Buddhist schools in the 5th Century A.D. according to the Chinese pilgrim Fa-hsien

Part 10

Section 1 — Mahasamghika Origins — An alternative thesis

In his 1974 article ‘A Review of Scholarship on the Buddhist Councils,’ Charles S. Prebish challenged the commonly established thesis, that the first schism in the Buddhist Sangha occurred during the Second Buddhist Council. This established thesis was based on the fact that the Mahasamghika Vinaya account only has rules against one of the ten points of controversy discussed, concluding that the Mahasamghika were silent, and therefore lax, on the other nine rules that other schools condemned. When verifying the Mahasamghika Vinaya, Prebish found all ten rules in the Mahasamghika Vinaya, which puts the established thesis into question from the beginning. The above can be summarized in three conclusions about the Mahasamghika and the account of the Second Buddhist Council:

1. If the Mahasamghikas only speak of a single one of the ten ‘evil practices’ pertinent to the council of Vaisali, this is because it was the only case in the primitive version, as we have shown with the aid of other arguments.

2. If they do not speak of the nine other customs, this is not because they approved of them, since they implicitly condemn them elsewhere. Consequently, the Mahasamghikas cannot, in any fashion, be identified with the ‘evil monks’ who practice them, and whom the recitations of the Sthaviras compare to the Vrjiputrakas, guilty of having begged gold and precious objects. The nine customs of the monks of Vaisali, therefore, could not have been one of the causes of the schism which separated the Mahasamghikas from the Sthaviras, as the Sinhalese chronicles affirm and, following them, certain historians of Buddhism. In fact, the two sects were in accord on this point, as M. Hofinger has well shown.

3. The Mahasamghikas could not be considered exclusively as easterners, the Pracinaka, the same title as the Vrjiputrakas, since, in condemning all the guilty practices attributed to the latter, they gained distinction as far as the Sthaviras themselves.

In the Vinaya accounts on the Second Buddhist Council, in none of them has there been any mention of a schism. From the Vinaya, the Second Council proceedings satisfied both groups involved, and with the strict monastic discipline reestablished and reinforced, a schism was avoided.

To explain when the schism did take place, Prebish points to the ‘second’ Second Council of Pataliputra. This ‘second’ Second Council is mentioned in non-Vinaya texts, and occurred either 116 or 137 years after the Buddha’s Pari-nirvana, being about 16 or 36 years after the ‘first’ Second Council.

Prebish’s thesis puts the blame of the schism on the Sthaviravada, and not the Mahasamghika:

1. Mahadeva (and his five points of controversy) has nothing to do with the primary schism between the Mahasamghikas and Sthaviravada, emerging in a historical period considerably later than previously supposed, and taking his place in the sectarian movement by instigating an internal schism within the already existing Mahasamghika school.

2. That the sole cause of the initial schism in Buddhist history pertained to matters of Vinaya, but rather than representing a reaction of orthodox Buddhists to Mahasamghika laxity, represents a reaction on the part of the future Mahasamghikas to unwarranted expansion of the root Vinaya text on the part of the future Sthaviras (who, in so doing, ultimately provoked the schism they were so diligently seeking to avert).

3. That the date for the schism, 116 years after Buddha’s Pari-nirvana, is a significantly more reasonable date to maintain.

Section 2 — The Travels of Fa-Hsien and its Importance to Indian History

Fa-Hsien was a Chinese Buddhist monk, who traveled from China to Swat valley, Gandhara, Northern India, Eastern India, Ceylon, the Indonesian island of Java, and finally back to Eastern China by sea. He lived between 317 and 419 A.D. He made his journey to India in search of complete original texts of the Vinaya Pitaka (Books of the Discipline), which include the Buddhist rules of conduct for monks and nuns. He did so, as he was disappointed in the deplorable and imperfect state of the collection of texts of the Books of the Discipline that was available to him in his monastery. Fa-hsien was his clerical name, meaning ‘Illustrious master of the Law.’ His travel account has survived as the text entitled ‘Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms,’ and includes valuable historical information about the state of Buddhism as religion and culture in the regions that he visited.

Section 3 — The Buddhist Schools mentioned in Fa-Hsien’s text

For most of the monasteries that Fa-Hsien visits, he does not mention in particular to which particular school it belongs too. In most instances, he mentions Hinayana, or Mahayana, or that both Hinayana and Mahayana were practiced as such in a particular area. For example, in chapter 27, a Mahayana monastery exists right next to a Hinayana monastery, and together they account for 600 to 700 monks:

“By the side of the shrine of Asoka, there has been made a Mahayana monastery, very grand and beautiful; there is also a Hinayana one; the two together containing six hundred or seven hundred monks. The rules of demeanor and the scholastic arrangements in them are worthy of observation.”

The Sanskrit term for the monastery that is used in the text is Sangharama, meaning ‘gardens of the assembly,’ initially referring only to the surrounding park, but later on meaning the entire premises. In the Swat valley, 500 Hinayana monks are mentioned, but no particular school is given. When visiting Gandhara, Fa-Hsien mentions the monks were mostly Hinayana. In the Punjab area, 3000 monks are mentioned who are students of both Mahayana and Hinayana. In Mathura, he observes that various offerings are made to different objects of veneration, i.e., the nuns make offerings to Ananda (because he asked the Buddha to allow females to join the Sangha), Mahayana followers present offerings to the Prajna-paramita (the perfections of wisdom), and to Bodhisattva Manjusri.

An interesting reference to Devadatta is made in chapter 20 of the text: “There are also groups of the followers of Devadatta still existing. They regularly make offerings to the three previous Buddhas, but not to Sakyamuni Buddha.” Devadatta was Ananda’s brother, who tried to take the life of the Buddha Sakyamuni. Which particular school these followers might adhere to is not given in the text.

In chapter 25 a reference is made to the ten ‘wrong’ disciplinary rules of the Vatsiputriya, who were monks from Vaisali, and the fact that a shrine had been erected to commemorate the Second Council’s proceedings:

“There is a shrine commemorating the following occurrence:— A hundred years after the pari-nirvana of the Buddha, some monks from Vaisali went wrong in the matter of the ten disciplinary rules and appealed for their justification to what they said were the words of Buddha. Hereupon the Arhats and monks observant of the rules, about 700 monks, examined afresh and collated the collection of the Books of the Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka). Subsequently, men built at this place the shrine (in question), which is still existing.”

Chapter 28 references Dharmagupta, and this might be a reference to the leader of the Dharmaguptika school, which had 2000 followers a the Abhayagiri-vihara monastery in Ceylon.

Chapter 36 references the Mahasamghika school by name, while residing in Patna, Fa-Hsien finds what he is looking for and makes a copy the Mahasamghika Vinaya text:

“From Varanasi (the travelers) went back east to Pataliputra. Fa-Hsien’s original objective had been to search for copies of the Vinaya texts. In the various kingdoms of North India, however, he had found one master orally transmitting the rules to another, but he could not find any written copies. He had therefore traveled far and come to Central India. Here, in the Mahayana monastery, he found a copy of the Vinaya, containing the Mahasamghika rules,—those which were observed in the first Great Council, while Buddha was still in the world. The original copy was handed down in the Jetavana Vihara. As to the other eighteen schools, each one has the views and decisions of its masters.”

At the same location, Fa-Hsien also found the Sarvastivada Vinaya text, as well other texts, including the Mahasamghika Abhidharma Pitaka. As a result of this treasure trove of texts, Fa-Hsien stayed here for three years, learning Sanskrit books and the Sanskrit language, and transcribing and translating the Vinaya rules.

Chapter 40 references the Mahisasaka school by name while residing in Ceylon, Fa-Hsien finds the Vinaya of this school, as well as four Agamas collections:

“In addition to his acquisitions in Patna, Fa-Hsien succeeded in getting a copy of the Vinaya Pitaka of the Mahisasaka school; the Dirgha-Agama and Samyukti-agama (sutra collections); and also the Samyukta-Sanchaya Pitaka (a sort of ‘miscellaneous collection’ fourth Pitaka)”

Section 4 — The Buddhist Schools mentioned in the Samuel Beal translation notes

Although only four of the eighteen schools are mentioned in the travel records of Fa-Hsien, the other schools are referred to by the translator of the text:

The Vaibashikas. The first of these schools, which represents the primitive Buddhist church, is divided into eighteen sects, included under four principal classes with their sub-divisions.

Group 1 — The followers of Rahula, the son of Sakya (and therefore belonging to the Kshattriya caste). These sectaries repeated the Pratimoksha in the Sanskrit language, and believed in the existence of objects of sense; they were therefore called Sarvistivadas, or those who allow the reality of all things. They were divided into seven sub-schools:

(a) Mulasarvastivadins

(b) Kasyapiyas

(d) Dharmaguptas

(e) Bahusrutiyas

(f) Tamrasatiyas

(g) Vibhajyavadins

Group 2 — The followers of Kasyapa, who was a Brahman. These repeated the Pratimoksha in the Prakrit language and were known as Mahasamgikas. They were subdivided into five minor schools:

(a) Purvasaila

(b) Aparasaila

(d) Lokottaravadins

(e) Prajnapativadins

Group 3 — The followers of Upali who was a Sudra. They repeated the Pratimoksha in the Paisatyeka dialect, and were generally known as Sammitiyas, i.e., the honorable sect; they were subdivided into three classes:

(a) Kaurukullakas

(b) Avantikas

Group 4 — The followers of Katyayana, a Sudra, and were commonly known as the Maha-Sthaviras; they were subdivided into three classes:

(a) Mahaviharavasins

(b) Jetavaniyas

These three classes represent the traditions of the three monasteries: Maha Vihara, Jeta Vihara (in Kosala), and the Abhayagiri Vihara in Ceylon.

Group 5 — The great school of the Sautrantikas consists of those who follow the teaching of the Sutras (in distinction from the teaching of the Vibhasa). They are divided into two sects:

(a) Those who follow the letter of the Sutras

(b) Those who allow all reasonable deductions from the letter

In the next article, the Buddhist schools in the 7th Century A.D. according to the Chinese pilgrim Yuan-Chuang will be discussed.

Pictures From Pixabay

The Twelve Links Of Dependent Origination

THINGS to DEVELOP and THINGS to AVOID

10 Fold Path Series

EATING MEAT — WHY THE BUDDHA WAS NOT A VEGETARIAN

I will flag comment spam at 1% strength. If you keep on spamming my post, I will flag you at 100%. I don't care if you have limited English abilities, write a couple of sentences about this article, no copy-paste, please. I will flag: one sentence comments, links to your blog and begging for up-votes and follows. Also, I will flag comments that have nothing to do with my blog's article. I will also check your comment section to see if you have been comment spamming on other blogs.

The Early Schools of Indian Buddhism Series

Buddhist schools in the 5th Century A.D. according to the Chinese pilgrim Fa-hsien

Part 10

Section 3 — The Buddhist Schools mentioned in Fa-Hsien’s text

Section 4 — The Buddhist Schools mentioned in the Samuel Beal translation notes