u rn: y s pa (lr ni itd S h d u an M p t e di v i tn iM rt a e a near Chennai); Kacipura (Conjevaram near Chennai); and the postscript to t Vd mg ei h ao o t h id a drsm sf r aa ( e s h g s e i Ma ck Andhra?). 95 ui a c b ea H e, M sa says he was born near Bodhgaya, although this is ovt a a weh h re v a much later tradition, attributed to Dharmak f 1Century. As far r t4 t h th i e o as his ono o tM sa could hardly be less specific: while ra g, a a dt eh h ii se v n wdna nn se t m arwr ee a r dd h td o th h t n i r Ia ea a eg o u i , y a ne s ,e m y e a th c d v,dwmeora . e e a R t n h hoono Revata is said to a r l ea e o t dt 96 cl au r e k ii n teach the p of the Abhidhamma, but phere is used in its general sense i i of text and need not imply the Pali canon we know. Buddhaghosa apparently prepared a treatise called odaya, of which nothing is known, and an As cmt oh hma e ig , o ern e a a ga h xn h l am ny tD an i a m s . ei T s t commentary by Buddhaghosa on the Dhammasa n dl t ga iea h id c de se l e As tsto ii dya t e lw , , ink n h aneoo e eo i h lb t o wfs ar i t a rr anu i n i th ln h r t i k f indeed it ever existed. When Buddhaghosa wanted to do further work on a paritta commentary, Revata tells him that: e the text [p has been preserved, H only e r i] there is no commentary here, asl ne eD r: ni r oa roi d iy T hsc e ml a c t n
97 t h a at i t n h al p a s f d a sl a n n o . t fn r d o u e
Revata then praises the purity of the commentarial tradition of Sri Lanka and encourages Buddhaghosa to go there and learn. This story is a legendary construct to emphasize the superiority of the Sri Lankan tradition; it is doubtful whether the Indians saw things quite the same way. Polemics aside, this tradition gives us no credible basis on which to affirm t B h o mt v aaonoihM h u a s u h h nra n e a ia a d ga sa d t dh e dt ii n t hh vr tradition.
95 96 97
Buddhaghosa, xvi M sa 37.216ff aa h v M sa 37.227 aa h v
62
S e c t s
a n d
I take the example of Buddhaghosa only to make a rhetorical point. But it was normal for monks to travel around different monasteries, staying with different fraternities. This must have happened even more with the Aa i o t, oe s b h a iait e b a m arw w a y e hh v s b h g ne h r i t M o yr i s y ed vrs n apgd m kffnrts te h g s c t Ia o oieti . tAa i s ci nn n d r a o B h b a v e n i s f t dn u e i yr i in w l fdt e hh v ss ts o impurity ea u w t a iaid ihu s rt s ih ,p ip e ee e h M vrs et s p d r n e in their ordination lineage. A similar situation must have obtained throughout south-east Asian Buddhism, for we know that the areas of Thailand, Burma, and Cambodia where Thera a wos were formerly dominated by v n f is ol h d ue r M a S kc a a d a oa r a B h n rni rk n u y, si vy t dhism. We note the widespread occurrence of the cult of Upagupta throughout this region, which is totally absent from Sri Lanka, and wonder whether this gives a hint as to the kind ou i p atf tT a at o A rg I fd s rl br e e oo ycd t Bh dm ee ee h v rd .c i o vn o h rd h x on Tsing, in the lands on the eastern boundaries of India all four major schools flourished, while
98
in
the
island
regions
the
Mas d l via a s t r v
predominated.
W nh aso r T a a h ter ve t h v (which mainly e e e c ed o e s a nt rd occurred around the 11th-12th Centuries), it is impossible that all the monks took new ordinations. Of course, the official histories will assert that when the religion was reformed that all the monks conformed to the new system. But the practicalities of this are absurd: sending city administration monks wandering through 1000s of miles of tiger-stalked, bandit-infested, ghosthaunted jungle tracks seeking out countless little villages, trying to persuade senior monks that their ordination is invalid or improper and must be done again, all on the basis of some political compromise in a fardistant capital, in a region of ever-shifting borders and allegiances. As history this is sheer fantasy, and the reality must have been that the reforms would directly affect only certain central monasteries. Others maybe used an informal procedure like a da hikamma (strengthening act), which is just an ad hoc procedure invented in lieu of doing a genuine sa ghakamma. But for the majority the reforms would have been irrelevant, even if they heard of them. It is only rational to conclude that the current
98
I-Tsing, 9-10
63 rdl glike all others, must be a blend of many different T a an e h v e , e i a strands. Bteri i ehsa ertu n isscn s ao t tces t i z ra o eh t a s h huni i n hr w t r to a T a a f rit dn ono t . involves h v ia e s os tdt s s e nc t w icra rd ta n t i ii y 99 One n l e reciting the refuges once during the p a in the other, the refuges are aj bj b; recited twice, once ending the words with the a v n u r (pronounced sa ng), and again with the labial nasal The two statement p a has its m. aj bj b roots in the ancient Mon BuddhisohD a r ( 8th m fevv po 7 t a ed th rt i Centuries), which was possibly introduced into south-east Asia (a m f sh Ia i b v t t t S u abh)o o e n.z e e h h w v ir u r d Bt l s a i o m tn i o i e ts statement p a was connected with certain esoteric meditation aj bj b practices. The one-statement p a o ea ia s r c a j f Mw i d d bj t hh a tu b h vr n e o later, around the 14th th Centuries, by monks who were in contact with 15 Sri Lanka. But when the Sri Lankan lineage was re-established from Thailand, it was with the Mon two-statement p a Meanwhile, the oneaj bj b. statement p a was progressively imposed on the Sangha in south-east aj bj b Asia, especially following the modernist Dhammayuttika reforms of Prince Mongkut in the 19th Century. In one of those delicious ironies of history, the two-statement Mon pabbajj survives only in Sri Lanka, while the onenow statement p aprevails throughout south-east Asia. aj bj b The complexity of the situation is acknowledged by Somdet asa the current Sa r oh nin paw vara, g fa d amrt r h j T l, i t o a a i n a on k Buddha S a This discusses the modern Thai ordination lineage s V sa. a a n and the reforms introduced in the 19th Century when the Dhammayuttika N y a rd t ao ers ort.s id ia sm oh sf B e n d n i l k wf ene i t u e ti Ib v o bs h m M a ot e e i e that this tradition stems ultimately from the mission of So Uttara to a and Suva mn os eease Sdasar abh i m H ro ooe v i A ai r em fmt a k t. e a s remarks: t u a a ainnt rn o h F h d h r b ul peme n r e ds i t e s,r a o B h M pn a i e t t m b h 2000 years have passed, thus it is difficult to know whether the p l ga m o t ic n) u i es ewo nt o 1 r e hc dn u to t6 e a n o sa r . (
99
My thanks to Rupert Gethin for this information.
64
S e c t s
a n d
ee hfd a i n aafu I l gadays o yr l t f i es ew ii w h u s tn h a a tn m, j like P ui dc n h e n wh l) u ss ea tol e aa e ( k 100 dt om ss sr s1 kt io i e s s m s8 . sn b c t [L ad T a a o o r Sa a h s i t u i rn n e a n h n si k e Suva m edoi a eig mr t abh mga et tre ce m e i r s n ti a af h ] e n hhl e n o same sasana that king A ad tm e i t hs f t a l o a no h p a k er ct a Pl t3 pa 0 u. ) a t( i [After the t onaka uSa ]i i f gr ab o i kS m k Pk f L ar e i a m h rn L ahhcedt em o hha a niu nr ih[n iu d n bk o r w t k ksf e h Ra M ] k s a bk n were of the opinion that since the Sri Lankan bhikkhus were of the line of So Uttara they were of the same communion.101 The a and Elders thus invited one another to participate in sa ghakamma and tt g h e dt. ) oh a ir ii ( ge v g ono 3 er e h ra n1 [ l g neh nmy e r h T i e tda d at s o hn s e Tl] n m tu ee er i i h g a a myrssd s ne euyd r apo a dm td c tn fn ned B h er ho r ie i u i e t n if t e periods, sects, and forms, it is difficult to know how they merged ah t di. ) noh e e( dwe c d 6 yl n 7 [ D mu a r a da d s T h atN y vi T B h h a yi ia i eh u i e m t k el k t z i dm tu h gr r he o ]-establishing in Siam a direct lineage from Venerables Mahinda, So n t . ) a dt , Ur 7 a a( a7 So while there sometimes appears to be an almost mystical belief in the inviolability of ordination lineages, saner voices are still to be found. No monk alive can guarantee his own ordination lineage. In this situation it is safer and more reasonable to focus on the way the holy life is lived rather than on unverifiable claims of a largely undocumented past.
T i r e t e r P uih hva Sutta, h if c t t o k t i i ne e h o f k t e t h s e no s s r y u si D u n b ga who went forth out of faith in the Buddha before formally receiving o a . asars e n eio oa aa h rt di io v a mt t o f fh jt e nn a l n s gg t Mi ao i h n r o h pp t , first nun, as a worthy precedent in this context. 101 S a a technical Vinaya term meaning able to perform an s ma v , s a sa ghakamma together.
100
Chapter 4
Monster or Saint?
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO LOOK at some of the northern accounts of the schisms, s i ihr ionSvsd h tn t esv nt hr n a a a g h f d ii t iaM ghikas. The most r w t i i ,o a t ts a s p itmi caM aFor the Pali sources (including r n ne ar a e102 o e a s ei h v mn t n d. tS saa isM aoo es hu s vyb a ei etm i eda iah ) h v nf inaries sent out ann v, d s h s o by Moggaliputtatissa. He was one of the teachers 103 f ad gg o h a or i i M ns n f , d u t s t f th ohM o a t sd t e u ia f e a iai r n h a ah o ae t h s n nn d t hh v vrs n a e ins w h in h v s tt t e s o a saka d re h s o h tradition. 104 M a eud it m i t Mi (Andhra?), where he taught the discourse on the Divine Messengers: 40 000 penetrated the Dhamma, while a further 40 000 ordained. Frauwallner tkfs ia e m f M k h s t ro s h e t aa i o ig n h en t o o e hs school, and suggests h h a
Lamotte (History of Indian Buddhism, 281) followed by Nattier and Prebish (213) mta da M au ie i f p,o e nB iv a e, tgtgt aw n i h t h vb h r k o es h o os a d t t s an h t developed the 4 brahmavih and whose lineage was followed by 84 000 r as, kings, is of course the well-known Makh of MN 83/MA 67/EA 50.4 and d eva assorted J takas, etc. 103 The other teachers were Moggaliputtatissa and Majjhantika. 104 Ta u fha o-forth is similar in the Pali and Chinese, hc n Mi i ec t ad gg o o ns n except the Pali says when ordained he became an arahant with pa b i hs s i, while the Chinese says he had the three knowledges and six a d m a (A similar variation is found in the description of Siggava and b h i. Ca at CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 678, b28-2 fmts avajji 9. ap d ,S n i ca a k 1.36.) Just later, the Pali says he learnt the Dhamma-Vinaya as recited at the tC c t w t o er ht hs ye w o i oh i em ny i eie s oul g e t cmt , l Ces h n, erh s t h aw h n a e learnt the Sutta and Vinaya Pi memorizing the Tripi (CBETA, T24, akas, aka. no. 1462, p. 682, a13-14) Both these changes may be seen as reflecting a Ta ieo w t k len aare standard, hvn wi h h n e sd b e v pt i e o d a6h rd i n l 3 w g : e i the pa b marginal in the Suttas and other schools, but were i hs s i are a d m cr t h vno ea h eo nl e rd r t o Ta i t t s -treatise the Pa bg T i hmg h s ia. a d m ae anachronistic mention of Mahinda memorizing the commentary needs no explanation.
102
66
S e c t s
a n d
this originated as the result of this mission. Given the evident closeness of t aat e hh v ti ,s ni h d h hs w t a iaia o h o c s l e k ih rt tc e no M a h M vrs d n i n t n i o u come as no surprise. B te a h M a too was said to live in uh in e a e He te s or h v r t d. Pl t t io . He too was a leader of a major group in the pa h m f k u a e eA a a tt t i o schismatic period. And he too is associated with the Andhra region. Given these striking correspondences, it might seem curious that the identification of the two is not taken for granted. Until we realize who this M a trla d ilr u r t te a eihe d d sa p o efevh s h vs ev n eceo n o f e d : i e pb p d hi s e ; murderer of his father & mother, murderer of an arahant, provoker of the root schism that forever split the unified community of early Buddhism. H e, i u a u f dnh S ov t l we h r c n o it as d r s i ct u d o, n e rt i vi n v cmt tMh ,us te u o er ea i o e o sggling for historical m ny a h hb l e bt v w d m r support. In this chapter we shall review the main northern sources for their perspectives on the first schism. In the next chapter we shall see how this r e t u s M a e s h p e a e. l t e pd h v a o s o d t Vasumitrama d rn k s a h p c ca S y e aa a105 a b o a ar This famous and influential treatise on the origin of the schools was cp dy S V ma noi g n i oo ba rt i a i Odrlo s i ms e as d s t vi n u r v . c a r dt t n u s ro aa rah a i nh d e n sr t tMh , s l c e e e ne hb do probably be dated kd lh i v a u around 500 AN (100 CE). The text exists in three Chinese translations and one Tibetan. According to Vasumitra, about 100 years after the Nirvana (116 ys c i t ur atso we ruled in e arg K v rln h A a a cd o ma aa ) i o r on js nt , l k i P ttS h a i t a a tha a s l o h and Sthaviras due to alipu, n w s i M ghika ae g pn t s the five theses. The five theses are supposed imperfections of an arahant, all of which would seem to be quite at variance with the perfection ascribed to the arahant in the early Suttas. But interpretation is all, and many scholars have concluded after a close examination that the theses, while obviously controversial, do not constitute a serious denigration of the arahant. They apply, perhaps, only to certain arahants, or are merely
Partial translation at: http://www.sacredtexts.com/journals/ia/18sb.htmhttp://www.sacredtexts.com/journals/ia/18sb.htm. For discussion, see Liang.

105
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
67
concerned with worldly things that are not essential to spiritual awakening.106 In Vasumitra and elsewhere the five theses are presented in a characteristic cryptic verse. Here is Pmt vi a ae n r rr : a h s s o Another person defiles the robes Ignorance; doubt; and is led by another; The holy path manifests through speech:
107 T ied e cg hs B h t th . a t u ar e i th ds u an
Vo ner eo au r t f te ( au ase nn sp t h i h s go rs m amte s o g e e e: ar i id pi n v sN Mi rarl n rak )h uand in a aaPmt tso Py i?a r; h n araa )ana, ut r h a h nt , t t( s i B a ttsoax ne r s h a. a ed n wrlnnt a,h M d108 M aeo o nts eamp a a h a h vo t aa i r ep br d s appear in either of the two earlier Chinese translations of Vasumitra, nor in the Tibetan translation.109 Only the last of the three Chinese translations, by Xuan-zang, mentions Ma e saying:ii buoe r eln hv a d, s tee tf am eo I a o dt o s b t t d s hus i s ae i e poo a es e i gi n i i s M ai os Lamotte suggests r g tr n f h v f p t e n h oi n d v n110 . that this detail is interpolated from the Mh , which was also a i hb v translated by Xuan-zang. This suggestion can be confirmed by a comparison of the verse summary of the heretical theses. This is character for character identical with the version (translated below) from the Mh . a i hb v Xuan-zang translated the Mh in 656-659 CE and a i hb v Vasumitra in 662 CE, so he must have copied his earlier rendering from the Mh into Vasumitra. This proves Xuan-zang was influenced by the a i hb v Mh in his translation of Vasumitra, and so we are justified in a i hb v tk t tir o a ew a anv n Xuanh i h hnt f h v al nn t o i ga es o M a s o i a f n n t en i d s oi o zang, and was not in the Indic text.
See Warder, 209; Cousins, T Ptn ei o ds h i o t rsB h ev i a h g f dt F e n d Oi u i s n Schools. 107 (CBETA, T49, no. 2033, p. 20, a24-25) This verse has been reconstructed into Pali by Cousins ( TF hi ev e Ptn ei o ds hs t ) r h a / o t rsB hS o o 4 a a o i a h g f dt o n 8 p p r n d Oi u ic l e : a s n , ka p v a/ k a g ga k ai d h r mg h r u o a / eta d n s ar t kh c a b h sn u a d ua (or b h s n). u a d ns d aa 108 Discussed at http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/thefirstmahasanghikas 109 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 276 110 (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 15, a20-21)
106
68
S e c t s
a n d
It is rather a shame that, despite the fact that Lamotte has clearly dorda i a ei l ira i a is ena t t M a a e to on s t m s eh h h vs a npt t t ts d t e l n V ma r i ur treatise, we still see countless references asserting that Vasumitra blamed tss na e111 This is no doubt due to Xuan-z e e hcm M a e io h v h d. as s a n pt s g rg i a translator. Ia pap tr h vnesa w t n ono, M a a i edt i i rtif a esms r i s m t no d me h the dung of scandal like no other, and the smell will linger as long as he is ac dt e h gar s si w t a a koi s t ih hi . oe h M s i g a s n All translations of Vasumit p ol M a d w r e f t a e as e a a ae h v no sk a r d, wh etigha eI supposed causer of the schism, ie f dn s h v the lno s u M a l cr t i h i d , f tM aH a atf t r i r h a eIe s si a h eo went forth o i h v.wa c o o ri who ms d I n e n e ln c g i e h 200 years after the Nirvana, and founded the Caitya n M ghika t aa h s sub-school.112 Xuan-z , imtehiM a y a a hn eo tf a e s t n ag nn es h v a h gv id r t d,s t after 200 years there was one who went forth, abandoning wrong and undertaking right, who was also c d a e113 Thus he clearly a M a l l hv e d. a o d t ete t M aI n i et c w g h x n ow a e. iom d l k le e i c f o h v t t miy n es s e ds s a e oowta s,nh o h v at ct. bu h eo i a t w a e h o hh vs a lnp ye M a v e o r i r ihi , t t f ds e a e Bhavyak b ah a k n s h va v h a N y e i y y 114 ia db g a B y r iaa Mh apo ho e century h a B ae w a d mai p f 6th a , h vk s a akh o rt v o vv , y l e h s
CE.
He records three accounts of the schisms, together with descriptions of
the schools and their doctrines. Bhavya I is the actual opinion of Bhavya and his teachers, while he records B y (h vn d a I h a V a ) B y I a I ij d a h a v Ibj i n v I a ( gv )r e k fe c . a i d a rr P a ft s oh ed esn e f e u ld oh a ga a e t rrH l c s u o o l u t h tradition attributing the schisms to philosophical disputes, specifically the s debate on the three times. Bhavya is writing at a great remove as d rt i vi n v from the events, although no doubt he relies on earlier sources that are now lost to us. T f l( v I p u V maiw se hi iB y) r c a isti o e ss h a ro e s t l t m r ta t ed s u r s h , small but significant changes.115 I u led afrt i t sl g es S i u rr s a a d oas d y vi n v origin, but unlike Vasumitra the first school mentioned is not the
E.g. Nattier and Prebish, 205; Roth, vii; Walser, 45; etc., etc. Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 283 113 (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 15, b1-2) 114 m x . k n t aj . v l t a D c A n a er B y i o t o. l o s Talh a f r 1 s w h k a e y 2 o v s s Tna 6 , -189186-189. Translation in Rockhill, 182-196. r t1 ah 8 115 The date is 160 AN, rather than V m 0 1 h v au a i 1o 6 w r e s t 0r ; e B a ur a s 1o e r argues that 160 is just a confusion for 116.
111 112
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
69
S but the Haimavata or tOiSvs t i) as d rt a vi v h r ahr( l aa e i l aaa vs n t i M s r. g h I uk as oo ca hg pe i l aa t n l yh wl l o r uh r a hr i ly c lu an er t i Svs si n o e dl t o O n t i, g s i p t mt ts oo s o s ei u ee o w e t a l n s hc l nl h pl a o b h s f -perception. Perhaps then Bhavya I should be seen as a Haimavata variation on Vasumitra. Or perhaps it should be the other way around: Vasumitra is a S va oh a hsa hypothesis, for Bhavya as da i fa I i a ical rt aro B y T ir vi v in t v .s d was writing much later than Vasumitra. But Vasumitra also refers to the H aa tM svsWhy should the a Sa writer a vs h t i116 i a a e l aa m ts a r h . as d rt i vi n v call another gr tOiSvs atl sh o h r ahr In re , Sthaviras u e i l a aan t p n t i? g a n u see w aeo t M ghika schism should be considered the h r f h aa o o r e h s m s iSvsua iirhas d a eaf O n t i. V ma et rt i t h o r ahr B s tnt e vi n t e i l a t u r s g a s S s h d v his list while the Haimavatas are second, even though they are called the i Sv is more natural to take Bhavya I as the original, O n t i. It r a hr ilas g a mitla i acp i a V maS aget a v oi nn a i art i k hi H aam a ,d s t as d n s m t l t o ur vi n v rehash. If there is any truth to this hypothesis, it is rather striking that our oldest epigraphic evidence for any school, even in its formative stage, is the Haimavata; and again in the Haimavata we see what might be the earliest form of the lists of schools. Another peculiar feature of Bhavya I is that it gives a number of s n sre rt i H vn= si, ra y y ftS ses V ma u t, n m oh as d:td ( a t Mu k o vi n u i v ur ) na a V a s ie s e t tS s y o n ij d. s a u sh has d m a dbj iT cr gt a ert i al h vn h l y gs t a l vi n v s ba V a s t exige esi l , el ij d; wnp i h t a ltt c dbj ib hea te m l a h l h vn u e a ln s r t e e n t r e se o d e rt adbjd o st s i a au e s vi aV a i ptr T m c n f S n ij a p ie .s c t i as d n v hv n o a em h curious state of affairs would only make sense if the original list emerged at a e d a wr as d V a b t di t a peh S = bjd uh ee i nl m c e rt a ij a te td e vi v h v, a a l explanations dated from a later time, when the two terms had come to mn pn oi. ch as d o ts a e e o s drsn tS nxtt a p i c e i e rt i w e r t og t Se n vi n v s te h V a s o n s i lyieficdr ij d ap e,s i t ita o s g bj i sp n i uk hd it u p h vn a ot t n l s nc n l i e io n
Xuan-zang: (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 15, b10-11) B a a t Sv u r r jh ti t a tu a hr Pm h s s a (CBETA, T49, a n 0 p , ) m jh na S a o 3 . b . va el as d l . 3 2 1 K ras O c drt as 2 , 0 0u a : l vi , e v o c d td hr h. s n c d i a a H v ,l a s ohe d a H aa l e M sv c lec il a v l u a a i oT e t a o sl m t e school. (CBETA, T49, no. 2032, p. 18, a24-25). Since both the other Chinese translations list two names for each of t as d at a vs esm jhte h rt i n e i a, r Kva r o e vi n d H aa haurase r S s h m tw e v a hf t as d ao ofh a vss s t h rt i nn n r H aa e t e vi n dl e t i a, e h S s v y o e m ti m a t Kva i e a nt a v etne urass n s e e i a a n em m jhma l s d H aa l a a, a t yi h m t t i k g s rv M sv t ert a ti o S l a , has d a r t vi . ha v
116
70
S e c t s
a n d
from them; hence this alternative name is absent from Vasumitra. The term Muruntaka is curious. B y xii s hio o h ap s ah w l n u a ea t te o e Mn v l n so v t Mu k T i r b a fn t hf u ru u th s o l rr e t a s u ra. i p a na s by ee o e m U ec o m a mountain near Mathura, known in Pali as Ahoga gapabbata. This mountain std e r m ar o hgt S he t fs o t sf er (l as d e e h ot ne l r e s e t e Ma rt i i a ) vi n v pi s s n p p a w a tr a s o e a r v a Ug a d soett o f t c d a tn alhe rr t r h ai a n u, s r et h e Third Council patriarch, Moggaliputtatissa. B ysn s h II) gives no information as to the date h ae dt a a c lB ya vs o i v ( or cause of the schism, and merely lists the affiliation of the schools. It tt hr ss ate : hr M ghika, and rs eo cm s ro Sv e t o h a t i h f ti a a el a , h d a s V a .u b v t mt aa nV a ij d C i e eh ub m l ij d bj i on l s i se h vn s i a e s i d bj i n a h vn a vi se tt ebjd an feoc l e n n ie tV a s o o r s oI r , c rs ij i s e t o hs s i t a h h vn o a h t o. t would thus represent thebjd o pe n t se V a nrt o ees ij i w ep f ml a h vn a s ci h v s o a closely-r e g p c igo M k K aa ed r l a t o u os n i f aa ap, sn t hs, a yy D mu k n a = hh v ? fu, h h a t, Trt ( a iai Ooe t a g a a a M ) c sf s r pa d y vrs . n rii theory is true, this would only serve as evidence for the late middle period (circa 400 CE), from when this passage evidently derives. We note that the m l V a sa a s t sesr g c a n ij d m h e h es f is a i d bj i y v e e l ao n u n a h vn a e n mv m h group of schools, but such a perception is nowhere attested for the Ms o t s sr a iaiw s h e a dically alone. hh v , a e l s vrs h w m v a n e Tmtpa fa is doubtless Bhavya III, which h omrtB ylists e s on h a i t o vs rrtppi f P a w hnk n m y ed erc o ega ah i to f a c s ee e t u ld i s n r n o h st v h gv , c o w o source. T aui ita is tfi adit h c n slo s t, d r myt. ic t i rV ma uis nes so s a m urb f n e aI l says that 137 years after the Nirvana, under the kings Nanda and M mp es o ), there was an assembly of great monks a aa e er A a h d (d ss o p r co f k apa a apM a ay ,t,v, . t u: h a ao, h Ur ea c Pl t y , hm Mg t R t t a tM k a i l ta a a ae Ma ude mf o c Bhadra and propounded the five am tf o m klled rs eho a na s r te a t l e b als gn ao h s t hv e d a r) eN a Sm ( e. e e r a h u Er d r tr s Lr e r (u t d y n a ai Sthiramati) adopted the five theses, resulting in the schism between the M ghika and the Sthaviras. aa h s Vasumitra.
117 118
117
T ne aewith h a N e m g gs a r e
118
Bhadra might be the same as the oa a d fr r a Pmt n a h
Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 281 Ip awhtt t a a t ep o n g t M ghika Vinaya list of teachers i r sr o h h h sh t i ae s n a a o d ag lc wg N ( s k le CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 492, c22-23), o ne s a w te o h v u it o gdbs d h h i M a t lsl ado at i es a e B h s s nnuu n e l rn e d. ti si o i , h ne gom na c t little. a N s m,tos m c oht n a o t iu for
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
71
Xuan-zang. B a a r also agrees with Vasumitra and possibly the hu ut upphao te se bi s wt w tat gh i mai y t h e e r rr c lu e s i a i ,h h r o m u a p c g t o er h should take it as a name or an adjective. 102 yst t M gap M a e l ,ea a i s. h vwho was a a h h k l a e r e r s hs i t d, formerly an ascetic following another sect and lived on a mountain with a cetiya,edmbca a r tses h tenets, and founded the Cetiya e eo a M ghika j c i s sc ltM ghika (which was based in Andhra).119 This is the uh o e h bo f aa so h s o M annoh a n ae k l h v o tB y and is obviously equivalent to y d w a, v V ma a eI s lose t t B y te a is h v . h d t anc ah ah s t M a I o nep o h a r ur d I tu c i t vs e e l re t ppi o vl o, M a ao i e s t ee ef e s oa a eIs s pe h rc ssrc ln h v hn t rn e st s v ea hs d d part to play. Bhavya III agrees with tD vsa in placing the first schism h a ep a br .i r ei r o en l i f ss eeo T aen t stg r ed t cm f A a s e t e f ea r o e i o k h gm n m h e po h h has been taken by some scholars as demonstrating that these sources reinforce each other and must hence have a genuine historical basis. But this is highly p l t ev e a e a sa t o e re i h s t tD v s i f om c a e h h a d gt b a W e n t p a . n h schism is entirely useless, and no other source places the schism before Aa . There is no weight in the agreement of two sources if one of those o k sources is demonstrably wrong. Moreover, apart from the general period atb fo e ib etSv aM ghikas, nha a f ss e eht i n a a der c t cm t ne a sd h et h h w hr a s tD vsa and Bhavya III have nothing in common: not the cause h a ep a (textual revision vs. 5 theses); not the specific date (100 AN vs. 137 AN); not the place ( s u) tenK v a a V l Pl tn tk (a a.n n e v pa oh i k s d d s .at i ; g o Na M m n tp e eaa p tM ghikas a aa oh rd (a set ea a h d) teo u D v dc h h p ; cr p i s s going off by themselves to do their texts, while Bhavya III depicts a conflict and split). We have to squeeze hard to extract any meaning out of the mere agreement in general period. B y I cp b n w t Dvsa, but with h aI o al o i h a a Is mre t t e p v i a, h a Vasumitra. But the dating is just a source of confusion: Bhavya III is set under the reign of earlier kings, but due to the differences in dating the t f t B h o o t cn d i t( AN vs. i r h u a A a e le a s e1 m o e d t , ad t l 3 em d kh er e a r7 V ma 1 ). None of this gives us confidence in relying on any of a is6 s t 1AN ur these dates.
119
Rockhill, 1992, 189
72
S e c t s
a n d
Thus Bhavya III stands as an isolated account, which contradicts all other sources in many important details including the dating, and which was compiled centuries after the events: Bhavya was writing in the 6 th Century, and his source for this section probably dates around the 3 rd-6th Century.120 The monks mentioned do not occur as a group anywhere else, and while some of the names are familiar, there is no supporting evidence f u ao T mt oh aiped Ma e o c g ph eo fa bg ssb gs r h r .e nn B re os y ri s u i d n se v sufficient evidence for the polemical natur fe c t e tau T n a oh c n r t o . ah alternatively describes him as so evil it was as if he was possessed by
121 Ma r .
Bhavya III was not taken on its face value even within the Tibetan ti . r t wi ih1 Century and attempting to rt T n a r g t 7 a o , i n e th d n ah t i n synthesize vars r i d B ynh a auo i scn i h adei c nf o o e c n a atV hk c t u us l g v u bi o a M alsa e a A ah B r s e h a e pe h v f ,e h a o o i h v a M a t o t d, c d e k n a a n fs r d f w ; iye e o mte B y aua e o esl to r n eo ih ac nb l ri rht m k nn n a c t v l s a o ml h s id vs o o alti en tsln , eh r cd tg r n liA ah theresy festered e a n ea fw oe h ei o go wne o o k until resulting in schism in the time of a later Nanda. The reliability or o re T n a e n ntp tr u d g a tw o r i t o h ,t o i h i fr t vi s h i e bi e v es ah ss o o e n e t se precedent for not accepting the chronology of Bhavya III. W h s t t M mhg as e v e h h a iai y l pt a e a e hh v e n t vrs to i a n oy n detailed enough background picture for us to discern their motives in placing the schism when they did. Below we shall see that the same applies th as da to d eoh a a o ert a d se g ftM ghika. But no tS n om eere h vi , v r s
122 legendary materia reo hu ldr o hsThus lvs m ega a uf o. si f tP ag p s o uv r gv o c l
there is no way of deducing what their specific motive was in placing the schism so early. But we may assume that they did have such an apologetic, responding to the universal human need to seek archa u rf n i tio e c ht r ao y os own spiritual tradition. In this case the crucial element in their story would h b tl tssne e Ndn a aa u a e o c e ii t oa aM mt v e pe cm t i fn d h d, s e n ah h hm a p h ( t Mse g ee te fegi l h a iai sn h c o l trou i e hh v )t t s e t oh l s k e vrs n t i n l i r o triumph und a d d a. e o f e et r k e c se Aa w a l r
C iOhij d, on n Va s 8 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 5 a Tna , r t8 ah 0 122 All we have is four treatises in Chinese translation: two similar Abhidhamma works (T1506, T1505), a discussion of their main doctrines (T1649), and a Vinaya summary. (T1461). See Chau.
120 121
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
73
pph ta r rr c i a i 123 p c The mythic character of this text is obvious. It is an aprocryphal Sutra of tM ghikas, which pretends to be a prediction of the future, but h aa e h s which, like all religious prophecy, is really about contemporary events. It was translated into Chinese towards the end of the Eastern Tsin dynasty (317-420 CE), and was probably composed a couple of centuries earlier than this. W r me dr i a o a V yut e tp teit t h n iat b a et os e s r-M an -sau e d c a po y b a r , this raises a number of issues: it is doubtful that the author thought of it in te mo h eedee o e h n n e l h t s wt havh dt a A i u o e , er he a f M a d ql sr r h n r h y. s a y u r h e i b a e e ah a M at n e er s et a r ner a sa s wt i t ddr t te u hto e lh i l h nus y y r ; probably it is roughly contemporary. A beei ni b o e dro g e s t s t m t t t c i h pr p a a u g V y t124 a ia r m n -sa . T f pa f r e d ii u i hi ag e e B hna et r es se a t u a d gw S r ss t h d t u l o h iputta, who starts by praising the Buddha as one who teaches beings according to their inclination. A number of topics are raised: the nature of listening to Dhamma; the correct practice; drinking alcohol; food and lay supporters; k Bbrs eo i h c e n hB ht i i s i nn n io c . eu a e n m g i a mte t n t T id s ni o d h d n ehzhe ecd t e hi ei a i m a s tharg trt e h l g t p i ea sc i o i t : n i t s s e c on h g m W v n h time, one should practice according to this teaching; when living at that t , s lri cd t a an Thus the text sets i o h da ec i o t cg m n o ptarg t th ee u c c on h e i125 . itself up for a story which from the point of view of the characters is in the rbf tp tv o et ( r f eu o h o oi f a o neader) is the past, u t m ei f w t u r d t, r u n e h ha whether real or imagined.126 The Buddha then goes on: r t ain a apnhts u A I e r b ,h sade e h d f er i a Ms at h s l t n Pn a ka e b or o unite, so the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis can take them as their great refuge, just as [now they take] me, not different. Kassapa hands o tn a a h s rMh iMh i v o a . n a o t a naa na e d n an v o j t j t r n d d e j k j k a . a h s r v . ai no tp p a o t s v h s rUg a n v o ai a v o a t d e s d e n n u.
, CBETA, T24, no. 1465. English translation at santipada.googlepages.com. 124 I yst bu n gaha d r n c , oo o M s h Ad maei a a i vs t a a i bh a n ei i y a h k ir ss e s l cd b in Nattier and Prebish, 207. 125 (CBETA, T24, no. 1465, p. 900, a10-11) 126 This creates difficulties for the narrative time-frame, especially in the Ce stoe o ls hs o yuth r pe ie I t n , r s esc rn h ii e t ta .
123
74
S e c t s
a n d
ra t es Mr k A aa A Ug a r t a ai , f p p h ie u n go127 t e u te h y n k magnificent upholder of the Sutta-Vinaya in the world. His grandson is called Pu yamitra. He acc st h e e teo e o tn d h r [following is related the story of Pu is at y t d sn a r et g ma va i suppression of Buddhism, as translated in Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 389-390. Five hundred arahants were instructed by the Buddha not to enter Nibbana, but to stay in the human realm to protect the Dharma. When Pu yamitra wanted to burn the texts of Sutta-Vinaya, Maitreya saved them and hid them in Tusita heaven.] t t g ae e o M r T n k t i r o a y h e i n r v g .i a a xn u s y d t s e Bodhisattva creates 300 youths by transformation, who come down t em r t e ed th. Following the 500 o h ae o k B h p t una s t u aa h l e h ds m a a m i u nen ontk d r nD mn c ,nd m i in l a th a tt m aw e h i a hs a s i ro nsg n s again together take the going forth. Thus the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis return and thrive. The arahants go to the heaven realm and bring the Suttas and Vinaya back to the human realm.
128 h ite bkc da r, A amh i hha * ut who t t e r aiul B a t t es k l hu e
consults the arahants and the king, seeking to construct a pavilion for my Sutta-Vinaya, making a centre for educating those with problems.129 h i there is an elder bhikkhu who desires A am tt e t t 130 fame, always anxious to argue his own thesis. He edits my Vinaya, making additions and expansions. The one established by Kassapa iltM gaa. io r t l m slh a a iiaag hm r f c de h kn k [e air a e s hvyTn t e] ao outside and rearranging this with the remainder [of the original
shu-ke = A a . o k . e nhus n e V ma a d f Ar B ie ni si s a o e c i ut mt d a t t ar a a i n ur le t o a e rh tef g p hi st ih sP h o u o w d s hv e a r r r u o ce ee s t aliputta in the time e o rs s d fte u o o Tfcar eeo rln bahu, but can f k hrhch d n o l d Aa e t r . i at e o t my e s e r s n ar r e stand for sarva, etc. While these stories are told of different eras, it may be that the names have been conflated, or perhaps are simply different people. 129 . Ab r r. ae r se ,e e nse a S kn s a ut a o u he s r e rlb m c p s a id: A s ic t d u cesy a i 8 ,n 4 i l o tu.s 1 , co 3 f t m o d(a 9 3 ft . f t i o c t k 9 1.e ) S 130 . Th jar car rn t a i u n a atesih l khor s s o l r re t e i i t m hc pe g P s e n atha o similar. While Lamotte and Prebish have declared the chronology of the u a c as incoherent, Sasaki (1998, 33) agrees that it t rc rr i h ia p p p straightforwardly sets the schism after Pu yamitra.
127 128
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
75
text], the beginners are deceived. They form separate parties, each discussing what was right and wrong. h ite bkw ss k A amh i hh he t i t t e r aiu o k e g t t es k eh n s judgement. The king gathers the two sections and prepares black and white tally s s a u st s borr t . n n t e elIue i H n c o am :ype c e o e h s yf k f the old Vinaya, take a black stick. If you prefer the new Vinaya, t a itt t , s k t l s a w ecA amte i h a t k h s . h i h t g bkc e ti t t eo a k n e ci k number 10 000, while only 100 take the white stick. The king considered th l ped ed rb i al rn ] B h w s tc t[ e t t u a o, se a e se h ds d un r their preferences differ they should not share a common dwelling. The majority who train in the old [Vinaya] are accordingly called tM gah ii hr i ew ia h a a i Tmo w t n n [a e h k ent o i t eV y s h . r y a h n n] are the Els t a a tSvsl t i d, h r l h t i.ohr es e e l ehr A,a i ro y c d a s v s e a S a made, the Sthavira school.131 years after my passing away, from this dispute arises 300 t as dnh u a ga i r t h rt adet t [ gvn o h e vi at s r P a] m e S v V u ld. py F Vrss eaors o eayk u a ihh ty h, B rn t t a t r t a ot h a i s r p y e Dma cl h d a school, the Sa ts onha my h, t i c lde agarika school. The oa a S s ov ioe hs s o as d c les t aa o rt i h gse h k h, vi n o irt M c l v a Moggaliputtatissa [or Moggali-upatissa; or Moggala-u e132 p aa d] starts the Dharmaguptaka school, the Suvar school, and the aka Svs og a s K aa o naak t ic la r t ap s o duna hr h. i i h c l Sri a a oAn s e yy h a tt e school. years arises the Sak h.m e In 400 k ts or t ric l na oF h o M ghika school, 200 years after my Nibbana, because of aa h s a htiit y h s o eka c n e ea s V a a ot o t s o r sr h a c l L t h t hss e v r h, e h ur ool, a K u , ut, P ii hs u l B a a ra s o ki a rk n ap d c l k a h ua d jt n o. k v years, because of differing education, from these 5 In 300 s or M a ot a a ot t c li a es o ei s o et hss h v h, C k h, Ur oa : d c l e h t cl a h a a
(CBETA, T24, no. 1465, p. 900, b28) This is obscure; the text uses two terms for Sthavira, the translation and the transliteration . 132 (mu-qian-luo you-po-ti-she) (CBETA, T24, no. 1465, p. 900, c3). The text is unclear, but seems to be saying that Moggaliputtatissa started only the Dharmaguptakas, although it might be read as implying he also started the Suvar and Sthaviras. akas
131
76
S e c t s
a n d
[a Thus there are many after a long period of decline. If it s a] i. l133 were not like this, there would only remain 5 schools, each fig ls . oh ui rn Here the schism is specifically attributed to a textual revision of the Vinaya. This has a striking resemblance to the crimes of Devadatta as described in tM ghika Vinaya. He is said to have striven for the splitting of the h aa e h s Sangha by instituting new Vinaya rules and abolishing old. In addition, regarding the 9-fold angas he authored different sentences, different words, different phrasing ( = vyajana), different meanings. Changing all the wordings, he taught each to follow his own recitation. 134 Th c nf at e nfound elsewhere, and so ic tD da r s o s o oe asi t au vt c i m s w u ah anorpl n a h theme. It e s ve c cs a a o M ghika mt er o i e i t f a a h e s u ct i uo s s sat ei atM ghikas became deeply worried e t a caseea a e h ar t h h m t t g n s with the changes being made in the Vinaya texts, and required a mythic authorization to condemn this process and reaffirm the integrity of their own tradition. As ever, the same evils recur in their cyclic inevitability, whether committi ed y D daeo h a e tB h db e a tr sst d h u a ay v tho cm c n ds at ti i , o l ryye ne o o ertah r a d bh n d n f upphT i t a tua m k t r r c e nt s e m h i ai . p c great irony of the text is that, while it decries later additions to the Vinaya, it is itself a later text that discusses and makes rulings on Vinaya. This ri uoe n f D vsa criticizing bad grammar while e ds tiy t a m s t r o ep n ho h a using bad grammar, and criticizing textual accretions while itself including a northern interpolation. O o e n ts f r f up c i nf my et e e t tarip et air n a s h r r h ne g t o e i a i u p cs h ta o t o e h lineage through the standard list of hu r i f M ghika etio t a a hz n h a s five Masters of the Dhamma. T upph nae t ha ta ol i i er rr ci t n h i ai p c s o ns , for the same list of patriarchs is preserved in Fa-xiannd ra s ci er cl g k ou nms to his translation tM ghika Vinaya; only after Upagupta did the o e h f aa h s division into 5 schools occur. 135 It therefore seems that Upagupta was a tantag i e h mythos, as he also was d es ig f e tM ghika od a elu n p n ri r h aa s for the (M S snUg a s s ac dt l as d. c p pw c l s tw a rt iSe a t al y o e i ) vi n i v u o si e a h
133 134 135
CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 281, c12-21. Translation in Walser, 100. CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 548, b10-15
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
77
A aiu et t cma nva i o n ,s s a a e iwc edbgs o . o tmt n t ss s ces n t k kh m hh h oi e p-A a T ion b r ba oh upphb a h s t at ar n t tau n i n a r a et fe r r r c t s iy ro r i i ai , p c intrinsic feature of the mythic structure. It is also worth noticing that a pronounced strand of later traditions accepted the notion that the schism was post-A aa nn o ,d k ac dii it m g a tdi . have already si t w du an p p i lWe s t h t se oUg a s e o e s h ps a u c s s p n di t i nsi . hs al Fa-yun, o ti e e h r T n aC e xps t hn Tt i a r tA ie m i e shb a t n ah o ne e who says that: Ka d a nav , Upagupta: those ap n a j t [as and sa a , j i ]i s, n Mh k 136 a , n five masters, who penetrated the way with full powers, will not divide up the teaching. However, Upagupta had five disciples who each hold their own particular views. Consequently, they divided the single great Vinayapi o et a n u de a f T ad n f k t ag af d i a h h t o ev s o h a tS s aps c l a g aas d hs r u rt i K aa o: m p D vi n yy v M k V rs a a aa u aM ghikas.137 hss t t h s a py s T loa r ih upphst eov hi ft c n e rta in t o e t pi s t rr c i e d ik s rh a i ai p c nd ne Ug a hs o ef tM ghikas. While we mainly p p c i n h o ea a a t a a b l h h u r s m af s k op pf t(las dsct jr c n fa to hM ) vii usis fs o Ug a m e S o ehu e t w u r a rt n r,s tl v e tq t o ets eioa w tM ga h u i f s x T e n enhh a a i e at te t h s ro ye h k n y h e. r s s h s claim on Upagupta should be any weaker than any other school. This claim must have appeared in a time and place when Ug aa aptww eb e p p f n r g aesl d a t m de e slt s . Thus we should look to u e s s i la h i the North-w ,r sa ra ie h a a e p a Mh ,d d t M ghikas are s e p tan n d e h t h u e s attested there in an inscription on the Lion capital dated to the 1st Century
CE. 138
According to Lamotte, 139 Mathura had several pro-Buddhist rulers
during the Sua po bnul K gn a ed uont u a period of the adk rs ttt e a i, i h Second Century CE did the town become one of the main Buddhist centres. It is to this period that Lamotte would ascribe the creation of the great
i t ua m ed Eh i s cml s V ks o aC Av. a i o o n a i L t nB a t v im n os ,at T e s n y spelt e.g. CBETA, T41, no. 1822, p. 493, a12; CBETA, T14, no. 441, p. 310, c10-11; CBETA, T46, no. 1912, p. 146, a4. 137 Fa-yun at T 2131, 4.1113a22-b19, translation Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 176 138 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 525 139 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 331
136
78
S e c t s
a n d
legends surrounding Upagupta and Mathura. We may tentatively suggest, t , te rtaaoi a n hperiod in h t t upph sm e r d is e h h r r c w cp na i ai p c l o t d u cp iw t(las d,ar e l tee oeo ihM ) viitst ia o t mtnt e S s s tr i bh i t h a rt no e h c v m true inheritors of the Upagupta lineage. This conclusion is however very tenuous, due to the paucity of the sources. T d g f eupph ar w the h a ot paic cd i i t s i n h rta c s t irr c o h appearance in it of written texts. It must have been composed at a time when texts were written down; moreover, a sufficient period of time must have lapsed for it to have been forgotten that the old tradition was purely oral. The story of Maitreya hiding the texts in Tusita heaven irresistibly ri uf sl t s d tM at I sl e ds t i r r t o e h nus i r m s o e isio f a sat uy n hm o l h a e y r se . intended to raise faith in the transmission, but for we sceptical moderns is more likely to do the opposite. It seems that this disappearance and reappearance of the texts was intended by the author of the upphot sere aenvtts ta s hc f h i eeo he. r rr ct t e o dgmte e t i ai p c een t s r r x Read as history, it suggests that there was a period of disruption, and when the tradition was re-establishing itself, there was confusion about the exact state of the scriptures. This reminds us of the situation in Sri Lanka, where the Tipitaka was written down apparently due to political uncertainties. 140 An intriguing question raised by the text is, what was the enlarged Vinaya? Of course, we do not know whether the events spoken of have any direct historical basis, or if there was, if any traces of the supposed enlarged Vinaya remain. Indeed all the Vinayas we possess have been enlarged to one degree or another. So it would seem futile to expect to find in existing tsc f e tf di erta e te t v se t t upph xrs h e rr o h ir r c141 ta o e n er n e pa i . c The upphp s l ya p o tu tae ei odu v ea r r r cs k pt fit e xl i ai p c axi c l se r t redaction. There is no reason to suppose that such a dispute entailed any difference in Vinaya practice. There are many ways that a Vinaya text might be expanded without significantly affecting practice. For example, there cd ti s ox J a r (neas d o bhn i ft sia tM s u eec o ea a t s i l ln u r t o s h l via k e a t r v Vinaya), or the addition of supplements or summaries (as in the
A ut a aaea tsetdi fn, l g e h if s au h e ebg t h M sss i dt e c o i h o h v t yw l o l n es whatever that means; it seems to refer to the general Buddhist notion of the dr to o i l a . e o of p stc c t r np l p a pt ea ii ee r a i s i u y 141 Nevertheless, I consider a few options in http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/sekhiyarulesreconsidered
140
M o n s t e r
o r
S a i n t ?
79
M Pv) trgz n tt a n mt a ia a, he aa o e t u a s hh rro eo nt f e r d ar vr iar s r io h x o i e narrative (such as the Skandhakas of the Sthavira Vinayas). In this sense the dispute depicted in t upphsei o sof h tatm op i er rr ci i ai p c h r pte r o r the Second Council, where the texts were agreed but the practices differed. Finally we note the obvious: that the upph ta r rr cnowhere i ai p c mtsa e Ie da b tf d th oh eo M a h ae e ho i e efe nn h v f h r y e eu n a r t i d. l n l ng c M ghikas, it is unthinkable that an a a aa h s y h account of the M ghika s schisms would have omitted him entirely. Xuan-z c st era (646 CE) as o o e s L s n R r f Wt n g ed h e d n The following account was told by Xuang-zang in his famous travel diary. In Magadha, 100 years after the Nirvana, there were 500 arahants and 500 on m k aowmA a oid iumi ra o ,l dr n l f h w h ew o ag iy s o o k rp s p tt k h n distinctions. O o edr o w M a or a n f on m k a a e f an e t ra n s h v b d d h iy s d, o wide knowledge. In solitude he sought a true renown,142 and with deep thought wro tt w hwe v d m ean t ri h he da f t e i e e e e i ov et r h cg. aa , c s r i o T h sH e pu doti u wr oho m keo , ea A a h a ,e p tg o f ta rd os s h u se k ce e neo n l K r d sd m rs t t t g b eh. is no mention of the ei o u h h o e deThere f g rr o A ag t u n en u k g m M ghika or the 5 theses.143 aa h s Interestingly, the two divisions of the Sangha here are of equal numbers, precluding the very common explanation (found in the Mh ae h ) t t a a a i d ee h h h were so-called because hb l r a e ghika v n s e t M s w they were the majority party. Cousins regards this explanation of the ne a a i n t i smh so f e oy as h k dhr a ybd al yl. m M ga S v a a n o t o sh a a a t e kmg Cr tM ghikas are in fact a school claiming to follow the l y ea a e, a h h l s Vinaya of the original undivided Sangha, i.e. the m gha. Similarly the aa h s
. o r ehabis t f N a p L te ri slvi r h -R a t n ss u n t o t m m e d t t e a o e e g a ( s (Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 280), evidently feeling a little i c ) discomfort at the use of for r ;ah r e h tt ice m a t ,uy pn t t mnr aa a ft e s tcl u i , and usually stands for such Indic words as tattva, b a h , satya, dravya, t p mt eB h it e eu a e o a a c a s he mts ht rw(Beal, r r,. l : si n o t u nn a h te ai re h g r e n r 1983, 1.150), which is a sobering reminder of the flexibility with which some Chinese phrases might be rendered. After consultation with Rod Bucknell, I have followed Beal, although it depends on reading the text as . But the phrase is too uncertain to make much of. 143 CBETA, T51, no. 2087, p. 886, b14
142
80
S e c t s
a n d
ta asimply the traditional teaching, i.e. the original teaching before h v is e rd ice i i s o f u . t a d e t h st g 144 bm i d o o o o t e v ncl h h d Lo s e t tdro f h vo s r at u sh h ei n M au me mt gt a es t o a es d o e gs t ci p d n lS t M ghika, although this is a tenuous inference, i as d a a a k rt a n h e vi h v s which moreover rests on the dubious interpretation of as na a r . m p T f t h p e f ta o bn h eb ha h i p n l o s leo tsl e t t o n sd K r u e got s c a s o te m hd u ah i that Xuan-z dntk M a S . Lo a io io a eaas d A at n d t n f h vsrt i smt g h d vi n v e notes, this is clearly a reference to the founding of the S i as dn rt a vi v K f a oat w t oa auo e a r l n nd o ih rt c nf K i , a t tint e m v c tt a r m i g crc n r i h n i o e h m mission by Majjhantika, also recorded by Xuan-zang. Myth never allows mere consistency to get in the way of a good story. Thh ci psf h v e eat t r o a esudition is noteworthy, c arca M a r re i i s e d am b m oo ebjd in o e emI n ae erf V a m irf s ne d y a myt ij i s a t a a. h h vn s y h m a o t is only a short step from here to the opinions of Xuan-z u te as d K n se u gt n i Chi. Kuei Chi ( a 2 CE) M y , -682 a 6 hn3 a a monk of great reputation and outstanding virtue, who M d was ae hv r ztf s it o . w a so ers a e ehr wel u acef te sd a de i h s y g e s u l i u t li nH l cd t h i n h en five theses because of jealousy.145 Nc a a ei cd te o t M aa so r t h h v cef e i t d su e h ta n a sins. This is consistent with the m scohe ar ni k a o erev i u ft n r i l M a ert i a i which we turn at last. Kuei a e tS Mh , to h v has d hb d, vi n v v C hst a t wt c a M a edt t h ou a ni a e n o a eap w o i w s t o e s sd fh vc t iu s ht m h al d ce h question among those willing to inquire.
Cousins, The Five Points and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools, 57. (CBETA, T43, no. 1829, p. 1, b3-4) The text gives another prose translation of the verse summarizing the five points. (CBETA, T43, no. 1829, p. 1, b4-5)
144 145
Chapter 5
Three Sins & Five Theses
THE SAI I AV WAS COMPILED, according to legend, by a RS M H I VT D VN H B g p 5a a ia tt o n aka; in fact it must r o 0 h sK r hi f gn o f r n n i e ek K u 0at mn m i i have been after Kaniand after the 2nd Century CE. The creation of this ka mn ecmt li mk a lt pye af tm ni deadb a t tK gi o erec r in c a a f i e o t bh a r de m m b cf S seb t se tp ic l rh t as d t t s ees hr e h a o ert i o a h ml a ee r o n h vi n sl h v s v i m so of Buddhism following the patronage of KaniThe text devotes a lengthy ka. section to expla gep to iw hr e e rf i t i,ln h il tsy n h os l g i ta ht o i n 5 n fw o c es o t M a ae hv d: Having already explained the 5 wrong views and their abandoning, then how do they say they arose? They say they arose because of M a ae hv d. In the past there was a merchant of Mathura. He had a beautiful young wife who gave birth to a son. His face was lovely, s e lh M a t ge rt e a o y l i a e Nl a w se r n t cd h a m h v onf a, mc t e d . o t dh r h took much wealth and went to a far country. There he engaged in trade for a long time without returning. When the son grew up he had indecent relations with his mother. Afterwards, hearing that his father was returning, his mind grew afraid. With his mother he formed a plan, then killed his father. Thus he committed one t sin. n arika a n
82
S e c t s
a n d
That act gradually became known. So taking his mother t p a te d eP h r r oe h i e e e fa in aliputta. There he came across y pd ln d an arahant bhikkhu, who he had previously made offerings to in his own country. Again he was afraid his act would be revealed, and so he made a plan and killed that bhikkhu. Thus he committed a second t a n a sin. ar ni k His mind became sad and worried. Later he saw his mother having intercourse with someone else. So in anger he said: y s I ee cme o sins. We have F o a h a do i tgrave o u k a l ym t w r r e vr a t d moved to another country, and still find no peace. Now you have given me up and pleasure yourself with another man! How can I endure s fye r y u i d sm u cl e f oThereupon in the same way he ht do ! h killed his mother. Thus he committed a third t a n a sin. ar ni k But there was no cutting off of the power of wholesome roots for that reason, so he became gravely sorrowful and could ns a a[ k]o anrc osn oe t ct i:wne dt ew te p e i g l p e, n coei n o h nH aa e ge s ea t o da e e , of the r s h d u u t t si o a i H e im r h h c sns vn ? r r e t at S c Sakyan, taught a Dhamma for the eradication of past sins. Then he went to Kukkum o t. s t a ha n a neO ih t e o r m ar u e gss e s y t ee w d bhikkhu practicing walking meditation, chanting the following verse: m cm aas I ao i h y f nm t e i a s vn By doing good, he makes it end Then that man lights up the world A e omg r t ls s mn esm e u t oer f h o . h eo cd When he heard this, his heart leapt for joy, knowing that by refuge i ed ln wl r l dan h n B h r i e u eiet sSe t u aeo o ca nh io h dsi h d t y g n t. approached that bhikkhu and eagerly requested the going forth. Then that bhikkhu, when he saw him ask so confidently, gave him the going forth without questioning carefully. He allowed him to retain the name M a gave him instruction. a eand hv d M aseesonfgg he a ewilnot ge i h v a tg , l a o forth d nl t n o t n i r could recite from memory the entire Tripitaka in its letter and
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
83
meaning. His speech was clever and skilful, so he was able to i uaa P n cnl s td i t , l aliputta without exception took him as their r n guide. The king heard of this and frequently summoned him within the palace, made offerings to him and asked for Dhamma instruction. After leaving there, he went to stay in the monastery. Because of crooked thinking, in a dream he emitted impurity. However, previously he had been praised as an arahant. Then he asked one of his disciples to wash his soiled robe. The disciple said: r nar yma as sSo how can the A a t a dlnd a n h h l eiel v146 a a se i t l . a a thn sa tta n a eri i e eot l hop ? h v p :i a rwil i h e M a l T s c lo s p d e dh lw e s t r l k o e u, s l think it h oe i fr v t oh d e um n Ma a t uo n tb ag D pa y u ot strange. There are, in brief, two kinds of emission of a ss a . The v first is the defilements. The second is [physical] impurity. The arahant has no defilement a even they cannot avoid ss a . But v emitting the a impurities. For what reason? Although an ss a of v arahant has ended all defilements, how could they not have substances such as tears, spittle, and so on? Moreover, a lr la M Devaputtas are continually jealous and hating Buddhism. When they see someone practicing the good, they therefore approach to destroy them. They will even do this for arahants, which is why I emitted impurity. That is what happened, so now you should not h ace d t.a c d arising of the first a na f o i T il v y s run hslthe e u o bg t a e wrong view . Anaa ew e i u islo g t M as t scsc s a h h v id n t di t i t d h ot h i e r p delight in personal attachment [to him]. He falsely set up a system with a gradual explanation of the 4 fruits of asceticism. Then his d p odd dr n lvn t e im i l w as:a tl el e n s . s e enah sh e h mt d cb i i A a aa i n w o g H cw lto ul n rih o a e nk oeshhe du l wn ao w r eT e lt: l n s ?e v p e sl A arahants also have ignorance. You now should not lose faith in yourselves. It is said that all ignorance may be summarized as two kinds. The first is defiled; the arahant has none of this. The second
Loo o f c a n ddsro el iu w r l e sd B ht f n t t s e s t a u i mr t . f i n a r dt l n u ; e ma defilements. The dialogue here puns between the literal and metaphorical meanings.
146
84
S e c t s
a n d
is undefiled, which the arahant still has. Therefore you are not able t o oeT ilarising of the second wrong o w ulh slthe k y s t a n r.a c d f e view . T t i ll naas: h j h h s el t kd d ev s e e c sw b na a u n d pa e c i i W et heard that a noble one has already crossed over doubt. How is it t wt ad t u e tT an s: h elvo a t th h g ha a sh u b t r? e a edl t i e b o h u n i i l l A arahants still have doubt. Doubt has two kinds. The first is the inherent tendency to doubt; the arahant has abandoned this. The second is doubt about the possible and impossible;147 an arahant has not abandoned this. Even Pacceka Buddhas are similar in this regard to you disciples, although they cannot have doubt due to defilements regarding the truth. So why do you still despise y s sh slthe arising of the third wrong view oe ? a c d ul t a r eT il v e . After that the disciples read the Suttas, which said an arahant has the noble eye of wisdom, and can realize for oneself rrgewia . tro ed osneiF hen said to their g i n o l t o ia they an b o rs s rn th are arahants we should realize for ourselves. And so e ef we ar c: I why [for example] does the teacher when entering the city not appear to have the intelligence to realize himself [what is the correct road to take]? eg ha r n nl na edna t s T an s: a a at h i i A hc i l learn from another person, and is not able to know for himself. For e pS u wt o ons ;ho l x l t a e es w oMgl a er t s fmt im a g n m ,i a h r i d p m aa wt o onycw . ied o] a e es ph oru t u a r s fmt s i eB f B h [ d h r i c p s th ds s w were not remembered, they could not know this for themselves.148 This is a situation when one can learn from another and then oneself will know. Therefore regarding this you should not du T ilarising of the fourth wrong view it h slthe se a c d p. ta e . But M a e o he had committed a host of a e e t gh h vv h d ,n u crimes, had not cut off and stopped all previous wholesome roots. Afterwards alone in the middle of the night his sin weighed heavily [ k] wtci x ie t sr t i h l wI e c l t e h n I aa l pe a a v i gn pe l r l ee n : e n h s r? ps nf ,fu li u hh u i re d ah e n c owt fn D ed aie q tr t ,a f g es a r e d r eye : d O
= a h n a nh ? (CBETA, T27, no. 1545, p. 511, b18-1 S k s 9a i : )s h . a a if the Buddha had not remarked upon their abilities, they would not have gained self-a e s w n. ae rs
147 148
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
85
s r! se ni l a h and was amazed. In u i H td dih de fn it a s e r cry fg a e n tc e t p t oneiaq teH a o e a h rg venuid o r u s y e n hidde n e te s m i s t s :w y h d ? o M as eI eeli l e c a ea e:m t e lu hi l h vn r xm bfTdi d w da r ys . s e s p cidq t: t hi u o O h on t e na i d or t ,a nu o s n t yc u h t te ui L g d o s y w s r!e ni s t ho path should u i t s: odeb fn Hh a u t l fg e e d h e ne I you not think this is strange. It is said that if one does not with cp se ik fnu o g e h] , ol ir n e f g m ios ol m tn i v s r s n [ lf e c y o u i m n nw e e e t e i then the noble paths will not manifest. That is why last night I fu li u hh u i t a r eye t ,a fn T il the e nc o O q tr d wtf g h sl s r! a c d e e arising of the fifth wrong view . Ar d a ege ath e w g f a,h var na t s r t rM ate d g h 5o e s d w h d u te n views. He composed this verse: Another conveys [impurity to soil the robes]; Ignorance; doubt; he learns from another; The path is caused by the utterance of a sound: T ilt r u aini hslh u d s s n a c de e dsp a . ta e t B h de t 149 o After that, the Elder bhikkhus in the Kukkum o t o a ne n r m ar e s y by one passed away. On the 15th day, it came time for the uposatha.150 Iir a et t eo an n t M a ke t th the hu h v o s fe i s n d o h a r cg precepts. There he recited the verse that he had composed. At that time in the assembly there were trainees and adepts who were very learned, firm in precepts, and cultivators of jhana. When they heard that teaching, without exception they were alarmed and objected. They criticized that only a fool would make such a s mty:inf dt ra y t es ghst n h i kT a na i o i e p ah t ,i T e n s o u n Ti !e t immediately recomposed that saying thus:
149
(CBETA, T27, no. 1545, p. 511, c1-2) Tfteata l l i n t av u hr r hc r i ev t h ta e te r re t qa o e h t s i h ca s a r ul f K t s e e a e h pp r a aa r h. (=para; =upa; =h ). i m ny . K C cmt rC u h o er a fe i s a abdM a s tu ta eh e t t o h vi l re i d mf : (CBETA, T43, no. 1829, p. 1, b6-7) 150 The fortnightly recitation. It is through holding separate uposathas in the same monastic boundary that a formal schism can occur. But our text does not say this occurred.
86
S e c t s
a n d
Another conveys [impurity to soil the robes]; Ignorance; doubt; he learns from another; The path is caused by the utterance of a sound: W t sst B hde t! h oa nt u aini a u i h d s s n y y o e dsp a o Then that whole night was full of rowdy arguments, until finally in the morning factions emerged. Within the city, the news spread until it reached the state minister. The matter gradually spread, and would not end. The king heard and personally went to the monastery, but each faction stuck to its own recitation. Then the king, hearing this, himself began to doubt. He questioned M a h s s lewuh v i t a e i i h d n tt a es t e h vWc d o w or? ad h d: he u s M d ao k:t rp r rt so rseuone ih e ti e s i d o t s nI e c s tsan e e i s, g n pe c u iy r t t s p l e s l l wt m rs Tk t i ud h d y h h aia hi h n c o ro a e jy .e g n tt uen t o y t n es e r both factions of the Sangha to stand apart. The noble faction, t g ai aw fi mra est, h h n ys r w n bM a c o my e, e n e h vfo u n r ee u . d i an though few in years, were many in number. The king then trusted M ar ,c e e h ai nu ed a es u i t w t jy dp s h vg pn h r e o , s re d o se y e m r a ps t the other group. When this was completed he returned to the palace. At that time, in the Kukkum o t te s a ne h w r m ar e a s yr still open unextinguished argument with those of other views, until there was a division into two sections: first was the Sthavira school;151 sn a e h school. e d s M ghika c wt a a o h s At that time all the noble ones, knowing that the community was rebellious, left the Kukkum o t, a ne r m ar s y wishing to go elsewhere. When the ministers heard that, they immediately told the king. The king, hearing this, was angry, and commanded his minister at ao t en s k e lwo G e : e ml nt a s h d T h g riverfront. Put them in a broken boat and float them in midstream t o. n dto nee d o n o wT wl o h ab n n h a d n e ei u i o o aw i r h l f n w s l , s on poTmi re la dt k ra enh ie sty r o hi dr r!en r pf ci u e g iy s s ec l r t u e t n s command and put it into effect. Then all the noble ones arose with psychic powers, just like a king goose flying in the air, and they
151
NS aa d Nattier and Prebish, 201. o rt a c ey t vi si b as d l v m
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
87
left. Returning, they used their psychic power to grab those in the boats who they had left the Kukkum o t w , a ne ia r m ar tn s yhd who did not have psychic powers. Displaying many miracles, they manifested in various forms. Then they voyaged through the sky to the north-west and left. When the king heard and saw this he was deeply regretful. He fainted and fell down on the ground. They sprinkled him with water, and only then did he regain his senses. Quickly he sent out scouts to follow [the arahants] where they went. A mi rr hn uo hw sin . ie teag nu e e t gK n ru dv f dt y ra ia r s en io t t ey n m But when the Sangha was asked to return, all refused the insistent r eTk t g ay K t sg e shi h a w aa r a h a q t e g nv al , b i u. n e e l m e ln si monastery for the noble ones to stay. Each monastery was named after the various altered forms that each had previously mie hfnIs t te r 0g a s [ ne]ii a e e 0 in n t w l g sd t r e o f d e e . ah h w 5 P e i t e Monasteriesg he ms ei uwlo a e t en w mh a t . i s a sg t c e An n erh t h organize for their material needs and offerings. Because of this, that land up until the present has had many noble beings u l t u a hmw hs nn dn p d h d a a i a ea dw h i e ds m , c b h eo o g B hD n hh e d from then until now and is still flourishing. Ar k o ft i f aliputta had already lost that th n P eeg community, leading others he went to make offerings to the Sangha at the Kukkum o t. a ne r m ar s y Ar d a eosawtoey f a,h vcil e nt i t rM ac n e s d w a l nt c o y i ht , where there was a soothsayer. [M ae m h a e mh;e hv t [ d ] it soothsayer] saw him, and secretly predicted that: 152 tS N ho o in ws o e ywslee vd . e a es f a i r d fsny h[ a t a nl e ite a W n h v hk l ya u re s M d ] d p h d ee eps np [ a e. i l e,yc d eddo t h v s e at b m e s as e M a c s rh a i re ko d ] He dh k nir n m T hent e l vn tf l t .ee u d ri I eo ho o i n rr o p :a w s a g eh e te Kukkum o t adaeislor o a ne nitd di t e u r m ar d phh i e sa t s y sc sc s p d p at hi nl ayu or Pl t f ne e gd wl h ed o u: e dl k aa e l n t l t o h e f a tAr h s ls pa t i sny tti t inW nee, k e d r a l e b a ht h d e g v a e Il r b . e yat i e sr we N a e n h rh n and all without exception began to lament.
152
88
S e c t s
a n d
When the seventh day was reached, his life came to an end. The king and all the citizens were full of grief and regret. They brought fragrant firewood, together with many oils, flowers and offerings. They piled them in one place to burn them. But when they brought the fire there, it went out. Many times they tried in different ways, but just could not make it burn. It is said that a sh e i t eeh i burn with these good o srd h o:i ll not oa s t e p w ty ao p l s T quality cremation materials. We should use dogshit and smear f. e i r l A following this advice, the fire immediately blazed up, tf ht instantly burning up and becoming ashes. A strong wind blew up and scattered the remains. This was because he had earlier originated those wrong views. All those with wisdom should know to dispel them.153 T auiu o i eeMh (5 a ni h c n f d l tgt hb 1 )d t i c t o n n r a i so sn y h a v T 4 n o 5 n B h rne e irln 1 )But who could u ama r b aa ( 5. d v a r V tso T 4154 da s l i h nt i 6 resist such a lurid tale? This became the definitive version, and was further eoe .yra ts cu a tn b o lrdg Pmti e te r na u y s a a,. a r n i ny dk p mt b t eb a h h x t, h e later Chinese accounts. There are a number of points to be made here. First we notice that the text is explicitly presented as an addendum to the basic discussion of the 5 points. Next we see that the story appears to have sprung into being as a full-fledged myth of origins. Like any myth, it probably derives from a n bo usmt e eo a aa fop o uef r. o s tA a sear t n mrscL te h v n tocum k o ea e s k d l r in the time of Upagupta as a likely source.155 In fact most of the elements of tMh ocd am d a d h a isyubs b bl y e hb t o es l y e -existing elements v sr l ee r a al t e a ot aop p nhn ea v bo K tsee Ug aden dd a l t a r h: t fa t t a b ie h m u r a hl s ua um m kr t A a g gh na ce t o f n o h v n i t at o x h m e oaa v kd i e rv nt e n r e t; i V a ir c a w tK tohi os ij d n i e r ih avh ne ei bj i ht se t et au tf p t h vn e n h d h a a ht v n , in substance and sequence; Vasumitra for the basic details of the schism. These are blended with a good dose of literary flourish, myth, and satire:
CBETA, T27, no. 1545, p. 510, c23-p. 512, a19. In several places I have r r o n pi a to i s as well as Sasaki, 1998, e e Lg a l sof p f d i r t lnt a e tas tr a r a n i h sage, s 12-19. 154 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 278 155 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 277
153
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
89
M au a e te a y tB h f a es e s sb p df u au with the h vf re o ar o ed neral, d n l m o h ds funeral pyre refusing to light, etc. The remaining detail that I cannot account for from Indic sources is the motif of the murder of the father by the son who is sleeping with the mother. This is not found, so far as I am aware, in any earlier Indic myths. Wn t K a e u r e i e a se e e th a r d e n G k f c n ot s o a hb e t m n d r n n d mi e e l e u m rr f ea ni eeem a o e hb us o vl t sf tcp i f Mh , l i r e cu br o i n t a i e p sr e r o h h e l t o h v and that there are several references in Greek sources to the performance of Greek drama in Asia. Greek theatres have been unearthed in nearby Brbnyia T pi y l ht i ai uoe K r h o i h sa i ea c ,ttt . e sl o t hO p t a n m156 si d t s dl b t motif arose from Greek influence. The motive for the mythmaking would seem to be clear enough. T cp i oh a is u given as the reign of h oi n t Mh is e m a fe hb u lly l t o v a Ka although in fact it must have been finalized later, as his name is i ka, mentioned in the text itself as a king of the past. No doubt the source material spans a considerable period of time, mostly around 500-600 AN. The compila mkalt tt a i to assert t ad o t p h V h i r ba o n e d e b e m a m y K r b ikas themselves as the pre-eminent doctrinal school of Buddhism, and establish tree os o y ati ts msd h irt n to d iw hh a er enpa a et o an h o r e ae itrt i h r x gs c e r u h and to a large degree they succeeded. One oop lia i bures t m s vs b t K i om h a r a long way from the Buddhist heartland, and did not feature in any early Buddhist stories. As early as the Second Council (100 AN), the Vajjiputtakas were asserting their superiority since the Buddhas all lived in the eastern lands.157 Tse i knowing they could not claim authenticity htV h u h a b ikas, a s oo h u ai n e exear sb sc lm ed e e tn b:uam a o r tB h t , d h e s p s l hf ds m ed tt ee y of arahants directly airlifted straight from the heart of the greatest Buddhist empire ever. While the king is not named, it seems probable t ia . h tso a wA a t k The text is speaking from the same tradition as Vasumitra, and regardless oh e ea i o e a wtse tu r f er u r f tt a e a ea i wt t V ma t ri s a s V ma h h s t h ee h m h s t s ac dt edio e hb would seem unlikely si w trc f Mh , s t i he t t a it oe h a an h o v i
McEvilley, 2002, 386-388 Pali Vinaya 2.303: The Buddhas, Blessed ones arise in the Eastern Lands. Tee hha p e fa aev abk a har iur e r D mt y hh r es bk e as h t n k s s k o m , P y aiu e h ek ks speakers of non-Dhamma. (p t ejp su a a ut s n d b hh v o riu a e d b at am a a u d h gn u jia a i hm y pj. m v pn bk a m v p y p n hm a hh d at ad d ck k , a a e k d va bk) hh i k.
156 157
90
S e c t s
a n d
t teel a d ts tMh w u ao h hxm l eu rf a i e n rf a et e e a oo e hb r a e t r yr n h h v e w V ma c n a isc t s t au Hence following Vasumitra they probably associated ur o. tee w A a h e ti . e v s ho s n t k The content of the passage, though not decisive, tends to support this chronology. Aas k , k to k o s a e oA a h n i f f w n i el n P r w os yg aliputta ei ac d i m i tK Fh o hi x i si w pt s t t in o a r ue r e ly o e h s s c l a s o . rr e m tm , s re tao ia anpsa r ni A a esesnn l ,di e gt ae ped d t l m a o x ei s, k rn ag K r , u ga o d o w p ato k o ae p eln f aliputta whose sway extended so far. The sr s n i P h h yg reason for the omission of his name is not hard to find. The passage is presented as a retelling of a story from another source. Presumably in its original context the identity of the king was clear and the authors of the Mh p a am t wle dt . a ir b s eh o b n sd hb o l s d i u u roNevertheless, v by u s d e o even though we may concur with ascribing this episode to the reign of A a e t t t d nsihimn a c o , ft t e o o e tt e t in o t ah h x e t c e e a h t n kh c a e t s pf m y s ta t serve as an independent evidence in favor of Va is oo s t c ng u r h oy ma r l. D it keoyn , s r t a et h i tp r g h o e e n s p e n mr a r e o l d d e g s a e n e n pol sl d o t s r h K weh en eb em ar tu u a r h te ra t s sl ah y i ne h g t , i o se o o i m l s ( ghikas) who remained in the old lands were corrupt and M s aa h worthless. While we should never take such polemics too seriously, there may be a degree of truth in the vitriol, for it is normal that long-established traditions, especially with royal sponsorship, tend to become decadent, and reform movements have more chance to live, experiment, and grow in the outer regions. T sydroo o t f te a t e h tei nf wh i h s m o eos s t r ci p h ev e ce b e s formulated has the ring of reality. In my experience, it is common that when monks live close to a great teacher, they will usually believe he is an arahant, and inevitably questions arise as to conduct. Some random examples that I have heard in my time as a monk: Can an arahant smoke? Can an arahant walk into the hall patting a dog and forget to wipe his feet? Can an arahant cry during a Dhamma talk? Can an arahant announce his attainment T C a r nur m li a n o V a n a tf f A e r C a n ? n a as r zm s n h f o he e ? arahant express support for a prime ministerial candidate who turns out to be grossly corrupt? And not least an arahant have wet dreams? These can arise in exactly the kind of real-life context that is depicted in the Mh rfh v ntk s rei t t a isyM a dh ieel eh h hb t o a e aIn i t y l a i v o s d, it xm ly ts k
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
91
represents the kind of context within which these questions arose and became controversial. This is perfectly in line with how similar questions are treated in the Suttas: en ame ea t o in dH , d , e c c sbms t a eS a s th l o ni a l ra ko a ri e c n l m e s g h cpeo dav nuW t I e , a o lk led i h er e t v m t w gni t:h e i o e ene n s o s h am walking or standing or sleeping or awake, knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to m H ee . enters an empty house, he gets no alms food, a dog bites him, he meets with a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, he asks the name and clan of a woman or a man, he asks the name of a village or a town, and the way to go there. When he is questeH i idos o n w t ri I t t n p o ,t h h he sh o e et ut i y i e l der my sh s I s ? p: a n a e h ea w entered it. I had to get no alms food, that is why I did not get any. I ht b n ag ht e w eh , i a bi b d I o e ilaal d et y o a mt le n w o t e d adp t d he iu I t kem I t ke y o, l l h o t a a a h a ra d l a a h e h o t swb d s n d s wt o g et i ys . o rh s I e158 tea w ad h ,t h k Such situations would have been as common in ancient India as they are ty nt Mh c n e tlhso s o , d e a i au r s ls h u d a h hb c t aiy o a v s o la i c w w c h questions could have arisen in the context of the five points. The story behind points 2-4, dealing with the kind of knowledge an a as la a s t e b r sc e M a r n o h ,oe o te eto x a e a t u v l e m o aai n t h v h h d es m l i c t. d sets up a system whereby he can assess and guarantee the attainments of h i lmi a eah is e ag h vn is students dependent on each other s c s k M ad di , n p d in a sort of mutual ego-massage. This kind of symbiotic teacher/student relationship is common in spiritual circles, and it is also common in modern Buddhism that this would be accompanied by a system which verifies various attainments of concentration or wisdom. Not infrequently, the students themselves do indeed doubt such claims: I myself have been in this situation. The whole context calls into question the belief that the five theses are intended to be a criticism of the arahant. This interpretation has a d eq tey us tbs tK t w l ye uid C i nes f avh h r b e a n e n b on h ao et au o s o so i h h t,
M 6, soo/ amo discussion and Sanskrit N .t lnd i. For 71aa B i 2r t ni h parallels, see Aa ny o l.
158
92
S e c t s
a n d
argues that what is criticized is certain kinds of arahants, namely those w ophpeM aml s o te a a ius i w . h v i f u s o ar n t t c or a ehsi p e bna t h yc s d es p d h; given his character in the story, it could hardly be the case that he is criticizing himself. Nor is he criticizing his followers. He is merely pointing out that arahantship is not omniscience, but relates solely to liberating spiritual knowledge. While one may or may not agree with his particular interpretations, this general position is no different from any other Buddhist school. It is often suggested that the five theses paved the way for ter cf B iv e nha i o e h mg e t o s a a de e ef e eno e da il tl d t selfish e h ht d a t t a h r a a Wl em botg t te n i f h r n h tea emh t i ei h o c a t ih h e r y seno s r on s . i hh s , t u developments at this stage. The real problem would seem to be not so much any particular theoretical problem with arahantship, but the misuse of spiritual authority. Compliance with an externally assessed syatem, rather than inner realization, becomes the standard by which spiritual growth is measured. O ir n o i eoaui a a ef n ts p tta ec tt M as e et in b c n h h vr ne g n h v o s t d i i t proclaimed his heretical teachings in the form of a verse recited after the fortnightly recitation of the p imokkha. It is the custom of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis to come together every fortnight to share in a communal r a o e o to I e h d Saic i e t f i ni dn M u,s io c i tr a c . h a a attr a io h m s e t tn c p n the t tn though in the context of a past Buddha given as the famous verses is k n td o ate lya ec io n a ev P k s s et tr a f o s O a k. e i h he t w h i hI m k m l t io tn some such verses as these formed the first p imokkha. In any case, it remained indeed still does remain custom of the Sangha to and the accompany the dry list of Vinaya rules with some verses of inspiration,
159 w hu i dh v P o a Some of these verses end h u l cee k i sl l td k. c an y u Oai h m
w t auer na hs th o ed s ih msc t t:it e i f B h, and t e odai h ie cgt u a h f l o t s h an h d a T these particular verses are in fact found in the Sanskrit p imokkha text of t a a i nhas d h h k dert a e ga t vi . M sh a S v N ,ihe a f d M a ei ve o t p ssso i a es r aes wh r il u n h v h t r s a o n d e l s c a eh hls t 5 s rh anf B h. b ,e e it h te ee cgt u at o wr c h i h s th o ed s v e a a s e at e i h d m I seems that he was recasting h w o tO a ii nr h v P ns f e o m d imokkha verse that was regularly recited at the uposatha.e tO a O o e P nf v h d imokkha ve a d iT i e cg tB h s st e es t st hs th o e d sa w t r t e w t e i f u at ih s h n h i h an h d r h s t
159
Pachow, 192-197
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
93
phrase: Ap da a t na on g o h (Sarv: (adn g a a v, p n v( o h; M ghika o p h p) ) at s a a a tAp d identical in rhythm and similar in r v a o h). na o o p p is p d rg v sound to p p rha r en o y e a h,i a a o el m ag n a bn e h r h , Pt mn v n yo r c t i e ic e c t h w a ao rfh vve t (r e p r s o a es s u r h la o r ps t f ae. p p ri l t-closee ta M d rB a a ot l h t ey bg h lclear description of what the first of the 5 theses is about. r ay i ira nsd ) However the use of such an obscure term would make sense if it was oiymsf hot y tMh :ste r acp dr r iai e hb ui i loo o el ps h a iob u gl n e t e ln vt s t t as closely as possible to the well-known verses recited at the uposatha. Perhaps the most important feature of this account for our current p o i nc a a ei cd cmio te u s s o t M aa so mig l r re t t h h v cef ps o i t d s u e o t nh t n ye t a These are carefully counted, and the number is repeated n a acts. ar ni k elsewhere. An tarika act is one of the most heinous crimes known in n a n Buddhism, resulting in unavoidable rebirth in hell. But the list of t a na ar ni k acts is well known and standard, and consists of five. The two not mte tMh c t tmcs eo i e hb c nr e lu nn n a iaua h aoshedding of the id h v so e i i B h bdwhich, to belabour the obvious, is not possible after the u al d o ds o B h dha ciah i en . h v h h u a e dugssn S h a e t g d a n an cm t a a a o ds t s i h g M d, u often taken to be the root schismatic, is not accused, even in the texts that want to destroy his name forever, of deliberately and maliciously causing a schism in the technical sense required by the Vinaya. This is extremely snvnt tti s nrrvtM ghika tgic a e d nio g e h a a r ee h hrt d t a e e h o d e t a o d ed n i s split, regrettable as it was, as a schism in this sense. The Mh obviously did not refrain from accusing a i hb v M aci cm taset e fo hh a eo ug ioo y s e re n ye h vf s ss uf e o n a t. t d an h n n f d f iW c n did it not make this accusation? The authors of the Mh were a i hb v learned monks fully versed in the Vinaya. To them it would have been obvious that, if their story was correct, it was technically impossible for M a ce cm tS h h ia p iy t a et ua ii en . V ym a lts h v a ssn a a en ehc s d os h h gT a tla a e that a formal schism cannot be caused by a lay person or even a novice, but only by a ful rn bk B M a d m t te l de hh u a e h cmeh y ad iu t h v a o i oi k. d t r d e t a rendering it impossible for him to ordain as a bhikkhu. The n a sins, ar ni k text is quite aware of this, which is why it takes care to note that his ordination teacher did not question carefully, as he is required to do in the
94
S e c t s
a n d
Vinaya. Thus his ordination was invalid, and he could not have caused a schism.160 Wc a e h Ma i hv h d? We have seen that Bhavya, Vasumitra, at pph nh rta of de ir r c none pa i , c wm eohr aa e a eoh t a eI h mt t i lh v l nnee h v, o nne g M al t tl M aa i oi n d ,m i a r d I fg r nfA a is t ih rt o ee e e a se . so e t e m of l w n t a o H ac d h f a ei t k e si w t o i t a o r a n ht r M ghika branches in Andhra. Bhavya161 and Vasumitra162 specify that aa h s M aw asi n ted from another sect, which does not a eIanc c e hv d Is at o r e c v aet e r M a g w t t o a eI r ih o fh v e h sy d . Lamotte a e at ita o eo a eof r s it d it f g M a g an h efi t o h v u gs e nc n h d d io tP ti w tM ghika M a t g nds. His h art i h a a ela o t e h id n h i s a eow r h vn oo d u moen tg r ia mta etva is i roseo pa ge M ae h vn n a i e ac r n h vhij d r s h g hl u : d bj i a sent to Mahik hM aee a a s,i a etl M ghika reformer is in a we h v a h a l d ht r s Ah Lo d i a a attempts to locate Mahi in nr at is s i d .mt s s a e m e v 163 s n saka Ah bl me d t rr ts nr u t omee ed a o l Certainly, the d , a r o a g s s se a te r rl a i pi. y b164 canonical Pali sources165 lt i i a j iv i t oeM s rj n a. t c aas n Un A tu e a h te e a i nB h Pali commentaries locate Mahi in Andhra.166 The inscriptions confirm saka t t a iad r h b c inrn d te h h hh haa orh n d , ie e a e a b cr n sAh a n d r t M vr n ae ad e h arr e t hCmt w a s ea e ree s hA ro ers ens t t efn t en a m nyo cam h h ec o d a , u ty knew what they were talking about, and that it is plausible that the Pali commentarial sources think of Mahi as Andhra, regardless of what saka other sources may say. Indeed, there are several inscriptions referring to tM kinrn s tsAhrohrr h aa Ah airoinr g t e t e hss d , ni n a n a d c i n d ena fo p a i te t r K a daa.o2 mth o -west of hR oa a Mi u0 s tS h eu fl n hk A t0 o e u l e i g s b a k t N rjuniko there is a reference to Mahi g a a-visaya.167 I would therefore suggest we have reasonable grounds for assuming that Mahi can be saka Andhra, at least from the Sri Lankan point of view.
See Sasaki, 1998, 30 Rockhill, 1992, 189 162 (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 15, b1-2) 163 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 299 164 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 342 165 D o2 S N t 1 N l3 u i 1 V .; t p 0 25 t a a 7 166 E.g. Cousins, Ohij d 161, refers to Vjb 28: n Va s t bj i e h vn a Mahi sakama Andhara vadanti ala hanti 167 C i n Va s 6 on t ij d, us h bj i1 s O e h vn 6 , a
160 161
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
95
The more important consideration is the obvious doctrinal point: how could the orthodox Moggaliputtatissa,a e ij d h av dbj i a no V a , e w h vn v a ac d t h ti a e Bw aj s t t si w a r l M au e v s eh h s t i eik h v t h u e a e o e h e e d? a c etn t ee f a esr ii d .es wlg is vn o h vh s t iet mh h l ic r a ey h n d s t oe d e M d e sn e Ie e e end bd tMh , t 4or more years after the events. And a oh a i rn s ne hb i 00 e vwt e know I am being pedantic, but it is an important point I Mg ut io n odij d While he may have o l ts n a e bj i gi a a t v V a a ts s a w p i h vn a . thought of himself as bn g a h c dij dt eg t s oa V a h li o c ll bj a e on o l h v, e a evidence does not make this explicit. Rather, he said the Buddha was a V a , by pnh eith o i ij d p a o s th t e e fs, c bj i r b p i e r a a r a l h h vn o l og a e l cs c ew h f wna h doctrine or anywherep dM a a t aa s M ghika o s i to h v m e ae ut d. I edm c dap o h vTf l a n eI int c tM a hri t t nan e c t a e. i v h l o ew i d s es e td t io ,seMia rn e n in h m f k a o adth, wt as t e eA a o fh ae ea n m i o t ow n ns c s d o s o Mahi (= Andhra), where he became a leading figure in the formation saka of tM k h aa e hs school. The second lived a couple of hundred years later a in the same area, and was a local leader of one of the subsects of the M ghikas. Neither had anything to do with the original schism or the aa h s five theses.168 The similarities of the names and areas of activity led to their conflation, and the story of the corrupt unnamed monk from the A a w ira t p h tmt h x o v n a c oe ea o h o rds o o a a s o rd xi w e s t oc l kd npt o l n oo h f t as d o oeihsecame to be relocated r h rt i i fweees o e vi n n v , t l m S p t i . m v v . away from the power-centre of original Buddhism. O f e o tod i a e w n oiy nu r i o ne f h v a o r a er p t c i:M a s ti l t h n sr d gl n associated with the 5 heresies, why was his name singled out? One reason could be the similarities in names and locations with the one or two other M a u e ga a w e iu iiv i i a e. w i l s hln d ss i n s h v B m tok o e B h rl t ds t hs , s dm e d h e way? There is only one monk in Buddhist history whose name comes in for s tt t v tH a oys tw Aat i u rm : at e s s ac dtj a, g c e e D da w c l o e i tk h a n ea . l si e a h t un s of Magadha, just as h v asi w A an e a M a s ot i .d v t a ew ac d t o A D da d s e h k a at a p o a o te o rp oa i T ea l r s s f h s r tr k ss h il s o e e e d oo ecm e so o p d t 5 si e n v h.r t of mythic assimilation going on between these two pairs. Without wishing to linger on this point, I would raise the question wt M as h e a ef er h v t h d i the evil role simply because his name is similar to Devadatta.
168
See http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/dhammaorvinaya%3F
96
S e c t s
a n d
The Five Heresies The usual listof five theses is: 1. That semen may be conveyed to an arahant (by non-human beings while he is asleep). 2. That an arahant may have doubt. 3. That an arahant may have ignorance. 4. That an arahant may be led to comprehension by others. 5 a et ae u brg o h ur! . t p m brey iA! a fn T t a y a s c W tf g hh h od y h n s i e The middle tee g it ec sf e a t h di w h i r i t a a r a e l t em fo oh r n n h pe n t h s knowledge are treated i ry dp il tK t qei a r tu i e t au u bf nei sn avh t e l eoy h h t; t tcmt tt es p lT K t s st h o errs my tl h avh t eh em nye t a a h n iy e t aur se oc . a ht e s knowledge and wisdom of an arahant and has the opponent agree that the arahant does not lack knowledge regarding Dhamma. This goes on for some time, but the text is tantalizingly brief in addressing the actual point. The o n a: yt a a e o tt a al gf p e s nar n ir o em n n e p n k ao a t g a f ned e o o ts M n h b nn h i a a woman or a man, of a right and wrong road, or of the names of grasses, twigs, and forest pla?hri u f h v c t a ni md s M a l h n tT e s o a es i a s s n d a m t a a m toh po k leb S u a r n i n a en n e a t t n a t g t v ra o d o r t d h h e sl w g u i a p Mg n.i idi h esbn l a a, o l , h r es ie tety s ba gl i s c t. s mo er ro ln a a .t a a T s e ol l i ene d e n h vn uduihs wl e o wt this o e wlit.eu o s te e T a i o se T i rd dp t s u e b h er e dm h k o n w syno w r e ts t i f k i ha h to tg a hpu n n n an i d ii n i eia d u og tg h n cn o rl i se t ro reo ateime d g o e . t e n d nme s l e anW l n B h s d o tk ipt r d: u su e p e s h x i l i d c , y an arahant lack knowledge of the fruit of stream-entry, once-return, nonrr nr n i a o nba s tou en da t ?t u oe d D ihb r t, a ah hs l t s et ese u a hs p T hd i. p e c phrasing, the point is clear enough, that an arahant might doubt about worldly matters, but not about matters of spiritual significance. Thus the whole question seems to be more a matter of terminology than different worldviews. The opponent introduces the distinction between an arahant who ikd ho D md eh s i in e s i i iw h a n n o l n o r l n s n a s o w ikd a hs se l m a se l t D mem nygtf w oa b im h a ho erl h r i n es ys a s cmt a s i t el d w o m . T a i es h r e n t e d, w ii iiw hmo a t , snls t h se ho d a a ah t e d o o kd s n a r n ih c a io sl n l m fhs e o s b p h wsl d e a pi t tettmtt u ar s bgs r i ih i a nn Io ye e i l oe n eg t e.wl e n o fn a, c h a i s d
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
97
perhaps be more plausible to see this as the distinction between an one who knows his own mind (as in the Satipan u)d e reads a t a o who h San n t o r i (nea l igg m a u,. t n a t r a a ,. a pate. hs d s h d Tn eS h Sac e em s i G u ri . a l ttB n ) t a m, M cmt, n i sn n h s a h a iai m ny e h i t o a i y e hh v o er vwe ig tt t vrs n ae l s ni the unimpeachablility of the arahant, is developing the conceptual framework that would eventuate a n aeio ea t i sinr n ta a n i it s f r n gc o f o h h s status. The ultimate outcome of this process would be the belief, normative io n e t ar n i na n n n d T a aa a a g o t ja me h v ,t a t h tah . r rdh n h m t t a i Given that the middle three theses do not seem to be necessarily weighty, the more controversial views would then seem to be the first and l T l i an a ir th atu wi a ha s t envi o e th g ag, s es t o c g s tp r h i O t . t h ee h o l n
169 s r i tc th , there is one interesting detail in u i Il d s i r but fn wn i ss e fg l s he e . o u
t avh d s .a h t au i s Iy if this were the case, then one who e h ts i t s K tsc o s that un hmdde o rt,a a,ltB h bd a u rtr t,h or nse ed o d re i h fe r h si hu a l e h m ear a t l pd ds o o u ssnen cd ut a e btn r s cm t a au re p me y eg ce h i S ho a s et r ur ad i h g l o h h l t O y i s r! u i170 This rather overstates the case, for the proposition would fn fg e s tea y fn ano t f ha ni e o t c g s rseni o et o e bh r O f g oc i r p , n m t i u iw n e dn t h t o itself sufficient. In any case, we notice that these crimes are almost identical with the crimes actually attributed to M a t ae ih hvn e d Mh . e t ooeo s e p e o me a i his c st, p a ws l a hb v T lifu sko r s h d k s r c h u nothing of it. But it is possible that a similar argument was known to the S sh ata s neabd p i h as d,ov ectssn l bin e rt iw g hca f d oy n t vi n v e ui l o h o ng m o ae nhv M a d. f s Ol u w t o But the most interesting, and probably decisive, consideration is whether an arahant can emit semen. The idea is expressed in different ways, probably partly due to the obscure nature of the summary verse in which the 5 theses are expressed, and partly due to a doomed attempt at discretion. But the basic idea is that an emission need not be a matter of mt emt e n a eeyen a o e elf e T v n i it h o y e t n den hc e cs d l c e cf a i . l o y e vn t v n h semen to the arahant by non-human beings, especially those associated w Ma i t r h .
See discussion in Cousins, The 'Five Points' and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools. 170 K t 2 av u6 ta , ht . h
169
98
S e c t s
a n d
While this idea seems bizarre to us, it has substantial correlations in early thought. The notorious Malleus Maleficarum alleges that unclean devils such as incubi and succubi ut s s irn ih s ee b t r w t b h l ye i t e y m v nf g h e e process of normal copulation and conception by obtaining human semen, a t se ae g nh es nr i171 The discussion there really deserves a de l ts i t m v rfn r . di cps w tK t balas, we must defer that eeoa ni h avh u td mr a l i t e t au t o h h t, pleasure to another time. We will consider the other Vinayas say on this matter fir hs oh a a s ee we h compares. t ne t , t h M ghika s As so often in Buddhist controversies, the problem arises because of a grey area in the canonical texts, in this case the first bhikkhu sa ds g i is the second most serious class of offence in the g i . Sa ds hs e a hs e a Vinaya. While the most serious class of offences, the p j , entail i ra s k immediate and permanent expulsion from the Sangha, sa ds gi hs e a requires a period of rehabilitation involving loss of status, confession of the offence to all bhikkhus, and similar mild but embarassing penances. The basic rule for sa ds is identical in all existing gi 1 hs e a p imokkhas: til infm,c i dmi nn e s oen x t a e, a I tami n o e s o se e pn r s e a sa dsI el eco ii rhu ai w g i t aha r dt F t l s dn hs . h i b g n h i e e l o e n P t k u ss s r w a a , .t d simply for nn m i f eT amrbk h i ta in s nh n bo iua n il s o me uef k sd t o es e o e .n hh gone to sleep after eating delicious food, without mindfulness, and had wet dreams. They were afraid they had committed an offence. The Buddha said: r inn tsgb172 Thus there is no offence for a wet T e n t, inie h itib t e i e seo u i ll g. dream, but this is a practical concession for Vinaya purposes, not an admission that there is no ethical content to wet dreams. The point is made cr K t2, etM silee l iavh 2wr ea iai ec rt e n t au. h h hh v pfl fs a ht 6 e vrs ca u n iy tp ooab d tcmt t etp a) t hr sn t t yem ny tUrt ah eo i ( ie ho er h t k t pt t u b i r ao a h sa a dream consciousness is always ethically neutral. The Pali rather curiously repeats the story of the mindless, greedy monks emitting semen as a pretext for making an allowance for using a sitting cloth in order to prevent the dwelling from being soiled. 173 Why such a t o ba at c a unclear, and the use of c s l c dsnl (d ) is l h d l g tn a o u el i o in h e t i hs
The Malleus Maleficarum ( Wh a eit opid ism r a tkb e T t H m ) e ou h h c e s x b l s in 1486 by two Dominican monks on how to identify and subjugate witches. See http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_I/mm01_03a.html 172 Pali Vinaya 3.112: e bk e t ;c ob rt A s hh ,a sa a h t ia cn k b t ,k v e h h o ii k 173 Pali Vinaya 1.294
171
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
99
such a small cloth rapidly proves inadequate, so the Buddha allows a sleeping-c a aoi B t pa w h p s l a r su e uh ag h a at o s g y l.ti se i p r t l h e k s s, c e o spring from the same origin as the sa ds g i story, adds some emphatic hs e a messages. s n ah l ew mdn eb en T e a ,ol e i iust s a h, n w f s o d a l t n lsa h d a p h fe sl d i clearly comprehending do not emit impurity. Even those ordinary people who are free from lust for sensual pleasures, they do not e i r Ii se a ,a t p t a m m i tm s , n in h eh n i pt i pi dt n a n a t u. y s o ln ac o p ,t b
174 a a h d i pt r n o e i r a t u mm i h sl t u . y
The text goes on to list five dangers of falling asleep unmindfully: One sleeps bya by s ha, a n rc e de a,k a, n t ee dt to ao dwe dh im sv o pe n nn l s la g rd s ot , emits semen. Those who sleep mindfully may expect the corresponding five benefits. This list of five dangers/benefits occurs in similar contexts in the S 175 Dharmaguptaka, as d rt a vi , v
176
and M k Vinayas. The aa hs 177 a
S me rdho i n a iu o n as d o va tf w :ef hh hst rt a r ed el n E ibk w i vi v o s l gv o k o free of greed, hatred, and delusion sleeps with unconfused mindfulness and ui ih io im;l r por r l n d n el t t e t oar f f u178 i md wne s ni e en e m s f e l m e sm l s eo t . TM kda is mt ow i te m e h aadslt e e o oe o r , e hs a iaa n f h nf f gd a s mrt : n e I s rr e hatred, and delusion goes to sleep with mind distracted and confused, they will emit semen; even if unable to be free, going to sleep with established
e a ,k u s pni Y , n bk ph ss a d okkamanti, e d hh ai aa j na t n a i a tm d t tesa u a cip, n p u mua a imc y t n a takev s n u t i d u j s g c a ee a , h n . j t r tesampi asuci na muccati. ane , n a a o at d n k y arahato h m n a a a a a , vs a ic y. s mc u u yt c e' i 175 (CBETA, T23, no. 1435, p. 197, a18-20). The last is different: one easily enters wholesome thoughts. 176 1 g a; o ad d s M d nn tg f . h r2 t r be ; i o th h N t e . g d yv 3 n et e o t i m s N ue a . d ser u o Dhamma; 4. One does not gain perception of light; 5. One emits semen. ( (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 579, b25-27)) 177 1. Nightmares; 2. Not guarded by devas; 3. Not gain perception of light; 4. No thought of Dhamma in mind; 5. Emits semen. ( (CBETA, T22, no. 1421, p. 10, b22-24)) This is identical with the Dharmaguptaka, except items three and four are swapped. 178 (CBETA, T23, no. 1435, p. 197, a20-22), also (CBETA, T23, no. 1435, p. 197, a20-22)
174
100
S e c t s
a n d
179 mindfulness, one will not commit that f . have not found similar a u I l t
statements in other Vinayas. These are similar to the statements found in the Pali Vinaya, but I have found nowhere else that declares so emphatically that it is impossible for an arahant to emit semen in a dream. T M s V y werrgn ec h as d ia h penait e l via n , i ev a t r v a l si di nl a sa ds g i rule, gives only a brief, formulaic origin story, and no hs e a statement that one emits after falling asleep mindlessly, although it does speak of having sensual desire while in the dream. 180 This suggests that nocturnal emissions are a product of defilements, but is much less explicit than the other Vinayas on this point. The whole rule is dealt with relatively briefly, but this is typical of this section of this Vinaya, so the brevity is more likely to be a mere literary characteristic than a sectarian difference. Thus all the Vinayas preserve the same rule against emitting se ihx t o e l viae a s o l en t eci f M s t t ic ll m. h e pn t as dh hr hs W t e o h a t , Sv o a r v a contain strong admonitions emphasizing that wet dreams occur because o g tl u iu T M, vii n n o o e nn l h a iai as d a ee s s e mdl e hh v S ,d p f. y vrs rt n n v M k at se an ie poarn e aa di av n e h eenne tt hs i d nye u l n r cp ew n i a o n n td s g v dreams by mindful sleeping, still more an enlightened one. The M ae ptdeclares that it is impossible for an a iail ei hh v vrs o x i n n ly c l arahant to emit semen. I e h Vinaya the origin story is quite different to n M ghika t aa h s tM.e e tl gw f r, r e h a iai ftiay dn t ute r e hh v Ar n li o o elh w vrs t h i a n i n h ee e two trainees (i.e. ariyas but not arahants) and two ordinary people who had w dmT d ta t S u, ol e d .e er s eo eno tw t tB h h te . y u d dl r t ho h u a a h b d ia p d dT Buddha said: a a n ltedm e eow D m r r nt.r sr an h r s u aouf a w r e o e ee , rIe el , practiced the holy life in my Dhamma would not find liberation. But because all dreams are uuh f,it o h neeoS u, s o t,rr t h w rteer a e p t ptt oi m hm e t nff g rih le y a a c eds r. a e h ln D c ey i c f m rh eo fn ah u i181 e
(CBETA, T22, no. 1421, p. 10, b27-29) 180 (CBETA, T24, no. 1458, p. 540, b28-29) 181 (CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 263, a26-29)
179
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
101
Then it lists (and defines) five kinds of dream: true dreams (such as the 5 dreams of the Bodhisattva before his awakening); false dreams (when one sees in a dream what is not true when awake); unrealized dreams (having woken, one does not remember); a dream inside a dream; dreams born of thinking (one plans and imagines during the day, then dreams about it at night).182 Then the text gives us 5 causes of erections: sensual desire; excrement; urine; wind disorder; contact with non-humans.183 A similar list is found in the Pali cases for the first p j in the context of affirming i ra , k that an arahant can have an erection: r eo ,sva of erections: lust, excrement, T e ,n tee s h am kh fces er sei u urine, wind, or insect bite. These are the five causes for an erection. It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that that bhikkhu could have an erection out of lust. Monks, that bhikkhu is ar n na t a a184 h. The last point is c i elcr es scra cin Pie rr b o tis ra t a l yf t i f el ul h i a e ot apr : t l e l al cts h a e h kp s-h a, ni ru es M gae o o una dt er wr t a a i a f n ms t ae l e , eh s h sk n term widely used of spirit beings, and thus inclusive of the idea of v nb c e cy r o y e Ma na . S e h does not contain any statement condemning o M ghika t aa h s wet dreams, or attributing them to mindlessness. While the M s ils t t tc t c i ae as dssi o h o, h a t me l via a l n ep i a s i a t r v oe n in t e s r o s,ese h appears to be deliberately justifying mi wr tM ghika inh a s o e h aa s wet dreams with the curious doctrine about the unreality of dreams (which is contradicted immediately below!) Similarly, they appear to have
(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 263, b8-10) 183 (CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 263, b20-21) 184 Pali Vinaya 3.39: c,k v kh gt kammaniya p abk e i a a hhh , r a j iia e a hoti - r n a n a v , e u l p a c a s e vn c g , c , s n a c g e v e p a t , a akada i imehi hena. k bk e h hh , c k a kammaniya o ia p a ,k v a h rehi gt a j a hoti. ane ,k v n k y taiur n at bk e a a a bk o e h m hh , v s s hh a a ia a a o s kn g a kammaniya gt a j a assa. araha ,k v hh s hh ,k . o ia bk bk e iu Tit ln h aVy g i 1, except sensual h e a t a s ia hs e n l i k n sa ds di i M a a cs e a desire is last. (CBETA, T22, no. 1421, p. 10, b26-27)
182
102
S e c t s
a n d
r rde eu ori t gt pi y Ma e a tf cef c s s e h o i o p s hi a s et o g t sl f r he v s e n u s e si o b t s involvement. On this basis, we are justified in seeing a sectarian divergence in this Vinaya issue. All the Vinayas are concerned about wet dreams. The Sv s o w t do e pn t M s t i c l i h uu x t oh as d hr hs t e bs ci fe l via a a o, h i e o a t , r v c e t w v i eefic htM ghika o m h i an gss e ,ih a a n ne t rg r orn wee h d m h y de t y l d s are concerned to excuse them. There seems little doubt that this difference is connected with the root cause of the separation between the schools on tbst p t i t V y a u i hao e ei. c i n w f d P es f f os n h ia s nn i h i n Se s a v o aliputra, it should be seen as relevant to the central o atm a a r i e M ghika, not ms n a h r s just to their later sub-schools. As with so many doctrinal points that are theoretically rd te oini e nceoye T a i h i uy tq t i n p rh v . h vn es n oh uin t r T a a e r n t , ss o o m a rd The question is usually discussed out of the public arena, but has made its w i aa no m r pio o meT a i a t l oceoyb t. e d h vn y o e en p ru a S o n es n ts t t a li m cn r rd hold that nocturnal emissions can be a purely natural occurrence, saying: e et lo fs ee ns e e i dt W n p fie wTq t hs t ss u ht o ut r ui a m m a ne h l vl . s, o h s o oi r e o circumstances id iw tep d tsy M a ec i h dc i e rf h v n n l ho et n t o a e a t t s i a e ho d: attendant washes the robes of a revered monk and discovers unexpected ee ou wWl t h tau mt wt a vn ft s hnw i osd eo h e ic l ioi g p jenn er d e o o. e f s n sg hn arahant can have an emission, we can say that some monks who have said this in modern times are genuinely well-practiced meditation masters. Whether correct or incorrect, they are nothing like the cop a e rt h v r M a u d who lurches forth out of the feverish imagination of t a i h hb e h . M v Dhamma or Vinaya? We have seen various causes proposed for the root schism. The two that appear to stand out are the status of the arahant and textual revision. However it is sometimes argued that the schisms must have been based on Vinaya grounds, for the Vinaya itself defines schism as performance of separate uposathas in the same monastic boundary. But this is suspiciously self-referential: of course the Vinaya sees schism as a Vinaya matter how else? The reality is that Dhamma and Vinaya are never separate in practice, and so the Vinayas repeatedly and explicitly emphasize that schism can be due to either Dhamma or Vinaya.
T h r e e
S i n s
&
F i v e
T h e s e s
103
We are still left with our problem: what was the cause of the root schism - was it Dhamma or Vinaya? I think we have sufficiently shown that there is no basis whatsoever for concluding that Vinaya practice was the cause: none of our sources say this. But this leaves us little closer to a solution, for all such boundaries are inevitably permeable. We are dealing with a variety of subtly interrelated questions of practice, textuality, selfdefinition, communal survival, philosophical evolution, and so on. The surviving fragments we happen to have inherited come with no guarantee that they are capabley i eirt n oe g oc trt. fl a rt eei in c pa d r n o I rid a ma s e i ecer h a e dom o l q c td mt m m ef ere u e ho ny e n be n n u aT F o aR r c a tU et f ecuge o f ro t N rh Sca o fe r t g W b M a a e Seyr e dnh .e m, rr Dn i Kennedy and Johnson administrations, reminisces about a social dinner he organized in the early 90s with his opposite number during the Vietnam War (whose name I forget). As the dinner went on, the discussion became more and more heated. McNamara was trying to convey the point that the Americans were only interested in stopping the progress of communism. The Vietnamese gentleman insisted that the Americans wanted to colonize Vietnam. McNamara denied this point-blank, alleging that Vietnam was the next domino allowing Chinese communism to take over Asia. The Vietnamese representative thought this was ridiculous: they had been colonized for over 1000 years by the Chinese, and Chinese domination was the last thing they wanted. As the conversation went on, it became more and more clear that the two sides were fighting two quite different wars. The Americans were fighting a global ideological war, the Vietnamese were fighting a local war for national independence. The real problem was neither communism nor colonialism, but the inability to listen to each other. In our diverse accounts of the schisms, with some sides alleging textual shenanigans, others speaking of doctrinal corruptions, and so on, surely we have a similar situation. We know that all of these things were in fact going on: everyone was revising and updating their texts, everyone was refining their doctrinal perspectives. This process continues today. But only rarely does it lead to schism. The cause of the schism was neither the five points nor the textual revisions, but the inability to listen.
104
S e c t s
a n d
This can easily be compared with the modern situation. There are many Buddhists around with many different views, far more divergent than in the early period in India. We notice that some of these Buddhists are interested in dialogue and engagement with Buddhists of other traditions, and are quite open to learn from them. Some, on the other hand, are content with their own tradition, and ignore or openly condemn other Buddhist traditions. Within both of these groups, however, we find similar dr o eadrs esntbg es is fwn oi. rd dt pi h vn vi v sdc e h vno s e T a i ey i t t Tai n o n rd b ut t w Tt. ptn dt e tr s e s e li i n eri e o t uaa t ce ykt b s na ir na p tu a h a h e Z co s k a t nj because they see a sand mandala. Views do change, mutual conditioning does happen, but the result is not a homogenous blend, but rather an infinite variety of perspectives and approaches. The key difference is not t og psa dn oi at t d n u a h nr hcr ic c e de eo t t a e u ae s t t s h h et t t o l y t dr n o r s b h l i n , o g p ir d d g a to r s g t n r i ts ii u n h t i. l ah eo s et na e d eh s Ao se u ne e l o en t n interest in dialogue and learning remains, people of differing views can live, practice, and grow together. This is why I see the real difference in the accounts of the schisms as not being the difference in factual details which we have so laboriously tried to unravel, but the difference in emotional tones. The M,rt i n u ldri a en a iai as d a P a tt l m i hh v S ,d ga ae e l oe vrs vi n n v gv as d z s (r ! e p e.erta to rn la) i p n T upphoh t h , i l tr o t h rr c n eh a tl h o ns ey i ai , p c e d stands out for its gentle acceptance of the schism. While it naturally favours its own school, this does not lessen its appreciation of other schools.
Chapter 6
Met ij i o n Va r h ba n o e hv s jd
EARLY BUDDHIST STUDIES ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM V AVAand our I J , BJD HA understanding has been put on a sounder footing by L. S. Cousins in his p rn ebjd tt eraw li y a tV a s ee tt s o ,ni p O h ij i H rs e e h vn a . a h m t o si g f g n d f both the teachings of the Buddha in general, and also the name of a specific Buddhist school, or set of closely related schools. The basic position would seem to be tha ebjd er an fea e t V a s ed o oh j a t ij i mg s e tm rr h h vn a e o l y schools. The first division w b etSv a M ghikas. ae eht i n a a st nehr d h w as a s Thtdu oh en dlsp u re eh ehit ne r x d dstye ne p s ts a a i r c e c l se po n l t o e pi t es v P a a S s o ( g poschools, or u ld n as d c l o r sf ga a d rt a hs r o gv vi v o u p s imen W t a i ebjd h,e h o c o e)hr i s V a w hu i pa v t a m st ij a i d l hl m s o . e n h h v, c a mainly to geographical separation, gradually differentiated into the MsD mu k M k a K aa n a iai h a ts aa n aps d hh v , a g a, hss d a vrs 185 n r pa , a yy , perhaps others. There is no doubt that certain sources, such as Bhavya II and III, cr rnu ao oij ds oI l cra l ye tc g p V a c l iset e pes a l s h r f h vnhs s s a t u bj i o. e l h a t this situation is relevant in the early period. And it is not clear at all that such a group was ever imagined by the Sinhalese. So we need to inquire
Cousins uses the term Tambapa (Those from the Isle of iya Tambapa t fo Sa s oa dw a hv o e t il c lt a el e. a r t e hs h t ty crd )e r h ne e oh o l aa T I foe hhv ,i re dr a t p ruM a m cri n e e r t e e s a i s s o lyf ts vr i t e a f i h an l e t e rd ta Sa s o T a if h t il c l h vnr eene hs might equally be called es m l o rhs o who e , b ahi a p a hvn e sur T a e w c t s e teti a p i Tv s ce rda h ao d m ay . e ed T a ir o h e z b e e f M ta nb fsi os y Er t a i ; l ue d n v t l o e hh h r mr i t i hd sh vr eg a e os n c eg e rr iem n e oh h rd v sr n ed n cmt s wa et o i w a ce t o ers t too w e t od h a h i t h xe e o time accepted in toto by all the monks of Sri Lanka.
185
106
S e c t s
a n d
into the use of the word in our Sinhalese commentarial accounts of the A aed nr. o po k i Cousins acknowledges that one of our earliest sources for the term i tcmt t et auThis is a version of the Third s ho er tK t186 i em ny h avh n ao h t. Council, wr eo o aMg ut rs k A a h tg m kn o l ts ari e ho n d gi a a se go e d s a ts eu n k p i that the Buddha was a va . There, the context is suggestive of the ij d bj i h vn a kind of ambiguity Cousins sees in the term: wl i f sy h o can deny that the T h p t ht ia -one h o oo er tn e e n t os t Buddha was a va , since he is at least sometimes so ij d bj i h vn a portrayed in the canonical texts. Nor of course is it surprising if a leading figure of the V a school asserts that he was a ij d bj i h vn a V a . None of this gives us any reason to suppose that the ij d bj i h vn a Buddha would have been referred to in the third person as a va prior to the adoption of the word as the name of a ij d bj i h vn a so cl h. o187 A a C i pe if bo t if e t cl on r is aiu hl n i oh t y us o s e m u :e ag u fe u, s l s t l gs e d g r V a s oi o l ts ij d c le gi a a bj i h. g ut ) used the term va to h vn o(M a ts a . p i ij d bj i h vn a refer to the Buddha, not to himself. The text as it stands does not preclude the possibility that the Buddha was referred to as a va before the ij d bj i h vn a formation of a school of that name. In fact, I would say that the main thrust of the passage means just that. Indeed, the Buddha is referred to in the third person as a va in the canonical text that Cousins has already ij d bj i h vn a quoted.188 What Cousins is getting at, I think, is that the canonical sources are few and fairly minor. They apply only in specific contexts and speak of how the Buddha would respond when presented with certain questions. Thus they are an insufficient basis to form a general characterization of the Buddha as va . Cousins therefore concludes that when certain ij d bj i h vn a ts o h a u t t at e B h dr,s e c s i r le o re t u aoit x h e s t a r car h d c ei t o tpi r m h ci e ds t h c z n cannot be explained on the basis of the canonical texts, but must have
186 187 188
K t a, 7 av u h tp ; 6 ta Aah g Law, ht h k . C iOhij d, on n Va s 8 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 3 a AN 10.94 at AN v.189f
M r o te i a a i oe n h V h j vd s b j n
107
occurred after the formation of a school called va which then ij d bj a h v, a tried to authorize itself by claiming that the Buddha was a va . ij d bj i h vn a But this just defers the argument: neither here nor anywhere else does Cousins attempt to explain why, given that va is such a ij d bj a hv a marginal term in the canon, should any school choose to call itself that. We therefore propose to re-examine the sources. TK t ha vh etau ht Th a c nf Td ulso anh o m k elc t t h C c a sgeo o P auo e i o i A ak tg io h r nh k i d n s what the Buddha taught (kid a smau o to which they v b t m sb h? he d t n a m di ) reply the Buddha was a va (va m Notice the ij d ij d a i bj i bj h j h vn h v a a rt ). same, rather ambiguous suffix -v ends both phrases. This spans a d st o en r kte et a dr ot pr f ago s s h, ac e, eu mn ,mp t s h oi f cm if e, a s t a o c o n o e t e o e i uac e tc, k cd a ro s oan c dr h at i o d e t c lcg h oi I ish n u h s h h th s t . s ee g l nn
189 h lamnW t o i e d bno Nor was he ayv e: a h d h u al t rh d e a s o d B heg? th c l t d o
asking for a detailed exposition of the many teachings give by the Buddha in his career. He needed a conc pym rfe d y i i smy tB h k s t u ao e h , hu ae ds doctrine. The monks at the time would have been familiar with the B h s i jnhe i tmpedr, s u ak n u ge cg t ,cn en d d i as tth s i l apo no ds l dt l i an o ea sa would have chosen a message that was directly targeted to solving the urgent problem confronting the king. Bh tM viov s rr i e ue h a ia e n e tsc en tr e hh r fe, ed t e vr s s o na od h Sapd 190 a t K t a, an i n h avh h t191 and elsewhere 192 mtsk d e t au ah a h t-ak
C iOhij d, n 7 o enre e on n Va s 1t ) t oab v us t bj i1 o 3n cr,is s( e h vn 7 e , h t a yl e t ti a wt tu rg eco q tw h h e t h h e d i e n t ee n s a i xl a e en f e t ui a t s c s y t h nl r e h s y r o . Hence he does not translate the phrase according to what he admits is the meaning in the Sutta passages: t s B h a u W d t u a cI c h o h d thn h a e e d e?s remarks we see the distorting effects of reading sectarian agendas into A aag ns e o pa . k ss 190 Sap d 1: an i .tasmi m a mg ut tr mtsk 6 a 1 s e gi a ae ag m o lts o a tst p i h p p md kt p r a s t a p d a mot au k b i o r a a d na v p a a h. av a h t aa h t a sa hisatasahassasa ebk ucvp a i ir k shh un t k r t h ui ci i p a h n y k s i i a t a a t a yd pabhinnapa b tj h n bk a i hn e e a hh s ia vd d i . a d ii m jb kn 191 K t a 7 av u h t : ta -a h tasmi ma mg ut tr ht h a k s e gi a ae ag m o lts o a tst p i h y c dp n v y cy uppajjissanti, sabbesampi a p a n aa n t u n it in i ia ant ,i h t tesa ia t s in v n t e pa nh a r n a a e a g n b aa t n y s v t a a t t da a e a h t h h i ba s v p at tp v p ht t vat k da s sn rda t a m k ij a u a i a ei p ai a hn a e c t a o a c suttasahassa a a a p da n i h ii p p t a ya a h v r a a h ak r m t avm a tk a l kt p r a s t a v u k b i o t a p a a h. s h t aa h t a a hisatasahassasa ebk k shh h ui y k un t k r t r ci i a i i pabhinnapa b . Translation cvp p a h n i i a t a a t a yd i hn s ia a d m at Law, 7.
189
108
S e c t s
a n d
takes another turn: after the settling of the dispute, the leading Elder, Moggaliputtatissa, is said to compose tK tand 1000 monks are h avh et au ht chosen to authorize the Third Council adding this work to the Tripitaka. But let us compare these passages with the corresponding one in the S saa is193 Differences u s vyb da iah . ann v highlighted. Sudassanavyb iah n v a is
In that gathering Moggaliputtatissa acting as the Elder refuted the wrong doctrines of followers of other religions. The assembly chose those knowledgable in the Tripitaka and the three-fold realization, numbering 1000 bhikkhus. In that gathering the Elder Moggaliputtatissa, refuting other doctrines, spoke the K ttt And avhri t au a . h t ee s then from the bhikkhus reckoned as 6 000 000 were chosen bhikkhus who were memorizers of the Tripitaka, distinguished in the pa isambhidas, endowed with the three-fold realization, etc., numbering 1000 bhikkhus. In that gathering the Elder Moggaliputtatissa, regarding those issues that had arisen and those that would arise in the future, for the sake of dispelling all of them, using the method that had been given by t e ehag, h a reta e c , T a T ht h t arranged the matrix distinguishing 500 statements o ew c l 5o f n o n0f os s o d0 no h a the other schools. Having brought together 1000 statements he spoke this K ttt of avhri t au a , h t ee s futuristic character, for the sake of refuting other doctrines. And then from the bhikkhus reckoned as 6 000 000 were chosen bhikkhus who were memorizers of the Tripitaka, distinguished in the pa isambhidas, numbering 1000 bhikkhus.
between
the
versions
are
Sapd an i mtsk a
K t a avh h t t au ah h t-ak
E.g. D vsa 6.40: Md n v nh j, a p a av ia ai dn d nr l o i v a i j n S n j iat a k y ao v kh p s. Also see Dv 6.55, 56. s t a vu a a a a n ht y i 192 (CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 531, c29) 193 (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 684, b9-11)
192
109
Notice that the Sap d a three phrases: the mention of the an i d mtsk d a s K t t e gt o t n b ( wr t avh h x ei fh ue e h t au e a r n h t, ga o e mr l e h s e e e S saa is eo 60, d e eoo h u s vyb nn 00 a t mt f e da iah mts ann v i 0 n h nn t ) i pa isambhidas. TK tcmt a f ees c n havho er d rrt dr g et aum ny s t diei ht a du h a si l b tK tif i n i e c h di est h avht, c eg x t i d nf t e et aue h om t eT at rr h ht swh l h p. s i o eo legendary tale that the Buddha had designed the basic framework of the K t i r t Mg ut s l in the details. avh n d h o l tsh d fill t au o ra gi a a o ht e t a ts u p i Interestingly, it says that the orthodox and heterodox views should be d ( d evibhajanto); as this passage follows immediately after the passage id v i mentioning the va perhaps this offers a clue in interpretation. ij d bj a h v, a Notice tha et au a lse tet t1 t K t h t o ts mt t 0 t avh ah s ht n a e0 h h t-ak e a e hh 0 bhikkhus chosen to perform the Third Council all possessed the three realizations: thus the early Sutta and practice based ideal of an arahant is sl iv f M tual ideal. in n o t a iai x d e fr h hh v e e d a o e vrs t i n All of these changes apparent in the Pali versions as compared with the Sudassanavyb absolutely characteristic of the iah are n v a is M ppi I cannot see any other reasonable conclusion a ia ee e hh rc . vr st194 s v t t t ats t Sapd a K t h h h di t h an i n avh a a e d n o e mtsk d t au n t i o a h tak e lto o a l d ihM a a aira s a t a n e a ia h t r l e l n t a t t hh , ah npt i e e vr presumably made by Buddhaghosa. It would seem that the original version of the Tdul nmt t avh h C ci tnnet au i o i o eoh h t. r nd d i K t T K tis an extensive refutation of heretical views, but h avh et au ht of Buddhist heretical views. Thus there is a decided tension in the story: are we supposed to see this account as a purification of the Sangha from nonBuddhist heresies (eternalism, etc.), or wrong interpretations of Buddhist teachings? Perhaps we are tempted to synthesize these perspectives; after a h r n a ee tK ti at puggala, the l es d i b i et auan h l f am d t h avhs it , i t t n an ht gs e o w,a p n hi suspiciously Self-like manner, is supposed to somehow e o r, n s exist outside the 5 aggregates and to pass on from one life to the next. No doubt there is something to this, as Buddhists, sometimes justifiably, often sei v n f c ooi o dne s i u c n ts pt rc eb i u e hs st oi ri dr t H uf cT i p a oae t n o c n en i n.s l p as ed eh avho ers e e e p gt htK tcmt ai tpuggala r s ge net aum nyc s h usw ht a r h b
194
Cp. pg. 65, note 104 above.
110
S e c t s
a n d
cr r o tsn h auk na oo s : ha a ejta d nvy e a tVits Smitiyas, and many te t n s , I j aa p

195 o r c stonoe a t th nbn gt a a h e e o li h s . e a r eg t sn
Yet the debate on the puggala would seem to primarily revolve around a tension within Buddhist doctrine. When the Buddha taught, he w l luu dy e r i, df cih t aa y rn blna o es a o sr so e g e rd S eo n n s l is f g ey d t ehz o lhigs ow wl s ta l m a -s; t ante o uar est p in e t s at s h o st bu s tf a, i h e d e h oe unity of the po h m a d a h wc ae in en e p i t wte l a r, ehz h a s s e t a s s l l f abstraction inferred from experience, motivated by fear of death and dissolution, but which, when we look for it in experience, cannot be found. Thus, against those who asserted to absolute primacy of unity, he proposed the contemplation of diversity, without, however, reifying that diversity into another absolute.196 This is effective as a philosophical counter to self-theories, but leaves us having to seek an explanation for why we feel or experience a se t:y tenr en oosc o e od i w,h i t ta rr e , w n fet h f r o l e l e en d e s i y n ie s u r c y se nevertheless feel as if we are a person? Certain indications in the canonical texts suggest ways of approaching this problem, but the schools were left to work out their own definitive solutions. For some schools, such as the Ms eno et axi i r oal a iaitse itw ead t s ca hh v , e f n vrs h s d i sp en m f s n y l n e u r i anir e e. fhu ld twn eo m g p tenB o ega ih ao l n odae mtu r P assst as t sa l s t t gvn i e g oet p t ro ca u pages as implying n h t a t o a uei t a o ,h t e u s ye d d m w tr Sas t t s n t ete aenpuggala) in some sense outside the five h x n o s ( e i c f po s e r aggregates, which was, however, not the Self spoken of by the nonB h . t ,ssm la e ehe u i F h twai wwne f d s o e h a d y t ts dt r m i s d e be l -theories and t bune f Abhidhamma theorists. h stol t e oe -s o e a l f h Ts ajf i i g tP a ssa h w r s d tk o e ga ah s u ee t n n f u ldcm ui h i i e n h gv i primarily an internal matter among Buddhists, and while not denying any connection with non-Buddhist teachings, would resist an attempt to simply a t i we are presented with at the Third Council: the c p t ws o sh o u le e l s es infiltration of non-Buddhist heretics, and the development of Buddhist p s i is d tih avhO t me o h o c d a een e t au ue a n i pa e s bd t K t rx k l hl a o a h t. t s
K t a 9 av u h t ta Aah ht h k C N .se sa t h c oi p ln f 18 l n shs t o l a ea . 2: i n: th i s o l ct S 4A o e t ier m g s uo l d c i A dr: th u c oi p ln l i i hs f hsl a ea l v t a t o o o l ct i ey ie r m g s uo s st t c i

195 196
111
attempt at a synthesis of these perspectives, but rather leaves us with an impression of disparate, although perhaps related, agendas. Given this situation, and given the flow of the text as preserved by t a iaiwte s yb e mbjd Why h hh v s a lald t e va ? e , r wpey t ij i M vrs h o n a h r h vn a was this term chosen, and how was it useful at this time? How would it have sese si hi d m eday o g kl a r akt l t n i ? v ov e g e n sm Lr h sources a M rs t ai v e v ai h n C iq en rl pa f tl M on us daa ag r ha a iai us o a ts sse o et hh v s t nt ss m e e r vrs n literature that define what va means to them. They say, for ij d bj a hv a example, that the Buddha was a va because he distinguished the ij d bj i h vn a v ue s w h cd c d e o ds . a s s nh ho ba w ls r ( h r se i n i i eu el o he a y.e o c l l n e a t i a e leads astray from unwholesome things); or he distinguished the kinds of pleasant feeling or the various kinds of robes to be cultivated or not (according to whether they conduce to the arising of wholesome states of mind). But a mt m n a a t md is i s o cmt t i to i h it L to e: h s a fn c f g a e s ts e whi t n for all Buddhist thinkers in g r nt loase i e a dcd tvedo n n l i unh r A a ea o ev k eb itoo y tA ao a sr g n slnh rd o eo m kne a nt sget o f r ah i h x h km n dp t o s ai n believers from the truly-f f 197 The mere making of rational au il t. h distinctions is never regarded by Buddhists as a distinguishing feature of their religion, or of their particular school. Fe p tMh dc a e w i es ox lh a iet h v ht s ra e e hb p M a o s a m, v i s d, e tcuf do e h school, making subtle distinctions hop u rtM ghika er t n f a a r oe h s between the kinds of doubt an arahant might have or not have; or the kinds ou war n i h ooa asnhsa f t s a am tvrtv no .i e t l a tg a nh , oo n h f h e e d o s xl Ti c y the kinds of distinctions meant by the general use of vibhajja, and they are entirely characteristic of the va s ij d bj isupposed enemies. h vn a Or in non-Buddhist circles, we need only think of the Jains, whose cardinal philosophy is the a a v ,e c e j o n n t dr o ou n e td h oi f ts e ka a t n n t sdnT h t a tha eer myf n t p th o h nr m be f a d r a o e l a yu y s o n ie ni .y d t t nm ft e perspectives, so no one perspective can be privileged as ultimate. On the contrary, as Cousins points out, the Buddha himself, while sometimes using the method of distinguishing, in other contexts makes unequivocal (eka sa)
197
Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 274
112
S e c t s
a n d
statements. Since such unequivocal teachings include the four noble truths, it could be seriously argued that the Buddha was an ekavn sd ai .198 The late Pali texts also, as shown by Cousins, use va to ij d bj a ha v dn sh a iai igh e hh v school from others, claiming to be the s u tM ti i vrs n only true va s specifically mentioning some doctrines of ij d, and bj i h vn a o rhs ie pndtS term hetupaccaya, t s oT p ai eh as d h c l h r sc se rt a e o. s h l u vi v ao t i naMe e ihrr e e lu h s cr o cr t ee tu filed t g i ue hh s l . r l s e fn o n a ec d
199 ir e h w ap bh as d a o r and g a i ac t y ert i n ts n n, c sce tS s dh, o cw h ed vi n v e
-cm in ai iw ap bh a n o uag t l w hac t ye i o m nt m rt h n c i ei a , c sce tV h y ed b ika S s d syh.tedrse a n as d, pi o r u soi aa d c rt ia o lts te c erl v e vi n n s v b eB h t n l ad Abhidhamma topics, which, even if they were current at that early time, would have had little relevance toe gim tid a hn l . k e sm So we conclude that the meanings of the word va ij d bj i h vn a proposed by Cousins based on the Pali canon and commentaries are not adequate to account for its use in the Third Council narrative. Bw d Va e u h o ij a n t a e ba m? t s hv jd a So we are left with the problem: what did va mean, and why was it ij d bj a hv a relevant in the context of the Third Council? Let us recall the flow of the text. The non-Buddhist h t arau oi ohs; ei st rs c e fee r ss vo drs t e c e i t n l f Moggaliputtatissa o sh w t u aoi fh v ; p e e ih d c eva p s m t e ds t objd ot h B h dr n ij a a then t M sc depict him as going on to teach the h a ia us e hh o e vr r K t E iet au sa at, M avh v f K tw ae d n e hh t au e t avh a l di t a ia h t. n h h t t i h r o vr mtvd ir ea .et aum ny w u aa df o ro h avho er s s ed t s en K tcmt, e h e o m sT ht aa h s , cas t tK ti is a e sila h h avh igh ( v e pfl y a et aus uevibhajanto) e n ec iy s t h t dn s t the heterodox and orthodox views, so perhaps it means to make some explicit ni e e et aude h v . c e nt n K tat ij d o c b et avhnh bj a nt w h ht o va a N , K td s v myp,n f i ot avh i s e atc aoh w et aus e r nos y w h h ht c s y u im c are trivial and are given little space, and far outweighing all other topics in the book is the first section, the discussion of the s.i,w po T is en hs e r s a h s ,e l atc m n t K t a t a e t o m o cm th avh n h v e h n i p o o o e t au d e e n y n i ht V a t m epn oooh li ti i a a ar to s pts t x s t j k , ro hp i snnels hs yp f n og i i a t eI es .
198 199
C iOhij d, on n Va s 4 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 3 a Undefiled ignorance would also seem to relate one of the five points.
113
was clearly a difficult controversy, and despite the cool Abhidhamma dialectic, an emotional one. In our present context, surely the emerging theme is this self/notself debate. I would like to suggest that the term va is used here to ij d bj a hv a imply a critique of the non-Buddhist theory of Self. This would certainly fulfil the criteria we asked for earlier, that the term must evoke a pithy, enl e f B h th i w t wl s t stac t u ae i n ah o a e e sist h d an a ya u n r ea p o e ds cg t d w h challenge of the heretics. The teaching of not-self has always been regarded as a central doctrine of the Buddha. A characteristic method used by the Buddhists to break down the false idea of self was to use analysis. In early Buddhism, the main method was to systematically determine those things which are taken to be the self, hold them up for investigation, and find on scrutiny that they do not possess those features which we ascribe to a self. Thus the five aggregates are described as forming the basis for self theories. But on reflection, they are seen to lead to affliction, which is not how a self is conceived, so they fail to fulfil the criteria of a self. In the Suttas, this m o a el bhi l ca w wk n t e d s m f ye c K ah an a e t we pe tdi ay ,o so s h x i i d s e cn p w h foremost of those able to analyse (vibhajjati) in detail what the Buddha th bf ep says that he filled that role in the First a t r tD vsa u i i h a gn e ; a Council. 200 This analysis, or vibha was gathering momentum during the ga, period of the Third Council. Indeed, the basic text is called, in the M version, the Vibha tS version is the a iai hh v vrs n g h as d a e rt a ; vi v Dharmaskandha, and the Dharmaguptaka version is the b h at T e le f aae p ef th a a h as r nnn h o r r ir . e l m o i d m s p r s t m ct a i s Aim d l e c c t la usr r b hm eo n o t hay l t p a h a a vp t li ent t i i d em , ln eg a c Sa m l i , y arranged according to the topics of the SatN y gan yaia a,d u k/ m a t elaborating them with varying degrees of Abhidhammic exegesis. So it would make perfect sense in our narrative for va to ij d bj a hv a represent the Abhidhamma movement as an analytic approach to Dhamma ie an s ru f pi r wl se n n l d ai e t s ia u. o a s g ra a cq o e l e , t i h e n r lI u l e f t at d o m c appropriate to describe the Buddha as a va , equivalent to saying ij d bj i h vn a he was an a td This interpretation must remain tentative, since it na i avn t.
200
D vsa 4.9 a p a
114
S e c t s
a n d
cannot be backed up with a clear statement from the texts. Yet, as we have seen, the definitions of va that we are offered by the texts are ij d bj a hv a ie to p tu e tMs tr n n q e ea h s bh a iaiih o a u txi e a y e hh vnn e w da l n g vrs i texts: they are late, or irrelevant, or derived from a different school. If our speculations have any value, it would seem that the prime target of the pm i i see t S s t n-Buddhist o in s s ant as d, t o lc t pa ro ert ib h n e s h ag h vi n u e v Self theorists, and perhaps by implication the Puggala i vn s d. But there is another, quite different, aspect of the term va that is suggested by our sources. When the troubles in the ij d bj a hv a S h r dtt , goa h ie haev a ao i cliA aki n r onse n p e ra k s s i s crl g v n b n k s ms w a e t o the problems. They suggest Moggaliputtatissa, and so the king orders that hec o b. kr s t h elephant will arrive and e f en oA ae t a i b td aa dmh w e e h to a a t take him by the hand; accordingly, the next morning Moggaliputtatissa arrives, and, wading in the water to help him, the king and the Elder clasp e o r a T is urh r l o atg d a ts n hs e s ao y a s dea c h d i a i bcf ab , hu s h eh . s r e o o to n r draw their swords threateningly before being restrained by the king. All this acts as a significant mythic precursor to the Third Council. W te pn tke, s e c l i e t ihx t o e g r te n l y r v s t eci f i dmh e to m o e h e o h n a e vs s s e r n r surrounding Upagupta; Moggaliputtatissa and Upagupta share such a close mythos that several scholars have seriously argued that they are the same monk. The only significant difference between the two in this instance is t dme n w h e tc t dmfe d h r s e , is s e h r oh u a ee q c h e o h ee a ue c m o a tB h ds mother before she was born, suggesting that Moggaliputtatissa, like
201 Ug a a c B h The white elephant is also one of the p pi n u a a ts s d d u, e o d.
sneroW e e ss a e v t u h-turning Monarch. er ef a l But next is another episode, which as far as I can see has no parallel with Upagupta. The king asks to see a miracle of psychic power: he wants Moggaliputtatissa to make the earth quake. The Elder asks whether he wants to see the whole earth shake, or only a part of it, saying it is more difficult to make only part shake, just as it is more difficult to make only half a bowl of water tremble. Accordingly, the king asks to see a partial eh k n ne es e ne c te e i c aq e d tEru s , pe a gs te ru , ohlgt h ls lu d n taa d s gi o a a a s a in the four directions a chariot, a horse, a man, and a bowl of water respectively, each half in and half outside the boundary. The Elder, using
201
S saa is B , , 1 , 8 2 u s vyb E T n 4 p 3 1 d a iah : T 2 o 6 . , -c18 ann v C A 4 . 2 6 b
115
fourth jhana as a basis, determines that all the earth within a league should tremble: accordingly it does so, with such precision that the inside wheel of the chariot trembles, but not that outside the boundary, and the same for the horse, the man, and even the bowl of water. It was this miracle that c idot Mg ut w trt n si t on A aa o l ts a e h ao bee n c h gi a a s i m t az ve k t a ts p i hg t ih l sn a s .202 a The crucial value here is the precision with which the Elder can resolve his psychic abilities, dividing the earth as if with a razor. This concern for precision, orderliness, and clean boundaries is a characteristic o e hh v s o h ec po hl u nr f M c l i ve h o ces f t a iai h, c is i pa vi o h vrs ow h n a l ir l n s o grey areas, graduations, and ambiguities. For example, while other schools asserted that rebirth took place tu aa lno p elt e ex n, h g g u ri a a a hn t ni ct r h r aat l s l e-b eete e o d tsn h c d i w i e s e h Msu an o aer t ol na a iai o h o f tcnh nf d d hh v wl v n t, l ga e e n vrs n d e e hda i t i s e the next begins in the following moment. Or while many schools spoke of a gradual penetration to the Dhamma (a u bay the n b hma u b ia p s ), Msvpti t p to a nl a iai eo h e a na h ea hh v d lde a t et p s-at-once vrs n ee d h er n p l i (e hma i rwn p itnieh t k i a. iy h ea gew M cwrh s y Sl , e xi hT ba )m l a ln n i r e e a l e Buddha was supposed to simultaneously emit both water and fire: the point of the miracle would seem to be the fusion of opposites, but for the Ms r nun er i e p fws a iaih i f , m cs x l h f hh v te os t iea a e oa vrs e s i h a n m o n o l t the Buddha could advert between a water-kasi a and fire-kasiflashing a, back and forth to create the illusion of simultaneity. This notion of a momentary flickering back and forth to explain what the text would appear to present as synthesis is found elsewhere, too. In satipatthana, the meditator u st n p rl e i p e cel i n n s p d o m t ta t s o o t a n lh ee y rl t rlxn h t Sas t e n h i n /e l Wl h use h x a, e n a erl t l e y n t l ta. i e t e e e y y e t r/e ln p o seme s t te n i ner t l n tcp eoh h i n axn ce a a t ltao m t e i h or nn a e s hi t r o f an d r et neo e hh v sp ed u mt ie b ett tM ea n elfn e ehw h a iai xi d af c w e , vrs n l n i a ii gcno. iy etsk a t rdc b af Sl , Sa eoat a a fi a d t ia t us afmh s p ln k k r mr h t p h l s a avsakttit ai c unacf nis y d er d l g g o rta o d ano oh, ey i an r bn pa e g e vn i n e m n ce le teae a d oc csshtM a r h qi imi ro in. i e h no e e u in e t no eWl s l t s t s as u s e a sc h y us
S saa is B , , 1 , 8 2 684, a10. u s vyb E T n 4 p 3 2 d a iah : T 2 o 6 . , -p. ann v C A 4 . 2 6 c This follows the Pali on every detail, except the distance is 4 yojanas. But 1 yojana at CBETA, T53, no. 2121, p. 179, a24.
202
116
S e c t s
a n d
seem to retain this under d, Msask a s i t a iai g p o t n h hh v ane f a g e vrs n n i a rapid alteration between the two. So I suggest that this admittedly ill-d ee o l e dn fe f se r i n s c -cuta n t sne hh v s y o i inea et we tM m a b p i u e s ae i s h e h a iai al e l t s vrs n s me h g d of va . ij d bj i h vn a There is one final implication in the word va in this ij d bj i h vn a au O ohmt ateo c e A aia c n n fe o d a pd o r i c t e t s r i ie n n os t o. m c s s cs k n l i attempt to heal the problems in the Sangha. He instructs a minister to go and order the monks to do uposatha. The minister is told by the good monks that they refuse to do uposatha with the heretics. The minister, m n sd A a tis sh i hb a o . idt i eo t b ages t n s e n gos nna e d toie k u r n ki t,r en a n t t m s n He only stops when it he realizes that the next monk in line to have his head chopped off is none other t T , ko r rr o h i t i bh Hen a s h n re e u t ts e g t. ts a s ir A a hi n sdy i bro,s t nm , o ue n ledy msr e o f o o w s dt a s k r b z a e er u s e h apologize to the monks, and asks whether he is to be held karmically responsible. The monks tell him different stories: some say he is to blame, some say he and the minister share the blame, while some say that only acts done intentionally reap a karmic result he had no intention there as is no blame. But none of them can assuage his doubt. Only the appearance of Moggaliputtatissa can do this. The Elder is then sent for, and after his arrival in the boat and subsequent demonstration of his psychic powers, the king is able to accept his explanation: there is no intention, therefore there is no guilt. This episode reminds us of the spectacular State visit by Aat t u ah hi ros tgtm n j a t ed ,e e iyns o r c ed to B h r sl ced a a ia t u h dw e m l f s a e er was comforted by the Buddha. In both cases the king was unable to find peace of mind until hearing the Dhamma from the right person. I suggest that in this careful analysis of the distinction between physical and mental acts we see another possible meaning of va . ij d bj i h vn a This was an important doctrinal position that clearly marked off the Buddhists from otherwise similar contemporary groups such as the Jains. We have s t M a iy o s a t i o t e h a esl ik u dn n jf e a h via n e c ic t s n t d mr v s h s t l i o uy i his acts. Thus va might have a variety of meanings in this context. ij d bj a hv a Perhaps we should not seek for a definitive answer. As a mythic text, the
117
passage is evoking a style, an atmosphere for the school, not laying down definitions. It may be that we can go no further than to explore various possibilities. After all, the school itself did not try to close off the specific denotation of the word. But the important conclusion of this discussion is that we can find plenty of implications in the term va whether ij d bj a h v, a those explicitly offered by the tradition, or those speculatively inferred from context, that do not involve sectarian differences. This stands in marked contrast to the often-assumed conception of va as the ij d bj a hv a opposite of s which we examine next. as d rt a vi , v
Chapter 7
Va srt a ij a S ba vas d hv jd . vi ? v
IN NON-PALI SOURCES, V AVI SOMETIMES CONTRASTED WITH SVT D. I J IS BJD HA N AI I RS VN C i mete t hs S a icr on a il h e e as d s s to us k s s cr a a t e rt a dn f s vi v t i m va but does not explain why.203 It is problematic to assume that ij d bj a h v, a t a ia d ne t p h oase st h hh ti mn i yi ns ninfound e rt a o l s t ,c i M vr a o i t m tc r i t o t in the Pali sources. Ie on rec n hst re wn n d ust osa ia e b s ee d , s a l a l n t p l hh e C i i ci l t h om c oy t t p dn nt nert adebjd r o l ic b et as dnh ij i i i y s t e e S atV a e m a t i w h vi s io v h vn a s o n e r seh a tsaps aa c l tno e ( rg a, M k hs h aw n D mu k K aa hss oi r s a pa yy , , a M For example, he remarks that the Abhidhamma-pi a iai hh v vrs ns). aka ohP s oss tund toy l t h f ea c l dn b o c le d t t l h iic to u l r e o e i o t, i b s e a t Aim lae o rbjds o204 This is true, but b hm i t ot V a c l h a aeu f eij i hs d t r h h vn o r a . slightly obscures the situation. Frauwallner has shown decisively that the Pali Abhidhamma Vibha iec le d tS gsrl yl th as d a v o r eo e rt i ys a e t vi n v Dharmaskandha. Both of these are also connected with the D mu k ub h a u t e,m h me h a t th a , t s sowt o a g as r r ir b ie sea r r pa i d m p m distantly, at least in the form of the works, if not the doctrinal content. So, y tV a s byd s r e b hm, n eh ij d p a hc l l Aim s t sebj i r b al y a h a a uo , h vn o l a o ed d e t b c r at S s it p a e pnf e l t h as d (h er b x t o h o h e rt i w h o l ci s n e vi n t v be e o t J asn pt a r . na ) h Similarly, Cousins argues that the epigraphic evidence supports th e a ebjd w tm m ir hs t e a t V a s r e i in s oBo i t t ij i e h a s a c luf d h h h vn e a n s y o. o c s ert i r e oe S s w-attested in the north-west, and the lack u t as d a l r h vi n e l v
203 204
C iOhij d, on n Va s 2 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 3 a C iOhij d, on n Va s 6 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 6 a
V h j vd v. avs vd ? i a a a s S rt a b j i
119
of inscriptions to the south merely confirms the mission account that the S pi Mh i e o . as d a r a nan K rt i t c j twt a r vi n r h j k v a a t m Classic and influential contexts for the view that va is ij d bj a hv a specifically meant to contrast with s i d a a u as d n e s n rt a c V b h vi v l u u ds
205 Airk , part of the explanation for the sectarian list of b h a aand ha o dm
Bhavya I. We should not remember that this explanation is expanding on the basic list of schools in Bhavya I; but in that list va is a synonym ij d bj a hv a of s Such inconsistency within a single section of a text should as d rt a vi . v warn us against expecting consistency across the vast schools, lands, and times of ancient Buddhism. H I o f B yno i e q eo h a R h r u r e t m a i cl v k l s translation: sha als the past, the future, and the present T e o t ax h w s h li o y tet s - are c dc e n y o t ax a i n u ehw s h li o l n s e T ha als r l oq c e e y tet s S s as d. rt i vi n v sha a mh ss ua a T e o t se ne ,cs s h w s h o tg is ) t o yt i x (h p t actions of which the result has not matured, and that some do not exist, (such as) those deeds of which the consequences have occurred and the things of the future; making categories (or d i)er li n u ehw sk io,y c dc e n y oeo v nt a a n s e T hp f is s h el o q c e e a d iV a s io oij d. v n r h vn i s bj i206 s a N t v issi et au e h to n o h i s ce tK tif e h p e w ie d s n avht, r ep n sw i d h ht s w e u l ot says that some of the past and future exists and some does not.207 The cmt ai t h t v thKaaw a o er s eh ei i o eaps h r m ny c s e r a e t s a r b el w c sy , oe generally held to be one of the va schools (although from the ij d bj i h vn a M v p t eapse de d from the a iai i o t K aa r en hh v vrs e i h w n wn yy e sd ce S sV mags ai s ai t h as d) a i ae ns i u rt i vi n v . s t r i cn c v o e ur e rg h e b w t K aa In any case, the view in question is specifically refuted by the aps 208 yy .
205
(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 104, b2227) 206 Rockhill, 184 207 K tp 5 av u . ta , 1 ht g 1 h 208 (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 17, a27-29)
120
S e c t s
a n d
Ms tb w h s p d t te i a iaii eo h w s o bh o wt hh v , ho i a p eye b rn vrs n n k c us m t e by Moggaliputtatissa at the very same Third Council we are considering. It is unsurprising that the northern texts would have referred to a usage of vij dthat was actually followed by a school represented in bj i h vn a a the north, rather than the remote Sinhalese. But there is no particular reason to think that these passages refer to a clearly defined school; in fact such a view may well have been held by different groups or individuals. Rather, it seems that the northern sources treat at least one meaning of vibjd being a doctrine specifically opposed to the s h v as a j a a as d rt a vi v doctrine.ea iai T M sources, however, never use the term in h hh v vrs n that way, nor do they actually hold the view that is ascribed to the va sthose contexts. ij d in bj i h vn a This is not the only case where the northern sources attribute views to the vibhajjav that differ from t M dins h a iai e hh v vrs n perspective. Th iis tv t t i e lh eb ss h i h i s r, i V dusee a m en we h ce w t e ta l conditioned dhammas are not eternal; conditioned dhammas migrate like fruits being taken out of one basket and placed in another. 209 This view is ai t er t aV a s tnasn l s eo Di n ij d, i t oo e c d t na dbj ib s pt h r b h k s h vn u o a i i d b e hh v s y M . t a iai h vrs n Of course, there may well be other contexts where the northern sources describe va views that are in fact held by the ij d bj i h vn a Ms t mta d rib eh t e a iaiBw u l y fnt t n w e m hh v . e se iea e eoh r vrs u n cr f t l e ew t vibhajjav is used in the different sources. din We saw above that in describing the use of va , the later ij d bj i h vn a Psc oeo c e a el S s t e ao e skdrs t h bas d, o r lus p f t t a e yrt ib t i r d a oi h r d n vi n u h v s o a eah s v sw, t as di c l y lve u i ae nh rt im hs w h l c e sl de vi n a om led hw l a S s n v tenet is not mentioned. Such contexts are clearly aimed at other Buddhist schools in general and do not specifically define va as an ij d bj a hv a alta t ert i e t o S theory of existence in the three times. In ri t as d nv h vi n e v other words, there is no reason to think that in using the term va , ij d bj i h vn a t Ms e tdn st sef t h a iai mn o ighh es o h e hh v vrs n a t su ti el r i mv m e S spi r as d i r l rt in t a vi n a u. v c
209
Frauwallner, Studies in Abhidharma Literature, 190ff
121
The Early Controversies This conclusion is reinforced by examining the doctrinal sources for the d s oh as d i s fe rt a s i t S controversy. This is found in two early co un vi v c nlh a a r ta d eo K to e a iAim w s e e mte avh f n c b hm o, l y nn t au t oa d kh r a id h t h Ms de k o e viieaa a iaiat i a at as d vrn hh v , h j f S D . vrs n V y h rt n am n n v T K t i s e b t Ms h avh s c d yh a iai t e t au ai ht r b e hh v vrs o n Moggaliputtatissa, said by the commentaries to have been composed at the Third Council. The work as a whole cannot have been composed at that time, for it is the outcome of a long period of elaboration, and discusses many views of schools that did not emerge until long after the time of A a addition, we have seen that the ascription of the work to . In o k Mg ut a e i o i ly b l M o l tst Td ul i te a a ia gi a a t h C cs e o a e hh a ts h r n i l p i k t vr modification. Nevertheless, there is no reason why the core of the book should nh b s e A ai aie. oa e t d e dd K Norman has shown tv e a i os , n d R. e n r n kt n e t m that particularly the early chapters have a fair number of Magadhin grammatical forms, which are s e e a n o a . u s on o p e cIn gt f A a r n e gi v k vn addition, the place names mentioned in the text are consistent with such an early dating.210 So it is possible that the main arguments concerning the important doctrinal issues, which tend to be gathered at the start of the book, were developed by Moggaliputtatissa and the work was elaborated later. Snu r ee f h os m eja a tgp t vn o i m f tV r s o gic r s e o h i k . o pi d e t c r n y n This work starts off with extensive discussions, not of hundreds of points like the K t bjt t hs tetnh eo avh u s o e s als de sf t au tt : ti ax , t hs h t, uw h et li a h s ti ts.ert iae i h a iait hpo T S sr w tMsa een h as d gd t e hh v r vi n e h v vrs h n t te s s i ei e soeea st i h wn en t la e , h rt nf v s e ao r h t t n s ift o e w r pon u m se trui o he o ega i f P as much in common. But on the proposition that t u ld share h gvn x yl pni. es t a iaih a i t h o s v sh a r Mss l s h e p i e W r fh hh v t l t e d og w es eo e vrs i n v wt i v d s, S s d n b n i a eti i st as d me u e e e s s e s eh rt i ai mr . w h x w c d e vi n h u v t o The first chapter of their work is tdo l si211 This i g ne n t M a a t. l gl c e o is a debate with a monk who in the title is called (mu-gan-lian), and in the body of the text is called (sha-men mu-lian = Sama a
210 211
See Barua (CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 531, c29)
122
S e c t s
a n d
Mg nGne s s t w i sstpoa o l )vtc n o eo ci o e rd gl .e a a i hl e f td s f s, o sh e s o h enn un given that Moggaliputtatissa is said by texts of both schools to have discussed this view, there seems little doubt that this is referring to the same Elder.212 T V du ns lh tK t E h i a a cii p t h avh a ej k is s e a et au c y ss n o i rn m h t. h paragraph begins with gl r ag ti ha n t Mg ne t hhs es d u o l pi ie p afr aae n s sT t ue : a n t pe a t u nide . The r o h rn n h n d n x e t e e t d e c i e i 213 ; s ot o s t straightforwardness of this view agrees with t avhn i e h t aud ae e h t adgs K t s r w t ori oos e t ij d bh a ih mo esn rd h bj i ya and t e p s i ai t e h vn B y h c m pt c o V a s i b a v Vasubandhu (as discussed earlier).gl, onlong Mg n nt t d o t o l u ra , st aaf ue e e y much of a chance to defend his thesis, but is simply countered with a barrage of arguments based on Sutta quotes. The basic form of the argument is that in order to abandon, say, e n u i let gd e sr y e r, mte i eo dc s t with the mind. But the seeing of the greed must be distinct from the greed if eeomt n a ci or.ten t. tee s s g s c nf e una s O h f u e e t a s gd o c e n rr l b e p os i o eB o wt lx . c es i214 ns h e e s nt a x . l e a a i H e p et y r y s e h ts e l t s Strangely, while every paragraph repeats this phrase, after eleven repetitions we find a different thesis, with no explanation for this difference. The remaining eight paragraphs of this section return to the original thesis, again with no explanation. The aberrant thesis is
215
which appears to be equivalent to the Pali: ai ma t a a a citta t nm h r
(there is mind with no object). This rather cryptic phrase seems incongruous, as it appears to have nothing to do with the question of existence in the three periods of time. But in fact it clearly partakes in the basic abhidhamma debates: for example, the threes of the Dhammasa ga mii dd m w p oc hm w frbt n eh a i a bt a a i ue j t c m st s j d k l u a h te , m st t oc hu e , d m w pe bt h ai rn j a s he te . m t s oc Related issues are discussed in several pe tK t ls h avh a i et au cn h t, but the most relevant appears to be the heretical assertion that: a rma ta a cittan m (mind with past object is without m t aa a manti r
Cf. Cousins, The 'Five Points' and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools, 58 (CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 532, a4-5). I have punctuated to clarify the syntax. The Pali is perhaps: a n t natthi; t a g t a pu na ap n c p khata cas atthi. The discussion of the past, future, and pen K ti ir e b sN a rn t av uee q tr ib a e t h ta l se n i n b . s ie h t k f h w ul n y g in 214 For a recent and excellent discussion of this argument, see Bastow. 215 CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 535, a8. Bastow does not notice this variation.
212 213
123
object).216 This, while seemingly self-contradictory, addresses an important question: if the past and the future do not exist, what are we aware of when recollecting the past or predicting the future? Given that the nonS s o ed e i c fe snue e as d c l n tete tp a fr h rt i hs i h x n o vi n o de v s e h a dt, y t ut must come up with another account of this. Thus this assertion, given that it appears right in the middle of a debate on the three periods of time, would seem to be addressing the question of what the object of consciousness is when we think of the past and the future. The view in question is ascribed by the commentary to the Urt a obscure group known to no other text: it seems to be t p a, an t k a hs a u a g re f h oes o la wi s s e i r o e rrc li lN en, e anc m r nh hst l o gs d et t tn o (r e y r a! ) ao h iu xdhas d. a e cee lu e t s ceert iI y l l t t g r mt l tS s m w i dh hh e eu vi nt v lu n K aanh h a tsh r e apsde a g a,oe l a tD mu k w aw-attested in the Northyy r pa l west. The view of the va s t p o es i ij d/ yy h a f p et bj iK aa a r t a x h vn aps t t h t s a s would seem to be related. We bear in mind that, if the account of the missions is to be trusted, all these schools may claim Moggaliputtatissa as a founding teacher. I cr t V atK ta s i t l t t i a adet aue r g ie h h j k nh avhr c n sa a e y n ht ai b two opposing views to Moggaliputtatissa. ehtK t i Gn a e t au i t h avhs v t ht vastly more d ld a h i a a this is the 86th view it eo t t V vp h e j k ee n y n discusses d e a l e k dcabssw agn t y V i lt th i ni t o t i a a e t u tv v h n h j y r y r e ie n t i to Moggaliputtatissa (in the Pali this attribution comes in the cmt s egb c d tt V h . t o er, m t int u h i a ar ne m ni w i e l o s ej k eOh a) e h n e rt y e i n o rntS s yvu md tt t n t h , as d m h su eoe pit h a h rt i aa c bt e a o e d e vi n v ec hmt o denigrate their opponents by ascribing to them inconsistent views, attributing to the founder of the school views that were later held by the rt ai h c tK tm t mele U ah s w h s e t aui b or b t p a t k n i a h avh g e re l a , c e ht h i. a Other possibilities remain: perhaps Moggaliputtatissa argued for both views on different occasions; or perhaps he held neither. In any case, the two texts agree that Moggaliputtatissa was involved in these discussions, and the difference is in the details of how to work out a successful psychology based on the anti-S views, rather than the basic position. as d rt a vi v But the most important point for our current purpose is that neither the Vija ar K tw io ers e k nt avh it m nye o et auts mt ut ny h ht hc a h
216
K t 1 av u0 ta 4 ht h
124
S e c t s
a n d
term va in discussion of this issue. For these texts, the term ij d bj i h vn a va has nothing to do with the debate on the three periods of time. ij d bj a hv a What schism? While it is clear that there was debate and disagreement on this issue, it is not at all clear that this had reached a sectarian split at this time. The K t tu u iscusses doctrines only, and refrains from avh h g t t au r h d ht oo referring to specific individuals or schools. Only in its commentary do we find the identification of various views with particular schools. Reading just t K t ife u yh eh is were h avh t, cd s wt t d s e t aus w on a er es ions ht e l l t h c u between different schools or merely an ongoing debate among one community. Of course, the lack of reference to specifics of place and time is entirely characteristic of the Pali Abhidhamma, and perhaps we should not read anything into it. But a slp ei w ih i a a first ia rs a o n e j k . The mros t r t V i c s k y n d t nl i,dc anan ilo l . The ee et s ed at i d, gl b, a x i e gs a o l s ir s t i nd u Mg n ia v aa sn d tot s, dc an a h, e e dee nh po i i e gs s ot c o b, a e en s r d at c lh r e t i o P a217 Again, reading straight off the surface of the text, the u ld ga a. gv d t iMg n a du nian ilh t ee t o l w ass w nd u wee b w a h gl a a s is ci t iva ih o h i , l d second topic was a debate between schools. This would be entirely in c o nw au nh tP ass o r c i s t wr e ga ah had already n d et i i e h u ldcm ca h to a e gv i become manifest, so that the followers of that thesis were regarded as a dn r h B h ,i ert a ic a ou i we S schism was still taking s t n fd s ht as d t bc i dm l h vi v shape, still a debate among people who felt they belonged to the same school.
217
(CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 537, b2)
Chapter 8
Dharmagupta: the Greek missions
AS RECORDED IN THE SRI LANKAN CHRONICLES, one of the missions traveled to Aparantaka in the west of India (Gujarat). This was led by a monk called Yonaka Dhammarakkhita, a most intriguing individual. While most of the monks mentioned in the Pali sources for the Third Council come to us with a name and a few details of their missions, Yonaka Dhammarakkhita is singled out for special honor as the teacher of A a re or os t Tissa. It seems that T k bh is s mind was already inclining s a towards the Dhamma. While roaming in the forest he saw the Elder seated in meditation, being fanned by a magnificent bull-elephant with the branch of a sala tree. A longing to join the Sangha arose in him, and perceiving this, Dhammarakkhita rose into the air and descended at the lotus lake in the A ao t i r m ar P o km ne n s y aliputta. He bathed, all the while leaving his robes hanging in mid-air. Seeing this, Tissa was so inspired he asked to join the Sangha immediately, taking Dhammarakkhita as his preceptor.218 When the missions were sent out, Dhammarakkhita went to Aparantaka, in the west of India, where he taught the discourse on the Great Mass of Fire and made 37000 converts, with 1000 men and 6000 women ordaining. Yonaka i l t o d u i dtsr y s a o n a is n i xfa r e a nse Ic t ed I , t i d n e on Westerner, especially the Greeks. Alexander the Great had led his Greek army into north-w Iao br . b sr i e n st ee o H u ea t s d hl f A ae i vli ti r o k y l e cs t e
218
Pali Vinaya 1.55
126
S e c t s
a n d
c d e dew h s a t o a a aka a a i nfi a pn YaD ma i l A na oh wa rl n h r h l l ro e x , c p ey k m kt s home town. Although he is said to have been sent to Aparantaka, in the west of India, this is a general term and elsewhere it is clear that Dhammarakkhita stayed in Greek areas.219 The second part of his name is just as interesting. The words rakkhita and gupta h e tha mn : ad h se a xl em enr uo v a tse a gu eTsm e c y i g d. modern scholars (Frauwallner, Przyluski), noting that that the names Dhammarakkhita and Dharmagupta could easily be interchanged, have seen a n t b e t m r hd eh a t c e n t n i hma ia t rg a o c e e h D akan hD mu k ni w o s a kt a pa s o h h a tse a a oh ij d h c l e a ga w h: D mu k r b c fe bj a a ot r pa e r h t V a t n hv a t
220 d ld tweYaD ma i m i ne s eo i e kfn h aka in tw . vp n aoo a a r h s i ee h k m kt s s o he t
To verify this theory we must investigate the exact forms of his name a little closer. Here are the names mentioned in the Pali missions account, 221 tt w t ne sc en e da iah . oh i h as rr ih u s vyb ge t e m aed er h o d t S saa is ann v Fortunately the names are phonetically recorded in the Chinese translation and the reconstruction presents no serious difficulties.
T a sa 20: yonakara alasan r y k hv a p he da a o a g t n ao a dhammarakkhitatthero ti bks s i f t if shha s ( r h t aiuh o ey k an m co Alexandria in the Yonaka country, Yonaka Dhammarakkhita and 30 000 mk a] T r sh io o i f G t p o [ e .iftsi t pn t r S a n c he o v t eeg h e t i s m se ) r i t h n oe a u n s Sri Lanka. 220 Tcmt sa eo roh eD m ho ert t w o tt,. m p em nir h w s er a e e t t d ge. h a a g a d A a 2 Dhammassa guttoti so dhammagutto dhammarakkhito. t5 h h 7 a : k 221 The Pali sources are fairly consistent in naming this monk, but there are occasional exceptions. In the story we have just told of Dhammarakkhita c e g kore n r r o o r t i bh t oif da nt h n re mk e e s v n e g t, i s h se t r a a hm kt u eiers sa g a Y k h a ak t Ceh jhD mu o a m rh. t hseu ah a t nm d a iB h n a et r p ( CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 682, c14) Sl, a a 29.39 we i r th m l M sa i a a y v find Y m m rh B s o n ih osm o a hm kt u i r on a n ne n h a ak . iwhtg t k as a d a i ts t i t m a c a uc cug da s e f a i do t r bt os mit . p x hs er , e jt ni oc n hr a d na seo f n fi T e M d io i os we have seen in the case of Yonaka [Ma D m kt h h ak . a rh There are so ] m ai a mym bngt hm t in a me i t aneen w m -t o l on e nasgi i a a a i r i d ts i n h D ht m n s r m o drop the Dhamma and just use the second element; thus Dhammarakkhita b m k also common to name a monk by his country of e e a iIt is c s kt o R h. a origin, but again this may be applied quite inconsistently. So, without trying to sort out anything definitive, I wonder whether some of these monks might have been the same person, known by slightly different titles in different lands.
219
D h a r m a g u p t a :
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
127
Country
Pali sources
S saa is u s vyb da iah 222 ann v Majjhantika M a ae hv d Rakkhita Dharmagupta
K n a r d a Majjhantika -G h m a r Mahi sakama M a ala ae hv d Vaa a ns v Aparantaka M aa h r ha Yonakaloka Himavata Rakkhita Yonaka Dhammarakkhita
M m r h a hma i h a aka d kt M rg a ah at ha u dm p Mka aa i h kt rh Majjhima Kassapagotta Alakadeva Dundubhissara Sahadeva Mka aa i h kt rh Majjhima Kassapa Deva t ah ne or So aka Uttara Mahinda I 223 hiya Uttiya Sambala Bhadda
Dundubhissara Deva
Suva h i am b Tambapa p i d a
So aka Uttara Mahinda I hiya Uttiya Sambala Bh a as d dl a
Whereas the Pali has four d r ieRakkhitas Chinese version has two fn ft e , t he R akkhitas two rg a a a d tChinese translator, and D mu s n b rh h a t S h a, a p g h a e . was obviously capable of phonetically differentiating rakkhita from gupta,
CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 684, c17-p. 685, a4. Hemavata teachers at CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 686, a5-9 223 Not found in the first section, but below at CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 684, b26
222
128
S e c t s
a n d
and we can only conclude that his manuscript contained these forms. 224 On other grounds, we are justified in regarding the Chinese version of this text as being historically more reliable than the Pali, 225 so we conclude that Dharmagupta was the original form. So according to this account, two of the missionaries, 226 including the monk known in Pali as Yonaka Dhammarakkhita, were called Dharmagupta. This finding from the Chinese adds considerable plausibility to P li gt t YaD ma i a e n o e r s s e nao aa aka s f d f z k u s h n h r h wt o e t y gi t k m kt h u r h us o Dharmaguptakas. Another finding not available to Przyluski and Frauwallner is the recent confirmation of extensive Dharmaguptaka
227 presence in Greek-i e dn This adds further strong support n n G h. fc a r l e da u
to the notion that the Dharmaguptakas were centered in the very same region that we find Yonaka Dhammarakkhita. When we see an ancient account, with confirmed historical validity, saying that a monk called Dharmagupta lived in the north-west; and a couple of centuries later there is substantial evidence of the strong presence of a school called Dharmaguptaka in the same region; and the records of that school confirm that they were named after their founding
T pt n ue b rnp tso h h h oi f nl se B t a t wr i i ura o u i a rln e e sn so t t y cd a n i s a, e renders (tan-wu-de) as if it harked back to an original dhamma[rakkhi]ta (e.g. Bapat, 36). But is the standard rendering of Dharmagupta, used dozens of times in this sense. Since we know that Sanghabhadra was quite capable of phonetically representing rakkhita by (le-qi-duo), why would he use such a misleading combination of r e s hha ce B t tr i ns t e r wiem ox a eeo t t ni i t dgt n n sent p i pa ei a t ? a n tn a h s r t l S h an i w a r in eE fh a a d r e sr b rn s nv o e n b r e r e ra c i te r g h a d g e ii os . n t s n tl y t identical Indic phonetic ending Sanghabhadra used two quite different ta, characters: (de) and (duo). This only makes sense if renders Dharmagupta, since in this case the rendering is common usage, even if it is not internally consistent in this passage. I therefore think that it is virtually c ia n b rt r D mu ( qat d e n t g h ae e h a t r i n n r t S h ax a a g a ev ) t h aad a s t d r p o ul a e B t n i sa ak s sms utt t a d g D m kte f h s p h h p r e ah a er s n m rh t r is i a e a i m o am o t a n S s aa is a nto emts s u s vyb tsof Sap d; p d a iah i rlnt an id i ann v s aa i h a k et e noting the very many differences between the two texts, he still tends to read the Pali text back into the Chinese. 225 For example, in each mission account, a number is given recording the conversions and ordinations made. (Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 296) In the two accounts, in 12 cases the numbers agree. In the remaining cases the differences are, mentioning the Pali first: 100000/1000; 37000/7000; 37000/30000; 13000/3000; 170000 (or 137000)/73000; 10000/1000. Thus whenever they differ, the Pali is larger than the Chinese, and this difference is always by a suspiciously artificial amount. 226 Unless the names are confused and they are to be counted as one. 227 Salomon
224
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
129
teacher; it would seem overly suspicious, if not actively perverse, to deny that these sources, disparate though they are, are speaking of the same person. Wm teaw tSapd a at a ei su h h an i p r h g p l y e mtsk p s v h ct e a e o e replaced Dhammagutta with Dhammarakkhita, while the earlier form is still f dtS saa is s eh u a s me o i eda iah . gt td g a o u n u s vyb u s a d h r v n h ann vI g t B h o e d the references to the Dharmaguptakas when he edited his new Vinaya cmt, Sapd. his he may have been influenced by o erhan iI m ny emtskn at a t tD vsa, which evidently post-dat hu s vyb h a ep a e eda iah .228 s S saa is t ann v The D vsa appears to have been the first text to have fused the a p a account of the schisms with the account of the missions. Having issued a blanket condemnation of the Dhammaguttas, this school and the missions. Wm t oo r ye da iah d n ei a wdw tS saa iso g l n hh u s vyb et hs e ann v s dr D ma i h a t s r ei h aka a g a e ( s e a r h/ r u a G k yonaka). Perhaps c b m kt m p D e modern usage might be relevant here. It is still the custom in Sri Lanka for foreign monko c d truy oi syua s ba bh c tor , sta tel ye o rf g aa s i l e i n i n Arn l StB te ooeo i n l tll n u teifu, p t cnho m k r j. h s c s a u r, a r n o iagec o S n l i a si L a u t u oh pe a n j. h s fe it n StS e e t e k a o a t yonaka must derive from a h situation where Greek monks were considered foreign, as would have been the case in central India or Sri Lanka. But in a Greek dominated region this would not be used. Perhaps, then, this passage from the S saa iss i e ppi s mgo a u s vyb a n r ee et i f da iah in s rc , m n r ann v i s st e d v m tradition which regarded Dhammarakkhita/Dharmagupta as a local, that is, in the north-west. T wl pt t S saa is a c h o i y ah u s vyb s l i u m h e da iah h ao s d l t ann v s e connection with the Dharmaguptaka school. And indeed, Bapat lists many Dharmaguptaka features it S saa isthat were nh u s vyb e da iah ann v discovered by Hirakawa. For example the text mentions 24 sekhiya rules
229
it would suit the
Dvs pm lre h ti iconnection between aa o i p ot i hm e p lc u sod e p a s ea p e l d
Orl , S s aa iso n t a aat u s vyb et t h p ts ed a iah d n e n D vsa. e h ann v t sm i e a o O sat u s vyb o ve uie cil ed a iah qees n t c n h ann v us s o n a l S saa is t r fd h oy D vs uht an i e n e a sa by aa ti emts n s D v p , w h a b l Sap d mt t a e a k i h p o need a iah m l y evee p n a, S s aa is e s ter w s e mt u s vyb r a h esr o h ann v e ss s y e k by the ancients: (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 687, c3, c17-18) 229 D vsa 4.86 a p a
228
130
S e c t s
a n d
dealing with the stupa, an outstanding feature of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya.230 Where was this Dharmaguptaka flavor mixed into the text? Bapat sees this as stemming from the Dharmaguptaka influence in China when the text was translated. This interpretation is problematic, as it would imply that the translator made wholesale revisions to his text to accord with his sectarian viewpoint, whereas to my knowledge the Chinese translators did not, as a rule, make such extensive alterations. The necessity f hnpa s s ma dy amit t o itrt t f B tn l s pna e r s ee o e r p u r gs t h h t irt n m o a i s ei u o t n text is a translation of the Samantap . If we accept G g s dik ue r us argument that this text is not a translation of the Samantap , but s dik stems from either an earlier Sinhalese commentary, or from a commentary used by the Abhayagiri fraternity, then it would seem more likely that the Dharmaguptaka influences were present in the original text. We know these affinities are there, but much more detailed textual work is required to ascertain exactly how or why they are there. But the conclusion seems inescapable that the Dharmaguptakas had a Vinaya commentary that may well have included a version of the Third Council and the missions, events that are otherwise only known from the Ms a iai hh v . vrs n A further suggestive detail is that ontMsd l e hh v a y a iai n h vrs n t h a tsih hr a wt iSa ia h a g a c t t a j a es te d e r u k l a e h s f u r et D m paa t B m l hr t c m a t t the First Council.231 I believe they placed this Sutta in this strategic position so as to form a mythic prototype for the Third Council where the heretics w e u t6i o eaa ae lb u r hx nh2 w f B m l ep d A ad op de v st r j rxl yo n o e h h a e e k e Mg ut ic ha htD mu kbod o l tsga .e t t h a tss e gi a a un T f t h a g a ew a ts p is d e c a e r pa t pe pe tB ajSagt a e a sl r ol oh r m l t u sht h a i i f cnea a u s e t h d ia d a h t gs t y a mr tradition regarding the Third Council, which conforms with our previous note regarding the Dharmaguptaka affinities of the S saa is u s vyb da iah . ann v
Bapat l-liii; see Guruge, 96. CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 968, b15-16. The Dharmaguptaka version of the B m l v c ie t a inrgr nt r a i ro n d h l t lf v tie a j s y s d t e i h y l a in h el a e e o Pwot , i i i n a o h sequence and wording of the 62 heretical views. For a detailed study, see Cheng.
230 231
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
131
D m pa Mg n h at & o l a ga a a r uk gl Thus t g h M ti tt w t a k t a iai rt oh i h i e hh v n vrs a o g e t e n d n er h i archaeological findings we are justified in seeing a connection between Dhammagutta (= Yonaka Dhammarakkhita) and Moggaliputtatissa, the leading Elder at the time of the missions. A closer look reveals several further independent sources suggesting a link between the D mu k n caMg nTf of these is Vasumitra: h a tsd ei o l es a g a aa t a ahr r pa r n gl . i t I ii e ro has d aeo r o n sr ny m ert i r a hs o tt cuf t vi n o n e h hh dt r S s s t c l v c d hs. hh cuf t aa s a M knii e ro h hs ae l aa tt ny m e kr l e I sr t r a d M a o another school called Dharmaguptaka. This school declared that Mg n tr ia r tt cuf t o l ie a e e hh e ro h gl s i n c . ii ny m e a a h m th I sr t r n d S aeo r o a t u also called as dr a hs o l h vaka, rt a s t c ll e a vi o n e h c d S r v e
232 K aa ap. yy
Bhavya 233 and the San-lun-xian-yi, 234 on the other hand, say that the Dharmaguptakas were so-named after their founding teacher. This of c s n rseeerf gl eeyd w oe aai tm oo o l vn fdi u i tl ch my Mg n ita r s u, n a a dl e t h time. T upph g g slau o h ta i amr c t school e r rr c v i ai , i p c n i i cn f a o derivation, also connects the formation of the Dharmaguptakas with a Mg n he w hset i ei e r , reads o l .e th a s iftt cuAN gl T t,i l ts n h ny aa x c o se h r t l d thus:
232
(CBETA, T49, no. 2033, p. 20, b14-18). T i r r nt Xuan-z ntae ag h Pm h tso i a s ln s a t ra. s aa i as sogs y that n t lnr, i gr a a i es n the Dharmaguptakas followed the teacher Mg n ol ( gl , aa CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 15, b16-1 e o l i nt s 7 r gl s s d , ;e g n t l a h M aara a e cai-shu-shi.s d gr f a ran ao l T r e d eo s c ih gl s he r e sm t l g t g n in i i r n v o i tM a a ym family name () stems from an ancestor who used to pick up () beans (, Pali mugga). Kv t lny a h a s g rt urar a s t M ka io m jsnt a h T h a vs a so s t e a ee a i : another school called Dharmagupta, who followed their main teacher Mg n (CBETA, T49, no. 2032, o l. gl aa ( p. 18, b1-2) Accordin L A e aear ma g iu n r se ci i e t Cn te b o hg h h n a gs v n t k here, with in place of . See http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JRBJ001/03_02.htm#n36) 233 Rockhill, 1992, 184 234 CBETA, T45, no. 1852, p. 9, c13-15
132
S e c t s
a n d
S s o eart e hs s o T as d h t g io M k h. h rt a o h v s t aa o e vi c ln ee h v cl a (mu-qian-luo you-po-ti-she) started the Dharmaguptaka s o235 cl h o Alu tpai r tdu n tS g p t ghag p o e ci f as dr o h hese a f is o ert ao f o s s t h ss o h vi v u schools, the text, unlike Vasumitra, does not literally connect the D mu kw eeh as d oh aa u h a tstirert i re hss t a g a i t tS s tM k b r pa h h vi n v , a with . The first part of this name is cl y o l o e g - aM a r r gl l a similar. The second part, , usually renders u ein which case p aa d, i o rr ari bMg n w reet t u e t tt y o l ;eemr a wl f o d e ee a s gl aa mb h t Mg ut ims cp ge t aue e t o l ts f u rm itK ttt BI gi a a a f o i h avhri u a ts s o o p i l n ht a. s think it is more likely to stand for upatissa, which reminds us of the final p o o l ts ne i sei r rr t a f gi aa a. s s t p ses h r Mg ut m I pi h hef t e t a ts p is t o l s a eo b B h di Mg ntt w hf d rtws u a i l o l , ert ii S u, o d s e gl oh i se t h ds c p a a ge h r n ia e p personal name was Upatissa. But the Indic idiom, so far as I know, irl a te oy ef l as pa d n i ps e t btrm ne su a va a y ih w b r s h ay m aS t n i i rt i Mg noye ennesp sn ot t o l bh po as t a K a iu gl r trr a m a a a d l w o aa i sl Ui s i h t , mixing the personal and family names.236 Now of course the question is, do these passages refer to the Buddh diMgl o tMg ut o ei a i la o l r h o l ts tTd s e h g n t e gi a a hh sc p m aa o a ts f p i r Council? The traditional view, recently restated by Yin Shun and others, 237 i a epa rr Mgl.i understandable s t sag e t a o l T is t te se f o h g n h hh ss e m aa s since Moggaliputtatissa is virtually unknown in the northern sources, so arr e ao l un r t te cb t nee t g n o aa e o tea o yfn oM a a l tl n brdc ec gl w d ul d y a k the great disciple. The forms of the names do not decide the matter. We do not see the prefmw ho d i ittgt c ; i a , i u e t d ih r d p a x h h wl fe ef ee i ln - c d il n ny y a se d i the absence of a confirmed parallel to the second part of Mg ut m stc e reja ad i o l tsnends f h i k i fe gi a a a i evo V s i l a ts p is o i, t y et i n ny
(CBETA, T24, no. 1465, p. 900, c2-4) 236 E.g. Pali Vinaya 1.42: a s oa i agl d t d b as umg no d k h v t o l a h g rt p a erv aa c t inhhmte ia ds y g h es ai a s e bk e eh k a a ,v bkni t hh , a a c n d k e ,k v v c t l p s . ev y g hi i a o e m a a a a ko t c t c n o u i aa ,t s s k g bhavissati agga au b d gt h a a. ayn du i 237 http://www.budd.cn/news/budren/news_budren_20030430_9.html
235
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
133
n rrgo a o l a i e lye o er tMgl n s r i r t fn e i h gn d v k m aa y e ferring to l Mg ut , is e em o l . o l tsu ju t a Mg n gi a a tu sh e gl a tsb tt s n p i aa We cannot decide this question with certainty. Nevertheless, I would like to advance some considerations that, in my view, make it p a t t rr e V ma d e rt r b h h ee s a i a t u o l a efn i s t n h raparip be t ec n u r i p c c h refer to the Third Council Elder. Both of our sources explicitly place themselves in the third cua tB hT mt o o l o r e rf h u ah eo f gl cs nyt e d .e nn Mg n c i t e r d i aa un the course of this presentation, with no hint that they are skipping back to an earlier time. I think it is more natural to read the passages as if they are referring to contemporary events. T ne t upphs I u a eo h a i erta a a eb , r em n r r cis r do me h i ai p c , g v likely to be a variant reading of Moggaliputtatissa than to represent Mg n o l -Upatissa. gl aa There would seem to be no cogent reason for the Dharmaguptakas tl Mgl ah fb.rl e u oa a o l se o e N a w o c i h g n trra o l wl m m aa i e r my d expect a school to claim a forebear with whom they had some special connection: for example, the Sautrantikas ho d n na o a, r n ttho et Mgl i einyc he ef Sa a o l s cfph e c t us h g n t h is i ar h t . m aa h e c powers, but I know of no hint that this was specially emphasized by the Dharmaguptakas. On the other hand, the Sri Lankan sources show a straightforward relation between Moggaliputtatissa and Dhammarakkhita (= Dharmagupta). Tau oa iat upphroy hc n fs t nh rta c l e o sV made irr ca l ct ur pa i c es e r e a b rr Mg n w t d t e d n o e t o l :h h o h l , d t f o gl a t h e aa y e e e n s upph i d t h ipe tan u U i? i s ec r rr c t c p s T i ai p c r e aa o s s rl fy t understandable if we think of the name as just a variant of Moggaliputtatissa. Ia is o , D mu k l g n s n s t au t h a tsi o l V mac nh a g a c M a a u r c te r paa m gl a their teacher, and it is understandable that a school may look back to one of the historical masters as their chief inspiration. But the uppha h o l ta s t gl r rr cs t Mg (-puttatissa or i ai p c ya a a upatissa or -u e t () the Dharmaguptaka. It is obviously p se aa t d d) a r a h i tp o a o l ahct o n rs o e f h gl se er a aot sk M g n t o f c nc i a m aa r a
134
S e c t s
a n d
particular school. On the other hand, it would be entirely natural, under our theory, for the Dharmaguptakas to regard Moggaliputtatissa as their founding teacher. As we have seen, there is good reason to believe that the Dharmaguptakas had a tradition of the missions and the Third C coal t o e hh , which emphasized o imre h f M ul p b oa t a ia nc a t t h vr the role of Moggaliputtatissa as the leader of the missionary movement. Concrete textual support for this thesis is found in the Sudann v As we have seen, the account of the saa is s vyb a iah . missions found in this text acknowledges Mg ut l o l tsr gi a ao a ts p is e at igrf e in f h a t I s e s t ot m i org a f h na to i h s s o D mu a a p . Dharmaguptaka connection for this text is established, it would a ea t si p ito t a l xi h pa r n r h Y k s p o l n e el o e l a o a cy m n e t n l D ma i= rg aaner v h akaD mu )y t at a r hh a t li na . m kt a p ps h r e ( i Th o l the Vij ii h tv t e gl o gn f M aa n y s to hi h a a a ol e w a k sd d e t there is consciousness without object. It is possible that this is a Dharmaguptaka view, for Buddhaghosa ascribes this and related views t etp a,238 and the Dharmaguptakas are likely o Urt a t t k h a hs a to ha b i d an h t p a. v e n e m g e t k Bhavya and e e c d o t Urt a n l u a hs a Vasubandhu attribute to the Vibhajjavn (including s d i Dharmaguptakas) the closely related doctrine that past acts that have yielded their fruit do not exist, while past acts that have already yielded their fruit still exist. Buddhaghosa and Vasumitra ascribe this view to the K aa aps Vasumitra says that in but yy , most drst K aa a s oi c e h aps r i t n e yy e milar
239
to
the
Dharmaguptakas.
More research would need to be done to see if
the Dharmaguptakas actually held t iai t o l h e s e Mg n e wc d gl v r o aa b i e k . n V t i aa hj y n I therefore think we have good reason to accept the thesis that the Mg ner oc e nt eaa t i fthe o l rr t o c w t h g a s act gl f di n t ih r u k i a ae e n ni h D m p an o va Elder Moggaliputtatissa rather than the great disciple ij d bj i h vn a
238 239
Kv 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6. (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 17, b2)
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
135
Mgl.i o s l a ao s go r n a o l T wli y k mer t a a h g n h u m me rt hr d d m aa s d p af i w reasonable explanation. Dhammarakkhita: some other stories The Sri Lankan chronicles record that Yonaka Dhammarakkhita and many of his followers travelled to Sri Lanka for the inaugural blessing ceremony for the Great Stupa.240 This is not the treatment we would expect for a schismatic heretic, but for a respected Elder of the tradition. The Abhidhamma commentaries still depict Dhammarakkhita, far off though he is, as a revered Teacher. Here is the paraphrase from the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names: Punabbasukutumbikaputta Tissa Thera: He was of Ceylon, and crossed over to India, where he studied under Yonaka Dhammarakkhita. On his way home by sea he felt doubtful of one word, and returned all the way, one hundred leagues, to consult his teacher. On the way from the port he mentioned the word to a householder, who was so pleased with him that he gave him a blanket and one hundred thousand. This blanket Tissa gave to his teacher, but the latter cut it up and used it as a spread, as an example to others (not to desire luxuries). Tissa had his doubts set a s d u dJ ua ea el as he tt rr tm k. rt Vk m ra en o b lh ,h va, e n te a oT e t was sweeping the courtyard of the cetiya, other monks asked him questions in order to vex him. But he was able to answer all these, having attained the pa b i h. VibhA. 389. s i a d m The connection between Dhammarakkhita and Abhidhamma is also hinted at in a quasi-Abhidhamma post-canonical text, the Milindapaha. This text, which exists in several versions, famously records (or reinvents) a dialogue between the Greek king Milinda (Menander) and the Buddhist monk N s .elr i d s e T Pvi n u a gn h ae nt c certain Dhammarakkhita in a key aa is r e o o r. a at ii t ite n aoes oN s , r iaa gala g y t ao l e a hn li ,v dl w h t e gn f st r n rl o e i n e t Et t A a P h r i e o n km aliputta in order to receive teachings from
Sa eto hh vsa. The event is earlier recorded in eb n f t a eo o r e p v em T a M sa 29.39: Y n r s y m m r aa h v o a a s o a hma n g n o n h a a a aa d , a d l kkhito; thero ti s s ik aa. s h hhd a a n i g a s bk y m
240
136
S e c t s
a n d
m r hi ieeo p i eie nt D ma iT eod na a tC e rln h akah pdo t e n hs aa a kt s s . s p r h n tso i of thas de n i n lgda elr h ert ar .s e yr t tPvi a S vi I g r aeh hae n s vi v s t ea e t o l is o been subject to elaboration, some blatantly unhistorical. 241 One of the purposes of this modification is to reconnect the action of the text with the Buddhist heartland in the east. Thus the text mentions five rivers: in the Chinese, four of these are from the north-west of India, but in the Pali, all are in the eastern districts.242 Since the Milindapaha is set in the northwest, it seems likely that the Pali editors wanted to bring the action back further east, to lands they were more familiar with, and which had a long association with the Buddhist heartland. I noic a it i k m art t oi e t t rr t o te i ccn h h en o os ne h s n e ts u s A a d s , y center of the action in the Third Council story, and that it is here, with D ma is c, tgne e a aI p s h akath t N s b m ar nt e a r h a a rae c s a ta a m kt e eh a a o n h . p r that the Pali, while celebrating the spread of the Dhamma to foreign lands, still holds the old places dear, and brings its hero back into the heartland for the crucial event of his enlightenment. Thus the insertion of the Dhammarakkhita episode is probably also to make the connection with the e hma i better to teach the teacher of the Greeks, G k a akawho rD e m r h kt N s ?i lya emD ma icould have been e I uk t tse a aka gn t n l t a m r h aa s i h h e h kt a i e e b A adi a o Mvyi i l n t oo a Mn t g cltk i i t i ft o n l , u Eeh s s v hm e h k i hh i nt d l just possible.243 But given the lack of concern for historicity displayed by the Pali editors, this does not affect the identification of the two Dhammarakkhitas. Thus hma i rad rr er r e m r h m eaee l f t D aka ei a kt n vd d o h e e Ms a g en ree bh ad n a iaio l t , d emr ye s i t hh v f o i f l m bd t vrs r n m oy n e m at s a brother successfully bringing the Dhamma to the Greek areas. This accords perfectly with the existing manuscript and epigraphical references to the D mu k w hen t d G h , g dG k h a tsh ac ea ia l u re a g a, i ro nt n n ro n r r pa c cr e d an e e rule.
Such as the mention of Milinda visiting the six heretical teachers who lived in the time of the Buddha. 242 http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/milinda/ml-01.htm 243 McEvilley, 378
241
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
137
Dharmaguptaka texts & doctrines Examination of the texts and ideas of the Dharmaguptakas confirms their c r iw tMs we shall see how they are l eo i h a iaiFirst o ln t e hh v . s a e t h vrs n dc i e hh vnus etn M sc p dt a iai r. i e h vrso e The M K tlists literally hundreds of points a iaiavh hh v vrs t au n ht of contention between various schools. The schools, however, are not named in the text, and to find out who held these views at least, who or tMsl d l ev swe must turn to the h a iaib v h tee e hh v vrs e e e h i n i e d s w commentary. In its introduction, the commentary classes the m gi an fea ef M k and hence D mu a se tb c o eaas, h at o o a ts k h r h t hs ns h a t a e nanh7h a o ei s oBut this h r c em ge st r r ac l e e k d ot1cmi e l o. y ro s i c h t s c h is merely a sweeping sectarian dismissal of all different schools. In the body of the commentary there is no mention of the Dharmaguptakas. Thus the Ms a iaiknew of the Dharmaguptakas, but they knew of no hh v vrs n dissentient views held by them. InformationotD mu k drs can be found in a t h a t c e b h a g as t u e r pa oi n Vasumitra:244 The Buddha, while living, is included in the Sangha. Gifts offered to the Buddha are more meritorious than those offered to the Sangha. Gifts made to a stupa are meritorious. The liberation of the Buddhas and the two vehicles (= s k a v and a paccekabuddha) is the same (this is mentioned in Xuan-z as n g translation only), though the path differs. 245 Those outside Buddhism cannot gain the five special knowledges (a b h i ). The body of an arahant is without a ss a. v T f f o ewleca t a iaitf hi o f s o bc t o hh v set es u te u ap l M ; i r r h t d eb e vrs h f n h would not; the last, while being too obscure to actually make much sense to a nx t ad m ,u oi ih a iai n ec ab h iwl nt he hh v y ep o e nh a k o cl t M im a d f w t c vrs n interpretation, which holds that the body of an arahant can become the
244 245
See Dutt, 172 (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 17, a25)
138
S e c t s
a n d
object of defilements for others; but perhaps it was intended rather as a ce nt i f M ga p t oc t es t a a i i. rt o f o e h k 5 n ri hr h o t s h os s In addition to these views, Vasubandhu
246
says that the
Dharmaguptakas held, in agreement he hh v sdat w t a iai ngs ih aan t M vrs n i t S s ae a oh rs p sl o h as d, ta t feu h e a t c e rt i t r z n t th a n l n vi n h li v io t p a e (e hma k ia s y ba ). It will take us too far afield to examine in detail the actual texts of the Dharmaguptaka, but a quick survey is enough to reinforce the i e ntrs sih a iai m s o el e t e hh v . ps f i e s h M ri h c n w t o o vrs n Regarding the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, Pachow in his survey of the p imokkhas s s e aa t f w e ll el t t : D mu k ls y s tPt i a h ga o v c y a x t t r p al r o h i n eh o e e most cases, not merely in numbering the series but also in contents, except the [sekhiya] section, in which it adds 26 prohibitory rules regarding the
247 Sa t. u p
Regarding the Sutta literature, McQueen studied various versions ohSa pa t a c ld a fl them, the fe m aSan ou t o lf t h u, d nd h al t ce t a o M a D mu k etc s do n e a iain h a t w hl t sd at hh v vrs d a g a r e s a t es n r pa e o n o r e the ancient tradition. He also says that this closeness holds good for the M D aia g rwno a w t a iai N yi e a h cpd i h hh v vrs g k n n l e mr t e n h e e h D mu kaa:e o h a t Dh gah c a g a r s l r pa g m T e l ections are generally quite close; major disagreements are rare. Where discrepancies do occur the [ rg a Dhs rf w g ts icuo D mu k a met r ( ) o gr t h a t] g i oon o l , w opn a pa r e n a h n ri e ae nnt e248 nx s o e t dp i f t. ao h x Finally, Frauwallner in his discussion of the sole surviving D mu k bh ao t ubh ahse h a t Air w ,e rth a ,o t a ga ha r p a d m r h r ir s k i d m p wh d c e nb e t w a vo M e o c se e h o n au a iai e nt p ni o t n i r d rs hh v w s k i vrs n Abhidhamma books, including the Dhammasa b g h k ga i D uh , h a a, V a , tt and Pan e s baghm l s n transmitted a s uy iWla bd old h . u p s i i a o H m y n e n e y material, even this is organized in a different way as compared with the o rhs h dud a iain as d I t s o e v is [ a S . h c l a ss M vrs d rt at e o w e ce hh v n vi ] v
Ad mov7 bh a a 2 ha k i ir . Pachow, 39. For a challenge to the usual interpretation that Dharmaguptakas had a special affinity for stupa worship, see http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/dharmaguptakasandthestupa 248 McQueen, 190
246 247
t h e
G r e e k
m i s s i o n s
139
ca l ih a f oio oi eun Thus, o i i n e y i v n drloi249 nn t tw o n t r c avt. tst l e na o t n l o while admitting that there are several significant divergences in the field of Abhidhamma, there is clearly a common source. There is no reason why such differences as exist should not have emerged in the long period of Abhidhamma development that took place after the separation of the schools. T rn a ctd oG h g u n sc he t n r fs ma i s e o e ec muii f e s n r n r v aw u p da e r of Dharmaguptaka texts, and a new insight into how they developed. According to Richard Salomon, the existing texts, which are in a very bad state of decay, date from shortly after the Common Era, that is, the beginning of the middle period of Indian Buddhism. They lack the textual uniformity we have come to expect from the Pali, and thus Salomon suggests they stem from a time when the canon was not yet fully formed. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Dharmaguptakas did not place as mhe m t a iai n t pi : h s up ia e hh v s tu r iw a e cr u s M oea eo ev e m h vrs n xl c n s en t tD vsa ascribes the root schism to bad textuality, and the h h a a ep t a prominence of the pa b in i hs s i a d m their root-treatise the Pa b g ci t cry tuay ft i hmg or h ea oeans oh s ia a d a n se nl fxla sri m f m tt i t l i s s on d ea iai sas k , to c ld , Ms fa e o a h n h. e t hh v , r w n r e l o Ie h vrs o n w e y school to produce a complete body of commentaries on the canonical texts. Perhaps we should regard them as the textual exegesis school par excellence. T G h ts t D mu k h o b h a e oh h a ts v n e e n r x fe a ga a l e d t r pa e y n partially studied. Clearly they represent a different textual tradition to that ped P oh hs ga eu w t oo rr i a r e ie a lae i h bu ev n l t C e se i n m i t,t e vs t r h r i exception that they agree closely with the existing Chinese Dharmaguptaka texts, in so far as comparisons have been made. But there are no doctrinal differences apparent. The only really new element is the introduction of several a vn aa d -type stories relating to local celebrities. Thus the Dharmaguptakas adapted their literature to their local culture, without however changing the doctrine. S s sa ele eh a iai nh o e t ts b etMsde ie h hp t ne hh v a t tm t i w t vrs n Dharmaguptakas was due to neither Dhamma nor Vinaya, but mere geography. The Dharmaguptakas were a north-western branch of the V a atMs T a i etsh ij d nh a iai res r eu r bj a de hh v oh vn e o e h v, a vrs n rd w h tn
249
Frauwallner, 1995, 116
140
S e c t s
a n d
b c h tMsalr md uar rh ih a iainbgn oi d uy a . l e hh v i ee t o s p l n We vrs n le i s e e formal denunciation of the Dharmaguptakas, the texts, doctrines, and history instead reveal a close affinity.
Chapter 9
The M lasarv dins of stiv Mathura
THERE ARE TWO MAIN REASONS w tM s s o i rt hh as dc l m t. ye l viah i pa a t r v o s on The first reason is that it has left a large literary heritage, which is growing since many of the Sanskrit fragments discovered recently may possibly be from this school. The second reason is that the Tibetan Sangha owes its Vinaya lineage to this school.250 It is important, then, to understand the pet as d i d ssy lo e l viin dtt. a f M s sB hh r c h a t n u ii r v o U ra ,sao l Tne l via nt t tir me ha M s i f nl ifr cr em as d o e hs f u y a . a t s r v not found in any early inscriptions, and cannot be definitely attested until the later period of Indian Buddhism. Their Vinaya is extensive, and most modern scholars have tended to see it as late. In its current form it should bs eoei po f i u i e id td ed Ia d s between 500-1000 a nt m l r nn dm s g h d e io d B h years AN the vagueness of this ascription tells us how little we know. and Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that it shows signs of early features in some respects. This should not surprise us, as the whole has evidently been amassed over a vast period of time, and must incorporate material from greatly different eras. If we are to ascribe the earliest features, such as the p imokkha, to the Buddha himself, and the latest additions to, say, 500 CE, we are talking of a 1000 year period of composition!
Certain Japanese monastics also follow this Vinaya. See Clarke, Me e M no rt a n ilo ugn l vi Mk sa u ss M s o cn s i l a sd a v s
250
142
S e c t s
a n d
The uncertainty around this school has led to a number of hypotheses.ul e h s t M s V y F wns o o t t as d ia r a r r lh h l via ai a l t y d ae a t eh r v n s the disciplinary code of an early Buddhist community based in Mathura, which was quite independent in its establishment as a monastic community f tS sK ilu o r has d oa rt g f o ert i f ( o m vi n v m a h course this does not mean h that they were different in terms of doctrine). Lamotte, opposing F wn ar htM s V y a l K r a r s t h as d ia s a a r a l , e a e l vian w a e u l st t e s a t r v a t m cp i at m t ert iiaWarder suggests oi n d cp t as d n . m a me ol h vi n a251 l t o o e S V y e v t tM s s r l d l eo ert a h h as d w aeeo nf S a e l vii e a vp tt as d t a t n e t em r v r h vi , v whose main innovations were literary, the compilation of the large Vinaya
252 and the Saddharmasmph Sawhich kept the early doctrines t a , y sn t uta r
but brought the style up to date with contemporary literary developments. 253 Enomoto pulls the rug out from all these theories by ar t S a M s ar y em st h as d n as d re tse s n a rt i d l vii ea h a. e g t vi n i v a t n r v l l Meanwhile, Willemen, Dessein, and Cox have developed the theory that the Sautrantikas, a branch or tendency within e rt ir o t S g p h as d o f vi n u v s oer ia a Br r d 0. Although they c lmg n n rn ai o 2CE h s ed G h d c a n 0 o, e da t u a w t e e r ,e eoil g nth a e h a r o t t ry sr d t K r r e r g ph m a o o o e e l i u y pr t u l m V hkc le tp ii e oaka. In later years a s ouoel llcf i h d t bi o a h ocn n K i f e t a u i the Sautrantikae e o a as d a ri t sc k n M s sdgeh b m n s l vii n en e a w a t n r v ad ascendancy.254 I have elsewhere given my reasons for disagreeing with the theories of Enomoto and Willemen et al.255 Neither Warder nor Lamotte give sufficient evidence to back up their theories. We are le i r a rh yh i i sts f t a l e, i n s p h t h u l s o w h t re a w F wn t r c h ec e stood the test of time. For the remainder of this chapter I am mainly concerned with drawing out the implications of this theory. However, since this particular scenario is controversial, I will also examine another pi yI r a r w g n t S sn o i. F wn i r , dh as d a sl f a l s o a si b t ul e n e rt i d vi n v Mas d andvf sr V yo uii l vii roeer e a iam n s a s s t n e trd m p t n cm i, r v i o ae a t t e would then be likely that they are related to each other in some way. Perhaps the same school may have maintained different textual recensions
251 252 253 254 255
Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 178 T 721, T 722, T 728 Warder, 393-394 Charles Willemen, xi-xiii Sujato, A History of Mindfulness, 304, note 480
T e srt i h M l avs vd s f ah r a i n o M tua
143
of the Vinaya while remaining unified in practical matters. In this case we should seek for the origins of the Mas d r i oe g l via eo t r s a i l n h i s t n a t oi r v t n o e via i sl s met eof this chapter. f S T pi y xi a ed t as d h o i i a dt n h rt .s si e n h v b t But starting off with Frauwallner, the gist of his theory is this. The M s V y ce si eg tB h tt as d ia lse nl o ed i l vii n i da t tnf u aro a t n an r v u c o l i h dsp K r enho r b a naov t si a r o cgen s y j t H e,s t , p y tc e n Mh i weh e n mphi vi o j k a . ric o has been arbitrarily inserted in the text, showing that it is a later interpolation.256 The earlier portions point to a connection with Mathura. This argument has recently been restated by Wynne, who defends F wns s ndts e na e tam nity r a rhs dd egt t tMh cm a l e aa hu s h h a r u l ti e , s gi t o uou l me K h t ce ont heis a o ta r e h a i cl ih aa t v o , r e mn oi t V hk e r d mw e y t fw t bi c o w cd io tr S s v ho c t h e as d. e ou l b ea rt i r la m e vi n l v 257 Ts ul e h s t M s V y hF wns o o t t as d ia ur a rh ylh h l vian a l tr d a e a t e r v a is the disciplinary code of an early Buddhist community based in Mathura. Ay cfd e ht e y ma iiaa o kpeee ie t n K v hrl n ei o ic t a t ur a snt f e vn s s m b e j n tso i t a r a o e h h apm p e j iaa M p r td: e a, r ca et c si tks ( V yi i o i iy t . o o d T ia bfnn g si I f i. h n ) e tsh e nt w n n , o s Tf ie aoa r h i d h t and hrs V yfta in e ea est iaMh , c c s J i hn t uw h l t u ka A acp shsi. snat v n nor et c s e op, a a dmi iy t T e dr e d, s g e nh c e o t h V yf m heu t ada a iaK a ce eaaA 258 n o , xd h t n v n a a r s ld J k d; accepting only the essentials, it forms ten sections. There is, however, a commentary (v in eighty sections which explains i b h)
259 it.
T M s V y iexm l,u fa a h as d ia n dt eo il A e l vian id eeln sl v n a t r v a s e r y g fo d s a J a r a hsni w Mh .ert a n si n atg k i a r h as d dt t s d s o l a o, k e r n t ta S s h u T vi v V y ll s tw K k n t P V y iaoy o e i a r n a e n ria n ,s ac dt , o s T a n ac e si a h m i w h e t a, s and does not contain the legendary and narrative material. We are, then, justified in equating these two Vinayas with the Vinayas mentioned by K v r a r t i it fn b e te o ur a a l n s n ad r ee eh t ma . u l o sinie st n e w j F wn e g c f c w e f e s
Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature, 28-36 257 Wynne, 29ff 258 Stories concerning deeds done in past lives and their fruits in the present. 259 CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 756, c2-6
256
144
S e c t s
a n d
V y a wl g tS V ys myst ia n o rrh as d ia i a re n s d u edert an a a, d a vi v a n n ec ps closer to the other missionary schools, and probably springing from that sc htM s V y a d n t l e . o e i e l vian i ip ee l g u, l rwe as d ia n e d a i e h a t r v as n e n rn y a While not wishing to contest this, I have noticed that on occasion these two Vinayas do share specific features in common that suggest some connection. Several sources make a further connection between the Vinaya and Upagupta, the great teacher of Mathura. 260 As the last of the five t o hLhw ap tu u hnh M e f ea w e c t h g t eoe ar t w o r ce r h t rr s s e ed o o tn traditions, it is natl ta tneuboedt e u t Ug a a sd c c w t rh p p m h en t ih a a u s l ne h Vinaya. And we notice that one of the most persistent attributes of Upagupta is as a preacher of a . Indeed, so close is this connection vn aa ds that Strong has even spoken of Upagupta as the patron of a class of monks who developed and preserved this literature. It can hardly be a coincidence, then, that of all the Vinayas known to us, the only one that features the a so strongly hails from the home town of the great Elder so closely vn aa ds associated with this class of literature. Mathura in the Suttas Mathura did not have an auspicious start as a Buddhist center. The Aur ia se d t l mk t i a r e n t N y a B he y anh n ta ga k ht u ar r rga M ut t a h d s e i t e h h roads are uneven, it is dusty, the dogs are fierce, the yakkhas are predatory, and alms-food is hard to get.261 The background for this event is given briefly in the Pali commentary, which says that when the Buddha visited Mathura, he was greeted by a naked y h, who tried to either terrify or ai kn k seduce him (or more likely both), out of fear he would convert all her devotees.262 T eoia oi lt ne l vii h pd d ntfdit as d i ie r u ue i M s ss s w n la h a t n l r v Vinaya, both in the Gilgit manuscripts 263 and the Chinese, and appears to h b mtscfM s apologetic for Mathura, a e eeu o as din v c ho e a l vi e o r a t r v which I will briefly summarize. The Buddha visited Mathura and was greeted by the Brahman householders, although they were initially suspicious because it was said he
260 261 262 263
Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 175-176 AN 5.220 Anguttara A a 26 t. h h6 a 4 k Gilgit Mss. 3, pt. 1:14-15
145
d oar r p tr a N rl ha ta t i t p e stB ms vhs e gNb i d p o reoa n ete th n y p ec h . ee , u l s h a lesson on the caste system and they were all converted. That day was a festival day, and the Buddha was then challenged by the y h. It was ai kn k after this episode that he spoke of the five disadvantages, similar to above. Then he told the monks not to stay at Mathura, and left to stay at the Donkey-Monster Forest. (The Pali tradition also knows a Gardabha yakkha: he was the doorkeeper of the famous yakkha a a i lk c -eating aa h v, l d monster tamed by the Buddha.) The brahmans of Mathura are anxious to feed the monks and secure their blessings, for they have been plagued by
265 child-eating264 yakkhas c dr Vana,266 and the yakkhin r ( a , l a l a e Hk a
). 267 The Indic forms of the first two of these names equate with names found in the parallel passage in the Gilgit Mss as given by Strong. 268 The final name is not equivalent to any of the names in the Gilgit Mss, but would seem very likely to be none other than ems r oiy tf u , gl ha Htr a a o i l n goddess of smallpox in Rajagaha, who went on to have a glorious career in Buddhist popular culture, and indeed even thrives today in far-off Japan. The ogres come and sit in while the Buddha is teaching Dhamma, evidently intending to spoil the event, but the Buddha admonishes them and they are converted. The townsfolk built 2500 monasteries, one for each of the 2500 yakkhas who have been converted. W h nc a e a ca g e c du ea o db t a r o s a Kt v t e i o h e v t ei d s l n t n d l e evidently has a fay n t w Kp , e m k a m c e ni ou a a osm io c l ni t tt n r n ne o h ia l y recorded at Vedisa. Wl eine d p Kt a e h tm i ln etu a s t ih s s e dc n s w e s g o i s e woodlands nymph, elsewhere she takes on a more terrifying mien. The Marv V y o haspect as a vicious ogress who devours l s d ia w e a t an s sr s i v ah children.269 Other names recorded at Vedisa i d p aaa n e ru n lg c Htt d i l u i a br . It now appears that all of these names are connected with child-eating yakkhas: Ht u,dlkThere are more than a few links , n a a r Kt n a a v. b et t sHt d nt an t se ri e e e ro aKt er ft a syt t n si fr n u:y ic e w ho e h e ah m t w o h
264 265 266 267 268 269
(CBETA, T24, no. 1448, p. 43, c2) chi, pond lin, forest CBETA, T24, no. 1448, p. 42, c7-p. 43, c18 Strong, The Legend and Cult of Upagupta, 6 Strong, The Legend and Cult of Upagupta, 34-37
146
S e c t s
a n d
a few details changed to add local color. We notice that the monasteries were named after the local yakkhas, implying an ongoing fusion between local deity cults and the establishment of Buddhist monasteries. 270 It is likely that the monasteries kept a shrine for the local deities that the villagers used for their traditional spirit worship cult. The villagers, it seems, would offer their children to the monastery for a period of time, perhaps in substitute for a more primitive cult of child sacrifice. Our next source, from the Pali canon, is set at a monastery called
271 t Gd nt d r Soon after the Parinibbana, the h u v ,e u G e e n a hG o. a n v
d p a an u t a r tM84/SA 548) to the king il h ca g h d a t N s e c th e h Sa c M k a t M u u ( i A ttweag tGd nT doe aa v it h siah u v .ii ri m r apa i t nu l y te n a h s s n a s c u s j o statement on the invalidity of the caste system, and as such ties in neatly with the teaching to the Mathuran brahmans as depicted in the M s V y as d ia early royal patronage would have formed a l vian . a t r v a Such strong foundation for the later growth of the Dhamma there. A century later, several of the accounts of the Second Council also mt M u ( kS M ghika, though not eo a rM aas d a a nn ta a ,rt a h i h hs a vi , s v M s . e t Erta o i v ,e as d O oh ls t C cs s t l via n fed ah ul h a t ) r v e t n i ai n preceptor of Upagupta, both of who are local saints of Mathura. We are, then, justified in thinking of Mathura as a town which had a continuous o p nB hm ko hu af or shortly after. c a o d so f t d e c t f dt n r e ds t ui u i o sm B h lime i Mathura & Schism The community at Mathura could thus rightly regard themselves as an original community. Nevertheless, they were far enough from the main e ce r d a er o P r n an l t u y aliputta to remain a little distant from the controversies. While they were involved in the Second Council, this was the last time Buddhist monks from all districts gathered as one. There is no evidence that the Mathuran community took part in later Councils. It is true that their Elder Upagupta is frequently sai h th , d a a t kn t v u Aad o e g oa might therefore have participated in the various discussions that occurred at that time. But this is far from certain, and in any case, he would have
See http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/whoiskunti%3F#_ftn4 Although yakkhas are not mentioned, the similarity between this name (K a a dn o,.nwh i t vn v u v ) K ttst r gn ee . n a a uK ac o oyv h it l d n n tne i e t . / , ,e e d connections between these stories.
270 271
147
done this as a visiting Elder, and this would not have directly affected the Mathuran Sangha. None of the accounts of discussions and schisms after the Second Council mention Mathura. 272 T t d hUy i follow the e n Et i c s southern route well away from Mathura. So it seems that the Mathuran community perhaps like many others not participate directly in the early schismatic movements. did T d lde w ctss d Ug at a i h eo tr nr rii b p p s , t e vp h o s u,p y a t y n y ee i i enr p e u l d s e s s ul a m f e S Abhidharma ideas may e ps t set a as da e li h o o er rt m ab t e h l vi y v have emerged here, though this is purely speculative. They are not referred t tM auo e i o ioe s e o h a iai c ttTd ul tce y i e hh v c nf h C c b ut n vrs o n h r nn a h , were in any sense heretical, but simply because they were an alreadyestablished community who did not need missionizing. In the early years there would, of course, be no need for this community to call itself by any sectarian name, since it was just another branch of the Buddhist Sangha. By the first Century CE the name S a as d p rt a pears in the Mathura region. Much later the term vi v Mas da i u p awhen the Mathura community l viam n s e p a cet e r s s t r v o ,h came into competition with tV hkas d oai h aart i f and e i S s K r b i vi n v m wished to assert their primacy. There is no indication that when Moggaliputtatissa used the term va he meant to exclude the ij d bj i h vn a M u cm ih a b m nnt as d. a r o uy te ceo a e l vii ta m n t l e k hn t at a r w s M s s h a t n r v In fact the opposite is true. We have noticed that the Mathuran Er ai eneo ga/Urumumountain, some way out l v l oh h d i t g esv n d Aa a of the town.273 Before the Third Council, Moggaliputtatissa saw the troubles b ii ep o rnn ct f e g t a lP w h i a aliputta, and so went to practice at the same Ahoga ga/Urumu mnno t f d b , i o am aro e y s w h a u i ne u d v t s y n ai h n c was renowned as the foremost of all places for samatha meditation. Moggaliputtatissa stayed on retreat there for seven years before reluctantly descending oh v i f k rl hre a ei ne io A a e eeom t Td ti a o t s tp l t h nt tn o o o v bsh r Council.274 Thus the Mathuran community, in the lineage o , f ai v far s n
I er s ed t u a c cdv h ee g t h h t r c o h a ar ge a er r i h u a v l u s tt i a p l e i p p originated in a dispute in Mathura; but if this tentative hypothesis is true, it refers to a later period. 273 Pali Vinaya 2.298: t kp sa aa b o s e ha ay m ah s v n on me y s a a n s m t a ahogapabbate pa ge ivasati. 274 Sap d 1 an i . mtsk 5 a 3
272
148
S e c t s
a n d
from being schismatic, is the place Moggaliputtatissa would go on retreat to escape from the schismatic disturbances. This is perfectly plausible as history, but it also forms a crucial part o o l ts mh bsi i he forest monastery f gi aa y s yt g t Mg ut t: a ts p is o a n y n frequented by t gte t mt v a Ug a h r mio ar n p p ee d i s a tn e s d a t a s ai n u, Mg ut hs aae e mt i se H o l ts c i s r z ar ar e gi a a a a a ts p is r m a d s s sd l i e u. demonstrates this s t peo ohde f t pu or A a ienr h ia w t o n s sto e rl i k c m Ahogamonastery. A aconvinced that he is the only monk capable ga is o k of stabilizing Buddhism, and hence invites Moggaliputtatissa to preside at the Third Council. Thus the spiritual charisma derived from the Mathuran fs e o a Ug aaulmte l ot a f ain p picil n ni rl g v ei e s d a t n n u s rae i a g ce e n b n the purification of the Sangha and the establishment of the va ij d bj a h v. a Obviously this was not, from a va perspective, a ij d bj i h vn a schismatic community. At the time of the missions the Sangha of Mathura, whose Vinaya we now possess under the name of theas d M s l via a t , r v were clearly within the circle of the va s ij d. bj i h vn a So a a n k d aka a S It is even possible that Moggaliputtatissa himself had a direct ordination c e n t . possibility rests on the evident confusion o c w v This nt i s ni h ai o n between the similar names So aS 275 a n k d a aka. The Sinhalese Vinaya and Abhidhamma lineages name a certain So one of the f e V y ar p D kS aka, i a ia s : ao v r n mt Ul s, e l a y e s i a , aka, Siggava, Moggaliputtatissa.276 In the chronicles and commentaries the same list of Vinaya masters becomes partially fused with the account of the Councils, although the two are textually distinct. So mtvva e e e v , tP a u al t s t a sfha k s ee t a i s aio el a h i d h m m r n i ti c e b w t e o k The Pali tradition says rt o c o ih i f a a.277 a o n t t t eg K d n ns h h r i n o the Second Council was held under K ta and of course k po e a an , a s rg o v pi t na ul ono ti s a i d t C ccd t ld n s rp i t narg a a o including ai t a n c e h o ic i l t , ri the Pali.
There are various variant spellings. T ls n ta a iP h s fd h t nc a r ito iee oa r a s iu n lc nli (5.1), where it forms the i v beginning of an extended list of Vinaya masters encompassing several centuries of transmission in Sri Lanka. 277 D vsa 4.52 a p a
275 276
149
This highlights a puzzling discrepancy: the Pali list of five Vinaya masters appears not to contain any of the Elders mentioned in the Second Council proceedings. It is really unthinkable that the most serious Vinaya crisis in Buddhist history, where monks gathered from all the Buddhist regions, should not have included a contemporary Vinaya master. There are inescapable similarities between the So of the aka sh at o err us o e nh s f nh sc u r de ai t oe o e tn v n h tn r. So aka B i s AN on r K, n 5 4 Mc t n ea s rn o h s When young, went on journey trading to G b ( jh i a= a a r j Rg ) i a a. b Goes to Ve at 15 years of age, uvana with 55 companions S D k ps d , e a sea e s, lt nn s a U i u td gains faith Asks f a teind o rr s a re p s n pn m i s o goes forth, becomes an arahant versed in the Tipitaka We suggest that there were two separate narratives, one of the lineage of Elders, and one of the Second Council. In these, the same Elder might be known by different names. These separate passages were later fused, with the lineage of teachers immediately preceding the Council narrative in some cases (e.gaa as d ia h ih a . a s l vian ) un e l D v , a V y Ts tP p M s t r v a. i tradition the So o ee b m t ah S v o e a f l ge e em f k t i ec s Sb a s t a hn a o h t ai h n Second Council. Tob t i e l via aiel e oroe s M s V y t n nf co aht as d ia h y o r rt h a t , r v n s oo the Vinayas that directly combines the lineage of Elders with the Second Council. And there we find the name 278 in the lineage, but Yang-dag aka
(CBETA, T24, no. 1451, p. 411, b18). I cannot identify the exact f u f iec C c u ir l t o s o s t e dult c in h r e r a i h o o i i en o e m d v n S n n bt ty t n , s a se eat n n boa nt c l bn a. n e cit ymr w R h Tt mT es a ey cp o i o i i h rI d i f i s h ks e l a rendering it should be (CBETA, T24, no. 1451, p. 413, b19), but this is rather Sudassana.
278
vn s ai B i jh oa Na o n a aof i a r Rg , n e r n a s t v r n Mc t n ea s rn o h s When young, went on journey trading overseas On return, goes to Ve uvana Mt a ao sh 5 e dnf to e n ad eol s n f r d year festival Goes forth, becomes arahant versed in the Tipitaka
150
S e c t s
a n d
skyes (= Sb a tS n o iBtSb a s t ah ) he dul u i m u ee m i ec C c tn o n279 ts h mt h . ha t b Sb a s eo i el i ul t b t ah S v mte tP I t crao h m nn n a t h e h t e t ai n id h i s s a t h . Chinese and Tibetan versions of this Vinaya call the same Elder by different names in the two contexts. Similarly, where t Sapd,i cpn h an i n o ag e mtsk a mr i Mg ut r tT a old, refers to Kassapa at the First o l tsw t ee of gi a a o o h s a ts p is k h r C c nY ah e do ih u s vyb o i da te c C ct S saa is ul n a s t S n ul e da iah a o n , ann v mentions Kassapa and So 280 This is immediately before a mention of aka. the five Vinaya-mt s umnempoi = aro s etser , v s , mt aha ene s e s s . ai . n So In the account of the Second Council itself, however, we find aka. (po-na can-fu-tuo),281 f ah o n m o m r a b a r a b aS s h . S s t oa t There is, therefore, good reason to think a similar confusion has happened in the Pali tradition, and that So is really identical with aka Sv . s ai n Now, So / ai ooeee to p p a v i c sh rp f a t k s u tper Ug a a s f r n co u; but he is also the preceptor of Siggava, 282 w i r Mg ut h t io l ts o u s gi a a nn a ts p is preceptor.283 Thus, if our idea is correct, Moggaliputtatissa was the direct ir oh a ono ig seas d o n i fem ra l e t M s s ht t se dt n ah l vii f er o ii e n a a t n r v Mathura. TD o f hrn K ea s a go m r Those scholars who are not prepared to accept the Mathuran origins of the Mas d l via a usually look to to the north-w , el a r s t r v eecy , ssi K r tpa m f l o
Rockhill, 170, 176 (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 684, b13). In the first mention of the Vinaya masters it is spelt (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 677, b19-20). 281 CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 678, a24 282 Sap d 15 e a b h a t an i .: l r m s u a si mtsk 2 ui o ma d s a e a 3 pt s t h m ds n k uggad k e toa y a es o h a r t uja ui ra is t o a p spta , akatthero , at an j s h h l ss t h anp s aes iv e toa y a toa y as trag a r t uja t uja d k a ,g t o a p s a j s h at s sat an j s h h h so akattherassa, moggaliputtat tr t uja i to a p s s h an a y a s e to j s a h siggavattherassa ca ah s j es t aj ra i vt a c i t S s aa is u s vyb d a iah : ann v (CBETA, T24, no. 1462, p. 716, c26-29) 283 The story of Siggava, in response to a prophecy, intentionally visting Mg u isrs uf lfe ysf fn o ltspnh e a o v e br d gi a a ato om r e a e i g a ts p t e s r s s n r o n e i se l yh t t o sis s a p y u so e e e r v ,e ntp h , css c s s f a i ro o r e c c l oho e y n pe n oc vn p p fl mo aysf fnu s ig a t ay e mya e i gcs s U um h f ne br d se t i g a io r s r on e i c.
279 280
T e srt i h M l avs vd s o f a i n
M a t h u r a
151
the home of this school. In this case we need to return to the missions accounts for information. After the settling of the problems in the Sangha at the Third Council, Moggaliputtatissa decides that Buddhism would become well established in the border regions, and sends out missionaries across India. One of these is Majjhantika, o s t a h hau w i no , e ems hs t K r r f l e mwe oy subdues a host of dragons and establishes the Dhamma in that region. Dvsa 7.3 sums up: a p a jtt r s, i ot en ic Mh ih e a hn n t a r st a na gt e v g o G h d i j k e a g ag e h d a t, a r ii t ei d on emy m n e nr h r ur nd e af b a s de o s gafd n o o g p e fc a o r r d. This Majjhantika is not regarded in any way as heretical. In fact he is the ordination teacher of Mahinda, the revered founder of Sinhalese Buddhism. This is mentioned in the commentarial accounts, and confirmed in the Dvsa.284 While the missionary story is, in general, mainly known from a p a the southern sources, in this case there is one Chinese text that says that Mh i a Mi w t b dhs t o , a nan ad e o yn ai lo t jt j k d ha r l a n e d a n mf g o e re eK di k i d ne h rva ec l a r S a ; at tMmi sty a r n285 n i h a aah pi , m n L a v di o k b ga, ant eoo in w br no e d m g mts m ir o ya t tB h day, o i nnfs a r a a f u a s i s y k o h s h ds a mtsa an s uoh r n f ,d l eo Mh d b l t d o o a n s nn d n a u afe a s K r o i yi s d g m a Me ao ci ohR asas of Sil286 Thus the a d vo g t a h r em f e k n r n s hda av. ap northern and southern sources are in perfect agreement. B a w k nae eeacroh us e n , b mtm eere t i l o K rc h i n ft s l w m a n t Sart iTsyMh isln m oi,u vi n ht o a na iis i t sc s e rfj t i ri a u ees s d. o v j km a , a t n l rr n tu u t S -influenced h g th as d rh oo e rt i vi n v
287
literature,
288
including
the
A a sa M s V y etc. There is evidently a r , as d ia o t kj r a l vii n , a t n a r v p li e at cf S soo e h o ren i pi o ert i setfe f om s g a r t as d anf ar b e n r h h vi n a v h ts t a iai h hh v school. e M vrs n
D vsa 6.25: Tato mahido pabbajito moggaliputtassa santike, a p a P ih v aa u aa a jm o jn p md be a em h oa p bs d dt s e 285 T 1507, p.37b 16-27; see Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 303 286 The Pali sources agree on the domination of old Sri Lanka by demons, e.g. D vsa 1.20 a p a 287 T 2043; see Rongxi, 122-124 288 Rockhill, 167-170
284
152
S e c t s
a n d
Thus Wynne289 suggests we see Majjhantika as a follower of the va w c ed S a a a K u i ij d ho r t rt a e rl a r ts bj a on t o vi f r i . t hv a ve as d t i n m B h v rv scenario depends on the underlying assumption that s and as d rt a vi v va are opposing schools. In fact, there is no reason why ij d bj a hv a Majjhantika should not have held opinions which we know of as s while stillP as d rt i vi n v i n aliputta, but these were not felt at the time to lie outside the spectrum of acceptable views; or perhaps he had no decided view on that point at that time; or perhaps he never held s views as d rt i vi n v but was tolerant of his followers who did; and so on. The point is that we dt vo i ies mu opposing schools in such a o h th n r o u l n a tk t e n m f tly a complex and fluid situation. The internal evidence of the S sees as d t se rt i h l suggests vi n m v v t t x h h li ( a els sarvam asti)c e ed e eo period. t a t es dr er a tA oi mg f h t n et r kan There is a famous pa f dpe tu u ert i ago r al r h tS seu e t h g t as d s, n ed o o h vi n y v literature,290 containing a well-known list of teachers giving their views on t x t .ul n s t tv stpa h li dr F wn o t a e wni se els oi r a rth l i i s s a t c ea l es n e e al e h ag h differ from the mature position of the school, and the passage seems to be i di eb a x ac p d Ts o s n e tV sd g hl exhi u e c d h i opa p i u wl e l n u h a o r ia n . t dm to pre-d t cp ioh i teo t f w a h o i n t V I nnho i t e m a fe b mtsel n e l t o h. i l g o th: aat h e e D m G Vasumitra, Buddhadeva. Bhavya, after ar h t ,o cs r r a aka, presenting his three lists of schools, suggests, as another explanation of the schisms, that the arising of the schools was due to the diversity of opinions by these masters. 291 It seems we must regard these teachers as the developers of the et oi a n o ea a t a x c e d n f mp r h l i dr, o t ls t n e h p i e s n en names we find mentioned in the Mauryan period. This is explicitly confirmed in the San Lun Xuan Yi, a treatise written by Jia-xiang. In accounting for the appearance of the M ghikas he follows thec ttMh .sk o aa h s auo e hb p i f c nf a inen o h v I ag the Sthavira branch, he says that in the first 200 years there was the se n th: s,a ,j t v ,a t u s o a rap n aa na sUg a cs fcs sa n Mh i p p ci e eKa d j k ai o a , n u, P a e aypa oKa t e a s0 a , c ,tau. mapo c w 2y r Ma K r r sa Ma a0 e k y n tF s k rs,
289 290 291
Wynne, 32 See Frauwallner, 1995, 185ff for references and discussion. Rockhill, 194-5
153
during which period there was no schism. 292 At the beginning of the third cu K r ad aa tea s i t e r ypa s ayn h w a ln w ny tau pe w,d e s p t o t, y n t s r i o t s o Svs d rt i Se r there had been a c l t i a S si P a, hs hr n as d. c o, aa vi n n v gradual drifting away from the essentials, especially an excessive promotion of Abhidhamma over the Suttas. To escape the controversy, the Sthaviras went to the Himalayan region, and henceforth were called the Haimavatas.293 This account matches well with the picture we have drawn from the Pali scB Mg ut aP a are separated from the o e o o l ts d r us t gi a a r. h a ts n p i S n o i o ei i e e sh p t a e d ul ng r n tl g w h t e s c C c y e n t hi e i u h o nb ea n n , c s m o a a o aceoi r d e e A ah o c p x to mr so tt o .en t p i e n p r a n hi fo T c e n rm t a e u m k ni o between Moggaliputtatissa and the Abhidhamma is central to his identity: not only does he compose the core of the K t bhiir avh ui sts t au t f ne h t, s tet r in investigating Buddhism is sparked by hearing a cryptic Abhidhamma p so hi ak ei a e d -mt Sr d he m e tma s es d aaoo r f tC ya drd t B h n a n ar t a ,c b hua r . u t t o these monks were participating in the formal h i fo em e Aa k investigation, classification, and clarification of the teachings from the Suttas. But only a couple of generations later, after the time of K ri isissT drof period ypad s un cmh ei na tau, trl a i i s t ol y n td het h .s c i p ong of gestation and discussion, eventually resulting in division, is far more plausible than the more radical accounts of instant schism. It is interesting to note that Moggaliputtatissa seems to have more in common with the Abhidhammikas of the Sart ihho iht i w vi n aee t e a s o s n d w tSv , sdt v s h hr h a are the staunch adherents of the Suttas.
292 293
(CBETA, T45, no. 1852, p. 9, b20-21) CBETA, T45, no. 1852, p. 9, b15-c1
Conclusion
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE CAN NO LONGER THINK o r ci a a fe t n d ci -sa s r p er n e a a tn Buddhism as two clear-cut periods. Rather, we must think in terms of an evolutionary process, whose complexity we can only guess at, and which we can know of only through fragments. Sectarian tendencies would have proceeded at different rates in different places. Just as Moggaliputtatissa escaped the conflicts by running off to retreat, so must many monastics have viewed the arguments as worldly Dhamma. Even Xuan-zang, a millenium after the Buddha, recorded the existence of many monks who did not belong to one or other school. Yet this should not blind us to the achievements of the sects: the development of sectarian organization made it possible to maintain the scriptures and keep the Dhamma alive. I would suggest the following scheme for interpreting the development of early Buddhist sectarianism. This should not be taken too seriously or pressed too far is merely a conceptual framework that is it p a at ouuh tk o r np t n e p l me e t h i f e do sa rs i h t r sla i g t ci l e f nn n p a ser a Buddhism. All qualifications are given, all exceptions are allowed! 0-100 AN - Integrated Pre-sectarian Buddhism: After the Parinibbana, the Buddhist community was in a state of uncertainty, even shock. It was imperative that they work together to make rehu a jt t k ea ad a ed u i o e D m n l B h in nt t h t ds c n o ah m a Vinaya as their refuge. The hugeness of the task and the uncertainty of the future would have provided the Sangha with ample reason to stick together, as a still untried fledgling spiritual movement.
C o n c l u s i o n
155
100-200 AN - Disintegrating Pre-sectarian Buddhism: The very success of the Sangha in preserving itself and the Dhamma must inevitably breed complacency. The Second Council saw a significant rift over Vinaya practice, and it was only with difficulty that enough monks were assembled from the various districts to rlhre sn dn . A aed e e p laui a a eo poa s t om ai S h h nr s o eb v f gT k i w e various divisive potentials within the Sangha rapidly multiply in potency. No longer could the Sangha deal with problems using its internal mechanisms, but had to rely on government support. 200-300 AN - Emerging Sectarian Buddhism: Spread out over vast areas, the Sangha evolved distinct regional identities. Local saints articulated more sophisticated and precise Abhidhammas. Lavish support enabled the establishment of local centers based around worship of stupas and relics, including those of the local saints. Texts became more firmly fixed in particular dialects. In the stupas of Vedisa many of these elements have emerged, but there is still no direct evidence that the community regarded itself as a distinct o s l c h. o 300+ AN Sectarian Buddhism: The constellation of sectarian tendencies was by now set irreversibly in the firmament. The emergence of sects, if it had not taken place already, was at hand. From now on the different communities saw themselves as irreversibly separate. The boundaries between the sects would never have been absolute, but they were there, and they played a crucial role in all subsequent developments. I have followed the suggestions of earlier researchers in closely associating t er c fhsit A a ine u eu h mg e s ow h n s a .t mt e en oc l t e o m ir B w s e o h k s i o s remember that we do not know whether the leaders of the missions personally promulgated the theses that were later taken to define the doctrinal positions of the schools. We must avoid the fallacy of backri a t s t i e e i : ci t e en l i i n a rm a e n o ag a t o t r t s er n c r d e un o l r a i es a dy tn a p ur e t a e s r rr s mn c e i esd n e c a co o o tn s. t Ne tee fs ecmi eo or o o eic r d ss n A a ren f vn o u nh s t n p h d e d i h k A aed nuo uy e t nc t w he nr sdp st. sa au ih te o pot s t r T er c nn i h k i a ci h ci o s c s n a
156
S e c t s
a n d
ideas are found are mythic texts whose prime purpose is to authenticate the schools. The schools which flourished in the border regions each found themselves in the position of trying to assert that they are the true bastion of real Buddhism. This was accomplished by developing a myth of origins. T Msdrt i n r l e taf h a iai n as d ia u s o ve e hh v a S s pi re h l vrs n vi n v ta m c et the need to combine this mythic authority with a shrill denunciation of the og cT r c l ood e dai f s o s t h e t a fne a m r o e p i ss i fs c cicn t y te pn e. s l a k e f n u t h schools in that period, and survives as evidence of a certain bitterness in local sectarian rivalries. And yet even the most polemicized passages from the Mh cit t s w nlaia i o a i n h h cm e otl ass f hb f a eh s r t r n cm v or t s e i V y h s m i e tg ho e -straight-to-h veW a tdyic ye o e a ye nf aee a h f l r . c onnvn n r r li t n i de w e the formation of schools due to schisms in the narrow Vinaya sense. The mythic accounts of sect formation must, as historical d mto n x eeen Etf ki ls o e, a e br td A a s U g c nb di f t Uyi o h e i u sw to h i c s o mf n . mythic texts to decide whether the schism was in 116 AN or 137 AN is as sensible as using the Bible to decide whether the world was created in 4004
BCE.
A a den w unified, and we have no serious reason not s tS h as o a ha a ki g The findings in my work so far constitute in part a radical
to take him at his word. departure from previous visionings of this period. If there is any merit in this analysis, we must rethink many of our ideas about how Buddhism formed. Not the least of the problems is the question of the interrelationship between the existing early canonical texts. These are usually held to stem primarily from the pre-sectarian period, then finalized and edited in the early sectarian period. Thus collating the corresponding parts of the different collections may take us back to before the schism. Shifting the root schism one or two centuries later could make a major difference in how these texts are dated. I would note, though, that sectarian separation is only one factor to be taken into consideration. The accidents of history have decreed that the early canonical texts that have come down to us hail mainly from two asi kn aa T ee 3 k at r r: L ad / d a eas 0m p, e e S a a K r n r h r, 0 saw ar n m G h. s a0 re established at the extreme ends of the Indic cultural sphere from the time o .ef the texts were not separated on doctrinal/sectarian fo E i A av k n
C o n c l u s i o n
157
grounds until later, this geographic separation must have meant the collections remained primarily isolated from this time. Thus collating the collections would still bear the promise of restoring us to the pre-A a n o k period. All I have said so far is, of course, just stories of the past. Like any historian, in analyzing the myths of the past I am creating my own mythology, a mythology cast in the methods and concepts of the present. History lies to the extent that it pretends to have rejected myth, and has meaning to the extent that it owns up to its agenda: recreating the present in the image of the past. This is why history is so intensely political, and the act of pretending objectivity is just another political manouver. After many years of reading and contemplating both history and myth, I have come to believe that the only difference between the two is that myth has miracles, while history has footnotes.
Appendix
Chronology
DATING OF BUDDHIST EVENTS is a painfully complex and doubtful matter. Modern scholars early settled on circa 486 BCE as the da f B h t t ua e h d o e ds parinibbana. This is based on a corrected reading of the Sinhalese sources ai o a enh oy orn, os proposed a ns w s c ngMeclca dk n t l r l r ey hr n ho oo. g e ts l rh oy a onh sc pi t B h st r l s noe o e l g eu a h c n g bd o oo e rr us a h d tn r, c n ds Nibbana around 368 BCE. But the latest research is moving towards a ic ng( s v-G b t r ), placing the m a h oy hR Ddor h y en r l eh asmi e d oo t y i c o294 h Nibbana around 410 BCE, with a margin of error of 10-20 years either side. This is the dating I follow for this essay. To avoid the ambiguities associated with this calendar dating, however, it is often useful to compare events in t s h l t h e r b a which case the e o o o h a n A N a, in r f w n e p e f in m g y pd t b e abbreviation AN is used. The following table is an attempt to approximately correlate the major events and persons in this work with the median chronology. I have based most of these dates on Cousins. 295 Cousins and Gombrich bring the Second Council down to 60-80 AN. One reason for this is that some of the Elders at the Second Council are said t se on a d st gb et ainn o t n fa , ift ae e er b a b u t d n ilept n Pn a d e d s n a teh w h i a b the Second Council is too great to be bridged by just one generation. But d a o l o4t t o er b , m w n a s by u a e et ain n a e a wp a a t t i f Pna a y l n rb b 5 hm h i a d b l have lived for another 40 years or so. Both the Pali and the northern traditions296 contain statements to this effect. Given his character, it would be surprising if he were not still accepting students until his old age. A 20
294 295 296
Cousins, The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article, 109 Cousins, The 'Five Points' and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools, 76 T45, 1852 p10a08
C h r o n o l o g y
159
year old student in 40 AN would be 80 at the traditional time of the Second Council. It would be unremarkable, if not probable, that this Council c ig Eriund t s o oao os ol bk ,l ged m k ehh d n i f ehh i i h lt n nr s l sn d k sc n o t u e t u , i d o o i e odernin a a e I n e n fs w hb o i n a y n c m k ta h ae de d d Hc l u s hg n ad ns . e see no reason to change the date of the Second Council. This means the C co h b br a C r p ann o iu a e ee f a a t s s. ul l v e f o t n g a ci ncd e n o re d u eo r s V macmaiv t according to whether we a is id s ewice, s t ss t gn ur h e i consider this by the calendar date in the text, or whether we correlate it w A ae. i i t osg h kr n
160
S e c t s
a n d
Median Chronology BCE Original Buddhism 458 Awakening AN
M San-luna ia hh vr Elders xuan-yi297 Elders
Schism
Kassapa Ul p i d na a n 1 1st Council ( g) R a h j a a Dk a s a Majjhantika
413 Integrated Pre-sectarian Buddhism 326 Alexander Disintegrating 313 Pre-sectarian Buddhism Nirvana
100 ( Vl e) s
So aka
v s 100 ai n D vsa a p a (Vasumitra)
Candragupta 2nd Council
( s = ai v ) n Siggava Upagupta Moggali-
137 Bhavya III (Vasumitra)
Emerging Sectarian Buddhism
277-246 Aa o k
154 3rd Council
puttatissa
(aliputta) Mahinda P (Haimavata teachers) Pa r
Sectarian Buddhism 185-151 Pu yamitra (Gotiputa)
Mecaka (200 AN) ut rr ia p K parip yta yn c c h putra
297
(CBETA, T45, no. 1852, p. 9, b20-21)
Bibliography
F hau h RDihx t o e a sa, which I o els e I,heci f D v r PI t t i e VC t e pnt a wt e o h p retrieve from: http://www.sub.unigoettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/2_pali/3_chron/dipava2u.htm
AKIRA, Hirakawa. A History of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1998. ALLCHIN, F. R. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia. Cambridge University Press, 2004. ALLON, Mark. Style and Function. Tokyo: International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 1997. h a ai tra. (unpublished Honors submission), 1987. . TM i S e h rv pn a r ANA. ed aO in inno Jn f Y B hn m ccI n e tau l LOT u ad n e .d Irilr o h d s en i a ta no a Buddhist Studies 7 (2006). AUNG, Shwe Zan and C. A. F. RHYS-DAVIDS. Points of Controversy. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 2001. BANDARANAYAKE, Senake. The pre-meci i khia n onyS a : s d d in L aesn e r t r n tf dc r t o urbanization. Retreived from: www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/projects/ BOOK/Bandaranayake/bandaranayake.pdf. BAPAT, P. V. and HIRAKAWA, A. Shan-Chien-P A Chinese version by -Sha: i -P o S h a o mtsk a a d f a p d. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research n b r S ni g h a a a Institute, 1970. BAPAT, P. V. 2500 Years Of Buddhism. Retrieved from: http://www.quangduc.com/English/history/032500years01.html BARUA, Dwijendra Lal.F Evidences on the Age of the Kathavatthu ew A . The Indian Historical Quarterly, no.2, 1937.06. 367-370.
162
S e c t s
a n d
BASHAM, . oand Buddhism: a re-e ii Buddhism: Critical A k .A a L x no aa. m t n Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 54-63. BASTOW, iTF A mt S .ah o , Dd hi r e o rt a s P s y a. es g n r vi i i p v r u f as d An l h t v o Vol. 5.2, 2/10/1995. 109-125. Retrieved from: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/bastow.htm BEAL, Samuel. Buddhist Records of the Western World. New Delhi: Oriental Book Reprint Corporation, 1983. TEt S o fd sb a i. e i . e hnhsB h ( s t Ia ie c l u i y u r T nn h g e o o dm V ma h d ) Antiquary. Vol. 9. Bombay: Education Society's Press, 1880. 299ff. BECHERT,n N s t oa o d s c nhr s H z o oh rt f dt t dei e. t ne m o B hSs t g i e F i u ie a n Oi n of Mah a u i Critical Concepts yd s nB h : . dm in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 23-33. TD o ed R ne. . et t u ac ie Buddhism: Critical Concepts in a f B he sr h e h d odd Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 64-71. T a ad s . d s . rdu ia a u i Critical Concepts in Religious h v B hS h B h : e dt g dm Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 1-22. BINGENHEIMER, Marcus. Der Monchsgelehrte Yinshun (*1906) und seine Bedeutung fur den Chinesisch-Taiwanischen Buddhismus im 20. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Wurzburger Sinologische Schriften, 2004. BIZOT, Franois. Les traditions de la pabbajjaa en Asie du Sud-Est: Recherches sur le bouddhisme khmer IV. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. BODHI, Bhikkhu. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2000. Discourse on the All-embracing Net of Views. Kandy: Buddhist . The Publication Society, 1978. BUDDHAGHOSA. The Path of Purification. n hh i. Kandy: T s iu r.k amo aB k Buddhist Publication Society, n.d. A Charles WILLEMEN, Bart DESSEIN, Collet COX. S Buddhist as d rt a vi v Scholasticism. Leiden, New York, Koln: Brill, 1998. CHAU, Bhikshu Thich Thien. The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1996.
B i b l i o g r a p h y
163
CHOONG, Mun-keat (Wei-keat). A Discussion on the Determination of the Date of the Historical Buddha . Journal of Indian History (1997-1999): Vol. LXXVI-LXXVIII. CLARKE, y aM kMother of the Monastic Codes or Just S n V y a h e ia t a .n At S ftI -Iranian Journal (2004): 77-120. n e t i o o r os n h e L? d s Miscellaneous Musings on M . lasarv da Monksp s u l stiv .a e r Jn Jn a eo a of Religious Studies 33/1 (2006): 1-49. COLLINS,v t e do eln Se Oh r ef PC n tn ne y at aa . e. V I h i o Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 72-95. COUSINS, . d s iaed a e cd t e L dt nt t aa nn c i o .B hJ a n r t mt on t Su i h: un t s i a rg h Psc Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. a us l r. i e o Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 34-51. Oh ij d. d susv 1 (13 . t bj i B hS i ew .0: -182. e h vn u ite i 82 )1 n V a s dt d Re 2 01 a PO L ae . latt. i l rrBuddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. ari u e Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 96-104. Pone Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul . r aS s dl en f . Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 84-101. TDnf Hoa d :ew t.u l h . et o e t l d Av A lJn f agt i iB h Re reo a t h i h s c u a i i r o e r c Royal Asiatic Society 3.6.1 (1996): 57-63. T' P tnhr st u ic l . evos dei o ed s hs F i at g f B hS o Buddhism: hi n e ' Oi h dt o. n Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 52-83. DUTT, Nalinaksha. Buddhism in Kashmir. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 1985. . Buddhist Sects in India. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998. EDGERTON, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2004. ENOMOTO, iMavii drt iCs F o as d nas d h i u . l aS . rn m s t n r v vi n ie v t Chajnacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, and Volker M. Tschannerl. Vividharatnakarandaka Festgabe fur Adelheid Mette. Swisstal-Odendorf, 2000. FOGELIN, Lars. Archaeology of Early Buddhism. Oxford: Altamira Press, 2006. FRAUWALLNER, E. Studies in Abhidharma Literature. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
164
S e c t s
a n d
Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature. Roma: Is. M. E. . The O., 1956. GOMBRICH, . c r t u a egBuddhism: Critical R o i h d ' se .R vn e ds s. F e eg B h M a Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 113-128. GURUGE, nW. A d . Shan-Jian-Lu-Piposha as an authentic source on the n aP a early history of Buddhism and A a . o k Dhamma-Vinaya: Essays in Honor of Venerable Professor Dhammavihari (Jotiya Dhirasekera). Ed. Asanga Tilakaratne, Toschiichi Endo, G. A. Somaratne, and Sanath Nanayakkara. Sri Lanka Association for Buddhist Studies (SLABS), 2005. 92-110. HALLISEY, r n a e nv st h v . C l C c s a de i eea he o i Is E t h rd a . ul d a nn T a a s s Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 171-185. HEIRMANN, . nea haD mu k 2 A W r t r h a ts 0 n C T e Ey a g a? 0 na c e l r pa 2 . www.brill.nl. . Rules for Nuns According to the Dharmaguptakavinaya. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2002. HOCART, . d aD da A d n e a . Bu adv t Indian Antiquary, vol. 52, October M h at . 1923. 267-72. Vol. 54, October 1925. 98-99. Retrieved from: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/hocbud.htm HOPKINS, Jeffrey. Meditation on Emptiness. London: Wisdom Publications, 1983. I-TSING. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago. Trans. J. Takakusu. Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2005. JAWAWICKRAMA, N.A. TIpnDi edn N n h ci fcnn iad . London: Pali e e o slaV y ia nt i i o p a Text Society, 1986. JOHNSTON, E. H. A g a's Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha. Delhi : Motilal h vo a Barnasidass, 2004. LAMOTTE, Etienne. History of Indian Buddhism. Paris: Peeters Press, 1976. TAs nf tA eci d s Buddhism: Critical . esmt e a t tyB h . ss o x l h i n dm h e e T u u n t u i i Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 192. LAW, Bimala Churn. The Debates Commentary. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1940, reprinted 1999. C ngf PC n nst h ar el . ooo eln . a f B d art h oyt aa n o ea r On rl h i o A l h n k ia Research Institute, Poona. 171-201.
165
LEGGE, James. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1998. LENZ, Timothy. A New Version of the Gandhari Dharmapada and a Collection of Previous-Birth Stories. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2003. LIANG, Tao-wei. A Study on the I-Pu-Tsung-Lun.a Buddhist H-Kang u Journal, No. 02. Taipei: The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1972. 25-65. Retrieved from: http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication/hkbj/02/hkbj0208.htm MCEVILLEY, Thomas. The Shape of Ancient Thought. New York: Allworth Press, 2002. MCQUEEN, Graeme. A Study of the a pa tWiesbaden: Otto r n h-Sa y a . m al r Harrassowitz, 1988. MITRA,ia K a a d Cross-cousin Relation Between Buddha and Devadatta. l . p Retrieved from: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/kal.htm MITRA, R. L. The Lalita Vistara. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1998. MONIER-WILLIAMS, M. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2002. MUKHERJEE, B a . e d f F B hC cA id R l t i u io i s e T i o es d s ul w bh d e h r dt nt Ro c . u est n tpi C g Buddhist Journal, No.7, 1994. 452-473. re n h -Hwa o Retrieved from: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ001/07_15.htm NAKAMURA, Hajime. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1996. I, Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu BODHI. The Middle Length Discourses of the AMO Buddha. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2005. I, Bhikkhu. The Patimokkha. Bangkok: Mahamakutarajavidyalaya, AMO 1969. Patimokkha. Bangkok: Mahamakutarajavidyalaya, 1969. . The Path of Discrimination. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 2002. . The NATTIER, Jan and Charles S. PREBISH.a a i r s h k i . M ga g s h Oi Buddhism: n Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 199-228. NORMAN, K. R. A Philological Approach to Buddhism. London: School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London), 1997. NYANASAMVARA, Somdet. BdS n sa. Trans. Bhikkhu Kantasilo. u as Va d a h a Bangkok: Mahamakut Press, 1974.
166
S e c t s
a n d
PACHOW, W. A Comparative Study of the Pratimoksa. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2000. PERERA, . d sni k stt. w d n e H dm S a :h h rw .d e t . B h i L a o i y wb h t . R u i rn A rs o u a. n <http://buddhanet.net/ebooks_hist_art.htm>. PREBISH, Charles S. Buddhist Monastic Discipline. Delhi: Motilal, 2002. Re f os ou io iBuddhism: Critical Concepts . v o hr n d s ul i S l i B hC c ew ca p h dt n . s in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 224243. h ae t Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. .i a sve k r Rs . a a-D m id i Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 186-198. TPi z . e t k ue r o P lBuddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. h az m . Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 257-271. T rC en ea a . ee n n t k h . os c i h n kBuddhism: Critical Concepts in h i o rg S d a Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. Vol. I. London: Routledge, 2005. 244-256. PURI, B. N. Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2000. RADICE, William. Myths and Legends of India. London: The Folio Society, 2001. RAY, i .C eea: atRid m Rn o mdi e at e o ea A n nSt v t e vf : gl d d n D da r r . e http://www.dharmaocean.org/Portals/0/documents/pubs/Devadatta.pdf REYNOLDS, Craig James. The Buddhist Monkhood in Nineteenth Century Thailand. Cornell University, 1972. ROCKHILL, W. Woodville. The Life of the Buddha. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1992. RONGXI, Li, trans. TBr iS t o n . Berkeley: Numata hiac c u f go e g hlir K A a o pa r e i k p Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1993. ROTH, Gustav. Bhik V y uia a Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1970. n. SALOMON, Richard. A e uhSlo a Seattle: University nn d s r f Gd a ct dt o r n r iB icsm h . l of Washington Press, 1999. SARAO, .In-laws of the Buddha as Depicted in P KS .. T li Sources. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, No. 17. Taipei: The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2004. 243-265. Retrieved from: http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication/chbj/17/chbj1709.htm#nt15 SASAKI, Su dt t t Po1 e agt hkB hSs h o ed) Mn o e ia u ie i e k r.T enf z . d s cn A a i( h i h Ss d cm i Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu), Vol. 18. Hamamatsu: h Et i c . International Buddhist Association, 1989. 157-176.
167
B hSst Po2 a d )u i . dt t h o ed) g h ( B h u ie i e k r.S h e 1 d s d s cn A a i(a b a. dt Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu), Vol. 21. Hamamatsu: International Buddhist Association, 1992. 157-176. B hSst Po3 a d )u i . dt t h o ed) g h ( B h u ie i e k r.S h e 2 d s d s cn A a i(a b a. dt Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu), Vol. 22. Hamamatsu: International Buddhist Association, 1993. 167-199. B hSst Po4 e ur t . dt t h o ed) Sce h u ie i e k r.T tt o e d s cn A a i( h ru f M ga ad sus k K yV 2 a a i ia u ite u on ) l. h k n . dt d ( k e u o3 s h V yB hS iB y k, . Hamamatsu: International Buddhist Association, 1994. 55-100. B hSst Po5 e t ap e . dt t h o ed) si Ho s u ie i e k r.Pen y hs d s cn A a i(rng ti . Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu), Vol. 24. Hamamatsu: International Buddhist Association, 1995. 165-225. B hSst Po6 e a sB h . dt t h o ed) D v a u i u ie i e k r.T a . d s d s cn A a i( h p dt Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu). Hamamatsu: International Buddhist Association, 1996. 29-63. B hSst Po7 e h at . dt t h o ed) V nh u ie i e k r.T i de d s cn A a i( h b upph B hS iB ye u ta u ite u on ) r rr cd sus k K yHamamatsu: i a i . dt d ( k k . p c International Buddhist Association, Vol. 27, 1998. 1-55. B hSst Po8 pmt A mt . dt t h o ed) p err e u ie i e k r.S l nyg n d s cn A a i(u e a u . Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu), Vol. 28. Hamamatsu: International Buddhist Association, 1999. 1-10. SCHOPEN, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks. Honolulu: University of Ha ai wi Press, 1997. . Buddhist Monks and Business Matters. Honolulu: University of Ha ai wi Press, 2004. i n nr e oa Bdm Ia . F e aF mt M ad sndHonolulu: g t da n fh nu ii i ms g s y h n. University of Ha ai wi Press, 2005. SEN, Jyotirmay. kmission to Ceylon and some connected problems. Aa os The Indian Historical Quarterly 1928, Vol. 4:4. 667-678. SENEVIRATNE, r a i aB h .9 A a .n o nu i 4 n d g k dd s 1 . uhK A a dm 9 www.buddhanet.net. <http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_hist_art.htm>. SHARF, e . d so n athe Rhetoric of Meditative R r dt d i n o t B hMes d bH u i r m E rcBuddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Ed. Paul Williams. x ie pe . e n Vol. II. London: Routledge, 2005. 255-299.
168
S e c t s
a n d
SHUN, . e a hnf tt Y Eb mt ak tatrb iT sl e Sri n h ts i o una i nh S -Da k deu a n i ss u l u it May 2003: 238-270. e. r o d su c Jn f dt dies, t o a B hS STRONG, John S. The Legend and Cult of Upagupta. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1994. he dK A a l o l nd, 2 . L nf go D i tB aa2 . T g oi .h i a ss0 ee n k e M l ris0 : a SUJATO, Bhikkhu. A History of Mindfulness. Taipei: Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 2006. Swift Pair of Messengers. Penang: Inward Path Publishers, 2001. .A SUNG, Kan-y .a on eoe n Mo-ho-seng-c-l u d ndvpn the a T i aD l t n rt i em i h . i i MA thesis for University of Calgary, 1999. http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/adm93485-1.htm SUZUKI,t. es d s ul9 w . e Ta F B hC c 1 . wc-texts.com. e o hi u io i 0 ws d i T r dt n 4 r t . a r <http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/mon/1stbudcn.htm>. TNHT n a iyBdm Ia Debiprasad RA 's o dsn i AT. r t Ho f h i dEd. a h t u i n. s r Chattopadhyaya. Trans. Alaka Chattopadhyaya and Lama Chimpa. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2004. TSOMO, Karma Lekshe. Sisters in Solitude. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. VASUMITRA,n . lhieS o fd s 1 . tsB. e hnhsB h .8 r. e Et c l u i 0 aS a T g e o o dm 8 www.sacred-texts.com. <http://www.sacredtexts.com/journals/ia/18sb.htm>. WALSER, Joseph. Nn C eNew York: Columbia University Press, j i nt gu n t ra ox . 2005. WARDER, A. K. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 2004. WARNER, Rex. Encyclopedia of World Mythology. London: Peerage Books, 1970. WIJEBANDARA, Chandima. Early Buddhism: Its Religious and Intellectual Milieu. Colombo: University of Kelaniya, 1993. WILLIS, h. d s iinneao a t o M a dtnn ctd.u l h y ieB hSt A e i Jn f R l c lu ias iV s r o e a Asiatic Society 2001, Series 3 ed. WOOLNER, Alfred C. A a and Glossary. Delhi: Low Price Publishers, 1993. : Text o k WYNNE,x eH O s Sa k Oxford Center for Aa r o l t up a ln . wd h ti ? e d ie t a t Buddhist Studies, 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.ocbs.org/research.php

Sects and Sectarianism

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sects and Sectarianism

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

i iln c enh h T s nl tr ddo t h a tg la at g i n eey f s i t u -provoking book that investigates one of the more obscure periods of Indian Buddhist

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi

Sects & Sectarianism

Sects & Sectarianism

Santi Forest Monastery http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com

The t i 4 Uy c n Et id s The Saints of Vedisa TD vsa ha ea p Monster or Saint? 24 41 54 15

Three Sins & Five Theses

Me t ij d 7 o ne h vn 9 r h bj i o V a s a V a vas d 8 ij dsrt a 9 bj a S h v .vi ? a v Dharmagupta: The Greek Missions 98

A i oa c t e a s r t a pr o o v t s a y l ua u f at t t p p lc n D d o c a y http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17. An alternative view in Ray.

TA aK u m h r o k a eo r kr . km ut Contra Sasaki 1989, 186

15 t r ne nt a aWithout any serious evidence pointing o d y t o en . w s si f S h aa c o h g

C iOhij d, on n Va s 8 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 3 a Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 238 Warder, 262

The Saints of Vedisa

a e lk v aa a a a lg vd i br Sahadeva Dundubhissara Kosikiputa Gotiputa

a eaS d a o e e s l a t lk vna e r t f d iy D h a a adh v e h e tm a e ie vd a a b r r o p s vn r S s aa is u s vyb d a iah . ann v

that is, a little over a cua A a eiroao e rf . s s ts u ny e o T e c i r r t t k h ni n e r p

Cf. Cousins, Person and Self, 86.

Wynne, 12-21 Allchin, 156-183

A a a s v rn , n t sa a n h s c e s t s a a g v ae s a i Uppajjissati so bhikkhu sama i k o pa a r o . p Here pa aoo d n enf i kbu o o a oe t r avs e t n ur p il s m c t i y e .

A mythic mirror-i etEe br aa o t h m o e t y B mt mvd a f a y ht te e g hn t r a h i t a Buddha to teach. 69 See Appendix.

i, The Path of Discrimination, introduction amo K t 2 av u2 ta 6 ht h

me x in sh Rr f e D mo w a ei E at u oM d pt v l c : e e l e n h a i a s m k t h Mg ut , h[a m eud e a Er o l tss e aka u ns t g dl gi a ao Pk b ] tt h r a ts p i ra h re n d e

Buddhaghosa, xvi M sa 37.216ff aa h v M sa 37.227 aa h v

My thanks to Rupert Gethin for this information.

Partial translation at: http://www.sacredtexts.com/journals/ia/18sb.htmhttp://www.sacredtexts.com/journals/ia/18sb.htm. For discussion, see Liang.

He records three accounts of the schisms, together with descriptions of

Bhadra might be the same as the oa a d fr r a Pmt n a h

Rockhill, 1992, 189

According to Lamotte, 139 Mathura had several pro-Buddhist rulers

Three Sins & Five Theses

NS aa d Nattier and Prebish, 201. o rt a c ey t vi si b as d l v m

and M k Vinayas. The aa hs 177 a

186 187 188

K t a, 7 av u h tp ; 6 ta Aah g Law, ht h k . C iOhij d, on n Va s 8 us t bj i1 s , e h vn 3 a AN 10.94 at AN v.189f

Cp. pg. 65, note 104 above.

cr r o tsn h auk na oo s : ha a ejta d nvy e a tVits Smitiyas, and many te t n s , I j aa p

K t a 9 av u h t ta Aah ht h k C N .se sa t h c oi p ln f 18 l n shs t o l a ea . 2: i n: th i s o l ct S 4A o e t ier m g s uo l d c i A dr: th u c oi p ln l i i hs f hsl a ea l v t a t o o o l ct i ey ie r m g s uo s st t c i

Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, 274

S saa is B , , 1 , 8 2 u s vyb E T n 4 p 3 1 d a iah : T 2 o 6 . , -c18 ann v C A 4 . 2 6 b

Frauwallner, Studies in Abhidharma Literature, 190ff

See Barua (CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 531, c29)

which appears to be equivalent to the Pali: ai ma t a a a citta t nm h r

(CBETA, T26, no. 1539, p. 537, b2)

Dharmagupta: the Greek missions

Pali Vinaya 1.55

S saa is u s vyb da iah 222 ann v Majjhantika M a ae hv d Rakkhita Dharmagupta

So aka Uttara Mahinda I hiya Uttiya Sambala Bh a as d dl a

it would suit the

Dvs pm lre h ti iconnection between aa o i p ot i hm e p lc u sod e p a s ea p e l d

More research would need to be done to see if

See Dutt, 172 (CBETA, T49, no. 2031, p. 17, a25)

says that the

Frauwallner, 1995, 116

The M lasarv dins of stiv Mathura

T e srt i h M l avs vd s f ah r a i n o M tua

T e srt i h M l avs vd s f ah r a i n o M tua

T e srt i h M l avs vd s f ah r a i n o M tua

T e srt i h M l avs vd s f ah r a i n o M tua

289 290 291

T e srt i h M l avs vd s f ah r a i n o M tua

Median Chronology BCE Original Buddhism 458 Awakening AN

M San-luna ia hh vr Elders xuan-yi297 Elders

Kassapa Ul p i d na a n 1 1st Council ( g) R a h j a a Dk a s a Majjhantika