,...."nd F.dil'"", : D. thi, Hi78 U'lnial: 1)'(hI. 198;. 1998

I) MOTIlAL UA:'-I,usIDASS PUBLISHERS PRIVAT[ lIMITEO All IOihll RueT\·.,d

ISBN: 8).20g.o427,9 (OOth) ISBN: 81,%08-0428-7 ( PIper)

MOTIlAL BANARSIDASS

41 U .A. BUIl);"I<:M' Ro~d . J.,,",fl .. r Nagar. D~lh; 11(1 007 II. M:th~l"",,,,j r:hamlvr. Wuden Road. Mmnbai 400 026 120 RoyaP.,Ullh High Road, Mylaport . Chenn,,-, 600 004

S,1n:u Plar.l, Subhash Nagar. Pune 41 1 002 16 Sl Mark', Road. fI:mgalor., !>60 001

8 ('",nlaC Sheet ('",icUlta 700 0 17 A,hnk Rajpath , P-<ltnJ 800 004

Cho .... ·k. V;u,lII asi ~21 001

I'RH'''"FI) 1/\ m[)1A IIY J A1NEl' I1RA PRAKASH .I"'IN AT SHRI jAl .... n'·ORA l'I\F.~S.

A"'i!l KARAI NA. 1·l lh.~1'. I, Nf W DEIHl 110 02 ~ ANn l'UBUSHt:!) BY I\'ARf.I'oDR.I. PtA .... .....,,! JAIN ro ll.

!>IOTIIA!. I\..\I"ARSII)ASS rtmUSH£1tS PRIVAT"[ [JMlnl) , IIU~.AIJ.)W IIOAI), o[un 110007

INTRODUCTION

It is strikm2 that ai far back as 1859, i.e., OVN a century ago, the attention of European scholars was dmwn to lhe appearance of Buddh ist sects in IndIa, mentioning their names wi thout, however, any comment. 'the earliest article was written by St. Julien , ' lisle, diverses des Doms des dilt·huil secles du bouddhisme' in the JournalAsfatique, 1859. This was followed by M.V. Vassilief in 1860, Drs. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg in 1881, H. Kern in 1884 and I. P. Minayeff in 1884 (vide for details, pages 11-13)ofthis book,

h was after the publication of the translation of the Chinese version of Vasumit ra's treatise on eighteen sects of Buddhism in Ind ia by Prof. J. Ma~uda, who happened to be a Lecturer in the CalcUlla Uni\'ersity and also a colleague of the present writer, in the Asia Major, vol. II {I 925} supplemented by the Tibetan texts on the eigh teen schools by Bbavya and Vinitadeva en titled Nikiiya-Medal'jbhaliga and Samayabhedoparacanaciuaa respectively.

It should be noted that Vasumitra's treatise had three Chinese translations:

(0 'Shi-pa' pu' -lun, ascribed either to Kumfuajiva(401-1l) or to Param:irtha (546-69).

Oi) Pu'-chi,i-lun, ascribed to Paramdrtha. This translation. according to Masuda, appears to be more accurate.

(iii) I·pu·-t~ung-l un , ascribed to Hiuen Tsang (662), is regarded by Masuda as the best of the translations.

There were four scholars, bearing the name of Vasumitra: (1) Vasumitra of Kani!ka's Counci l and one of the authors

of the Mahavihha$a. ( ji) Vasumitra of the Sautrdntika school. (iii) Vasumitra, who appeared a thousand yea rs after Buddha's

pHrinibban3, and (i v) Vtlsumitra of t he S3rva~ti"ada sc:hool, from whom HiueD

Tsang learnt the Sarvastivdda doctrines. It is curious that non~ (If the hooks and articles menliontd

on pp. '1·1] refers ttl such an impon3m Pul i Abhidhamma Itxt

as the Kal,\6lHl IIJIII published in 11I97 and its commentary in 1889 and the former work's t::nglish translati on by Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids entitled Points ojComrol'ersy (1915) .

The antiquity of the ll."alht1Mtlhlf tradi tionally goe, bact to the days of Emperor Asoka, under whose auspices the Thi rd Bu:!· dhist Council was held with ~oggal ipuua Tissa as its president. The special features of this book He that

(i) it presents the doctrines of the opponents, i.e. , an eltposition of the doctrines of a part icular non-Theravada school:

(ii) it allows him to stale his arguments as well as (ii i) to quole in their support the statements of Buddha, occur­

ring in the Nikayas or elsewhere in any Pi!akan text. After giving full scope to the opponents for the grounds of

their views, Moggali putta Tissa, the president, refuted them from the standpoint of Theravada by counter-arguments as well as with the help of quotations from the Buddhavacanas.

The contribution of the present author Ii~s not only in making an analytical study of the treatises of Vasumitra, Bhavya and Vinitade,,'a but also the Kat/iil'atthu and its commentary by Buddhagho~a as well as the Abhidharamakoia-vyiikhyii, an eltcel­lent editi on of which has been published by Prof. Wogihara of Japan and the Sammiriya-nikiiya siistra translated from Chinese by Prof. Venkataraman of the Vi~vabharati and The Gilgit ManuM:riprs, llI , edited and published by the present writer, can· taining the original MUiasarvastivada Vina-ya, and also the Jnanaprasthana Sutra partially restored from Chinese by Santi Bhik~u also of the ViSvahharati.

This book ends with an Epilogue, in which an attempt hn been made to show how Mahayanism developed as a nalural consequence of the '"iews of the Mahilsanghikas and as a deve· lopment of the nebulous co nception of Bodhisatlva and Buddha· kayas in the Dil'yii\'{Jdiilla and Avadiilla-salaka, ascribed to the Sarvastiv~dins and also asa reaction to the realism of the Sarva­st iviidins, and how gradually Mahayanism surpassed Hinayan­ism both in popularitv and propagation .

To this book has been added an Appendix containing a s)-'nop­sis of the ancient geography of Ind ia as described by Hiuen Tsang; it al so throws ligh t on the dispersal of Buddhist stOlts in India along wi th :1 brief account of the Buddhist sects as

vii

given by [-tsi ng and the localities where these were existing a!

his time, i. e., balf a century after Hiuen Tsang's visit to India. In fine, I should like to thank my learned friend, Sri K. L.

Mukhopadhyay, M.A. for suggesting the appropriate title of the book, which helpe:d me to confine my attention exclusively to the Buddhist Sects in India. I should mention that I ha"e derived much benefit from the Histoire du Bouddhisme ir.dil'll (louvain, 1956) of Prof. E. Lamotte, who bas also published many other valuable worh on Mahayana Buddhism, util ising exhausth:c1y the Chinese versions of the lost Sanskrit texts. I al so thank my ;; tudenl Dr. Miss Ksanika Saha Ph, D. for preparing the Indexes. •

NA LtNAK~HA Dun

, CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION " ABBKI>\'IAnUNS ,1

I Political Background from Ajatasatru to Mahapadma Nanda

II Sources and Account of the Second Buddh i~t Council 11

III Disruptive Forces in t he Sangha 34 IV Sources and Classification of S(!cts 48 V The Mahasailghikas 57

VI Doctrines of Group II Schools 98 VII Doctrines of Group III Schools 12\

VIIl Doctrines of Group IV Schools 181 IX Doctrines of Group V Schools 211

Epilogue 218 Appendix: Hiuen Tsang and I-tsing on the

dispersion of Buddhist Sects in India 261 INDEX 291

CH/\~T~R 1

POLITI CA L BACKGROUN D

F ROM AJA TASATT U TO MAHAPADMA NANDA

The ~ession of the F irst Budd hist Council took place soon after the mah,iparinirv'-qla of Buddha (486 !l.c.) in the eighth year of the reign of king Aj<i.tasattu, who ruled for.n years fmm 49] B.C. Ajatasattu extended hi.;; father 's dominion heyond Mflgadha and ruled over Ailga, K isi and the ;;tatesofth e V~jji.1n mnfedenlcies. 1 T he Buddhist traditions are unanimnm in stnliflg t.hat Aj<i.tasattu in his early days was not very well.di'pmeo 10-

wards Buddha and his rel igion, hut later on, hi~ mind ch;mE~d nna he hecame a [mtmn of Ih e religion , supporting IVhole-he!lrt~ cd!y the session of th e Fint COllncil.

III the !\fahfirfllIISQ c('mmenl:Jry2 anrl thr. ,lfniijll,6'j,lIiilaknl[!a3

(henceforth ahhreviated as M m:'--.) , Aj:lt!l,;1ttu's entilusill sm f;)r rendering service to tlw new religi,)I1 , is referred to but t here i, no cvilience 10 show his inTcre,T in Ihe propnr,:1tiOIl of

the religion .

UD.\YIIlH.\DDA (461-445 B.C.)

According to tbe Buddhist and Jaina traditio:1s, though not according to the Puriil)as.~ Ajatasattu was succeeded by hi, son Udayibhadd3. He ruled for 16 ye:HS 461 B . C.~ The Mmk. says that like his father llC was not only enthusiastic about the:

See Buddhist Il1dia, C 1. I: H.C. Ravcilflild huri , Po/i/ica/ HiJlDry uf fl/1('imllna'ia, 3rd cd , p, 140. A·flJiiju~~imU!(/kiilpa. p. 604,

2, lr'l th.c VG/IJsa!!"II,~pak"Jilli, (p. (45), it is pDinted Ollt that l':paireoJ Ih: IS greal mOna\leneS of R:ljag;lha.

), M"",,., p. 603.

"!IT ~ '! ~<IT ",,;:fl;lqffir tf'.Tir: , ll1;l'r"'T'Jf~r<\';<-Ui]r lfI'lilq) 'fUf~'T. tt

4. Raychillldhuri.op. al., p . 143.

Aj:ltlsaltu

~

~ 10 )'ean llceon.lins 10 the .\(",1;. , p. 70~. rrof. Chalto .. ,adhy~ya as~isns 10 him a rci~n;nll pHioo of '-5 y~ars.

2 BUIlDHlS1: SECTS t o'( Di UI .\

religion but also had the :<.ayillgs o f B uih.lh;;. collected.' In the S;lmc Icxt2 asain , it i ~ stated Illat (b~ religiun would declint: arler Buddha's death, the k ings would be fi~htillg with o ne another, and the monks would busy thelllsdvt:~ with various scc"lar matters find fault with one a.nother and la!.:k in self-rest raint. The monks' and men would be demomiised, illlillige ill fa lse disputa­tions, a nd become jealous of one anothcr. T he non-Buddhists wou ld gai n the upper hillld ,md tilt: peo ple would revert to Dra hman ism and take to anim.~ 1 t.illing awJ ~imilar other evil p ractices. If these mutually cOll lradic\ury statements of the Mmk. be considered along with II Ie disut"e! silence of the CC}­loncse chronicles about the acvt iv i tic~ uf UJayibhadda, it seems tha i the ca use of Buddhism fo ulJu li llie favour with the king. The te" t ,Idds t hallherc wo uld, however, be some good men, gods and beings other thal\ human, who would continue to worshilJ the relics. "lid thougb the religion would be on the Wilne, there would l.Ie al !ea,l dghl distinguished monk,·' with

Rah ula as the chid IU prole!.:l it. SU'stoll I writes tlmt L1II;: guadiitnship o f Buddhism was entrust­

ed by Ihe Tcm,:her 10 (Malia) Kasyapa, who in turn assigned it

kCl:ently Prof. K. Ch:1l10padhY;lya has re-cJ(amin~~ t rh~ Cllle,IIon of succession of the kingi or Magadha ~nd IHriv:d at the conclusion that Dada~u was (ln 3Iternati\": mrme of Udayi as Sr;:llika was of Birr.bislra anJ Kllm/ia of AJ~t~sa tru. ISo:e J>roc. oj fhe Illdial: l/'·1I1)I"1 COI;g"eSS, Lahore, 19.J.O. PI" 141)..7). Prof. Blram"!i1,ki1' i<JclLlifll:S Danlaka "'ith Nlgada5.1ka. Cr.

Di.,.,i,."diinll, p. 369. l. Almk., p . 604. ~ ¢ UJIT" ;:cr.TUW · !.1<f;Tma- : I ""f.iClJS n~r fel!:T ~ "' ;JlJcr: I

~~~ If!f~ ~ f~rqfl:fCllfll rof~ I ~.:;rt!Q" ~ liffi ~ ~ -nlJQifcr II

2. Aim!.., P[I. ~97-9S . 3. The 1I~ 1 or l!Lun~s gi\'Cll In Mmk .. p. 64 : Is:u rollows ;-Sii,;pul r;\. Maud!;a iyliyana, Mutli\kii:iyurll, Subh(lli, Rlhuia, N",nJ,J,

Bhadrika, K u.,hi(l;) IbM., 11 . I II : Si\ri;lut-a . r.hud~ulyi\y.\nl, Gav(i.nlll~t i. Piodola B~ara ·

dvaja, I'illld.,\"a!~ . !tahuin, Mahak.MYlpa, A.n;mda . 4. Obernullcr's Tla"s/at;rm of BII'SIOf/'S H istory of B'ldrlilislII (hmce·

[mIll abb,,, v'.L l<:J <I. Ru·SlUn), II . p,l:!/! .

POLITICAL DACKGROUl' D J

to Ana nda. Bot h Kasyapa and Ananda passed away durine the life· time of Aj<i.tas3nu , r\nanda charged his disciple Stil,l3v:isika to protect the religion after his demise and 10 ordain, in course 01 lime, Upagupta of M athura. He foretold that, accorcling to the prophecy of the Teacher, Upagupta would hecome a Buddha but n ot with a ll the characteristics of a Samhurldha.

Just before his demise, Ananda a lso o rdained 500 Brahm:mi­cal a nchorites' with M adhyant ika a t their head, commissioning to him the propagation of the religion in Kashmir. The episode 01 Madhyantika a nd his acti\'i ties in Kashmir do not however .lind any men t ion in the Ceylonese chronicles. '

ANURliDDHA'~ so~ ),f U ~I?"" (445-437 B.C.)

Ud:iyibhadda, after n reign of 16 years (46 1·445 H. C.), was succeeded by his son Anuruddha, wbuse pe riod of reign as well :'IS that of his son M u!)4a was very ::ohun, bei ng only 8 )'ea rs in :'1 11 , 445-437 \l.C. !n t he Div)·Q.'uc/ulla' king MUlJQ.a is described <"IS the son of Udiiyibhadda, and 110 mention is made of Anuru­ddha. In the Ariglillara Nikiiyu, ' king MUI.l~a is mentioned as :'Ipproach ing· bhikkhu I'arada orl lhc death of his queen Bhadda. He lis tened 10 n diicourse or bhikkhu Narada dehvered at Pfqali pu tta on the impermunello..:e of worldly beings :tnd objec ts. In the Jaina lradition preserved in the PariSi,r{apafl'GlI (eh. vi), it is Slated thai u prince ill lhe guise o f a Jaina novice kI lled Udii.yin. Pro f. ChattopaJhyaya surmises that thi s novice might be king MuQQa".'

SACAD,\.MI'''' (437-413 D.C.)

King MUI)Qa was ~uceeeded by his son Nagrui iisaka, who fuled for 24 years, With Nagadaseka ended the rule of the line of kings that commenced with Bimbisara .• In t ho Ceylonese

1. D;"I"I;I"II&)"" , p 369. 2. A;'/fulfafil, Hr, PP. 57f. 3. K. Chattopadhyaya, up. dl. 4. T~c Di~)'r;I"u<I.ilu (p. 369) says thai M J("I~a'. ~OI1 ",as K:lka\·;uQi. In

rh<) Ahk';"",killil nnd Dlv),rJ l'a(/lina, Ihe line of king, is wv~n as fo llows :_ Bimbi ,;i ra·Ajlt:lil tru ·Udriyi bh"L, .. ·M Wilda. Kakav;1 ml-Sahlli ' T u!akucl­

,\tlh.iLnarrja]a. rr:t ,en 'IJ if· N:l!ldn. IJ i ndus!l r3 ~ Su s; ona.A!oka.

1 BUDDH.IST SEen IN INDIf,

chronicles. all the successor;; of Bimbisara a rc described as p;lIri­cidal (plIlI/:hlifaJ..aralllso) ; how far this statement is reliable n:­maim to be e .... am!l1ed, but it seems that the Hudcthists were nul in much favour of til esc kings, and evide:ltly. as the Mlllk. sa y, Buddhi~m \ .... 15 on the wane all along this period of about h;llf

a century. tvladhyillitika"s departure to Kashnm :Iud hi" :Htcmpl to prop3gale Buddhi sm iar away from Magadha is also an ill­direct hint at the unpopularity of the religion in the prov i ~wc uf

its origin.

SISIJN AGA DYI'ASTY

The throne of Nag:uJisaka was usurped by his mill i~ter, SiSti. naga, \ .. ho according to till;: tradllion preserved in the Urw/'c­l'ihiira-al1hakuth?i, was tIlt: ~Oll of a Licchuvi prince of Va is:ili by a courtezan . ' As he \\as <luupteu b) a minister, he came to be known as a minister'S son . According to u b le tradition prescn'­cd in the Mii!a!Qlikttra-l'u((lw , Sisunagu hnd his residenct' Et Vaisali , to which place he later transferred his capital from Rajagaha, He ruled for 18 ycar~ (41 3-395 n.o.) and is said to have humbled th~ Pradyuta dynasty of Avunti.~ As fur as the testimonY of the Buddhi~t teltU is cOl1ccrned. no incident o f note eve~ occurred in th~ history of Buddhi sm during his

reign. Si~unaga ·.vas wcceeded by his son K:1IMoLI (395·367 B.C.)

of the Ceylo nese ch ronicles or K:\kavaroin uf Ihe Purii(las. Many schola rs a re of the opinion that the tWO IUUles arc of the sa me person. T he Alokiil"adullo places K:"t k,1\'ar!)in Jflcr Mund<l and makes no mention of K"la~oka wltik the M ailJuiri­miil~i:a!pl1 speaks of ViSoka as the successor or Si;unaga. Ta ra­nat~,a has confused the Emperor A~oka with Kala~oka and made Visoka a son of the fo rmer. In the KatMvorrhll-U! !lulkatl;ii (p . 2) Kii!:isoka is called simply A~ok:l. The oUlsl,muing cvcn t that took place in the hi story of Buddhism duril1@, his reign is the session of the Second Buddhist Council (.n't' i"p-u).

1. V(ll1l3"fI"appakii~;"t I. p. 1 i ~. :2 Raych.1uclhur)'. PoliliCJ! H inol>' of Ancitlll India (henceFOlth

abbreviat eC as I 'HAl) (1932). p. 147.

POLITICAL llACKOROUNO 5

According to the Mohtlbodhit·QI/l.Jo, KarUoka was succeeded by his len sons: Bhadrasena, Korn l)~avaf{la . Mangu ra , Sabhai'ljaha, Jala ka, Ubhaka, SaMjaya, Koravya, Nandivardhalla, and Panca­maka, \~ho ruled simultaneously fo r 22 ycars (367-34.5 D.C.) but in Ihe PurdfJos only o ne is mentioned, riz., Nandi-vardhana. This tradilion, however, is not corroborated by o ther Buddhis t sour­ces, according to whkh, KalMoka or Vi~oka \\-as succeeded by his son .sOrasena, who re igned for 17 years. l

5urascna supported the bhik~us of the fOllr quarters for th ree years and olfered a hundred ki nds of reqUisites to all rai/yo; existing o n the face of the ear!:1.! n.ramitha m ake; Arhat Saoavasika and Arhat Vasa contemporarics of Siirasena and refr rs 10 the appeamnce of Mahadeva and his five propositions during his reign.

Si"l rJ sena was succeeded by Nanda, who, according to Tara. niilha.~ was Surasena's son. The Afmk .4 says that king Nanda was ve~y pow.erful, maintained a la rge army and made Pu ~pa. p um h IS capitaL H e, it is snid, acquired wealth through magical means. On the basis of t!"le fo llowing stanza in the /IIm,< .:

~l!~'?H'J1ll&lw:i) ~('I"r ... r;- ~(f I m~~1~~1ftf:11

hyas\\ia1 5 remark s that Nanda was at first a minister of the prcvious king and that he bf!longed to a low family but was the leading man of the community. l1lrough unexpected acquisition of wc:! lth he became the king of the country. He enterta ined the

] AI~o C31Jed Uij rascna in the Mu"'shoJllI·-,-a"..sn. cr. Mmk , p . 61 1. dt=aICJ.1'1o:a~ -u;;rr miR: Sf~ I

2. ~hlefner, T;mJdtlr,,·s Gesclu"cllII' des B"ddhisnflU, p. 50.51. The restoratIon from T ibetan may wdl be $Orasena instead of Yinscna Cf M-,' p.611. . •. " .

roN ~;n m~: 'f>TU ~ mrr I

~ «'i$i'Il ~ ~r <fW1:TU II 3. Schiefner. op. cit .. P. 52. King Nand~ came of t!"le Lio:havi Irihc. 4. Mmk.,pp.611.12. !i. ImjNrial HiS/IJry of Indi<J, p. I.t

6 BUDDHIST SE CTS JI' I;:';DIA

hhjk ~us in KMi for many years,l King Nanda was su rro unded hy BrahmaQft ministers, on whom also he bestowed wealth. At the instance of his spi ritu al teacher (KalyiiQamitra), I,e offered several gifts 10 the cailyos built on Buddha's relics,' King Nanda ruled Jor 20 years and died as a true Buddh ist at the age of sixty_six.3

During the reign of king Nanda. Bhik~u Naga spoke hifh ly of the five propositions of Mahiideva, which led to the appear­ance of fDur sect5.f. In this connection, reference rna} be mad~ to the statement of Taranalha to the effect Ihat during the reign of Asoka (i.e. KaiflSo ka) there app~arcd a Brahm31).a Vatsa in K ashm ir. "'ho was learned but very wicked . He took pleasure in preaching tbe Almaka t heory, travelled all over the count ry a nd made the simple people accept his teaching and caused a di~sens ioD in the Sangha.& It is a well-known fa:;! that th: Vato;ipulri)'as' were one of the four sects, and probably this school came into existence at an earlier date bot was reccgnized ao; a ~eparate school at the time of king Na nda.

Tnranatha as well as Bu-ston speak of the successor of N~nrla as his son Mah apadma. who, they state, was devoted to RHrldhi~m and furnis~.ed the monkt,t Kusumap un with all the necessaries of life.? They further Sla le that Vararuci and P ii l) ini, who were hIS father's ministers. continued to be hiS

mini~ters, but Vararuci was hated and ultimately killed by him, Ai fl n atonement for th: sin of killing a Brahmaoa, 24 mOn:lS­teri~\ were erected by him. During his reign, T Aranalha states, Sthiulmati. a disciple of Naga,8 co used further divisions in the Sanehfl hy propagating his teacher·s propositions.

Rllichaudhury and other scholars place king ~anda afte, the reign 0 ·- the sens of K ahHoka. Jayaswal, on the basis of the

1. Schicffltr, op. ci/., p. H. 2. Mmlc,pp. 6 11.1 2. 3. Mmk .. p. 612. 4. Schi:fner, fJP. cil . S. Ibid. 6. 1 he pr,)pcunden of the Al.ln,, !o.a lho::ory rna ntaine(j that a soul paSSlli

frum UlI: exi ' lcnc:e to Anoth~ r. Thi, theory "a. rtjcct~ by Ruddha . 7. Schicfn~r, op. ci/ , D .. ~5 .

R See above. p. S.

POLITICAL DAC KGROU ND 7

Umk., places Suras:na a fter KalHoka. It may be that Siirasenn was allot her name of Dhadrasena, the first son of Kdliisoka. in lht: history of Duddhi~m we know t hut. after the session of the S~LOnd Council during the reign of Kli liisokD., dissensions urose :H the Buddhist Saiigha. ~ohudcvo's five propositions we re n::gil rded by Vasumitra and Bhuvya il.$ the main cause of the dis~ellsions. Mabad,::va was followed by Niiga, who, in his turn, lVas followed by Sthiramati in the propag.ation of Ihe five propo­sitions . In view of this succcssion of teachers. it is quite probable tlwt KliliiSok:\ was suec..~dcd by ~iiros~na, and Su r:lsena by N.mdil. Bu-stont writes that troubles arose in th,: Buddhist Sangha 137 years after Buddha's parinibba'fla. T his dute coin· eides wi th t he reign of Nandll and therefore his information a~ also cf TiiraniHha th"t Surascna inte rvened between Kul tHokll. and Nanda, apfXars to be a uthentic. It is quite likely t hot the Tibetan historians mistook the name Mahaplldma Nanda (or the names of two p.::rsonages. Nanda and Mahapadma, and m!lde the laHer a son of the former. It may be that king ?'-Ianda took the appellation Mahapadma sometime aft~r the commencement of his reign.

The Mlllt. and the Tibetan historians fur nish us wi th interest­ing informat ion regarding the time and activities of the famous grammaria ns Pal)Lni and Vararuei. Regarding Piil)ini, the texts mention that he was born at Dhirukavana in th: west (probably ~lor~b -west) and that th ough he was a Driihma l;la, he was strongly Inclmed to the Budd hist faith , and that he attained proficiency in grammar (SabJa.iCist,·a) t hrougil the graee of Avalokite!vara. He composed the well-k nown ra{li/U·-vF'ikm·a~l a and ultimately attai ocd SrJI"akabodhi. The date of Pal)ini is placed by Weber, Maxmtiller, Keith. and several other scholars between 350 end 300 B.~, and this is pr«isety t he period during which king NatlUa I ~i glled, hence the contemporan::ity of Nanda and 1'a I;Imi, as SIHlt:d by Buddhist writers, seems to be correct.

Regarding Vara ruci , our informat ion is thllt he wa5 an erudi te scholar a nd started writing explanatorv k'is!raJ on Bud dha's word~. Prof. Belval kar ' ha s coli«ted ~mple eVIdence to show

J. Bu_s!on. II , p. 76. Z. S." H"I'IS 3[ ~1II!kril OmlIlIllGr, rl'. I], 27. 8!1

• B UDDHIST ~p_r.n IN INDIA

that Vararoci W2.S another name of Klityayana o f the Aind ra School of grammarians, which school, Taraniitha says, was believed to be earlier than the Pa~inian school. To this school also belongs Kaccayana's PEHi grammar. Vararuci's interest in writing exegetical literature is also referred to by Belvalkar,l In view of all these references, it may be stated that Vararuci was a lso 2. contemporary of king Nanda and pal).ini and that he, like his famous names3ke MahiJcaccayana, specialised in writing commentaries on Buddha's enigmatic expressions. from the above accoum. it may be conduded that dissensions tn Ihe Buddhist Sangha commenced in the reign of Kiilasoka and multiplied during the reigns of Su rasena and Mahlipaclma Nanea.

Principal Centres of Buddhism

The uames of monks and the geographical information furnish­ed bv l lie accounts of tile Second Council throw some light on the ~l(lent of tbe area which came under the inllucnce of the Buddhist Cbunk The leading monks of the time were (;ount~ as eigbt, viz., Sabbakami, Salha, Revala, Khuiiasobhito., Vasa, Sambbiita Si l,lavli.5i, Yasabhagamika and SU!llQna .~

T he fi rst six were d isciples of An:mda, while the remaini ng two of Auuruddha. Ananda died during the later part of the reign of Ajiita!attu, and so his disciples at the time of the Second Council were well advanced in age. Sabbaknmi W;lS then the Sanghatthera but Revata was the recognized lender. In the Sauskrit tradition, Sambhuta SRQavasi is given prominence as he, according to this tradition,. wat selected by ADDnda a s the monk to take cbarge of tbe religion after l1im. In the Chinese traditions, be is shown as laking the leading part in the delibe­rat ions of the Council. The VaiSti.lians were monks of the eastern countries (piicinaki), so nlso were Sabbak:i.mi, S:i.l ha of

I. J/J/d., p. 84 , 2. Bu-stOD (II, p. 93) giv" a slightly

Dh~nika. Kuhjita. Aji ta, SambMta, Revata. different li~ t: YBiR~, SA4ha.

POLITICAL BACKGROUSD 9

S:ihajiiti, ' Khujjasobhila and VasablLagamih.~ In Du-slon's ac.:ounl, Sabbakiimi is said to have been n:sitling at Vaisa1i. Hiuen Tsang states that Khujjasobhita bdungetl to Pa!lliiputra ~hi[e Salha hailed from Vai5ftli. It will be ubsuveli that Salha of Sahajiiti or Vais5.li was at fi f~ t in an iudtxisive mood. King KaliiSoka, also like SiilIm, was al first ill favour of the Vaisii.­li l!lS, but later on, at the: illh:rveu tiull uf his sister Bhikkhunl Nanda, he bci:ame inclined tuwanJs the Wcsleru:rs. In the early history of Duddhislll, Vaisa li h ucsnibt:d as a town seething with non-Dudd histic thinker:) aud as a r.:enlre of the followers of Nigut:l!ha N.i!apuila. HeliCe it il; 4uite in keeping with the traditions of the coulllt'y tha t nun-orthodox Buddhists should fin d a footing there.

Vasa, the most acti ve figure in the account and the one who sHlrted the commutiull, hailed, according to Hiuen Tsang, from Kosala. He left Vilisa[j for Kosa mbl, where he organised a pllfty with siAty monks of Pi!v;} (P"Jveyyak<\)8 and eighty moni<s of :\vant i, all uf Lhe Western countries.' He proceeded with them first tu Sambhiita S<\l)av:\S1 of Mathur~ and met him a[ Ahogatiga. 6 Accompanied by him they went to meet Revata, nnothe- r Wt:!>terner, belonging to Ks na uj and met him a i Soreyya. The fourth Western monk was Sumana, Thus we see that there

l. SOl)aka, al.",unJin!l 10 Bu-stOIl II p. 93. SahajA.[j is identifted with Bhita, 9 miles, S.S.W. ft<1m A\luh~·b:ld . Sir John Marsh~ 1I Iden[i fies S~haJ:I.[i with Bhila on the basis of [he ins:rip[ion; '1.Hiiadhi Sahajll ti ye nlglilma'. '. So;:~ N. N. Ghmh, Earl)' His. of I\.'au$ambf. p. 89.

2. 1I1.1-S1on (p. 93) &iycs the following gcographH;al informllIlon ;_ ( i) Sarvak>'il'1in of Vaii;\U

( ii) Yajas or Dhlnita (i ji) Stl4ha or Sol;laka (iv) Dilanika ofSil)'lkl1SY3 (in ~Iaiadha, SQC: Przyluski, Le COl/elk de

Rifj agal",. P 286) (v) Kubjna of P;\!alipuITa (vi) Ajila ofSrulI:hna

(vii) SambhOll of M;\hhm~tl (,i ii) Revala ofSaha.IAti

J. P'.1lheyyaka is another reading, 4. V""/)<llIh"pp"t.U$/II( p. 166; Pu..: .. himika yC"J Plveyya kA.. ~ Ahog.1.naa is a I:lountllin near Ihi' wurce~ of the G nnliles, Moagllli­

puna Ti~sa resided there just before [he Third Coulle.l, !ICe B.C. Law, Gtog. oJ t.;o,-Iy Buddhism, p. 40.

10 BUDDHI ST SECTS IN l:-OOIA

was a clear geographical division among the monks. T he opposition 10 the Vaisalian practices was started by Yasa or Kosala, and 5\Wported by Rcvuta of Soreyya (Kanauj), Sambhiha 5a.lJaVaSi of M:nhur<l, and Sumana, whose native place i ~ not memioned anywhere. This testifiei 10 the fact that the m..,nks of the western countries., viz. Kau~mbI.\ Avant!, Malhura were morc orthodox in their observance of the Yinaya rules as adopt­ed by the Theravadins. In the del iberatiuns of the Coullcil, Sabbak:1ml, though the Sar'lghauhem, was not gilll:lI the: lead, and this also pro\'cs the lack of his" whok-hcartetl support to the agitation started by Vasa. Sa!ha's allilUUt, as lIu:utioned above, was at firs t indecisive and similar probably was also the view of KhujjaiObhita of PAlalipulra.

Prof. PrZyluski also has noted the geugraphil.:;d division of monks in his COllclle de RJ}agrha (pp. 308-09) amI r>:JlJarked that there were definitely three centres, viz .• Vaisali,f KlIu!ii.mbi and MarhurA. KauSdmbi and aU Soutn-western i,;uulIlrics became later on the sea l of the TheravM ins, while Malhurii. and t:le nonh-weitern countries of the Sarvastivadios. TIlt: Westernerscf this Co~ncil were therefore the group ormunks wllO came to be later on known as the SthavirAs and SarvaslivZtuins, "hile the Easterners, who had their seat at Vagali, wert: lh~ Mailasang­hikas and their offshoots. Whatever IIli~hl have b~en the differences between the Easterners and tht: Wo;stelners, it ;s apparent that Buddhism was pre\alent al tilt: lime all over the central belt of India from AvantI' to VaiSiili 'tl lli from Mathura to KausAmbf. The chief centre of Buddhi~lII , it seems ..... as shifted at that time from RAjagrha to Pil\aliputra, which also became the seat of the rulers. The Maha~ail81likas also made pa!alipulra their chief centre.·

I. KaJUmhi i~ identified with the ruins at Ko,am, 38 miles from Allahabad abo\'c the Yamlllli. Watters, 11 , p. 15.

In the San'dst ivida Vinaya account of tbe KauSimbi dispute, one parly is de~riberl as Valsilian and the other Kaultmbian.

2. Vaidll is identified willi Besarh 1[\ the MuzaffarpurdiSlri(:I of Dellar. J. Avant! in anelent times was dlvloed. inlo 11"0 parli. ('e northern parl

lIith lis caplint al UJcni is id.:nlifio;u wilh Malwa. 4. Set I II/ra .

C UA?TER If

SOURCES OF THE SECOND BUDDHIST COUNCIL

Pali : Cullavagga XII ; Mahavarp;;a [V, Dlpavarpm [V & V; Samantapasadikii, MaMbodhivamsa, S:lsanJvl!tp~a.

Sanskrit : Mal'!jusfl-mul(\-ka ~ pa, p. ~971

Sinhalese: Nili:aya·satigraha Tibetan; Uul-va (XI. 323-330 ; MulasarvAstivad:t Villdya.

translated by W. W. RO-;·<ilill : Bu-ston's History ur Buddhism translated by E. Obermiller; Tammilha's History 01" Huddhlsm transhted into German by A. Sc hiefner.

Chinesz : (if Mahasaitghlka Vinaya found at Pl1.!3liputra by Fa-hien ~lld translated into Chinese by Buddhadattd ami Fa-hien in 416 A.D. it does not mentio n all the ten defections but only the most Important ones.

(i i) Mulasarv3.stlvada Vinaya (Ksudrakavastu) translated by I-tsing in 710 A.D. It mainly preserves tbe tradition .

(iii) Recitation in four parts: School of the Oharmaguprakas. translated into Chinese by Buddhayabs and T.:hou-ru· nien in the 5th century A.D.

(iv) Recitat ion of the Mahis.a~ab Vinaya translated by Buddhajiva, a K£shmirian DJonJc, in 424 A.D. Fa-hien came a~rcss a copy of the original Vinft)'ft in Sanskrit in Ceylon. It was problbly in Pali, al it closely followed the Cullavagga XII.

!. ~R'lTt 'if ~" rn ~ff ~ ~~ 1

~ru ~W"f l1Htr-rr,f-1! 1f'n:I'TRl: II

fs~~~ If) f~ w;r:rrr ~)~ 1

hr!ff<lT Y~lRIffir(:( ~f.1-w.f f[~ ~it I t

tllTf'«fT '{MUfl'ltN l1Trn9' '~f'" it :f!!{T 1

~1 ~lIiT t:rTif;' !fT~1JT f'1t~: 11

12 BUDDHIST SECTS it. INOlA

(v) Recitati on of Chc-song-liu (Vi nilya in ten secti ons Da5iidh­ytLya) of the Sarvj,tivada school, translated by PUI.lY <l triUa, Kumarajiva, and Vimalulqa.

It m:ty be mentioned that the Villaya tc.l:ts of Saryasti. vada and Mulasarv.i.stivada are very close to each odler as far as the account of t~e Second Council is concerned:

It is definite that Kcn-pcll-chou-yi- l:.ic;-ycou is older than Ih~ Da~aJhyaya Villaya. The latlt:r J'I;:VI;:als a )cctariall :.piLi l. il llt:.\Uy dcvclupt:d, alld the :opi! it of the t";(pail:.iull o f Buut.lll i:'111 wh;:n it .... (1.) far iH.lvanct:tl in prupagation.

(vi) The m:count of llie Vinaya-matrklj·su tnl (fa~:.hu t:u. 1463 k. 4, p. 819). This wurk appertains to the Haimavuta sect and is preserved ouly in Chi nese transla tion of about the end of the fourth and begin ning of the fift h Century ,\.0.

(vii) Vasum i1r:l, Bhavya and Vinftadeva, translated by J. Masuda in .'\sia Majo r, " 01. Ii. Vasu mitra's treatise has one TIbetan and three Chinese translati ons of Kum<1.rajiva (40:!··H2), Para manha (557-.%9) and Hiuen Tsang (662). Koue-ki, a disciple of Hiuen Tsang, wrote a commentary on Para martha's {remise. ParamArthl was the most learned Indian Imssiona ry, who went to China to propa­gate the religion. He was as intell igent as Kumaraj iva.

Ki- tsang, a monk of Part hian origin, being the son of a Parth ian merchant settled in China and th e Chinese mother of Nan-kin's. He traced .he o;igiu of seen from the beginning to Ihe end. He wone it commentary on aran~artha' s treause on Ya$u mitra.

,\/odt:rn 'Yorks 0 11 Ihe S('cond Coullcil .-

W. Wassil ief, Der BuddhiSlIlllS (1 860) ; T . W. Rhys D J.vids and H . Oldenberg, Vinoya Piraka (S. B. E .) ( 1881); H. Kern, Manual of BII(k/hism (1884, 189 1); I. P. M inayeff, Buddizmu (1884); H. Oldenberg, Buddhistische S/lidien il/ Z .D .. \J.G., LIl (1898); S. Beal , Vil/ara of the: Dharmaguplakas; Louis de la Vallee Poussin (1905) in E.R .E .. IV, 179-84, arid in Le Museon, vi, 30-37 ; Francke, J .P.T.5. (1908). W. Geiger, Introduction to Muhii ralJlsa; R. C. Majumdar in B. C. Law Buddhistic Studies

i ECOND BUDD HiST COUNCIL 13

Volume; Paul Dcmi6'illc, The Origin of Bllddnisl SectJ' ill Mdallges chinois bauddhiqllcs vvL I; M. Hofingcr, tlude sur Ie Guneile dt: VaW,!j in Le ... fl. S(:OII , vol. XX ( 1946) ; A Bareau, LeJ' sectes bOllddiliqlles du Petit Vclriculc (1955).

TRADITIO NAL ACCOUNT 01' 1'H ;<: n:COND

BUODIII.5T COU:-;CIL

In the account of the Vinaya texts. (he deviations in the dis~ ciplinary rules have been d iiCussed, but apart from these devia tions_ there were a few doctrinal disputes, which ere as follow~ :-

The d issidents challenged the Sthaviravadins· claims that Arhat~ were perfectly pure in physical and mental aclivil ics as well a~ in the knowledge of the highest Truth, i.e. they were fully emll nci pnteo_ They asserted that the Arhats had four imper~ fection~ with an add itional item abou t the realiza tion of the T ruth by lin ex clamation "Aho". These <i re known as the five points of Mah~ideva . Hence, Ihe reasons for h oldillg the session of the Secon(l COllncil were two, d isciplinary and doctrinal Bo th of them are beine ta ken up for con~ideration in Ihis chapler. 'The account of CU"(1\,ogg(1 rlln ~ rt~ follows :_

Some of the VRiJ ian monh ofVaisii \i Illlo\\·eda" lawful certain rules, which were not in conformi ty wi th lhe rules of the Piitimokkho_s'l/to Vasa of Ko~ambi , while ;1\ \' fl i ~fi l i, happened to notice the devi:lli0~ns and strongly prOle-sled "'eainsl Ihem. At this attitude of Vasa, the Yajji:m monk> exclud ed him from the Sangha by ukkJrepa"I)'Q-kamma (at"t of excommunication). Vasa then m:.ade an appeal 10 the laity, but il was of no rlva il and he had to flee from the coun lry to hi s native place. From there he attempted to form a group of monh, who mpporlc<t his "iews. Hesentmessengers lOlhc monh of P:i!heyya and Avanli. and he himself went to Ahoga nga, Ihe residenct!' of Samhhiita SaQav3.si. There he was joi ned by si xty theras o f Pil!hcyyJ. and eighty thera,> of Avanti, and gradually by severa l other". T hey .n il decided to meet Sthavira Revala of Soreyya, who wa" Ihen the chief of the S[uigha. Before they could reach Soreyya. Revata became aware of Vasa 's mi ssion ann .~ urted for Vaisali Rnd the meeting of Rev:lla wil h o lher monh took place at

14 BUDDHIST SECTS 1:-1 JNtllA

Sahajati. The Vais:i.li:m monk>, in order to fore,tall Ya,a's plans. approached Revuta at Sal1njati with robes ard (\th~r gif'" but failed to win him over to their side. Sii)h~ OT Srthajat i was at fi rst wavering between the two rar'ie~, hilt ultimately he sieed with YHa. The Vajjian monks, h('ing Ilnsuccessful in this attempt C'f theirs, approached kine KiiJasoka at Pupphapura, and permaded him to bdieve that the monk" of the western countries were making a sini,leT move t" get possession of the Teacher's Gandhakiit; in the M;lh:lvanavihara at Vaisali. The king at first took up their came. hilI bter on changed his mind, it is said, <'.1 the interv~ntion of hi~ "ister who was a hhikkhuni. The !;ession of the- COlm,·i1 WIiS held M Vai~~di with 700 mem­bers, but as there W.1S gre~t uproar riuring the deliberations it was decide:! to refer the matter to a hody of referees cllnsisting of eight members, fou~ from the we~lern and four fmm the east· ern countries. This was d<:'ne hy uhhfihikfi (voting) as described in the Piitimokkha. The findings of the referee~, which were an against the Vaisaltan monks, wert'; f'J1:lced heJore the larger body constituting the Council and were confirmed.

The Ceylonese chronicles cootinue the story and write that the findings were 110t accrptcd by ali the Va.isalian monks, some of whom held another Council and included in it all monks, arhats and non-urhats, und decided matters according (i)

th:ir own light. This ussembly was called Mahusangha or Mahiismigiti.

Time and Sile of the Council

All ti".e traditions state that a Council wa, held ahout a cen­tury (110 or 137 years) ~. ftef Buddh:l'"de~lIh to Sllppre<;s certain un-Vinayie acts practised by a group of monh of Vaisali. The Council was held at Vaisali, but the tr:lditions differ about the name of the monastery Wh("T(", th~ ,cene of the session was laic. In Pili the name of the monastery is given as Viilu",fi!iin:a, and this is corroborated by the M:lha<;~nghika Vinaya.1 According to Bu-ston, the name flf the mcmastery W2.S KU!iulnapura,2 but

1. Wallers, 0p. Ci t. , II, p. 73. 2. Bu-slon, II, p. 96.

SECOND BUDDHIST COUr,'CIL 15

it is not corroborated by any other tt"xt. Bu-ston probably confLL<;ed the capital of the province wit h that of the se310fthe Council, or it may be that the Mahasai1ghikas, after their defeat in the Vaisalbn Council, held another Council at Palaliputra.

No President

A remarkable feature of the Council is that it did !lot ekct any President. Dy the ubbahika process a body of referees eOIl­

sisting of eight monks was formed to go into the questions of dispute, and eae;, tradition gave prominence to its favoured monk. Thus, we set:: that though SabbakamI is t:ecogllized as the Sanghatthera, the Piili tradition accords [ 0 Revuta, a Wes­terner, the leaden hip of the Council,' !lU-stOIl gives prominence to Sabbakami and Khujjasobhit<l (Kubjih.). In view of these differcnces regarding the leading monk, we have to conclude that there was no elected President and t he business was carried on by a Committee, with fOUf monks of the western countries ond four monks of the eastern regiOn>. IIenee, Venef.lbles .sabbakami, Sii!ha, Khujjasobhita and VA5abhagii:nika were Easterners, while Venerable, Revata, Sambhuta SaQaviisi, Yasa and Sumano Westerners.

The tell ur/.Vinayic acts

All the earl ier sources agree in stating that the main busines> of the Cnllocii w~'> to examine the validity of the ten un-Vinayie acts performed by :1 section of the Vaisalian monks, but there exists a wi,ie divergence of opinion in their interpretation>, but it is cifficult tr) liecirle which of tho~e acccssibl~ to us should be ,accepted. Those that llppe:lr more pbusible He ulentioned here.

The ten un-Vinayic acts with their interpretntions. us found in the Pali texts, are as follow,;:

(i) Siligilo~lil kappa or th: praetic!;'! of ~'arrying ,;alt in a horn for use when needed, which contravened, aceorliing to lhl:

l. The Dharmaguptakas, Mahi;asakas, SanastivAdim follow the Pali {ra<Jition.

Ib BUDDHIST SECTS fro.: I ~DIA-

Thc:ravada view. the rule against storing of articles o f food (el Piicitti)'o 38),

(N) DI'wigtdo kappa or the practice of L.1.king food after midday, lit. when the shadow (on the stm-dial) is two digits wide (c[. Plic. 37).

(iii) Glimantaro kappa or the practice of going to a neighbour­ing village and taking a second meal there the same day, com­mitting thereby the offence of over-eating (rJ. pac. 35).

(il) Ariisa kappa or the practice of observance of IIpuSUlh{Jl'

in different places within the same parish (.rill/Ii) (prohibitcll in the Mahiil'agga. 11 . 8. J).

(\.) AliI/mali J..appa o r the practice of Jk"rfunnillg a ll ecdesia5-tic.al ftc , and obtaining its sanction aftt:fw;mh (!.:onlrast "fah~-1'088°, IX , J. 5).

(vi) AdWIa hwpa or tho;: pr<l!.:li-:t: of using precedents as authority.

(~'ii) Amulirilu kuPfJ'J or Ih o;: prm:lk";: of drinkin$ milk-whey afll:r ureal (aga i l\~1 P,k. 35).

( I'iii) JU!Ugil!1 p,ifllm or tho;: practice of drinking pllm-juice, whidl i~ fl:nIR:llliug Lilli is nUl yet toddy (against pac. SI ).1

(i:c) Allusuka", lIiJ{,[unufl' or the praclice of using a border1ess shed to ~il 011 (wntrary 10 Pllc. 89i.

(x) J,itarijpurujatUlll or the practice of accepting gold a nd silver (prohibi ted in Ni.\"sugg. 18).'

BlI- ~t()n , 011 the basis of the tradition preserved in the MUla­Sarvib tivada Vinaya, enumera tes the undermentioned ten acts. Pruf. L. de la Vallee Poussin translated the same from the Dull-a.

l. cr. Mii.fasam'h:i~·,iiiJ ViIlOl)'Q (Gilgi t mq, Ci)urQI"QSIIi p. 142.

-:ro ~t:(!4"'11 !ffcw:q "!,.=r1 r"Q"fflii~ t ~ qf~ qf<>fl'k'l&ll{ I

"'" ""!'"ii,,; ~ .mOl"",,! I '" f","" "'«!ro!~.rnr-1Ol11l1lHl: ~;fq- t

2. For a discmsiol on tile i rllefl"lr~!a l ion< of lhe lerm~. S~ Minayeff, Rrchc.-chts etc., I. pp. 44-50.

The fil'St Ihree ruJesaJl! relautiolls mlde by Buddha of the more stringent ruks, reg:udlng thll storal!l' of food and e,:uing 10 suit Ibll conditions cr"lI(d by famine in V .. s.ali. The pcoplc of Ves.,\1i continued to ob;crve the re:m:ed rules though they were atrO.l!.l ted later by the T heraviidins in their Vina)'o.

The order (If enume.aliull hi.!) b~~n ch~ngcd for the conven enee of comparison with the P::t.li list .

SECO;.lD BUDDHIST COUNCI L 17

Both the translations of Obermiller and L. de la Vallee Poussin are reproduced here:-

(i) Using the sacred salt: (Obermiller) Mixing the salt that is to be kept for life-time with that which is used in general makes it thus an object of use.'

(L. V. P.) Mixing salt consecrated for life-time with food appropriate to the moment.' _ . '

The Dharmaguptas llnd the MahiSasakas offer qUite a diffe­ren t interpretation. According to them. the word sil1gi is Srliga (I-era) ... ginger and !o/Ja = salt. Their interpretation is to "mix t1:e food With salt and ginger.'"

(ii) Taking food ',.,.ith ' .... ·0 fingers: (Oberm iller) The food that has been left (from a previous meal) they eat, taking it with two finge rs.

(L. V. P.) Eating food of botl, kinds, not being a remainder, with two fingers.'

(iii) Eating on the way: (Obermiller) The monks, having gone a yojana or a half, assemble and eat on the pretext that they are travelling.

(L V. P.) Having gone a yojana or ahalf-yojena, and having eaten food in troop, rendered the meal in troop legal by reason of the journey,

(il') Admissio.'I of a mixture: (Obermiller) The monks mix a drol)i1 measure of milk with as much sour milk and drink it at undue time.

( t. V. P.) After agitating a full meesure (&o(la) of milk with a full measure of curd, and then eating the preparation out of time.~

I . Cf.Gilg:l Ms. Vol. III, I't. i , p.~iii: qfuym~~~"f"Iivt ~mqfu~ t c/. M ,. vi. J. 1-

2. !t:dian A"tiuWlry. 1903, pp. ' 1,1()4. 3 Ibid.p.9 t _ 4. Dtlannaguptas: "deroAation from sobr iety as if, fOf c.umple, a !!Ionk

afler In ample repast . forgetting the rule of gocd conduct, bc&3n to takc food .... ith tym fingen and to Ctll the food remaining."

The Mahl<lIsakas, .a~· . "'0 eM 11 seconrl !;1ne afler having ri'<"ln before taking a sufficie[lt meal."

5. The Dharmlgupta; and MahiSlilakas say: "\0 drink, beyond the time allowed, Il. mixtu..., of ere:lm, bUller, hOl,ey and sugar."

IS BUDDHIST SECTS Il'>: ll'\DIA

(,) Taking illIoxicQtilrg drink: (Obermiller) The monks take wine in the manner of n leech that sucks blood and having drunk, excuse it o n th;; ground of illness.

(L V. P.) Drinking fermented liquor with a suckin g action like leeches. rendering it legal by reason of illness.'

(vi) Making a new rug: (Obermiller) T 3.king a new tug without stitching it by a patch of the so-called Sug3ta span taken from thc old one.

(L. V. P .) Not having patched their"new mats with a border, a Sugata'scubi t hrond, from the old mat.!

(vii) &8gill: gold and silver.' (Obermiller) The monks nnain! an a lms-bowl with fragrant spices, put it on the head of a Sru­mnQa, on a table O f n seat, or in a narrow passage at the four cross-roads, and proclaim: "This is a sublime vessel, ii you deposit your gifts in it and fill it, you are to reap great merit."

(L. V. P.) Ta king alms-bowls such as were round, pure and suitable for ritual, anointing them with perfumes, fumigating them with inccnsc, adorning them with vurious fregrant fl owe rs, placed on the head of a monk over a cushion went about the highway~, streets and cross-roads, crying as follows: "Here, ye "pcopk, who have come from variou5 towns and countries. end ye wise people of VaiSiili ! th is piltra -is a lucky one, to give in it is to give much, or whoever shall fill it will obtain a great fruit, a grea t advantage, a great activity, a great development,"

[As far as the seven un-Vina;.'ic acts, mentioned above,nre con­cerned, alt the Vinaya teXIS, including those of the MahHiisabs nnd the Dharmaguptas agree, though the) have differed in inter­pretations, which hcve all been pointed out.p

(viii) Digging groU1I<J: (Obermiller) It is C'on~idered admis­sible for monks to livc by agriculture. (L V. P .) T hey may live by turning up the soil with their own hands.

On this un-Vinaytc act, the comment of the Sarvastivlidins stands alone, nnd this seems to be due to careless Sanskritization

I. Ac,or<linl! to the MElhiilsak"" it is a quo'tion of intoxicating liqllor, which had become fermented.

2. Accordin\! to the Mahi i,Hakas, 10 make for oneself a mat of undcter· min~d dimen$ionl; Ihere is no question of frinl-'.

3 Aecordinlj: to the DharmagLtptas, thc VajjipJUzkas think: f1eir con· duct mlly be justified b} declarin~ that "this has been done from time ,immcmorinl. "

lffiCO !'>·D BUDDHIST COUNCI L 1q

of aci'.J(la by achinna, unconsctously changtng the root car to c!1l·d. Hence tbe lflterpret3.tion o/lered by the SarvaSlivadi ns should be lelt out of account.

(ix) ApprOl'illg: (Obermiller) The dissidents p: rform re1igiom function:;, and at the same lim: flersuade the monk~ in auend_ ance to approve the samdL. V. P,). The Venerahle Ones (~h~nl monks) having approved, do ye count it as approved, callc;erl The resolutions of the incomplete Saligha to he approved hy the monh of the parish.1

Bu-ston or Obermiller was misl=d by the Tibetan rendering of Ihe Sanskrit word of/umodana, WhIC;', Iho ugh derived from the root mud, does not carry the mean ing of ' rejoice'. AnUn/o­dana in pal; means 'acquiescence to a n act done by the Sangha lfl one's absence'. This is also an Instance of the anomaly of converting a Prakeit word into Sanskrit. It is not known what the original Prakrit word was, but evidently the Palists made it al/ulnari. In any case, the interpretations offered by the dillennt Vi naya {exts are similar, i,e .. getting an ecclesiastical act perform­I!d in an incomplete :lssembly and approved later by the a bsen­tce members.

The Mahisasaka~ a nd the S.1rviistiVlidins have both omitted iil'umkappa of the Pali list. It o;ecm~ that these schools induded all the irregularities commi ned by the Vajjian monks rela ting to the performance ... f eccle~as,ical IlC'~ in a regular or irregular assembly wlhin tlflllmodanii Imppfl, whi le the Ther,wiidins (Pilli) a:ld the nharmaelt ptas ·have split it lip into two: r,/lIImati and iii-usa. T 'le D hllfnmell f'J IllS, it will be nnted , interpreted (harD­kappa ~ l ighlly cti fTe rently_ They 'Ilate that "in the iiviisa, besides the regular lICf", the in'lova tQr<; ac::omr lished ot hers."

( X) t".r:c/amalion of astfJllisllmefll: (Ubermil ler) T he monks of Vaisall perform religio us observances and at the same time admit such exclamations as alto.

I. The Dharmll~U!Jlas support the Pili interpretation while Ihe Mahiii'lsakas .ay, "In the accomplishment of an ecelesialtieal a:t to call ()thers ()IlC by one afterwards to hear the s~me."

20 BUDDHIST SBCTS IN IXD L-\.

Perhaps in order to keep tle number of deviation~ at kn.

the MahiMlsak~! ;; and the Sarvtlst iva.dins borrowed um plIiJlt

from M3 hadeva's fi ve and made it the first or ltu:ir li ~l, viI:: " Exclamation of a{IO."

(L. V. P.) T he monks of Vai~a1r having renderel.1 Io.:gal th: exciam2tion alta performed an ecclesiastic;;!1 acL illegall )" in an incom plete or complete Sangha or legally in an incomplete Sangha.

The interpretation given in the Vinaya of the Sarvustivfidins is a laboured one and appears more or less a r~pclilion or the: pre­vious un-Yinayic act of the Vajjipuuakas.

T he exclamation of aflo bas been discussed in the: Kulll'haft"/{ (xi. 4) under the heading: ' l dmTl dllkkJ:an Ii' viJCUfTI bI"jsatQ 'ida!!, dukkhan ri' nc':(l il'!1 pOl'Oltatr fl.'

A comparison of the two lists ( Pall and Sanskrit) shows that both the trad itions have woriced on a common originallisl, which was probably in Prakril and dcfiOlte ly neither in Piili nor in Sanskrit. This is stated on the basis of the change noticed in the wO,rds: singilo/Ja, iici~!1Q and allwnali. T ile anomaly of iiriisd C3nnot beexplained. A s regards the remaining six items, the interpretations of both the schools are acceptable.

In connection with the ten deviations in the discipl inary rules, it is necessary to recount the tradition preserved in the Maha­smighika Vinaya,2 translated by:vl, Hofingcr from Chinese into FrellCh. It runs as follows :-

The Pitakas of Buddha's teachings were rehearsed by 700 monks, at Valuka Smigharama in VaiSali. The monks of VaiSili used to address the donors (diinapati) in these words: "Respe:ted brothers, at the time when Bhagavan Buddha was Jiving, we received two meals in a day, robes, service and adora­tion . After his parinin-ii!Ia, who will lake care of us, we have

I . Se.! lrifrll. 2. Mahiil'Os/u (cd of Sen.an. p 2) o~ns with Ihe ... ·ortls that il is I'IC

Ii!>t book of the Vmaya of the Lotottaravadins, a su~sect vf the Maha­&aitghik;u.

F2-hien (41 4 .... n.) p rocured a transcr ipt of the original Mahil\anghika Vina}a and t ran~lated it into Chmese two years later, Vide Takakusu, ReCQrds ojlltt: Buddhisl UC'{igiol! by 1-13/"$, p. ~~ .

SECO~D BUDDHIST COll~ClL 21

become orphans, and so we req 'Jest ~ou to give silver to the Satigh(\. As weare Buddhist fria rs, you should give to the Sangha one, tWO, up to ten Kiinii{l(ltlas."

On the day or Uposa:ha, donors put large sums into the oasin placed at the crassi ng of roads. T he monks collected tltt: con­{tilts, And ailer divIdi ng them according to the number of bltik­~lIs. distributed the same among the Danks present. In Ihi~ way came (he turn of the Vinayadhara Vasa, and he was oITt:n:d his s;':ue. VAsa enquired, " Wherefl'Or:l was this money cUl lting?" They replied, "We received money as wel! as medicim:s." Vasa retorted thaI it was wrong; it was not p~rmissi ble. TIII::Y rCl>lied "You are slandermg the Sangha by these words, Yuu should uerefcre be excommunicated by urklepallr),a kam:un (act of excom:nun ica tion) .••

After thIS was done, Yasa went to the Venerable D:tgaba!a, who was then r<:siding in Mathura and told him t!tal he had been excommunicated by utkjepani}'a·karmall. Da~aba[a said, ··Why :hd you submit to it? There was no reason for yvur sub­miSSIon, " ya.sa said. '·The Vil/aya P i!aka must ~ rt:hearscd, Huddhl'S law must not be allowed to oe destroyed." To the question where lhe Counci l sho uld be held, Y>J~a replied that It should be held at the place where the ueviations had occurred.

Then tIle Sailgha of 700 monks assembled rrom lhe regions of Mathura, Sill}l:<asya, Ka.nyakubja, Sravasli, Sakela and other place)) of Madhyadda, The Sangha was composed of those who received directly from the mouth of the Tt:a~hcr one or two sections of the VinaY!l Pi!Gka as aliO those whu heard it from

the mouth of his direct disciples, the Snivakas. There were also common men (PithagjIJ/los), sath,as/ tJsuik~I.J.l.' trail'idyQs' and $a(lbhaffias~ ba{aprJptas and l·a~tb!Jula.J - ill a ll iOO members . They assembled at valuka SatJ.gh<1nima in Vai sali. At this time

Lil under trainin •. ~ Lit . completd tnin.ng. i.e., who ha.e become orllO'5 3 lil. pO~siim: the three kinds of '<ncwledac vi! (a) Knowledge of

dlll)kha, 1l11i tya and am'itman. (b) Knowledge of former births, (c) Knowledge 0( the deslruction of one's own impulities.

4. Lit. :Sl~ highcr knowlcdgc, or power, Yi!., cliYyacak~u, cliyyalrulrii. jXlr<lcil1ajM.na, pril yctliw;b;itlu •. I1·lli, loJdhi, ",lIaparydy)-jr.!'Ina.

22 nUDDl-IIST S ECTS IN IND IA

MahakiiSyapa, Upali. Ananda. etc. were parinirvrla, and so Vasa became the pre;;ident of the Council. First, he put the question 10 th~ Assemblv that who would rehearse the Villa.ra Pilako? The bhiksus replied that Venerable Dasabala should rehearse it. Then Dahbala said, "Venerables, there are the Sthaviras, who may not like the session of the Council." The bh1k~us replied in the affirmative and said thut they were Stha­viras, who were designated " by Buddha as Upiidhyayas endowed with 14 dharmas and the foremost ofth05e as the Vinayadhara." The bhik~us said, "You have heard the Vinaya Pitaka from the mouth of B\lddha, you must therefore rehearse the Pitaka ." Dasabala said, "When YOll enjoin me to rehearse the Pilaka, you should approve what conformed to the Law, and if som~­thing is discordant. you musl interrupt me, We are anxious to show resp~ct to the Law, which conforms to artha (sense) and not to that '.'.'h ich does not conform to the arilla." All was then settled and approved.

Then Dasabala began to reflect where the assembly should be held. He came to the conclusion that it should be held with­in the limits (simii) of the place where the deviations had occurr­ed. He then pointed out that there were nine precepts, \l.hich must be observed. These were:-

(i) Four Parajikils of the ['ratimo,i;,<a-sulra.

(ii) Bhik~us are permitted to ask for a soup-basin, robes, medicines, if they needed them. but they must not ask for gold and silver.

Five propositions oj Mahiide!'a

Vasumitra, followed by Bhavya and Vinitadeva, writes that on account of the tive propositions propounded by Mahiideva, the Sangha became divided into two schools, Mahiismighika and Sthaviraviida. ·the five propositiom are:-

The Arhats

I. are subject to temptation (cr. Kl'u. 11. I: Al1hi arahato riigo tin

2. may have residue of ignorance (cf. Kw. It 2: Alfhi arahalo {)iiiiii~/Cn Ii n

~£GOND B UDDH IST COUNCIL 23

3. may have doubts regarding certain matters (eL KI'U. II. 3: At/hi araharo kahkhii ti?)

4. gelin knowledge through other's help (cL KlU. II. 4; At/hi arahato paral'iriiraoii Ii?)

5. The Path is attained b)' an exclamation (as " alia" cf. KI'u. II. 3&4&XL 4).

PHamarthagives an c..ccount of the Second Council which has been translated by Paul DemieviHe (Melange:.- chinios el boud­dhiqlle.l, I):

The Second Council was held at Pataliputra, ! 16 years after Mahiiparinirl'iil)a. during the reign of Asoka (perhaps Ka!asoka). The members were "II bhihus (i.e" not necessarily Arhats). The president of the Council was Bi~pa (lit. tears). In the Council the controversy provoked by Mahadeva led to the division of the Sangha into two schools. Sthavira and Mahasanghika. Mahadeva's heresy was twofold. On the one hand. he wanted to incorporate all the Mahaya na siitras into the Tripitaka, and on the other he attrihuted to the Arhats diver~e imperfections, such as douht, certain meM~ure of ignorance, etc. Paramiirtha did nOl condemn the Ja rter enti rely, as he ucognized the imper­fectiom of Arhats as parti~1!y trlle and part.ial!y false . He was inspired by the Mahayanic moml te~chings, which contained in essence more particuhuly the Viji'ianava rla view,. He was a fervent supporter of Vijiiiina,;iida.

It is said that Mahadeva f~bricated many siitm~ nnrlauthoriz­ed his disciples to compose treatises, as they thought fit, and they should also refute the objections raised bytbeir adversaries. so that the conservatives, i.e., the Sthaviras might be disposed to admit the a uthenticity of the Mahayiinic tradition . Paramartba seems to be neutral and sophistic on the point. He had re­course to the expedient of conciliating both the yal/QS and attributed to Buddha three kinds of interpretations. PlIrnmartha, in order, perhaps, to spare the good name of Emperor Asoka, said. according to the MnMl'ibhiifii, that Mah:3deva was support­ed hy the queen of Asoka, by whom the opponents of Mahi­deva were thrown into the Ganges. By their supernatural power they then flew to Kashmir.

It is said that after Mahideva's death, the two se~tions of the Sangha became united by holding a fresh Coun~il, purifying (he

24 nUDDHIST SECTS IS I:'DIA

scriptures and modifying those introduced by Mahadeva after examining them anew. ·Paramiirtha, however, writes that it produced veritahle schism, separating the two ~chools completely. In the Vihhiisii sllch rapprochement is not mentioned. After the Second Council, the dissidents moved to the north of Raj~erha.

It WflS pointed OUi at the beginning of this chapter that some of the Chinese translations of the original texts in Sanskrit mention that the cause of the schism of the Sangha was not merely the ten deviations in the disciplinary rules but also in the doctri"nal matters, relating to the cbims of the Sthaviraviidins that the Arhat;; were perfectly em~ndpllled, which were challeng­ed by the MahflsaiJ.ghilr:as and their s,llh-sects. The dissidents held the five views mentioned above.

The Therav;ldins emphatically deny that an Arhat, who is free from attachment (vUariiga), can be suhj~ct to temptation. The opponents, as shown in the KWJ ., dr!lw a subtle distinction bet­ween a Sa-(-Sans. Sva-) tlhamn/akusala-arhat and a Para­dhammakusalo-arhal, t he fo rmer, accordi ng to the commentator, is a Paniial'imlltta and the latter nn nhhatobhiigavimutta, that is, the knowledge of the former i; confined to his own personal attainments while that of the b tter iii extended to others' attain­ments b~sides his own. In the Piili texts the Ub!Jatobhiigal'/mutta is not regarded as su~rior to the Paiiiiiivimutta: the only dis­tinction made between the two is that the former has samathii­bhinivesa1 and realization of eight vimokkhas. 2 while the latter has ripassamibhinivl!sdi and rellli7.a.tion of only four jhanas.4 but as far as the question of raga or O.ruVIl is concerned bOlh the classes of Arhat~ must be regarded as completely free from it. The subtle di5tinction dlllwn hy the opponents is therefore of no a'\Juii according to the Theravli.dins.

1. S(lInallw leads to concentration of thoughts and eradicalion of attachment (,.ag{J). Cf.Aligufraro, J, p. 61: riJgafirilga Cl!fovirr.<#ti.

2. For the eight Virr.okkhas, sec Appendix. 3. Vipa5Sl1na leads to knowl~dge and removal of ignorance. U. Alig~­

!lara, I, p. 61 : a.iJiaviriiga paiinavimlltli. 4. Cr. Aspects, pp. 250, 276. See Majjhima, I, p. 477 amI MURUral"a­

piiraT)i, III, p. 188; Puggata'pun,alli,14, 72.

SECOr..U BUDDIU,T CQUz.;CIL 25

The ne>:t twO points, that lin llrhnt may have ignorance (i.e. Qlilic(laand not arijjii) linn. dOllht (kailkliii or l'ill;ati). are also vehemently opposert hy the Thera'\Jii.dins on the ground that one caOllOt be an ar:mt IInle~s hI'; ha~ got rid of Ql'ljjii and I"icikiccho and develop<,d rerfect vision free from impuritie, (virajam l'Ua­mala1J1 llhamn/arakkhwll) after having dispersed all his doubts (kalikhli Wl[wya.'lti wMa}

The oppl'nents, as pre<;ented in the Kl'u .• in this case also dr<tw 11 di<;{inctinn hetween a Sadhammakusala-arhat and a Pllfadhllmmakusala-arhat, saying that both the classes ofarhats may nO! hav~ al'ijjo in regllrd to the t ruth~, the theol")' of causa­tion, etc., or l'icikicciUl ahout Burldha, Dharma and Sangha or the aho.ence of will, htlt the former mil.y haveaiinii(lu and kailkhri, say. n~ regares the nllme and bmily of an unknown man or wom.1n or of a tree. It ~holild be noterl here that the opponents do not mean sahhaiiliurQ/jii~la (omniscience) hut just paradlwm­/ltG/la(1n - an intellectual power attained hy the IJhhatobhaga­vimutta-arhats, hy which power they Clln know many things out­side themselve~ . Arguing in this way the opponents maintain that a section of the llrhllts, i.e., the Plliiiii'\vimllttas or Sad ham­makusala-ar 'mts hllve ignomnce (aiiiiiiQa) relating to things or

,qualities other Than those belonging to himself. The ,>arne argu ments and counter-llrgllment~ lire aclliuced in the

next discussion reillting to aulli araha/fl parm'iliirflfJa ? The word pararitiira(Jii perplexed our translator Me. Shwe 7.11n Allng.l The diseu;;sion in the Kl·U. reveals that the word mellns that an arhat develofls faith in the TriralOa or llequire;; knowledge of the truths, etc., not by himself but through the instruction of his preceptor, in whom he has firm faith. The Ther~viirtins oppose the contention of Ihe opponents, saying that An arhat is vUa­lIIolra and is possessed of dlrammacnkkhu and so he does not require parm'ifiil"lIrii. The opponents contend~s before that a Sadhammakus~ln .. mhat requiresparavfliiro(lii while ~ P!lra-dharn­makusa[a-arh;lt does not.

I. 'E~cell~d by oth~rs." See POilifS of lire ConrrOl'Crsy. p. 119. Buddha­Sho.a 'Hites: yasmti yeSifJ1 Uni vatthum pare ~itaranli pakasenli acikkhanti lasm~ Ie,,,,,, at thi ;>a,avili11al!" Ii.

C i'. Ma.ud;o p. 24 : "gain spiritual perception b~' the ~.elp of alhers {I iI. <eIlligb{er.ment Ihrou\lh others)", '

26 BUDDHIST SECTS II'> INDI.~

Another statement of Vasumitra relating to the Arhats, namely, "one who is krtakrtyah (= Pali: katakaraolyo) does ne t take any dharma to himself i.e. has no attachment ror worldly things" is echoed, I think, in tbe Kvu. (XVII, 1 & XXI. 2) in these terms: attlli ora/Jato pufifiopac':lYo fl? and uruhii "usa/aciffO

parinibbayatl ri. T he Theravadins agreeing with 1I11: Mahasanghi­kas contend that the ciuo of Arhats goes b~yond papa and pUfJ),a, ku:;ala and akusala, kri)'a and vipaka, llt~nce, to speak of them as acquiring merits or demeri ts is absun.l. The opponents, the Andhakas, however, contend that Ihe Arhats perform roany good deeds, e.g., make gifts, worship caityas and so forth, and remain always self-possessed (sma sampajiifW) t:VCllil t thetimc of his parinibbdna, and so he does collect merib and passes away

with kusalacitta.

Neither the above discussions in the Kathiil'attlru nor the terse statements of Vasumitra help us much in finding out the real difference between the Andhakas and the Theravadins about the position of an Arhat. The Malui.yana Works point out the distin­ction thus: Arhats, who are perfect Sravakas, get rid of only kidrll'arQlJa. i.e., the veil of impurities consisting of raga, do sa, moha silabbatapanima~a, and vicikiccha but not of jlieyiimra(UI, i.e.. ~he veil which conceals t he Truth - the veil which can onb be removed by realizing the DharmaSiinyata or Tathata.1

It i:; the Buddha alone, who is perfectly emancipated and who has both kldii)'aralJa andjneyol'aralJa removed. That the Maha­sailghikas appear to be groping to get at this clear distinction will be evident from two other topics di~cussed in the KI'u. but not referred to in Vasumitra's treatise. The topics are,-atill i kinci saiiiiojanGJrl appahiiya parinibbiinan ti l (XXII. 1) or ~rahaf­tappattiti? (XX I. 3). To these the Mahasailghikas replY.ln the affirmative saying that an arhat is nikkilesa (free from Impun­ties') and d'oes attain parinibbana or arhatta but as he is not cog~izant of all that is Buddhavisaya (domain of Buddha's know­ledge), it must be admitted t hat some sai'iii.ojanas are left in him. Thi;; opinion may be taken as a hint that the arhats do not remove the jiieyiiraraf}G.

1. For detaIls, sec Aspects, Pi>. 3,ff.

SECO N D )'JUPl)I-IIST COUNCIL 27

'There llrc a few subsidiary di,cussions in the Katiliiwuhu relating to Arhats. These are gh'en here briefiy:-

IV. I . Householders cannot become Arhats - Thera)'{idins. But householders like Vasa. Vttiya, Setu became Arhats - UttarapalllOkas.

IV 2. No onc is born a;; Arhat - Tlicral'. But there arc Upahacca-(uppa,iia)-parinibbayi Arhats - UI!arap.

IV 3. All dharmas of Arhats are not anasa\a, e.g. their physical body etc. - Thera). Bur Arhats are amisava (free from asavas) - Utfariip.

IV 4. In the Arhat stage. only arhattaphala is acquired - Thcml'. But all the phalas are possessed by the Arhats _. UUar?ip.

IV. 5. An Arhat is cha!upekkho (see App.) -Heral'. Rather. Araha chahi upekkhihi samannigato - Uaarfip.

IV. 10. All sai'inojanas are gradually destroyed and not by Arhattamagga alone - Therav. But by the destruction of all sanP,ojanas one becomes an Arhat - Andhakas.

XVIJ 2. Arhats may have untimely death as arahatghataka is mentioned in the Buddhavacanas - Th~rQ)'. But as one cannot become an Arhat before the karmic etfects are exhausted, an Arhat canno t have untimely death - Riijagirikas and Siddhatlhikas.

XVll 3. Arhats do not die when in imperlurbable meditation and devoid of kriyacitta - Thera\' . But did not Gautama Buddha pas, away immediatdy after arising from the 4th jhana - Uttariip.

Dr. Bareau (Les Secres etc. p. 64) after studying the Chinese commentary Kouie-ki has commented on the five propositions thus :-

(a) Seduction of Arhats: An Arhat may discharge semen in sleep on account of dreams caused perhaps by spirits; for such menta! weakness for which the Arhat is not responsible, may be treated in the same manner as one treats physical excretions like urine, saliva, etc. In the Kathiiratthu (ii. I) it is stated "auhi

28 DUDDHIST SECTS IN l:-nlA

araha!o .mkkal'i.VlUht Ii." The Slillu schoob, according to Bliddhaghc~a, contend that there urc bhikkhus. who claimed arhatsh ip in the belief tint they had attained thut stage, but actually they had not attained it. Again, there ure bhikkhus who claim arhatship falsely.

Ib) ignorance: l'snOTllncc attributed to un Arhat is not (e) Dnllnf: nescience (ol'idyii). the first term in th~

formula of c.luwlion (po{fcca-wlIlIIpplico). The doubts of an Arhat do not relate to the teach.;ngs of Buddha. An Arh:II', ignorance or doubt relates 10 his inability to tell the name ~nrl fami ly of a person, or of a tree, orherh and so forth , bttall'>e he is not omniscient like Buddha \Kru. XX. 3).1

(d) Requiring olher's ""'I': This point is a150 e~pl::tined in the ~bove manner, i.e., an Arhat may get himself acqtwirtccl with the name of a person, or family, or a tree, or n herb frnm l\nother person.

(~) Exclamation "Ahq": This is explained as that it is not llIlllsuai for a medit."llor while df.'veloping the firST med t;ltion (jhana~dh}'ii}la). which is associated with reasoning (~';I(jkka) and reflection (I'icara) to make an exclamation when he rC'Hl i7e~

tn2t life is misery (dllkkha). But. it ~hould be noted that since an Arhat is not in the first s tage of meditation, t hisexpbnation is far-fetched.

I. Kyu. Af}hakathii. p. 189: Arahli sabbarp Buddh:lvisayarp Dnjfinati. Arahato 3abbai,nuta-nill.liibhavena p:t!ised!lo b.lo nn avijj a.vicikicchanaT]1 appahanena.

Watters1 collected some information about the life of Maha­deva from the Abhidhorma· dbhiisii-liistra (ch. 99).1 According to this work, Mahadev:i was the son of a Brahmin merchant of Marhun, .. He had his ordin:lti:ln at Kukkutarima in P:l!al iputra. By his zeal and abilit ies. he soon became the he'.Jd of the Buddhist establishment there. The ruling king was a. p:llron and friene of Mah:i.deva. With his help he was able to oust the senior orthodox monks and es tablish his five dogmas as men· tioned above. Yuan Chwang records that at the instance of the reigning king, an a.sembly of monks was summoned. In Thi, assembly the senior brethern, \VIIO were Arh:us, vot ... d ~ e:"in<;l

l. \"alters,op. cit., I. pp. 267-68.

HlST SECTS IN INDlA

)15, acrording to :khus, who claimed ned that st age, but : are bhik khus who

~ an Arhat is not first term in the The doubts of an

Jjdha. A n Arhat's tell the name and .0 forth, because he

bo e;o;plaincd in the liJllsdf acquainted '1:, or a herb from

I as that it is not the fIrst meditation casoning (~ilakka)

1lI when he realizes : lioted that since m, this expiimatioll

U!l Buddha\-is<lya,p patisedho kata na

tIll: life of Maha­. 99) .1 According :titlllin merC:lallt of 'um3 ill Pi~ajiputra. 11(: the head of the ~ was a patron and able to OU5t the

dogmas as men-the instance of the wmmoned . In this i:ats, voted against

Regions (lnd Localities intereited in rhe affairs oj the Second l1uddhiJt Cotmd/ ill Ihe IradiriofIJ of different SeCls

Theraviida (Cullavagga)

VcsaJi P iitheyya Ahogailga

SaJllkassa KalJ.oakujja Udumbara Aggalapur~ Sahajiili AYami Kosambi D;;kkhil.lapatha Soreyya

MahiSiisaka vinaya

Dharmagupta vinaya

Sarvastiviida vinaya

M iilasarviisti­.. ada vinaya

Vaisflli Pitheyya Ahogailga Mathura

Vuisuii Pa!heyya Ahogailga

SaJllkii~ya K i"U:lya kubja

Vaisali

Mathura region SarnkaHa

Vaisiili

AggaiapllTa

Kausambi

Alavi

Po-ho river

Pataliputra

Sahaja Dekkhan

Kosala

Pa!aliputra VaSayagriimika Srughna Tohoei Sukhavihiira

Sahaja

StlulViras of the Western CO/111/rirs, who took part in the Secufla Buddhi~t COimcil

Slha\'ira Mahisasaka Dharmagupta Sarv,\5tivada Miilasarvasti­vada

ReVilla Sambhiita S<"ll.1 aviisi Yasa Sabbakimi Sumana Salha Khujjasobhita

Vasa'ohaga­mika

1 ~ same

J Pou tcho tsong P'o-cha-lan

Tch'ang fa

same

Pou-teho­suo-rno p'o-cheon­ts'uen

same same

K i-ichosuu Kiungan mi-lo (KuJjila) P'o·ye.k'ie P'o-tso Ami (1) ('~)

Ajtai

Mahiisa-Qghika vinaya

VaiSiili Sni.vasli, S~ke'a

S£COSD DUDDHIST COUNCIl. 29

the five dogmns. which, however, were supported by a large Ilumlxr of Don-Arhat bhikkhus.

The Chinese pilgrim, it will b~ oh,crved, mentioned batt, the five dogmas and the few un-Vi,uyic nets of the Vaisalian monk:~ <IS the cause of the Council nn:! cleavage of the Sangha. The compLier of the Katha "(ltfhl, \Vas lIWilre of the five dogmas, whieh w<!re attributed by Buddh::.gho~u to the MahfLsailghikas. Th~rc e:ln be no dou~t therefore tl:nt the statements of Vusumitra and 0\1er5 were auth=ntie. The Dlpal'allIsa also 3tutes th:l! the seceders introduced alterations in the doctrine~

(IS we;!. M. Hofinger,l after stud ring all the Chinese sources dealins

with the Second Buddhist Council, arrivcd <! t thc following conclusion:

The Counci l of VaiSAli is not a fiction. The sources that we have (It present are revised and amplificd versions of a Yery old tradition. It may be htld that the scssion of th: Council t00" place at an epcch about n ccntur) after Duddha's puriflinii(IU, i,e., about 386 I1.C., in the tC:lth y~ur of Kaliisoka's reign. A conflict arose about the discipliliary rules lxtween the rdLgicux residing at Vaisiili, the Vcijiputtakus; and the rest of the COUl­munity of Buddhis, India. The account of Ihe controversy is iden­tic!\1 in all the Vinayn tC)lts and it assumes the existence of a plC­canonical or proto-canonical account Ycry dose to the time ur OCCJ rren~e. The exaggerntcd age of a fcw Theras and the ~UPCf­natural events do not discrcdit thc auth:ntici ty of the Coullcii. Some accounts created u'chro nological 3nom.lly by not disting­uishing Kalasoku from l)hnrmEisoku.

The progressive growth of !h~ tradition m,lY well be divided ir'Jto two courses, which weri: indcpcr'Jdent of each other. The first is representee by the accoun t of the Mnhiisailghika Vinaya fin d the s~ond by the oceounts in all the othe r Vinuya te ... ts. The singul •. r original is eastern nnd the others manire~t a common de­velopment, i.e., a secession between the easterners and the west­erners. The later version , Sthnvirn-Survitstivitdn introduces new divergences in their traditiol1s. The agreement of thc Inter vt"rsions may be indjeat~d thus :--

Elude SUr I~ ,"""elle I." YoiJiili. p. 249.

BUDDHIST SECT S I ~ INDIA

Cullavagga XII and MahiHs::t k1'l Vinllya hllvr; direct affini ty. simi la rly i".:}ve Dharmagupta :lncl Hilimilvata Vi naya hut a litt!.c leis the Sarvast ivli(la Vinll)ll. It II p[lr:ars strange Ihal the Miila­sarv:1."l ivada version i ~ les~ c1"~e to the Sar\';lstivada version. It s(!~ms Ihatlh~ former i ~ older Ihan t he lau~r _ Chronologic:llly, th~ traditions may be ~I rranged Ihu,,:-

Eurliest- Mahasanghika and Mulasarvastivida Eorlier - D ha rmagupta Next - Sthavira and Ma hisisaka Lotest - Sarv:i.st ivi da :lnd Hai mavata .

In this r.:o nm::r.: tiulI, it I:' worth while to recount the co untries included in thl: pt::n::glitlalions of Buddha. Buddha travelled northwards up 10 Malhura, and his missionary wor k: was confin­ed mainly to the largt:: tt::rI itory of the Ganges ba5in. The Sar­vastivldi n;; prt::rt:: rrt::u Ma lllum while the Stha~j ras and Mnhi­~<1sa l:: as the s() uth w..::,tt::nl a1'l.::a . I II between these two regions was the h:tbilal uf lht:: Dharmaguptas.

M. Hotinger ha~ adduced evidences and arguments 10 estab­lish the a uthenticity of the session of the Second Buddhist Council. T he only additIo n t hat can be made to it is that a cano­n ical text like t he Kalhtil'ortllu discussed. the doctrines of the different sects. Still s!ronger are the evidences furni shed by the inscriptions so fa r di scovered.

The question that should be discu~sed next is whether the schism was due 10 the divcrgcnc~s in Vinaya rules only or to tbe fi ve dogmas of Mahadeva or to both. It seems t hat both the causes were responsible for t he schism, because both of them in· d icate Ihe advent of the brond divi sion of Buddhism into Hina­yiina and Mahayana, the lalter favouring the Bodhisattva prac­tices e"en a t the S<!crificc of Vinaya rules,e.g. fulfill ing the WIshes of an individual even by saCrificing the Vinaya p rohibiti ons. The Mahasltighikas were the foreru nners of the advent of Maha­yii nism. In the Maltiil'asru , the first b:JOk of the Vinaya of the Lokottaravidins, a branch of the Mahasailghikas, contains many Mahayanic t races, to wh ich reference will be made in due course in another chapter,

Now t he question that ca n be raised is: To which of the two causes is the schism mainly due! Ih!! SCCQilj alternative is

SECOl<O l.IULH)HIST COU N CIL 'I prefcrable, 35 it indicated the advent of Milhayanic concep l ion .~ .

The two trad itions mlly be explainect thus: The division of monks beBlln with the ctiffer~nce !; of "pinion

rega rding the intc-rpretlltion o f thc ten Vinaya rules during the reign o f Kalasoka , i.e .. some lime hefore the appc:lrance of Mah:idel':l (or Nae;l).! i c. it was abou t half a century laler. Mahadl;!va or Naga , proponnded the five dogmas during the reign of King Nflnda . H i~ d isciple Sthiramati propagated it further. As regarct~ Ihe fact that Ihe tradition of the breach of len rules a ppellr~ in Ir e Vinaya texts and the Ceylonese ch r<> nides the tradition ahout Mahadeva's five dogmas apJ>C'<l rs in the Tibet:ln and Ch ine~e ver!;ion!; of the treatises o f Vasumitra. Paramartha anrl other wr i te r~ on the doctrines of sects. It may therefore be sta Ten thal the Vinayn texts. being concerned only with the di,ciplinary a~pect of the religion, passed over the doc­tr ina l differences. while Va!;umitra and o ther wri ters, being more concerned with rloctrinal differences than with d iscipli nary rules. consi rle~d it unnecessary to repeat the ten un-Vinayic acts: of the Vrti"''1 lian monks. The so urces of information fo r the CcyJo­ne.~ chronicles, being the Vinaya texts , passed o ver the doctri­na l (Mreren~. Yuan Chwang. bei ng an annalist. was mterested in hoth doctrine~ a nd discipli nary rules. and so he recorded the d ivergences in rellard to both. It is quite probable that the schi.~m began wi th disciplinary rules and, in course of time. in· corpora ted matters of doctrines.

It is apparent from the tenor of th.e ten un-Vinayic rules and the five dogmas of Mahadevu. that the Vais:ilians wanted a certain amount of latitude and freedom in the interpretation and observance of the rules and to introduce into their organization and general governance a democratic spi rit. which was gradually disappearing from the Sangha. The eJL:c1usive power and pri\ileges, Which the Arhats claimed fo r themselves. were looked upOn

1. In Tiiranarha (S:hiefner) Nt'taa is described asa di'iCiplc of MahAdeva, and Sthiramati ~s a disciple of Naga.

2. The Vaisalian monh were celled Vajjiput1akas in the r ail te,~t s. In lh" AI)!/u/lara Nikllya ( I, p. 230) il is uoticed tha t a Vajji l'ultaka monk approll'hcd Buddha tc: ling him that it wo uld be difficult for him 10 obscrl'~

the 250 r1l1 e~ of Ill" Piilimllkklta

32 3UDDHI5-: 5!;C T S I" I"DIA..

with di~lrust and disfavour by the Vaisalians, (who preferred a democratic rule to a monarchical government). The claim of the Arhats to become the exclusive members of th~ important Council> nnd to arrwe at decisions, which were bir,ding on tllc non­Arhals could not appe:ll to the Vajjians _ a clan imbued with a democratic spirit. The five dogmas of Mahideva 31so indicated th!!! the J\rh:lts were not all fully perfect persons as WM the vie5 of the orlhodo); Theravadim, and that the Arhats IUld a few limitations. The Vaisalians refused to be bound down by the de­cision of the Arhnts, and so they com-ened a Council of both Arhats nnd non-Arhats, calling it a Mahasangiti and agree-d to

abide by the decisions of the enhrged assembly. This new body belic'{cd sincerely that the decisions taken by them were in conformity with the instructions of the Teacher.

EJfHl 011 rill' Sr1Iigba

Some of the Vaisaliall monks sepumted themselves from the 5a11gha of the Elders or the Orthodox, the Theras or Stha\iiras, aud organized a new one of their own. calling it II Mahas:u'Igha, from which they Clme to be known as MahasDnghib.s. From this time the cleavage in thO! Sangha became wider and wider, uilimately gi"ing risc to as muny us eighteen or more sub-sects . The Thera or Sthaviravadins were split up into eleven sects and remained as l linayanic throughout their e"istenee while t he MalJasanghikas m,camc divided into sc\'en sub·seets, gradually g.~\'e up their lIinayanic doctrines Dnd paved the way fo r thc appearance of Mahayftnism. On:c the disruptive forces were ~et

ill motion, the S:l1igha could not rcmuin a single whole. Sect after sect came into cx istcncc on slight difT(~rences of opi nion COIl­

ccrning doctrine!!, discipliMr) ru lcs nnd even cutting. dyeing and w~arjl1b of robes (Cr. Wultcn, YIIQI1 Chli'm/g , i . p . 151),

In view of thc gcncrul mutual agreement of the different tradItions. the sessi on or the Second COllneil should be taken as authentic.

The only point which requires further evidences is the da:e of the Council and the natne of the klllg under whose uUipices the Synod wus held. The Ceylonese chronicles givc K;ilftsoka as the n.!1nC of the king. Kuliisoka succeeded Sisunaga and is identified

~r.cOSD BUDDI1HIT COUNCtL

with K iikavaroin of the PuriilJQS. In view of the fact that Si~u· nagn transferred his capital to Vais:ili it is not unlikely that his son ~hould continue to make Vaisali his royal seat and take inter~st in the affairs of the Sangha existing in his capi tal. If KaltiSoka be accepted as the ro}al patron of the Synod. the dale nf the session should be put about a century after Buddha's demise. Kern has questioned the statement of the Ceylonc5c citro. niele .. about the age of the monks who took a leading part in the deliberatiolls of the Synod, and has pointed out that the names do not include any of the list of teachers given in the fifth chapter of the Mahiil'aJnsa, Since Kern's apprehensions are not baseless, we should take t he statement of the Mahii ramsa ' that some oi Ihe monks lived al the time of the Buddha' with a certain amount of caution. As far as the line of teachers is con· cerned, Kern overlooks the fact that it is a list of succcs,ion of the spiritual tcachers of Mo.gga liputta Tiss<l and not a list of the Succession of the Sanghall heras. Kern' s conclusion that the Second CouDcil "preceded the schism but had no connection with the Mahfisanghikas" seems to be his personal conviction and nOI based on any evidence, and so is his remark that Asoka was fi rst designated as K5bHoka, and then with his changed at­titude towards Buddhism. he was dcsi~ated Dharmasoka. Vasu. mitra places the session of the C'Ouncil durin.~ the reign of Mahiipadma Nanda . This statement is probably due to the confusion made b)' Va SUll1 ttra that Mah.1deva's five propositions were the main and actual cause of the schisl1.

C HAP'IER III

DISRUPTIVE FORCES IN TIlE SANG HA

Though the Order of monks ( SoligIJa) was o rga nised on a <I!=mocratic basis, Buddha felt that after his demi se there might be diSC0rd among the monks. In the .\lahiiparinibbdllasurranla (i6- 77) Buddha told his disciples that as long as the monks ad hered to the practices mentioned below, the Sangha \\ould thri\'e and not decline. These were-

(I) Avoid fruitl ess talks, (2) Hold assemblies as frequently as possible. (3) Perform all ecclesiastical acts in concord (somoggii). (4) Listen and be respectful to the senior monks, 'particularly

to the head of the Sangha. These four instructions implied his anxiety about the well­

being of the Sangha in rutu re. During his life-time there were two occa~ions when a split in the S:lIigha became imminent, but he did not regard them as actual dissensions. The fi rst took place when he was at Kosambi on account of a minor difference of opinion between the Dhommadlwras and the Villoyadltoros, l and the other was the one initiated by Devadatta that the monks l'ihould lead a more austere life.:

I n the Nikiiyas a nd oth~r early texts also, there appear :J. few references to the possibility of discord in the Sangha and the condemnation of sanJ!habheda as onc of the fh'e extrcme offences like patr icide. matricide, and so forth. In the Vin:lya, there r:.re directions as to when l\ dissension among the monks Sh0Uld be regarded as a regular or an irregular JUligllabl/l!da. In the accoun t of the First Counci l a lso, a ri ft is noticeal)le in the lu te in the

M";,,h-ull1!U. x; M ajillima, K05ambisllll~; Dfwlllmapiidalfh~fw lfl<i. Kosambivatthu. In thcGilgit ms. of the M ,iIUs{/rVlisl;vlida V ;II(1)"II, the StoT) rema ins substantially the same with slight \'armtions in gcogr ~[1hic~ 1

.(Ietails. 2. C"ilumgga, vii. J. 14; JiirakQ~, I, p. 34.

DISRUPTlVE l'ORCR.~ IN T HP. ""NOH" 35

refusal of Thera PuralJa of DakkhiJ)agiri to accept in 1010 the {Cll ts adopted by Mah <i kassapa a nd his followers as BuddhavQcQlla. His insistence on the in trod uct ion of a few discipli nary rules clearly shows a lack of unanimi ty among the monks immedi ately after Buddha's death (see infra, p. 39 n.).

The Tradition of Kc.lOmbr

At Kosambi, there were two teachers, one a Dhammadhara and the other a Vinayadhara, bot h imparting inst ructions in their respective sub~ects to two different groups of studen ts. One day the Dhammadhara teacher committed a very light offence through inadvertence and when pointed out, he expressed regret for it, but this was talked abo ut by the Vinayadha ra teacher among his students and lay devotees. The students lind IllY adm irers of the Dhammadhara teacher became offended at this provocative att itude of the Vinayadhara teacher and his follo­wers, and ther.: was a sharp cleavage not only between the two groups but also between their respective lay devotees. Buddha intervened, a nd at fi rst failed to make up the d ifference aod it was out of sheer disgust that he preferred to retire to th~ fo rest to be ;erved by an elephant than by the quarrelling people of the world. At this attitude of the Teacher, the quarrelling teachers, students and lay public carne to their semes a nd settled their dispute. This episode can not strictly be called a saligfJa­hilMa, but it shows · the possibility of dissension in the .sangha.

The episode of iJel'adatfa

The epi sode of Dcvadalla is a lmost a !;aiigJ:ab!ieda though it IS not recognized as such in the Vinaya .1 Devadatta was a n

I. Yuan Chwang 'Mites tha t he saw three Buddhist monasteries in Kllroasuvarl).a, \\here, in accordance I'rith the teaching o f OC\'lldalla, milk. produc1s wc£c uut takcn as food. Walfers, II . pp. J',II, 192. I- lsin¥ states ~hat mitk ,. art unlawful food . StC Tllkaku~lU, 1-I, i"8, p. 43 ; Mill was not Included in D~vadat\a's menu.

36 BI..LlDHI5T ~I!.CTS IN I NDl ,\

ad'/o<atc of mort 3ustere disci~lille and requested the Teacher to make the following five rule. compulsory for all monks. :­

T h3t the monks ( i) should live in the fo rest; (ii) subsist solely on doles collected iTom door to door ; (iii) dress themselves in rag~ picked up from dust-heaps: (iv) dwell always under il tree and '1cver under a roof: (v) neHT eat fish or fle"h . Buddha could not agrre to Devadatta's proposals. He b~lieved

more in person's own inil i:Hive than in obligatory rules. and so he left to the monks the nption of observing the restrict ion;. There wer~ the provisions of IlIlIjtailgas (rigorous practices), but these were not m~.de compul,\ory for all monks. There were among B uddha 's direC'! disciple~ some dhiital'iidins (praclisers of dhu tangas). Tnis was 100 much for Devadatta, who departed to Gayfi sisa with a number of disciples, who supported him. It i~ said that at the instafl( '", of Buddha. Szriputta and Moggalhina later ,""on tho-m over to Rllddha's side.

Apprehwsi~'e sratements in the Nikiiyos

Onc.': Cunda and Ananda approachetl ~uddha with the ne ... s of the de:lth of NigalJ!ha Na!aputta ami apprised hIm of the quarrels that immedmtely followed his J~ath among his disdph::s. Buddha assured them that among hi~ J iscipies there WilS no disagri:ement as fa r as his fundamental teaching. consistin~ of the 37 BodlripakklliJa dhammas: W'd~ l:oneemcd. There might be after his death, he said , some diffen::llces of opinion relating [0 abhidhamma (Qlireka-dllam!1;a = sub~idiary poinl> of doclrine),~ ajjitajira ($ubstdmry rules of livelihood) l.nd adhi-pii;imok~ha (extra r~les of dIscipline) but these :>hould be trcuted as UOlm­

portant (apPOJIIQuaka), but ~hou".1 there be nny differences {elati ng to tile fruits (pha/a). path (magga, palipadil) or the

1. Viz. (il four sQliparrhiinaJ.- (ii) four swmnilppadllrlllu'; liii) rUL f

iddlripJdai: (iv) fh-c ;nd,IYaJ; Iv) five balUi; (vi) ~c.en bOjj/r(JIIgU: (~ il) eighcfo!d p;lCh. See Dftha, ".i, Xl, MaJj/rima, II , pp_ n. 101, IOJ; LIlIl/a­vurura (Biu!. Ind.), PI'. 14-37; Sal;IIII"-pnr)~l)"a in JPTS .. 1904-05, PD. 71, 7S_ /l,JolrQ""'u'parti, W

2. Al/has,lIilll·. p . 2.

OISRUPTIVE FORCES IN T HE SA:IoO IiA 37

congregation (sarigho). it would be a matter of regret a nd might naml the people. l In diHererlces co ncerning minor matters such as those mentioned above. his instruct ion was that the errmg monks should be politely pOinted Out that th e, Wi.·~ puttin" a di(f=rent interpretation on a text, and that in the interest of ~le Sangha, they should give It up ror practical purposes. He suggested that II sane and reasonable membcr umong the erring monks should be selected for the pu rpose.~ In the SQligltiidist!sa ~cc tion or the Piitimokkha~ app~:H similar instructions (rifle rules 10-1 I) with t he addition tha t If the erring monk: o r monks do not Change thei r VIews, he or they should be treated as gu ilty or the Sailghadisesa o ffe nce. In the A !igl<tlorat there is 11 reference [0 :\.IH nda complaining to Budd ha that Anuruddha's diSCiple H11hiyo was in the habit of picking quarrt.'ls among the monks and causing disscmion :n the Sangh:t while his teacher would not say a word to him. Huddha pJCJllcd .\n:tnda by sH.ymg that Anuruddha had never interfered in Sangha matters. and that alJ such disputes had so fa r been settled by hi mselr or Sanpu tta and MoggaUana.

Failing to make up differences by pOlite persuasion Uuddha's instruction was to take resort to the seven methods or settlement ({1(/lukaral/aramtJtlta.~ J. d~fincd in the Majj/lima NikiiJQ and the P(irllllokkha. UuJdha a ltr ibu\ed all quarrels to the seJlish motives of the monks or their posseSSIOn or c;!rtain Wicked qualities. He h.!ld out the prospect of a itc'lppyand glOriOUS life like that or the gOd. Brahma to a monk in his aller-life as the re,ult of any act of hIS that 1V0uid sene to re-umte the groups of monks separated from one another, while he declared that the monk SOlVing dissension among hi s brethren, was doomed to perdi tion for an 'Ieon.'

Dtjin1r;ofl of Swighuhh/tuu

Every quarr.~1 or flifTert!nce of o('linionli among the hhi kkhus I"'as not eharacterizecf hy Rudflf,a ali a ~Clig!JaMeda. It is

_J. MaJi/rima, II . i). 245: cr. D fzl!a. III . P. 117f. 1. Majj!/bra. II, pp. 238_39. 1. ,!ngltl/ura, II, p. 239. ~. See Ihe chapter on PlirinwkhQ j. Atiglilrara, V. pp. 73. 7~, 73; CufiaWJ{fgn, vii. 5,

38 BUDDIEIS'r £ECTS I]': [N"OIA

described in the Vi'1nya thu ~ "For not o nly is a formal putting forward !lnn. voting on the false doctrine essential to sch ism as dislincl rrom mere disagreement. but the offendmg bhikkhus mus! 11 1 ~o he Quite aware that the doctr ine so put forth was wrong, or at let.s! rlouhtful, and also that the schism result­ing from his ael ion wOllld he or probably be disastrous to the Dhamma. In other worn!', the schism must be brought about delibeately by pl 'H ing forward a do~trine known to be false, or at least doubtful, or wi th the express intention or object of injuring thereby the Ohamma."l This definilion obviously reprcsenls the opinion of the conservative school, the Thera­viidins, who usually lonkeci upon all those who differed from them with suspicion and ascribecl an evil motive to the holding or dissentient views_ It i;: very likely that the dissenters held an honest opinion that their views were nevoid of any evil motive or injuring the Dhamma. It will , Thererore, be apparent rro;n a neutral standpoint that evil intention i~ not an essential factor in sQlighabheda. The essentials are :- (I) helief in a dissentIent religious view regarding either one or more points of faith or discipline; (2) acceptance of Ihe dis<:enting view by eight or more rully ordained monks; (3) the division taken among the afore­said eight or more monks must show a majority on the side of the d,ssenters. When the disunion i~ confined to eight moaks. it is called SQ/ighoriiji. This restriction a~ In the number form­ing tbe essential or sQ/ig/mmji shows that it might at any moment develop into a !aJighabhedn, hy drawing an additional monk into the difference, Of course. h(Jllajitie belief and the presence or regular monks are nece;Silry requisites.!

Differences ill the First Coundl Pruceedirtgs

In the proceedings or the Firs1 Couuo.;i l it will be obscn'cd that Mahci.lcassapa wa, keen on securing the approval of all the

I . Maf.iiI't1gga, (h .. l; Yinaya Tuu(S.B.E.), pt. iii. p. 271 n. 2. Cul/aWlggn, vi i, S, I ; MiJinrklpaiiha. p. 103 : ",,"0 Ilyman Clln cre~le

a schism, nor a sister of the order. no one umkr pJ=para tory instr~ction, nor e. novice of ei ther ~. II must be Il bhikkhu undu no disabilily , whn i~ in full communion and co-reside-m" (S.II F. .• vol. XXXI' , p. 163).

n1SR \1PTlVE FORCES IN THE SA NGHA

senior monks, particularly of Gavampati and PuraQa, for the tex ts settled by his Council as Buddhal'OCQIIO,1 Gavampati remained ncutral, i.c., he did not wholeheartedly accept the proceedings of the Council as timl , while Pura[J3 e'<pressed hii inabilit> to accept the same as the words of the Teacher,2 He furth""r insisted on the incorporation into the Vinaya orthe eight rules relating to food,S T he Mahisasak a Vinaya not only upheld these eight rules as pointed out by Prof. Przylush4 but also ga~e special recognition to PUfli[Ja as one or the foremost teachers of the time.

All these te,timonies dearly indicate that the 5eeds of dissen­sions had zlread y been sown in the Sangha during Buddha's lire-time and that these sprouted forth in full vigour in the second cenlUry after Buddha 's dem ise. 5

II

PROBABLE CAUSES FOR DIS5.1!.NSIONS IN THE SANGllA

III the precnl illg chapter, il has been shown that disruptive fOII,;t:~ \It:re alrt:ilJy at work withill the Sallsha duri ng and illllllt:uialdy ant:r BuJJha 's lire-lillie. Oil scrutinizing Ihese and tht: ~l,ilt: ur lhe BuJJhist Churt:h as prescnted in the Nikayas awl the Vinaya, we may n:ganl the fo llul'.iug facls as the prob­

abk l'au~es rur Jhsensiun ill lltt: Sa6gha ;-

AhsP1I('p nf 'hI' Suprpmp_JlPad nf , flp Churt'fl

Budd ha thought that the presr;ription of hea\'y punishment for schisms in the Church would check them effectively and that his Dhamma and Vinaya were comprehensh'e enough to keep

L ~ £A1B, I, eh. xx;;. 1. ClIllaWlgJltl. xi, 1.11. -'. The ei&ht rules (as lrar.sla:ed by Suzuki from Ch.nese) are :_ ~i ) COoking food indoors; (iil COoking indoors; (ii i) cooking food of

une S ow.n accord:. (IV) taking fOO<l of onc·s own accord; (v) rtc'C1Ylfill food "'.he, ~.'lng c~d) 111 Ih= m;)"I"'~, (>'i) " .. "yi,,1S fuuU home ;n .,:ompllancc Wlt~ Ih., w.sh "f Ihc giver; ("ii) h.wing miscellaneous fruili; :lnd (viii ) eating lhinl(' l!TOWn in a pond.

4. P rzylmki, U COl/ciie tit- Rajag' !>" ~ . Sec '''Ira. Ch. VII.

40 BUDDHIST mcTS IN IN DIA

intact the religion established by him, obviating thereby the appoi ntment of the supreme religious hea d. He relied on the unaided ~trength of dhamma and vinaya, and directed that his teachings would be the Teacher after his death.' Vassakara asked Ananda whdher any bhikkhu had been specified by Buddha as one who would after his death become the leader or men under whom everybody would Seek shelter. Ananda a ils· wered in the negative. He asked again whether any bhikkhu had been sekcted by the Saliglza as would become their leader, etc. To this also Ananda answered in the negati ve. Vassakiira was curious to know the cause of the concord prevailing in the Church in spi te of there being no leader (lit. refuge) . Ananda replied, "We are not without a refuge (appa /isara{l ii), dltammu is our refuge. T here is a trealise called Piitimokkha which has been formulated by the omniscient Teacher and which aU the monks living in the same parish (g(imakkhefla) have to reci te in a monastery where they assemble on the uposarlJa days. Shou ld there occur any difference or doubt in the recitatIon, the bhik­khus prescnt ex plain them in 2.ccordam:e With the dham',w (hence they have dhamma as their refuge)."2 In answer to another question put by Vassakara, Ananda explained that though there was no supreme head of the fraternity, yet then:: was in each parish a qualified head who was respeC"ted by the monks under his charge and whme guidance was strong en ough to keep the great many parishes remain together in religious concord. This conversation makes it clear that each pari sh was under the con trol of the seniormost and the best qualified monk that the parish could alford.!

In the Patimokkha assemblies, the monks interpreted the subtle expressions of the Teacher in different ways and intra· duced additional matenals in the inter!)retrt t ions, and passed th~m in the name of Budd ha. This happened in most of the parishes scaUercd over t he whole of northern India. T here was none at that lime in the whole of the Buddhis t community who could resolve the numberless divergences into one un iform whole and convert the threatening centrirugal forces t hen at

I. Digha. II, p_ 114 : Yo maya dhtJnomn ca l'illayo ,'U desilo paliilallo so ' ·0 mam' IlCCo),Flla Sal/hll.

l. Majj/lllllo, Ill , pp. 7((.

DISRt:PT1VE FORCES IN TH !: SA:i<GH ..... 41

work into centripeta l tendencies. cond ucive to t he well-being of the whole 8a ngba.

Mahakassapa made an attempt to remedy this defect of the Saligha as a whole by convening a Council, but, as we have shown above, (p. 39n .) he, too, was not fully successful.

S)"J({"/II 0/ Wtciu/izUliQn in differellt branches 0/ Buddhist lileralure

The Pa li l iterntu re is replete with terms li ke (i) SWlantikas or m:l~ l e rs of S\Jtt~nta (or the Su lla-pital::a); (ii) Vina)'adJwras or .r~p~~:torie~ fir the rules of discipline (Vinaya_pi!aka), (iii) M(JfIJ.ad1Qra.~ or tho~ verit'd in miitikli ( - abhidhamma); (iv) Dlwmmt1kathikas or t he_ preachers o f the Buddhist doctrine.} In the A!!hakathfi ag:!in, :! ppear further terms like DIghabhiif:1aka an.d _ Maj~limo-bh(i!jOko (reci ters of the Dlgha and Majihimo NlkoJa.~).

1~1 t"me days, when writ ing was hardly used for recording the sayl n~~ and rliscourses of Bud dha, the means for presen'ing and handing them down to posterity was recitation and memorization. This w:!s a kin to the method that had been in vogue in Ind ia from the e!lrliest Vedic period. Among t he Buddhists we find that the memori2ing of different portions o f the Pitaka was ~ntrusted to different sets of bodies separated from one' another 10 c~u.r.~ of time and bearing names descriptive o f their .acqulsltlons.'

In the flcco unt of the FiBt Council it will be observed that

Ananda was requested 10 recite the Sunas while Up<ili the

I. In Ih~ Mdtdpa';,,{bbUII<' S/tflWltu(D fgllll, 11 p . 77; i1 Is enjoined lI~D the hhikkhllS that th~ should Offff due res~t to the Sulf",",,",·'arQ or &ngha ptI . - 0 r Ion s '!"<J:;akrJ (the head of lhe pari~h). whn ~h(\lIlr1 be ~ bhikkhu nf

g landing and expenen,e for the welt·being of Ihis Sangha. See also Allguflara, IV, p. 21: V, p. 353.

. 2. Childers in his Paff DirtiOllUr), (s.v. saligha) says tha i a Sa~"'MIf"'ra I~ UlU:a lty ~elcct-~ I P . • Kassa '"" liS t I t ~'uem of an assembly. He cites, for imla"ce, al p~, the then $a/ttlhauhero li S the PrC3idcnt of the rint COllnc it He . s~ pOints OUt thai a $a1'l lj:hatlhera i~ n(lt alway~ the on~ who i~ the ton~S! or alned fo~ Sabbaklmin. who WIS the longest UpaSfll/ljXIlI!1f1 bhikkhu. was

-1101 the PreSt dent of the Second Council. 3. D'glta, II . p. 125: AngMfara. I, 5: . 117.

42 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

Vinaya. T his would not have been the case if Ananda or Upali was not generally famed for proticiency in the particular bran ­ches of the Pitaka. Elements of such specialization can be noticed in t he q~arre1 that took place between the dhammaka­thikas and the vinoyadharas,l Colleagueship in studies gave r ise to unity among the dhammakatlzika> on the one side and the I'inayadhara; on the other in such a significant method thai each group made the cau,e of one indiVidual member its common cause and took sides in the dispute.

his inter=sting that arrangements of beds and seats wert: made for the residence of the bhi kkhus.! Dabba Mallaputta, it is said. made such an arrangement that the bhikkhus, adopting the same' course of study (sabhliga), resided at the same place in order that the -SurrGnlikas could recite suttanias among them­selves while the Vinayadharas could discuss the rules of djscip~ line with one another, and the Dhammakathikas could deal wi th the nutters of doctrine. Instances are not rare of a feel ing of rivalrv among these bodies, each member of which wished liml was plea;;ed to see the body, to which he belonged, take pr~t:­dence over other bodies in occupying a seat or in taking foou, in assemblies or in thanksgiving after a meal.

These separate bodies, which. existed for a parlicular fU!ll:liuil necessary for the whole Buddhist community, e.g., the ~rc~t: r v­ation of a panicular portion or the Pi~aka by regular recltatlUlIs, imbibed, in course of time, doctrines which could be looked upon as peculiar to the body holding them and in this way,. the body developed into a separate religious school of Buddlmm. Such instances are found among the Theravad im, who had developed into such a schooL from the Vinayadllara)", the

I. Smn Vii., I,p. 15; PapaiiUlsi.dar:i, D. 79. 2. Virlaya, IV. 15.4. (S.B.£. xiii, p. 339). "On Ihe PavaralJa day the

greater DHI of the night has Dassed away while the bhikkhus were in con­fusion: the bhikk"hus were reciting the Dhamma, those Vf:r:s-cL.! ill Suttanta~ were propounding lho:: Su(tanta~, those vo::ncd in Virulya were discus,ing the ViDaya, the Dhumma preacher. were talking ~bnut the Dhamma··.

In the S",n. Vii .. I. D. 15, it is Slated that the memorization of the Mlljjhima-ni/:iiya, Samyu//a-nikiipa and Aligullara·nikiiya was entrusted .to Sadputta, Mahakassapa and Anuruddha respectively and their respectl~e

disciples.

J)JSRUPTIVE FORCES IN T H E SANGt!.\ 43

sautr[lI1tika~ from the Su(tamQ.}, the Silrvastivadins from the

AbhidhalIllllikas and the Vaibha sikas from the Vibhii~ii> .

Grouping aroulld flO/ed teachen

The crystallization of bodies happened not only for the preservation of literature but also for the grouping of monks around a noted teacher. BLlddha gave prominence to some of his disciples by extolling them for their attainment of proficiency ill certain' branches of the Bud:!hist dhamma. 1 Of them the follo wing may be mentioned ;- (i) Siiriputta . the foremost of the highly wise (ma/:iipaliiiiil1arr.); (ii) Mah.1mogga1l3na, the fore­most of the possessors of miraculous powers (id:lhimanliinam), (ii i) Anuruddha, the foremmt of the possessors of divine eyes (dibba.cakkhukiill<1I1l): (iv) Mahiikassapa, the foremost of ihe followers of dl;iitQ precepts (dhurfll'iidiin<1I1l); (v) PUl~ oa Mah.tiini­putta, the foremost of the preachers of d'Jamma (dhammakathi­kiillam); (vi) Mahakacciiyana, t1".e foremos t of the expositors (sairkhiltClla bhii5irassa viltlriirena att!Jw!1 \'ibhajanlaJ1am); (vii) Rflhula , the foremost of the studen ts ('sikkhiikiimiinam'); (viii) Rcvata Khadiravaniya, the foremost of the forest-reclu:;es (iiraiiiiikcl1iim): (i~) Ananda. the foremost of the vastly learned (bailussllriinam); and (x) Upali, the foremost of the masters of Vinaya (villayadhariillam).

Buddha indirectly pointed out to his new disciples the precep­tor most suited to each in view of his particular menta! leanings. This practice led to the grouping of students aroun:! a teacher or his direct disciples, hence the remark dhiituso satta 5Q/!l sundanli wmentj2 on the principle that like draws like. In the Saftlyutta Nikiiya," we read often chieftheras, viz., Sariputta, Moggallana, Mahflkoghita, etc., each having ten to forty d IscipLes under his tutelage. Budd ha on a certain occasion pointed out thaI the group of hhikkhus formed around each of these theras was pos,es:;ed of the s:lme speciaL qualifications as those that characterised the thera himself. Thus the bhikkhus under Sariputta's tutelage \l;ere mal:iipwiiiiil'antii, those ur,der l\1ahii-

!. Vtnaya, II, PI.'. 75, 76. SU!;IYlllfa, 11,1-'. l!P.

J SalJ/J·IIt/a. 11. tm L~'i, 1 ~f, .

BUDDH IST meT:> I::>: INDIA

moggalhlna's were m!lhiddhikii, those under Mahakas~a p3's were dilMariitlli. the founders of the KiisYllpiya sect.

YU:ln Chwang nOlieed about n thousand years late r that on auspicious d3ys t he Abhidhammiklls wor5hippcd Sfl riputrll, the Vin ayi; ts Upa li, the Srdmlll.leras Riihula, the Siitraists Pu n:1Il MaitrayalJiputru, the Sllmit.dhists Mahamoggulliina, the bhikkhUl:Jis .\n:lIlda. the Mnhu}o.ni sts Manjusri and o ther Bodh is.'lttvas. 1

I n the first four classes of bhikkh us, Ihc aforcsaid affinit y bet­ween them und their lendcrs is ob\·ious. In thc nClit three classes, the affin it ), existed nil the same, thou£h it may not be apparent on the fnee of il. For the Samadhists followed I'vInhu· moggalliinn ~uuse he was the masler of iddhi pal' excellel/ce, whidl could be obtained only through sanuidM, and the bhik khur;lis followed Ananda because to him thc order of nuns owed its origin.

T he principal POilllS of re:>emblance between the followe rs a nd their preceptors were the lies that bound them together, but these were the point~ which constituted the features by which the ehier qualit ies of the preceptors were disti nguished. These distincti ons nmong them did not lie in any differences of doctrines, which they professed but in the degrees of proficiency atta ined by each. in parlicular aspects of Duddhistic .JfidhufI{i. Dul the divisions, thouSh not proceeding from radical differences in doctrine, grew stereotyped in coune of time, and fus ion between them later beea'lle an impos!oibili ty due to the centrifugal tend en­cics they natur,llIy developed as separate bodies. Thus the division which had originated without any doctrinal differences gradually gave rise te the latter and grew into full-fledged schools.

I.c.'iluc/(' ({/lonnl ill Di.rciplim:

It has nlready heel rnemioncd in connection with the episod e of Devad:ltta2 that BlHIJha allowed :1 eerlain amount of latitude to his disciples in the ohservance of Vinaya rules. H e laid more

Wanen. ruan Cinl'IlJlg. I, p. :'02, 2, Sec ubovc. p. 35· 36.

DISRUPTI\'E FORCES IN TilE SAi'GHA

empha~i~ OJ] mental than on physical discipline. I n his discussion with Up.Hi, a by di5ciple ofNi~alJ!ha Na!aputta. he poin too out that Ill: considered malloda~I{1a as more important than /,;ii)"ada~'{la in ~piritual culture.1 In the Afahitparilliblxillu.Jlltta. his dirt'Clion reganling the abrogation of minor disciplinllry rules c1e;trly revC"alcd his viewpoint in regard to extcrnal di~iplinc. ! In shorl. in I is e5timation , pmi,iii and ciua practices were far more impor· rum thin :.110 obsefvanees.3 H : r.;:a lized the vlLlue of d,e 1<llIcr fo r the newadeplS, but thai was not the be-all and the end-all of hi~ scheme of culture. F rom the history of the growth or the Vinayn eodc £ it will be observed how he mnut: COIlCes5ion anet concession for the physical comforts of Ili~

ui5cip1es. lIis code was not a hard-and -fast one. He lUau\:: ellcep!iol1s in favour of the bhikkhu~. who were pl~ceu ,Ll a dis~dvanlage by reason of the locality in which they residct!. l u the border countries ( paccal/rima jal/apada) su..:h as Avalili. lIlt: converts were f.;:w and intractable. hence, Budd ha at the IC4Ln:~t

of KiLcc£~YiLna and PUI.H).a Mantfmipulla made some e-,eeptiutl."> ill thei r f,Lvour in regard to the rules fo r formati OIl of an assl'!lIbly for ord'lining monks and Ihe u.'e of Ie.L ther·made ~hoC"."> ,1111.1 olh~r ,Irticles prohibited to the bhikkhus dwelliLl£ in tIll' Miudlc eounlr)".~

Particdarly noticeable is :-ais repl)' to the Vllijiputtak ,L monk who expressed his difficulty in ob~r\'ins all the 250 rules uf tllt: Piifimokkha. Duddha saij that he \\ ould Ix s3tisficd if tILt: bhikkhu would practise the three Si k~s,' viz., w(J/,;:.i!a. ulilJidflu and adhipm1,ui, by which he mean t the mi nute observance of lIn: disci pline envisaged in the a!!haligikulllagga.

Austerities made optiollol

From his personal experiences Buddha rxommended to his discipl ':s the middle path which cschcwc:d austerilies as a means

I . Mujjhimo, I, p. 372f. 2. Uigha. II. p. 154.

s~"C. EM8., ~h. V I. ~. LMn., I , ch. XVI. ~. For boundaries, see B.C. Law, Gcogr(/[.hy of Early Buddhism; ViwYII

J. PI' 197 .9~; Divy",wdilllll, p. 2 1. 6., Maijhi!llu. 11. p. H. ;., 9. Cr. OhA., I, p. 334 : Sekho ti ;',\1 11 Sil.hikkh;l.

a<l ltl cJ!la~lk: kl"lfl ajhtpannasikk hii Ii imii ti~)o sik~h!l si K ~J"I;I(w!n SOT!l)1aui­nlJ ~l:"!lh''ll "di'1' katvli )'~ va <lr"h .. u"In"~ll::' l1hu ~all"\"iJh,, ~c~th' .

40 BUDDHIST ~I;CT~ I~ I ~DIA

of attaining the goal. Buddha, who himself led a life of severe austeri l}' W:lS convinced that austeri t ie~ a lone could never f'Jlm his. mission. ' For this reason , au,tere pract l ce~ do not figu~ in his disciplina ry code2 but there is ample evideilce to show that Buddh:J. praised thOiC ascetics who took to the dhii/(l precepts.3 H e yielded to the strong tendency of those ci iscipl:!s, who ':Ieliev­ed in t he efficacy of austerities a nd could not be sal isflcri wi th a religion barren of such pract ices. M ah:tkasiapa, one of his most fa .. ourite d isciples, was an advocate of austeri ties, and it was difficult fo r the Teacher not to c0mpiy with t he wishes o f disciples like him. T he sys:em of living a forest-li fe, therefore, came into vogue in the early days of Buddhi~m, and so there are in the Vinaya special rules for the iiraii/iakat who were required to at tend the fo rtn ightly Pafimokklw assemblies, though at the ,3mc timc they were c"(cmptcd from many forma lities.

Failh instead of //Ioral obS(!flYJl1ct's

It Clnn ot be cxactl} determined when firm fai th in Buddha, DhamlJlO and Sa/ig/io came to be recognized as a mean s to the attainment of N irviilJu. In the VOj/hiipomasulta, so much empha­sis is laid on it that a monk, having firm faith in the Tr;r(Jl/la. is exempted from observing even the rules of food. Th is .I"IIUQ

furt her shows IhH a monk, taking to fai th, needs not p:actise the sIlas as recommended for the geilera1ity of monks.4

In \iew of \\-hat has been staled abo\e, we may condude thaI strict observance of the Vinaya rules was Dot in the Teacher's mind, though after his demise his disciples made the most of the same. In fact. they became more and more ritualistic and failed to use common diSCretion. A slight deviat i,m from t he Vinaya hms made them sinners, thoug~ such violations of (he law

1. Majjhima, r, p. 17. ~ ViIlQ)'C, V, 131, 193-~. AI!/III/ara, III , p. 344f. ~. Majjhl"lIl, J, p. 26. See also a"dnlti.flic Srudil's(p. 329) for detailed tre;j!mer. t by Dr. S.M.

8arua.

V1SRUFTI VE fORCES D( TaE SANGHA 47

mattered little ill spiri tual advancement. Thc protcst ruiscd by the Mahl~ligh ikas had no t ~ing. untowa rd in it. ond the Thcravadi n:., we may 5a)" magntficd It . \Vc do not mea n to justIfy laxit} io uiscipline, but when discipline ends in litend and ~upcrficia l ob~fYance of a sct of rules, onc hilS the righ t to exam ine thellI on meri!.

CHAPTER IV

SOURCES AND CLASSIFICATION OF SECTS

Dr. Bnreau 1 has dealt with the different tradi tions of tho ugh t conl"erning the origin of sects ch ronologically, thus :-

I. The firs t epoch _ Sinhalese trad itions in the Dipal·olll.'O l4th rentury ..... 0 .). Buddhagho~a in his introduction to the commen­tary on the Klllltiil'utflw added six sects to the list of Dlpa"GlIIsa .

viz., R;-.j:IBiribs. Siddhatth ikas. ?ubbaseliyas, Apa mseliya s. Haimavata, :lnd V;ijiriy.l. grouping the ti rst four under t he Andhabs. He attri ;,uted a numb~r of views to the Utt:mipatha­leas. Hctu v:id ins :lnd the Vetullakas. Perhaps the Haimavatas and V:ijiriy~ls were iIlduded in the Uttarapatha kas. In the tradi · tion arc mCIHiont'd Ek:lbboharikas. Parliiatti y3di ns. and Bahus­sutiya~ of the northern branch of the Cctiya v.idins. who helonged to the southern branch of the Mahasanghik:1s.

II. T ile second epoch-The S:ll)lInitira tradition of Bllt\Yya placed t ile Hnimavatas under the Sthaviu group. and identified HelUviidins with Sarv3stiviidilH. It followed the Sinhalese tradi­tion in its conce ption of the sub-sects of the M;lhfls..'lllghikns.

III . The third epoch _ Kashmiri:lll tradition: (a) .<iirl!)/11l"a-paril'!ccltii-siilrll of the M nhasanghik;J.s. The

ori£in::!l text is not aV;lil ;lble. It'> Chinese t ra nslation was made between 327 and 420 A.D .

(b) SalJlo)"a-b/ie(/opaI"GCOII{l·("u f.;r(l of Vasum ·tru of t he Sarvas­t iv~ida 5ellool. It ha~ olle Tibet.ln trUll sbt ioll und three Chine~e translat ions of about 400 ..... D. In this trudi tion Haima"ata is included in the Sthuviru grollp .

(c) M(IIijuiri-parip!cc!ui -srlfra a'l;lilubleolily in Chinese trans­lation made in 5 18 .\.D. by Suilgh:.ipi .. b . In thi s Ie,"" th e Haimavatas appl':.IT as a n offshoot of SJrviistiv odo. This text se1!ms to h:' 'I1: many errors if its lis t be compured with that in Ihe /lfahii" J"IIlpatfi. In this tradi tio n, the sub-di~i~ ions of the M~lh"I ~:1I1ghik:l s a fe en larged by the

I. u .. u:,' ~. L,·.{ S,','/,'< ft/l /,,'11/ 1','11;"/11,' ( BErEO .• [')jt.) , I'l'. 161

~Ot:RCES liN!) CLASSIFICATION OF SECTS 49

addition of Lol::o ttaravada, Apardaila, PUr\'aS:li la and Uttarasaila. 1

Vinitadeva and the a uthor ofthe B./1/·k,fUI'QI·:iigra{J!cc!u! divided the eighteen sects into five groups, thus: . .

I. & H. Mah:isanghikas comprising P iirvaSalla. AplraSUila. Haimavata, Lokottara\'iida and Prajfiapti vac.ln .

ill. Sarvastivadins comprisi ng Mulasarvastivada , K;"Uyaplya, Mahisasaka, Dharmogupta, Bllh usrutiya, Tilm rasaFya and a section of the Vibhajyavada.

IV. S:immitiyas comprising Ka urukuUaka, Avantaka and V:it>iputriya.

V. Sthaviras comprisi ng Jetavaniy:!, Abhayagiriv3sin , a nd Maha\ ihara viisin,

Viniladeva's information and classification evidently point to a posterior date. He indudes some of the later schools in his enumeration and omi ts some of the older schools, which Were probably extinct by his time. e.g., the Ekavyavaharib, Goku lika, Dharmouariya, and Bhadrayanika. Particula rly noticeable is his incl usion of t he Ceylonese sects like Jetav:l niya l ( i.e. Sag-dlika of the MahihoqlSa, v. 13) A bhayagirivasin3 (i.e. Dhammarucika of the Malliil'mfl.w, v. 13) and Ihe Ma h,ivihara vasin. The Jetavaniya, it will be no ted, come into existence as lat t' as the reign of ~laha~na (51h century A.O.).

Taranatha in his 42n<.l chapter (KIITU BerrachlulIg tfe.~ Simles dt'/" I'ie, Sdlll/C'II)~ furnis lles us with very impo rtant identi fications 01 the different names of schools a ppea ring in the li sts of Bh il\'ya, Vasumitra, Vinitadeva and o thers. After reproducing t he several lists, he gives the fall owing iden tificatio ns:

(I) Kiisyapiya = SU\larsaka. Oi) Sl1IJ1l.:riintil adin"'" Uttariya -= Tn mraMl\ iya .

{iii } l"~ttyaka = Pii rv.lSai la ~ Schools of Mahndeva. (iv) Lokou<lm viida _ Kaukku!ika. (\, ) 1 " "avya\ ah~lrik;t is a ge nera l name oi the Mahiisailghikas.

I. fbresII.or. €"it., p. 1M. 2. J'a'l'SQIf/'apnakiisblf. p. t75: SJlcsl il<ii nAma Ma~scn:lr1l.ii.ilo

Jetnvana1.'aSIllO bhikkhu. J. IUd. 1! .... a s roulld~d III Ceylon dudnH the reign of Vat!aglimar)i. " . S.:h idne-. op. dt., pp 210-74.

;0 BUDDHIST SECTS IN IND IA

(VI) K uurukulJaka, Vatsiputriya, Dharmottariya, Bhadra­y~lniy" and Chlnnaganka held almost similar viewi. 1

These IderHlficatlons help U~ to trace the Uttar~ipathakas of the Xm/rii ra1l:w. T his school should be iden titied with thc Ullar iyas o f Uhavya and the S.lTfLkriintivfidins of Vasumi tra or S:lIpk rantlkas of the Pcih texts . The Sal}1kdlltivadins were also " nown as the r.lmrasal iyas ~robab ly on accou nt or their copper· colOUTed robes. Uut or these T amrasfi{iyas or Ullariipalhakas or Sfllpknimiviidins or Dar~lanlibs arose th~ Saulninlikas, who 3TC orten m~ntioned in the .'~at1lkarab"ii~ya. Sa/"mda,..l-dIlGsOIigrolla ami similar 011er works of t:,c Brahmanic schools of philosophy.

A comparison of the dilTcrcnt lists or Schools sho ws that thei r groupings qui ;e agree wi th one another. The Mahflsanghka brr,nchcs may be sub-divided into two grou ps. The earlier (or th e lirs l) grou p comprised the original Mahiisallghikas, B avya­vnh:-lrik:IS and Cnityakas or Lokottara'ladi ns. According to T£tramitha, Eknvynvn 11arikas and the Ma hiis~ nghi kas were alm ost idcntiClll. T he chicfecnlre of this group was a t Pii~atiputra. The lati:r (or the second) grou p of Schools came into ex istence long afte r the Mnhilsa nghikas. T hey became wi dely known as the Saiki Schools o r liI<.' Andhabs,~ and made their chief centre at AmarfLvati :In:l N:iS[Lrj unikol)c;la. With them rna} be classed the llahu~rutiY ' L and Prajiiapti vadins, as in d octr in al m:ltters the former agreed rr.ore wi t h the Saila Schools than with the Mah,i­sanghi kas. while Ihe latter had its o rigin as a protest against the doct rines of the Bahusrutiyas.

The third group o f Schools is formed by the ea rlier Mahi~a­

sabs, :md Sar\'as ti\'fldins with the later Mahisfl sakas D ha rma-

I Taral1 .1ltll lell, liS rllrlher lhll during 1he rei~11 of Lhe 1';)1:1 kin~,

»C '"l:n .<ehnob onty "crt I..no"n . The' e"'er.: : (I) S,1111mill Y:l eO"1l'ri.ing V~ I~i,,"lri)' :I .1nd K3ur"I",lbb

ri) M:lhl"l'r mj!hika com"ri~inl: Prajilnpli~,1dl ;md L(>tol1arav,)da . (ii) S;lrv;hl viu!:. compri.ing T:imraSflliya Jild Sarv[1'1 v[lda . The forme r

Oc\:;1I11t: kilown a, D!1 r~Fill1ib. OUi of which dc· .. eloped the Saulr;inlika Schol,l . Th i~ corrnbornl<'~ Ma'mla', re wn);; ; ~ again'l Ih :l l of Loul . (1c 1;1 y"lIcee POl,.~ill ,hili lhe Dr''' 1 ''11Iik~5 preceded the S:llllrlnlika~. Sec A.I.'n 'H"i"'·' p. (,7fn

2 To rhe All(lh:lk ;I~~ !lo"ld bc:lddcd the Yeli\lyaka, and Ihe Hcl llV~d in. ;w<"Mdill~ 10 lhe KUfhlivlI/{hll .

SOURCES AN I) r. 1.ASSIFlC.\TIO:<.' 0 1' SE[;T~ 51

gu ptakas, Kasyapiyas, Saijlkr.intikas or Cttani pa thakas. 1 or T:lmrasa!iyas.

Thcfourth group comprised Ihe V:ljjiputt:l kas or Vatsiput ri~ as

wi th Dharmottariyas, Bhad rayanikas, Ch'lnnaga rik ll~. and Sammitiyas. a nd also Kaurukullakas. In this gro up, pnlctically all the schools merged in one, Ii:: .. the V:ltsiputriyus, otherwise known a s the Siirpmitiyas.

The last, the fi ft h group but the cl ri .est in origin. was the Thera viida which, as Vinitadeva says, fo rmed a group with the Ceylonese sects, I'i::., Je ta\'aniya, Abha yagi ri\·{lsins and M ah:i vihiiraviisi ns.

Prof. Lamotle in Ilis H i.'Otoire dll BOliddflisiIIl' Inditn (p. 578) ~as furnished us with a ta bular statement of the geographical distribution of the several schools on the basis of inSlTiptions di scovered so far. Aceordillg to this statement, the schools, divided into several grou ps inour scheme, ,Ire rcorodu<:ed here.

Group.~ I & I I

Comprising Mahasanghikas and its sub-sects Pun'osu il u und Aparasail.l (also known as Caityika), Haimllv(l tu . Lokotlnruviidu a Ild Prrjnapt ivada. T he Sa ib sch oo ls are collectivel y known us the AnrlIJabs, \\.hich incl uded R:ijagi rik:lS and Sidclhntlhilius

I & /I MO//(it"'lRhiko

I. Mu hasaghiya (Konow, p . 48): Lion Capilal of M athura (I~t cen. A.n.).

2. Muhasa rpgiliga (KOIIU\N, p . 170): Warda li Vase, )"ca r 51 o f Kal)i~ ka (ca. 179 I\. f) .).

3. MohiLsaghiya (Luden, 1105) . Karle Cave of the )"ear 18 of G:lutarniputra Si.itakarl) i (Circa 106-130 ..... D.).

4. Mnhastghiya ( L iit.k:r~, 1106); Karle C.we of the year 24 of Vasi ~!iputJa Puloma (ca. 130·159 A,D.).

5. Ayirnharpgha (EI . XX, p. 17) : Pillar of [\'agarjuI11ko(lQa of lhe year 6 of M:i thariputra Virapuru ~adatta of the Ik jv ilku dynasty (ca. 250-2i5 A.I).) .

S 1 V~"""ilra mcr. lion~ Saul,;l"lika "s an a :te f1~llve nnme for ' '' ~lk~;11l.1ik~' or SaTJlkr')llliv~da. Sec Masuda . • 1I(a /If"i"", IJ , p . 67 fn . The Saulranllhs arc catted UUar;\pa thakas in lhe KhfhIJullllr" See IlIlm.

' 2 lIUOPHI <;-r SECTS I N INDJ'"

6. Ayiralmgha ( fl, XX . p_ 10) Pilla r of Nagarjuni k o ~ c;l a (ca. 250-275 A.U.).

Piirl'tJSoila and Aparasaila

1. Puva(s)diya ( El , XXIV, p. 259) : Pillar wilh D aarmacakra of Dhara (l i ko~a : probable dete uf Vlsi)!hiputra

Pu\oma (ca. 130-159). 2. P uvaseliya (An. Rep. AS I, 1923· 24, p. 93) : AI\i1ru

(K is tna nist.) . 3. A parumahiiv inaseliya (El. XX. p . 17): Nfi garjuniko1)i) :t

Virapururld'l tta P ilillT of the year h of MIi~ha ripu tra

(ca. 250-275) . 4. Apara mah,lvinascliya (El, p. 19) : Pii1ar of l'\{lIifirjun i.

kOI)c,ia of lhe: yea r 6 of the same king.

5. Aparamahavmasel iya (EI , XX, p . 2 1) : T.empl{' of Nflga­rj unikoQQ3 of the year 18 of the sa me kln g_

6. (Apa) rasd iya (El. XXVI[, p. 4) : Slab of Gha; ~a~;i.l fI , forme rly, Ukha~irivadh2ma na = Bardam ana of to .emy

(VII. 1, 93). 7. Ap~l ri scl a (Liiders, 1020 with the ·correcti on in fHQ ,

XVIII 1942. p. 60): Ka nher; Cave, date as aoo\l: . 8. R iijasi r i ~iva sib (Luden 1250) ; Amari\vali sc ulptu re, date

as 3 00VC.

Caity iktl or ,~'ai!a ,f

I. Cetl kl ya t L Odcr~. 1248): Inscribed s t~ne of Ama r;i"3"Oti' S09fj ttle reign o f Vii s i ~ l hipu lri\ PulQm :l (C.I . ·

2. Celika (rvt url i, No. 33, p. 278) slah of A mara v:l ti

3. Celiyav:tJ11daka (Li.iders, 1123) : sc ulpture of Amanivali

4 . Ceri:wa mda ka (Liiders, 1263) : ~culplU r(' of Ama nivali

5. Cctib of R ~ijag i ri (Luclers, 1250) sl..' ulptu re nf Am ar3vati

(da t<" :'I!> aoovc)

(dn)

(do)

6. Ja\likiya (U i<lers, 1244) Pillar of Aman'ivati

(du)

(d o)

!'.OURCE ~ AND CLASSIFICATIOS OF SECTS

7. Cetika (Uldcrs, 1 130) : Nasik l:a VC

8. Cetiya (Ludcrs, 1171) : J unnar Ca\ e

9 . Seliya (LUders, 1270) : Pillar of Amarii.vati

\0, Mahfl va nll. !;Cliya (LUd~rs. 1230) do

11 . Ma huvnnasela (Liiders, 1272) sculpt ure of Amariivati

Ha:mii ralu l

53

(d o)

(d o)

(do)

(do)

(do)

I. Hema vata ( Luders, 156) ; Crysta l ca sket of So nil ri slDpa of Su nga epoch, (2nd cent. ll .C )

2. Hcma vata (Luders, 158): Steatite casket of Sona ri slupa 2 of Su nga epoch (2nd cent. D.C.)

3. He m:l\1lla ( l.i irler~. 655); Maj umdar. 3 : Steatite casket of Sanci s I'lp a . Suirga epoch (2 nd, cent. B.C.)

GrlJllp IJI Sarl'ii..,t iWida

Comprising Mfl la s:l TVastivAda, Kasyapiya, Dharm,lgupta. O"l husru tiya, Tamn\~;i! lya and a sect ion o f Vibha jY<l v;ida.

Sl1rvasriviida

I & 2. SarvaSlivatra (Kon ow, p. 4~) : Ma thura Lion Capital ( 1st cent . . ,.D.).

3. S;:mustivalin ( Ko now, p. 137) : Sha h ji· ki- I.lher; (Shrine of Ka uiska) (ca . 128-1 51).

4. Sa[rvastiJvada ti (Konow, p. 145; : Zeda P illar o f K a l) j ~ bl (circa 128. 151).

5. Sa rvastivad ll (Konow, p. 155) : Coppe r S{llpa of Ku rTum (ca . 128-15 1).

6. Sa rvastivad in (Ko now, p. lUi) : Inscri bed pol~l u::rd o f 1)hcri without date.

1 Re. lIuimu.atru : scholars who ~a'IC dealt with these 5el:1S di ffer in their opinions. While some ptace the Haim(1valas as a s<.:v-M, ... l of the "'l,,"fj~lIIig/ri· leas. other~ i oe~ u,je them a monll the JUb·seclS of the S ,u,·,>Sli.iid"" $.

54 BUDDHIST SEcn I N IND IA

1. Sa rv.isli viid io (Liiders, 9 : 8-19) : Buddhist statue of Kaman (no date).

8. S:Hv:i.stivi'ldi n (Liide rs, 929): Buddhist ba lustrade of Sarnaln .

9. Sllvasthi::liya (LUders, 125): Buddhist stalue of Mathura without dale.

Ktlsyaplya

I. Ka . . (KoDo w, p. 6J): Inscribed pottery o f Tak ll t- i·&hi (no da le,.

2. KaS3via (KollOw, p. 88) : Ladle of copper or' Tax]!a, gin of lSparakka probably Aspavarma, vassal 01' Azes II (ca. 5· 19 A.D.).

3. Ka~yav iya (KOllOW, p. 89) : Copper Jadle of Bedadi in the kingdom of Vrasa (no date).

4. K,, ~(y )aviya (Ka now, p. 122) : A jUg of Pal. Wi J)beri (no date).

5. KaHapiya (Ltiders, 904) : Buddhist cave of Pabhosi of the year 10: probably thc fifth Sunga .

6. So\'asa kz. ( llice-n. 1106) : Karle Can: of the YC<lr 24 o f Va5i ~!hiputm, Puloma (ca. 13(}"159).

Bahuirulfya

I. Bah (u ~ut i) a ka (Konow, p . 122): Jar of Plila!u Q heri (no date).

2. Bahusutiya (£/. XX. p. 24 : Pillar of Nag:irjuDiko r.H,Ia o( the reign of Miithariputra Virapuru ~ad'llla (ca . 250-275).

J. Bllhusu tiya (EI. XX I. p . fi2): Pilla r of Naga rju!l ikoJ:l~a

of the year 2 of Ehuvula Santam[lill I I of the I k~vaku dynasty (end of the 3rd century).

Viitsipurriya

I. Vatsiputrika (Liiden, 923) : Buddhist Pi lla r of Sarnath of the Uupta epoch (4th cen.)

5OURCf.S AN D CLA!SIFICA TION OF SECTS 55

M4ht.fiisaka

I. Malii (sa) sa ka (EI, XX, p. 24) : Pilla r of N;lgarj uRikOlJ~a

of the yea r II of Enuvula SamamOla II o f the Ik~vaJ...u tlYllusty (end of the 3rt! cent.).

2. Mahisasa ka (£/. I, p. 238) : Pillar of Kura at Salt Range (Panjab) of the reign of Toram:ina Shah Jauvia (end of the 5th cent.).

Saufriintiica

I. SUlalPlika (Liiders, 797): Pilla r of Bharhut of the SlIliga epoch (2nd cent. A.O')'

2. SuWika (LUdc rs, 635) : Sanci of the ~ungl\ epoch.

J. SUliilikini, Satatikini (Liiders, 352, 319): Saild of the SUliga epoch_

D lwrllloltar')'t'I

I. Dh amutariya (l.iidcrs, 1094-95): Gift o i two pillars to the DharmOll!lriya school of Sllrparaka (withou t date).

2. Dhammullariya (Liiders, 1152) : Junll il f Cu\e (no d .lte).

Bhadrariilll),Q

I. (Bhildaya)l1iya (LiidcTS, 987) : Kanhed C~lVe or the reign of Yajibsri SatakarQi (ca. 174-.203).

2. 8 hadraj:lI1iJja (L iiders, 1018): Karlhcri Cave (without date).

3. 8 1ladlivaniya (li.iders, 1123): N.uik C ave o f the year 10 of Vasi~!hiplllr~1 P ulomii (cu. 1:10·159).

Bhad~'tY~lniyu (Liidcrs, 1124) : Nusik CilVC of the yea l~ 19 ~ll1d 22 of Vu.~i ~!hi putru Pul omu (t-a. 1,10.15'1).

56 aUDDHISl' SECTS IN INDIA

Sarnmalfya

I, Sammitiya (Ludcrs, 923) Buddhist Pillar of Sarnath of the Gupta epoch (4th cenL).

Sinhalese Therul'ada

I. Tam bapa(rp)lJaka (EI, XX, p. 22) : Templ~ of Naga· o rjutlikol)Qa of the year 14 of Ma~hariputra Virn­puru~datta of the Ik~vak.u dynasty (ca. 2S0-275).

THE MAHASANGHIKAS

History of Sch{){!i:. 0/ CrQf<{Js J &: II

Tht first two groups in emr scheme included the Mahii­!oatighikus LInd their sub-secK SC'lnning the various t radi tions about the appearance of the "lib-sects, it is found that Va.u-1I1itra nnd Bhavya agree wIth the Kathiiratllm as far as !he three sub divisions are concern~ if the name Cetiya be rC.I!;arded as alternative to Lok ou::truvilda . In the Malu;I'rulu which is an avowed text of Lokottara\l~da. a hranch of the Mahasanp;hi­kas, worship of Caityas is given prominence. It will not, tnerc:fon:, be wrong to say that the Lokottaravadins were also called Caityukas.

Sometime tlfter tne ap~arallce of lhe~e three sub-sects, there came inlo ell. islem;:e two more sub-secl~. viz.. Bahusru· liya und Praji'lUptiviida. According 10 Vnsnmitra and Bhnvya, these i~ucd out of the Mahiisarighikas direct, while in the KotlllimttlU/ and the Ce)'lonese traditions, they lire made sub· d iv i sion~ of the Gokulikas. Ihough the latter did not appear to have becn an important sect at any time. The doctrines of these two later sub-sects are allied to those of the Maha­sanghik<ls ami of the Snrvasti\iidins.

The Mahii.s<uighikas have s~ined in importance llnr! popularity not so much by the sub·seets mentioned above but hy the sects which !;:ame into ell.istcnce at 11 later period, i.e., the Sai lll schools of Vasumitra nnd Bhavya and the Andhabs of the Pali tradition. The two writers mentioned above speak of three Saila schools, viz., Caitya, Unura and Apara, while in the Pllli tradition appear nve names; Hemavillika, Rajagirik.a , Sic1dhatthika. Pubbllsci i)a and ApDrnsel iya. Tho\lgh the Pali tradition is parti· ally corrobo rated by Vinitudeva's lisl, it has been fully born~ out by the inscriptions discovered at l\agarjllniko l)~Ja and Amaravati (Dhanllku!aka)1

I Se~ infra.

58

The $aHa schools of later days threw the Mahasaflghikas mto the shade. It seems that the earlier Mahasanghikas were not concentrated in one centre as were the Sailas. The former were st;attcn;:u allover N. W. india, Bihar and Western India, whi le the: latt~r wcr: concentrated a t Sripuvata and Dhanakataka (in Glintur di~Lrkt) . T he inscriptions indicate that a magnificent Caitya wa~ erected here a nd its grandeur and sanctity attracted devotees from places all over India a nd Ceylon. According to the inscriptions, mentioning the names of the ruling kings, the date of erection of the Caitya should be placed about the 3rd or 4t h century A.D.

The first group of seclS, viz., the Mah.isai'lghikas, Ekavyava­hilrikas ami the Caityakas (or u,kottara'ladins) had generally common d\,K; lrines with minor differcnres which have not been mi nutely distinguished by Vasumitra. A'S regards the second group of ~ls, viz., the Sailas Of the Andhakas, the Bahu~rutiyas and Prajiiapth a.dins, Vasumltra has equa lly been silent. It is in the Karhi'ivutlhu that we fin d that a Jarge number of doctrines na"e b«n atlr ibuted to this group, and after a nalysing the doc­trines, it appt:ars that this group accepted som·e o f the doctrines of Sarvastiv<i.da . It is proposed to discuss the doctrines of the fir st and :;ttund groups separately.

L i fcrofI.Jl'e

In the D tpOl'UIllSa1 it is stated that the J\.! ahasanghikas not only int roduced the ten new Vinaya rules but also propounded new doctrines contrary to the established onego At the Mohii­Mli/glli held by them at Pii.~aliputra they made allerations in the Sulra and Vil/oya Pi/akm, as also in their arrangement and interpretution. They did not include, in the Pi!~k.a eolleclio n,2 Parifiiro, AbhidhammappakaralJQ, Pa{i.Jombhidiimnggo. Nidd(!~·a

and the Jiilakas . The importance and accuracy (l r their decision are supported by the modern cri tical wri lers. a T he Paril'iira (palha), intended as a manual for the bhikkhus, was no doubt a

t Dlpuli(l//lSO, t h. iv. 2 IlJid., v. 32-38. J Rhys DaviCls, Hibbert Utl","f, p. 41; Ottlcnlx:l'jt's Intra. 10 Ihe

"',"/Ulya TeXIS, I, p. XXXIV.

THE MAIlAsANGIIIKAS 59

composition or a mudl lata Uale. The IIbhit1halllll!~ It:;>.!:> abl~ developed ufler the l:uu!ll: il uf Vdlili andublallled thell· nlla! ~ l ",pl; in the third Syllud held d uring ASuktt'", reigu. ' LU~I~y, the tlH~C works, the Pu! i\u/IIhhillJIIlIIIU!:U, Nidde.l·u aml.lhe Ju(uJ..os, wele added to tile Canon IOllg, aetcr it~ c\u~e. I II ~Iew.of llie CO~l t etlts of the P(lIiSlIlIluhidiilllagsu, it should ha~e been wduded III the Ilb/l illf/UII~lIa Pi!aka, while the NiddO:Ml which is an old con~­mentalY on the SutW-nil'ii{u along with the Jiilokl1~, wh ich IS

also a commentary on theeanonical Jiitaka book, were excl uded

rrolll the Pi~ak<l l:ol1(:{; t ion. . . frolll <111 dlese te~tilllonie s, a$ mentioneo above, It IS a"pare~t

that like the T heravidins and the Sarva~tiv<i.djns, the Ma~l~­~a "' ghik.as hau a complete canon o f lh:i r ~w~ in. its three d l ~ l­~lUII~. Refe rel1ee~ to the (.;<lnOI1 or the Mahasanghlkas ar: found ill the j n~criptions diKovelcd at A maravdti and. N ii"garj~llIkol)Qa . Ou the pillar of an out(r railing of the Amuravall s t~p;J. there M\: tv.-o inscriptions, one of which ~peJks of c~rta lll n~lls as Vilw}'f1dhaw' and the other of the monks or Mah~vanilS(hya as Mul:iil.illuyudlta/"U.~ These di$ t in(.;tly imply the :xl.tence,. ilbout the begillning of the Chri~tian era, of a Vinuya Pi[aka 11l th<lt

reg,ion . . There .lIe simi l" r refe rellee~ to the Sulra Fi{ako abo, and III

gre<ltcr details. In an insCript ion ' Oil one of the slabs fo und neM the (.;enlfill stupa of Amaravati, there is a reference to ~ monk of Muhavll ililsii lii. as SWf1YI4ta-bliii(IUka (not Salll)'uw-b/w ~ lIkll, .as fead by Burgess) . In Nagiirjunikol)Qa appear the follo~tng m­script ions in the i\yaka pi llars C 1 and C~; D igha- ,\ /(IjIIlIl1U-PW/l­('lImii t II!..:. u-o.mka- J"iicak iillllm, Drghc.- M ajilillla-nik iiyadhan:lIll , !JI'

gila-AI ai!llma-pallli/a-lIuir uka_ae.wlkal·(leakiillam .. n d Drgha- ,\ lu­lIiguya-~/hare"a . These ki!vC no room ror d~b.t about the existence of a Su({u-PiIakll in at least threc Nlkayru;: /}(gha ,

Majjhima and SWf1YU({(l. There abo occurs the expression Paiica-mu{uka, which is LI\

irregular form of P(.Ilka-miirrikii (Puli IIUlfikii). The term

1 Oldenbcrl!, op. dr., p. u)liv. 2 \.lurgess, lJ",JJh!sl SI UptlS of Ama,,j>'(.ll/ 1111;/ JII1I8UY)"QPtJu (Arch. S,-r.

uf 5. Illdia). p. J1. J t"'d., p. 102 4 Ibi,I .• p. 9t ' P I(l.le xlv iii, 3SJ see ,.I~o p. \05.

60 BUIJDiIIST SECTS 11\' INDIA

"matlki." denotes the dCluikd contellts of an Abhfdhamma text. It is used also to indicate a complete Abhidhamma text. Hence, it mny be ~urmiscd that the term "Pur}lcamiitukii" refers to five and not seven, of the tl.bhidhamma texts. Perhaps the two texts omitted art the POIIMillG and Ihc Kalhul"utthu. which were later added to the Abhhllrumma texts. Among the Vinnya texts enlisted in Nenjio's Catalogue there arc four works with nUll!kii as n part of their titles, tho ugh none of them belong to the Muhiisonghi­kas.1 Prof. Pnyluski writes' that the Mnhasuilghikns hud II parti­cular fancy for the number "five", especially in connection wi th the Vinnya te..:ts. Matrka wa~ used by the ancient compilers to denote the jlillaya Pi/aka as much as the Abhidhamma Pi/aka, hence the word "Palllca-miituka" of thc inscriptions may wcll mean the Vil/aya Pi/aka of the Mahasanghikas, whose text also had five divisions like that of the other schools.

fa-hien (41 4 A.D.) came across a complete transcript of the Mahasanghika Vinuya at Pli.!uJiputra and translated it inlo Chinese two years luter.3 In Nunjio's Catalogue arc mentioned two Yinaya texts of Ihis school, viz., Mahiisunghika-vinaya and Ml\hiisaitgha-bhik~u1)i-vina)a (No. 543). Fortunately there is the original Mal/(h'cUlU , ~ which is the fi rst "olume of the Vi/IQya Pi/aka of the Lokottara"iidins, a branch of the Mahasanghikas. It corresponds to that part of the Pali Vinaya l'i!aka. which gives an acco unt of Duddha'!t life and his fo rmation of the fi rst Sailghil. By Buddha's life the compiler of tht: Mahiil'astu meaDt not merely his present life but also the events of hi5 past Jives, by reco ullting which he showed t hai a particular event in this life was only a repetition or result of the past. The account is d ivid­ed into three ~cc l ions like t~e Nidiina-kathii of the hi.takas, the fint dea ling with his exi:.tertCe:. al the time of D1paitkara ami utllel Buddhu5, the seco nd with his life in Tu~ita heaven, ami tht: tliinJ with his presenl life, agreeing mostly with tht: COIlIt:fl(S

I i'rz)" lu,ki , L" Co"(:!i,, de Rujagrha, 1>. 212. Z fbid. rn I~l. H7. l~<;l

] M . Hofil"l~er in hi ~ Elude sur Ie cOllcde de Yaisiili, chapler IV, tip. 14~-48 has Ir:ln~hl1e(lthe MaMulIighika Vina)"a into French, reproduced in English by me in the 'H;~ourl\ uf \h~ Second Lluddhist Counei '. Sec above. Taka~usu, H.-cords of rile Ihdd'IISt /(IIIXloll ~y '-IS[lIg p. U.

4 Sen .. r'" ed ition , p . 2.

THE IJARASAJ>lGH!KAS GJ

of the Pilli Muliiil·ugga. Apart from a few rules re!ating 10 ordi_ nation, it has nuthing to do with the di,ciplinary m:lttecs. It contains a few PrakrLt versions of the sutras of the Nikiipas. Slltta-lIlpi1ta, Dlrullllllapada and u few other tex is. It is more a

collection of Jii[akas than a tC"(1 o n Vinuyu. Winternitz th inks that its datt: uf composition should be pl:u:cd between tne 2nd century Il.U. ami t he 41h cen tury A.D.'

Langllagi! of the J!uhiisairg/llka-Pi/aka

Bu·ston~ tells us thm rhl' M:lhasar'tghikas claimed Mahiika­syap:l a, their founder, ~nc'llh :1. t t1e language of their P i~a"a was Pr:"tkrit, The language of th ... Mnhiil'a.\·/u,3 especi:lll y of its po=try purtion, is Illixed Samkri t anil which may weI! be call~d Prakril o r qU:lsi-Sanskrit :lnd pure S:1.n~l::rit. nnd the Srltra-pltaka was Jivid .~d into Jgllfnas instead of Nikityas. The southern j!.TOU!J

preferred to divide the Slitm-piplka illlo Nik:\yas and adopteJ the Pr:lkril iangllage inste::ld f"lf Pali.

Principal seats of the S(/II .• 0/s

Yuan Chwang~ states that the mlljorityof inferior b rethren at Pit!aliputra established the Mahiisruighika school. Fa-hien. as stated "bove, found Ine Vinaya of this school It Piilaliputra, so it may be co ncluded th3t the chief centre of this school W<lS

<It P:it aliputra, I-tsing (671-695 A.I). ) tells us that the Maha­sar'tghikas were found if! his time mostly in Mligadha, and a few in Li ta and Sindhu (Western India) and some in a few places' in Northern , Southern and E:tstern India .s Before I-tsing, both Fa-hien and Yu::m Chwang nad in these loc;ilities come

- - - Sec W,nter";; itz, History (If Intiitll l LiIt'rlJlurt'. II. p . .!39; A. c. Law, A

Sr~dy of Ih~ Mal/uw.l/lI, 1930. 2 RQidc. In;:i r own language. 11" Slo n adds, Ih~ ir rob~ ~ had ' ~ In 27

Frinlle<;. and lheir badge w~~ 11 ,.nl\l;h_~hell . lIu -S IOIl . [I. 11. 100. Cj. Csoma Kornsi, JAS8., 1838, p. 134; Wassiljcw, Der 8l1'JdhislIIlI.f, p. 294-9S: Eilers HilIU/."""'<; of Chin<,sl' 8I1ddhi~'m, p 88.

1 Sec Keith. Fortword 10 B. C. Law's SIll/I}' oj thr Malw1"{/sl/J. 4 WaHers,op. cil., 11. PI>. 261,269. ~ Tuk"ku~<I, (Jp. cit. , p. xuii i.

BUDDHIST SECTS IN Ir>:O IA

a~ross the ad lleren ls of Lhis school though not so fre::t uently as th ose of the others. T he earliest epigraph ical nOlice of Ihi lO school is found in the ins(.;riptiun on the Mathura Lion Capilal (Olhout 120 H.G.),' mentiolli llg that it hed a very strong oppo­nent in Duddhila, 8 n adherelll uf tht: Sarv<1stiv;\da school.

AI Andarab in Afghanislall a ll oJ its neighbouring places (hcre were a lso some followers of Ill is st:huol. During the reign of Hu vi ~ka, one Ka magulya oJepus iLt:d some relics of Budd ha in the Wardak vase and presented lhe sa me to the teachers of the Muhiisallghika ~ehool. The vault whidl eontainel1 the relic-va sc W IIS built by the father of KalUagulya." At A nd arab, which was three days journey from the ctluuLry or Ihe Wardaks. Yu an Chwang fou nd the ad herents of this ~hoo l in three monasterie~ .

T here was another centre o f lilt: st:hool at Karle, in the B,unbay Presidency, famous for lht: large <;c M d Ct nest cavc­telllple, which still stands as a meulOrial of its past glory. ' In t hi~ cuve-tcmp!c there arc two ill~l"ri p Li ons. one reeord;ng the gil"! of the village Karajaka by Gauw.miputra S:ila k:lrQi 10 t he mon ks of the Valuraka cave! for tht: support of the monks of the Mnhtlsllligh ika seet,1 and the o tlu::r of Ihe lillle of V.Histi­p ll tru Siri Pul unui )"i r~eordi ng the gift of a ni ne·cell ed Hall ··to th i: Sli me sect by an inhabitan t of AuLila rna. : Though the Mah lis:llighikus did not receive lIIudl attention fro m the Buddhi <t writers und dono rs., the Kark I:a\es show tha t the Sl!ct won a greal popularity in Ihat p .... 111 of the Bombay Presi· dency where the cn ves exist; for ot l l<: rwi ~c, the ravi:- lrrn ples could not have been so ric hly decorated will1 such fine specime ns of sculptural and urchitectural beuuly. I b ridmess a nd existence prove thn t t,lerc WUi a series of dUlio n. thro ugh cent uries an~iou s to clI:press their rcligi()us zeal alll.l devotion to Ihe M:"Ihas:tilghikas in Ihe nc.it woly thai thei r resources cou ld provide.6

r.. I .• IX, I'P. t3!J. 141, 140. 2 1::.1 .• XI. D. 21 1 ) See f()r its Ile<;cription Fcrgu;;S01'S Indian a",{ Ea!It'm Arrhi.'t'rl"rt'.

pp. 117f; r c rgu ....... '" :.md I!ur~c,s. Cn"t' Temples (Jj Indio ... p,) 2J2f. ~ E/I. Ind., VII . pp. Mf. S /hM., pp. 71f. f, Il urge",. U",;'/fli ,./ SItI,wS of A m(mi 'Vlli atlll /('/(/(oF1fH'/a tA "h . Su r.

of S. I ,Il ia), p. J 12-1J.

6.1

Thc obove inscriptionnl eviden ces rcl :l te to the Mah'-Isafl_ ghilms ulont', who, it :lppears from the eviden::c.5, were !.I.:atlcrcd probably in small groups in a few localities of Nonh-wt·.,tcrn and Eustern Indi:J. , ;.tnd had their mai n centre at P.i!<I !i IJutra or Kusumra pura.

J us t as Bodh-Gaya grew up 011 Ihe bank of the Nerailj<lrft a s an (ally cenlre o f Theravad<l <illlj a place of pilgrimage ror the Bulldhists. so <I lso did Amanivali (extending to Jaggayape!a) alld Nagarjun iko(u;la a ll the bank of the K r~l}ti (incl uding lIS tributary Paler) become a il.ourbhi ng centre of Ille off-shoots 01" the M~hasanghik;;s in the first l:J: ll tu ry B.C. or i\ . IJ .• md t urned in to a place o f pilg rimage for the BuoJdhists of kller days.

On the basis o f t he style of sculptures and paleographic data. Bu rgess agreeing with Fergusson held that the con ~trLl(:ti on of the Am:travati '> tOpa was commenced in the 2nd cent ury n.c. and later enla rged and decorated with addi tiona l sculptures, the latt'st of which was the great railing erected a litt le before 200 A. D .I [t wa s some lime after the com pletion of the .4.ma rj v::.1i stopa th:at the stOpas at Jaggayapeta and Naga~ u n i kol)9a came into existenc;:. their da les being. according to Burgess and Vogel , lhc Jrrl or 4th l"Cntury A.I).' res~cti veJ y. T his estim ate of d:lte a ·ld the menlio fl of the ki ng called Mag.ha r:puta Si ri Vjrapuri ~a ­

data ( ... Sri M<1!h:tri-pulra Sri Vira r u ru 5a-daUa) of the Iks"/:Hu uynasty3 arc based on palt'ograph lc eVIdences. T he inscriptio ns UII lhl! A),T1ka-pillars al Nagarjunikol)Q3 contain not Oli ly th c IIJIIII! uf the king but also or hi s fa ther V as~!hi put a Si d Ehuvu!a CiqllollnOla.· It appe:trs frolll the inscriptio n thH the r rincip.lI donol of the subsidiJry struct ures o f the '>It1pa was CaTJ1t :l~iri .

sister of king CtlrntamOla. and the p2. tcrn al a un t (piTllc/ul), later 011. Pl"llb;lbly mother-in-law. of the king Siri Virapurisadat;l .G J knee, 111( Lime of thc II1scriptions, mentioning the name of the kings C:llP ta ~i r i a ll d Virnrur i ~:1da t a, is .lrd o r 4th cCI,tury A. D.

E. / ., XX, p. 2 ~ RClikT alsigll<; 3rt! ecnlltry .~. n. to Ihe reign of kil1~ I'uri ~"d~ !a. Ef..

XX. D. 2 Quolin" ' "d. A"I.. XI (tll!!2). Pr>. 25M .1 1':. I . Xx. ("I. 3 4 Ibid. 5 AJi{f Major. II . flf"l 18.34.

6" DUD DIIIS'T SECTS IS U<il I) IA

It sho uld h<' remembered that Ihe period ment ioned here relates \0 the subsidiary s truct ures or the main sti1pa. ,wd not to the st Opa itself ~ t he MlIh ;i ca itya. wh ich must b~ assiined to a n

earlier period . It is evident therero re thnt the off-shoots o f the Mnlui. sai1 gh i b~

viT ., thc Caitya (\nd Snila schools, migrated to the GU n t l l r

distr ict fro m Pillaliputru through Orissa and made thei r ,eu le· ment in th aI rcgi~n in the 2nd century H . c . D uring thc COllr ~e of fo ur or five ce nturi~s of thei r residence there, Ihey @radu <l l1y extended their monllsterie5 In t he neighbouring hills.

The o ffshoots of this school, the Lokottaravadins ;md ea it ya­kas. in o ther word s. the So ila schools, a~ we know from the inscript ions of Amu riivuti a nd NagarjunikoD9 :1 , est;lblished themselvcs a long the banks of the K rsD;t wit h se veral mon as­leltcs 1000:a l<:d on the d ifferen t bilh ull around .

[11 short, the earlier ~ehools (i.e. t be fm>! grou p ) ww~ locllled at P[Ita liputra wit h adhere nts scattered lo ll over N orthern an d Nortl;-western Ind ia , while the luter schools ( i.e. the set'o nd glOup) were comcntra tcd in the sout h, having thei r ch!ef ce ntre iu ti lC Guntur d i ~t rict on the bunks of the K !"~ I) ii .

T ..... o branches 0/ ,Iu: Ma/;ii.~Qlig"iJ..a ~

The Mah:isali£hibs migra ted fro m Magadha in two stre:lms. one towards the nort h and the other rowards t he south . T he! no rthern, ra ther, the north_western .. eclion bter becrt me sub· divided into fi ve. viz., E ka vYllv~ha rib s , Ka ukulibs or Kau· r ukullukus Bahusru tiYlIs, Praji'ia pl iv.i dino; ~lllrl l . okoltamvad!\l s. o n IICCO UIl ; o f minor doctr inal ti ifTere nces :l mong t hem. Their o lT, hoo t the Lo kotta ravlldins, devel o pec1 l(,:l1l ings toward~ M u huya~ism , a nd in f;lct prepa red the grounrl for the ad \ ent of the Mahiiyana school. Buddhagho~:l . in hi s c,"lmment Ol ryon the Karhamu flll, distinguished M:lh::i.s:uigh,b" hy t he wo rds ,,("/:at"('(' M ahiisarghiktj" implying thereby Ih:1I :1 11 Ma h.h:ui ghikas did not subscrihe 10 the same d(lCtrin~s, or it m ight he that he rcfcrr<!d bv " ekaccc" either to the nort h ·wl'~ l e rn or to the sout hern b'mnch of the Mahlisai1gh ibs. [ n the Ktlll1a l'orrllll, the views discussed are mostl y o f the Mahfts;l1i gh ika s. wh o migrated to the south. settled down in the Andhra Pradesh

TH E '-!AH.4.sANGH IKAS ti5

arou nd AmaravaU and D hanyak:a!<1 ka. Their sub· branc hes concentrated at Na.garjunikoo~:b" dwelli ng o n the mountains around. These were the Pubbaseliyas or Uttaraseliyas, Apa ra­seJiyas, Siddhatthikas, R l1jagi rikas, and Cailyikas. collt:Clivdy designated as the Andhakas by 8uddhagho~a in the inlfouu l.: (ilJll to his cummt:nlary 011 lhe Kathll pal1llu. Of the northern Mah<1-sat'lghikas hI: mentioned the names o f Ekabbohiiri kas, G okuli ka s. Pafiihtlt ivauim anu Bdhussutika, but in the KarMfl1f/11II their views have not been referred 10 spedfieally, perhaps they origi­nal.t:u afte r the compo~ i tion o f the KarlltJI'all!lU.

In the KUlhlh'au liu there is a d iscussio n of the views of the Vetu lyakas, who were in fa,'o ur of the Mahflya nic doctrines. Of ti ll: two branches of the Mahasat'lghikas, the north-western brcHlch ueified and uni\"ersali~d Buddha and held t hat the Absolute (Reality) was indescribable (anln accllrya). It neither t:Abts lIor non-exists, It is devoid of all attributes (slIffifcu'l). It is wi thout origin and decay. Th: Andhra group was more Hinayanic in its views with a slight trace of Mah aya nism. Th is distinction of the t ..... o g roups will be a pparent from their uur.; t rinal views a s well as fro m their geographical locati')n, l.I isc ussed hereafter.

GEOGRAPHICAL DlSTRI BUTION OF THE T WO GROUPS or

MAnASANG H !KAS

(0 ) Nor th-wtsttm 01' the Earlier Grortp

Fa-hien (5th century A.D.)' found the Ma hasangh ikas at p a!aliputra. Hiuen Tsang (7th century A. D.) I remarks that <' the majo rity of inferior brethren a t Pi~aliputra began the Maha· sanghika !.Chool" . I-uing (671-695 A.OY tells us that the Mahasanghikas were found at his time mostly in Magad ha, a few in La~ and Si ndhu (Western India) and some in 9 few places in nort hern, eas tern and southern India. ' In these loca · li t ies both F a.h ien and Hiuen T sang eame across the ad hercnt~

Legge, Fa·helll, in IHQ .. VII, p. 644-45 2 W~tters, Yuan Chw(mg, I, p, 26':1 J Taka lrusu, I-tsing, p. ~~ ",;ii

66 BUDlJH I ST ~ECT5 tN IN DI.A

()f this school though not so frequent!y as those of others. In the ~iiriputra-pariprccha-siUru (Cflinese trans!.) it is stated t hat they resided at U4QiyaD3 along with the $arvastivadins, M ahiSa­sakas Dharmaguptas and K:isyapiyas (see Bareau, op. cit.),L Th~ earliest epigraph ical notice of this school is found III

the inscriptiom of the Mathu ra l ion Ca pital (about 120 O,C.) ,2

mentioning that it had a very strong opponent in Buddhila, an adherent of the $ arvastivilda school. At Andarab in Afghanis.tan and its neibhouri ng places there were some followers of the Mahas.:uighikas. During the reign of H uvi~ka, o ne Kamagulya deposited some relics of Buddha in the Wardak ~ase an d dedicated the same 10 the cart;! of the teacheri of t hiS school. The v[luh which contained the relic vase WllS built b)' the father of Kamagulya.s At Andarab, which was three days' journey from the country of Wardaks, Hiuen Tsang found t he adherents of t his school in t hree monasteries,

Of the three writers, v asu mitra, a havya and, Vin it:ldeva, VDsumitra has been identified by Prof. Ma5uda~ with the author of the },fahiil'ibhil,il during the reien of Kal,li~Jw. Vasum itra has devoted mo re attention to the doctri nal ,'iews of the northern group of the Mah:isanghikas than to th~se . of .the southem gro up. He put together the views of the ~1:lh~S~UlSh,kas, E~::l\Iya ­vuharikas, Lo 1.:o ttnrav6.d ins, and Kaukku\lkas, and attflbuted to them as many as fort y-eigat views with addit ional nine as later differentiated doctrines. The nell.t two schools which receiv­ed his a ttention were the Bahusruliyas and Prajnaptivudins, who also belollged to the northern sroup, attributing 10 them nine doctrines while he d ismissed the southero schools (Cuttya, UUDru und Aparnsailas) with three views.

Just the reverse was the a ttitude taken by the compiler of Ihe KaliliiY(:lftlili. In this l i!lI.t, sixteeD doctrinal views (l rc attributed

I Bareau, "p. cit., p. 51) ,"! u01il1il the opinion of Lin Li Kou:n' g, who writes th~t there were two sects of the Mahi\sanJthikas: (i) The Mllhfls::ilghikas proper unreforn:ed reprcsenli!lg the old liberal Mahayi:Jic [canin!s, clai:Jling ori;;in from the Sthavirns or Yatsiputri}"3s. But such clear cut divisien is nol approved by Bareau . E. J., IX, pp. 130, 141, 146

2 E.r .. X I,p. 211 3 W:ltttl"l. "p. dr., 11, pp. 261, 269 4 Asl!l Mtljcr, II , p. 7f.

67

\0 the Mahasailghi kas in gen:ral while farly-one "iews to the Andhukas, compflStng Pubbaseliya, .I\paraseliya, R<ijagirika, Siddhatthika with additional t hi rty-three specia l doctrines of Pubbasel iya and thirteen of other schools.

The career of the off-shoots of this school, however, took a different course. They were mdnly located in Olle country, Andhra Pradesh, for which they were given the collective name of the Andhakas in the Ceylonese chronicles. We have seen above that their names appeared more than once in the Amara­vati and Nag:irjunikol)Qa inscriptions.

In the Pali t radi tion appear five names: Hcmavatika, Raja­girika, Siddhallhika, Pubbaseliya and Aparaseliya. Though the Pali tradition is pa rtially corroborated in Vinitadcva's list it has heen fully born! out by the inscri ptions unearthed at NagflTjuni­kOIJ9a and Amaravati (Dhanakataka). making exception of the MahiSasaka, a branch of Sarvt'tstivada .

Out of the twelve names of the Pali tradition, we come across seven in Ihe Nagarjunikol)<;ia inscription. This testimony con­fi rms t he authenticity of the Pali tradition. Vinitadeva replaced .t3ahusrutiya by Praji'iaptivt'tda; othe rwise, he agreed with the traditions preserved in the Pali texts and the insctiptions. The 5llia schools in later days surpassed the Mah asaIighikas in populan ty. It appears that the earlier MahilsaIighikas were not concentrated at Sriparvata and Dhana ka~aka (i n G untur dis­tticl). ]n the inscriptiom is mentioned that a magnificent Caitya was erected here and its grandeur and sanctity att racted devotees from places all over India and Ceylon. According to tile inscrip­tions, the Caitya was erected some time about the 3rd or 4th century AD.

(b) Soutnem or Later Group The sou thern group of the Mahasailghikas migrated from

PataliputfU to the Andhra couDiry t hrough Knlinga, where Hiuen Tsang saw the monasteries of the Mahayanist Sihavi ra •. Perhaps he refers by this nome nclature to a sect adheri ng to the diSCiplinary rules of the Sthaviras but having Mahayanic leanings - a characteristic which may be a ttributed to the !laila schOOls. Unlike the northern group of the Ma hf,sa nghikas, the southern group was concentrated in the Guntur district around Amar;ivati. Jaggayapeta and NagarjunikolJ9a. The inscri ptions

68 BUDDIII5" sI'.c.n IN INOlA

(Jrd or 4th century A.O ) :If Amanivati and Nagarjunikol)Qa furnish us with the names of the following ;;eets

(i) Hamghi (Burgess, op. cit., p. 105) Ayira-haghana (EI., XX, pp. 17, 20)

(ii) Caityika (Burgess, op. cit., pp. 100. 102) (iii) Aparamahdvanaseliya (El., XX. p. 41)

Mahavanaseliyana (Burgess, op. cit ., p. 10~) (IV) Puvasele (EI. , XX, p. 22) (v) Rajagiri-nivasika (Burgess, op. cit., p. 53)

Raja~ai1a ({bid., p. 104) (v i) Sidhathikli. (Ibid., p. \10) (vii) Bahusuliya (EI. , XX, p. 24)

(viii) Mahisasnka (Ibid.) Except the last two, the rest :I re all sub·br:mches of the

Mahasanghika school. All these evidences arc obvious pointer> to the cleavage

between the two groups of the MahiisaIighikas, i.c .. (i) the Maha~ailghikas of the north being the earlIer ones with liberal disciplinary views and Mahiiyanic leanings and (ii) the Maha­sanghilcas of the south, i.e., of Andhra, claiming their origin from the Sthuvi ras and Vatsiputriyas. Lin Li KOU3Ug is also of this view though Dr. Bareau does not fully approve of the same.

Doctrines of the NOrlhern Group of the /If a/!iisanghtkas

Vasumitra has put together all the common views of the Maha­sanghikas, Lukottaravadins and Knukku!il:as. Paramartha (557-569 A.D.),1 il fullower of the VijMlnnvada. school was one or the most learm'd translators of Vnsum itra's trcalise on sects viz., Samayabheooporacana-cakra. The literal meanings of the names of the secls, as given by Paramartha are:

(i) MuMsarighikas_ Those who did not distinguish Arhats from nOIl-Arhats, i.e., A§aik~as from Saik~as, in t he dc-libe;a­lions of an eeclesill5tical (lssembly, the mem~rs of which, as a matter ur course, were large in number.

1 L"orlglne d~s sec/rJ' /Jouoidhi'll¢i d'aprrs Pa~amdrl"a by Pnul Demii" il1e in AUltmgts dim;is ~t bout/dlliq"", I, 19J 1. U _

THE :\IAHASAt>;"GHIKAS 09

(ii) EAav)'arahiirikaJ_ AIl dharmQs nrc conventional and, hem:.:, unreal, and the Absolute is OrlC but rare tmd accidental.

(iii) Lokollaral",7da =- AII worldly (laukika) dharmus un,: unn:alj the real dltarmos are supra-mul:llalle.

(iv) Kallkkll!ika = Doubt or suspkiou ilbouL c:vt:rytl.ing. TIle nume is derived from KaukrtJ'a - uuubL lL /xlie¥.:u tltat out of the three pi!akas. only one was reliable. lL wa~ the Abhidhamma a. it contairled the actual instructil.Jm of BuuJha. Logic is t he onl} means for auaining the summum bOllllm. Observance; of d!5-clplinary' ruks is ]1ot obligalory as thc::.e J u nol fit in always with the moral ideals of a Bodhisallva.

Jt has been stated above (vide p. 49) on the basis of the works of Bha vya, Vinitadeva a nd VasuU1itra, that Ekavyavah&ri ka was another nllme of the Mahlisanghi ka and that Kaurukullika held a lmost the S1l me views as those 01 the Vatsiputri}as.

P2.ramartha states that the three sub-sects o f the Mahasanghi­kas, n3med below, held certain special views. These are as follows:

The Ekavyavaharikas held that all composi tes were unreal and fictitious while the absolute was contingent (i.e., dependent on sOmethlOg else).

The Lokottaravadins held ihat while all mundane d"armas were unreal, the supra mundane dltarmas were real. Th is point WJS not irl the ambit of Mahayana. Para martha explai ns it as the .. iew that stands between 5finya!a (the transcendental reali ty) , Tathlt<i (thatness) and Amala-vijiiana (puri: :(nowled~e) . Prof. Dcmicville thinks tha t nei ther the text of Kitsall~ nor that of Paramartha is quite clear on thi s point.

The Kaurukullikas held the view that of the Tripitalca the Abhidharma alone contained the real teaching of Buddha; the other two pifllkas dealt only with the monastic rules. This school di.d not consider that the attainment of the summum bon1lm a lon~ With freedom from all disci plinary obli~ations was t he sole object of a Buddhist mon),- This was in conformity with the practices of a Bod hisattva. This s::hool a lso denied the importanct of stud} and preading as well as of the practice of meditation.

The Bahu§rutiya school preferred a syncreti sm of Hina}aoa and Mahayana. They affiliated themselves to the Satyasiddhi

70 BUDDIl IST SECTS IN IND IA

schoall of Ha rivar man. One branch of thLS school cSlablis!led dist inction between real and un real, absolute and comentiona l, paramiirlha and San1v!ti. It recogn ized KatyaYaI)ipUira of the Sarvasti,,;ida setaol as its patron.

The Bahusrutiyas were in favou r of syn::rctism of the views of Hinayana and Mahayana like the Satyasiddhi school of Hari· va rman. Jt seems necessary, therefore, to state here briefly the views of the Satyasiddhi school. Harivarman was the founder of the school about 900 years after Buddha's parinirrfi~la. He was a Sail khya teacher. He became a disciple of Acarya Kuma ra­labdha of Kashmir, the propounder of the Sa utni!lt ika school of teachings of about lhe 4th/ 5th century A.D. The Sarvastivadim denied the real existence of soul (iitman) and admitted the reality of the dharmas (objects) in their noumenal state. Harivarman modified this view of the Sarvlistivadins as well as (he ex treme Siinyata doctrine of Nagarjuna, the fo under of the Madhyami ka school of thought, ano a rrived at tbe following conci us:ons:

The Sar\'astiv:id ins taught aniitman of a person, i.e., the doc­trine o f non-ego. They held that the fi ve skandhas jointly or severall y had provisional existence, as they were the p roducts of causes and condit ions (helll-pratyaya) and on that account, essentially unreal (iullya). He examined the noumenal state of dh~rmaj from three standpoints :

(a) provisional or nO'umenal existence; (h) existence of dharmas in rea li ty; and (c) a bsolute unreali ty of dharmas with their following

corollaries : (a) that only phenomenal existence of all objects. including

lh~ ego of an individual, is unreal; ( b) noumena l existence of obiects as they appear to ou r senses

is unreal ; and (c) aU dharmas, i.e .. four elements (earth, water, air, fire) ha\'e

noumenal existence as they a re combined by ('olour, smell, taste a nd tOllch.

Mind and mental properties (cWa, cai!ta·dharmas) have only provisiona l or noumenal existence.

71

Ag:!in, since atom and mind can be analysed. they are unreal (.fU1I}'tl). This is the transcendent al truth of Hariva rman.

COflceptiolf 0/ Buddha

In the A,.jyaparfyesalJl1-~·lIttul oi t he Theroviidins is mentioned that Buddha attained omnh~iel\ce and that he did not seek Nib­bii.w. He sought Smllyak SambllddhallOod in order to propound, preach and promulgate hilho;:rlo unknown religious and philoso­phical views. He became a St:t:r and visu<!liz~d the highest Truth or the Kealit} - the Trut h whi~h ..... as so deep and subtle that he was at first hesitant to prea~h (ho;: same to the people at large. as it would do more ha rm to them than good . lie stated

SabbabhibhO sabbavidQ'ham aslui, sabbesu dhammesu anupali llo. AhaT]l hi araha lake, ah<lfT\ ~attha anuttaro, eko'mh i sammdsambuddho ~ilibh[j to 'smi njbbuto.

[I am the ali-conqueror, I am omniscicnt, J am untouched by all worldly objects. I am perf("ct in th u. world; I am a Teacher incomparable; 1 am the only enlightt:nt:u, tranquilized and have extinguished everything].

Such utt=ran~s may well be the basis uf tile Mahiisanghika conception of Buddha .

Buddha, it is said, at the intervention of Br2.hmii, decided to preach his doctrines in a modified fo rm for th~ uo;:ndit of the mediocre searchers after Truth to enable them 10 achieve their desired end. This modified teaching consists of the four Aryan truths (Ari}'usaCl'as), Eightfold path (AUhQ/}gfka-maggu), and the Law orCausation (Pa!icrasamuppada), the subje~t-IIli.ltll.:r of Hi~

fint di scourse. The M3hayanists took tile above I.h:dsion of Buddha to establish tbei r thesis th at only an omniSl'iclil Buddha could realize the highest Truth and that his d i Sldplc~, \o\'ho heani the first discourse (DflammacakkapPQ\'Ollana-surlU). bt~ame

kno",n as the Sravak3s, who could attain pcrfl"t:tioil (urllUlllUvd) only by observing the instructlons contained in tho: Jiseoursc , in other words, they could realize on ly absence of illdivldual soul (aruJlta ~plldgafaflairii!mya) and not tht: Ilun·existem·,..

I Moll""'''' I\'i~·.i) .. , I, p 1 i I .

72 B UDDH IST Sl'.(:T~ 1:'10 INI)I,o\.

(dllorma-siillJ'atii) or sameness (tol/uill'a) of all phenomenal beings and Objects.

The Theravadi ns and Sarvastivadins along \\jth their offshoots conceived of Buddha as a human being, who attained perfec­tion (BuddltaJrood) and became omniscienl al Bodhgaya. Until tben he was subject to all human frailties common to a pio us and meri torious person. The MahuS..'uighikas did not subscribe to this view ::'5 they contended that how could one who was the beSt of all divin~ beings in merit and knowledge in his existence just prior to his birth as Prince Siddhartha, become an ordi­nary human being. Hence his apprarance in Ihe mortal world was only fict itious in order to follow the ways of the world (lokiinuar/ollo). He had achieved all the perfect io ns in his pre~ v ious existences as a Bodh isattva .

The Mahiisanghikas, therefore, attributed to G autam:J. Buddha not only supra-mundane existence but al50 all perfections and omniscience from his so-called birth in the womb of Queen Maya. and not from his attainment of Bodhi at Bodh Gaya: It should be noted that the Manasatighikns had in mind Buddh3. G3.u tama of Saba lokadJratu. and not the countless Buddhas of th: in numerable lokadhiitus as conceived by the Mahayiinists.

The Mahasmighikas and their offshoots mention specifically that

(I) Buddha's body is entirely supra~mundane (lokollara). The eighteen dhiifliS are bereft of impure dharma.. The vocal, physi· cal and mental act ions (karman) are dissociated from impurities (ti!ra~·a'I'isal1lyukta) . T he body has nothing wordly (fallkika): it is purity only (oniisrovo-miitra) and indestructible.

l2) His material body (RiipaJajyQ o r NirmiiQa-kiiya) is " un­limited" as a result of his u nlimited past merits. Paramfirtha explains "unlimited" as " immeasurable" and " innumerable". It can be eit her large or small, and it can also be of any numl>er. In his created body (Nirmiil,la·ka)'o) he can appear an)'where in the uni verse,

The KatMI'a tthu (XVII. 1 & 2) throws further light on the above. It states that , according to the Vetulyakas, the doctrine that the Buddha d oes nol live in the world of men neither should he be located anywhere and it is his created form (abhin ifllmito jino) that delivered the religious discourses. The Thera ... iidins account

73

for this heresy by saying that it is due to the literal but wrong intcrprclUtion of the passage: Bhagol'ii loke jiiW 10k, salJlbmidha Joka/!! abltilJhuyya l'ihorali lmllpalifto Jakel/a Ii (Buddha, born and enlightened in this world, overcame this world and remaine.d untocchcd by the things of the world (-Sa,l' Nik., iii. 140)- ThiS is supplemented by furt her discussions in the KI'II.,(XVHL J, 2 & XXI. 6) rel(l.ting to the heresies, also a ttributed to the Vetulyak~s. viz., .Va j'Olwbba/ll , "Buddha Dhagarti mamu.ulloke anniis1 Ii ( It should not be said that Buddha lived in the world of men­XV III. I); Sabbii disa Buddha tilthalltl ti l (Buddhas e:d sl in ~11 corners of the world _ XXI. 6) and Abhi.,imnllll'l:a desito Ii t lhe

discourses nre delivered by created forms - XVJlI. 2). T hese show that accordins to Ihe o pponents of the Theravlldins the Buddha i£ oomipresent and, as such, beyond the po~ibl l i t y of location in any particular directIon or sphere and that all the preachings of Buddhism have been done by the apparitional

images of Buddha. With his usual naively Buddhaghofa under$tood the VelUlyakai

as holding the opinion th.3I Buddha remained always in the Tu~ita heaven, where he was before he came to this world. The discuisions in the Kurhfll'otthu lS llso the terse statement of Vasu­mitra leave no room for doubt about the fact that the Maha­sanghikas (especially their o ffshoots. - the Vetulyakas and the Lokoltaraddins regarded Buddha as transcendental. Masuda= sugSests that the sambllOgakii)'u o f Buddha is referred to in the heresies but the time of emergro'Oce of the conception of sambhoga· ko)'a is much later, From the discussion in the Kafhiil'olthu (XXL S) concern ing "atthi Buddhiill(P/1 Buddhehi /lflliitirekalii ti .. l .... hether Buddha~ mutually differ ?), it seems tha t the Andhakas (another offshoot of the Mahasluighikas) were '>till concerned with the samhllogakiiya and had not yet arrived at the conception of the Dharmuktiya. Buddhngho~n says that the Andhab. hold that Buddha. differ from one a nother in some qual:ties other than

I This is the opinion or the /'.hh~<:"'Chikrt s nrly. accordinz 10 tI:e KI·~I .

Z /'.iasuda·s opinion, ho\\cver, can be supponcd by the fact that in the Ma/ui vU)'lu (I, p. 169) Buddha·s kii)'Q is equated wilh lIif),ar!dakii),u r~ndered illlo Chine~ by pur) sIt~11K which is also the rendering of .,tw~hogQk(J)'a. ~~t:

nl) AJJN<lS, pp. 117, I~O.

74 H UU I.IHIST SECTS IN INUIA

attainment like satipaUhiina sammappodhiina, etc., the or6odoll. s.chool. holding that Buddhas may differ in respect of sarf/':J (body), 0)'11, (length of life) and prabJuil'Q (radia nce) but no t in regard 10 the attainments mentioned above. The discussion in the K.-u. (XXVII. 3) shows that the Cttariipathakas held the VLews that Buddhas could have no karu'}ii (compassion) and t hat Buddha'~ body was mace of DndsrovQ dharmas (pure elements).

(3) Buddha' s length of life (a)'u) is unlimited on account of his ~:Ht accumulated merits. He lives as lo ng as the sentient beings l iVE" _

(4) Buddha's divine power «(tl!jas. prabhiil'O) is unlimited. He C3 n appur in one moment in all the worlds of the universe,l

(5) Buddh a is never tired of enlightening sentient bcing~ and awahning pure faith (IJii uddha-sraddha) in them. The Chinese ~o~rnentator e.xplains that Buddha's compassion (karl~la) is limItless and so In order to enl ighten beings interminably, he never enlen into Nifl'iio,la.

(6) As his mind i;; always in meditation, Buddha neither sleeps nor dreams.

(7) Buddha call comprehend ever) thing in one moment (eka. Iql1(jikacitta). Hi s mind is like a minor. He can answer any question simultaneously without reflection. fn the Kaihii l'altll1l (v. 9) this doctrine is attribu ted to the Andhakas, who contend that Buddha has knowledge of all prescnt matters (sahba.rmill1 pa~CUi'Onne iiiir;lom al,hI Ii).

(8) Buddha is always aware that he has no impurities (k.rayi. jiiiina) and that he cannot be reborn (aNulpiidojifiina).

What ha'i been stated above finds corroborat ion in the Maflii. vastu in ornate language thus: The Bodhisattva in his last tXi;tence as Siddltartha Cautama is self·born (llpapjj{hlka) and is not born of parents: he sits cross. legged in the womb :lnd preaches therefrom to the gods, who act a. his protectors ; while in the womb he remains untouched by phll'gm and such other mailers of the womb, :'Ind he i S~ lI c.~ Ollt of the womb by Ihe right side without piercing iLl He h:l~ no Ill ~ 1 (kiimfl) ;lnel ~o Rlihu!a was als.o self-born.

t Ma},iiWlstlJ, 'I , p . t68 2 Ibit!. p. 14~.

75

Buddha's acquisitions arc all supramunu:\!u;: (lukolta,-a)l and cannot be com pared to anything worldly. H is spiritual practiccs arc su prlmundane and so are his merits, eVtH his bodi ly move· men ts suell as IVai king. standil1g , silting and lying arc also supramundanc. HIS eat ing, his putting UII lObeS and such olher acts are :t1so sllpra mundanc . It is for following the ways of the world (loklillUI'OTtolla) that he ;hows his lryupathas. His feet arc clean, stIli washcs them. His mOU I!! ~ lIlells like the lotus, still he cleanses hi s teeth. H is body is 1101 touched b)' thc sun or wind or rain. s till he PUiS on garment and lives under a roo f. He cannot I·.ave any disea5c and still he takes medicine to cure himself.l

In the AhflidlwrmakoJa and il'; V)'iikh)'Q. 3 it is said thaI, according to the Mahasatlghikas, Buddhas "'ppear at the same time In morc than one world and that they are o mniscient in the sense that they know all dharma:.- at the sarr.e time. The former si:!tement appea rs also in the Katflal'atlhu (XXI, 6). In the Kalhll· rattl/u and the Ko.fa, no special doctrines about the Bod hisattva conccptlon are attributcd to the Mahiislinghikas.

Budd ha follows thc ways o f the world just as much a$ he follows the transcendental wa}s.~ T.h.ere is nothing common bet­ween Him an :! the being; of the world. If the transcendenc~ 01 Buddha be admitted, then it follows Ihat the length of his lile should be unlimited and that he need not be subject to sleep or dream as he cou ld hav.! no fatigue. As he is ever awake how can he ha ... e dreams? Tn the AfaJ.iiparin;bbanastJtlu it is staled by Buddha himself that if he wished he could live for a kalpa.b Th is shows that e\lcn t he early BucdhislS believed that Buddha was lokolfara.

The lokOllaru concept ion appean only ill the introductory

IlJid., I, I'. 159. 2 For thc t>eauuful inspirinl: a('('''1 nl , r,,::u'I I'IC Ma;ui'"1Isll:. I.I>P. 167.70. 3 Koia. iii. 200; ix. 254 4 Mal/(il"aSill, I, p. 168 :

Lo kAnu\larfanAl]l Bu:ldt:;l "nuI'artanli Jaukj~!!l1 , p~ajnaplim anU\larta~lj yath:!. toko.;Ua,alll pi. Cf., J, p. 159.

5 Dill"" , II , p. IOJ: y"S5:l kas,,,ci ca tt1ro iddhj~:'i.dl bh~Vl t;'l <1\ ~bilkha· m~no Itappa."."..1 tillheyya brJl.'ivasCSlIU va

76 BUODIiIST SEcrs IN INDlA

portion of the M(lhiil'a~ lu, <Iud so it is evident that the te ~ t was o rigin:lily Hir.nyanic and thaI, in course of time, the introductory cha pters were added by the Lukcuaravndins. In the main text, the doctrines mentioned are cs~eDtia lly Hinayanic. e .g., the four truths. t he eig htfold pfll h, Ihe law uf causation (pratftyasamutpada). impermanence of conslituents uf a being (.~rwlfdha.f), non·existence of ;oul (ami/mall), theory of tho;: cITcct of past deeds tkarma). the Ih irty seven dhnrmas lee-ding tu Bodhi (BodiJ'-pak~iJ'adharmas. bod/iyOligas) and so forth'. Th~re is no mention of tbe non-exist­ence of phenomenal objects (dhurma1unYGfii), of the three bodies of Buddha (trilciiya) and tilt,: two veils ((h'ara~~as) rega rding the impurit ies and the Trutll (klda <l lld jiie)'Q). 1 he only Mahay:i. nic doc trines, viz., t he four stagl:s of the practices or Bodhiwttva (coryas), the tcn gradual spiri tual Stages (dasablllimi), cO\Jntless Buddhas and their Coulltk:~S spheres(k,etras) appear more as la ter additions than as iml:gral plrB of the texc 2

Conception of Dorlhhal/l'U

The conception of Bodhisattva found in the lIfahii l'(Jstll has be('n stated above. There arc somc ado.litional materials in the wo rks of Vasu:ni tra, Bha,·yo. ar.d Vinitau(va. These are stated below.

Al the ou tset it s hould be nOled that the various sects of the .I\-L.tl.i,hanghikas knew only of one Bodhisanva - t he previous t:.\ i~ lcnces of Siddhiirtha Gautama, who had to pass through uumerous existences In order 10 attain Buddhahood, a fact admit~ ted by the Theraviidins a lso. Hence the views mentioned here refer only to the Hodhisattva stages of Galltama Buddha.

(i) The Bodhisattva takes any form of lower existence (durgoti) for enlighteni ng t he bei ngs of the ",orld. s

(ii) The Bodhisuttva cntcn hj~ mother's womb as a white

I I\tllliiil"OSfu, II I, p. 331·3] 2 I (,id., P 44-<19

3 M ahii>'Qlru , I , p. 345

elephant symbolical of hi" great physical strengt h combined wilh soft ness, It is not an illtcrm(!d illte exi~unce (antariibhUl·a) but may be regarded as a created (If[m,;W) fo rm .1 In the Kathiil'otrlm (hence-forth abbrevillted a~ KWI.) (X IV, 2) the view aurib utcd to the 5ailas is that the Bodhi!'atlvn 's sit org:tns app;!ar simulta­neously whi le he is in the womh. He dces not pass through the embryonic stages (kalala. arhuda, pdi and gha na).

(ii i) The Bodhisattva hfl~ in his mind no tr:lce of desire, hutred and mdic! (kama, vyapiida and vihirps;"i. stllT'jiiiV

Are Bodlii~o"\"lls (/\('rog" beillg.f?

If, according to the Mahassnghi kas, Budchas:He lokottaro and ]f the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is only acreated form (NiT­mrll~r.k:i.ya) of t ~e real Buddha, the Bodhisatt ' as also ca nno: be aver::.gc bt'ings - they mu st also be supramundan~.~ 1n V asll­mllfa's treati~e (BaTeau ap. cit., p. 26 1) the following accou r;t of Ih~ Dodhisatll'as, attributed to the Muhasal1ghibs is given;

T he Bodhisattvas do not pass through the embryonic stages. They assume the fOfOl of wh ili: eleph ants when they enter their mot hers' wombs and come out of the same b~' the right s id e. ~ The abovc opinion IS the natural outcome of the legend ary helief that came to be woven arou nd Gautama Buddha abou t a cen­tury after his demise. In the La!itQ\'istara~ th= Bodhisattva i ~

placed not onl y within a crystal casket in the womb but while I]] that state he is said to have been preaching his dharma to the heavenly beings that ·fl ocked 10 him. T he story of the white elephant seen by Queen Maya in a dream at t he time of her conception and the birth of the Bodhisattva by bursting through the right side of his mot her's womb is a pure legend and needs no CommeDt.

Tbe only doctrine that can be described as Mahayanic is that Bodh]sattvas take birlh out of their own free -will in an)' fo rm

1 Ibid., p. 335-37 2 Ibid. , II, p. 363; IJI , p. 6S 3 Ibid., I, p. 1 4~, 153·54 4 Bareau, QP, clr., pp. 58f. , quoting the View. found in the works of

Vuumitrn :lnd Viniladc.a with c:ommen:s. 5 lnlitavlllllrQ (A. S. edition), p.73.

73 RlmnH I~T SECTS IN INDiA

of existence for impartir.g his c;harma to the sentient bri ngs according to the lauer's form uf existence. This idea is well rlevc10ped in the Jiitakas, Sik,iisal1;uCCQ.1O and BOfihicllryiJl'atiira. This topic has been l:iken up for di,cussi(m in the KI'I/. (XX III-3) thus :

"BOlIIti:;atlo iuariyakiill111kiirikaitcfII "inipiitQ111 gaccilarT ri.o, In this discu~$ ion the ViCW3 of the Mahiis:uighikas ae ignored ; Bodhis:lttv3 is tre t- ted us un cvernge human being, wi".o throueh p~[sonal c;o:;crt ions nttnined Bod hi.

In the Niyiilllokkantikat/rii (KUI. IV. !S; XII. 5,6; XIII. 4) also, the views of the Mahasa ilghlkas are Ignored and only the Theraviida view is presented thus: " here an: two ntr1mas (guides) : ( i) sammalfaniyiim{J (right plth or guide) and (ii) micchaltaniyfima (wrong path or gUide). I he lirst rerers to the practice of pure moral laws (bralimacorfya) and to that of the eightfold path (a{!hmigikamagga) leading to sanctifjcdtion (nibiJiifla); it also implies the fullilmen t of the six or ten perfec­tions (p(iramis or {)(irami/Js b) the Hodhisattvas The s«ond, i,e. micc"atfaniyiima, means the commis;;ion of immoralities and offences incl uding t:1C most heinous ones liilullliorlyal(omma) leading to existences in hells. Practices Dot -included in either of the above ' two are called undetermme,j or unpredestin~d

(an/yaw). Tn the sens~ expressed above, any Srav3ka can be a sammattolliyiima though he may not be a BOdhisattva. The Thera ... adi ns do not recognize the Hodhlsattvas JS superior in attai nment to t he Sriivakas. In the matter of bra!lIl1acorlya and I=ractice of ariyamagga, they do not make any distinction between a Sr:hab and a lJod hlsaltva.

In the LaiJkiil'aliira and A~1.i1ga's SiirriUmihifa and a few other Mahayiin ic works, however, it is repcrctedly stated that a person b)' t he development of Bod:,iciua becomes a prcde~tined

(IIiyara) Boc:jhisatlva. who, by fu lfilment of the Piiramiuis and practice of the vad Olls forms of ascclic;sm, ultimately becomes a Budd ha. Sidd hartha G au tama, 111 olle of his previous existen­ces as JOlipala ma(1ava, did, as a mailer of facl, devclop Bodhicitia :'.t the time of K assapa Buddha, and then through several exiH­enc(!s he fulfilled the plirGmiuis and had recou rse to all possible .adhaniis (medita tiona] pr:lctice~) and attained perteclion.

THE UAIIASANGHIKAS 79

The Andhaka, took the opposite view and IIsscrtcd 011 Ih~

bU5is of the pasmge in the Majjhilfla Nikayo (II. p. 54) thut he became II Srlll'Oka of Kassupa Buddha ; KasSftpo, ul:am i\nundn, bhagavali brnhmaeariyam acarirp. sumbodh ayii Ii etc. (K\·u. p. l8S).

Buddha's TCQ/:hillgl

After dcalinp; with the personali ty of Bujdha, the Mahasan. ghikas comend that the super-divine Buddha did not deliver anv d iscou r:.\!s to !lis disciples. The views are as fo llows-' (i) Though Buddha is always ill samridhi, sentient beings think that they have heard discourses from him in well-constructed sentence;. The commentator explains Ihat words fl ow from Buddha's mouth spontaneously, and lhese have been eolle<:ted as discourses.

In thc KI'II. (XV III . 2)lh j ~ view j<;, ll llrihulell I., the Vetulyaka~ and i<;, ('xplnined in the"e wnrlls, " Rudllhena Bhagavatu na desito" In ."upp(lrt of Ihi" contention they argue th:lt Abhi . dharma W:l~ prellchecl to Mii.yii in Tii vatir(1sa he:l \'en and lhe gist Wlt<;, eiven to Siiripillta 10 dcvelop it. They furl her contend that whatever r\ nrtnda hertn1 wa." from the created bodv (nirmalJakAY;t or rilflakii.y~) of Budd ha. (2) Ry nn~ utteranc~ o r word (.fohda) Rurldha can expound all doctrine".

The two views mentinnoo ahov~ are, however, contradicted by the nex t two "iews :

(3) All of Buadha's preachings dea l on Iv with DJrarmacakra (\"'heel of Law), his first discourse was deli~eri!d at Sarnath but the ~om.mentator el<piains thai his dharma referred only to the eradication of desire, etc. ; wlwtever may be Slated by Him expresses the truth only (yath6rt/:a).1 All sutr:1S of Buddha have I/.Ttii~tbo (definite or din'cl meaning) as opposed to I/e)'iirtha (md lfCct or implied meaning).

In the Kl'lI. ( II. 10) the discussion resting with the topic;

t cr. M. \'r., )1. 49 .. ; vyavalm;lrarn anUrilya param.'1nho nn dd"a!e. PlIt",,,,,rllw salya me~ns Ihe highest tru:h while s(J I!'Yrli-I(lf)'a meanS Ih~ so­zalJcd Irmhs as used in every.day ,,~aee hy the ~flle in aeneral. For detailed trcatn~m see my A!petIS, pp. 216 tf.

n UDD UIST SECTS IN" IN"DIA

"DuddhaS5(\ Bbagavato vohi\ro 10kllttaro ti" reveals that the Andhakas, 10 whom the a':love opinio n is a~ribed, held tha t Duddha's actions (I'olliiro) are lokl/ffm'a (supramund'lfle). but tbey are looked upon as Jokiyu (mundane) or lok!lftura (supra­mundllne). Me. Shwe Z.\I\ Aung prefers to confine the ,.ensc of tbe word \'Ohiiro to ~pe:ch, and we think th,t there IS good

reason for it. In V.lsumitra's t reatise, an opinion of this natu re is atlributed

to the \1aha;;arghikas in contraSI to the San'astivildins, vi~ the .;iitras (or discour~es) preached by Buddl):! afC al: perfect In

themselve, (lifUIrlha). Since Buddhas slX'ak of notl?ing but dhmma (doctrines), their teaching is concerned only IYjth ~?(//a­miirlhaJut),a (paral/1olt/'asucca), i.e., not with Sf.II!,,·!tIJ'arra

(mnillwtisacca) . The paramiirrhasalya cannot be. nurmally exprc)scd by words. It can be explained only by sl len:e or at the most by an exdam.ation - which id:a, I think, is e"press~d in Vasumitra's treatise thus: " The Buddha ea ll exp?und all tne doctrines with a single utteranee and that thel'e is noth ing which is not in conformity with the trut h il1 what has beeD preached by the World-honoured ooe,"l 111 the UpuJakulI~'al)'llpuri~'U~-IU of the SUll<IhamwplII.l(imfka it has been shown that for \t<\\lHlll;;

up deluded beings in his doctrines, Bud J ba d.id ,a\"'~ l(Cours\: t~ variom expedients which were comentional, I.t:., unreal (~wllr;/1 (It' .lamml/ti) , and that through ~uch teachi ngs ht: kd the dduJo;u beings to the truth-parallliirtha. So it follows that.all his teadl-. iugs collected in the f'ifakos afC mcre!) ~'u,!ll'r/ l UI' SUfI/IIIIIII

(conventional). and they a re therefore not his real t;: .. ~ hing).2 Among the olher a ttributes of Ihj~ lukullurll BuJJh<l,

Vasulllltra's treathe speaks of hi$ powcrs (bulus)8 a) unlilnited

1 Asia Major, II , p. 19. 2 Arperts cIC., p. 193. 3 The ten balas lTC;-

I T"(,.null,w~'11 j"I/Uli _ .• 2 Sabj,(Jllhag,lm;n;pu,ipuduI/I janiiri. 3 Anell:ad/JaluIf/ nill!tidilailim lokil/TI janiili. <I SalliifUllTl r:{lIIiidhlmulrikr!,Ul1fl j iinali. S Parasmtiina1fl porapulga!dIlCIf/ (ndriyo-f<lropariyaltmp ),alnii­

l!huUJr'f! paliiniiti. (; AIiIJlldlf",up<J,·C" i'PU.""lIWII' flrlUJV ~ipaka". jallllrl.

TII & WAH .iUANGIIiKAS 81

wh ile Ihe A/alliiraSiu of hi s five eyes (cak,ru3)1 as u ncommon (asiidhiir(l~Ia) and excelling those of Pratyckaouddhas, Arlrats and others. Th is p'}rticular topic-tatlliigatabalal/l sjj vakasiidh{iralJolI

ij has been lak e-n up fo r discussion in Ihe X VII. (II I. I). but strangely enough the position taken by the compiler of the K IIU.

is not that of a Theravii.di n but that of {\ Lo kottaravadin Mahasm'lghika hUI aeilmsl the Andhakas, i.e., the SlI ila schools. In Vasumitra 's t rea t ise this topic a ppears in a slightly different fOrln.

The Ther3vacims do not regard Buddha liS lokollara but attribu te to him almost [1.11 thc powus and qualities of a luka­/tara Buddha, anrl this discussion reveals one o f sueh instam.:t:s, The ten special halas (powers) of a T at h:tgatu appear no, u!lly in the Mahdl·a.r t1l (i, p p. 159-60) but a lso in o ld Pii ri works l i k.~

the Majjltima Nikii}'(1 (i, pp_ 6;) IT_). The contention of the Andhakas i., that Ih~re is a certa in degree of d iffcrencc lxlwt't:1I the Budd ha~ aml lhe Arhau regard ing the acquisit ion of the tt:n bolar, and, il~ ' lIch, Buddhas and A rhat$ Ilrc not on the same level (asadltiim(IaI1I). In the Mahii\'a3tu and the r flli works this view i; ac:cepled wilh this reservation that Buddhas are .)·uTI'dkil­

riljiiu , i.e" they PDsseSS a com plete a nd dctailed knowlt:ugc of evcrything, whi le a n Arhat can a t the most h!lve sec t ion~ l know­ledge.' The P;ll i school, i.e., the Theravndins, holds that as fa r as vimulli is conC!roed, there is no difference bctween a BullJha and an Arhat, and tha t Buddhas are superior to the Arhats v!lly on account of the f:1 ct thM the former is n promulgator of a new religion and philosophy and the laller is ollly a folluwer ur 'he same.

1. j!ulllul'imokkl1i1sumiiJhi.wmrlpallTnaql su';kii<!s(>IfI "OcJ,j"'''I' "vflhtJ-110'11 yalhCbh,Jla'I1 pajdnar(.

~. untkufiltila'TI pubbenivasu'll onuswral l. 9. dlb!Je1/Il cakkhunii sallt' pQjsati cavamdnt upopajjo7llufe elc.

10. ';.lawi!'UII' 1..;',')'01 ani1sovolfl ct'loviml/!Iirrr ili"ht' va dfl(Jmm~

SO>""" obhiiiii,; ",('('''''ko/~a u;xlJi''''JlUJiu ,.;harall. By eyes, Ihe te.~t ..,leans 311 the fivt, viz , m';/71s4("ok,u di.y oG. , pfujilric,

dharmac, and buddhuc. . 2. d. K~/l. Cy ., P 62 :ThAnAtMnAdini hi savak3 parle,ella jAnanli. TaIbA­

Galli "iI'PuJ"u"a itl. Tani uddesato sAdhllraQlIni; niddes1to asMh1ra(lAni ... nilidesalQ zabbiikflM. isoyul"", ~aflldh lya J»likkhlpat l. cr. M IR., f. p. 158: cr. AS{HCts, p. I Ofi fn. 1. See Sal'f1yullo, Ttt, p . 66.

8'2

CUIICt'pIiO<I of Arhat.f

In view (,I' sl:ch opinion ~bout the pcrsonnlityof Buddha, the MahtH.:'lIighikn~ coulrl not agree to the high spirilUal stlltus attri ­buted by the Thf'ravarlins to lile Arhats fo r they argued that the Arh:,[s rca tisl!'d only h:.tlfthe Truth. viz .• absenccof indi\'idual soul (pudgnln -srmYrl lil) ~ nd not the ab)cnce of both the indi\'id uat soul ;lI1d (he worlrlly objects (dharma-sunyata) as held by the Mah flyii nisu. Thi 'l i<; :llso described as omniscience.

The Arhat , according to the TheraVl'\l1ins, is fUllyemanl;ipatcd. HI! is in possession of the excellent gOll (sadau!w). i.:' free- from 2ttAchmcnt, haln.'tl and del usion (l'rrarl1go I'fladoso I' fWllluli o). free from all impurities (kIIT1IaSQ L'o) , relieved of his b '~nkn of k"amlha.~ (ohirabhiiro). He has done all that is to be don!: lKatQ­kara(/fyo) and he will have no more existence ('Itlparam iu/rulfiij"a). He has also acqu ired clear vision about origin and lknty of beings and objects. He has got rid of all doubts (~OIlkhi1) abuut the Trim/nfl, lion-existence of ~oul and the law of causation. He has visualized the Truth without the help of others (no parul'i((j­,o~l.'i) and has attJ.i ned perfect knowledge of Ihe four stap:s of sanctific:lIion (cawmogga-l1ii(/U) but not omniscience or Salll)uk Jambuddhal!'o (K l"u. c)' . p. 67).

This point w:)s first T:lised by an e rurlire monk Mahlidcva at the Subsidiary Second Bud dhist Synod hdd at pataliputra. The five propositions were acecpred by the Maha~aflghikas inc!uding the Andhakas, Bahuhutiyasand the H:limwlltas. The fhe propo-5itioO& have already been disclIss{'d in Chapter II (Second Budd hist Council).

In the Katltij"attllll-atrhaklllltii Buddhagho~a writes that a section of tne Mahiisanghikas and their o/fshoots asserted on the basis of the first iou r propositions of Mahadeva that the Arhats or the Asaik~as have so nte Imperfections. i"he Uttarapathakas regarded some of the I\rhats as impostors.

There is another :lItribute derogatory to the Arha'''. The MahilSlu'tghikas and some sects of the o rthodox e rou p, like the Sarvastivadins and the Sammiti}"a.s, hold that Arhat .. are subject to retrogression (P::.rih:iyati :lra. h:'l aralllllt~ Ii : KVII. i . 2).

THE MAHAs..~NCHIK"'S .3

Tt.e Q(~.er ~~.:tilJfl or t ll\: Maha~ailgltila~. who oppose the above \iew, holJ!; tlJ<1l ArJ lilb bay!;" no d .. m.:e of retrogression (8. 37;1 V. 35") a nd runller <1s~cns that Olle ba s donc all that is to be dUIlt" (krta-krtya. k~ta-karal.liya) (B. 28; V. 26), i.e. , an Arhat or A;dba. who lia s passed through all the M.:ges of spiritual plOg!t"SS, ca1lnut hav," .:I ll,. attachment for an olljeet or a pt'r~u!l .

Hence ,111 the adherents o f the Mlh:iS,Ulghika, school were not 01" the same vIew about the status of a n Arhat.

The Kmhiivar;11II (II. 1) discusses the Question. "Allhi Arahato a~uClSukkavisa!!hi ti ~ T he (1ppon~nts. i.e .. the Mahasangi1ikas state that the discharge o f semen of an Arhat is a physical natural discharge like urine, excreta. etc. Tt.e_ SthavilC.v:idins cOlls:der that such a statement amounts 10 a e.:llumniation of an Arhat.

S rota-iipulllrakas

Besides Arhathood, the Mah<lsanghikJs held partic~lar views abou t the stat us of the Srola-ipannakas. The preparatory stage of Srola-apannaka is called the Auh.:lmaka. It is also described as the Gotra-bhiirni, for which the Mahayanisls also use the term "(jot rab humi ra~!amaka. " The prep,lratory stage leads to the comprehemion of the four Truths for whIch it is deSignated as Samyakt\"a-niyama. This ~tage ~larks the cr05sing of the Hate 01 a common man (p~thag. Jana =>0 puthujjana).

The Mahasarighikas hold tbat

(i) a srota-iipannaka has no ({'trogression as he eets rid of the ten fetters (saTJlyojanas) (B. '::0). He comprehends mind and jts nature (B. 29). He can practise med itation. He reg.·uds suffering (dukkha) as a means for acquiring kn1lwledge (i\a l;l ~) leading to NirV31J3 (8 . 33, 34). He can stay in the Srot:l-ap~nna stage for 3 long time (8. 35). He cannot commit any of the five deadly sins (anantaryas) (8 . 40).

I. B_ Bareau. ussectes etc. 2. Y - Yasumitra in Asia Major II

84 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA.

T he eigilt 1>tages an!

(1 /2) Sotil palti-magg,l!!ha and phalu!)ha (3/4) Sakad5gami'lll. 1l11d ph. (as above) (5/6) Anugumi-m. alllJ pila. do (1/8) Arahatia-lll. aud pha. Il u A lld Ihe tell fttters a rc

(a) &atkaye;dr ~ ~j, viciki ba, :;ila-vra ta-p:tr<illlar~a . kama­nlga and pratigha.

[Belief in the heresy o f soul or individuality, Jack o f fai th in Triratna, grasping after riles and ceremollles, strong desire for rebirth In the mortal worl:J , and rcvcngefu!neis. J

(b) rupar5ga, ar liparfiga , mana, a uddhatya, and 3vidya. [Strong desire fo r rebirth in the heavens, or in the higber

heavens (arupa), pride, arrogance, and ignorance of Truth.J

The M<'.h<isailghikas accept that a srota-fip:lllna is lIi )'Gto

saJ1lbodhiparti)'a~lo and bence, is not su bject to retrogrrs~ lon but a sakad agftmi or an anitgiimi may ret rogress but not fur: ther than the sOlitpanna stage, for some of the adepts in the two stages may have do rmant passion (alluJoya), which may develop into actual (pari)'I/IIIIGI/a)1 passion and th us bring a bout the fall.

Rega rding the srota-apanna, Vasumitrll furth;:r states:

l f Ihe sotapannas can no t commit the dead ly sins «(inanfUr­

yw), cnn they commit the sin of kill ing beings (pU(liirip(ilu) ill these word s : Diulli.fOmparlllo puggalo .w/icicea p(i~/a'J I jil'ilii

Iwupqyii Ii ? A SOlap.;nnJ. is a. person with right view(I{i!fliiJaffl' PUlI/IU), 11ence, according to the T heravadins, he cannot COIll­mit the sill of killing (pu(IQtip!i(Q) or such other offences, not to spea k of the five extreme offence~ liJ.:e matricide or pa rricide.

Anu~llYas and Paryavasthanas of Srota-apatti maggat[h3 (dormant and pervading passion o f a person in Ih::: eighth stzgej are now being dealt with.

I AIlI/la)"a :ne~ns Ihal which lies in lhe mbd In a 1:IICnl sla l~ wilh Ihe possibihty of ils coming into appearance, if it receiv~s an clrccli-'e impulse, while padyu!{hii/la means JIS actual appcaran~'e In th~ mind wahoul how. ever a \:vrl\::;ponJiug /l~POU><: in I:,c v"I~' "·()L td. Fu, f",I Ler J Clails, see infra.

35

In the XI'II. (Ill. 5): Aftltamakassal pliggalassa di!flllpariYI1!!'II'l. 110,,1 pahfnall (i ?

[Has a person in the eigh th stage put an end to pervading wrong views.]

According to the Alltlhnka.t. an adept. who is in the eighth stage i.e., sota?aui-m:lggaUha and not )'et sOlapanna , gets rid o f the appearance of wrong views., belief in ri tes and ceremonies and lack o f fai th in Tr irat na (dinhipariyun hana. silabbala·p. (lod viciki.ceha-p .) hili not of the dormant passions (a nusayas), wh ich may become M'live (uppajjissuli) if they receive an im­pulse. T he Andhabs hy drawing this distinction between p:trlyunh~ina and a nllsay~ holci that an Allhamaka may not get ri d of tile th ree (1liI/So1)'(/S ann consequently remain away from the souipann:t stage for a long lime.!

The Katltih'arrhu also discusses the following twu allied vjew~ <!llributed to the Pubb<lscliyas c:nd the UtI:tr:ipathaka. :

(I) Di/J/l iY.Jmpanno puggalo sw1cicc:u pii~IQrll jfl"il ii I"Qropq},ii Ii ? (Xl1.7 - P ubbaseliyas).

lean a person, possessing the r ight view, commit the sin <If killing?J

(ii) Difi";sampQIIIIUSSa puggalassa pallIna duggatl /;? (XI I. 8 - Uttanipathabs).

[15 a person, pos~~sing the right view, free from birth in a lower form of existence? ]

By the first " iew the Pubbaseliya5 mean that a person hy having .fQlllllliidi!!hi does not get rid o f hatred ("OSO), hence he ca n commit the sin of killing-a view asserted by the Ultara­pat~akas thllt a person with right view (sammiidillhi) ca nno t be reborn in ~ lower form of existence; the Theravad ins point out that it may be so, but he may have desi re (IG/Jltii) for objects and bcinss belonging to the lower forms o f existence.

There are, in Vasumitra, two stntementj relat ing 10 onu.flJ)la

I . The al/half/ak.as arc Ihlb!; who have just 5tcPJXd inlo th~ Sotiipanu_ hood, which i! the eighth (If the 10W<'lit stage in the frnil ~ o f sanctiication.

I"or the me~nini of Ihe term and ils dlslinction rrom pariyuUhiina 5Ct

aoo\·e. 2. .'\ !lhama b-PJggalas have >addha bul not saddhindriya-Andh.1ka.

86 BUDDHIS1' SECT> IN INn ! \

and parycI'osrl/5nQ which will clear up the above pr'l l:lem further

til Anuiayas (dormant passions or latent bias) are neither mind (c/lta) nor mental (caitasika) dhamas. and again .hey never become the object of thought (aniilamballa) . (R. 45 ; V. 2.)

Oi) Allusaya is different from parYaL'{Jst!uino (pervacl ing passion) and "ice versa. It must be said that amdayo doe~ not comblOC (samproyuja tf) wi th cit/a whereas paryal'ostJriina does.

Relating 10 the above topics, Ihe KVII. has, (i) AIlIIS!J)'ii aniirammo(lii ri ? (IX. 4) and citt(ll'ippoyurrii 1

(Dorman: plssions are without any basis and arc dissociated from mind.)

Oi) AliI/soya lJvytikatii Ii (XU)

(Are dormant passions neutral, i.e., neither good nor bad?)

(iii) Ali/io kJlllurlJgilnusayo (J'iI1a,iI kc!mariigapar;)'lIf lhfillcn Ii ? (X IV . 5)

( Is the dormant passion of attachment diffe rent from the pervading passion of attachment 1) (iv) PariYUf!hiinam cirral'ippa),uttan til (XIv. 6)

(Is pervading passio n dissociated from mind ?)

Masuda offers the following interpretation ftom the 'Shucni: Thealudo),as afe really hljlls (germs inborn in the mimi) of raga and other pa3sions. They remain dormant unless leAd ted by the corresponding impll1!1e. They remam always in t ile mind even in kusalacitta, so they are dissociated fro m the mind a nd do flot require any object (iilambllnG) for support. Wlilell the anu.saya is excited by a .~u i table impulse, it be<:omc~ paryava­sthana (pariYUl\hana) and as such becomes a mental function (caitasika), and then only it beNmes an impurity and dugs the way to spiritual ,TOwth . The interpretatio n. given (lbove is corroborated by the Kru. A.l The Theravtid ins, howt.:ver, do not distinguish between ).:~marii giinusaya and kamar,igap:triyuH_ bioa and maintain that as the anusayas ore included in the

I. X~u. A..,]"I . 117 : Tanha yesam anusay~ n1ma ciulivippayutta ahetuk:A avyakatl len eva aniirammal)il Ii ladrlh i ~yyalhA pi Andhak3na~ c' "Vil

cklcclnan ca Uttarapathaklinam (Kvu . X. I)

T HE MAJIAMNOHIKAS

'he alo:khandha they art.: all ~anUI1JUi:ll.la . But accunlillg

sarp ar , ." ( kl . -· 5) ''" I Andhakas s()me mentul I,hSpOSlllOIlS salll 131<1

t~ tIe '(w,.th ba<is) and MJIllt: arc ami.ralllJ11al.la (without sarllm mal) iI - . . b () 1 but not ,;0 iIfl: tilt! Iemallll llg four khandhas. as s ,

F (" above dIscussion it is apparent that the nnusayas. rom I.e . . h :)od according to the Andhak.as, are avyakata,l I.e., nelt er g .. ,

bad and consequently they arc dissociated from mtnd (C t tt ~l ­~~:p;\yu~ta), and also causeless (ahetuka). The ~ndhakas tn th" third dtscussion assert that anusayas arc dIfferent from pn~i yutthanas. but in the fourth , the Krt~ . m~kes the '\nd~a.kas contend that pariyul~h5.nas are also cmavlppayuttas, \\htcl~ howevef appear to be contradictory. Vasumltra says that tho pariyutthanas according to these schools arc cittasam prayuttas, so we ~ust dismiss the statement of the KVII: as ~nwarr3 nted .

"The world in its variety originates out ot aClions (karma). which a::cumulate o n a(.'Count of anusayas. In the abs'! ~ce alll/Sayas karma is not capable of producing a new eXlsten~ ( plI/wrbJI:na). Consequently the root of Mel'a or rebirth IS karma. in other words, allusaya. With these words Vasubandhu opens the fifth book of KoSa." (See Kosa, V. p. I). ,

The Samlstivadins like the Theravadins regard anllsar~, parya­l'aSlhiillo and kfdtl as same, the only distinction bemg ~hat alll/SCr a is subtle, while parya\'Q~lhiina is manifest, st:tte of raga,

dosa, moha. elc. . . Th~ Kosa too deals with the prnblem under diSC USSion. VIZ .

whether or not allu,So ru (e.g. lciimariigillluSaya) is a dharma by itself dissociated fro'm minn , the flNipri of ~im~riiga , etc.? T he answer of the Sarvasti,adin~ i~ in the negr,tlve hh that 01 the Theravltdins. The former qutlte ao;: their a uthClT ity the Jiiiil~a­prasl!uinu-sutra, in which anu,fa),o i~ ~hO\o;n 10 he .1ssnciated ":Ith mind (citlosampral'llklo). They asser t that OIlIlfnyot are Idesas. and hence they cannot b!lt be citL') •. ~amprayukta <;.

In Ihis connection the Kosa refers to the opinion or the S:lutr:in­.i).: :I". who hold th:u a/lUsaYll is different fro" k/(!ia H1(\smuch ai

1. KII,,. I' "07 : S.L!l\khlrnkklurodho ck(tdclO d ramm;lQo,

all l ramm.'1Qo. , The Andhaka;, it !e~m"loo'{ej ll) ):1 Ih! a"j'j;l Y.\i a;

an .! tre:l1ed ttlc san~:ti a~y"kala. c r. DhamlnQ;!lI,i,U'J1•

cklldeso

88 DUDDHII;T SECTS IS !!<IDI A

it is nei ther associated with, nor dissociated from, mimi heC';mse it is not a drol:ra apart; it is a saki; left in certain ind ividual.; by the previously existing kfe/as and has the power of rerroduc. ing further kldas. According to the Sautnintikas. klesQ, when non-manires:, is rmusaya and when manifest. an act, it is pal)'Owlslhiina (KoSo, V . p. 7),1

TIle A/!hamakas have Saddhindriya (dominant faculty of jailh)

Vasumitra does not menlion this view among the doctrines of the Mahasaitghikas. hilt it is stated in the KI':I. that accord­ing to Ihe Andhal:as, QUllflnI(JknssQ pusga/asra nat/hi saddhin­mil'oll Ii (Il l. 6), [ Doe~:l pt'fson in the eighth stage not possess dominant faculty of fai th '1]. i. e. the at!ham3'kas may develop saddltii , l'iriYQ, etc. hut dn not acquire saddhindrjyo, "iri)'il1driyo etc., a distinction which the Theravad ini are not preparec! to admi t. The Andha kas mea n that saddhindriya or vi riyind riya, etc. is a faculf)' fo rming a part of the mind while saddha or viriya etc. is only a passi ng phase of the mind.

Abhisamaya or Realization Of the FOllr Truths

l ike the Theravadins the Mehlisanghikas hold that the real ization of the four truths (ori)'O!occas) ta kes place sinml­taneously in a moment (c/'::ok,fOl'Jika B. 23; V.ll) and not gr2.­d 'Jaily, as held by the $arvlis!ivlid ins.· They argue that the moment one realizes the nature of suffering (dl/Mha), o ne comprehends also its origin and decay (.fomudoyo, lIirodha) as also the path leading to suffering (margo) . The four truths are sub-divided into fifteen thus:

(i) dul;1kha (su tfering), (ii) anitya (impermanence), ( ii i) ~iin~'a (absence of phenomennl objects), (iv) amitmaka (non­existence of soul), (v) somudaya (Ilggrcgat~d origin). (vi) pra­bhava (origin), ("ii) hetu (cause), (viii) pralyaya (conditioc), (ilt) nirodha (cessntion), (x) Ml nt ll (quietude), (xi) pral)ita (excellent), (xii) ni~saral}ll (liberD.tion), (xiii) miirga (pnth to

I . For exhaustive treatmmt of Anubyal, S'" La1 Vallk Pouss;n' s AbhidharmakoSIJ, V.

2. Asia Mejor, II, p. 22 fn. {Masuda's Orig in and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools. See also AbhidharmakoJo. Chap. \ '1. 1 he :Slrvfi· s tiYA<! ins have I!. different li ~ t of the &i.\leen UP«!5. See "'/ro. .

89

liberation), (xiv) nyaya (logical reason). (xv) pratipaui (proceed­ing). (xvi) nairyaJ)ika (final emancipation).

Realization 0/ Duhkha leads to Abhisamaya In Ihe Kafhf<,'atlhu (xi. 4) "Jdal}l dukkhan ti" vftc~Ql

bh:isato (I) "Idarp duHhan ti" nal;lllQl pavattali ti and III Vnsu­

mitra.'s treatise the exclamation of "Aho vata dul;lk ham iti" is recognized by the Andhakas as a means to the real ization of Ihe Four Truths. The exclamation of the \\.ords "this is suffering" leads to the realization that existence in this world is misery.

(2) Dukkhiharo massailgal}l maggapariyantan Ii (XI'II. ii, 6). (S uffering is Ii food or a means leading to perfection in t he eightfold path).

(3) Samapann3ssa althi vacibhedo ti (Km. ii. 5) (Can a meditator utter an elteJamation 1).

(4) Sam5.panno saddarp SUI;I3.ti Ii (Does a meditator hear sound 1).

All these four views are mentioned in Vasumitra', treatise (8. 31 -34- V. 29-32).

The Theravadins agree to (1)/(2) but oppoie (3);(4).

'1 he fou r truths are based on the keyword "dukkha" , the watchword of the Teacher. -lhe three oth~r truths refer to its ongin, decay and their causes. Huddha laid the utmost emphasis on the realization that worldly existence, being evanescent and substanceless, is misery, as it unde rgoes change every moment and ends in death. hence one should seek exit from t he cycle of birth s and attain NirvAl)a, the eternal renlity. Without the reOl lization of the baSIC fact that existence m the mortal world, even in heaven, is undeSirable, one cannot but tnke resort to renunciation of the worldly Itt"e in order to practise moral precepts, meditational exerCIses and various other means leading to t he attainment of perfect knowledge (prajfhl). Hence the above two views 3rc acceptable to the Theravadins also.

The other two views raise the question whether a meditator, practising anyone of the four jhAnas (dhyanas), particularly the fi rst, which is not free from discursive thoughts (l'itakka) and determi nation (ricara), can utter an elc1amation like "Aho

90 B UDDH l n $ECrs ,:<; INOlA.

dukkham iti"l or hear sound , say, of a lightning.' T he Andh~­

kas contend that medit:ltors in the first dhyana do not re~lch the stage whim all the orgam of sens~ become wholly inactive a nrl cannot pertdve anything. The Theravadins do not in lend to make such a dis tinctio n.

Abhisamaya by magga-bhiivQnii (Realization of the Four Truths through spiritual

progress in the l our stages of sanctification)

In the Buddhist texts Magga (-marga) bellrs IwO diffe rent meanings. These are:

(I) Ma.l!p;a - eip;htfo ld path of the Dhammacakkfppavat-­lana-sulta.

(2) Magga _ Four stages o f >anctificatifln le:lrli ng to Nibbina. viz., Sotapatti , SflbHiflgflmi, Ana­gami and Arahalta.

In tile present discussion of the Mahds[lIighikn view, the JifTen:nt k inds of magga s havc b:cn used indiscriminatdy. becau~e these were meant for monks highly advanced spirit 'Jully.

The Mahasaflghikas and a few other sects state that matter­(rura) is an associate of the magga (Le. SoHipaui , etc.) (B. 55).

In the Kvu. ( X.2) "Maggasamailgissa rUpl'll maggo·' is ex­plained thus:

Right speech. right action and right means of livelihood are 3.ccordi ng to the above-mentioned sects, matter (rupa). Hence riipa is also a ba~is for progress in a magga (i.e. Sotapatt i etc.).

The M:lhii~ai1ghikas ~lso contend that observance of five or ten mor~l precept!; (sila) i!; also an aid to the spiri tual progress.

l. cr. K ••.• lX, 9: Opinion of th;: f'ubbasdi~a,: Sabbaso vitakkaynto vic:irayato vitaklrovippMro ~ddo Ii? T he Cy. on II i~ : YlI.",A "';I!lkb\'idir~

vaeisamkh1rt' Ii VUltli tasm1 sabt>3.SO vilatkayalo vical1lyato anlarmso mar,odhll1uPPlvauikale pi vilakkavippharo saddo leva Ii. Cf. Ma.ijhillla, J, p. 301.

2. cf. ".11., XVIII, 8: Sam! panno sadd21Jl slU).l ti Ii. As it has been laid by Buddha thai sound is a hindrance 10 the tlrst jhana and thai on~ rises from Ihe fir~1 Jllan:! by an clll~ rnal sound, Ih~ Pubbt~ljy,u inferred there· from Ihal one ;n meditmion hellr •• nll",rl

91

In lhe K VII. (X.6) it is statd Ihat "maggas:lmangi dvihi silchi snr'lannagato' ·, i.e., :l monk spiritually advanced is {HSOClated with moral observances, which may be disting'.lis:,cd as worldly (Io:'dya) and supra-mundane or spiri tual (lokollara).

Both the views are o pposed by the Theravadil1s, who do not reeognize that Ihe first three items of the eigh lfo ld path are loki\a and net lokottara.

Tile Mahasanghikas fLlrthc r contend Ihat lin adept, in spi te of his five sense·perceptions, can progress along the spiritual path (B. 24, 25). In the Kl"u. this vi~w has been discussed:

Ii) Pllli'·OI'iiiliii~lasQJllaligi.fSa Quid maggabhiil'allii fi (X. 3). (In spile of the five S(nse-p.=rceptions, can a person progress along the spiritual path ?).

iii) Paiical"iiiiio~lii kl/soIa ti aku.~QIa pf fi (X. 4), and (iii) Pmicaviiili(il)ii siibhogii (X. 5) (The fh e sense· perceptions

may be )l;ood or bad and are associated with mental enjoyment (sabhoga).

The Mahii.:;anghikas on the basis of the statement of Dha· gavan, " /d," Q, bhikkllOl'e, bhikklm cakkillu;o flipO,,' din·a nimi!ta· ggiihl hali 110 Ilimittaggiiht IIeli ti setella saddOlf' .~'It\'ii ele.,·· contend that a person using the five sense-organs may undertake spiritual pf3ctices (ma.'!Kab/Jri vanal by graspi ng or not grasping the characleri,tics of the object seen or heard and directing his mind towards nibblillo. The Theravadins a :·gue that, if thro ugh paFicol'iillifi!,o one at tains sotapatti ane other maggas, then the pajjcol'iti fimlo and maRpa should be of the same category, but the fo rmer is pre'sotapanna (Joki)"o) and the latter post· sot;ipanna (lokutlora). the former has an object as ba sis (scl'a­tll:uka) and the latter is without any b.1sis (ol'a tthuko). In this way, the Thera'l,idi ns <uguc that on accou nt of the function of the five vii\n[l1~as one does not attain nibMllo.

The Mahlisaflghikas argue further that the five or six p.::reep. tions (viiliiilQ.as) may be productive of either attachment (smiga) or aetachment (viraga) (B.24; V. 22). Mind (citta) by its nature a\l"a~s remains pure and refulgent (pabhas~ra) . It becomes impure by the advent of itrpurilics (kilesas) (B. 44 ; v. 41).

In fhe KI'Il (If L 3), it is argued as against the Andhakas tha t if an individ ual has a ciua free from impurities (vitar[lga), he needs not exert furi hcr for attaining emancip:uion.

92 BUDOIIIST SECTS IN ISOlA

Thefe are two o llu::r views (8. 78, 79), which speak of root­consciousness (miila-vijii illla) as th<:: basis of the five or six sense-organic vijilanas (i.e. t.:ak¥J, ~rotra, etc.). T his mulavijMoa correspondiog to sublillliual consciousness (bhavaflga-d ua) before it becomes actual L:UDscio1Jsness like desire, hat red, etc., is called pravl ui-yij iiaua. it is to be d :stinguished from desires (viisun ii) which pc'I"VilUC tbe mind. T hese two views nnlicipare YOEiicflra doctrines. I

The Mahasanghikas also contend thai a spiritually advanced adept <I !1a. ining the power of controlling thoughts (balapatto vasibMto) can also conlrollhe thoughts of others (B. 74). In the Kmhiivulthu (XVI. 1), in its "Paro parassa cinarn niggahati Ii" , it is pointed ou t that the in terpretation is wrong. The adept acquires t he power of self-control and does not or cannot control others' thoughti. III support of this, the followi ng state­ment of Buddha. is relied upon:

Allnnfi va katam p,lpalfl attami. samkilis!illt i, :Il1flni't ai.:at:up pa pam attana va visuiihati ,

Suddhi usuddhi paccattaJ)l u iiiillO <liiilalji vi~oohdye ti. (Evil~ commiued by cneself cau~e sufTeriug to o ne's own self. Evils not comm itted by ouc5df make ouc's own self pure. Purity and impuri ty are om.: '~ o wu ; none else tan puriiy another.)

The Mahfi sanghikas fu rther hold that the fi ve or six sense­perceptio ns (viji\:inas) exist together both in the material and non-material spheres (Rupa and Arupa dhatus) (8 . 25; \'.23).

Right J'iew &- Faculty of faith

In Vasumitr.:l ' S treutise it is 5tlltcd that Ihc Mahasanghikas hold the views that

(i) Then: is nei ther laukika-samyagdrHi (right view) no r lilukjka~rauuAcndriya (faCulty of faith) in a comnon man.

The correspondlOg passages of the Kl'u. are,

(i) Naf(hi purlmjjanas.IQ 1;(1(1011 Ii? (XX, 2);2 and

J:" . cr. L d~ V. Poussin, Vlj iillparimiilf(;{ii-; iddhi, pp. 17S-79, 184n ., 186. 2. Allribuled to lhe Heluv~uin s o nl y.

THE UAHA~A~mHlKAS 9J

(ii) NO/1M lol.:iyw!lsaddhilldriyali t i? (X IX, 8). 1

J he argum~nt of the Theravadins is thal a laymall ulay have kno\-\Jedgc (panna) and fai th (saddJul) of a kind whic:l Ina) be diff~rent from t hose of an arya, but puli,iii and :.addlJ5, which the common man pos;esses, are devdo~ ill to pu,itiilldrZl'a and saddhmdri)'Q by an arya. II may be l ilat Lilt: common mlln'§ pai illa or niilJQlfJ is confined to girts, prtt:epb. sacrifice (,Iu/la, sUa, caga), etc., Le., worldly affairs, and dues not e"tend to the comprehension of the higher (Iokult:lw) subjects like truth~ ,

paths (maggas) and fruits (phalas), hClIce, dl:l.ording to the Themviidins, there may be !oklya palllfllldriyu aud .wddiu·"Jriya.

Re. llldriyas (Organs of sense) : Cakkhuniiriiptlqlpassarr Ii (KI':!' XVIII. 9). (Sentient surfaces

of the cyeg see).2 In the Ku!hfll'althu (XVIiI. 9), the Maluls:uighikas arc saij

to ha lle held the view that the organs of sense perceivc directly and not by their perceptive faclJJty (vij,iana) . Th is is a l ~o the view of the Vaibha ,ikds (vide Kosa, tfans!., i. p. 81-82). The Saila schools and the Thcravadins hold the opposite view (see infra). Re. APfalisQl11khya-nifodha (Emancipation without knowledge) :

(Koso, transl, ii. p. 280) . The Buddhists admit thai there are two kincl e; of "ir()dha: one

attained by means of know1edee (pffll immkhYli) and the other by complete removal o r aU impllriliee; which calise rebirth. and not by knowledge (apro tisfllpkhylf) . The Mah1isaftgbikas hold that the latter is palciid abhii)'a (subsequen t ah!;cnce) 0: dllarlllQS. One is not reborD by virtue of the spontan eolls destruct ion of dhormas.'

Re. Klda-blja (Gcrm of impurit ies) :

The Mahasailghikas state that .Idesa-bljil is a dharma d istinct ftom kleiil (Koso, V, p.7).

1. Tn the Cy. it is attributed to the HetuvAliins and MahiUsak a~. and they mean all the five indriyas: saedhA, viriya. SlI. ti,snmlichi and pa~l'ia .

2. That the eyes see and notlhe cak~-vijlldna is olso the opinion of the Vaibh~ikas(KqJa. 1. 81-~2).

3. Kuja (tlalls1.) , vi, p. 185 fo .

94 flI'DDHr'T SECTS Il'I 1,,0111.

Rt. A.Hi-riida : The M::Ihas:lI' ghikas Olzintain as againsl the Sar,,;istivftdins

th:l.t Ihe pr~senl exists but not Ihe past and the fut ure . Rf'. Viifiarti tSigns of inlimacon) :

The Ma has .. 'lIighikas hold that rijliapli is :lIsa an act (Koso. iv, p. 3).

Olher Doctrines

Some of the doctrines am ibuted to the Mahasanghikas in the Kalhiirorrhu only arc as foHows :

(i) Restraint (iOIFI'IUO) or unrestraint (asollll'Grc) of the organs of sense should be treated as action (kammaV The Thcravadins regard il as non -nction; their contention is that an action should be defined as actual functioning of the five OfjlanS

of sense initi~'ted by mind «('('tami). KI'II XII. 1. (ii) All actions (f'1bhmfl kall1malll) are ;Jcromp<ljned by

results (uII'Iluika). The Thenlviidins contend that as ('efann i" the source of all act ions,2 and as [here are avyiikata (neither eoad nor bld) and (ll'ip,ika (unaccompained by any result) cittllS, 3

there must also be avy;\kata and avipak a k amrnas. Hence all actions are not neel's s ~rily accompanied by· results. Xnl. x rI. 2.

(iii) Sound and other iiyalanas (spheres of the organs or ;ense) are also results of actions (kammasso karoflo IIppmlf/o'!, ) .

In st.Ort, all non materials (anipadhommfJ) are products of actions (kammasafJIllf!Nim;).-Kl"u., XII. 3 & 4. ~

(iv) Acquisition of moral purity is not mental (.II/am aa/asika" tij . rIadl "0 citlollllpori l"altl til. KIU. X. 7, 8.

The Mah asanghikas imply by the above oplO ion that pUrity 10 speech (samrna vaea), in actions (samma kammanta) and III means of livelihood (samma ajlva) is a corporeal property and as such, non-mental and requires no arammalJa (basis).~ I he M. mean that the observance of silas transforms the bOdily

l. :f. KoJii, (iranI.). iv, p.52. 2. CelOnAhaJIl kammaQ"l vadAmi-Allhos., p. 135. J. S",o; Dlmmmo!otl{oJ.li, pp. 87 if. 4. ;f. Koi<J, (Ir:lnsl.), i. p. 69-70. 5. «,·u .. I. p. 422.

95

const ituents of a being in such a wey that it can no longer commit any \\rong. i.e" cannot tc elussr/a.

(v) T he collection of silas (mor:.! l cb~erv.lnees) i. not as<;ncinted with mind (ciflal"ippa),uuam sflopacayom). K\"II. X. 9.

Buddhagho~a cxplain5 this as due to misappTchcn5ion of the ~C ll~~ of the passage in the Salilyuua " ·ikiiya (I . p 33): . ..frama­r()plJ I·UllrJfO/H.i ye jonii, fej alll sadci pwillOlll f/Cl I'o(N/:at; (the merits uf Ihose who plant parks ;101.1 wo;,d s illcreasc ut all times).

(vi) .\1ogga5amailgissa rfipaf/I maggo li.1 KI"U. X, 2.

(In the person practising the ei~h tfo~d path, the body is

included) .

(vii) Uagga.mlllwigi ([Iflli sTIehl stlmQllniigaro li.~ KI'II. X. 6. (A per~()n practising the e i ~htfold path is endowed with

dOllble morality (i.e. worldly and uJlworldly).

(vii i) Vhhiatrj sf/all ri. KI'It. X. 10 (Acls of intim:l. t iof) are

virtues).

(ix) AI,i,I"alri dU.)5Ilafl ri. K vu. X. II. (Acts not in t imating a moral purpose are immoral).'

Since !"lila, according 10 the M. , muSt be a positive action, and not mere res!ramt (safJ1vara), so any niinatlj (intimation) by means of body or speech is sila. Sllutation, rising to welcome, folding hands, etc. are Silas. The .\1., in vi~w of their opinion that there may be accumulation of demerits without the asso­ciation of mind (ci/lQl·ippaYUf(OIll apl/iillopccayoIP), contend "that acts not iniimaling a moral purpose are immoral."

(x) Nii~lat!1 cirtavipPo)lIttatfl. KI'u. XI,3. ( Insight is disso­ciated from mind).

(xi) A/jiiii~1e ligate iiii11OIipPoyulte ciue I"(lttamtille 1/0 l'af IO­

bbil1l 'iiii{I/ ' ti. KI'u. XI. 2. (One should not be called 'il:il)i'

I. Trans!. "That the rhy~ica! frame of onc who is practisinil the eightfold path and has attained one of Ihe four mai/(/s (i. c. Soti1pani, elc.) is includ­ed 10 that pa[h." P(}il1/J of C(}mro,·ersy, p. 244.

2. Tm"'.t. '·ThH one who is engaged in the path Is praCIlsing a double morality." iMd., p. H8, Vis",., p. 6 : S!lcnll sOldpallna-sakad4gAmi­bhAva~sa k"raonm pakasital]l hoti. SoJ~Jl:lnnn hi .1Ic.'11 l'~ril'nl1'll<Ari Ii VIIUO, latM sa kad"gami.

3. Se~ Dh(Jmmosa/igo1Ji, p. 60.

BUDDHIST SECTS IN I~OIA

(posscs>ed of insight) though his <l,i,jl;fJU (spi ri tual ignorance) is gone but his thoughts arc not conjoiJlt:u wiLh insight).

In tbis controversy iiii!1a means mag);lIfia~l a (illsight of the adepts, who a rc in one of the foul' maggas). Tilt: M. l:untend thai a t the moment wh:n an adept has cakkhuviiliiiil)a, etc. he cnnnothavc maggaiiul)a. In other W(IIUS, they mean tu say thatil is only when an adept develops maggaih'llJ3 amI al rests his sens::· perceptions (vini\';il)a) that he may be dc!>CrilJo;:u as 'M1)I" hence iiitl)ll is n OI associaled wilh ntilld (dna _ vii"riHi.I.la).

(xii) A..io:II!olomiilolll pa!i5amfaftlJl( f...ll.wlwl/lilrm ri.l KI':/. XIV. 1 (A basis of impure thoughts is COH~O:CUtiVO: Lu a basis thut is pure , and conversely).1

The VI. contend tha! as the same Object may be the cause of both ruga (attachment) and I'lraga (dela::hment) and as one muy follow the other immediately, it may be stated that kusala is the onamarapaccaya (cont iguous cause) of :!.kusala and rire versa. The Th . point out Ihat cult i,'alion of kl!sa l~mNla must be made deliberately (yoniso manasikarato) while that of akusala mula does not require any such delib~ration (ayoniso manasikiirato), anll al~o that nekk.hallllllasaiiifa l renunciating thought) does not always follow kiimasaiiflii (worldly thought) and rice rersa. and so kusalamOh cannot be regarded generally as the conti­guous cause of akusalamula and I'ice )'ersa.

(xii i) Paccayatii I'QI'allhilii Ii. KI'II. XV. I. (One pheno­menon can be related to another in one way only).

The M. now enter into the pro!:llem of paccayas. There a re twenty-four kinds of pacc3yas, viz., hctu, aramm:U)3., adhipali, sahajata, anantara. etc.~ They raise the question whether one o oject can be placed under two or more kind s of paccayas, or whether one can be rela ted to another by one relation only. The Th . hold that one su~iect may be two kind s of paccay,1~ ,

e.g., l'iriya may be both adhipari and sailajiila; I'imorpsii may he both hem and cdhipati. The M . do nol Sub3crlbe 10 this view.s

I . "Thai a basis of bad thOIlShl is cor.se(."1,1t ive to a ba!is of iM" ~h3l1ght ar,d convel""!ely. Pi)illis O!ColI/fOversy, p. 282.

2. cf. Tikapal/hisr.a, pp. 168 fr. J. See AulJus., p. 9; DukaJNllfhmw p. J ; Pail/II 0.( CO/llrovi'rJY.

pp. J;l(l...92; B.,ddhi4/ P4)'~halogy, pp. 19~ If.

THP. MA.llASANOHIKAS 97

(xiv) Avijjo pacco)'o pi .{Cll1lkharii, na ra/raMalll " sam· kl/lira pacca),ii pi a\;Uo fj" '.1 KI"II. X V. 2.

T his view of the M . is o nly :l corollary to the previous onc. The M . hold that avijji\ is the hew (cause) of saqlkhii ra .:Ind as sllch there cannot he :l ny other rtl:uion between the two. The Th ., however, arglle thrll :l '/ ijjii. and s:l'llkh:1ra are related to elch other hnth as hew (cause) and sahaj:ita (co-existen t) or annam<li'ii'ia (reciprocal) ca use . hence it may be stated that .<:llfTI khara are iahajfllap:1Ccaya of avijja, and rice yerm.: In the Vihhango (pr. 1511 fT.) the sampayutta (associated) and ai'ina­mlli'iii~ (reciprocal) rel:llions between any 11110 consecutive links of the chain o f causation have been exhaustively dealt wi th , showing clea rly the att itude of the T herav:idins to the problem.

(xv) Lokuttoranoql dhamlllOllQ1rl jarumurUl..lUtrJ IQkllffaral1l. KI'II., XV. 6 (Decay o.nd death of supramulldane beings or objects are also supra mundalle).

(xvi) Paro parassa ctUQITI nigg~hiiti. K VII., XV I. I.

The Mahasarighikas hold that the spiri rually advanced monks develo p the power of controlling others' though ts.'

(xvii) lddhibalena samanl/figaro kappam tiflhey),a. KVII., XI. 5,

On the basis of Buddha's statement, those who have master~d

iddhipiida (higher powers) may live for an :leon if they so wish . The Maha.s<lrighikas Sla te that hy means of higher altaiu1l1cnts. one can extend his life up to a kalpa . ~

I. "Thill wherea~ uggregatc:s are condi tioned by z,noram:e, it should nOl be said lhlll iSllorance is condjtion~d by .aggregates." Puill($ af COl/tr(} \"'Ny, p.294.

2. cr. Maphi/tla Nikdya, I. 54-SS : avijji ~muday1i hav", ".~vuamu. dayt!; a\ljjA; al'" Digha Niko),a, II, p. SS-S1: v i i'l ~ AGapaccayl nAmarilp£m. "allluOpapllCClya viMAQan ti.

3. \r. above, r . 9'l. 'I. cr. ,\(uhiijJ>l";",·bW iluJut/a, p. 117.

CHAPTER VI

DOCTRINES OF GROUP II SCHOOLS

TH~ ::;".11. \ SCHOOLS, PRA]NAPTiV,\DIKS, B."'HUg){UTiYAS

AND \'ETULYAKAS

In discussing the doclrines of the Saila and other ,chools, Vasumitra has mixed them up with the Mahasanghika" pmhably with that section of the Mahasarighikas that is dislinguisheri in t he Kathill'atthu-aUhakathil as ekacre .Uahiismighikil. It is on the basis of the Kal!Jfrmuhu that we have distinguished the doctrines of the la ter Mahasanghikas. whose views may be taken as identi­cal with those of the Saila and other schools, ::lnd put them together in the following pages.

L Is Bllddha hllman ?

In Vasllmitra' s treati ~e, Ruddhas are de,cribcd as /vkotro.ra (supramunda ne), anli HS sllch they are made of al10.rral'a dlwrmas 1

(pure objects), and nre withollt ,leep nr dream, which is a con­comitllnt of siisrm'a dharmas. Rllddhfl., have llnlimited riipakiiyos (material bodies), powers (bolos), length of life (iiyu), etc.

In the Kathiil'ollhu (xvii. 1,2) the above doctrines are attribut­ed to the Vetulya};:as, according to whom Euddha does not live in the mortal world. Nor should he be located anywhere; it is his created form (lIirnut~:a-kiiya = rilpa-kaya i ,e" abhinimmifo jir.o) that delivered the religious discourses. The Theravadins account for thi~ heresy by saying that il is due to the literal but incorrect comprehension of the passage; Bltagawi loke Jaro loke sambu­ddho Ivkam abhibhuyya I'jharot; anupalilto lokena ti (Buddha,

1. Masuda readers it ai "nosasravl dharmas." The rendering shoJld be "an~srava dharmas;' i.e" Buddhas are embodiment 01 pure dharmas viz., sila~ lcandha, samldhislc., prajflaslc., viml.lklisk., and vi,"uklijii:inadada­nask., not or rilpa. vcdanl'l, ilQi'iild., s'{lI'1khirl'l and vini'\(II;1a , which are slsr:ova dh~rma •. See my A,,,relO (If Mnlr(iyiina B"dditi.fm and iT" Refalian 10 fIir.Il)'(;/la (henceforth indicated as Aspects), D, 108.

1

r

DOCTR:r;ES OF GROUP II SCHOOLS 99

burn amJ enlightened in this world, overcomes thi5 world and n:fIllin~ untouched by the things of the world , Salll, Nik. iii, 140), Tilis is supplemented by further discussions in the Kathorartfm (wiii. 1,2; ;>;xi . 6) rdating to the heresies, which are also attri­lJUted to the Vetulyakas, "iz., "110. rattabhallr Buddha Bllagavii rnunussa{ake «!flliisf Ii" (it should not be said that Duddha lived in the mortal world--Kvu., xviii. 1); sahba disii Ouddhii riflhantl Ji"1 (Buddhas (:Xist in all earners of the world-Kvu., xxi. 6) and auhinitflfllitlCl,a desiro ti (the discourses are delivered by created forms-KI'u" xviii, 2). These show that, according to the 0PPO­Ilents of the Theravadins, Buddha is omnipresent and beyond the possibility of location in any particular corner or sphere, and that all the discourses were delivered by the apparitional body (Jf Buddha.

Buddhagho~a with his usual naivety understood the Vetulya· kas as holding the opinion that Buddha always remained in the Tusita heaven, where he dwelt before he came to this world". The discussions in the Kathiil'althu as w~n as the terse statements of Vasumitra leave no 100m for doubt abolll the fact that t he Mahasail~hikas (especiall)' their offshoots, the Vetulyakas and the Lokottaravadins)rep:arded Buddha as transcendental. Masuda suggests that the refulgent body (sambho~a-kaya) of Buddha is referred to in the heresies but the time of emergence of the conception of mmbhogakaya is a matter of controversy,2 From the discussion in the Kathavatthu (xxi. 5) "atthi Buddhanarn Buddhehi hinatirekatii Ii" (whether Buddhas mutually differ?), it seems that the Andhakas were concerned with the Sambhoga· kaya and had not then arrived at the conception of the Dharma· kaya. Buddhaghosa states that the Andhlkas hold that Buddhas differ from one another in certain qualities other than the attainments like ;;atipa~thana (alert mindfu lness( sammappa­dhana (right exertion) etc .. the orthodox holding that Buddhas

1. This is the opinion of the Mahiisail2hikas only, accordinll to the Kalhiivallhu.

2. Masuda's opinion can be supported by tne fact that in the Mahiivauu {I. p. 169) Bud.dha·s kayo is equated to nifyanda-kiiya (resultant body) ren­dered into Chin~ by paJ .1""1¥, ",hid, b abo lil" r""de,iJJ8 of SamMoxu­kriya; see my Aspe!!" etc., p. 117, 120.

100 BUDDHIST SEC'S IN I .... DIA

may differ in respect of body, length of life and radiance (k:i.}3. ayu, pabbava) but not in regard to the attainments mention~d

above. The discussion in the Katha,vatthu (x'/ ii i. 3) shows that the UU3rap:!.Iha k2S hold the view that Buddhas can have no compassion (karuoa) and that Buddh,i"s body is made of pure objects (anasrava·d harmas). In the Mahiivastu (i. pp . 167-681th e conception 01 supram und ane (lokonara) Buddha appears thus:

Transcendental are the practices of Bhagav2n, and so are his meri ts (kubla-mUlas). his eati ng, drinking and other dai lY acti­vities. He follows the '"a:ii of the world just as much as he follows the transcendental ways,' He makes a show of stand ing, walking, siu ing and lying (i riyapathas). but he never gets ti red. He washes bis feet or body. though there is no dirt: he cleanses bis mouth. though it smells like a lotus. He eats t hou gh he has no hunger. and so forth. These arc all due to his be ing an em· bodimentofthe effects of good actions.2 There is nothi ng in common between Him and the aeings of the world. Everything of the great n i is transcendental. including h is advent into the world. '

Ir the transcendence of Buddha be admitted. then it rollows as a matter of course that hi; length of life would be unlimited and that he would not be subject to sleep or dream. as he would have no fatigue. and one who is without sleep and ever awake has no thi ng to do with d rea m. It is won h noting here that even in the Pali sill/aS such as the Mahiiparinibbiinasutta. there are hints to the effect that Buddha. if he wishes. can extend h i ~ life·limit up to a kalpa o r the end of a kalpa.4 tbus revealing tha t the transcendental conception took rooti in the minds of the Buddhists at a very early dale.

In the Karlriil'allilu.6 the discussion of the topic Budd,'/Ussa Bhcgarfl/o rohiiro lokl/traro ti reveals that the Andhaka •. to

I. cf. Kvu .. XVJ!I. 4; Buddha~sa Bhagavato ucciirapisstvo ati\' iy~ ni'liie gandhajll.le adhiaa!)Mli ti _opinion of some Andhaka and Ut!arap<l thakns.

2. MI~., 1. p. 10>1. cf. Lank/i. pp. 2l!, 34.

3. "''''M., r, p. 159. 4. Dfgho, 11, 1'. 103; ),ana ka;~adcatHiro idd ~ ipiidii wiibnkh~rn(\no

kaopam vA tit thcyya koppa.vas~salT1 vii. ~. Kvu., II , 10.

DOCTRIN"ES OF GROUP n SCHOOLS 101

whom Ihe aboYt: opinion is ascribed. h old t hat Buddha's actions (l'oharo) ar.: lukuuara and that t hey a rc trented as lo.lciyo (mun­dane) anu lukoltara (supramundanc) according as the ob~ct of the action is lukiyu or lokottara. Mr. Shwe Zen Aung pre!ers to confi!l~ Ihl: sensc or' the word '\'ol,aro" to "speech', and we think that it means "conventional tcaching".1 in Vosumi tra's treatise an ooillion of this nature is attributed to the Mah3s:uighikas in COllt;iI~1 to the Sarvasti,,·ii.dins, VIZ .. the siltras (or discourses) prc:tdtl:d l}y Buddha are all perfect in the.mseh·es (llfrartlla~. Buddha, spcl!k of nothing but dharma (doctrInes); as such their teal:iJilig is concerned only with paramdrtha·sarya (paramaltho­SatTa). i.e., not with sal/1vflisarya {sammutlsacca).3 The pilra­l111irlhwwlya (annot be normally eltpresscd by words, It cll.n be I.!ltDtaiuctl only by sile nce or at the most by £In exclam:ltIon­w';idl idea. I think, is expressed in Vasumitrn's trc:ltise thus : Buddha can c}l.pollnd all the doctrirle3 with a s ingle utterance aud there is nothing which is not in con formity with the truth iu what has been preached by thc Wo rld-honoured One ."1 In tlte: l.;pij.vakal.salyapari~·arta of the Saddharmapuf./lartka it . has been showrl Ihat for training up deluded beings in his doetflne~. Budd ha had recourse to various clip<:dients whieh were false. i .e., unreal (.fall ll'''; or sammllli). and tltat through such te3ch­ings he led t he d~ludcd beings to thc Iruth - paramarrl:a. So it fo llows that all his teachings collected in the Pilakas ur¢ merely salln'rti or samlllllti (conventional) nnd that they ore not therefore his real tC[lchings. 5

According to the Mahas;lnghikas, Vasumitra ~uys j Buddhas have both k,a}'ajiiiilla and ollUtpiidajiiiina' always p resent in

J. Sau~. Vynrahtira. 2. cr. !.{. Vr., p. '19·1. 3. Paramiirlha·.<t1IJ·a means the hi~hest tru th while salflvrt(-saIYQ rr.eans

the conventional lruths as used in cI'er)day usage by the people in gcneral. For detailed treatment see m~ A.peas, pp. 21 6 If.

4. Asia Ma,ior, II . p. 1>1. 5. Su: A'p«t,·, p. t9~. 6. (a) K,oyajil iina mean~ cOllni:z.a n~e of the fact that 1111 !he t'i.mV"I are

destroyed ; (b) AnUlpiiiJajliiino means cognizance of tile fact (hat onc will not be

reborn again. cf. KoJIl, VI, 67; A(fhasiililli, p. 54. cr. As~ectl. p. lOti rn, I.

102 BUDDHIST 5I.:CTS I N I NDI A

their minds, the Sarv:istivadins holding that all Arhats may have k:ayajniina, but a few only have QlllItptiJajiiiinoj the Theravadins. however, do not make any such distinction.

Amollg the other attributes of this lokotlara Buddha, \'asu­mitra's treatise speah of his powers (bolas)' 3i unlimited while tl:e .Hahiivastll spea ks of his five eyes (cakiUS)2 as uncommon (asiidhiiroIJa) and eKcelling those of Pratyekabuddhas, Arllnfs and others. This particular topic _ tct!uigalaba/(lftJ siJPflknsii­

dhiirQ~lcn Ii - has been taken up fo r discussionin the Kadliil'alJlw (iii. I), but strangely enough the position taken by the compiler of the KathfH'otthu is not that of a Theraviidin but that of a Lokottuuvlld in Mahiisulighika as against the Andhakas. Le., tbe Saila schools. In Vasumitra's tre3 ti~, this topic appears in a slightly different form.

The Thenl.V!ldins do not regaru BudJha as Jukollara but attri­bUlt to h im almost all the powers alld qualitie3 of a /ok ottara

Buddha, and this discussion reveals om: of sudl instances. The­len spc::ial balas (powers) of a Tathl1gala ap~ar not only in tile MahiJrasru (i. pp. 150-60) but also in olu P<i.li worb like the Ma)jhima NlktJ)la (i. pp. 60 fT.). The contenliun of the Andha­kas is that there ii a certain degree of different:e b.:twee-n Bud­dha!;· and Ara ha~ regarding the acquisition of the leu balas, and th ai Buddhas and Arahats are not therefo re on the same level

I. The len blla~ are; (.\{ahiil'lIstll, pp. 1':;9-60; Kalhavallhu and Majj/lima Nfktlftl).

I . Thtlnulhii'larp jill/iiI' .... 2. Sabballhlll{llmillipulll'udml' ja.,ari. 3. Anl!kcdharuq. nlina;Jll/jtll'" (Qk""1l Janati. 4 . SntlillUlf11 milliidhimuttika{amj4I!iili. 5. PcraS!lttiifl{l'ft parapuggdiilltlm i'ldriYfl-"paropariya/tcm ya!hii­

bllii/am pajivuJ/i. 6. Atltiinligil/apuC(uppanlliina", Ite/uso vipiikom }dna/i. 7. JMllal'(tr.akkhlliwr;Cidhiw,,,,'itmI/1lla,,, ~tl'ikUe~'/ll'Qdri"a'1' vQr;ha-

/ta/1f ya/hiibbu/lI/1f paj';nii,i. 8. AnI'ka~iHta111 plih/wniviiSltf11 anUJsarali. 9. Dibbtna cakkh~n6 salle faSS'!l/1 ru~'mane IIpcpajjan;iine elC

10. Asaviinatf! ,~haya anaI(H'iltf! cllovlmlllli", paF.ifiil'imulliql diflh~ va d.'wlnme sa:!C1Ifl abJtiflilii ~acch'jka/viJ upascmpajja vihura/i.

2. By eyes, the text means all the five, VIZ., mtif!lStlCaklf,l, 'Il~yac. , prajifac .• dharmac. , and bt.ddllac.

DOUTkINES Of' ORour If SCHOOLS 103

(asiidhiir/ll.UJJp). In the Mahiiv(lJ(u and the PaIi works, this view is accepted with this reservation thai Buddhas are sarviiktirajiia, i.e" tile), possess a complete and detailed knowledge of ever)'­thing. while an Arhat can at the most have sectional knowledge. 1

The Pali school, i.e.. the Theravadins hold tllat as far as rimuui is concerned there is no difference between a Buddha and an Arhat, and that Buddhas are superior to the Arhats only on account of the fact that the former are promulgators of a new Dharma while the Arhats are only followers of the same.1

II, Are Bodhlsattl'as l1J!eragr bdllgJ'?

If, according to tile MahasanghiL.:as, Buddha~ are /"kotlara. ond if the Buddhas that we pllfJlZljjllnas knnw of are only the created forms of tile real Buddha , the Rndh i~a ltvas also cannot be average human beings - they mmt also be supramundane. ]n Vasumitra's treatise is given the following occount of the Bodh isattvas. The Bodh.isatt vas, do not pass through the embryonic stages. They assume the form o f white elephants when they enter their mothers ' womb~ and come o ut of the same by the right side. The llbove opinion is the natural outcome of the lengendary belief thflt clime to be wovcn around the person of tbe great Teacher about a century after his actual existence. In the Lafirnvistnrtl ,' the Bodhisatt ... a is placed not only in a crystal casket put within the womb but while in that state he is &aid til ha'ie been preaching dharma to the heavenly beings that Rocke:! around him. The stor} of the white elephant se~n by Miya in a dream at the time of her conception nnd the birth of tile Bodhi,fluva hy bursting through the right side of ' the mother's womb is tno well known to ne.:d any comment. The incorporation of these legends in tile doctrines of the Mahisailghikas and of their offshoots $how5 tllat the Bodhisattva eonception of the Maha­yanists was yet in the process of development.

I. cr. XVII. C7 .• p. 62: Th1nalMnli4ini hi dVHA padf'$ma jA1arui. Talh~g,1"\ nippadf',t'nn ilL n.ni u:ldesato s~dh3.rao4ni; niddC'l3to as!dhl­r:Joilni ~ nlddc$;.llo sabb.:ikirrav.'su)'alal/l $Indhaya palikkhipati. cr. M/Il ., 1, p . 158; cr. Aspecls, p. 106 fn . L

2 This argument is adduced In the Kvu. ~ also Sam. Nlk., III, p. 66 3 UlIl/Ov{ltara, Ch. V I, 1'. 73 (of A.S.D. edilion).

104 3UDDHIST SECTS IN INO ' "

The only doctrine that can be descri bed as Ma J.Ayanic IS that Bodhis~tI\las take birth out of Ihex own free will In any form of eXistence for imparting their teachings to t he sentient beings of IhIt p:uticular form of existence.' II is well illustrated in the /Illakas and developed in later Mahiiyan:l works like the Slk: c'isomucca)'Q and the Bodl1lcaryiil'atiira. '1 his topic has been laken up fo r discussion in the Kilrl:iimtthu (xxiii. 3) : Bo(Uzisatto issariyakiimakarikii·';efu l'illipiltaJtlgacchalf ti - bUI the arguments put forward completely ignore the standpoint of Ihe Mahflsanghikas and attempt to show the untenabi lity of the opponent's proposit ion by treating the Hod hisattva as nothing but a n average huma n ade pt, toihng along the path towards the attainment of bodhi.

In the nipilllOHolltikathii2 (K l'u., vi. 8; xii, 5, 6: xiii . 4) the same attitude is revealed by the Therav5dins. By nil iima, the Thera~ ... adins understand sammottaniyiima and micc/jalfaniviima the former being the practice of brahmacariya, (purity of conduct) and a'iJ'amaK~o (path of sanctification) induding, for the Bodhisattvas, the fu lfilmen t of piiramis, leading to emancipa­tion (Le. sam),akn'a Or sammat/a, and the latter the commIssion of heinous crimeS (Jl1anlarlyokamnw), leading to hell (i.e. mith­),iilra or micchal1a).' In the sense as expressed above any Sravaka can be a sammat/ani),iima, and he ne~d not be a Bodhj­sattva. The Theravadins do not recognize the Bodbisau ms as superior in auainments to the Sravaka~, and in the matter of brolmlat"oriya and practice or ari)'oma~ga, they do nol want to make any distinction between a Sra\"aka and a Bodhisattva.

In the Lankiira/tira and Asanp:a's Sulrii/ankiira and similnr othe r Mahayana w(lrks, however. it is repeatedly stated that a person by the development of bodhicilto btcomes a niyalo Bodhisattva. i.e .. through the rulfilment of paramis and practice of the vario us fo rms of asceticism, he ultimately becomes a Budd ha. Siddha rtha Gautama, in one of his previous births as }(ltip<ila-mlll;luva, did, as 2 matter of fact, develop hodlJi­cjrta at the lime of Kassapa Buddha and loen through several

1. Masuda. 1'. 21. 2. Stepping inLo the path destined to reach Nibbana J. KI·U., pp. 78, 14): Ime dve ~iyiime {/rape/I'Q Q//;;o niyiimo nUlI1a /la/1M.

DOCTRI:<ES OF GROUP II SCH OOLS 105

existences, he fulfilled the paramis and had recourse to all possi­ble sfiC/hmws, whether Bmlllh .slic or non-Buddhistic and ulti­mately attalDed perfectioll. He even beCllmc disciple of Ajiira Kalama and Rudraka Ri"unaputra, whose doctrines are (reated as heresies in the Bra.IJm!Jjala J.lld other 51,tlay. In Mahayana texts emphasis is laid lIlure on bodhici((a than on brahm(l­cari}a and ari}'amagga. In llie Kat/;(i1'atlnu discussion, the Mahay3.mc sense of m)'Ola is igllorcd and the Theravnda sense of sCl1l1l1altalliyama is kept in view. In the Katliaral/fllI Viii. -1), it is argued that to speak (If a lIiyOla iruraka or borihisaftl'a as hav ing become a sammarta is iIIogicaLl The differi!nce of opinion rcsts really on the interpret ation given to the word lIlyata in Mahayana texts as aguim.L that given by the compiler and commentator of the KOI/J(Jvallhll. In spile of thc above interpretation of niyiima and attitude ur the Theravadins, thc M"haydnists contended that Gautama Budd ha in his bodhisattva existence did not become a disciple of Ku~apa Buddha. In support of their contention they cited the plh~agl: IUS lilt' iiC[l­

"yo aulli, :;adlso me no vijjali etc. The AIHJha~us, strangely enough, took the opposite view and asserted thaI he did be­come a Sravaka or Kassapa Buddha, and dted thl: pa~)agl! from the l\1ajjhima ,vikiiya (ii, p. 54): Kassapo, aha/II A,'amla, b"UKU~ \'ati brahmacariJ'alfl acari/j1 wmbodhiiylJ II etc.~

According to the '1 heravadins, the Bodhi sa n vas us a das~ of ~ings as enVIsaged in the Sii/riifonklJra :lI1d LOlikfil'uriiru, do not exist. The ind ividual, who happens to become Bu ddha, is called a Eodhisattva in hi~ pre\ious existences : ust to distin­guish him as a being supenor to an average one; by calli ng him a Bodhisalt\'a the Theravadins do not attribute 10 him any special virtues unatta inable by a sravaka. The Mahlsanghikas or the Andhakas do not subsCTlbe to the above view. According to them, an mdlvidual, from the moment he develops toc/:/{­cillO, becomes a Bodhisatll·o and IS destined (myora) to become a Buddha and follow a career whICh is qUite different from that of a sriiraka. The career of t he former is morked more by love and compassion for the sutfering beings thun by path-culture

I. Na lIiyula!SlIlliyiimokkumcllu'I' /osmiJ asudwakilll If. 1\,.,.. p. ]43. 2 K,'u, p. 2&1.

106 BUDDH IST SI!.CTS IN INDI A

while that of the !a tlet has mure uf path-culture and s(idholliI than uercise of mend and karu(fii.

II I Are Arnats fully pmanciPQted ?

According to Vasumitra, Bhavya and Vinitadeva. the seces­sion of the Mahlisaitghikas from the Theravadins happened on accoUnt of the five points of Mahadeva. Four of the~e points relate to the qualities attainable by an Arhat. According to the Theravlidins only. one wh o is fully emancipated is called an Arhat,- he is anupafto sadattho vItariigo viradoso I'itamoho khr!IQJQI'O ohifabhiiro katakara1Jfyo niiparam itrhatriiyti Ii (in possession of the excellent goal, free from attachment, hatred and delusion, in short, all impurities, relieved of the burden of khandhas, accomplished aU that is to be done and freed from further existence). He has also acquired clear vision of [he origin and destruction of beings, got rid of all doubts (kalikhii) about the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, non-existence of soul and the law of causation. and realizej the truth without the help of o thers (na paropitiirafJ.ii}1 and attained bodh; which, however, is catumof(ga-iiiina2 and not sabbafiiiIJtaiiiilla _ the bodh; of the Buddhas.' . The Theravidins do nO{ ~dmit the failings4 which are att ributed to the Arhats by the Bahu srutiyas. the Saila schools and the Haimavatas. The fail ings are thus enumeraled in Vasumitra's treatise :

(I) Arhats can be tempted by others; (2) They still have ignorance; (3) They still have doubt; (4) They gain knowledge with other's (hel p).&

IV . Can there be rnrogresSion of Arhl1rs, Srori1pclIlIl1S and other PhaillSlhru?

The following views regarding the possibility of retrogression of Arhnts, Srotapannas and other phalasthas arc attribll1ed in

I . See$upra.p.23. Z. The c.uumaggas a~ : wlApo.!ti, l:Ik~di,imi, anig§.m; and "rahllll'l. 3. See K vu., A ., p . 76.

4. For lhe discussion "Parihiyali arahi arahatt.1ti" sec supra, p. 27. 5. Masuda, pp. 24, 36, 38, 53; cr. JRAS., 1910, pp. 413·23. For e~po­

silion and discus;ion of the fOllT failing s. see above. Ch. II, pp. 24 rt'.

DocrRINE~ OF GROUP II S(;HUUJ..S 107

Vasumitra's treatise1 to a section of the Mahasailghikas and some of their sub-sects:

(i) From the gOlf3 bhfimidharma Ihere is in all stages Ihe pos~ibi!ity of re trogre~sion .

(ii) A Srottlp:lOna has a chance of ntrogression while an Arha t has not.

Till: abo\'e two ,'iews are discussed in the Kalhlil'auhll under the IUpic; Pariltayati araM arahattii Ii ? (1. 2).

It will be observed that the Kl'u . does not attribute to the Maha~ailgh ikas Ihe above views about the retrogression or Arha(~ and Srotapannns. According to Ine M~h .i~ai1ghikas ,

Ihe Kl'lI. says an Arhot has retrogr~ssion while II. Srolapanna has nul, while Vasumitra t.1kes a contrary view, a~ above (ii). Vasumilra 5ays thaI the former opinio n is held by Ihe Sarviisti­va.dins and other schoob. B'Jddhasho~a points nut that this opinion is held by one seetion of the Mahasailghib ~ and not by ali, and 50 Vasumilra may have referred to the views "or that sectiun, according to whom, the Arhats may retrogre~s hut nOI Ihe:: SrotapannD.s."!

All the ::.cllool5 advocating the view that arhats relrogr~ss hold, as ::.lalt:u ill the Kltl ., thut the Soti'lpannas have no retro­gression. Thi:s, however, contradicts the statement of Vasllmitra. 3

All Ihese S4:hools accept that n soHlpanno is m)·Qto .wmhodhi. par(J)'(1~o a1ld hence is not subject to retrogression, but a lillka­dagl1ml ur un a tlagami may retrogress but not furthe r th:m the iot;)pa nna stage::. for some of the Ddepts in the.t" stages may hay!! unumyu, which may develop into pariYUf/hiilltrl and there­by bring about the ir rall - an argument which will be discus~ed m:;\l ill connection with the AnhDmak3s. In regard 10 these two

stag!!s the Kl'u corroboralc~ Vasumitra's stalem~nt (no. ii) . Regarding Ihe srotapan nas, VasumitraS further states thai ,

(i) they are capable of knowing their own n:'lInre (sl'abhlil'a) through their citta and Cai faS;ka dharmaf ;

I. Muud-;, p. 12. 2. K1'U. A., p. 35: SammiliyA Va iiiputti~j Sabballhiv.1dino c'eka~ ca

MabllsanghiU arahato parihanim icchati. 3. 5i:e Masuda, p. 27. . 4. :sec p. 114 In. 1 5. Sec above, p;>. S5 f.

leo BUDDHIS T SFCT~ IN INDIA

(ii) they can also altain perfection in the dhJ'iiIlQs; (iii) they are liable to commit all sorts of offences except

the five iinantarlkas (i.e. matricide, parricide CIC.)

In the Xl'll. we do DOl come acros~ any controversy rdating to the first two top:cs. This silence may be interpreted as accept­ance of the 1 .... 0 views by the Theraviidi ns. As regards the third topic, we may take into consideration the controversy: D ilthisampanno plIJgolo sllncfcca ;Hit;aJll .itvilii I'OroprJ')'ii Ii? (see p. 18). A sotapanna is a person with right ,-jew (dillitisam .. pallno), hence. according to the Theravadi ns, he cannot commit killing ( pC~liiripiita) or similar other offences, not to speak of the five extreme offences like matricide or parricide. VaSllmitra perhaps speaks of the opinion of that section of the Maha~ sanghik as, i.e., the Andhakas. which contemplates the retro· gression of the SOlilpannas, while the KI'u. very likely speaks of the other section, according: to which the Sotapannas do not retrogress.

There are in Vasumitra's treatise two other statements. which also relate to the Srompannas. They are:

(i) When one enters into the samyaktl'l1·lIyiima.one may be said to destroy al1 saf1l.l'ojanus.1

(ii) None of the dharnuiyalanas! can be known or under· stood : they can be at tained (only by those Arya plldgalas above the d:lrianamirg o j.

The KI'u. contribUtes no discussi on on the above two points. The Therav<idins also cannot but subscribe to these views.

V. A re ' here "ll/o,.{dl, salllyagdo li alld sOl1lyak-iroddhendriya?

Along with the above we rna} discuss the allied topic word­ed t hus in Vasumitra's treatise :

(i) There is neither laukika·samyagdn!i (worldly right view) nor lauk ika·sraddhendriya (worldly faculty of faith).

The correspond ing passages of the Kvu. are : 0 ) Na/lhi pUlhujjanossa iint)o71 Ii? (XX. 2):3 and

l. Th= lhree salTlYojanas are : Jllabbmaparumasa. vicik icch". and micrhMilflJi.

2. The Dh:Hlnll.ya1ana~ are vedan", s<llfIjfii'l, and ${iIfISkiira. These are spheres of mlllla. cr. Abili. /(0$11, p. 46. Also lhe field of ol}jects 01 idcaltOll. DJwmmQSIII;g,,/j/, 58, GG etc.

1. Al1ribLlled to the H~luv1dtni only.

DOCTRINI::S O F CROUP II SCHOOLS 109

(ii) HQlthi lokiyaYfl .mddhindriyan ti? (XIX . 8).1 The argument of the Theravadins is that a layman may have

panna and :saddhii or a kind which may be different from those of an adept, but paima and !'(Jddha that he possesses develop into paiiii;ndriya and saddlJindriyo. It may be that tile layman's paii/ia or 11ii~'01!1 is confined to dana, sila, d.ga. etc., i.e, lokiyz affairs and do~s nOI extend to t:ae comprehension of lokuttara subjetts like truths, m3.ggas and phalas. According to the Theravadins, therefore, there may be lokiya pr.Tliiindriya and saddhindriya.

VI. Is utterallce of dukkha pouible ill meditaliOlI and does it help realizatioll of mullS ?

To the two statements of Vasumitrn, namely, (i) The path is real ized by utterances and (ii) Even in the sta te of sam<ihita one ca n utter word~, corresponds "samiipam;assa auit; \'acrbhedQ Ii" of the Kathiiratthll. It is explained by Buddhagho~a thus: Accord ing to the Saila schools, an adept, while he is in the first jhana (meditation) and on the point of attainlilent of the Sotapattimagga. gives out in some cases an exclamation like "aho dukkhan ti."2 T he adherents of the Saila schools account for this by s~ying that in the first jhana. there is l'iJaH:OJ·icara, and because of l'ilakka,iciira there is vac!sa'1lkhiira.3 i.e., dis­cursi ... e and discriminating thoughts cause Yoca l activilY, hence there is Ihe possibility of a m~ditator in the first jhllna uttering the word 'dukkhl' , The Therayadins contend that as all physical activities of a meditator are s:t at complete rest, his giving OUI

an exclamation is an impossibility .•

Along with the abo\'e we should take into consideration the other tbree doctrines of the Mahasangh ikas presented thus in

1. AI1Tibutec! ill II"" Cy. 10 the HelUvadlns a nd M~hUlsa~as .. r.d lhl:J m~an all the five indrtyas, $addhll. viriyn. sa t i, samadht ond pail",i.

2, d. VillaYIl. I, p.I S, in Y~sQPllbbQ.iJA, 'upoddutn'l' vlltn bho upassQ' ttham vala bho.'

3. cr. XVII •• IX 9: Opinion of lhe P\lbh~~liy ... : "ee 1"1 . Qt). fn I. 4. cr, Kvu .. XVIII. 8 : See p. 90. (n . 2.

110 Bl)D!>Hlsr ' E CTS IN I N 'HA

Vasumilra'; treatise : (i) The wnrd~ ('If !'ulfering can help (the process of

realization of the path) ; (1 1) SufTering le~ rl!: a man 10 the path; (iii) Suffering ~,l~n i~ (a kind nf) food (iihara): and (iv) Through pmjiiri ~lItT~ring is destroyed and fina l

beatitude is atTaineri. The corresponding expressions in The Kathii,'Qjlhu afe as

fo llows; (i) " /daJtf dukkhall I;" '"ficO'll bJ"is(J1tJ "idal1l (/"kk!/On

Ii" ;jii~lIu" papallali? (XL 4) .1 (ii) DllkkMhi'iro nlQgsailglll,r moggapori)'tipannall if ? (11.6) .

(Repeated utterance of 'dukkha' induces i n ~ight and is a factor of, and induded in, the Path).

Both these statements appear in slightly different l.eTm~ from what has been stated by Vasumitra. The Anrlhflka" anel the ~(lila5 hold that when :l meditator realizes within hi<:. inner­most heart that the world is full of mffering and is not worth living in, he exclaims, "aho vata dukkhaI]l!" Then and there his insight (ii:i.~a) penetrates into the first truth, "idaI]l duHhlln Ii," as a re:>ult of which he attains (parjyiiplI~It"j/i) the Solli pmti. magga. So "dukkha" may be called an '''ahara'' (food) in res­pect of the realization of the path as also an "anga" (limb) of the Sot:i.pattimagsa.

According to the fourth doctrine mentioned above, as Masuda explains (illkkha can be removed not by means of the observance of moral precepts (silas) and practice of meditation (snmlldhi) but by knowledge of the truth, causal law, and allalld oi beings and things of the world. It is the basic teaching of Therovada. and so no reierence is made to it in the XI·II.

VII. HOk- Vijfliinasjunclion ?

The following opinions are attributed by Vasumitra to the Mahasanghikas :

ei) Beings of the Rupa and Arupa dhiitus pOSiess all the six sense·perceptions ( ~aQvijfianas).2

---;---,=-::-c I. See Rl~n p. R9. 2. Or ifa4vijhiif13kaya or the sroup of !ix sen~ ·perctp!ions.

DOCTRINES OF GROUP II SCHOOLS III

(ii) The five "ijMnaS conduce bUlh 10 attachm:nt (saniga) and freedom from au ar.:l!mcnt (.'iraga).

(iii) The rupendriyas (organs of sense) are nothing but lumps of flesh; the eyes do not s~e colours, the cars do not hear sounds, the nose does not 3m~11 odours, the tongue does not taste flavour, and the body do:s not feel touch.

The KI'u. deals with these topics thus: (i) Sa!iij'alaniko auabl"h'o riipadlrotuya Ii ? (VIII. 7).

(ii) Parie' erayatona kama lil (V lll4). (iii) Cakkhulta riipaf11 passan ti ? .. pe ... kiiye"a phollha.

bbalflplrusarl Ii ? (XVIII..9). In the discussion relating to the six ayatanas (spheres of the

<organs of sense:l, the Kvu. state, that the Andhakas take the expression rupf mOllomayo sabbmigapaccafigl alrrllindriyo Ii

literally :.nd as~ert thaI there are in the Riipldhatu all the sh indriyas :.nd fiyatanas with this difference from the Kam!l­dhatu, Ih:.! out of th: six aya tanas three, viz .. ghana, rasa and pho!!hllbba do not exi~1 hut their nimiUas, i.e., the subtlest

formi , uist.l Tn the Abhidhamma texts it is stated that the beings of the Ritpanha.lu have five khandhas and six (and not twelve) a)atanas, while tho!'e in the Anlpadhatu have four khandhas and two ayat.anas (manayatana and dhammayatana only).'

Relating to the third point, the Kvu. contradicts Vasumitra ,llnn saY" that it is the Mah:hanghikas who llold the opposite view, viz. , the eyes see colours, ears hear sounds, etc. by con­ceiving a paridacakkhu, Il suhtle e)'e, which has not aot the power of avajjana (re:1ection) lib cakkbuviiiiiaoa but possesses

metely troc power of knowing (patij:i..niiti) objects. In this case .also, shall we account for the contradictions by sayini that the opinion of 'ekacce mahisanghika' is represented by Vasumitra while the opinion of the 'anne mahasanghika' is noticed in the Kalhiivalthu. 3 The Therayadins and a section of the

1. Vlbhariga. p. 4O'i : In KAmRclhAtu there are cakkhAyatana and ~ Opllyatana, so!i'iya!ana and saddAyatana, etc., in an, Il'ietve Ayalanas.

Jlibhatiga, pp. 405-07. 3. Sec inj,".

112 BUI)DaI~T SJ;;CT5 IN Ir-IDIA

Mahasailghikm: hold thaI the eyes, ears etc. are mere material conveyer" of perception, the cakkhuvii'ifi.aQ.a, sotaviiirdl).:1, etc. are the actllal percipients. in other words, eyes, ears etc. belong (0 the rilp:lkhrmdhll, which is material. while cakkhuviilii:lI):1 , etc. helong 10 the Ylniifll,wkhandha, which makes a being aware of the things arollnd il.

VIII. How many avyiikaras are there?

The opinion arthe Andhakas that "there is nothing which is indeterrnina'Jle" (avyalcrta) bas been explained by Masuda as that the Andhakas admitted only two natures of things, good or bad and not a third, i.e. neither good nor bad. This interpreta ­tion does not appear to be sound as in the Buddhi5t texIS the three natures 01" thmg~ are accepted generally. The a\'yaka ta~

al~o refer to those problems which Buddha left unansweud as any answer 10 them whether in the affirmative or in the negative would mislead the e!lquirer, or he treated the question as absurd end unanswerable. These avyakata problems are always men­tioned in a stereotyped form in all Buddhist texts, whether Hinayana or Mahayana.! Nagarjuna has utilised these problems in his Madhyamoko-kiirikii to establish the Mahiiyiinic concep­tion of Sunyata. If we accept Vasumitra's statement as corre:t, we shall have to say that the So.nyata conception was known to the Mahiisailghikas, and so to them the so-called avyakata problems were not avy<i.kata (inex plicable), but this way of look­ing at the statement of Vasllmitra seems to be too far-fe!ched and so, it may be regarded lhat Vasumitra's statement is not complete. Perhaps it refers to the problem discussed in the Klu: di!!higatolJ1 avyiikalO'l ti? (XIV. 8),- whether a person holding one of the erroneous views can be regarded as avyiikata i.e., neither good nor bad. The answer of the Theravadins is tha t the holder of anyone of the views is wrong, hence akusala, and c"nnot be avy5.kata as supposed by the Andhakas and Uttarapathakas.

1. SlSSa!O loko. !lS~"~IO lolo: a"lavl loko, "nantad. loko: la'J1 jh·"nl . tarn sarllarp, aillla'll jivarn ai'li'llnl sariram: hot r Tathaj!a!o jlar~'n marana, na hoti Tathiigato pararp mafa!)a; hoti ea na hOli Tath..'igaro pararp marana n'eva ho:i na nl hoti Ta!hagato paraJjl nlafaoa.

J)OCTRINt:~ 01" GROUP II SCHOOLS 113

IX. Hol<' mally Asa'fl.l"k! tadIIGrmas are there?

In the Piili texts, as also in the Abhidfwrmakoso (or the Sarva­stiviidins) the three asaJpskrtas are (0 Prati,aI]1khy;}nirodha, (Ii) Apratisarp.khya-nirodha and (iii) Akasa. The Andhakas increase them to nine by adding the four iiruppas I and iir)'amiir­giiligikafl'a. i Excepting the nirodha of two kinds, all other asarpskrtas of the Mahasailghikas are not r~cognised as such by the Theravadins, whose argument is whether eacn of th~se asatpskrtas is of the sa:ne nature as Nibbana, if not, they are saQlskrtas. Strangely enough, the Kru. goes so Car as to say that akiisa is not asarpkhata. The attitude taken in the KVII. (V i. 2, 4,6; XIX. 3, 4) is that Nibblna is {(if.lal}l lenam aCClltal!l OIl1(Jtal!J (escape, refuge, infallible and immortal) so each of the seven of asarpkhatas, even every member of the formula of Pa!icca­samupparla, each of the four phalas must be tii~Ull}l lemll!1 acrutafll amatal}I, otherwise, they arc sarpkhatas (constituted). :! The Mahiisailghika5 interpret, as presented in tile Km. , that the asarpkhata is that which is unchangeable (iinetija) but not tal)arp lenarp, etc. In regard to the causal law, they rely on Buddha's statement: arijjii paccaya bhikkhal'e sOlfl.fchiirii., IIppiid,i I'Q

TOliTligatiindltl alluppiidii J"ii Tathiigatiillafll !hitii va sii. dhfiru dhOlllllla!ihiJatii dhamlllGlJiyiimatli idappaccayauj etc., and point out that by asal)lkhala they do not mean the links separately but the unchangeable la ..... (a) of the origin of an object through a cause, and (b) of the unchangeable nature of dhammas, un­disturbed by appearance (uppiida) or non-appearance (anuppada) or continuity (\hiti). As for the iiryamiirgiiligikofl'o, the Kvu. explains that the Pubbase1iyas regard as asarpkhata the fact of attainrllent (patti' oj" a magga or phala by the removal of certain mental impurities (kilesapahiinatj1) and not the maggas or

I. The four fu UI'POI, ;lIe: ( i) Akiiiu,unUya:ana;

(ii) Viji'lananamayalana; iii i) i\kificanyayatana; an() (iv) Nil. i~asanljiid -ui\s~ rpjfiaya til. Ila. Cf. K05a, iii, p. 77.

:'. In the Afu.iJ"'mu Nik'ipl, (I. p. J01) il i~ eli,l,,,,,;ll) ~l"l~el ll".l cffhmigiko mOflga i, £'IIiHwto.

114 BUDDHIST sr:CTS I N INDI A

phalas by them~l\'::s. This, Vasumitra corroborates by usi ng the term nuirgii ligika: ra i.e. ,)flip/; of a marga and not si mply marga, In the KI'II . there arc a few other disCll'isions relating to the uUl}lkh:ltas, to which we shall revert while dealing with the Mahis:lsakas.

The remain ing three o pinio ns of this group of schools, viz., (i) There is no intermediate state of existence (Glllard­

bl/ara), tii) Phenomena exist neither in the past nor in t he future.

and (Ii i) The nature of mind is pure in its origin : it becomes

impure when it is stained by tigamukarajas and IIpakle.fas.

a rc in accord with those of the Theravadins.1 Both of these schools do not admit that between death and rebirth there is a ny intervening period, in which the subtle khandhas wait for the selection of parents of the next stale of existent-e. The Kvu. says Ihat the opmion of the opponents is formed through t he miscomprehenslOn of the meaning of the word 'ama ra­parinibbayi'. We shalJ revert to this topic while deal ins with the Sammillyas, with whom, the COIllmentato r Say~, the Pubbasehyas agrce.

As regards t he opinion that the past a nd future exist - the cardinal doctrine of the Sarv<'lstiv<'ld ins, to b~ dea lt wit h herc­aner, both the Tbernvadins a nd the Mahasalighikai arc ::01-phatic in t heir protest against it.

Thethird point roiscs an important problem, Ihal is 10 say, whe­ther Ihe mind at the begin ning was pure (l r nOi . T ne Therav£ldin; are decided ly of o pinio n t hat pubbakoll (b:!,C.inning) and O/HIre.­kOll(cnd) ofbcinJ!s are unknowable, and a s such they have not gone into t he question whether the mind is pure a t a ny time before the a tt a inment of 1';1111111;. This doctrine of the Mohil.­saJigh ikas had its full development in the idealistic philosophy of Yog.ic£lra, in which the A/a)'GI·ijRiil/a. the store-house of pure consciousness, gcts contaminated with worldly objects through jlldriyal'ijliiillas and mentally creates a world around it. It is by

l. Cf. Alfhasti/ulI, p. 68 ; Ciltum dganluk ~ hi upakkilesehi upakilinham.

I

DOOTRINE S OF GROUP" Sr. H OOT .q 115

rhe removal of this mental creation that a person regains the alayal'jJiiallQ in its pure original form and becomes an emanci­pated being.

Special doctrill('s of the Saila Sc/JooiJ

Vasumi lm has attributed the foll owing doctrines speciully to the three Saila schools:

('J Hodh '",,,,", a<c "'mse bdngs and may be bom in the lower states of e'<. istencc;\

(ii) Offerings made to a caitya ' are not necessarily of great merit.~

The above doctrines are in direct contrast to those of a sec­lion of the Mahasallghikas and the Piirvai,dlas or Caitvakas. Vasumitra evidently had in mind only the later Saila schools, viz., Aparasaila, C:tityaSaila and Uttai.ls<l ila, and not the PiirvaSaila.

Regarding the origin of Caityasa iJa a nd Utl :t raSflilll !';c1 nol", Paramartha l writes that two hundred ye<l rs rifler RIl c1d hll's parinirl'('i~/a, a sc:ond Mahadeva appeared wit:l hereticHl views. He slipped into the church stealthi ly (i .e. became a stt'J'f1SflI1T­

l'iisika) by ordaining himself. This event gave occasio n to fresh controversies among all the b rJ.nches of the Stha"ira and Mah iisanghik:l schooli, part icula rly on the qUMlio n of the validity of o rdination given by an :lea rya, who is himselr not regularly ordained. The Mahasll.llghik as who were in agreemml with the Sthaviras in this matter, excommunica tt'r.1 Mahadeva _ At this, Mahadeva got enraged and retired to another mountain and started the CaitYaSaila and l"lt ll ruSa.i la sc hools.

The Caityasailas therefore should be disti nguiihed rrom the Caityakas, who were identical with the LokottaravAdins or the POtv.a~ailas. and were of earlier origin. T he Cai tya kas and

1. See SI<pra. 2. In the MahilvaslU and the Nagi\rjunikO(lQIl inscription erection, deco­

ration aml wUrll'llip of cailyas find prominence. for whil.:h, 11 SCC"'~. lhe name Caityah has been applied to lhe P [l l vll$Q.i l ~ school. c r. KNa, iv. 12\.

J. PlIlll Demi~vil1e. /:()riKinp dp~ SUI~S J.(Juddh'·fjut.f in M I/a"kfJ chinoi. et iJouridhiq/lfs, vo!.l, 1931-32.

116 DUDDHIST SE': (; T5 11\ l M)/A

PUfvasailas are referred 10 in the Nae:irj unikol.lQu inscripti on$;. and nOl the later Saila schools mentioned aho' ·c.

Nin·jj~ja in Niigiiljlllliko(/(ia il/scripriollS

In the l'iigJ.rjunikuJ:u;la i.ISt-TiptiuIlS, tlJerc a rc a fe w incidental remarks re!atill~ to Buddha il.1lI1 NirvU\lil . These probably apply to the conceptlOIlS ll t hl by lht: Punasail as or Cailyakas. Budd ha is dc)Crilx-d here a~ j ila-riiga-dosa-lIIo!Ja (one who has co~~ uered altachmcllt, il l-will auJ udusiun) and dhi1lw'orapari­gall/ fa (possessed of the e.'.ct:lklll dliiitu) , and the do nor expects a s a result n fhi s or her gjft ~ lIlt:rils which he or she can transfer (pa"i~lame(u/!I ) to Iii:; or lu:r rdalh'c::. and frie-nds -an art icle of faith not rC«:l~lli s::u ill till: P;Uj works where auadfpa attQ~QralJa i ~ the maxim. The fruils e.\pected a re: (i) religious mcnts for hUllSdf, hi~ n:itlti vo;s am.! fricmls, rcsuIIJng in their happiness ill th is wurld am[ thl: m:x.t (uMaY'l-{oka-hita-slIklu/I'a­hllniiya) ,_ a llIerit w/lidJ ~mimls us of the A~ok:ln X rIth in ~ ­cription: en bii{lflU cle!"'I1)·(· ;)"<1111 me hldurikl1)"f! IJ'O'l1 m e !xUa­(t ik(lyr: Ii and (ii) Njl"{j~/U-~·u.mpUli (nirv£iz:wdom) for himself or hcrscJr. ' The rCl.'Ordillg of thl;: view tizat gifts may bring happiness to all,

but l/i~I·&.la oaly to om::.c:lf, deserves our careful consider:nion. The distinction drawn ill lhis way is rather unco:nmon and is not made CV(!l i ll thl: inscr;ptivn rel:ording the gifts of the Queen of Vana\·iisi to the Mahj;asaka~t o r in the long inscription of the Sinha!e.sc UOIlO!".'

Then the ex pfcs~ioJls dlultlf l"ura-parigo/t(ra o r 1I /I"I1(lG-mmpaFI_

Jtlt!ljJlidol..a raise the plcsumptiv/J thai lhe Andhaka conception of~il"va ·.la w,;!. s different fmlll that of the T her:.lv,iJins or thr:il' su !J-SC\.;t the MahiSasakas. III the Kuriu7ll1frhu, ther~ are two eolltroversies (ix. 2; \ ix., 6), rc:a ting to tll(' Wl1l"tTtiCi1 o r ~iJ.\;i(la as prevailing amo ng the Auuhaku~. TIll;: vitw ani"iO Jt­cd to the l'u bba seliyas is ~ hat the A''''''Uf'll(l(J ( ... Nin;ri(d;Z) , is " all o::'ject of Ill ought of J pc-non not yet fr·:e rlOl/1 bo ,u.l;.ge." !

I . Ep.lnd. , XX, p p. 16, 18-21 ; ·'Iuano" or " ap'no'" 2. Pl'. 'm!. XX, p . 24. 3.· Ibid. , p. 22. 4. /o.·ln. Rhys Davids. Poi/rls of 'he COlllro rerJ),. pp. 231.)3.

DOCTltI '> I; S 01' GROUP II .CHOOI.S 117

and :he other attributed to the AnJI",kas is that "the N ibb{ilta­

dhiilOl is kllsgia (good)" in the sen~e ill which mental states a re spoken of as kllsala (good), and l"e ~1: are fau ltless stmes.' Both these 5wtcmcnts bear the impli(.;;Hioll that the Pubbascliyas or the Andhakas conceived of Nirrul)a as a 'positive faultless Slate'- a conception which (.;/:i ll hardly be accepted by tl:e Therav1dms, who speak of rcal lLilig Nibbano. within one's own self by the wIse (paCCQ HlJI!1 redi/(J/AJ(ll'iliiillhi) a nd not of grD.Sp­mg the same as some obja:t protl ucing pure ho.ppiDes5 . ~

Special doctrines of the Bahulrutf)"Qs

Regnrd lOB the speci"l dOClrine~ of the Babusrutiyas, the Kat/l(il·uIIJw is silent. Thoueh Ihi" school belonged to the Mahasanghika group, it ac(''''plef! , according to Vasumitra. many \'iews of t h~ Sarvastivilf!in~ . Vasumitra adds that it held that Budd ha 's teachings I"d~t i n g to Qllityaui, duhkha, Si"mya. a;;iillllQII and Nifl'li~l(l ('ran si t or;ne~s. suffering, non-cxistence of objects, absence of soul , <Inti the ultimate goal) are lokortara (£upramuad:lDe), while h is le!lching~ on topics other than those mentioned above <lre !ar!kiK:aJ (mundane).

In Pali texts thc tcachine~ fi nd exercises connected wilh maggaJ and pI/alas are usulll[y regarded as lokottara and the r~st !al/kika.

This school, according to Pammurlha, attempted a syncretism of Hinayina and Mab ftY:'ln::l ::lnd attributed two mcaninJ!;s, probably nlliirthal (direct mean ing) and ne)iirtha' (indirect

t . Ibid., p. JJIl. 2. See M ajjhima NikuYII, I. p. If : M Ciapariy3.yasU l1a. 3. Masuda, pp. 35-J(). 4. c r. SanrlidlririiiQ-Wlrll, p. 78 :

;ftm-~W'~~ <:!l"f'l""fif ~~ W'~;-r llr-:Hn I

<l"Wvt 'l'f: '!i:i'l(.,~tq'j(lql1J~ ~ riu"Jff.:r. I I

C f. lvi. V,., p. 43 : ~ 'U]'1I"iatl;"q~ I ifia"lJ ~ ;"-00: <in¥; 'fuU'lIl: I q-~: 'l1' [\'1dI(~ ~ ~lf"~ ~trt: I q ~ q:;\1 I 'RI I(14A~r ~~;:fnrrqf: l lircm~: ~T­f;:rlimmVrf~~Afinif'fl1 ( I'" Iii 1'1,«1 Im[l!Ifo1 (lc'lf"l ~-f.nff~f" :wrm­rnr"",.fq.,'"'l"1 f.!fWT,' . ~ .".,., , I

S..e Prof. Vidhusekhar Sastrfs Sandhi.bhd/o in IHQ., IV. p. 295.

118 B U DDI1IST S£CTS I I'! I /'.:D 1-...

meaning) to the teachings of Bllddha. It adopted the Sur)',,· siddhISiistra of Harivarman as its mai n text. This school is mentioned in the Nagarjunikol)l,ill inscription.

Special Doctrir.es of ,I,e PrajliGPl iriidil/~

Regan.liug lin: :,p;:ddl doctrines of the Prajliaplil'{ir//lIs, I Vasu­miua H;:1Il3J k) thal Iheyagreed ma in ly wi th th~ t.'lahasal'lghi kas (Le. !att:1" Mahasar'lghikas). They held in addition the follow ing upinioln:

(i) Skalldhaj and du~k/l[J are not concomitant ; (ii) The twelve iirUlallu.~ are not rC.II;

(iii) Either allain ment of arya-mclrgfl or death is depen­dent on kamla.

The Praji1aptivadins, as Para manila tells us, ilppeared some time after the Bahusrunyas, and distinguished themselves as BlJ/lu~rutiya-vibhajyavAdins. Th e main di!Tcrence between th~ Prajilaptivdd ins and Bahusrutiyas is tha t the forme r, partl y li ke t he MahAyAnists, held the view that Buddha's teachings a~

embcdied in the Pi!aka should be distinguished as nommal (prajiiopti) , conventional (saqlvrti) and causal ("('tuphola). This school, as against the Bahusrutiyas, agreed more with the views of the Mahasanghi kas than witb those of the SarvastivUd ms.2

Special Doc/rines of the Riijagirikas OIld Siddhallhikos In the Kat/tal'atl/III, but not in Vasumitra's treatise, certain

special doctnr.es have been attributed to the Riijagirikas, and SiddhaUhitas. To the former are attributed the following:

( i) ,valthi ked dflammii kellici dltammehi sIJ/;gahilii or sampoyuttii (VII. I. & 2).

rhere is no such thing as a quality attached or adhering to another, e.g., oil in mustard seed. feeling in perceptio n. and so fo rth."

(Ii) NatOli cnasiko dhammo (VII. 3). This is a corollary to the previous view. It says that cilia

(mind) only functiom, and there are no other mental state. associated with It.

1. This school came inlo ex i ~tenee 2,00 year, after the MlIhbaflghikas (Ktlsa, v. P 24).

2. !itt Dcmi i!vllle tip. cit., p. 49·50. J. Cf. The IQP ic:s 'Qf the Dlrtlt .. -katltd, (P.T.S.).

DOCTRI;>IES OF CROUP II SCHOOLS 119

(iii) Cnasiko dlloml1l0 d(lnan ti (VU . 4). (iv) Ito tll/meno tattna riipenti (Vll . 6).

By the io rmer it means that gift is not material; the mind for making a gift is really glvmg. By the laner it holds that merits are accumulated, and tha t a person enjoys its fruits in aftei-life on account of such accumulation.

(v) Paribfmgallla}'UlfI puifilaql 1"O¢¢/JOti (VII. S,.

The accumulat ing merit s ca n go on increasing (by renew)1 of gift s o f robes and other art icles to monks, an d so forth).

(vi) N at/hi craha/Q alai/an,aceu (XV II. 2).

Arh ats can not die unt imely. j.e., their death is also subject to the influence of kam :a. 1

(vii) Sabhal!l ida"l kalll'IIarO (XVU. 3). Everything is subject to karma.

(viii) Kappa!!lw kappOII' li!!lieY,l"a (XliI. 1).

A being d:st incd to live for un "con lives (or a n aeon as o ne consigned to purgatory fo r committing smi.g.hnbheda .

SpEcial Doctrilll!s oj Ihe Vew/ I"okas

In the K ctillil'attillf, the following doctrines are attributed to the Vetulyakas only :

(i) No ~'affabbaql "Buddha Bhogal'ii mall/usa.lok;> at!/r{isi "

(XVIII. I). This point has been discussed above.

(i i) Na va flabbom "/Jutldl:assa dil/nom IIIaIJapphail1'l' hot;" (XVII . 10).

As Buddha does not exist as a per~on. it is meanin~\e;;s to say that .!!ifts to Buddha produce great merit.

(iii) No ratlabba", '· sQ/pgho dak khi(Ia/!' pa!iga!,hiW". (h') No rutlabhQl}l "sa1tfgho (Iakklli(w'l' l 'i .~Qdlrf' Ii".

( ... ) No rattabbwfl " sa1f'gho bhuiijali pil'ati khi;tlat; iii)'oli" .

(vi) No I'QltabOOI}l " sa1flg:,assa dillllalll ma!lappl,ala'!J IlOli" (XVII. 6-9).

All the fo ur opinions :lrc of the same import. The question raised herc whether Sangha is a body of individuals, who have

I. D:lsed on th~ statement; A.IIII11Whli ,mill'; ,,,ko. K'·/I., p. 5.t6.

120 BL'DDIlIST SI>CTS I~ INDIA

attained lIIogga and phala (fruits of sanctification) or Sangha is identical with maggaphafa. This school holds that San~ha does not exist ap"rt from mcggapno/a and so it is not proper to say tbl Sangha receives gifts, or purifies them, or enjoys I ~em. or a gift made to a Sangha isproductivc of great merits.l

L cr. Millmtapailha p. 9' f.; KoJo. iv . 32; ahu '""c L. de L:t Vallee I'oun;n', paper on La doctrine tkl f'Cfug~$ i'"lI~.e M t /t:"Iles chi"ol" ., hctd­"'Mil''''''' Vtlt I , fl. M r.

nOCfRINES OF GROUP III SCHOOLS

THE MAHISASAKAS, SARVASTIVADINS, DHARM,tGUPTAK .... S, AND

OTIlER SCHOOLS

The third group of schools. according lu the I\lli tradition -comprised the MahiQ1sasa!.:as and their ufTshoou, viz., Dham­maguttikas. Sabbatthivadins. Kassapika~, Satikantikns, and Suttavlidins. According to thiS tradition, the Mahirpsii.snklls were the earliest to ~ectde from tht Therav:lua among its sub-~eets.

OU! of the Mabimsiisakas developed the Sabbatlhivadins and gracually the other schook

Vasumitra puts the appeamnce of sub-sects uf this group u little d ifferently. Accordmg to him, Sarv3sIhada branched off first from the Sthaviravuda, and from the ialler appe.:lfcd the MahiSasakas, Kusyapiyas and StrptrantivAdins, ullcafter another at the interval of a centllry. OUt of the Mahlsa:sakas developed the Dh:lrmaguptakas.

Compnring the two traditions, it will be observeu Ihat the two lists ngrce, excepting the first appearance o f lhe MahuJlsii'laka. es staled in the Pal i texts. This anomaly may be t:.>.plained thU3 : A reference to Ihe doclrir.es of this school revt'ills that there were 1\\'0 Mahisa:;nka schools, one earlier and LILt: ether later. Va~umitra missed the earlier M:lhBasakas while t:llulllcrating the sub-sects.l He, however, points out that the earlier MahHiisakns agreed more with the Thera\'udms while the l al~r with the Slr­v.istivildins. It may be that the Pall tradition Wll~ ;1\\'RIC of the r.ul ier dl\'isioD only of the MahiSisakas. and so n .. tmally placed their origin before the Sa r\'iiSli\'ad;n s.

The Earlier AlahiNbakas

The 'lTltiquity of Ihe Mahrsflsakns goes back 10 the time of the tirst Buddhist Council, hence its origin is anterior (0 tll:lt of the

1. Sc~ infra.

122 BUDD HIST SECTS IN INDIA

Mahasanghlkas. Thl: Vinuya texIs or the Theravadins (in Pali) record Ihe differences or oplruon of the Mahisiisal.:as and the Dharmaguptakas- relating to seven rules according to the Mahj­si sakas, and eight rules according to the Dharmaguptakas - bet­ween Maba kass..'lpa and PUnil,l3 ofLJakkhil),agiri (near Rajagrha). The Mahlsasaka VlOaya attached special importance lothe p!rson ofPurat)3, who ioslsted on a second rehearsal, which, a:cordmgto this school, was compiled wllh by Mahii kassapa, by the mcor­poration in the Vmaya of the seven rute ~ relating to food. This shows clearly that Puni.on and hiS fo l lowers formed a group by themselves. thougn probably not yet known by the de signatIOn. Mahlsasaka. Prof. f-'rzyluskl has d iscussed this in his work Le COl/cite de Riijagrha (pp. 3 11) If) on the basis of the Mah ISasaka and Dharmagupta Vinaya te1lts in Chinese.

He writes that the episode of Pural)a of Oakkhioagiril ill the account of the tirst Council noticcs the ditJerence belwc:'":11 the Theravadi ns and the Mahisiisakas. In coune of time, th2.{ group of monks, which held Puntoa in h igh esteem, formed the MahI­sas<l ka school by including his seven rules nOl accepted by Mahakassapa in his Vinaya code .! In the Mahisasaka Vina}3 , t he second place of seniority is accorded to PUriil)a, the fir~ t be· ing given to KaUlJ.9inya. The M:thiSiisakas as,ert that after the deliberations o f the First Cou ncil were fin ished the te~ts were once more recited for the approval of Pura(la, ~ho accepted t \e same after adding his StVen rules.

Regarding the geographical expansion of the schoo!, Prof. Przyluski points out that (i) Pural)a refers to the people of Mahisaka ; (ii) that the a lternati ve name of this school i ~ Maid· vantaka;3 and (iii) that the Vinaya text of this school was found by Fa-hien in Ceylon.

On the basis of these facts, he states that the line of expanSIOn of this school was the SUme as that of the Theravada, i.e., al ong the KauS5. mbi-Bharukaccha axis and that it gradually extended

I. " PUrii\H' Utlllt.""Un,: U<lns It ~ uiJ:' Hn~ by ";;ud", he mears Dakkhinil­giri, which i, {fatlv n()t in Ihe $()uth.

2 See above, eh. III , p. 39, rD. 3. 3. TAraniilha in hi~ Geschfchte (PP. 175, 27J) s;xaks of Ihe Avantakas

a; an offshoot of Ihe Samrt1ltiyas.

DOCTRI NES OF GRO UP III SC H OOLS 123

up to the: ~I;:a·borj"lc countries, and lhat it bec,\me p:!.rticularly popu:ar ill M'lhi~ama Q4a ~a il nd Avanti. and uhim.l tciy T<'ach .. ·d

Cevloll. Pro:. PI"Z) IU5ki's suggestions are supported by the N:igiirjuni­

kUIII,1.J ill5cripl ions., in \\hich it is st:;.ted tha t the queen of Vana­vasi t:n:ctcd a pillar and a monaster} :l.t Nas:irjuniko::I(;b for ihe bcm:fit of the adiryas of the Mahis:isa ka S!Ct.1 V:m :!.\ asi cones­punlh to North Kanu ra. There is also a village Coined vanavasi in Ihe Shilllvga District 0:' t he Mysore State anJ lies 011 Ihe bordt.: r vf r..1ysorc territory and North K~\nar:1. Vunav;"isi is also a ile o i the co untrics, whieh the mi~si ol1 of Asob:s rcigll visited, am] it wa5 from this country t hat u muflii/h era called Callda­gUll,1 w.:nt to Ceylon at the invitation of Du q hagfuna l)i to take pall il l the celc:bratiom for ~ rccting the mahiitillipa. Hence, it m;IY be concluded that the M uhiSI1sakus became popular in Vana­v[l~i, i.c., in North Kanaru and Myso re, and prob.lbly had some rullower5 in Ceylon, a s this school n);;rced with the TheraviiJins in funda illcntal doctrines and disciplinary rules. In short, this ~<.":hoo i had its sphere of influence in south west ern In:l i:1 and Ct:ylon. ~

T he Kathul"atthu has not a worn to soy nbo ut the doctri:Jcs of lhi~ l!ichool. This silence, though a n~g.c t ive evidence, confirms our supposition that the T heraviid ins hod lillie or no diffc re1ce with the Mahisasakas as far a$ their doctrines were concerned. Vasu rui tra furni shcs us with the fo11owing info rmation regarding the doctrinel!i of this school.

Doctrines of the earlier Mahrsi1Jakas

Thc M<lhis;lsakas rejected the "Sabbam allhi" tht~b uf the Sarv1l.stivadim3 and held that the present only exists. Tht:y lIIade it more emphatic by Slating that all ,rol1ukt1ros pcri~h at CI'Cf}

l . P.1. XX, 1'. 36; d. El. 1101. r I r, 1'. 117: Vikramcillkadeva rarita. V, 23: Ma/u;,'(JItlm, XII, 31; XXIX. 42; B. C. Law, Geogra{;hYQj Early Buddh'ml, p.66.

2. cr. P rz.ylusky, 01'. cil., pp. 325, 327-Mah[ ~a mal,l(,lala, Avanll and olh~l ...,a-nome COUlltrieS on 1he we!!.

3. FOI' Suv,bti>,iida view';, ~e i~fnJ .

124 BrDOIU ST suC"r s IN IND IA

momen t and thai entrance into the womb is the beginning, and death is the cnd, orhuman lire. The material constituents of the sellSe-organs as 3150 ciTra and cajlllsikas are subject to change. In other words, there are no rcal elements.

They do not enter into the quest ion or Buddha's attributes and probably like Ihe Theravddins held Buddha as an average human being.

Regarding Arhats, t hey st:lIc th:lt (i) a srot:ipan na has a chance or retrogression while an arhat has not, and that (ii) arllats do not perform meritorious deeds. Both o r th~se opinions nre direct­ly opposed to those of the Sarvilstivudins and are partiy in agreement with Ihose of the Themvlidins.

Re. Sumyakrl"OnyeJmo, the MahrMbakas have nothing lo sa y, T iley s l<: lc against the opinion of the Sarvasliviidins thal Ih ta"t: is 110 del"u who leads a holy life.

Re. Aflupubbub/zisomoyo. the Mahi~ii.sakas hold views cont rary to those or the Sarvastiviidins. They state that the four truth, are to be meditated upon at one and the same time.

Re. JIJii/:o, they hold, as against :be opinio!l of t he Thera­vlldins, that transition from one jhana to another is immediate (KI"lI., XV III. 6).

Re Puthujjana. etc., t he 'vl ahi~asakas held the following views in agreement with the Sarvastiviidins e)[cepting the last:

0) An average man is ;Ible to destroy raga and pratiglm in the Kamadhiitu.

(ii) Thcre i, laukikasamyagdmi (right view of a worldly man),

(iii) There is no laukikaJraddhendrJ)'a (raculty or faith obtained by a worldly man). This is di.cussed in the KI'U., XIX. 8 (see abo,e, p. lOS).

Re. Alluso}o 2nd P aT}o)"Qsthiillo, the opinions of the Mahisa­sakas are directly opposed to those of the Sarvastiviidins and the Theravadins and are in agreement with tho~e of the Mahilsail­ghikas:

(i) Anuia}a (dormant passion) is neiiher ciua (mind) nor caJ/asika (mental).

(ii) Anl/saya is differen t from pervading passion (parYQ\'os­r/liina).

OQCTRI!'lES OF GROl:P III SCHOOLS 123

(Ill) Aflusoya is never an object of thought (olliJlambulla). (IV) A11I/ioya is dissociated from mimi (ciutJ- I'isampruyukw) . (v) Paryal'asth{1f1a is ass(X.iah:d with mind (tiflu-sumpru-

yUkta).

All these have been dissussed in the Karhiil"arthu in connection with the doctrin(!s of the schools of Group 11 (se~ above).

Re. Meditotion & Smrt)"upasrhiina, the only difference between the MahiSasakas and the Sar\'astividins is thlt the former do not recognize any Iokouaradhyiilla. They agree with ,he Sarvasti­vadins in hold ing that all dlUl"lrras (m<i. rgailga..'9 are included in the four smrtYllpasfluinas (application of mind fu lness).

Re. VijiiiillQ. the Sarvastiv:idi ns state that the five l'iiliJl/as (perception denved by the organs of sense) engender raga (attuchment) btlt not viraga (detachment). The MahiSt.sak:is consider this unreasonable alld hold that these conduce both to sariiga and ~'iriig(J. Both the schools agree in holdill!1: that the SI)[ l'ijiir'iIlOS co:nbinf with I"ilorka and "feura .

Re. ASWllSJ:rta & AlI1orlibfJal"O, t fle views of the M3hi~1~akas are all opposed to those of the Sard.stilladi ns:

(i) There are nme unconstituted (aslll!l ~k!ta) dlWfmas, but the list is different from that of the Mahii.s:lI'l~hibs.t

(i i) There is 110 intermediate stale of existenL'e (oJllof(ibll(Jl"(1). (iii) There is nothing which can transmigrate from all.:!

eXistence to another.

There are a fcw other opimons, whicll arc also:c0Ilt r.IT} to those of the Sarv;l,tivJdin5, viz.,

(i) No heretic can gain the five supcmalUral powc rs. (ii) Good Karma cannot become the cuusc of el<i~tcncc.

In addll ioD 10 the above, the MahiSdsal.::as hold the following two views:

(i) Though Buddha is included in the Sangha, a gifl made to Buddha is more meritorious than that to the Sat)l!ha.

(i i) BuddhayiJna and .<ircll'akoydna have tile s:Jm~ cm~lIcip:l­tioll (vfmukri) .

I. Pratisamkhya nirodha, ApratiS3.mkhyl nirodha. AkHa . Analrnan. Kufal.·dharma-tal l::atA, Akubla-dh.ta, Avylkrm·(]h. tJ, M~rs~r'rsa -t3., Pra titl'a-samutpJ.da-ta.

126 OUODHIST SECTS 1:-" IND IA

The Later Malri fiisukas

It h .l alre:lcy been pointed out th:ll there were two ~ch {){)l !'; of Mahis;is:.Ik:u, on'! ... :tr lier :l11d . b:- other la ter_ The' vit:w.; ~ rated above were held b y \h~ e:lrlicr school. The !:llpr M :'l hi';.1 ~3b~ accept the c:ldinal doctri nes i,Jf th~ Sar'.'ii~ li \'iidi n<; that rlJ~t and fu ture e)(ist. ) nd :nsert that j :'mliJ//(/~ . dhlll :.s li nd ii)'at{Jna~ in their sul::)lle~t st:\:e :Irc :llwa:-,~ present, so :11"0 ~ri': the (fIlIlS(l)"a,f (dormant pa ssions). They :ldd that I he e:lrth lasts for :\eons. Tbcy agr-:e with th" S~IT\'~\st i \':idirH in tlflholding that t [;;!rc is (llllariiMOI'{I (in~ermedi!lte st~ tc betweC'n tWO exist­enc\:s). The hter M:.lhi<cisak:t.s. theft·fon.', w~re :l ~ mll~h in a"n-cmcnt wi t!' thc Sarvasti\oadins ;\~ the earl;"r M~hi(;haka..~ , wl!re \\illl the T hera vadins,

Saniistil'iida

In thl' int rmJuctory note (p. 122 f.) appearance. geographical distribuliclll , langua {;c and li ,crature .• 1:1d doctrines of Sarvasti­\"~id:\ h:\Ve heC'11 t..'ea lt wi th. The group of Th~r:lVadins (Stha­vintv:ldill<;.) WflS ~ubdivided into eleven or more sects, of which th~ SMV;lstil,f. rlim and the Sammitiyas be-came prominent, the rcrr.~\i"ine StCI~ were t he Miila-sarvi'lsli\.idi ns, KiisyapiYJs, etc,

S:.\n<'ls\i\;lUa '\la~ a Hinay{ina ~chool with its pi!!lkas in S'\lbkrit. Tin; ElllUpean $Cholar~ dubbeJ it .. ~ a school up­holding ·Rcali, m'. The doctrines o f .ilis schoo l wen: sub­j~c t<: d to vdH:lln.:nl cri ticism by Mahflyiina pl-.ilosophcrs like N;lgarjuna, A,(1ilga . Ar)au:va a nd others, who uphcld 'N"OIl­realism' (JiIIlYQIJJ u r ' Idealism' (rijiiapli/ll~jrr:llii).

The Sa rv..istivadi ns selected MJthura as the venue of their early <lctivi,ies and it was from this place that they fanned out to Gandh5ra and Kashmir and uhilll ately to Central A,ia

and China.

T he legend abeutthc s('l('ction of Ma( h l ) ~a as the rendezvous of the S~lrVasl ivadins rll\1~ a~ foll ow~

Emperor Awka, :lcclJnJillg 10 the Ceylunese chronicles, Illet the lead ing mOl:k-~ailit ur the ti me. Moggaliputta Tiss<l, an orthodox Tht:rav-.1u,lI. Tlie third Buddhist Synod W:lS held

DOC T P. I!" lU OF OI\OO P HI SCflOOLS 127

und~r hi s chairm anshi p. Thos~ mo nk s, who did no; SLlh<;(Ti ,e to the doctrines of Thcr~\\ada, were c<.m,c!!cd to !cnvc P;'I!a­liputra , the scene of the Synod, T I'e), wcnt first to Mathura. AboLlt the int roduction o f Buddh ism, the tra di tion. pre~(' r v("(t

in the Miilasanrlsti!"(ida Vi!laya1 :l i> also in the Cl;jnc~e \,f'I"~ i()11 of the Asokii~'(Jdiil1 u , 2 is as foUows:

Bhllgllva n Buddha while traversing Ihe SUf<l Sl:na I.:uuntry, reached Mothura where he noli~ a gre:n fl"'(1:51 u n a hill called UrUn1U1.1r)n. He pred icted that a hundred )'l'a rs after hi~ demise, two rich brothers N lqa a :ld Dha!,\ wu ull1 bui ld there t he Na~abhn!a\'ihnra, which would become <l congenill place for meditalion of monks, seeking quictude ( .ollwflza) and insight (l·ijlaf)'an(/). At that time there would be a spice­denIer, whose SOil UpUgUptfl wou ld be as g reat a p leacher as He himself was, without however the physica l !> igll, of a Buddha. He would be ordained by Madh~:l.l1di \lil , a di~~'iplc of Ananda and wou ld be the Ins t of t he dhmll;a-preJcltcn. In the Divyu­I'adlilla (p. 348) it is stated .hat Buddha made the forecast about the advent of Upllgupta. Si!nakaviisi wouh.! b~ his spi nlual prece ptor but there is also the tr'lditiull illal ro.·lachyandina (Ma dhyfi ll liku, Mn.~hlln t ika) ordai ncJ Upagupla . The episode of Vas:\lInd:ltla is ,;; ivcn II promine nt place ;11 all t he biographies of Up:lgupw.

Upagupta occup:ed a very high place in (he hierarchy of t he Sarv3stillada school. In the Abhidharmakosul'pikhyii (T l. 44) Upngupta is said to have composed the NeJrpadasii.l'tra, His opiniom lI"t!rc valued as those of the Sarvastiv[ldills or the Vaibhil~jkus of Mathura. In conclusion, it may be Slated that Upagupt:l was not only a versat ile p reacher but also a n import­am \\THi!r of the Valbh5.~i ka school of M athura .

The wide popular!ty of the S,lrv:ist iv;ida put into shade all other schooJ~ . ;;nJ thlt, particuln rly, fo r i ts propagation all over N~rthern India :md in countric .. olU5ide India, li ke Cen. t ral ASia and Ct,in a. Its o rigm !';ho ilid be pl:.1c;:d some tim.:

1. Gilgil M);S . III, pt. i. 2. A'J'II'"VU/f-tdJlIlm tronsble~ by Sanghabh~dr:l in 506 A,D. Ff,

tranl. PrzyluSki, Ugcllc.c de /'(mprrt'llr A;Qka.

128 BUDDHIST SECTS 1:-: I:-.rOIA

a fter LII\; M(\hii:t~kas and the Maha5anghikus. There is no doubt tha t it branched off fro m the Mahiiftsakas and not from tile The rnva::lim directly as stated by Vasumitra and oth~r writers of later days. T ile SarvdstlvAdins should bc dIstin­guished from lhe M;jl asnrvastivadins,1 who probabl y mo~ifie.d certain doctrines of the Sarvastiviidins, as also from the Valbhu­~ika s, in which nam:: this school was later known from the time of Kal)i ~ka .~

Vasuband hu in his Ablr idharmakosa, has the Kashmir Yaibha­~ikas more in view than the curly SnrvAstiviidins. This is due to the fact tha t the Vaibhii ~ikas became more popula r from the tilll~ o f Ka Qi ska a nd became predominant in Kashmir and Gandhfuu.' Tile popularity of t he carly Sarvastividins was l:ollfined to Northern India around Mathurii, where it had

ils origin . PmI'. Pn::yluski ' tfae~'s the origin of the Sarvastivadu school

ill lin.: s ro Ll ping of monks, shown in the account of J.he s.:cond Cuuncil. lie S:1.)'5 thai the monks colkcted by Yd a luiled waillly from twoce n ,r~s. of w'l ich one was KauSii mbi·A vanti and lIlI; other M .. tllLl r:1. T he fonner developed into Thcr .. v5d .. aw..! M ahihl sa ka sch00ls ",hile the l'lller into Sarv.is tiv5.d .. , <Iud bUill W ,,; IC OllP,)scJ to th.: M ;lh 5$ai1sh i k i.l~. w ho~c centre W,l S il t Pii!aliput ca ,\lu1 Vais.ili ,lI1d at;1 bIer d:lle in the Andh ra province.

If we tu rn to the sLK~.::>sic n ur lcac:lcrs (iiciirrl[l llf<llllfl :JJ"(i ), as giv."n in almost all S~\ns l.. ri t tracitions. pre'l.'f\'eJ in Tibetan. it will b ... nh-.erved t hat ;tfte r SambhiHa SaO:IV351. th.: ~u..:.::;!"~s icll

1. t H ins "p.;~ k :l of Ihe M [\l"~:IIVii:;livilJins. Sec T"wkusu, ~p.

""iii·Hiv, 7. t4 . 20 . 2. In Klshmir Ih~r.: were bot h VaibhiHbs alIi! Salllrlnl k.\\ (ye villaya '

vidadJY'll.o S,l ul ranti k~1 bll.iJ.I ;lI:ilh~·u.I., ). The la l ler ar: c~ri?«i in the KoslI-Vr.;kItF; {V II i . ;2)..Is VillJ~a·vid. Th~re were a.so V.l , bhl~lla;. \\ ho lIVed ;)lIl>ld~ Klshmir rcr<:rr~J 10 in the Koia:1'I "bi llirde~k~ Valb!I ;} )'!..""'.

3. !'rot". Tnk,,!.:u~u W(>I" , (JPTS., 190~-O5, p. I I») thai the S3f vii!!tiviiJilu wcl'e 11$0 di.tin~"i.h('<l in I h<l Vibh'i.«' '1 ~ Ka<hmiri;1t1 and <I;II1>"h." i1n, ~ 111 "fl.-:r wl11pi i:l lion of the MoI/:(j,-{/J/ui",i Ih~ forn\~1 edip>ed lhe 1,IHer and be· came k nowll a~ K~;lnjril·vaibhihi k 3s, or !illl ply Vaibh;:.ik:;ls.

4. Pr l) Ll~ l i, cp. cit .. I), 30S.

DOCTRINE 'I Of GROUP HI SCHOOLS 129

is recorded differently rrom that in Pali. Bu-:;Ion l and Tara­nathal tell us that Ylahakassapa entrusted the gua rdi llnship 01 the Sangha to .i\nanda, whoi nturn entrusted the same to Sambhula Siinavasi. The latter gave over the guardianship to Upagupta of ~1athura.! It is well known th at in the Sanskrit Avadanas, Upagupta i;; made the spiritual adviser or ASo ka as against MoggaJiputn Tissa of the Pali lell: lS. T his also lends support to the view that Muth Ll ra became the first centre o r the SaniiSli­vadins soon after the Second Council, and t hat it was frOll Mathu ra that the influence of the Sarvasti vfldins radiated all over Northern india , purtiwlarly over Gandhara and Kashmir.

The propagation of Buddhism in G andhara and Kashmir has an independent history of its own . Both the Pali and Sanskrit trad itions state that Madhyiintika (Majjlrantika) was responsible for the propagation of the religion in these t wo counlries. Madhyantika was a disciple of Ananda and so he was a coo­temporMy of Sambhuta s,at:Lavasi and senior to VpJgupta, Madhyantika is recognized as a teacher by the Sarvastivadins. That Madhyamika preached Sarv<ist..ivlida Buddhism in Kash mir is corroborated by Ihe testimony of Hiuen Tsang, who tells us thai Asoka not only sent Buddhist monks to Kashmir but al so built monasteries althat place.a He writes that during Asoka's reign there was in Magadha 'a subtle investigator of niima-riipa (mind and matter). who put his ell:traordinary thoughts in a treatise which laught heresy' . An attempt was made to drown these monks into the Ganges, but they saved themselves by fleeing to Kashmir where they settled on the hills and in the valleys. On hearing this, Asoka felt remorse and requested them to return, and on their refusal, buill fo r them 500 monasteries and "gave up all Kashmir for the benefit of the Buddhist church.'" The fact underlying this story is that the " invesl i­gators of mind and matter" were none other than the Sarvasll­v;'idins, whose prtncipal tenet is that ndma and rupa are real and are divisible into 64 elements, which exist for ever (sarvatn asti"

1. See Bu-s:on. If, p. 108. He derived his information from the Vi/layg-Ir. /lldra/(a of the MClla!arvd5l lvadim.

2. Than3tha, Upagupt~ wa, Followed by Dhitika. 3. Watters, I, p. 269. 4. Walters, I. tl. 267.

130 BUDDHIST SECTS I!" L-':OIA

and It ii fo r this vie" that they had the appellation of Samhli­vada. Then the statement that they resorted to the hills and valleys of Kashmir corroboTlltcs the flight of the Sarvastiva.din

monks to the nonn in Kashm ir. Hiuen Tsang must have fallen into confusion in regard to the

name Mahadevi. There were in all likelihood two persons of thi s name, "one an influential abbot of Pa~aliputra " l who preached the Deradlila-siitra, and the other a monk who intro­duced the tenets relating to the imperfections of an Arhat.2 Mahadcv3 the Investigator of mind and motter must have been a Sarvastiviitlin while the other Mah adeva, who attributed im­perfections to an Arhat. was a Mah:isailghika.1 Hillen Tsang further confused the The ravtldins with the Mah:i.sailghikas when he wrote that ASoka supported the Mahasangilikas against the Theravadins, and that 500 ArhalS left Pa~aliputra a nd propagat­ed Ihe Sthavira school in K ashmir, while the majority of the inferior brethren at Pataliputra began the Mahasanghika schoo\.4 The Mah3.mlighikas, as we k now, lived originally a t Vaisali a ~d laler o n passed on to the south, making their principal centre lfl

the Andhra country at Dhanakataka (present Guntur District). The stateme nt that A§oka became repentant later on and

that he wanted th: monks who fled to Kashmir to return to Magadha may be a n indirect reference to the fact recorded in the Divyiivadiina4 and Asokiivadiina& that Asoka made an attempt towards the end of his life to reconcile the monks of the di fferent schools of Buddhist thought by convening a coun­dl t o which he particularly invi ted the monks living at T amasa­vana in Kashmir. The Ceylonese chronicles maintain a discreet silence over this incident, a nd this is not unusual in view of the

sectarian spiri t permeating the ch ron icles. The Sarvastivadi ns also claim A§oka as their patron. The~

ignore the n ame of Moggaliputta Tissa and put in its stead the name of Upagupta as the spiritual adviser of A§oka. The

l. M~j";m", Ill , )79. 2. Watters, I, p. 268. 3. See above. P. 22. 4. Wauers, I, p. 269. j. Di,yii., p. 391). IA., 1895, PI'. 241 If.

U(Jl;1 J{IN.I':~ UYU.tlUUp III SCHOOLS 131

Avadilna lileraturel of the SarvastivauiliS is full of episodes dealing with the life and munificence of Asc ka. n.ranatha also speaks of his lavish gifts to the Sarvastivilua monks of Apanin­taka Kashmir and Tu khtlra. ' Kalha'.la ' writes that Asota not only bUll! Srinagari but also covered Su~aletra and Vltastra with numerous stupas, one of which was ~o high that ils plOna­de could not be seen. Yunn Chwang noti(.;l:u fOUf Asoka topes, each of which contained relics of Duddha's body. The Av<idanas record that towards the end o f his life A~uka·s liberality to the Buddhist monks was carried 10 such au eAtl:nt Ihat his grandson Samp~di,' who was in churge of his trea~ury, refused to carry out his commands and evcn reduced his food to a myrobalan, half of which was the last gift made by him to the Buddh ist Smi.gha.

Through the activities of the Sarvastiv.ttitns, Kashmir became a centre of Buddhist philosophical stud it:~-6 and was, according to T!tran:i.tha, also the scene of the aeti"ities of VatslI, the pro­pounder of the Atmakn theory (pudgu/al'l1da) and the founder of the Vatsiputriya or Summitiya school. '

Geographical Expunslon of Sa"l'iiJ'fi~iJda

During the retBn of Asoka the Stlrvastivadins uid not find a congenial home III Pa!aliputra, i. e. in Magadha <lnd migrated to the north . They founded two c~n trcs , one in K<lshmir under the leadership of Venerable Madhyantika ant1 lhe other at Mathura und~r That ofVencrable Upagupta. M<luhyantika was the direet di~ciple of Ananda while Upagupta was the disciple of Sal)avasika , who was also a disciple of Anam.la. The Sarva-

I. Prof. Przyluski wriTes in his LegeNie de r Emf)f!reur Asoka, Pfl. I OJ, 117 thaI II council of 30,000 monks was held by A'o~a, his sourcn of in 'orm_ 1I1ion being the Ai.>/o.OI'udiJno and TaranAtha.

2. Schi~fner, p. 38. 3. S:ein, I, P. 19. 4. It has been restored by Schiefner u \'iisa"adall~, but il may "'SO be

Dllanada or Sampadi. S. Sec Glfgit Ms., vot. I, Intro. Ii. Schiefner, p. 44. Se.: Jll/ra.

132 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

sti,ftdins can therefo re claim Ananda as their patriarch, but Bu-ston l states that Ihey claimed as t heir founder Vcncrabk: R:i.huLab~'ldra " renowned for his de\otion to discipline." III the Abhi(I"arma.kosQ.ltJiik")'fj~ Rah ulabhadra is mentioned a:. a tem:hcr. T he Theravactins were tirs! divided into 1""0 :.ccts, MahilJlsasaka and Vajjiputtaka (V<iuiputnya). From the funner appeared the Sarv(istivadins. Siil].a .. asika was very ~~ when he oniained Upagupta at Mathura. Tile time of the onglO or the Sarvi\stivadms should therefore be placed about 150 year:. after Buddha's demise. According to Vasumilra's Sama},oblte,Jupa­racanacakra, the Sarvaslivr~dins branched off ~rom t~ SliJaviras m the 3rd century after Buddha 's deml!>C. T hiS daLe IS cunobo­rated by Bhavya . Vinttadcva and I-tstng. Hsing speaks. of four main di\'isions of the Sangha , vil., Sarvastiv;\da, Slhavlfa, Sammitiya and MahlisanghikJ.. T he JiionaprasrhiillQsiwu ~f Kfltyayal).iputra contended that the objeclS in present hav~ lbo':.lr pastness and futuri ty. It was refuted by Moggaliputta TI~,a In

the Ka/Mil'oflhu. It was for this reason perhaps that A~uka supported the cause of the Sthaviravadins, and conscqul:uHy the Sarvastivadms left Magadha and went north\\ard~ LO

Mathura and Kashmir. There are a few inscriptions dating from the 2nd to the 4th

century A. D., attesting to the presence of the Sarva.s tiva.dins in Mathura, Peshawar, Kashmi r and Baluchistan. There were a few Sa rv3stiv<1dins at Sravasti3 and Benaras (Sarnath).· The earilCSI of the three inscriptions (1st century B. c.) was found at Matbura (Mathura Lion Capital) of the lime of Ranjuvula and S04asa. It runs as follows:

(a) The chief queen of M:lhak~trapa Kajula, daughter of Prince Kharoasta, mOlher of Nanda Diaka along with othe rs established at this site, which was just outside t?e consecrated boundary (ni~sfma), the relic of Bhaga.van Sakyamum.the Buddha, erected a stone-pillar crowned with a hon, and bUll1 a

1. Bel -Sian, JI, p. 100. 2. Abhld/,urmui....,j,,"yJl.:hya, pp. 114, 719. J. Amona the done.es the n~me< 'of th~ Suvaslivadins do nOI appear in

theSe! Mahal lma.Q1l inscription (sec E. I ., VI II, fl. 111 : IX, p. 29l. 4. ASR., 1907-08. p. 13.

DOCTRINES o r GROUP III SCHOOLS 133

monastery (saiighariima) for the acceplilnce of the monks of the four quarters, particularly, the San·aslivudi ns.

(b) In the reign of K}l!trapa Soc;hisa, son of Mahak:5ll trapa Rajula, Udaya, a di5Ciple of Acarya Buddhadeva, along with Prince Khalamasa and Maja as assenting parries (on:lllux!akii) made the girt of a cave-dwelling (gllha-)tihiira) to Budd hila of Nagarata for the acceptance of the S3w.istivadi n monks.

(c) In the reign of K.~atrapa SOQ3sa, the gifl of land was made to Acarya Buddhila o f Nagara ka, who refuted Ihe a rgu­ments of tbe Mahasailghikas. (t::nding with the ,,"o rds) Adora­tion to all Huddhas, lJharma, Sangha, and to the Sakas of the Saka cou ntry, etc.

The above· mentioned inscriptions dis tinctly prove that the early Saka rulers were supporters or Buddh ism, particul arly of the Sa rvastivadins, one of whose centres of activity was then at Math ura. Buddhila, a ~arvastivada teacher, must have ea rned a great reputation as a disputant for defeating some Maha­sarighika teachers in philosoph ica l controversies, a nd was the recipient of gifts from distinBuished personages. There is also the men lion of another great teacher called Acarya Buddhlldeva. At Sravasti (Set Mahet) has been found an elliptic clay sealing mscnbed with the name of " Buddhllueva" in the lale Gupta SCflpt (ASR. 1907-OK, p. 128). Yasomitra in his Abhidharma_ KOSo)'J'iiklryfi (V. 26; IX . 12) refers to Sthavira Buddhade\'a as an :lulhorit)' on Sarvastivada doctrines and sta te) that one of his preceding teachers wa) Sthavira Nagasena, who was a contem­po rary of King Menander. Buddhadeva interpreted the Sa rvasti­y;lda doctrines as implying that "all exists (sanmtitva) as relative e~istence {anyarlllin}otlriit l'a, Kosavyiikhyii. p, 470)." It is mther rISky to Identify this Buddhadeva with Duddhadeva of Ihe in­scription, for It was a common practice among the Buddhist monks to have identical appellations.

There is ,mother inscription at Mathura (Buddhist Image ~Jlscripli.on) of the time of Huvi~k a (II J A. 0.), in which the IlI~lallauon of a Bodhisattva image is att ributed to two nu ns, both of whom were disciples of Bhik~u Bala, a master of Tripi\aka. an~ une of the nuns, Dhanavati, was a sister's daughter of ~hlk:~U. Buddhami tra, also a master of Tripi~aka. This inscrip­tIon e\,luently refers to an image of Siddhiirtha Gautama before

134 BUDDIII ST lSl':(;TS 11'< INI.IV\

his ~ttainmcnt of bQdhi, i. e., u H innyill1ic image. The p receptor of the nun is described as D student of the Tripi!ak:t, attributed o nly to the Hinn)dnists. Thai Bala was a Sarv3stivadin is esta­blished by two other inscriptions discovered at ~rav3.sti. viz., (a) Set Mahet Stone Umbre lla Staff, nnd (b) Image inscrip. tiom of KUQi~k u I, which bur the same text. During the reign of Kaoi~ka (78· 101 .... D.) the gift of an umbrell a and a itaff, with a Dodhisattva (image) was mnde by Bhik~u Bala and a disciple of Pu~pa'oudd hi, and these Iwo were installed in the promenade (cankroma) around the Ko.usambi ·kii !i. which was a part of the Jetavaniinlrna a nd where probabl) Buddha was stay­ing when he admonished the monks of KauM\mbi. A sim ilar !!ift was made at Sarnatn by Bhik~u Bala (Sarmith Buddhist Image inscription of Kal) i~ka I). tind these were also installed in the cailkroma used by Duddbu for his meditation. The gift was made by Bala . wishing to share his merits with his parents, his disciples, wilh another monk coiled Buddhamitra as also with K~alrapa~ Vanaspara and Kharapallann. Both Bala and BuudhaHlilra were Sarv.:\stiviidins, hence it can be inferred that at SamaIl I also resided a fe ..... Sarviistivadins during the reign of KalJi~k:a. 0 11 tilt: sOulh side of the Jagat Singh Stupn, the followin~ insl:ripliull was discovered on the topmost step of Ihe stone·.lai rs "al:li.ryyiinal}l Sarvastivacli narp parigrahe." Dr. Vogel a~~ igns lI lis Illseriplion to the 2nd century A. D.t This inscription is n:pea ted on a "rail surrounding the old stiipa in Ihe soulh dapd uf lht: main shrine." The second in$cription on the ASokan pillar at 8amath, menlioning the nome of ASvagho~u , was probubly dedicated to thc Sarviistivadin$, which appellation was unfOrlunately obliterated. The third inSCription on the sam e pilla r rt"ad~ 115 folloW5: " iiearyyiiniHp. 8l.lmmiti­yAnAI]l. parigrahe ValsiputriyaJ}.arp.."2 From these citations of Ihe t ..... o secls, S<lrvibtivada and SammitiYa, it may be inferred Ihat the Sarvastivadi m uccupied a strong position at Sarnoth up to the 2nd l:entury A. u. and that thereafter the Sammitiyas atlain::d greater populalilY. The two sect) might have lived IOgether for some lilllt:, but in any case by Hiuen Tsang's time

I. ASR., 1907-611. p, 73. 2. Sahni, Co/Ulo)/I'fI< .. j S",.""," ."/uleum, p. 30-31.

DOCT"I~E:5 OF CROUP 111 SCHOOl ~ 135

the Sarvastivadins left the place, leaving there the monks of the Sammitiya school only.

The find of an inscription of the Kushan period in pure P<ili1

leads us 10 conclude that the Sthaviravadins also re5ided there at a very early date, perhaps before the SanastivAdins attained rrominence.

Very likely the prollressive career of Ihe Sarvastivadins had a r.ctback for some lime during the reign of Pu ~yamitra (187-151 R.C.. ) as is evidenl from the DivyQ)'tJdiilla. a text of this school. Hul the several donations made during this period by the devo· lees prove that it was professed by a large section of the people. Its revival came with the invasions of the Graeco-Hactrians. Sakas. Pahlavas. Panhians and Yavana>. The Milindapaiiha , tht o,igmal of which was in Sanskrit. very likely belonged to this schooP The existence of this text shows that the G raeeo· B[lctrian kings like Menander were interested in this religion. Its complete revival touk place during the reign of the Sakas. :lnrl the popularity of this sect reached its climax in the reign of Kltl:li~ka.

Fa.hien (.lIQ.414 A.D.) noticed the existence of this school at Pil!aliputra whi le Yuan ChWaD& (629-645 A.D.) fou nd it "ch ieAy in Kashgar, Udya na. and several o ther places in the Northern Frontier, in Matipur, Kanauj, and a place near Rajagrha and aim in Per~ ia."3 I-tsing came across the adherenh of this school in T..a!a, Sindhu, Southern and Eastern India, Sumatra, Java, China, Central Asia and Cochin China.' From the above eviden(".e~ it i~ apparent how widely popular was this school all over Northern India and outside India, bul little known in Southtrn lind We<llern India.

I. The Pall inscripuOIl reads as follows : Cauari imlilli bhilo.kl"i\oc ariyasaccAni KQlamani c3.u4ri--dukkhalTl bhi;c.kha~ ariYlI<:IealfTl

dukkhlS3mudayam ariyasaccam dukkhanirodhum ariyasae=at)1 dukkhani-odhaglmini en pa!ipada. ariynaccafll

2. Ahhidha",J{lkajQ.~,dklt)"6. i:'t , 12 (J~p. ed.). p 7(11 refers to Nlsasena. ns piinakQ.s,/iQ';fa.

3. JPTS., (Pwr. Tuh"'u~u), 1904 05, p. 71: Lcgse's Fa-him, p. 99. JRAS .• 1891 , p. 420: Tabku;u, / .,$1"11. pp . .uii.xxi~.

4. I- Isin,. 11tro.

136 BUDDHIST SEcn IN INDlA

Bu·s!on's in/ormarirm about the School

Accordinl,l to Bu-ston, the founder of this school was Rahula­bhadra of Ihe K~atriya caste "renowned for his devotion to discipline." The mantle worn by th~ members of thi s school had 25 10 29 fringes , and th:ir badge had an utpaJa (a lotus). a j :wel. and the leaf of a tree. 1

He further writes. "just as lhe hi&her classes establish the mundane laws and customs of a country or race, in a similar manner the Sarvastiviidins. as they spoke in Sanskrit. the lan­guage of the higher daises, represent the foundation of the other sects,"!

It cannot be definitely stated whether Bu-stOD had in mind the Sa rvasti ':adins o r the Miilasar .. Astivadins.~

LAnguage and Literature

The Tibetan traditions corroborated by the recent finds of manuscripts in Eastern Turkestan and Gilgit leave no room for doubt about the fact that the Sa rvast ividins adopted grammati­cal Sanskrit (and not mixed Sanskrit) as the medium of their li terature and that they possessed a complete canon of their own in three divisions Surra, Vinaya and Abhidharma. The sub-divi­sions of these three Pilakas were also substantially the same as these in Pali.

Our main source of informatIon regarding the literature of this school is Chinese and, occasionally, Tibetan versions of th: Tri­pi!aka, supplemented by the find of manuscripts in Central Asia, Eastern Turkenan, Gilgit and Nepal, and by quolations found in works like the Laliral'istara, Mahiil·astll. flfMhyamika-I'!tti, SUlriiiOl'lkiira of Asailga, Divyavadiina, Abhidharmakasa with its BhiiiJlQ and V}'tikhyii. It may be questioned whether the inform­ation available about the literature of this school are of the San'lis­tivadins or of the Muiasarvastivadins. For the p resent it is not

1. 8u'510n, II, p. 100. For fllrlher mformal illn. sec Watters, Yuan Ch,.-anl, I. p. 149-'0.

2. 8u-Slon. II, pp. 99-100. 3. Hiuen Tsanl SillIes Ihat the Sarv.1slivtldi"s had a l)Cculiar mode of

weui"g :In.1 cnl (1 l1rin& 1heir robes not approved by the rollo .... ers of ~everal $chool$ (Wallers, I, PI', ISO ff. Takaku;u, J·t~IIK).

onr.TRINES OF GRO UP III SCUOOU 137

possible to distinguish between the two, but it seems that the .3.gamns were common to both, so also were the Abhidharmatexts. It is only in regard to Vinaya and few Avadana texts that there might have been some differences.

Agama

Silrras: The Siitra-Pifaka of the Samhthtldins was divided into Agamas corresponding to Nikayas of the pali sthuul. There wt're four Agamas called Drrgna, Madh),ama, SUfJ1yuiau and Ekotfara, In the Koja there are references to the Kludruku, which implies by the exislencr of a K.rudrokiJgama too. p rof. Ala­numa has compared the Agamas in Chinese with the Pili Nika. yas l In delail and has come to the fo llowing conclusions: The Dlfght1gama contains 30 s(1n as as against 34 of the DIgha NikiJra, Of the 13 suttas in the fim volume of the pali Dfgha Nlkt.ya, 3 only 3re omitted in the D(rghilgama viz., Mahi1fl (no. 6), /iJ/lya (no. 7) and S,jJha (no. 10). All the suttas of the other twO volumes are contained in this Agama and a few in the Madhyam­agama . The order of arrangement of the sCHras in the Agamns and Niklyas differs widely, e.g., Mahiipadanc is the first SUlea in the Agama in place of Ofahmajiila of the Nikdya, In the Agama the series of sutras is as follows: Mahiipadiina, Malliiparinibbiina, MahiJgorinda, Janavasabha, Agganiia, Cokkal'otti, Sfhaniida, Ptlybsl, Udwmbarika-Slhaniida, Sailgiti, Dasuttara, Mahiinidiilla, Sakka·pafiha, IWika, Siflgii/ol'iida, Piisiidika, SampaJiidanfya, Mal/('isamaya, Ambaflha, JJrahmajiila, SOl)Od(J~l(,Ja, Kii/adanta, Keva!Ta, Kassapa-sfhantlda, Tel'ijja, Siimal1iipna/a, Po!!hapiida, Lohicca, The A..gama contains two other suttas.

Of these sOlras, fragmenu of the A!iiniirr)'Q and SOligfti have been disco,"ered lD Eastem Turkestan,2 and quotations from the Brahmajiila and SarigUi appear in tbe Abhidharmako5a.

The relation o f tbe sutras o f the Madhyamiigama to those of the Man hlma Nikii)'a is as fOllows : Of the 15:l suttas in the:

I. The C(}mparatil'e Catalogue 0/ Chil/ere .:fgamas & Ptili Nikiiyas. Japln (1929) .

l . Hoc;r"k, lI-tw,us.-dp/ kmuins ui Buddhist LI/U" lur"iu~lIdill l:aJle'Il T"rk""nll .

138 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA.

t~ree v?lumes of the ,Wajjhima, on ly J!J are omitted in the Agama, VIZ., Cufasaropama (no. 30). Mahiisaccoka (no. 36), Siileyyako (no 41), Veraiijaka (no. 42), Kandaraka (no. 51), Jrvaka (no. j.5), Kukkllra~'atjka (no. 57), Abhayarlijakutndra (no. 58). Apa~llJaka (~o. 60) , TevWa~VacchagQ(fa (no. 71), GhQ!amukha (no. 94), Cankl (no. 95), Vase!!ha (no. 98). Sangiirava (no. 100), Poi/cal­taya (no. 102), Kinlf (no. 103), Sunakkhatta (no. lOS), Alillpada (no. 1I1),~nd IJhaddekaralta (no. 131), In the AfadhyallHguma, there are III all 222 sutfas, 1:12 of which correspond to the suttas in tbe Angutlara, JO to the suUas in the St1l!lyutta, 9 to those in th: lJfgl!Q and lhe rest to the suttas in the MajJhima. There are a few 01 these SUltas 10 Pall not fo und in th: Agama, while a few stray suuas correspond to passage In the SUflanipdta, Thera-thert­giithfi and Vina)'a (Mahii~agga). In view of the mixture of the suUas from two 0, three l'ikayas in this Agama, we can hardly expect much 2greement m the order of the arrangement of the siitras.

Fragments of two sutras of the Madhyamiigama, viz., UptJ/{ and Suka, have been discovered in Eastern Turkestan.'

The agreement between the Smnyukra Agama and Sa'11I'Urta N~k~ya is similar to that of the Madllyamiigama and Ma.i.Jhima Nlkaya. The Sagiirha~'agga (Sec. I) of the two Pitakas has mueh in common but not the Nidana~'Qgga (Sec. 11); the 8th and 9th chapters .01' j~idiina, viz., Sama\labriihmol;lo and Antarapeyylila are wantIng In the Agama, while Ihe 1st and 5th chapter (Bud­dha and Gal/aparl) show marked dili'erences. In the same Section, ~bhisamaya, Dhiiru and other Samyuttas are almost pllssed over In the .Agama, but there is. much that is common in the follow­ing nve SQJf1yuttas: Anamatagga, Kassapo, LakkhofJo, Opammaka and .Bhik~hu. 1n the Kliandlla-vagga (Section Ill) of the Agama, the lollowmg s0ftlyutfas are wanting: Okkantika, Uppada, Klesa, Siiriputta, Niigo, Gandhobbakiiya, Valtiha, Vacchagoua and Ji/ana. In the Sa!iiyatna-ragga (Section IV) , the following are absent: M awgama, Moggollana, A sankhora, Sammappadhana, Billa and Idd/;jpa~a. while major portions of the Maggo, Indri)'o , and Sacca a re OImHe!.!.

TIl!; Su",y~k'iigama, as it exists in Chine5e, is divided into SO

1. Hoernlc. cp. ril .

DO CTIlINE901' oaoup ITT SCHOOLS 139

sections and incorporates a large number of suttas of the Ailgu­tlora Njkiiya and a few of the other tex ts. There are also a few sutras which have no parallels in Piili.

A fragment of the Srof}asima of this Agama has been dis­covered in Eastern Turkestan, while Prof. Sylvain Levi traced a few quotations fro m this Agama in the SQ/riilmikiira of Asanga.1 and iden tified the following fragments in the colkction of Griinwedel: Kokanada- j iura (- Anguttara, Y, pp. I Y6-~8); Alliit/wpif}t/ada (- Anguuara. V. pp. 185-89); Dlrghanakha !iutra ( - Majih"ma, I , pp. 497-501 ); Sarabha-siHra ( '" Aiigullaro, I, pp. 185-88); Parirriijako.Srhal'ira.riiIra and BrfjllmOfJoJatydJti siltra ( - Aligu!tora, II, p. 185)-are all included in the Chinese trans­lation of the Samyuktiigama. t

The Ekollarfigama and the Aitgutlara Nikiiya have very little in common. This is partly due to the fact that a large number or the suttas of the Aliguttara is included in the Modhyama and SOlflyukta Axamas. The Pali text is much more exteosive than the Sanskrit, and it seems that the growth of this part 01" the Pi!aka took place independently of each other. From Akanuma's comparative studies, the following sutras may be pointed out as being more or less common in the two Pj~akas: Samacitto ( I, Pl'. 61-9), De~'adiita (I, pp. 132-50), BraltmafJa to LOl;ophola (I, Pl'. 155-258), CoHo (fl. pp. 32-44). MUlJloriija (Ill, pp. 45-62), NivarQ1;a (lll, pp. 63-79), JghOta (Ill, pp. 185-202), Deva:ii to MaM (III , pp. 329-420) Avydkata to Maltii (IV, pp. 67-139) , Galtapati (IV, pp. 208-35), Sadlta (Y, Pl'. 92·112), Upiisoka (Y, PP· 176-210) , Jiilfusso'Ji (Y, Pl'. 249-73), and Anussa(i (V, Pl'. 328-58). This is not an exhausti,·e list, for there are stray agree­ments in other sectioIls as well.

A fifth .o\ga ma was not recognized by the schools other than the Theravii.da. J n the Divylivadiina (Pl'. 17, 331, 333) and else· where the Agamas are referred to as AgamaCOlIi!!ayOlf/. In the Nagarjunikotu;ia inscriptions also, four Nikiiyas are mentioned and not fi ve . The Piili Khuddako Nikiiya is really a collection not of discoun;es, short or lo ng, but of a number of independent treatisei, which could not be included in any of the four Nik:iyas.

1. s..-c: Winlerni!l., 0/1. CIf. D. 234 ro. 2. TOllflg /'ao, Y, p. 209.

14{J BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

By Khuddaka, the Palisls probably meant "other works" or "miscellaneous works:' Though the Sarv:istivadins did not have ~ fmh Nikl'lya, they hed a few texts like the Udiinal'argo, Sri/ro­nipQta (Auhaka and PiiTa,rana fagga.!). Slha";ro-giithii, Dharma­puda, VfmiJnm'oslu, and BuddhaI'Q/psG, which came later on to be colleclivtly called K; lIdraskiigama (sec above).

VlnoyQ

Yilloya teXI$ : Our info rmUlion about the Vinaya IcxU of the Sarvastivndins is derived solely from the catalogues of Chin~sc canonical literature. In Nunjio's Catalogllc, appear the foll OWing titles:

<i) San.asth-iida-'I'illQyo-miil! kii, translated by Salighavarman (445 .... D.): To.isho xxiii, 144 1; ~anjio 1132.

(ii) Sarl'ustiw?ida-l'illaya-vibhiisd, translator unknown (350-431 A.D.)= Taisho xxiii. 1440; Nanjio 1135, 1136.

( Ii i) Sarviistiviido-rinayo-swigroho, compilt:u by Jioamitra, trans­lated py I-tsing (700 A.D.) ; Nanjiu 1127.

(IV) Da.J&lhyiiya-fimJya-nidiiflu, tramilalt:u by VimalaJ,:~a (be­ing the preface to the Du.iUdhJ'uyu-'inaya). Nanjio 1\44.

(v) DaJiidhytl)'o-rh,uyu-!Jhik,lu-prurimok:a, translated by KumAraji'l.-a (404 A.O.) : Taisho xxiii, 1436; Nanjio 1 [60.

(vi) DuJiidhyiiyu-I'inuyu-bhik jUnl-prOtlmok,a, compiled by Fa­yin (42{)-479 A.V.) ; Taisho x~ii, 1431; Nanjio 1161.

(vii) DuJJJhyuyu-vlnayu or the Sarv:tstivada Vinaya, translated by PUl)yalara together with Kuma.rajlva (404 A. D) : Tabhu .'lAiii, 1435; Naojio 11 15,

The principal text of the Survastivadins was the Dasadhyli)'a­l 'inaya. Fa-hien writes that he came across a Sarvastivada-vinaya in verses, but the Chinese translation of the Dasiidhyiiya-l1'/Iaya attributed to the Sa rvlistivlidins is in prose. The DaSiidhyiiya (faisho ed., xxiii, 1435) is divided into 14 sections, It opens with the eiBht sections of the Pratimok~asijtra. The ninth section deals with ''Seven dharmas" , \Ii:., iik:iipoda, P!),fadha, popatiesanii, I'ar· lol'tisa, camUJI'oslu, bhai/oj,..avasluand chara (moral precepts, fort­nightly ceremonies, confession, dwelling in the rainy season, use of leather-shoes, use of medicines, and robes). The tenth section contains "eight dharmas," viz., Ka{llina, Kausambr, Campii,

I

(

\

OOCT"R1NES OF GRO UP III SCHOOU 141

POIJ{lu!ohila k a, Sangillil'asNa·paril'iisa, Pal icchiidano, SayaniisclIQ and Asamu(/dciirika-dharma (rules reo making of Kathina-robes. dispute at KauSambi, events at Campa. deeds of P<iWulohitaka monks, atonement for Sanghavasesa-offences, concealment of irreligious acts, rules regarding bed and seat and proper conduct of monks).! The eleventh section entitled "S8f[l}UHa," i.e" mis­cellaneous rules, deals with dMto and o ther extraordinary pre­cepts observed by some monks. The twelfth section is devoted to Bhik l Ur,Jf priitimokso containing. as it does, 8 PiJriijikti, 17 SOlighiil'oie,ii, 30 Nail;.sargikd, 78 Pdyonrika, 8 PrcitiddanI}'u and A.,qa-dharma. The thirteenth section re-arranges the preceding rules in the £koltara style, from one to eleven dharmas. The concluding section. the fourteenth , contains Upii/i-pariP!ccha, a well-known text on disciplinary rules.:

The text contains almost all the chapters of the Vinaya of the Thera,·iidins and the Mu iasarvbtiviidins, and appears to be a much shorter 'iersion of the text of the latter. From t he tit le, one expects ten chapters, but actually there are fourteen, and so we ha,,·e to assume that fOllr of the fourteen chapters were later addItions or were originally treated a s supplements. The 11th, 13th and 14th chapters are no doubt later additions, but it is difficult to ascertain the fourth addi tional chapter. A close study of the Chinese translation along with Sanskrit text of the Mula­sarv.ii.stivudins will reveal the actual positio n.

Miilasarvdslivdda Vinaya

As Slated above, we rely on the Cbinese versions of the Sarva­stivada literallire including the Vinaya Pi!aka. In this connec­tion, it may be mentioned that a large portion of tne original Miilasarvastivilda . Vinaya was discove red at Gilgit and edited by me after collating it with its Tibetan versIo n. It may be ass um· ed that the Vinaya texts of Sarvastiviida and Mlitasan'a sli ­v1l.da were not very different from each other. From the Mula­sa rvastivada text, it appears that the MUiasan'astividins also,

I. See Bodl,isat/va-prnllmoksa-sillfa, IDlto., f) . 3 (IHQ .. vB 2) 2. For further detail., $tt introduction to Ihe MUlasarvls tiv;]da-vin(lya,

(iI/gil Mss, vol. lit, pt. i i,

142 BUDDHIST SOOTS It> 11'>01.\

like the Lokottarvad ins, whose first ViMya text is the Mallii­vaslu introduced many episodes relating to the past and present Iiws ~f Guutama Buddha. T he chapteN of this Pitaka that have been published (Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. III) are as follows:-

i. Pravrajya-vastu (fragmentary) II. Po~adha-vastu (do) iii. Pra,-aral)a-vilStu (do) IV. Varsa-vastu (do) v. Car~a-yastu (including the Srol)u-Kotikaqla avadana)

VI. Ehai~ajya-vastu (also in fmgments) vii . Civara-vastu (complete)

viii. Ka!hina·,-as\u (do) ix. Kosambaka-va.t u (do) x. Kanllu-vastu (do)

xi. Pfl.l.l~ulohitaka-vastu (do) }Iii. Pudgala-vastu (do)

xiii. Parivasika-vastu (do) xiv. Po~adhasth;ipalla-vastu (do) xv. Oilier unidentified vaslus, in fragme nts, the last of

wh idl is Sarllghabhedaka-vastu.

Ahl:idlrarma

The Abhidharma literature of the Sarvastivadins is fairly ex­tensive. Apart from the well-known seven text" and the famou5 Vibhiisa sastrllS of the Vaibha~ikas. this schoo! had to its credit a fe""; other philo~ophica! works written by Vasubandhu, Sarpghabhadm, nharmatriita and Dharmottara. None of these valuable works are available in original Sanskrit except the Abhidharmako.ia. its bhihpa and vyiA.!Jya of Yasomitra. The Vyiikhyii is no doubt a mine of information and contains most of the philosorhical topics discusscd in the Abhidharma litera­ture of the Sarvastiva.dim. It may also be regarded as a qlJintes­sence of the ~even Abhidharma texts. For a general idea of the several t.exts at the present moment. we shall have to depend .on the valuable analysis of the Chinese translations of the texts made by Prof. Takakusu in the JPTS. 1904-05, and the notes given bll Prof. Louis de la Vallee Poussin in his introduction to the French translation of the Abhidharmakosa. With the publi-

DOCTRINES OF GROUP III SCHOOLS 143

-ca tion of the V),uk.hyJ it has become possible to comprehe nd the terms amlnomendatures suggested by Takakusu on th:; basis of the Chinese renderings and form a betler idea of the contents of the texts. Tile ~evcn texts claimed by the Sarviistiva.cins as (';o[lstituting their original Abhidharmapi~aka are a~ follows: 1-

(0 ltiiinaprasthilnusutra of Arya K5.tyayaoi·putra with its six supplements Va! pddii~), viz.

(ii) PrakarUf;apiida of Sthavira Vasumitra (iii) Viji:iinakiiya of Sthavira Devasarma (iv) Dharmaskandha of Arya Sariputra (v) PrajnaptiSiislra of Arya Maudgalya.yana

(vi) Dltiirukaya of Pilroa and (vii) Sangfli-paryaya of Mahakau~!hjla.

(i) The Jiiiinaprasihiina.siilra is attributed to Arya Kiitya· yal)iputra. In the Kosa it is stated that the actual author of the work was Buddha hut the arran gement of chapters and topic!; were made by Katyayaoiputra and so its aut horship is attrihuted to him. It was translated twice into Chinese, by Gotama Sarpghade~'a of Kashmir and Chu Fo-nien. in the 4th century A . D., and by Hiuen-tsang in the 7th century. It is divid­ed into eight sections. The fin;t section contains exposition of ](Jukikiigradlwrmas, jiiiina, pudgaia, sraddhii, ahrikalii. riipa and its lak.wua,anarthaka ( ?), and cairasika (= best mundane topics, I knowledge, individuality, faith and reverence, lack of modesty. material consti tuents of the body and thcir characteristics, anarthaka (1) and mental states). T he second section details the sUf]l)'ojal1as or defilements, which hinder the spiritual progress of an adept, and t he Causes of defilements. The third section is devoted to the acquisition of knowledge (jiiiina) (a) of doctrinal matters by which a seklta becomes an asekha. (b) of right and wrong views. (c) of the means of attaini ng six abhijiiiis, (d) of the four truths and of the acquisi tions to be made in t he four stages of sanctification. The fourth section details what may be called evil works and acts with their consequences and also

1. Koia,t,9&11. 2. Kola iFr. tr3ml.), ;"Iro., p. XKX. See Infra, p. \44.

144 RIIDIlH I~T ltEr:TS IN rNnT A

explains vijnapli and ari.f!iapti. 1 The firlh section gives an ex­position of n7paskalldha, i.e., the four con;titue nIS. and of those originating out of them. both internal and external. The si ~th section analyses the 22 illdriyas (predominant fac ult ies) a nd the three spheres of existence viz., kiima. flipii and arlipa, and ex. plains in detail the spars(mdl'iya, mula-Cflra, etc. The seven th sect ion is devoted to the mental s tates developed by an adept while he is in samiidlti, a nd grad ually advance; from Sakadag:i.rni to An:igami stage. The last. the eighth section explains the fou t smrlyupmfhiil/Qs, the va riolls wrong views, a nd similar other matters.

The alternative title of the JiiiinQ-prasrhiilla-sutra is A:!a­gram/la, as it contains eight chapters, rela ti ng to Loukikiigra. dhafl/ ;a ( = mind and mental states) which are considered to be the best of worldly (klima and riipa dllii/II) matters. It secms that this book correspond s to the DhommasoliJ?a~l i in Pali . It con ta ins eight chapters: These are :

(i) Laukiklixradharmo = the best world·condi tions; (ii) iliaI/o", = knowledge of the nature of all world ly

objects : (iii) Pudgaldb- of individuali ties: (iv) Sneno·gaural'ol/7 _ Sraddha _ Regard and firm faith

in the T riratna. Le .. Buddh a. Dharma and Sangha: (v) AhrlkYWIJ'" immodesty: (vi) I.ok.sa~lom=characteristics of the body. i.e .. Oilil)'lItii

( - impermanence, i.e .. bi rth. o ld age and death): (\'ii) Celanii . somceIaIlQ. odhiretollQ - idea, thinking. and

deep thinking : (\-iii) Anarthakam= Perhaps. it means "indifferent, i. e .,

nei ther ,Dod nor evi l "~

The second chapter deals with (i) Akllsala (evil actions and thoughts in general) ; (ii) SOl1lyojanulli =fe ttc rs of human life. The~e are the

~me as Sal1lJ'ojaniini in P:ili :

l. , .... u1<l . I. t l. ~. Th. abov. enun' ernlion II n,1 j,\lcrprcl:ol ion are b.ls<d on the Sl O>l.ti!

!r~nla l ion of lhc reJeV:lflI Chine-it , ..... ! by ~ri S,\nl i lIhiJ.:"! u or S:inli Ni lwan VJ~~ab!'t! ra l i.

DOCTRINES OF G ROUI' III SC HOOLS 145

(iii) Sahacariram - fette rs relat ing to the b~i ll~s uf tll!: thr!:e dhatus : K ama, RDpa a nd ArQpa;

(iv) Som'{J;r _ thc ways and methods Lo Ix: adupted by the denizens of the th ree Jhalus to geL rill of t[lI: JWI.yujwlIls (fet ters) ;

(v) DaJa DI'iJr{J~II .. it enumerates all Lhe r.;o llr.;C"i vau[e impurities of the denizens of the three uhatu~,

The rem lining six chapters have nut yet b~en publislted by Sa.nti Bhi k ~u Sast rr.

Dr. Ba rua m ggests that the work (Jifill;oprus/hiinu'!>'ulru) ilia)

be paralleled 10 the pali tex t Pali.!ombhidllmagga.1 T here may be a verbal resemblance between the two texts, bLit the Jfltinupra· whiina is written more on the lines of D"rJl111IJl/·sairga~l i th"'n on those of PO/isombhiddmoggo. The title a lso suggests thaL the work is expected to conta in topics leading to the highest knuw· ledge, which, in other words, is purity o r emunr.:i patio n.

The second book is entitled Prakaral)aptJda. Its LlLilhunhip is attributed to Sihavira Vasum itra, who. ar.;r.;on.!ing lu the Chinese tradition, composed it in a monastery at Puskalavati. It was translated illlO Chinese b y GUf,mbhad ra and Bodhiyasas of Central India (4JS·443 A. D.) and also by H i ue ll ·t~ang (659 A.D.) . The work is divided into e igh t chapters. The first ucfinc:> rllpa, citta, caitosikas, cittaripray uk los and asamskrtas' (material constituents, mind. menial states, non·mental sta tes, and the unconstltLited). The second deals with the sa me topics as those discussed in the last two chapters of the fourth section ur the Jiiulloprastllul;osiitra, The third ell-plains the sense~rgans a nd their spheres or action. while the fourt h defines severallt:rms, such as d/rrltu, i1ya rana, skandha, mahl1b1riimlka3 (cf. KUJ'a, II, 23; III, 32), etc, The fifth chapter analyses the cmu.}uyuJ· (dormant passions), v.hile the sill- th explains rijne)'o, unumeya and QnasrQrod/rarmas (th ings to be known, to be inferrw , and pure dha rmas). 1 he concluding chapter, the seventh, appea rs to be an rndex, containing all the technical terms with their mean­mgs rn short ,

1. Law, Hisrory 01 Piili Lil., I, p. 337. 2, See Infra, 3, Kda, ii, 61-6 2

14fi B U DDHIST SJ'CTS I " I N OlA

The third book, Vijiiiillo-kiiya is attributed to Devasarmii, who, according to Hiuen-tsang, compiled it at ViSoka neur Smvasti, a bout a century arrer Buddha's death. It was translat­ed into Chinese by Hiuen- tsang (649 A.D.). It is divided into silt chapters. It conta ins an exposition of pudglJ/o. il!driya, cilia, klda, rijiiiillo, etc. as given by Maudgalyaya na, enumerates the different classes of beings, persons, ctc., defines the function of menIal states as hew (cause) and ii/ambollO (basis) of spi ritual progress a nd also of mental states of a perfect (i .e., A rhat) and an imperfect adept,1 Prof. ?oussin remarks in his Etl/des Asiol!qlles, 1925 ( i. 343-76) that the first two chapters contain the controversies relating to the existence of past and futu re, and of plldgala (soul).:

The fourth book is en titled Dharma.!ko.'ldllO. Its authorship is attributed to Sariputra. It was translated into Chinese by Hiuen-tsa ng (659 A.D.), In the colophon of the Chinese tr~ll s­

lation t his text is described as "the most important of the Abhi­dharma works, and the fo untain-head of th e Sarvastivada system." This book, it seems, appealed to the Chinese not for its subtlety and depth of philosophical discussions as fo r it> com­prehensiveness outlining the general course of spiritual training prescribed for a Buddhist monk. This work can also be parallel­ed to t he Visllddhimagga of Buddhaghosa. Its 21 sections a re as follows: Sik$iipadas or ~i1os ; atiainmenH leading to Scota­patti ; development of faith in the Triratna ; the fruits of the four stages of sanctification, four iirya-pudfialas !amYak-sol11-kalpa of the eightfold pJ.th; :ntainment of rddhipiitJas; practice of smrIJUpasl!,iinas: exposition of the iiryasol),as; four dIU'iinus; four opromiiljo:>; four higher samiipallis (iirupyas). practice of Maranii; exposition of bodhyoligas, and then an exposition of indriyas, ii),QfOIIQS , skclldhas and dhiitlls. Its concluding chapter explai ns the twelve terms of the formula of causation (pra tEl yasa!1lut pada).

Th~ fifth book , Dhiitukaya, is attributed to PilrQa in the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, and to Vasumitra by the Chinese writers. Prof. Takakusu remarks that the original Sanskrit had

1. ~.:oJa, vii, 12. 2. cr. JlQJiJ (Trans]), ii, p. 150 fn. Sec lIi/ra.

l>OCTJtI NES OF OROUl' III SCHOOLS 147

probably more than one recension. It ~as translated l ~to Chinese hy Hiuen-tsang (663 A. D.). The object of the treatise is to ennmerate the dha rmas. considered as 'reats' by the Sarva­stiva tlins. The dharmas are classified under the heads: 10 mohiihhiimikas. 10 l:leia-mahiibhiimikas. 10 porittakleJas. 5 klesas, 'i drs/is. ctc. This classi fi cation differs sl:ghtly from that found in Pali texts and the AbludharmakoJa.1 Prof. La Vallee Poussin lh inks that this must be a "cry old text, which may be regarded ra'i the source of the Pali Dhalukathii a lso, as it discusses the wmpayutta and rippaYlitta rclations of the dharmas as has been d ene in the Dharukafha.

The sixth book Prajiiaptis(lstrd is attributed to Maudgalya­ya na. 11 was translated into Chinese at a very late date (1004-\055 A. D.) by Fa-nu (=Dharmapula) of Magadha . The Chi nese text is incomplete. In the Tibetan version this treatise is divided into three parts. viz .. /okaprajifapfi , k lirm.1apra;napli and karmaprajiiapli. The lokaprojliapfi appears in a well-di.e;e,ted form in the Abhidlwrmakosa (III). Prof. La Vallce p oussin has a nalysed the first two Praji'iap fis in the Co.fmolo~ie b()utfdhiqlle (pp . 275_350).2 In the lokaprajnapfj the cosmolo~ical ideas of the Buddhists are given. in the k iirOtlGprajliapli the character­is tics that make a Bodhisattva are discussed, while in the karma­praFlflpli there are enumeration and classification of differe nt kinds of deeds.

The seventh book SoiJgltiparyayo is at tr ibuted to Maha­b U$thila by Yasomitra and Bu-slon, and to Sa riput ra by the Chin~se wri ters. It was translated inio Chinese by Hiuen-tsan~ (660-663 A. n.). This text was compiled. according to the intro­ductory remarks, immediately after Buddha's death 10 avert disputes among the disciples regarding the Buddhist teachings and di~ciplinary rulei. The scene of this text is laid at P:IVii., where dissemions among the Niga(ltha Nataputtas started after the death of their teacher. It arranges the dr/armas, both doctri­nal and disciplinary. numerically in the Ekoltra style. i.e., grad­ually increasing the number of dharmas from one to tell. The content3 of this text agree to a lar~e extent with those of the SaiJglti and Dasuttara sIIlfontas2 of the Dlghanikciya.

t. 10;"" 1,,11'0. p. xxni; If. 2. Cf. Dasottara-iOtra in Al>hichQ'I>lQkok·~yiik">,1I (.lap. r<l.). 1" . ~()().

148 BUDDHIST SECTS IN II\'OIA

Be;ides these seven recognized texts of the Sarvastivadin Abhidharmapitaka, there \\-'ere a few other digests and commen­taries dealin g with the topics of the Abhidharma. The exhaustive commentary on the Jiiunapraslhiina-Sllfra was, of coune, t he Mahii l'ibhii$a, compiled, accord ing to Paramartha, by Klltya­yal)iputra himsel f with the a5sistance of ASvagho$a of saketa. Among the digests, the most important work is Vasubandhu's AMidhurmakosa, which has got a blrli,rya written by Vasubatldhu himself and a l'yiikhya wntten by YasomitTa. Then there are t\\O other texts, viz., Abhidharma-Il}'iiyal1usara and AbNdJrarma­

samoya-pradfpika, attributed to Sarnghabhadra. an opponent of Vasuhandhu. Sa Q1ghabhadra wrote these works to refute some of the the..es of Vasubandhu, especially ' hose which were in support of Sautrantika views. '

There was an ea rlier digest called th~ Abf!idharmaslira written b)' Dharmasri. It contained eight chapters, viz., dhiilU, SallIS· kiira, anuioya, iirya, Fiiina, sallliidhi, miscellaneous iiistrQl'arga or rada·varga.'

Among other works of note belonging to this school, we may mention Siiriplllriibliadharma, Abltidharmiimrtasiislra of Gho~a,

Abhidharmaltrdaya of Dharmottara and Lokaprajiiapti-abhi­dltarmaMislra of an unknown author.

Docrrilles

In the history of the secession of schools, it has been shown that the Sarvistividins belonged to the orthodox group, which is why there arc many points of agreement between the Thera_ vltdll and Sar'l:tstivilda doctrin~s.

I. Sabbam attlt;

The principal pomt of dIfference bet ..... een the two schools is that the Sarvastividim maintain the existence of 5 d/rarma.r in their subtlest states at all times, whether in the past, present or future, while th: Theravlidins deny any such existence. The fo rmer accept the fundamental creeds or Buddhism, viz., anauo and anicea orall worldly beings and objects, and their contention

J. For details sec La Vall~ Poussin's Intro, to the KoirJ. p. lAiii.

DOCTR1:>l~~ 01" GROUP Iii 3(lH OOUl 149

is that the b!ings and objroctsconslituted out oftbe dharmas at a particular time are mhje::t to disintegration but not the diwrmas themselves, which always exist in their subtlest states. Vedallc, for imtallc:e, may be kuSala. akuiala or avyiikrta at a particular tim"e and place bUI it exists at all times. l

The Karhiiva t1lIl.l (1.6) presents the ariuments and counter­arguments of the Sarvastivfldins and the Theravfldins th us: The Sar ... iistivildiM maintain that all dlzaramas exist but not always and everywhere and in the same form. In reply to tbe que~tion whether Ichandhas which are ail different by nature exist uncombined (ayngam), they answer in the negative. This, however, gives an opJlMtunity to the Theravadins to show the fallacy that if all exist then b9th micchiidiuhi and sammiiditthi shouldexi$t together. Then again by equating the past and the future with the present, the T heravadins show that if the past and the future exist then their roxistence should be predicated in the same way as of the presen t} which the S. deny, sayine: that the past and the fmure exist hilt not exactly in the same form as one would speak of the present .

The Th. have recourse to the second argument, saying that let the 'present material aggregate' (paccuppaJll1a·rupa) be treated as one inseparable object ; now, afler sometime bas elapsed, this material agE!regate becomes the Jla~t, i.e. gives up its presentness (paccuppan'nabhiiva), to which the S. agree; then in tbe same way can it be ~aid that the material aggregate also gives up its materiality (rupa-Mova) ? The S. drony the latter inferenoe, reasoning thus - let a piece of white cloth be regarded as one inseparable object; now, whron this cloth is coloured. it gives up its whiteness (like poccuppannahhiiva, as in the former case), but does it sive up ils dOlhness (like riipahlrlira as in the former case)? This disarms the opponents. T he Th., however, follow up this argument of the S. by stllJrihiklJJJaya (pure IOiie) saying that if the material aggregate (rupo) doe., not give up its materi· ality (rupabhlil'o)! then nipa becomes permanent. eternally existing

I. See Points of COnJrover~y, Appendix. pp. 37$-7. 2. Thi ~ UIUTllcnl is rep,;atcd will1 ciI.b of thc klu>ndhas. l. C),. rilpllkkhandhena sarpg~h;tau'.

150 II!;DDHI~T SECTS IN I NDIA

like nibbiinQ-a concl usion not accepted by the S., as according to the latter, rupabhiil'Q is different from nibbanabhal'a.

The next question put by the T h. is, whether the past (orlta) gives up its pastness (alilabhii.,o)? The S. answer in the negative hut tak(' ('are to note that wlten they say that altlabhiil'Q e.xists, they meall thaI ottiigatobhiil'O (futurity) and paccllPPoWliibhal'u (flre,entness) d o not exist like t he atflQbhfha, and sim ilarly when they p redicate c'( istence of Qlliigarablldva, they mcan atftabhiil'{l and [JIl('wpponflab/!ol'a do not exi st like oniigatabhiil'O. This general ~rrllement is then applied to each of the khandhas. The Th. rnund up t he discussion by their USU:l! juddhikanoYQ ,ayi n,!! that mila or atifabhdva would tben be the same as nibbiina or nibbana­Mii va, a conclusion rejected by the S. T he Th. then take to 1'(1N1nasodhana (clearing up of verb31 errors), saying that (i) if the ex i~tence of the past (alffa) and the non-past (nilt/ra) as also of the future (al/ligata) and the non. fut ure (110 clIldgata) is denied, then the S. should not say th at the past a nd the futuro exist: so also (ii) if they do not acce pt tile identity of atI/a, paccuppa,,"o

and aniiga/a,1 they can not say that a/Ita and aniigala eltigL

The DCl!.t argument of the Th. is that if the: S. admit that plIccllppanllOliil'lo (present cognition) exists and it ha5 the function of knowi ng things (pacclIpmmu111 liii(ICli!1 a ttlli, tena

nih/ma liiit;lakara'liya'll karoti) <lnd then why not should the atifoiiii(/Q und allaga:aiiiilJo, the e:l!.istence of ..... hich is affirmed by the S. , hovc the function of knowing past a nd future things in enalogy to that of puccuppattlla·iiillla'l' The T h. consider this as i!logical £lDd reject the contcntion of the S. that a(ltal.lI 1;11(10111

alth;.

T he Th. now take up the insml'ces of Arhats, Am'lgami s, etc., <lnd show thnt according to the S.'s sta tement that otlta rllga

el!.ists in an Arhat, that arrta byapiJda exists in an Anag!lmi, and so forth , an Arhat should be sorl1ga, an Anagami should be

I. By hav/Oitrecoursc to the discussion wheth¢r Rulra /rot;. hull'a hotfl; and ~a hulra nu hoti, I/O h~/vii /til hOlft;, the Th. shoo\' logie1l11y the umen­ability of this assertion of the:S. (K"/I. p. t 25) ..

2. In the lext, this arSumcn! i. clabol'il1ed by tile aplIJi~iltivu uf Ihis general nalemtnt 10 each of the strue-orila'llI (paras 21-28) as al60 to hal/Ira

pcida, I1tlbbo, kayo. iVo. rejo and ,aYII (paras 47-4:1).

OOCTIUNES OF GROUP III SCHOOLS 151

bylJpannQ-Cirra, and so on, but this inference is no t accepted by the S.

The last argumen t resorted to by t he Th . is Ihat if the existem:e of cmo, paccuppunllo and al/agota khandhas, dhtJtl/$, 11}'atanas be admitted, then the S. sho uld say that there are (3 x 5) or 15 khandha:., (3 x 18) or 54 dhal us, (3 x 12) o r 36 ayatanas. ""hidl the: S. reje(.;l saying lhat they ma y accept t he posi ti lJ n that atflu

or {miig(Jfa el!.isls from IJm: st.a ndpoint and d oes not exist fwm another standpoint (arth! ~'i)'(l alUa'll or slylJ I/a at/tal!! ur nu andgalul/ tl). The T h. lhen bring in their slIddlrrkonaya by dting the imtan(.;c uf nlbblJna and e:itablish the fut ility of the asser tiolJ uf tht: S. thal lhe past and the futu re exist. 8 0th the Th . and S. then 4uO\c passages frum the SUlla Pi!aka in ~upport of thei r tVll lefltiuus, one however remaining unconvinced by the other. The following may be taken as lhe opinion of the S.

I . The past ami the future, as usually understood, do not el!.ist though Lhey a re p<!rceptible in the present.! In the sa me sen e, the lIon-past·future should also be taken as non-existent.

2. II is bhlJI'a of each of the five khandhas, and not lhe khandhas. lhat persists in the past, present and future.

3. An object (I'asfu) may lose its pasme;s, presentnesi, or fLiturity but not its object ness (vaSrUll'O) , but that objenness is flot iutntica! with nibblJna or nlbblJllabMI'o.

4 . An Arhat, e.g., has allra rlJga but he is not therefore to be n:gardeu as ·sariigo'.'

The S. admit impermanence (anilyata) of the constItuents but t hey contend that the "dharmas" (or bhavas) of the past are transmi tted into the present and likewise the "dharmas" of the future are latent in the presen t. This we may illustrate, bycitlOg the eX:l.mple of a sweet mango - the past mango seed transmits into the present its 'mangoness', if not the 'sweetness'; and, similarly, t he 'future mango' receive~ its 'mangoness' from the present : the mango seed can never produce any o ther frUit though there may be a change in the quali ty, shape and colou r

I. E,g. ollliga:mr/ hu/l'u paCCI<PpoIIIIQI/I !tori but (lliniata is not identkal with II(lCCUppmllla in the ordinar)' !tnse, though in paCClippanlla there is (the dllarma of) Qllitgata so in t~at sense pacClJppmllia i~ ar.iig{[w.

2. cr. the views or Sait~ sehoot~ re , ClIIIlJU)'a, pp. Solr., 1 2~lr,

152 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

of the mango. The S. speak of a being in the same way. According to them, a being is composed offi'le dharmas (not five khandhas), viz" (i) citta (mind), (ii) cai/osika (menial statts). (iii) repa (matter), (iv) l,j!iI1'7lprayukta-sQTf/SkllrtJs { Hates imkpeu. dent of the mind),1 and (V) asaquk!tas (the uncomtituled).~ Tilt:

1. In Vuurr-itra this appears also as a separate opinion of the S.; The phmomcna j;({, iura, Jlhill. QllifyutlJ are citla->lsampray"'rllf bul i"cluded in MJIf',skiiraskatldlw. One o f these four items, viz., jara \S d iscl'&se:i in I~ i'YU (VII . 8) under the topk "jarnmamnarp yjpH:o ti" an npinion orthe Andha. kas, the K~· •. , supportioK the OPpOsite "icYi that "jarlmaranalll" is nOI l'jpQka.

2. These five are sub-divided into sevc:1ty·five thus : I . ROpa ( 1): (a) Y/IOya (!i) (tI) fndriy>l (f) (c) aVI/ilapll el)

(i) IOpa (i) Co!klurindriya (i i) bbda (ii) jrotrendriya

(lii) lI:andha {iii, Ahrioonddya (iv) rasa (iv) jihvendriya (v) sparia (v) klyendri~a

II. Citta (\) III , Caitasihs (46) ;

(a) MilMb/tiinili.a (10)

{sarvQCiun-bhpvptvat, kia, II, p. 42) (i) vechmA (vi) mati or prajiti

Iii) sarnjiii (vii) smrti (iii) celan i (viii) manaskilira (iv) sparia (ix) adhimo l.:~ (v) chanda (x) sam60Jhi

(6) KuJulatr.QlWh/rimlka (10) (i) jraddbll. <vi) alobha

(ii) vll')'a (vii) adveia (iii) upelqi (vii i) ail irpsa (iv) hrf (ix) pra! rabdhi (v) apatriipya (A) apramada

(c) KltJa-ma/rdbhflmlka (6) (d) Ak"sala-maNibMimika (2)

(.J

(il moha (i) ah-lkMli (ii) pramida (ii) anapatripya

(iii) klusidya (iv) asAddh)'a (v) slyAna

{vi) auddhaly"

Upakfda-bMim(ka (10) (i) krodbn

( ii) rnralqa (iii) militsarya

(I) Am;''U/,,-bl"'mili.u (8) (i) ka.lkrtya (ii ) middha (iii) vitarlca

DOCTRlNl!:S 0.1' GROUr In M:U OOUI 153

five dharmas (not elements liS usually understood) persisl in a being, the present being the re.mltll nt of the past. and potential of the future. An adept affrr hecoming a so/lipanI/O remains so in his following existence, prO'Jing thereby that his past dharmas continue and the th ree sU'!'} '(ljana.f' remain ineffective. It may be argued by the Th. th:H the: three sal]l}YJjanas have altogether disappeared; then the Sllrvastiv.idins may cite the instance of Sakad:igamin as a ~lter iIIu<;tralion. A Sakad:igamin reduces raga, dom and maIm to the: minimum, and in hi. following births that stale continues, provine the continuity of past 'dharmas'. Now we may pass on to the case of the Arhats. The Arhals. it will be seen, become complelely free fro m rliga, OOsa a nd moflo, but according to the Th ., these nre destroyed for ever. but according to the 5., these rnga, nOl a and moha persist though in an ineffective form, and these may reappear and cause an Arhat fall from Arhathood- a topic discus!.ed in the Kvu. (I. 2) and attributed by Buddhagho~ to the S., viz., Pariha)'ati arahii arahattii Ii '}1

IV.

( iv) Ir~y! (v) prada&!

(.i) vihirp.\.l

(vii) up,iu!1ba

(viii) m!y;l (ix) l4thya (x) mada

Citla-viprayuk.ta (14): (i) pn1pti

(ii) aprapti (Iii) sabhd8'114 (iv) asarnjililcA tv) ll5amjili-samipalti

(yi) nirodhl-samipaui (\'ii) jivita

(iv) vicAra (v) r8ia

(vi) pmtigha (vii) ml\na

(viii) vicikitsl

('1m) jAli (IA) uhit; ~I<) jari

(x i) anityat;l (xii) mimakaya

(I\~ i) padakiliya (xiv) vyalljana-UYl

V. Asarnskrll (3): (i) Akiia {II} praltsaq1khyl-nirodha

( lii) apral~rnkh)A-nirodha.

See Rosel\berg, Di4 prob/tlm# d~r buddhi~'isch .. 1'! phi!{ ... npM,. RAiluta ~nl<tty:lyana. AhhidhQrrr.a-Iwia. Table lIt.

I. Yi~., SIlkkiiYildif/hii silobtm/o/xmimtlJD. vicikic;M . 2. For its eAposilion, see ante, p. 101.

pp. 128-9.

154 DUDDHIS"[ SECn IN l1iO ' ....

In Karit-as 25-7 o f the firth Kosasthana of the Abhidlwf­makosa,' there is a detailed exposition of the main thesis of the Sarvastiviidi ns, viz. , Sarram asti. The contention of the S. that the dharmas exist in the pa st, present and futu re rests o n certai n statements found in the :\gamas, one of which is as follows:

" Qllf'@Qdl<l''l '1 ' 'IC1't 1 IF: ~: ~~ , ~ ~ \llq rillq<tiI S~H\, ~s;:rq.eft ~ I -qifFT8 ~ ;nf'll'f<mr I *Il ~q'll~ ""'" ",1« mm. f.""", . ... . , .,m, I •

{R6pa (material constituen lsof a being) , whether pu t or future is impermanent, not to speak of the present . A len rn ed Sran ka. who realizes this, remains unconcerned with the past nipa. does nOI rejoice at his future Tiipa a nd e)terls to rid his min d of the present rupaj.2

O n the authority o r this statement taken literally (kamha!ah). the S. contend that if the past rupa does not e'(isl, there was no necessity of instructing an adept to re main unco ncerned with the same. In the same way, it may be sad of the futu re and the pres~nt. s

The same statement when interpreted (arthata~ ) yield s a fu rther argument, viz., every I'l'j,ifjlla (perception , cognition) requires the combination of two things, the sense-or~an and its object. Now, one speaks of manol'ijli(i.'la (mental perception, cognition) of past acts or things. This a lso im pl ies the existence of past acts Qf objects. otherwise bow could there be mono· viPilina of the same. The same argument is appl icable to future acts or objects.'

Then agai n, if there be no past, how can one speak of a n effcct due to past good o r bad deeds . At the mome nt when the effect is produced there is the I'ipiika·helu, which is past.s

For t h~ reasons sta ted a bove the S. affi rm the existence of

I . Sell StcherbatskY. CelU/Ol Conccplirm rJj R~rlrll"'s"" App<'ndix, pp. 7&91: La V2l1ee Poussin's Fr. trans!. of Koic. V. 2S-27; R:1hula 5Mkri· ly:lY3n3 Abhidh(mn'*oJa.

Theexpositioo given in the Kathiil'utlhll sDCaks of "hlrii";;,,)·r.rf,,",,," or Uharmll{rUa.

2. C f. /II. Vr., p. 444; Bhudd~k"mtta·~\ltta in j\luJJhima. iii. p. tn: Atitam n'\n~gnmeyya. napp.a.!ikat'tkhe anagatam. Yad a:ltnrp pahi:latTt tarn, ap!:lIt1an ea an li.gatarn, t'3<:cuppann:1111 ell yo dhllmmlllJl 'altha la"ha Vt)M~~tl As.uJlhJr~1l1 asal)lktlpparn tMp victvll m!nubrOha)'e.

j. Koia·.ydkhyli (Jap. ed.), p. 468. 4 Ihid., p. 469. S. Ibid., P 469.

OOCT RI!'.'ES OF GROUP III SCnOOLS 155

pust and future of drav)'os oll ly, a nd not of bhilva, 'ok,olJo or

Qlo.uha. The Sarviistivudu cxponents, however. differed a mong them·

5e!l'c5 and interpreted the e;o;is tence of bei ngs and o':>jects in the past, presc nt and fUlUre in d ivers~ wa~s, thus: .

(i) DharnlEltri:itn states that the objects rema.1n t.he same and undcrgo only modal t,;hanges (bltiil'{inyarhiitl'c), I.e. In form and quality, giving rise to difJeren t notions, such as. past, preseat and fulure . A .thing originates when il lake> new modes or fo~m ~nd qU:llity nnd is destroyed when it abandons them. He cttes t.~: insta nce of gold and ornaments m:tde out of It , as also of m.' and curd, poin ting out that the gold and thc substance of mIlk remain the same, though hoth undergo cha nges in fo rm and quality by the addit ion or subt raction of somet hing else. The mod:11 ehangcs nre described as past, prescnt and future, deca} and ori~i n , and 50 forth . A certlin object gives up it~ f~llI re mede- or fo rm a nd quality and reache~ the pre;ent moOe. Slmlla rl.~ it ubandons its pre9Cnl mode a nd a ltains the past mode .. 1f It not be so, the future, prc~cnt and past objects would be e ntucly

diffcrcnt from onc anot her. Vambandhu has criticizcd this view (IS similar to the SaIflkhya

doctrine of cvolution (pari1Iiima), admitti ng, however, the fur.damcntal di ffc rencc bclwe;;n Surpkhya and Dharmatrat~'s view that t;"c former uphold s I.he existence of an eternal real, ty (prak(ti) while Dha rmatrutu adhercs to the impermanent nature of worldly objccts.

(ii) Gho~akll states that C\'ery phenomena l object ha~ th~ee characteristics, viz" birth. old agc und dcath, and these eXist with the object at all times. When a baby is born, milk is drawn from the udder, or Ii gold ornamcnt is made. it earrieswithit the ~t~er two characterist ics, viz., old uSc nod deat h, which were extSllllS In the baby, in mi lk or in gold ornument in \l. lateat fo rm.

The presentness (prat),ulpanlla) is distinguished by Gho.'!3ku as actual usc or applic:ltion (samudiidira) while the other two, the past and the future , arc distinguished as attainable (priip!i). The inception of an object is called bi rt h or present, while the other two, (lId ugc and del th, which wiJ1 be fort hcoming, are fuwre. When the baby grows old, or mi lk t urns into curd, o r the gold ornament is worn out, its old ag~ becomes pr~sent while its

156 HU1JUHl~"'T Sta; . s IN INDIA

inception become;; past and its ultimate decay future. By this argument, Gho iuka established change in characleristiC5 (Ink,wlJiinyathiitva). Dharmatriita deals with the object and its form and quality (draJ 'ya and bhiil·a) separately, while Gho~aka takes Ihe two as inseparable. Gho~aka argues that if the three characteristics (lQk,a~las)

do not exist together and be completely separated (l'i)'l4ktol11

Jyat). then present cannot become past nor future ron become present, and so he concludes that the three time-characteristics exist together. He gives the following illustration: Suppose D.

man is attached to a woman; he is not ihereby whoU;-, del(lch~d

from other women. The attachmcnl is distinguished by him f\S actua l application (samlJdiiciira) a nd the po~sibili ty of his ultach­ment to other women as attainability (priipti).1

Vasuhandhu criticizes the above view as u cross-mixture or blending of time (ad/i),Qsal'(lkara) . He contcnds that a past object or characteristic should not be regarded as possessing the ehu ra­cteristies of present and future . In other words, Gho~ka attri­buted three time-characteristics to onc object, which is illogical, because one object c;tn hove onc time-characteristic.

Again, in the casc of living beings (sattl"iikhya), the question of attainability (priipli) may arise but it is Dot applicable to material obj:eB (asarrriikbya), as a pitcher docs n ot take up its hordness.

(iii) Vasumitra (1st century A.D.). author of Pariprcchii. Paiical'aslUka and other trealises,2 states that obiects exist at all the three times: past, present a nd (uture, and do not undergo any change either in substance or in their form and quali ty or in their chara~terislics us contended by Dharmatrata and Gho~aka.' He holds that it is the activity or function (kiiritra) that determines the pastoesi, presentness and futurity of en object (arasIJuinyathiitl'a). When activi ty is taking place. e.g., when eyes function and see an object as it is in substance. 1Il

1. KV-Ju-v}<lkhyu (Jap. cd.), p. 470. 2. Thi$, according to Fa-pao, is the opinion of Sa1T1&hnbhlldra.

Accordin(t to P'ou-kcun, this opinion is also cxpressed in the V;blrr;,ii . cr. KoJarydkh)a, p. 470.

J . AbhidhQrmakoJa (lap. cd.), p. 167.

OOCTRI~'ES Of GROUP III SCHOOLS 157

form and quality or in charll:teristics, it is called present: like­wise, when the activity cccse5, i.e., when eyes hm'e eompbted seeing an object, the object is regarded as past. Similarly, when the: act ivity will takc plnec with regard to Ilny object, the object is described IlS future. In other words. in all objccts, nil thetlm::e time-factors arc co-cxistent, und it is the activity or function thnt determilles the timc or nature of a n object (adllJ"iina& karit~c1Ja

I')"a l·astlli'ii~). Had there been no co-existence of the time-ructon, thc past and the future would be non-existent like the horns of a hare. Pastne!t'> or futurity , according to Vasumitrn. is neither a n error nor absolutely no n-existen!. Hence, all phenomenal ob­jects exist in the past, p resent and future. He cites the instllnee of a cipher and its position in a mathematical figure. Just as a cipher placed before the figure I has no value, and when placed arter the figure 1, it carries the value of 10, so also an object by its activity i~ determined us past, present and future.

Of the three interpretations stated above, Vasubandhu gives preference to Vasumilra's view, but criticises it also as faulty. Vasubandhu argu::s that , according to the doctrine of "all c.1.is ts", "Aiirilra" should also be existent along with the object at a ll l imes, for it is not l>eparable from the object. Being an i ll~ parable prup.::rty, kiiritra should not be distinguished as past, pre :>O:lIt and fulun::. Kiirifru , again, cannot be different fWIIl an obje~t (dhurmu), fur ao.:uruing to the Sarva5tivauills, there IS

IlvLhillg: l~siue dhurmu. Again, if kiirilru be identical with the objl..'l:t, it l:anllut be tIle uetermillant ur pastness, plcseut ne~s

aud futurity. Vasubandhu doe~ nut support 1111': Sarvilstivilua view whole­

heartedly. He lakes here the Sliutrantila vit:w ill his l:rilidSIil or Vasulillt rO!.

(iv) T hen:: is a fourth view e'tp res~tI by Butldhadcva, who is mentioned in an inSl:ription (see above, p. 132.). He )ll1leS that the phenomt:naL objccts e:o:ist a t all Limes; they arc 1.I!:llott:tI a.s P<ist, prest:llt u r future relatively (an)"athiinYOlhIkufI"u). Like Vasumilra, he dues nul agree wiLh the contentiun uf Dharma­Intta. 11m! Gllll~akll thaI ubjt:l:IS ulIlkrgu dlallge ill fu rm anu yuali ty ur in time-chal actt:ristics. He say) that an U\)jL'Ct remaius the salJlt: at all times, but it i) denoted a~ futule with reference tu it) t:xi~lellee in the past and present, likewise the present is

1.:>8 DUDDIIIST SECTS 1:'11 INDIA

denOlcd with refcrence to ils existence in t he prescnt and fu ture. The usc of past, present a nd future d~pends on the relotive cxistcnc: of an object. He cites the instJ.nce of a womon who is deSCribed both as a daughter a nd mother with reference to her fat l'cr lind son , Buddhadeva contends that while I.1vcry objei.:t possesses a11 the Ihree time-factors at the sa me time. only om,' time-factor is pointeJ out in rehtion to another. It is some­thtng li ke sa yi ng tha t a certain objcct is curd in its presentn!ss, m ilk in its pa5tness and crea m in its futuri ty. An objed, the onterio r exist('nc~ of which is known and not its posterior, is denoted as future; again :111 object, the anterior and posterior cllistenccs of which are known, is deno ted a s present .. then, ag.'lin, an object, the posterior e:<istcuce of which is known and no t it9 anterior, is denoted us past. In this manner, Buddhadev.l esta­bl ished th e exist('llce of an object at all times (trdciita-sat ).l

Vasuba ndhu cri ticizes this view, saying that, according to Buddhadeva, three time-f:tctors become one «('/:asmim el'{ulhvmzi Irayo priipllllI'Gmi), which is un tenable.

II. Mairrl (ami ty) and KarUi.lii (compassion)

T he S. in consonance with the T h. regard Huddha as a human being but they attribute to him divine, sometimes :>upcrdivi ne, powers. T hey look upon the Bodhi~It'vas as prtllllljjullC!i who must destroy the worldly fellers like an average adept In o rder to Slep in lo the som.vaknoll),oma or soliipanllal:ood.

'\ccording to the $ .. "scntient con~c ious beings are not Objects of mailr' and karll~rii and so fo rth 011 the part of the Budd ha," anj , further , "if anyone adheres to the "iew that there are scn­t ient beings he canno t realize emancipation."

The firs t opinio n is opposed in the K1'1I. (X VIII. 3 NoW' i BlIddhaSfl BlragaralO karu!,,} til on the ground that t he Buddha is described. in the texIS as 'k:lrulJiko' and that he sometImes enters Imo mahI7karll~'lJsamll,)a:ti and so he has karl/llii for senti­ent beings.: In the pal i texB, the practice of fo ur bralll1111vi/ulrlIs,

malIrf. karu~lll. 1I1t/dili1 a nd upekFJ. form an essenllal part of the T herav;1d a code or spiri tual practice. It is by meJns of

I. Koi,, - ,yii~"}lj. (JUIJI;U.), 470-71. 2. A Il lhcic vi" ... , haw been discus,cd earlier, See pp. 7Jf. above.

DOCTRINE5 O F GROUI' il l SC I!OOL~ 159

brahm(Hihiirns thll t a n ;)dept IS able to ;oolc upon all being> as nne :mrl l hc same. Tn other w(lrds . he develops samatiijliiilfa.

Regardin g the second olpinion, Ihe S. "Ia le only th~ axiomatic truth tha t in Buddha', eye, no illll iv,dllal being;, exi.( and as such they cannot b::: the oh .. ect 0 " hi" I'lflllr' :lnd :((Ir1I~l(i.

There are th ree OIher views relat ing to RudJhn's teachings, which are o pposcd to th ose of the Mah :'i~: u"ehikas' bu t a re in keeping with the huma n concept ion o f Rllrldh:l Tl(>,;e :lre :

(i) The Buddhas cannot expound all clOClr i n ('.~ \~ i th a si ngle utterance.

(i i) The world-honoured One utters W01'd ~ whic h arc not always in conform ity ",ilh the Iruth.

(iii) T he si. tras celivered by Buddh a h.we lIil ii l'lfl(l.~ :lnd there are even mnle alli((ir rha-.~Iitrn.t,

II I. Arlwt.I'

Accord ing to the Sarvastivftdills, Vasu mitra sa}s: (i) A srotHipanna has no chance of re t ro.~rcss i ol1 while an

arhat has. (i i) All arhat,> do lIot gain mlutfJiida~iliii.IIi'. (iii) An arhat is governed by pralflya.oIl1UfJ)(idiiliga (l imb$ of

the causal law). ( iv) Certain arhats perform merito rious eeeds. (v) Arhats are not free from the influence of thei r past

karma. ('vi) Arhats gain nai)·usoik!u- lliisaikia_lfj(j'Ia.

(vii) Arhats gain the four fundamen tal dhya nas : they cu t;not realize the fruits of dhyanas.

The first op inion that arhalS may have re t ro~rcssion is [he same as that of theMahasaaghikas and t heir sub-sects (discussed above, p. 23f., 82L 106f.). The S .• hke the M .. as~ume the exist­ence of two claisc, of arhats with d ifferent degrees of ultJ.in­ments.3 Accord ing to the S., all arhUIS a re not completely

1. AU tbex views ha~e ~Il ui~",u5scd earlier, see pp. 73f at-ove. 2. The word Ililiiffha mCa/lS 'Iileral nr di -e.:1 me:lninB' and dvet nol

convey lhe real J n~ inferred scnse: as the m~ypirl~a doei. 3. SC~ K(>Sa, VI. 64 : The Ulllluy"lobhaguvimu!ll'U!ha IS lealise niro­

dhlsanllipaui and remove bOlh kleMvaraca (nbstacJe or p., .. iom) lind vimo_ k~~varilOu (obstacle to the knowledge of ckurm(m),orll of IlUma aod II/PC) while the Pnjn<l.virnukta ·urhllts _..., tho~e wt,v ",,"ove only kteUvara(ll by means ofprajiia. For the six kinds ofarhau. see KI)$a. vi. .5~1T.

160 BUDDl-IIST 9~CT3 IN I:-;'OlA.

perfect - an opinio n not accepted by the Therilvlidin<:, though the latter have no objection whHevef to distinglli~hing arhal~ as Sa( _ svo).dhammakusa/a and Pflra-dlwmmaku,~nla. It;s interest . ing to find this opinion discussed also in the Milindapafiha.1

where it is said that there are arhats who may 1101 be aware of the name and gotra of any and every person, the various roads and so forth, but there may b~ some conven;:ant with the l'imutris. 2

The second opinion reiterates the first in another form . The S. hold that some and not all arhats gain the anurpiidajlifillG (lit. knowledge of tbe ceSial ion of rebirth), but all may have k iaya­j li iillU (lit. knowledge of the extinction of HI! imrmrities in one­$elf). The M. assert that only Buddhas and not Arhal~ can have both k royajiiiina and omttpiidajlirma. 3

Regarding the third opi nion, Mr. Masuda on the b:lSis of Shu-chi says that of the twelve items of the causal law, four, viol ., nful1arupa, ~a~a)"atllnn, phussa and ved:l!",ii. - (or, according tu .1Ilother inte rp retation, on ly vedanii) remain aeti\'e in the ca,e o f aillaLs, the other items, i.e .. Q\'ijjii, sarpkhiirii., tal)ha, upii.:Hi.na bhuva , jiili, and jara-marar:m, becoming ine:fective. The Chinese interpretaLion can be accepted only if ' vedana' is limited to ' 3dukkha-asukha-ycdana' , for an arhat is c"a!upi!kk"o~ (endow­ed with im.lifference to the sill. imJriyas, i.e., the org:lns of sense) come intu l;(lntact with the respective objects of the sense organs which do not evoke an y feeling, good or bad, in him.

The ruurtli opinion speaks of pw"iiiopacaya of an Arhat. The Th. and Mabisasakas reject it, so also do the Mah:.isanghikas. 5

The A rhats aTe said to have done all that is to be done (kara­karn1ya) and are beyond merit and dcmcrit, good or bad; hence to speak of sUllie of them as collccting merits shows th3t the

I. Mifilldapanna, p . 267: AYi~yo rnlMrl!.ja ekaccassa arahalo sabbaljl ·l!.n iluljl na hi lassu balarp auhi sabblll1 j~ nitull1. Cr. Kvu. , II, 2 above p.SH. J 2. The five vinlll.tlis are-{ \) la:1atlg8"!mun i or vippaS>llnl:i'ii (la all<\in:d b )' removing th: ",isconcc i>tion~ (If nieCl! , nim ill~ eu.:.,. (2) v,kkhambh~r. l­vimulti or pnccnvckkhn(la_i\l(1l, ( 3) SlmllcchedavLmutll or mag~a-:\3.(la . (4) pR!ir.madhivimuni or phaia-M"Il, and (~) nissaral).avlmulli.

3. See above, p. 82f. 4. Drg~<l, iii, p. 245; M ajjllima, 1, p. 219; Kvu., p 2!!O. S. Muhhima, II, p. lU~ .

OOCTRI!"ES OF GROUP III SCHOO!.S 161

S. , lilt: lhe Andhalas, do not look upon all arhats as complctely pt:rrc:ct.

The fi fth opinion that arhats are subject to the influence of past karma is perhaps based upon some instilnces fOllnd in the Pitakan stor ies that Arhats like Ailgulimu!e llnd Mahumogga­llana' :Suffered pain on account of their Plst karma.~

In the sixth opinion, the word lIahasaiki a-niisaikfa, as trans­lated by Mr. Masuda, appears to be ambiguow;,~ Dnd preference should be given to the meaning " nirval."lll" as assigned to it by the Afaltiivyulpalti. The sense would then be that, according to the S., some, and not all, arhats attain Nirvul)D (full emancipa­tion).

The seventh opinion has not been taken up for discussio n in the Kvu. The Kosa (,·iii. 6) tells us that there are eight funda­mental dhyiinas (mau.lo-sa'/Iiipauj-dravyiil;li) i.e., fou r dhyiillas and fo ur iirupyas (higher dhy.inas). T he contention of the S, is that all a rllals complete the four dhyana~ but all do not neces­sari ly altaiD the fruits of the four dhyanas,' which are detailed in the Kusa (vi ii. 27-28), thus : by the fi rst dhyanll., o ne obtains dr,!u-dltarma-sukhol"ihiira,5 by the second jiiiillo-darSana (or dhya-cak3ul"a!Jliijriii),' by the third praj/iii-prablleda,' and by the fo ur th aruirral"alii.·

IY. SamyakII'Wlyama' (destined to attain nirva-;I!!.) Vasumitra attributes the following opinions to t he

Sarv;\stivadins :-

I. Mtltndapaiiha, p. ISS. 2. Mi/ind.:lp.:.iiha, p. 134 ; Nil hi m::r.ltarlja $abbantam Widayitam kam_

mamnlakllffl . See IOt<o K VII., vii i, ktmmahetu arahan! pariM\'atlt i? 3. "For arhals lhere are things which are no longer 10 be learnt and

things which are slilllO ~ learnt." Asia Major, p. 49. 4. Dig/w iii. 222; A:;"., ii. 4 : Alth' ifUSO samidhLbhlyana bhlvJt\

bahultkata dlntudhammasukhavlhll.rllya hlfl\"atbti iiiiQadassaJlapal ii &l.Iilillya ,o.'iHmpajai'Laa~a &sav&nnlfl khny6ya s::r.m~aUa li.

'i. IiI . enjoyme~1 of h1.["Ii\in~~ in the i\re!l<:Dt booy (pa!i: d illhadhamm.:L­sukhaYiharn).

6. til. Insight Into lhe real slat~ of IhinSl i.c. r,,~e from any "Ikulpu. ( ­PAli : i'iA(lad/lso;ana).

7. iiI. special or detail!d knowleuge of the things of the world- the corresponding Pal, e)(pressio~ is palis:lmbhid1.

8. lit. puri1Y (PlIli : AuvAnalll khaya). 9. For references sec Kola, vJ, p. ISJ f".

162 BUDDHIST SECT, I:" Il\DlA

( i) A perso n call acqui re sOlllyakll'Gnyama through thc m~di­

lalion 01" slillya!ii Jnd GIWu!lihira/(l; a person in .mm)'akrl'a­/I )'{//lla IS called pmtipmlllaku u p to the firtetnth (o r th~ last) momcDt o f thc tfarianumarga. In the sixteenth moment he is called plioia!llIo when he is in blul1'OIU1-

I1ltirga.

ti i) A person can acquire sOI/l)'ukrruJlyiill'u and can also gain arhnthoou independently- of the four dhyiinas,

(iii) A being (in RiipCl or Arupa dhatu) can gain arh;!thood but not .mm"okll'on)'lima. it is only when he is in Kama· dhii tu thll t he cun have sl1l11),akl1'(;lI),iimo as also (Irhll ihood.

Alli:d to the ubove three, there are two other views attributed t o Ihe S .• viz. ,

(iv) The re are certain devas who leact a holy li re.

(v) There is no one who is rree fro m pa~siu;l ill t li~ Uttara· kuru. No saint is born there or ill the Asun!ii-suflruloku.

The fi rs t three views raise the question of 5am}'akl~anyiima, i .e., of persons who are desti ned to attain Ni rvaJ)a, and have no ehn nce or being divcned from the Aryan path and going to lower states or joining heretical sects, A n adept III sall/yuklm· " yiilllll is the same as sotiipaflimaggapa(ipanna, i.e., one after destroying Ihe three SQmyojiJllas (i mpurities). viz., sakkiiyadi!lhi (belief in a self). slfabbataporiimiisa (belief in the efficacy or fit\lal~) and l'lcikicclui (lack of (aith in the Triratna) is on the w:.y to .mriipallipliaia. According to the scheme of the S .. an Ad ept remai n:; srolrip(JIliphaia-pralipannaka for the first fiftee n m(lm:!nr~, i e., up to tile d~velopm~nt or marge anl'ayajliii .w· k.fiillfi,l when he completes the dllr~:Qllamarga: from the 16th moment he is in .~rorapa((iphalastfJa o r sroliipolUlO.

Tile li r~t opinion raises the question wh.:thcr onc enn become a SWliipuuiphula-pl'atipallllaka by the medi latie n of sunyatii

(i.e. tllllillllotii) and apraf!ifiilo/(i (Le, (ItJ{!J:lwtii) and anitymii1

1. Sec il1fra. 2. cr. Asia MQ)(Jr, II. p. 40, n. Y.

DOCTRINES OF GROt:1' HI SCHoOLS ! 63

nnd not oi ullimit(otil;' the answer given by thc S. is in the affirmative.

The second deals with the problem wh:ther sO'II),ukll'UlI),i.1l1U

rollowed by nrhalhood ca n be attained witho ut the prac! i c~ or the rour dhyimtlS, the S. asserting tha t 11 is po~sibk tu attain arhathood by means of certain practices Other than thuse ncccsS:l ry lor dhyan<ls, e. g., by means of slll,rlyupuHhiinm' or bralzmol'ihara,T and so forth.

The third is concerned with the problem: whether gods in the Rupa or ArOpadh<1tu can gain samyakll'wl)'lima as also arhat­huod. The S. hold [hat the) can attain the laller but not the fo r. nlt'r, <IS it can only be attained by a bemg while in tho! Kama­dhiitu, This problem is discus~ed in Ihe XI'II . (1.3): Na11/tidelesu bralllllflcari),iiraso II 1- an opinion held by the Sammitivas. The opinion orthe S. is upheld oy the T h . In the KI,It . it is·eontend. ed t~I:I( :brahma-cariyavasa' docs not mean merely pravrajya (ordlnatron), mUl.l~iyarn (shave n·headedncss) and so forth as held b)' the Sammi liyas, but <I lso includes ' maggabhavana.' The Th . and S. hold that the Anagamis do not come to the Karnadhatu but they remain in Riipa o r Arupadh:itu and by maggabJ/iivrlllii Ihere, they become Arhnts, without becoming a .1'011!)'ok Il'Qnyal/la.

The fourth opinion of the S. is that the gods except the Asan­iHsalias can have moggaMii1'(mii, though notpabbo)jii. mUIJr/iYUI,1I etc.

The firth. opi~ion is b,ased on a passage of the Alig. Ni.lc (iv. 396) and Cited III tte KI'/I. (I. 8, p. 99), in which it is s tated that the inhabitants of Jambudvipa surpass those of UU<lrakuru <l nd TAv:ltirnsa heaven in energy, mindfulness and in religiolls life {bra/l/)/Ucariyawlsu);2 from this it has been inferred that there cannot be any saint in Uttarakuru.~ Jt has been ment ioned above that the S. as well as the T h. exclude the Asafifiisatlas

I . Mr. Masudc on IDe OO$ls of Fa-Jell statts that JJharmagupta held that one (I1n"ot attain lamyaA' /vUllycl",a w illlOU\ ut"ml'tr,,~um(id"i, ,A ,1u h-Iujvr, p. 4!l, n. 9.

2, PC/ntl cf Controversy. D. 73. 3. The S. are mak.ng an anomJly in drawins the ir.ferences. If Ul!ara_

.kuru cannOt ha~-e any ~int how can the TiivalilflSa hav~ any ~

164 BUVDHI~I S.,;t:TS '-'i ."UIA

from the gods who follow (l religi ous [ife, and so, amon,S the Asaiiilisattas aho there cannot be any 6ainl.\

V. AllllpubbiibbisamoyQ (gradual realisation of the truth)

Vasumitr ::t att r ibutes the folfowi ng view;; to the Sa rvastivii­d ins :_

(i) The four truths (I re to be meclilated urnn gradua lly. ( ii) The catllr. fr iinro/Jyophalas are not necessarily attained

gradually_

( iii) If one is in samyaku'allyiimn, he can allIin (at once) the fr uits of sakrdagami and aniieiimi nn accou nt of (Ihe completion of) the IOllkiknmiirga.

An adept, according to the S., develop~ i n~igh t into the fou r truths in a gradual order: in 15 moment ,,- t llU ~ :_

Dari(Jn~mfjrga

(i) Du ~khe (or in five skandhas, i,e., ~ nima-rOpe) dha tmajlilna-qlinti' (raith, convic tion) confined to K<1madhillU.

(ii) Dll~,khc dharmajillina J (iii) D lll;.khe ~nvayajll:lna·lc.~ii rui~ ~exlend('d 10 ROpa lnd (iv) Dul;.khe anvaynjMna ~AIlIpadh~tus.

Srotiipatti .pratipannaka·darSanamiirga

(v) Samudaye (sAsrvadlnrmAnilm hem I i.e., kamlaklek) dharmaj~4nl- i k"'nl" JconfiQed 10 KAmadhiilu.

(vi) Samudayc dharmajiiflna

DOCTRINES OF GROUP III SCHOOLS

(vii) (\iii)

.. ao~ayajiill.na·k~a.nti

,. anvayajnamt lcxlcndcd 10 Ropa and ArOp1dhllt ......

(ix) N irodhe \pra tIUmkhyi-ll irodhc or 1 karm~ldeb_I:,, "ye) dharma,illana- \. k,'nti. 1

(x) Nlrodhe dlHrmaj n.1na J eonfintd to K8malll:IUu.

(xi) Nlrodhe 8mayajnaout»1!1(i

(xii) anvayajilina

(xiii) Milrge (.taik;a daik13 dharrr.a Of """lla lha-v i p~'y.ny il '1l) dharma­jilinak"nli

(.'iv) Marge dharmajMna

(XV) M.irgc anvayaiMnak~nli

(.,vi) MArge anvayajftAna1

1 utended 10 ROpl and ArOpadhAI"~

~ confined 10 KAmadh:~lIu J

1 extended I.., ROpa and

ArOf'adhAtus.

165

From the abo'e table it is e\ident how the S. - mark the gra­dual stages of t he development of insigbt into the four truths. I n the KfU. the controversies: Anllpubbiib/;isamuyo Ii" (II. 9) and Od1lisodhiso kilese jahtilf Ii 1 (1.4) and also JI;mlltta!fl vimuccamif· nan ri '/ (10, 4) support the view of lht S. about the gr3dual re­aliza tIon of the truths. The problem discussed is whether an adept realizes the four stlmailllaphuius, including Vinllltti, gra­d ually or not 1 The Th. contend that there: is no bar to the re:­alization of all the phaias at one and the same tim~. _The S. subscribe to this vIew as will be appareut from the second opinion of the S. quoted above, eAcept that they do not include the fourth phala, viz., arharhood or 1'/nlUUP DuddhllghoS3 should have painted out this discrepancy HS far as the S. nre concerned. According to him, the opinion that the reah.ation of the pha/as is attained gradually is held by the Sammitiyas.

[n the third poi nt, it is stated tha t, accor~Dg 10 the S , those adepts only who have completed the laukfkam{Jrga~ attain the second and third pha/as at one and the same time. The Th. hold that bhiivaniimiirgn, which commences from the sroliipatti­pflala stage is lokottara and cannot be /aukUm; the S., however.

1. Cf. I'ibJranga pp. 12~, 315, 329. 2. There may be ascet ics who o!:tain the four fruits gradually (anu­

p!lrvCQa t:a lul:lph aJ~prapli). Kola , vi. 45. 3. Kola, vi, 45 : T he bhiiYQ~ii-",iirla is or IWO kimb ; hWkik. or shrnvll

and 10kOltara cr afli\sravl.

166 BUDDIIIS7 seCTS IN" I III VlA

COntend Inn! it may be eithe l k' to this is d i~u<sed j Ih fK au Ika or io,hJllmo. A topic allied hereafter. ~ n e I'll. (I. 5). which will be deal! with

VI. Put/rujjanQ La k "k -, II I amargo Or Laukiktigrotlharma

The ~ .. a, poinled out by Vusumilra h Id ._ (J) A PII(hu.fj(lIIo (average J .' 0 •

. m!tn 1.5 able lu tie-troy'"

«'J prof/gila in the Kamadhitlu. ) f w 5,U and II A PuthllijOIlQ can d" . b

(iii) There j', k") Ie WIt a good ~tll(C of mind. s au /KQ-SQmyagdr.ff · d l k

(iv) The /aukikiigradl . ",' all UII Ika-JraddhendriJO, Jarma IS a Siage la (" 1 c

menl (ekakiDr.ikaciuo) ~ mg on y .or oDe mo-

In the BUddhist texts a th" , a hou~eholder or a rec/us pu h uJJ~na (au average man), Whether Sam)lojanas, viz ., SQklciiya;'lt:i o. ~:. J 1UI yet destroyed Ihe three in oreier to become at -· ,1Iel lct"ha and st/abbatapariimiisal troy riiga, dosa and s:::annll, .ca ll .ha rdly be expecled to des­mnved When a n ad t :' wluch .Impuri ties ere normally re­that a Puthujj~nae~s r~ab'l e3 tllt: anagllmi stage. The ~. hold

. . a e to remove from h· . d -prnrlgha, which is the s , 1 IS mm raga and b· . arne a5 'UJ-YU or v·i?fnIJda Th Th .

t IS vIew in the K . h .T~r· e . dISCUSS _ ru. 10 t ese words· Jall -t · h"

rago.hyapiidall li ? (I 5) . ' a J put UjjallO kiima-. . concludmg that a th-·

completely eradicate fro .. pu u]ana cannot iipada (hatred), gross and 7u~; ;: ~lOd rl1ga rallach~enl! and by­the Th. raise the other questiou . 'p n c~~rse of thIS dlscus~ion, dhammiihhisamayd a"4g - . I I· urhujjano kdmesu Vitariigo salla i.e. whether 3n aVCrage ::~':e Sa~!Mllli? (K~u. 1. 5, p. 112), the realization of the truth ti .hO IS fr~c from kama, aUains with we have seen nbove ans :~ anaga~1I st~ge or not "/ The S" as they do not think that sU:;jr a p:t~U~~tlOn In the a~lirma tive, but

but he eo.n atta in all th t: uther Plla~~a;~ ~;n a~al~ arhath?od, In o ther word s, the COll \eIl tion of the . e an I e sa me .. tlme, attainments through la '. 'k S, IS that a puthuJj una's

u""' U-ml1rga may be f h· h tha.t the moment tIle truth fla sh . . o. So 18 an order a.nagdmi when h es 111 hiS mind he becomes a n anagdmihood, in~:;jlll,,~r;~:~ ~~ llhehe 1 ne~essary condi tions for

l. &:e above, p. 162, 2, Se: K,'" .• p. 11 3.4.

Ower two pha/as. t

DOCTRINES OF GROUP IJl 5CHOOL~ lfi7

The ~cond opi ni on that an average man dies with a kusala­cit/a ;s based o n many instan~'ll of upasakas dying with a good mental slate. The Th . also subscri he to thi s view, and hence there is no discussion in the Kw.

The third opinion is the same iI .~ that of the Th. and is oppos­ed to that of the Saila schools (see above, p, 109).

The fourth o pini on is not touched upon in the KI·u. but has been dcalt with full y in the Koso (VI. 19) thus : -

If thc conviction (k,'dllli) concerning dubkha (~skand has) of the Kamadhiitu be the strooeesl. it lasts only fo r a moment, so also arc the agradharmas, i.e, hmkikagradharmas,l which though .)"dsrara (impure) are the highest of the mundane dharmas and lead one to the darsana-Jtldrga (way to the realization of the truths),

The point is that a puthujjnna, according to the S., may attain spiritual progrt::'S up to thc a n5.gil.mi stage by pr~cti~ing satipa/­!hdna an.d such other practiccs, which are /allkiKa so long as they are praclisW by one who is not y~t in on~ of the maggas and phaltil.

VI I. AI/usara and Parralaslhiina

The S. arc of opinion that: -( i) AlIlhe mlu.~nyas are caitasika; they arc cittasamprayukla

and are also objects of thought (iilombana). (ii) All the anu.fayas can be included in the parYOI'asthQnas

but aU paryarasthlJnas are not Q1Jusayas.

While the above two opinions are diamet rically opposed to those of the Mahisanghikas, they fire in full agre~ment with those uf the Th. The topics are dealt with in the KnJ. fully (see aote, pp. 84 f., 124) in which it is shown that allusayas are nol with­Ollt urammana; they are not llvyiikala (neither good nor bad); they are t he same as the paryavfl.tthiinas(=pariyuUhi1nas), which again arc not cillal'ippaYllllo. The S. distinguish the anusayas from paqQl'aSlhiinos, saying tha t all pa!"),ol'aslhiinas are not ollldayos, is true,

I. cr. Sutriil"ri!ciiTD, "iv. 23: IliulriUaradharmhaSlhl=lnontar)'a­s a nl1dhi, K!)J", vi. p. th6, n. agradhlrma= dha;ml·smrt)' upa~thina.

108 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

VIII . MedIta tion

The Sarvast iv£Hlins hold that

(i) In the state of sDnuihita one can utter words. (ii) No man ever dies in the state of samahi/o.

(iii) It may be said that four smrryupasthiinas can include all dharmas.

(jv) All dhyanas are included in the SJnr1yupastflanas.

(v) There are four !okottara-dhYiinas.

(vi) The bodllynrigns a f C acq uired in seven samiipoltis ond nol in others.

The fi rst opinion is in 8~rcement with that of :hila schools. and as such, has been n:futed by the Th. in tilt: Kl'u. (see an te p.89. •

The second i~ opposed by the R ajagirikns and the Th . and as such, is d iscusstU in the Kpu. (X V. 9) : Saiiilii~'eda)'ira-nirodhaqt r amapo/mo kiilU1Ji kareyytJ It ? The Th. contend t hat a medi lator wh ile i~ the ~a;;fliived(y/[a-nlrodha-sQm{jpatt j cannot have any deat h-lIke (IfHJru~luntika) COnl3Ct, fee ling, percept ion, e tc. o r is n ot affected by JNisun, weapon-stroke, o r fire; hence to speak of him as dying .... h ih: in the meditat ion is wrong. T he opponents con. tend that there is no such law (nlyDma) that a medita tor while in .sc,i,iii,·eclayitu-lIirodha will not d ie.

The third topic d iscussed in t he K YII. (1. 9) is : sabbe dltammii .satipa/ffliir.a Ii ?-an opinion a tt ributed by Buddhaghosa 10 t he Andhakas. The interpreta t ion of Buddhaghosa is that the oppo­nents meant by satipo!!hiina the objects which form the basis of sali (saliya pa!!htina, Satlgocara, sariyii patinhima).1 l n Ihis sense the second opinion may be explained as that the Jatipa{f/Ilillar in­c lude all fo rms of meditation, i.e., an adept practisi ng raripar. [hana need not have r«ou rse to other mcdilat iona l practices. The S. may well point to the well-k nown statement found in mlny passages of the N ikliyas (,-ide Majjhima, I , pp. 55-6). tha t there is only one way to the attainment of puri ty and that is the

I. Kl1sa, vi. J 4: Le sml'1),upasthana est triple: ,flflrIYIlpi1sll:iiIlD en soi (Sl'rlOMVD), par connexlon (sll1hsllrgll ), en qUBlite d'objcct (iilambarrasillr/!_ lJpcstham,).

DOr.TII.Il':I:S 01' ORour IIJ SCIIOOU; 169

practice of satipauhana (tk4yano ayW11 maggo satliinalft viswd­dln'yli .. . , .. yodidarp catldro saJipalfhiinii).i

The fo urth opinion hardly need. any comment. It refers to the first four dhy.fmas when they are practised by adepts, who Ilre in one of the maggas and pha/as. The dllyiina of a ma8gaf/hn o r pnalaJlha is regarded as lokottara (supramundane).

T ilt fifOl opinion evidently refers to the contention discussed iu the Kuiu. (VIII. G) that of the eight Jhylinas or somiipatlis, the first sc:veu an: capable o f elevaling tbe mind of an adept 10 the purest s tate but not the eighth, in which .JQrfljiiii is the feeblest anu as such, the meditation of "ai~asolftj;';i-nii.Ja'1ljnayatano is inclfecli,·c. CunSc4uently, the attainment of bodhyangas takes place while the auept rises fro m one dhyana to the next up to tht ~evell lh, leaving nothing fo r the eighth.

JX. Vijfl(ina

The S. assert, as stntcd by Vnsumitr3, that T hc fivc sense-perceptions (panroYijniinakiiya) conduce to a ttachment (.saroga) nnd not to detachment (Yiriiga), be­caU5e these only perceivc the characteristics (lakJO{fIl.$) of objects and havc 110 independent thinking facu lty of their Own .

If the reason adduced by the S. that the )'ljifilnakllyas b)' themselves cannot produce vlrlJga, how can they induce sarllga? Hence, the reasoning of the SarvAsth'Adins is not qui Ie clear, and it wo uld be better to accept what lhe K I'u. says on the point (see above, p. 111).

X. AI')'iik!la. Asol/ukrta, and Anlarabhara

The following opinions are attributed to the Sarvastivadins:_ (i) There are illdeterminable problem§ (ovytJkrta-tlnarmas). (i i) The law of causality (pratrtyaJamutpiidiingikalva) is

undoubtedly constituted (sOlflskrto). (iii) The safll.rkrta-\·Qstus are of three kinds; the aso'llskrtn.

vastus are also of three kinds.

I. cr. Kl1sa. "j . p. ISS, n. I:

170 BUDOlllsr s £ eTI 11</ INOlA.

(iv) Only in Kama and Rupa-dh<i.tus there is an inter­mediale state of existence (antariibhal'a) .

The first two opinions are opposed to those of the Mah~.

s:ulgh ikas bUI agree with Iho<;/! of the Th. (~e above, r. 112). The th ird Ris(l is not accepted by the Mnhasan ghik:u hut is

at,reed 10 hy the Th. The differen ce between the Th. Hnd the S lies in the fact Ihlll the latter make the morl ificat io n in a ccOT· dRnfe with their doctrine " sabbarpl atthi" (dj,cllssed hefore pp. 148£) according to which, the constituteo T h ing~ (talfl tkrll1-I'ostll)'

should beclassified as tbree, viz., those of the past, thllse of the present and those of the fulure (see Ma~uda, p. 40, n. 2).

The fourt h o;linion of the S. that there is anfariibJIflWI in the­Kamadhft tu and Rupadhiitu is neithe-r :lccepted by th~ M ahli· sanghibs nor by the Th. (~ee :lnte, p_ 114). It has some a!lr~e­ment with the opinion of the Sammitiyas

XI. Other opinions

There are a few o ther opinions held by the S. These are,-(i) AU the dharmiiyutanas (i.e. the fields or objects or

ideation)1 incomprehensible but they are atlainable by the Aryas.

(ii) Even heretics can gain five supernatural powers (see above, p. 125) Wassilljew, Der Buddhismus, p. 272. n. 3) .

(iii) Good karma can also become the cause of existence­an o pinion o bjected to by the Mahisasakast

DHARMAGUPTA

Th o;: Ihild in importance among the schoob of this group is Dhanll agupta. In the Pirst Council, certai ll suppc rters or P UI [1I.m and Oavampllti did not accept ill 10[0 the Vinay.t niles <U aI.Jul'tcd by :'vi dluika!sapa.1 In the AbhiJllarma,<oia (iv. 39) tllo;:n: is a reference to the Dharmagupta's 1I1entioning that they wuuld lIot accl'pt the Pratirnok sa rules of the Sarv,btiviidins a s

I . Mas udll , p. 31 1l.·IIUplkrlll-dhannas, caila$ikQ-dhl"'n~s and: lljMpI;rnl'.1~

2. Set abo-e. p. 39 fn. 3.

DOCTRrN ft S OF GRO UP III SCHOO t S 17l

au'thoritative on the ground that the o ri,;inal teach ings or­

Buddha were losl.

About the literature of this school, the only information we have is tha t there was a Vinaya text o i its own (Nanjlo , 11 17) and tha t the Abhini:krQm{J~IQ-sii(ra bel onged to t hi ~ school. Th is sutra was translated into Chinese between 280 and 3 12 A .D.l

Pro f. Przyluski furnishes us with the inFormati on that the ca no n o f this school had the following divisions:

Vinaya-pi!aka

Sutra-pi~ka

Abhidharma-pitaka

1 Bhik ~ u-pratilUol: ~a Dh i k ~u l) i-pnl timo k~a Kh a nd ha k:l

lEko ttara

(Dirgha_aga ma I Madhy3ma-a\tama ~ Ekottara-agama I SaTTlyukta-agama l K ~ udrak:a-3.gl':.ma

(Difficu lt (lex IS) j Not di!llcult (tex Is) I Szrngraila l SOI}1),ukta

Prof. Przyluski, on the basis of the commenlfl ry (If K'oueiki on Vasumitra 's treatise, remarks that thi s school WIlS noted for its popularity in Central Asia and China. De Oroot rema rh in his Cod~ du Mahiiyana en Chine (p. 3) that the Pr;~timok ~a of the Dharmaguptas was actually in use a s the disciplin:lry ril les In all the centres of China. The fi rst text was trAnsl:lted into Chinese in 152 A . D . by K'aung-seng-bi, a Sogdinn, belonging to Ihis school, so also was the m her t ~xt (Ki".mo) trflllSlflted in 254 A. D. by T'an.tai, a Parthi an . Hence, it is inferred that ,:, i<;. sc hool was established in the Ira nian countries in the third cen· tury A.D. Buddhayasas, a nativc of K ipi n (mod . K..1Shmir), introduced the Vinaya of tnis scho:ll into China and from this

I. Translated into English by B.:al ulll1cr (he (i l le " The RomcUlli(: Lt:gmd 4 Sak)'Q Buddha"

Rtmn H IS'T S"Il.CTS I N INDIA

Prof. Przyluski condudes that this school had its centre in the north-west. l He a lso identifies Dharmagupta with Yonaka Dhammarakkhita, mentioned in the Ceylonese chronicles as the apostle sent to Apa rantab. The reason adduced by him for this identifica tion is that the region between the North-west and Avanti was traversed by the Yavanas, Sakas, and Pallavas about the beginning oi the Christian em, and the ;>reacher is described

.as a Yonaka and then agai n Dhammarakkhita and D harma­gupta are identical in meaning (i.e. ratkhita = f(upta).

Doctrines

Abou t the doctrines of Ihis school, Vusumitra wriles thnt -these were main ly the same (IS those of the Mahasmighikas, though it was a branch of the Snrvastivildins. The doctrines specially attributed 10 them ure as fo llows :-

(i) Gifts made to the SungtlU arc more meritorious thnn those made to the Buddhn, thougb Buddha is included in the Sangha. l

This is a view contrary to th at of t he MahiMisakas and also to t hat expressed in the Dakkf1j~liivibhangasu(ta.t in spite of the fact tha i Buddha Ilsked Mahiipajiipati Gotami to offer thc robe meant for him 10 the SUllghu.

(ii) Gifts mnde to a .Jtupa are meritoriou~. T his opinion is opposed to thnt of thc Saila schools.

(ii i) V;nlUkti (emancipation) of Sriil"aJ..:ayQflo and Buddhayiillo is same, though there may be difference in the paths leading to it. This opin ion is in agreement with tbat of the Sarvii.stivii.dins. 3

(iv) Heretics cann ot gain the five: supernatural powers.' (V) The body of an arhat is pure (mliiJral'Q). (vi) Realization of the truths (abisQJllaya) takes place not

gradually but all at II t ime. This is eo[]trary to the opinion ' of the Sarvastivadins (discussed above) but is in agreement with that of the Thcravildins.&

1. L~ Cqncl'" de RtljagrlKl, pp. 32~-6. 2. !\ee Kn.fl1 (Fr. Trllnsl.). iv . 117; Mojjh;mn, iii. p. 2S3. 3. See abo~e. p. 125. 4. See above, p. 125, for opinions of other schools on this point see

Masuda, p. 42 n. ,. Tills ttOClrlne I! not memioncd by Vasumitra. It is found in thl: KOS.1,

vi. 27, SC(l I'ya"")'a (J.o.p. cd.). p. SU

DOCTRINES OF G R OUP III SCHOOLS I73

Ki..SYAPIYA

The Kii~yapiya school was known by three Other n:m1eS, Sthavi ri}"a, Saddharmavar~k: a, or Suvarsaka. It issued from the Sarvastiviidim on account of certain opinior.s, which werc more in agreement with those of the Stha\·iravad ins or Vibbajya\ adins than with those of the Sarvastivad ins. This scem5 to be the cause of their being called a Sthii.viriya. Its tlllrd name, Suvar~aka appears in the works of Tii.ramHha and Ch'en lun, while Saddharmavar$aka in BhaV)'a's trea tise.'

About the literature of the Kasyapiyas, Prof. Przyluski writes that it had a canon similar to that of the Dharmaguptas, and had the following divisions:

Vinaya-pi!aka

Siitra-pi!aka

Abllidrama-pi!aka

( Bhiksu-pratimoksa

1 Bhik$uoi-priHimokfa Kathi na M&lrka

lEkotlnm

{Oirghn-ngnma Madhyamll-iig:lma

~ Ekottara-agama

lsaIllyukta-agama K~udraka.agama

r Sapra~naka-\ ibhanga ! Apra~oaka-vibhailga ~ Sarpgraha l Comparative tables

Doctrilles

To tile Kasyap:yas Vasumitra attributes the follo y-ing doctrines :-

(i) Arhats have both k.<uyajiiima and rllllltpiidfljiifina, <lnd :lfe

not subject to passions.

I. Prof. PnylL'iki ;rl~ lltifi~s the Kii~yapiyas with the Hairr.avatas, sec in/ra.

174 BUDDHIST SLCTS IN INDIA

(ii) SOlliskiiras perish every mornen!.

(iii) The P1Sl which has not produced its frui t exists, the present exists, and some of the fulure exists. This opinion is discussed in the Kalltiimttllll (I, 8) and i~ the only doctrine attributed in thi;; text to the Kassapikas.l

S."MKANTIKA OR SAUTRANTIKA

Tn the Pali t radition the Saf!lktntikas are described as an offshoot of the Kassapikas, and from the Sankantikas branched off the Suttuvadis. Vasumitra writes2 that at the beginning of the 4th century (i.e. after Budd ha's death), there was onc school named Sautrantika. otherwise called Sarpkrantivada, which issued from Samistivada. The founder of this school declares: "I· take Ananda as my preceptor." From these two traditions it sct'ms that the SuttavadIs are identical with the Saut rantikas' having br:!.nched orr from the earl ~ er SChool, the Sarpkantil;.as: who may also be equated with the Dars~2ntika) of Vasubandhu.

Doctrines

Vasumitra characterizes the Sautrantikas as the school which admits the transference of skalldlianuUras from one existence to another as distinguished from the Sammltiyas. who mainta in the transference of pudgoJo only. Both of these vIews arc wholly opposed to the cardinal d octrine of the early Buddhists. \'iz., k !o~liko (momentary) e~ istence of skandhas (constituents of a being). i.e .• the skoJ/dhas di5integrate every moment to give rise to another. The Sautnlntikas, in deference to this old k lQllika theory, add ~hat the skandltas in their gross lorm do not pass rrom one eXistence to another; the IlllIlfintika (original or the subtlest form of) skandhas, all the five of which are of one nature (ekarom), in other words, which are in reality one subs­tance and not five different substances passing from one exis­tence to another. BMva\'iveka in his Tarknjriila (see Obermiller.

1: . _K~·u. I. I : Avipakkaviplkarn attbi. vipakkavij::ilk"lTl nallhiti anlgatam IIU)utl "dJ~u ckllC\.<im I1llhltl uppadlnna(hamrn: S;lm.llla.ya vl<la!ili.

2. Mnud:1o, p. 11.

DOCTRINES 01" GROUP III :;Cf!OUL.S 175

Allaly~is of the AbItiJOll1(l )ii/alikiira, pt. iii, p. 380) stales that the 5chool ndmi ltcd the reali ty of the individual (i.e ./mdga/a) which, ii somclhing inexpressible bUI neither identical \\ith, nor different rrom, the s.~andhas.

The second dOi.:lrint: attributed by Vasumitra to this school is that " apart from tilt: aJyan paths (i.e. ai!fingika.miirga) there ('an be no eternal dt"~llUctioo happening evcry mom~nt. " T his shows that, acconliug to the Sautrantikas, the .rkandhas, gross or sublle, end in lIifl'iitJa. This view is also a llied to the doct rine of Ihe Sammitjya~ thaI the pudgala ccases in nirl"iilla. Hence, it may be stated that, <lccording to the S<lutriintikus. the subtle skalldhas, like the pucllfUiu of the Sammiliyas, rnay continue lhrough severa l exiSlCOCf;~) uut totally eease: in Nirviu;'Ia.

For th is doctrine of transference of skon(lhamiilro.\· through several existences. the Sautnilllikas are also callcd Sarpkrfinti­vt\di ns or Sarnkrantib~.

Ko so on the Soutriinliko doctrines

Though Vasubandhu helnnged to the SarvastiviIda school. occasionally he gave preference in his writings to the Sautranlika views. Fo r this, he \\as severely cri ticized b} Samghabhadra, who was a staunch Sl\ rv~ sliv:irlin. In the Koso, Vasubandhu has referred to the Salltriinlika doctrines on several occasion; and pointed out the d ifferences. hetween the Sarvastivadl and Sautrii.­ntika views. Prof. La Vallee Poussin has summed up these reference; in his int roeinclion to the French translation of the Koso. A s these throw welcome light on the Sautrant ika doctrines a gi~ t of the same i( given here ;-

(i) The Sautriintikas do not accept the Abhidflarmapi/nka of the Sarvlistiviidins as authoritati\'c (Koso, i. 3). On this point Vasubandhu supports the SauITantikas.1

(ii) The uMHrl.\k.!la~ ha ve no real existence. There is a Ions drawn coullV"ersy in the Kosa (ii. 55) between the Sarviistivii­dins and tb t: Sautrantikas as to whether lhe asoqlskrtas have any cause or r, uit:)..

I. Ace. h) tac Sa\ltr~nli:':,u, bl.ddJo,J;ll·a(:(,J1lQ ,1 ,':ls·vijJiapti, ~ Kujfl. i. 25; iv. 2.

176 BUI1DrTlST SECTS L'I INDII\c

(iii) The Sautnintikas deny t he cifta-viprayuktas (i.e. sOf!lskiiras not associa ted with mind, e.g. priipli, Jabhiigarii, jfloilelldriya, etc.} a, real as contended by the Sarvastiviidins (Kosa, ii. 35-36).

(iv) Like all other schools, the Sautnintikas reject the Safv<lS­ti vada view that past and future exist (Kosa, v. 25),

(V) By admitting the existence of the past and of Prlipli, the Sanasliv iidins explain the fUllction of causality. The Sautrantikas deny both of these and assert instead the existence of the subtle ciUa or blja or viisaml and explain thereby the working of tbe formula of causation (Kosa, ii, 36, 50).

(vi) The Sautnintikas carry the kNf)ikatva doctrine to the extreme, asserting that it almost verges on zero, and as such objects can have no duration (sthiti ). It further ass:!rts that as destruction of objects takes place almost immediately, there is no necessity of any effective cause .1

(vii) The Sautrantikas deny the existence of Gvijr,apti (non­communicating corporeal and vocal acts)2 jlS a real drOl'ya. They hold in agreement with the Theravadins that an a~'ijjjapli act is mental (eetami , kayasameelanii).

(viii) According to the commentary of the Vijiiaptimatratii­scsrfO, the Saut rantikas are divided in their opinion relating to the conception of citra (mind) and caittas lmemal states). Accord­ing to the Dar~tantika-Sautrf.ntikas cilla only exists but not the cailtas. but according to other Sautrantikas. cajltas also exist and their number according to some is three. viz., vedana,S01!ljilii and cetanii , while according to others, it is iour, ten o r fourteen. Some Sautrantikas admit lhe existence of all the caWas of the Sarvastivadins (for details. see Kosa, transL, ii. 23, fn,).

Ox) The Sautrantikas hold that the bod} of an arh" t is pure. as it is produced by knowedge.

(x) There may be man)' Buddhas simultaneously.

1. Sec Kvs" , i ,". 2-3 . The $ .. tjd"rJ""(1sami<,"caya cites th is passage from a sUlra of the Sautrantiluls : Paiictmani hhiba\:lb ~amjiUmiitm fl1 ;!lnlVr\imM. ra~l vyavuharamatrarn Kalam;'tn i p~ik1, Atito'd:wa unAg.Ho·dhv{t ,ahctuko vina<ab iika~alJl pudsula iti.

Ct Vrdall/a! iilra, ii. 2, 23 ; N y<iY(lfum i f<u l,irparya!ik ,; 383. S"" abo KOSIl, ii. 46; Af<ld"yamikGl'rr:i~

pp, 29, n. 5; 173, n. 8: 222,413 2. For details. sec 1(o$a, j,'. 3.

DOCTRIN(;S OF GR OU P III SCHOOLS 177

H AI MA\'ATA

Bhavya and Vinitadeva enlist t he Haimavatas as a branch of tht: Mahasanghikas (Group I Schools) while Vasumitra r~maTks that tht: p rincipal dot" tri nes of this School were the same a s tll u:'1: uf the Sarvastivudins.' He adds t hat the original (mUla) Sihavira,'aua changeu its name to Haimavata .2 In the Ceylonese chronidt:s, howt:vt:r, lhl: Helllavatikas are counted as one of the later se!.:ls, whi!.:h came iDlO existence some time after the appea­rall!.:1: uf the first dghteen Sl:hools. In view of these conflicting statelllen ls, and thl: a!.:ceplam':l: o f some doctrines of the Maha­sailghikas, it seems that this s.:houl might have branched out of the Sarvlistivadins or SthaviravAdins but doctrinall)' it was in­dilled mure towards Iht: Mllhasmighikas than towards the Sarvasti vii.uins.

Prof. Przyluski, however, identifies the Haimavatas with the Kasyapiyas on the following grounds ;-

(i) In the Ceylonese chron icles, the apostles sent to Hima­vanta are Majj hima and Dund ubhissara of the Kassapagotta.

(ii) On the relic caskets dis!.:overed in the stupa of Sona ri and Saiici are inscribed (a) sapurisasa Kiisapagotasa sOl'alte­maratlicariyasa and (b) sapurisasa KotiplI!asa Kiisapagotasa sal'Clhemavatiicariyasa.

(iii) There afe other inscriptions which mention Majjhima and Dundubhissara.

He adds that there can be no doubt about the fa~ t that the monks of Kassapa-gotta were responsible for the propagation of Buddhism in the Hi ma,'anta. This s::hool also claims Kassapa as its founder. So the same school was known by two names, one, afte r the region, as Haimavata and the other after its founder, Kassapa as Kassapiya (~Kasyapi;' a). Since the former name was not used, the Chinese pilgrims refer to it by the other name only, ~'iz .• the Kasyapiyas.~

The conclusion drawn by Prof. PflylllSki from the inscrip­tional evidences does not appear to be logicaL In the inscrip-

I. Maslld2, p. 5J. 2. Masuda, p. \6; Poims of Controrersy, p. xxxvii . 3. Le COllcile de Riiiagrha, pp. 317·1S.

178 BUDDH IST SECTS IN I);DIA

lions it is stJted thai some monk s of the Kas,apagotta propagat­rd Buddhism in Himavanta, but there is nOlhi ng to show that the Kas~apn gotta monks necessari ly belonged to lhe KHya piya school. Hence the identification of Ka syapiyas with the Hai rn a­""las is not tenable.

D OCI";I11:$

Y~s\jnlitra treats the Ka~yapjyaS and the Haimavatas as Sep"lratc sd:ools nphnl ri ing different d(X'trines. He attributes to the Ha imavatas !l few doctrines which a~e in close agreemen t with thme of the Sarvfi<;tiv<id ins, e.g.,

(i) Bodhis!lttvas a re ave rag.:: beings (p!thagjon{u) : (ii) BodhisnUyos have nei th er roga nor klima when Iheyenter

their mother's wombsi . (iii) Heretics cannot saio the live supernatural power!':; (iv) There is no bl"ahmacariyQI"usa among the gods ; ~nd (v) Arhats havc ignorance and doubt ; :hcyare subject to tem­

ptation ; they gam spiritual perce ption with the help of others; .and the path i. attained by (I n eltc1amation.1

UTTARA I> ATHAKA

Fr('m the geographical evidences collccted by Dr. B. C. Law' ll bout Utta raJ'atha, it appeors to have originally indicated the hi eh road funning north from Magadha to tbe north·west. LAl er, however. it denoted the area west of P rthudaka (Pehoa, l1hOllt 14 miles west of Thancswar) and "comprised the Punjab, inrluding Kashmi r and the adjoining hillstates with the who le of e;l~ tem Afghanistan beyond the Indus, and the present Cis· SUl lej Sta tes to the west of the San,svati."'l

The name 'Utt:uap:uhllb' a pPC;lrs o nly in the KuthiiwlIllII· QI!'llIkathii and not jn a ny other texl . notev~ n in ,he Ceylonese chronicles. Evidently BuJdhnehos:l h,1I1 in mind some mon ks who could not be classed as ;lclherent s of the doctrines of a

J. The !lSI 1"'0 views (i v Jc. v) lIIre in "gr",menl "irh 11m"" or lh e. M~hir.s:II\~hikas. Sc:e abol/e, pp. 22·23.

2. Ge:(}gr. 01 Eul"iy Burldh.'sm. PI'. 48·9. 3. Cunningt.am's AIICrl'lJ/ Geogr. vI India, p. 13.

DOCTR INES OF GROUP III SCHOOLS 179

purticulaf schoul, or probably he meant, like the Andhakas, a gro up t)f ~cl101..'ls pcpula r in (he north. Fro m the several doctrinc~ atlrj['uleu by Buddhaghosa to the Uttarapatbakas, it .appears that it was a n eclectic school having doctrines taken : rom b~th the Mahasllnghi ka apd Thaavacla groups and occu py­mg a n II1t e~llled i<l lt: stage between liinayima and Mah:i)flna.1 The followlllg arc: ~ume of these uoc!rincs regarding :_

Bliddfl~. ~ t i, the attainment of b()dhj or perfect knowledge and OmJIISelenCe alone thai make a Budjha (Kl"u. iv. 6); Buddhas are above moilri and karJJ~ljj~ (Kl"II. )lviii. J, 4).

l!adhisafl':Js. On the basis of th!: stories of t h~ previous extstences of Gautama Buddha , the U. remark that the Buddha~ arc always endowed with the mahiipllrlllQ-fak,a(lQs (KI'/I. iv.7).

Arhals. All Dlw/"lnas possessed by an arhat nre pure (QI/(/sI"avc) (KI'u. iv. 3). The arhat> a re able to end thei! lives in the same w:!y as Buddha did (K I'If. xxii. 3), as described in the M~,~porinibbanQ'Sullo. They adm it that there may be persoll ~ cJalm,ll1g ar!~athood fal sely (KvlI. xxii i. 2). Citing the example of Ya~a s attamrnen t of arhatllood they hold that a ho useholder (gihl) can attain arhafhood wil hout givin~ up the householder'« life. The T h. point out lhflt Ya~a may have the gi!1f signs ex ter­r.a rty but his mind was free from the retters of a hou$eholckr (K~'II . tv. I). Then on the basis of the existence of Upuhorrn (Uppajja.parinihhiiy/) arhat s, the Uttariipa thakas hold tha t a being, usually a god, at the very moment of his birth, can atl ll in arhathood. They also ~old Ihat beings while in the womh or beings just born may attain arhatbood on account of their e.cq uisi tion of sOlii panT'ahood in their previo us lives.

Somyako'oll),iinlO : The pUlhlljjan;)s, who are lIniyalQ

(not destined to aaain Nibb:in<J) or who are doer!; of evil :tCIS

may ultima tely become lIiyQ/a and rea li;o:e the truth. This the; sca t!: on the basis of so me sta tements. of Buddha h imself \.\ ho foretold to certain pUlhujjanas that they would rea ize the 'truth ultimately. e.g., in the case of Aitgul lm.ila (K ru. v. 4; .'( i.~. 7: Ml\' . II, p. 103).

I. cr. SalyasiddhiS:l,lra or HarivJrm~n, trans!Jted by Y~makami Soaen ·(C. U.).

2. Sec ~bc ... c, p. 1511.

180 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

Allied to the above are two other .. iews of the Uttarapathakas: one is that the persons who have to take seven more births to attain Nibbana (sattakkJwtrupararl/a) can reach the goal after seVf:n births a nd not earlier or later. The Th. are not prepared to accept this view on the gro und that such persom may quicken their pace by greater exertion or retard their progress by com­mitting evil deeds (Kl1I. xii. 5). The second is that an adept may attain the four fruits of sanctification by one maggo. The Th. contend that an adept can attain the phafas of the corresponding magKas only, i.e., a sotapanna gets rid of sokkiiyadillhi. etc. and he cannot attain the phalas of the sakodiigami or antigami maggo Le., by dimination of rliga. do~a and moho. The Uttarapathakas do not subscribe to the latter \iew (Kvu. lCvi ii. 5).

Anuso)'os. According to. the U., onusayos ' are oniiramma{la and cittavippayulla (see above, pp. 871., 124, Kvu. ix. 4); the Th. contend that past dharmas may be siifamma~a (ix.6).

Asat]1k.halas: 0) nirodhasomiipalfi is unconstituted (vi. 5). (ii) space of all kinds is unconstituted (vi . 6).

[mmutab ility (,,;) ora) : All dharmas like rf/pa and ledonii do not change their nature (ui . 7); kormaic effects also are un­alterable (xxi. 8).

Calis (spheres of existence) : The U. count the asuragat; as one additional to the usual fiv e, to talling in all six galis.

Buddh(I)'acana. The U. assert that the religio us teachings were revised thrice in the three Councils (xxi. 1).1

1. All the above references are [0 the Ka/"iiv;J{fh~.

C IIAPTER VIII

DOCTRINES OF GROUP IV SCHOOLS

The Vfltasiputriya-Srnpmiti)'as, Dharmottariyas and other Schools

This group of schools comprised mainly the Vajjiputtakas or VA tsiputriyas, Dhammuttariyas, Bhadrayanikas. Channagarikas a nd Sammitiyas. Of these, the VaBiputriyas, later known as Vatsiputriya-SaIf\miliyas, l became th~ most prominem school of this group. The monks adhering to these schools were probably those Vajj iputt.'lkas who. submitted to the decisions of the Second COllnci l and gave up their heresies, as distinguished from those who preferred to rema in apart and fortr. a dIstinct Sangha of their own. The Pali and Sanskrit tradit ions place the origin of the Summitiyas in the lrd century B. c. We do no t hear much of this school in the early history or Buddhism excepting a few cri­ticisms of its radical doctrine of the elCistence of a conceptual self (prajnap ti·sar-putlga!a) apart from the five skandhas. '1 his school became popular and widespread du ring the reign of Har~avardbana (606-647 A. D.), a nd it is saie! that the king's sister, Rajyasri, joined the school as a bhlk~u1Ji. The Chinese tra\'ellers also testify to its popularity in India. The ear]j~st evi­dence of the existence of this school is furnished by two inscrip­tions of the 2nd and 4th centuries A. D., attesting to the pre­sence of the Sammitiyas in Mathura and Sarnath. The earlier inscription i~ the fifth stone-slab inscription of Mathura, ' which records the installation of an image of a Hodhisattva and its dedication to the Sammitiya monks of Sirivihara by a monk whose teacher wa~ Dharma ka. & sides the Siriyihara, the stone_ slab inscriptiolls mention three o ther viharas, viz., Pravarika­vihiira, Suyan;lakara-viharll and Cuttakavihara, but the last men­tioned vihara was dedicated to the Mahasanghikas. There are

I. J::Rt; XI, p. lb8; KoJa-vyukhyiI, IX. 3 (Ja~. ed., p. 6?9) Ya[slpotrlyd Aryasamm~Ii}U.\.

2. £/ ., VIII. p. 172; Sahni, Ctl/o{QJUJl1 of the Mustum at Samatlr p 30.

182 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA.

HrahmI inscription> of the Kushan period. very likd)' of the reign of Huvl~ka (111 A D.), inscribed in m ixed Prakri t and Sanskrit. lhe taler JDscription, men tioning tbis;ect ,",as found at Sarnath. is inscribed on the Asokan pillar below the Asokan edict and another inscription. It records a gift to the teachers of the Sam· miti}'as, who wefe otherwise known as the Vatsiputrikas (iiciirya. naQI parigrahe Vatsiputrikanarp.).l It belongs very likely to the 3rd or 4th century A. D. when the Sarnmit iyas became more POPUIM than the Sar"aslivadins at Sarnalh by propugaling their views and recruiting a large number of monks and nuns.

Tilis inscription shows that Sarnalh was at first a centre of the Theraviida group, the earliest popular school, which gra­dually yielded its place 10 the next popular school, Sllmistivada. Though Sarviistivada retained its popularity and infl uence all over Northern I ndia , it had. at least at Sarnlth, given place 10 the Samm itiyas.

The SammitiplS ~scribed the oriEin of their school to Maha_ kacdi.yana, the famous monic. of Avanti. T his established their close connection 0 0 1 o nly with the Pali school bill also wi lh Avanti. for \\hich thei r aiternati\e name given in some- sources is Avanlakil) Their robes had 21 to 25 fri nges and their badge was Snrcib flower like those of the Theravadins. '

Yuan Chwnng writcslhat he carried to China 15 treatises of this school4 while I-tsing speaks of its separate Vioaya text. 6 The latter tells us further that this Vinaya had rules regulating the use of undergarment, girdle, medicines, and beds for the members of the sect in a way peculiar to luelf. The only treatise that is expressly mentioned a~ belonging to this school in Nanjio's Catalogue. and extant in Chille5C translation is the Siil!lrIliifya­sarlra or Sa'flmitlyallikilyaIiislra containing thc tenets of this sect. Most of the passages cited in the KGfhum/tlm as giving the views of the: Siirnmitiya school ere traced to t he Puli Pitaka.

L Ste Infra. 2. A:;o:ording 10 \ 'initad<va, the StmmitTyos were ,ub-d i~ idcd into three

_<;('CI~. K uru.K.ullakas, Avant~k;<!i and \'!I1>iputri;'a~. See Du_slon, II . p. 99. 3. B~Slon, II. P. 100, 4. Wal!~rs' Y~a" Ch~'(urg, I, Pi!. 20, 21. 5. T.lkaku'u.I-lsmg, pp. 7,66, 140.

DO(;TX1S,"~ u t· G R O U P IV SCHOOL15 183

It is very likely that th~ Sutla-pi!aka of the, Sammitiiyas was substantially the S3m~ as that in Pali.

According to the Kalhl1ratthu and Vasumitra's treat ise, the main thesis of this group of schools is t lUlI lhere is a persisting sou l (pu(/ga fa) passing from one exis tcm:e to another and that it is nat possible for the skan.1has ta translllig13te without tbe pud­gala. In the Tarkajriila of Bhavavheka abu, a silililar sta teme nt is found . It says that the Viltslput rlyas. Bhadrayanibs. Dharma­guptas and Saqlkritntiv:1dins admit the reality of the indIvidual self.' Among other views of this group, wt: may mention that they. like the Theravadins recognized the Arhats as uot liable tl)

fall from arhat hood as against the opinion uf the Sarvastividins. T he}" however. ad 3ered to the d:tctr ine thalthert: was an a"Iara­Mara (tntermcdiate state of existence), which W,b Hot 3o;rced to by tile ·1 heravudins and the Mahasailghikas. Tht'ir conccptions o f Huddha and Nirvtit)a, fruits of sanctification amI tileir attain­ments, various stages of dhytitlaJ (meditatiun), ami beillgs of the hlgller worlds had much in common with thuse: of the Themvadins and the Sarvastivadins. The doctrines attributed to the ~ammitiyas in the Kalhiivau/III and Vasumitra'~ treatise along with their criticisms arc as follows

Doctrinu

The enrdinnl doctrine of this school is th2.t besides the ele­ments composing a being. lhere is a 'pudgala' (an individuality, a personnlity, a sdf) ..... hich is indefinable and which persists through 011 the exislenccs.~ It is neither identical .... ilh, not different from. the skandhas as (PIa/man forms the ).::ynote of Duddhist philosophy. This theory has brought forth vigorous criticisms from most of the prominent Buddhist philosophers, including Nj,gorjuna1 and Vasubandbhu.' It has also been

I . :xc Oto<rmille~, A"aI)'sislll, ;>p.38O. FOI do:tllit~d di$Cu~1ion S<t~

2. K()ia'~yUkll)'(i (Jap. ed.). pp. 697-713. 3. Miidl,yamikarrlli, p. 275 qllotirg Rall:,i valf, p. 267, 283: Bodhi((1'Y~­

va/,ire ix 60. 4. A 'JllldhtlrmGko!o, eh. IX.

184 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

mooted whether, on account of this thesis, the Sammitiyas ( - Vatslputriyas) should be regarded as being within or outside the pale of Buddhism. Attording to SOme thinkers, they shuuld be treated as heretical while according to others, they an: BuddhiSIS though their pudgaloJ)i'lda, beinB a form of sakblya­dighi. acts as a hIndrance to the attainment of Nirvana.'

It is n~ssary now to stale what the FudgalarMa or the Sammitiyas actually was. II is given here In txrenso.

Plfdgalal'iida like the Sarviistivcidins, the Sammitiyas also differed on

many doctrinal points from the Theravadim and olher sects. These have been discussed in the KathOl'arrhu and mentioned in the treatises on sects written by Bhav}3, Vasumitra and Vinitadev3. The pudgalavada gave a rude shock to the o ther sectarian tellcher!'. who regarded it as almost heretical and a negation of the anotmo-rada of Buddha. and was bilterly criticized by many writers like Vasubandhu and Santarak3ila.1 We have to male out from the criticisms what the exact position taken up hy the Sammitlya.Viitsiputriyas was regardina; the conception of soul and its transmigration from one existence to another. The publication of Prof. Venkataraman's translation of the Sommilfyo-nikiiya-sastro in Chinese has been very helpful.

The Sammiliyai VatSiputriyas stated that Budd ha admitted the c ll iHence of an impermanent soul quite different irom the Upani­$<ldic conception of an eternal and changeless soul, which conti­nued unchanged through all the existences of a being unless and until it attained full emancipatipn and merged in the paralluitmarl or Brahman. The Sammiliya( therefore preferred to name their changing soul ai pudgafa. distinguishing it from the Anattii doctrine of Budd ha.

In the Kalhiirallhu, the view of tht: S:;mmilIyas is given Ihus: -

The Pudgalavadins rel)' on the following words of Buddha

I. For detail; and reference1. K'e la "81~ POUUIO'S prelimmary note!> In the Kou (Fr. !raIlS!.) ix. pp. 227f.

2. Moggotipulto Ti lso is Ihe ce:",b,ated compiltr of rhe Ka/hal'al/hu, whi~ Vuuhandhu . i~ the amOOT of the AbhiuhuurlakOM and its B/riii)'u. and ~ts V),tJkhra by Yaxmutra. Santarakfita is aut llor of TutlI'Osur,lgrtlha and Its commenta to r is Kamalailla.

DOCTRtNES OF GROUP t V SCHOOLS 105

" all hi puggalo auahit iiya pu!ip3nnO" (there is a penon who exerts fol' his O WIJ good) : "ekapuggnlo lolce uppajjamano uppajjati bahujanahita)a bahujanasukhiiya lokanukamp3ya etc. (there .appears a pcr~oll who is rebern for thc good and happiness of mall)', foohowing compas!ionto the world ofbeinss}. Basing on s ud, words of Buddha, thcSammilfyas (henceforth abbreviated as Lht' S.) Sla te 'puggala' of the above-meol ioned pa;sages is some­thillg pv~i(in:; it is neither a mi ragc nor a hearsuy; it is neither the um':Ullstilutt:d reality like Nibbiinu or Akiisa nor a constituent Jlllttt:rial dt:lllt:nt (rupa), feeling (vedal'l'Q), etc. The 'puggala' is not real in the I' it\hcst sense (parmartha). On the one hand, it is not somt:thillg apart from the constituents ("handhas) of a bt:ing, and as sedt it is not possible to cstllblish a relation between the puggulu all:J the klta"dhas like that between the ~ontainer and the cunlaim:d. On the o ther hand, though it possesses all the chluadt:ristics of the khal/dhas, it is neither like them caused aDd couditiuned (saiJelu sappaccaya) nor is it like NibbAna uncau!oCd and unconditionted (ahetu appaccaya). Again, it Is neither constituted (surllskrfa) nor unconslituted (asu'llskrra). Tllough it is diITerent (OIjrjo) from the constituents it possesses certain charat.teristics of a constituted Ixin! such as happiness aDd unhappiness. It has certain aspect! of the un­-constituted inasmuch as it is not subject to birth, old age 8Dd death. Jt ceases only when the ind ividual attain! final emanci­pation (Ntrvl1'Jo).

In the Abhidharmakosa and its commentary, the relation be· tween plldgola and skandhas is expl .. ioed by the ~imi l e offirc .and fue l. Fire exists as long as its fud lasts, so the pudgala exists as I(>ng as there are Ihe constituents, but fire is different from fuel inasmuch as it has the power uf burning an object -or producing light, .... hich the fuel by itself docs not poss:ss. Fire and fuel are co·existent, and the latter is a )upport for the fo rmer, and just as one is not wholly different from the other bt'cause fud is not ..... holly devoid of fiery dement (Iejas), in the same way stands 'pudgala' in relation to tht: i..:onstituents of a being. The S. quote the BMraharo5Drra ilnd explain that !Jurden {Miira) refers to the constituents (skandha) while their ca rrier (hara) is the pudgala. Unloading of the burden is cfTt\:tetl by the

186 BUDDH IST SECTS I S 11"01,\

cessatio n of desires, attachment and haIred. T his 'pudgaJa' bears. a name, belongs 10 a family and is the enjoyer of happincu and unhappinc$s.l

In discussing the Bhurahiirasfilra, Santarak~it:l. and Kamalasila state that Buddha used the word 'pudgala' as a mere concept (projifopri). He did not state expressly that it was non-existent as nobody enquired of its real n::.ture. He had in mind the aggregation of five constituents and t o these collectively he referred as 'pudgala.' It ii not subject to origi n and decay. hence It has no past, present and future. It is neither eternal (nifya) nor nO:l-etcrnal (anilya) . It is inexplicable and indetermin­able. It is not incl uded in the cOn5tituents but a;>pears on ly when all the constituents are present.

In lhe Kalhal'ottll it is stated that the S. point out that t heir 'pudgala' has a materia! form in the world of men and gods, who have got material bodiei (rupa) , and it is without any materi al form in the world of higher god5, who are without mll terial bodies (arupt). They state that the 'pudgala' corre s­ponds to the en tity called a being (salll'a) and also to the vital fo rce (jtl'a) of a living being, but at the same time it is neither identical wi th, nor different from, the body (kaye), fo r Buddha rejected both the views of identit)" and difference of vital force Utl'a) and body (sor fra) (/01p jll'aft! t01[l sarlrOlfl. aliiio'!1 jil'am aiilialJl sarlraT]f). They rely on another statement made fre -

1. SO'1l://ltfa. III. p. 25 : K atamo bhi~khavc bMro 1 Pal'lcupldlnakkhandM t( 'ssa va:aniyam· Kllame pal\ca 1 SeYYlhtd:im I'lpuplldanak:k.h;lll,JO, "edanupA, so.:\f\upl1. sal\khlrupJ!., vill.iIli.Qutli.. Ayam vuccal;, bhi~kh1V~ _

"""0 Kalamo ca bhikkhavc bh1rahlro ? Pugg~lo ti'ssa vlcaniY'm. Yo' yam i1yasml evaljl n1mo evam gotto. Ayarr, vuccatl bhlkkhave Oharah:'l.ro. In the Ta(w'$aliGra ila (p. 130. It. 34') Kllmlllll >ikl ql.lo!es Dh:'ir~h~ral) "atal'lll.1 pud~"l al) 1 Yo'sl'Ivl'IYUjml'lnnevam n4mll, evarrt jAlil.t, evarp gOlra, evamlihara, eVlln sukhadubkharn pra tisa[)1vedi. eVJllldTr&Myur Ilyad ina pudga to vyakhylital.l.

DOCTRINES O F GRO UP IV SCHOOLS 181'

quenlly by Buddha thai a monk while practiSing mindfulness (smr1yupastltii"a) remains a lways aware or what is passing with­in his body (so kiiye kiiyanupa;sl viharati). In this statement Buddha uses the word 'so' meaning 'he', i.e., ' pudgala', which watches tile contents and movements of his body. This 'so' is not a m~re concept (praj,iapti), it refers 10 actual 'pudgala.'

The S. !lOW take up the problem of transmigration. They hold that 'puggala' passes from one existence to another, but the 'puggaJa' of two existences is neither the same nor differeIH. The reason adduced by them is that a person, who has atlained the SOliipettistage of sanctification, conti nues to be a sotiipanlla in his future existences, whether in t his mortal world or in heaven (rupad1liilu). A soliipallna man may be reborn as a sOfiipallna god, i.e., sotiipannahood remains u r1chan,l!;ei:l though. the constituents of his body have <.:hur1gcd fro m those of a man to thOSe of a god. The tramition of sOliipannaiJood from one existence to another cannot take place unless the existence and continuity of 'puggala' are admitted.

In support of this conten tion the S. rely on the following. utterances of B llddha :_

(i) Thcre UfC four pairs of (saintly) persons or eight (saintly) person5 (sami coltaro pllrisayugii at/Ira purisQPuggQ/ii). This statement refers to Buddha's Sangha, which comisis of disciples who have Iltt!!in ­ed the prepurotory stage and {rullS (mUSga, p/ia/a) oi sanctificat ion .

(ii) A sotiipunna bas to be reborn seven times at the most to altaiu full emancipation (so sllllakf:a tlJlparaJt10 ~'undhiivi()'dna pligga/o dukkhassantakaro hOI f) . The S. lay stress on the words sandlulvi lVlJlla puggala, i.e., lht:: trausmigralion of soul (pllggafa).

(iiI) The cycle of existence (SOIllsiira) of a being i> without a beginning, which is not apparent to beings immers­ed in desires (anama/aggo a)'aJ!1 salllSaro pubbii kotf no poi/Mya!i sall{jllalfl ta1;Jhii·sal!l),ojalliitrJ). The S. pick up the words ' "arhsaro' and ' satta ' and deduce therefrom that Buddha admitted the transmigration of soul of beings.

lBB BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

(iv) Lastly, Buddha vcry often spoke of the acquisition of higher powers or knowledge (abllljiiii), one of which was the power of remembering ooe's previous existences (pllbbe·lfjl'aj{lfi(i~/Q). He himself referred to his previous cKistences and orten said, "When I was Sunelra, elc." This alsoestabhshed their con­temion that there must be a soul (pugga/a), con­tinuing through several existences and Buddha is able to remember his past births. Memory of past existences is not possible for ttle constituents (skandl/as), which change every moment, not to speak of the drastic change that the beings undergo when passing from dealh 10 rebirth. The S. add that admission of memory (smrti) also imp/i!.'s the exis­tence of 'puggaJa',

The S. state thai their 'puggaJa' is the percipient but it is <litterent from mind (cit/a, vijiiiina), one of t he constituents of a being. It is also not momentary (k.r~Jiko) like mind but is perceivable in eyery momentary thought. It is the 'seer' whcther the eyes are functioning o r not, because Buddha said, "I see by my divine eyes beings appearing and disappearing." Here 'I' is 'p~ggala' of the S.

Then S. take up the problem of capacity for elfcctiyc action (arlhakriyakiirill'Q) of the soul. In conformity with Buddha's teaching thot the world is not a cr~ation of God (UraranirmiifJo) they do not want to attribute to 'puggaJa' Rny function of a doer or a creator. They, however, point out that the 'puggala' of a parent or a teacher is in a sense the doer or creator (kurta, kare/Ii) ofa being, The 'puggala' has no independent function like that of mental properties. It is not an enjoyer of fruits. 'Puggala' and 'fruits' are not two distinct entities. though 'puggala' is saki to be feeling happy or unhappy, because the conglomeration of diverse elements, which make a being, can­not have the feeling of happiness o r unhappiness. There may be a doer (kiiraka) or feeler (I'eduka), bu t it is not to be distm­guished from deed or feeling. The doer" and the deed are neithe r identical nor different. The S. mention this stance of theirs in refutation of the opponent's a rgument that a semi-permanen t soul like the eternal soul cannot have any activity. It is only

DOCTJUN£'s OF GROUP tV SCHOOLS 169

the impermanent. momentary (al1it)'a, kia~lik(!,) soul that can have any activity (arthakriydkririll'a).

Siintarak~ita in his TatHasangraha (pp. 336-349) writes that th~ 'puggala' of the Viitiiputriyas is neither identical with, nor d ifferent from, the constitucnts (skandhas). In his comments, Kamalasila states that the 'puggala' of the Vatsiputriyas is the doer of deeds and enjoye r of thei r fruits. During transmigra. tion it leaves one group of constituents to take up another, It is not separate from the constituents, for, in t hat case, it would be t'tema1. Again. it cannot toe the same as tbe constituents, fur ill that case, it would be not olle but maD~' . It is therefore illexplicOIbk. The e}lposition of Kamalasila is supported by Prajiiflkar81l101ti in his commentary o n the BodhicaryolYJlara.

In tllis connection Kamalasiln has discus~d also tbe criticism of Uuuyutakara in his Nyiiyariirltiku (ilL 1. I) that a soul must be postulated if it is not identified with one or the constituents. Canurak.ini, however, does not dismiss the pudgalat·ada of the SilmmiLlym,' OIS wiJoUy untenable. He even admits that Buddha as an eApcuitllt taught thc pudgalarada 35 he later propounded the idealistic uuctrine of vijlilinal·iida.

The SammifiyullIkiiya.5ihtra (Vc notnrarnan"s translation) men-tions anu di':!>l:u~ses all possible vicws thus (p. 21):

(i) There i~ no feal self. (i i) Tho;; ::.elf is iodctcnninablc (avyiikrta). (iii) Five constituents and the sel f are identical. (iv, Five c01lstituent5 and the sciI' are different. (v) Selfis etcrnal (iasl'ata). (vi) Self is not eternal (a.fail-ata) und impermanent (anit)'a). (vii) stir IS <tctually e}listent though not eternal. Of the~e views the 13.5t is held by tbe S. In this tex t, the

non-Sammillya views havc been briefly stateJ without any comment or cri tiehm while its own vie .... has been fully cieah with thus:-

(i) The "puggala' is the product of fi ... e constituents, and it is neither eternal liar wholly impermanent.

(ii) BuJuiJa\ denial of self was enunciated to counteract the wrong vi:ws that the self wus bllseci on m:!ntal impressions

I. /lfudl,ywwAu"rllf, p. Z76, ""'"<: alw pp. 148. 19.2.

190 BUDnHI~T ~FC::H I N miliA

(so/flkhariis) or that it was identical with tbe body or five constituents.

He admonished his disciplei to remove the notio n of "I-ness" and ·'Mine-ness", which was based on the notion ofa fa lse self to which wordl} beings bore a strong attachment, but he did not refer 10 that sel f (pugga/a) which, strictly speaking, could not be the object of passionate ~ek.iDg.

TI:en, again, in Buddha 's sayings, the term 'non-existencc' was used in a different context, e,g., he said that some were absolutely non-existent like sky-flower and horm of a hare and 19ain some were rea lly nOIl-cxi"tent but existent relativel; like long and shon, seed and sprout. So Buddha's denial of soul does not necessarily refer to the absolute non-existence of 'puggala'. It is sometimes referred to as inexplicable because of the fact that il ca n neither be identified with nor differentiat­ed from, the constituents, which only are apparent to the un­enlightened. Again, if 'puggala' be regarded as permanent or impermanent, constituted or unconstituted, it would be adher­in g to one of the two extrem~ views of existence and non­existenO!. both of which were discarded by Buddha. Hence, ' puggaJa' as relatively existent was admitted by Buddha.

The S. contend that jf self be wholly non-~xiitent there would be neither killing of beings nor a killer, neither the attainment of fruit s oi sanctification nor a saint, consequently, neither a Buddha nor his teachingi.

In this treatise Ihe Bltiirahiira-sulla has been mentioned and d iscussed and emphasis has been laid on the word ' puggala' used in il. On the basis of the Siitra, the S. contend that a distinction has been made by Buddha betwe~n burden (bhara) and its carrier (!Jiira). the 'puggala' curying the burden. This sulra clearly establishes that the carrier of 'puggala' is not identical with the burden of the constituents (skandhas). Again, the carrier and the burden are inseparable; they arc interdependent and hence 'pugga la' is not distinguished or separated from the skoll(i/ias.

It bas been further pointed out that the acquisition or remo­val of impurities like attachment (ruga) or thirst (tmJfi) is effect­ed not by the ' puggala' alone to the exclusion of the consti­tuents. Out at Ihe same lime it should be admitted that the

DOCTRIr.'ES OF GROUP IV ,CEOOLS 191

puggala.' and tbe 'skandhas' a re IIt:ilhe:1 identi..:ol UOf diff'crent. for Buddba denied the identity and dilTcf('nce of the vital force U'm) and body (sar/ra).

The treatise now takes up ror dil>cussion the cC'nception of 'puggaIa' from three standpoints:-

(i) The Self is designated by its l> uppoll (ii.lru)'u·prujriuplu­pudgala), i.e., t h;! self is sometimes given au appdlation or d\:~ cription on the basis of its lHraya or u/ullllitlnu, as lire is lIalm:d and described by its fuel, e. g., fOrCl>l-fin:, coal·fin:. 1n a liying being, the impressions (sal1uktJras) an: rud aud the " puggala" is the fire. which deri,"es its amibutes allli appdl,tlivJI ill 'U;WI\.l­

ance with the impreSSions. A being is I,;dlkd a lIIall, lIaga or a gad in a;:cordance with the type ufbuuy pU:.:l1,;~~1,;u by him. The self is the receiver of the material fonn (ropu) but tile 'seW and 'rupa', being interdependent and imtpa!'<1bk, \:Ai~l logelhtr and at Ihe same time. It is not dear why Callurakil li ~t;t1cd

in the MtidhyamiAaI'!lti (p. 192) thaI llle: SatJJJnitiyi.l~ hdd lh<"t 'the receiver af the constituents uppeartd prior tu tlle r.:onsti~

tuents to receive them. (ii) Th~ Selfin t ransmigratioll (so/ikrunJtllIlJ1,,'ujiiaplil-pudga/a)

irr:plies Il'atthe self rasses from one e:Jli~Lt:llI;e tu anvther. The 'rudgala', whme mind (cWa or IlJilar.U) ~'arr ic:~ wit Ii it tht: effects

of his moral obscrvances (S(/o) ami umlitatiouill prar.:{ices (.sam£7dfll), is rebarn in a higher sphere:, On his death his five r.:onstituents after disintegration <!I.;..:umpany til;: )elr tva sphere of cxcellence. His meritorious tlt.'ed s and spil ituul a~uisiliol1 are his treasures, which folluw him iu his lIeAt cAisleuce. Thus his self does not go alone, If the ~Jf I>c difTcrclil from the constituents, it w(\uld have I!Olhillg tu stand by in hh future existenccs. Likewise. ir the ~dr hi: rcal i.1I)(] eternal vr unreal and c"anesl'ent, Ihe self l-dll lakt: Ilvthillg wilh it who:n it pa~,es frum one existence \(] anothel .

The transmigratiun uf self is explcssed in mallY stat;:mclI ll> uf Buddha, e. g., he said, " In tllis world ouo: peirorills good dce~l.s

and a~ a rlC~uh enjo)'s happiness hi the next worlu", "one who I,:u ll trols his s:;::nse-organs gains a happy state in his l1e;o;l life", "i1 dying person arises again, etc." Buddha hirnsd f often spoke or his past e1! istences, in which he perfccted hlm!elf in many pJrumiliis. He roretold Ajita that in futurc he would become

192 BUDOIIIST SECTS IN INDIA

the Mailrcya Buddha. He referred also occa~ional ly to miserly pHsons piJS~ss.illg wealth, but when death approaches them, they have 10 part with everything and go alone nil by them­selves. II i~ dear from such statement3 of Buddha that he hud in mind a 'puclgab' which trans mi grated from one existence to ar,other, m:l:umpallicu by the resultant impressions (sattlskaras) of the pasl liJe, i.Io: ., kailuaic effects.

(iii) The selr in t:xtinctiou (lIirodha-;JI"ojliapta-pudgalu). i.e .• when it ceases amI has no more rebirth. T his happen' in the case of an Arhat the perfect, who has removed a U his impurities (k,flJlISral'o) ami has attained Nirvar:ta, and therefore. ca nnot have any more rebir th.

In the same treatise ha~ beell d iscussed another 5tatement of Buddha, in which he saiJ that the cycle of existences hM no beginning (a.'lamaJaggo yu", J'UtfuJro) and deduced therefrom that It had a beginning. whh.:h was unknowable to the unen· lightened, and so also, Buddha's J~claratwn of the non-existence of a/man implied that the ~el r (pudgulu) was unknowable to the Imperfect. It has been argut.-u by t11~ S. eltponents that the reality or unreali ty of an objC\.t shuuld lIot be questioned because of the fact that it is unknowable by men of average intelligence. It indicates on ly luck uf kJluwkJ~e on the part of the imperfect and not existence or non-exi~lt:II!.:t: of tILe real, or e ... en of an unreal object . It is true that the Arupu sphere is unknowable by beings of the Rupu sphene, and so it is not proper to infer from that unknowability that Arupululw does not exist. Similarly, self (pudgala) is unknuwablt: by the un­wise but that does not establish that 'pudgl!la' is non-t:.,istelLt. The~, again, a minute speck of dust, tip of a hair, mi u~s withiu the earth, shores of ocean, a handful of salt dissoh·ed in watef, a jewel hiddcn behind a wall, bodies of spirits or ghosts, even the e)c.Jids which are so close to the eyes are not seen by tht:common physical eyes, but that does n OI prove thei r nonexislence. They arc seen by those who possc;s divine eyes (di'yacak;u). Likewise, the beginning 01" the cycle or e>.istence is unknowable b)' the unwise but is knowable by the lu lly enlightened Buddha. Buddha said that the world has no beginning, mainly with a I'jew to seeing that his disciplcs did not take to the beliefs of etclllalism and negativism and to seei ng that t hey might nut harbou r

DOCTRI~ES OF GROUP IV SCH OOLS 19' any notion like " I was, I urn Gnd I shall be." If the beginning of the world had been non·ex istent like the ;;ky-flower or noms of a hare, Buddha would not have cared to state that the world had no beginning, as one does not say that there is no sky. flower or horns of n hare. A spnerical object ha; no beginn ing but no one says it does not exist, so also with the world of existence (soqlsuro). Lastly, if the cycle of existences has no beginning or end , it would be identical with NirvaQa, which is also with· Out u beginning or end. From 411 these arguments, the author of the Sommiliyo-nikiiya .lustra established that Buddha did not full y explo.in many of his deeper ideas, and the existence of self ·pudgnlo.' is one of them. Buddno's reticence, therefo re, should not be takcn as t he denial or the existenc~ of a 'pudgala' as conceived by the Sammitiyas.

Profs. Stcherba tsky and La Vallee Poussin have furni shed the materials of the AbI!ldharmakosa in English and French translations, and at present we have also the original Sanskrit text of its Vytikhyii, edited by Prof. Wogihara. On the basis of these three teKts, a gist of the argllments of this school for establishing t he existence of pudgara is presented here. This will be followed up by a summary of the arguments and counter~ arguments given in the Kalltal'a tlhu, which has not so far receh'· ed any aUention.l

The Kosa opens the cont roversy with the que,tion, whether the Viitsiputriyas cun be regarded as Buddhists nnd whether they n f C entitled to emancipation (mok;a)? As has been point­ed out above, they were regllrded by some us Buddhists while by others as non-Buddhists.

The Buddhists believe lnat since there is no mokra outside the pal~ of Buddhism, the non-Buddhists cannot have emanci· p.3tion, and that is m3inly because the non· Buddhist teachers like Kapila and Uluka believe in the existence of a permanent soul, which, according to them, is different from the consti· tuents of a being and is not a term indicating the flu x of

1. I\mMv(Jt/hu (P.T.S.), pp. 1-69, Irumluled in PolnlS of Comrt)vcrsy by Mrs. RhY3 D;lVid~.

194 BUDD IIIST SECTS II' INDIA

elementsl (skandhasollfiilla). The soul. the Buddh ists assert, can nei ther be established by d ire<: t perception (prot)'ak,a) nor by inference (aI/umana).

Vasubandhu (henceforth abbre ... iated as V.) first dennes the wnlention of the Vlltsiputriyas (henceforth abbreviated as Va.) thus: Is the pudgala of the Va. real (drallya) or nominal (prajliapti)? By real (drcI')"o) existence he meant existence like tbat of ,iipa a nd such other elements, and by nominal (prajiiapli) he meant existence like tha t of milk, house or army, which has no separate existence of its own apart from its constituents.

If the soul of the Va. be of the (ormer category (dravya), it wodd be different from the skandhas, as redanii is from (lIpa, and is nol also all the skandhas taken together. Now, In that case, it should be either sa'l1s}(!tQ (constituted), or asalllSk! fO (uncoI1stituted). It ca nnot be the latter, for it would make the 'Va. hold the siismta view, which is heretical.

If the soul of the Va. be of the latter category (praj/1apt!), its ex istence is depcl1dent on the skandhas, "and so it cannot have any independent existence of its own, i.e., it does not eXlst (II dgda iri fTaJi:oftir aSQI-pudga/a/.z priipl1otj). . .

The Va. contend that their soul is real (dravya). but It IS

neither identical with, nor different from, t he skandhas as fire is from the fuel. Fire exists as long as the fuel lasts, so also the soul (plldgala) exists as long as there are skand.has, oth?:~ise. pudgala would he either aSQlrJ.~k!ta (unconstlluted), sanara (eternal) o r sartlsk,ra (constituted). asa.hata (=uccheda­annihilating).~ Fire i. different from the fuel inasmuch as it has the power of burning an object to ashes or to produce light, which the fuel does not possess.

Vasubandhu argues that, fuel and fire appear at different

I. VYQkhyfi (Jap. e:d.). p. 697 quote5 Ih~ SfII(ru :

~ 'l'if", if wi lfff~ ""'lSlll<Ell

<i~!~q\1r~ ~11';1~ti\ ~ m'lt.'! 1 lIfi'f: ~!I~r ~ 'I!f ~i ~1'fTfm ;;(!tt'4<'1(i:;;"1

~fd~lj!,,~fuT~ 11

2. Cf. the: quotation in the: KVIl. p. 34.:~. Khandhe<l11 bh;jj~mAnesu .<I> ce hhlJJal~ pl.!!ol:ll.aio Ue:e:he:d1 bhavati dilthi yA Buddhcn.~.vlya.ulti Khandhe:sl.! bhijjamiuH:~u n() cc ulllJJatl Iluggalo Pugelll0 S~S$.3to hoti niilbilne:na sama'lamo.

OOC'HUN£S o r GROUP IV SCHOOLS 195

times (bhinnokiila) like seed a nd sprout. Hence fire is imper­manen t, and the difference between fuel and fi re is one of time and characte ristic ( lak~QQo), and again one is the cause of the other.

He the n s ta te~ that according to the Va. , fuel is l'Oostituted of th ree mahiibhiitos, while fire is of the fourth (tejas ) only: then it follows that fire is diITerent from fuel .

The Va. reply that fire a nd fuel are co-existent and the latter is a ~upport of the fo rmer (upiidaya ; iiSritya), and that one is not wholly different from the other, for fuel is not totaUy devoid of the fiery element; in the same way, pud;.a/o should be dist in­guished from sk andJ/Os. Vasubandhu challenges the Va. by citing' the instance of a burnin~ log of wood and saying thlt it represents both fuel and fire . That is why they are identical (al/anya).

According to the Vii., pudgala IS nei ther to be described as

.alli/)o. which is sub·divide:d into pnst, p resent and fut ure n or nil)'a, eternal. It is araktalya, indeterminable, inexplicable. It is nOI included in the list of the constilUents of a being, but is perceive:d when only 1111 the: constituents nre: present.

The question next ralsed is, can the pudgala of the Va. be cognized by any sense-org.an (indriya). If so, by which? The Va. reply that it is perceived by all the six sense-organs. They contend that eyes do not ca re to see rfipa (object) or recognise it unless the mind (mana-indri)'a) is there. Eyes act as the domi­nating factor when the visual action takes place, hence it is not correct to say that eyes alone see rilpo, or for the matter of that each of the [lve sense· organs cannot fu ncticn in their respecthe spheres mdependent or the mmd. l For cognition of pl,dgala. the Va. state that all the sense-organs point to the mind indirectly It.at there IS a pudgafa; e.g. , eyes d lscern the riipa (colour·figu re) of a body and thereby mduce the mind to cognize the presence of an mdividud (i.e. pudgafa which IS neither iden ucal wlth, nor dlfferent from rupa).= V. a rgues that If rfipa be the cause of cogni. tion ofpfldgala (rupiinii'r/ kiirolJarl'am adhikriyale), one should not

1. S~C aboye:: cr. Masuda, p. 2311. 1. :See: Koja U'r. Irans!.) 1)1, p. 2J! Cn.

lOG DUDDIIIST St:CTS I N I ND I.'\.

say that rlipaand pudga/a are different (allY0If'J).1 Again, i f cognition of riipa lead, a t once to the cognition of pudgall1 (riipanyIJPudiiyQ

pl.ldgalopalabdhir iIi), one should ;lho ~ay that riipa and pudgala are identical (al/allya),' in other worrl~. one is only a modifica­tion of the other (riipantarat~·d/). The Va., ho wever, would neither identify fllpQ (colour-figure) with puagala nor treat them as different; in the same way, they would neither rega rd the perception of rlipa (colour-figure) R5 identic:al with the percep­tion of pudgala nor look upon them as different.

V. asserts that if plldgaia be a n enti ty. it should be either material (ropa) or nOD-material (m2/11a), but Buddha .says riipa or l'edanl1 or JilTf1jfid or safllskllr4 or rij;;i1nu is not self-all dharmas are without self-there is no pudgala. He funher slates. that sa/H'a, ;fva, pudgala is a prajliapti (designation) applied to the false notion of a self cherished by the unenlightened.

The Va. in reply state that they were not prepared to accept the statements att ributed to Buddha as authenticl as these were not to be found in their Pi!aka. They rderred to statementi, in ~hich Buddha spoke of a person's past existence or recognised pubbenil'iisOliii~la l as one of the higher acquisitions of an adept, and asked, who is it that remembers? Is it pudga!a or t he skandhas? They further argue that if Buddha be regarded as o mniscient, i.e .. he knows everything past or present, of every place, of every ~ing etc. it also implies a continuity of something. In other words, it implies the existence of a pudf,a!a. T he Va_ further state that unless there were some form of plldf,a!a, why the d isciples should be instructed to avoid thinking of rupal'tin aham baMul'atl/f! 'dlll'ani (in tbe past I possessed a bod}) and so for th.5

V. reful('<; Ihi~ con tention hy saying tha t pudgo/a her~ refers

.1. Just as light, eyes aod miod. w~ich ca.U5e the visualisation of an ObJCCi, arc not different from the object. Ibid., p. 2~8fl. Sec Vytikh)"ti, p. 701.

2. Ibid. , p. 239 D. See V)"akh)"a, pp. 701.2. 3. O. v)'ak/l)"il : mliiasruigidbhraJTIsal. 4. cr. Ma»ilfn;o, I, p. ~l ; so e'larp Slm~hit~ elite parisuddhe pariyo­

d<11e ~n"nganc ... pubbc:n,vhllnu"a,ati-iial,Jiya ",itlam abhlnlnn3meti. 5. C'I. ,ut'1jjMn·n, I, p. 8 : aho~in flU I:ho aham atit:l!~ !Iddhln~rjl

kiq, hutv1 killl ahosifTI nu kho aWarn addho.nam, et~. etc ..

rOCTR IN2S OF CROUP t V $CHOOU 197

only to skalldha-santuna (con tinuity of skandhas), not to any­thing else. The Va. then cite the Bltarahllrasl~tra, and assert that by bhOra is meant the constituent> (skandhas) of a bebg and by Mra the individual (pudgala), who is known by a name, gotra etc.1 Ii Mara ( =.skandhas) included bfl iira-I:iira (=pudgala), there was no need of di~t inguishlDg the two, and so plldga!a e'( iS1S apart from skandhas; it is nei ther identical with, nor different fro m, skandltas.

The Va, admit the existence of aupapiidika bein~ and all/ara­MOI·a ,1 and prove therehy the existence of pudga!a. They also cite t he passage "ekapliggnl() bltikk hare loke IIppajjamano uppajjali bahujanahitiiya (Angllllara, i. 22) and lay stress on the word 'pug8a1a ' , saying this 'puggala' is born (lippajjati) and hence there is besides the skandha!t someth ing, which may be designat­ed as 'p uggala '. V. refll tes all these by appropriate quotations and a rguments.

The V d, furthe r strlte tha t if pua'gafa be only a word meant to dzsignete the five skandhas, then wby Bhagavan did not identify j Im with sarfra . V. cites the discussion on the topic fron the Milindapaijha. The Vd. further argue tbt why ' pudga. la' has been dcc1 E1rcd by Buddha as indeterminable (avyiikrll1), if it docs not eJlist at all. V. in reply comments o n the Vmsagnrra­siifra ( _ Pdli; Va ccha-goua Slifta) and other sittru dealing with the indeterminable problems.

The Va. puillt ou t that the statement iilmii docs n ot exist in reality (satya(u~ iilhitita{i)1 is a w ro ng view, it indirectly implies the adm is:siull of the e}listence of plldgala.

·1 he Va. next raise the question, if 'pudgaJa· doe:s Dul ~xi5t, who is it that transmigrates from one existence to anollu:r ? If the elements only exist, how do you explain when BuJdh3 )3)5, " I was at that time the master Sunelra" 1 In that :statement " hy is the '1' of the past identitled wi th Ihe 'r of lh~ presellt?

I. cr. V)':Zkhya (Jap. cd.), p. 706, bMrab k2.lama\;L j:a i'l~op.idnna

skandha, . . , bharahlra(i kailltnal;l, puv8,,1a iti iyli.d va~niyarp Y<' · ~DV

li.)u~mlll1 evanJnAmll. evo.'l\i:1ty:1 evarplpt r.:l. etc. 1 . cr. KnflJ, ii i , 10, 12, 18-19. '1uotin~ Sapta-sat-purula-pati-sOtram. 3. cr. Majjhima, i, p. 8; AI/hi me alta Ii VA' SIII . accato thetato diHhi

uppajjal l, Mil; me alta ti vA 'ssa saccato thetato dinhi uppljjati, ete.

198 BUDDHIST fEel'S IN INDIA

Does it indicate thnt the clements of the pust arc the clemen ts of the present? V. refutes it by suying that just us fi re pusses from one wood to another, though it never remllins Ihc sa me, so the elements pass from one existence to another, nothing remaining identical. Jf, according to the va., Buddhas ud miw::d the ex istence o f 'pudgalu' , t hey would be subject to Ih;: wrong belief of scrkoyodmi.

The Vii.. now ask, how cun memory be explained wi;:hout the conception of ' pudgulu'? W ho is it that rcmcmbcrs~ V. answers thnt it is SQffljiia thnt remembers -.fUl!/jiia with atten­tion directed to the object , un idea etc. is similar to, or connect­ed with, it, provided Ihex IS no corporeal puin 10 impai r its capl.ci ty.

The Va. nfC of the opi nion that there must be an agent, a doer, a proprietor of memory. There must be a cognizing agent, nn action must huye a doer. 'D-:vadatta walks' implies t he exis­tence of on ind ividuality. V. replies that itis not so. lie states that just os when a fire t raverSes from one foreH t o another, no question of individuality arises, similar!) Devadaua is a praj/iayfi (like fire) applied to a conglomeration of dements passing from one existence to anot her and has no jml ivid uality.1

NOW, we shall pass on to the arguments of the Vii. a nd the co unter-argumen ts of the T herav:idins as presented in the Kathilvatrlm (1 . i), which is of n much earlier date t!lan that of the medieval and modern dialectical works.

The fir st question put by the Theravfldins to the V:itsipulriyas known in the Pali texts as Sammiliyas, is as follows: Ca:l. the puggala be known in the same way as thai which is real and ultimate, e.g., Nibbiina (or Riipa) is known? (para 1).2 In other words, the ThcTavadins want to ascertain whether the Sammi­tiyu (henceforth abbreviated as Sam.) admit the existence of pugga!a eithe r as the unchangeable. ever-existing Teali t) like Nihbiina, or as a constituted (sappaccaya, sal!lkhara) object like riipa, or regard it as false like a mirage (nuiyilmarlci 1'/)'0), o r look upon it simply asa hearsay. The-Sam. deny practically all

1. Kola-vyUhy1l (lap, ed.), p. 710: yathA IU k~aQiko 'snir iti , etc. 2. " paa" refers to the p:Hagraplls m:lrked in the P. T. S. edition of the

Kut;"h,,/fllll.

DOCTR INES OF CROUP IV scn ooLS 199

the fou r possibi1ilie~ though they assert that the puggaJa is known as a real and ultimate fact (saccikattha-paramauhena) .

The Sam. now assail the Th. with the counter-question whethe r they would admit that puggala is nOI known in the same: way as that which is real and ultimate. The T~. answered in the affirmative, as, accor:l ing to them, pugga/a IS not even an object like riipa; it is a mere pOIi/iatli (concept), a sammll/{­

sacca (conventional truth), . But when the same question is repeated by the Sam, (as In

paras 2 and 6).1 the Th. reply in the negative by say.ing "oa. h' evalJl,"z Oecauie the answer is to be given to a question, which included both SlJlTil1lutisacca (conventio nal truth) andporamatl~la­sacca (the higtesl truth). The questions and answers which follow nex t have mixture of both sammllti and PQrcmattha truth s, and so they appeal' contradictory to a superlicial reade.r.

Now the Th. give up the logical tricks and put the questlCll straightaway (para II) t hus: whether pl/ggola is a ,P0ranwltlla­sacca3 o r not, i .e. whether or not Puggala is known 111 the same way as the real and ult imate el'erYl"here (sabbattho) in _ an~ ou~­side l'Iipa (material parts of the body), o/waYJ (sobbadii) .In th.IS and the following existences, and in e\'eTFfhing (sabbeslI), I.e., I.n all kh(lIIdhas, ii),alanus, dh(itus. etc. The answer of the Sam. IS also definitely in the negative, I.e., they do not co nsider 'puggala as real in the highest sense, and as existing EI'ef),ll'here, a/ways

and in el'et),lhinK as pointed o ut by the Th. The next attempt of the Th. is to find out whether the Sam.

reg:1. rd pug~Qla as something existing like a ny of the 57 elements, nipc, \'edollii, san/iii efC. The Sam. deny it saying they do not admi t pI/gRata as an clement ap:ut from the 57 eiem('nts.' and in su pport of their contention they quole from the Nikayas (Dfg/w, iii. 232; Majjlrima, i. 341: Angllltaro, ii. 95) the pa ssage "auhl pug~ lo auahit:iya patipanno," which indic<lleS that plIggala exists but not epart from the elements. The Th. also

- 1-:- The re'l1.ainin(!: paras 3-5 oml 7-10 are mere logicat rO 'lnding upof the ql1e.tions and aJ'l5l1'crs put in paras 1 & 2.

2. J he question is, - Yo saccika1!ho paramllilho 1110 so pugga10 "'up,,I:obbJu l i ;ac(ik~l1h~ -PJTM1:lUhc~A li I. ?

3. Perhapl ti t " Ih" jlriiomm ot the Vedanta school or rhilo;ophy 4. Sam:J~·astllta\·jrooham diS\·t /l:uikkhc;lO P;H3V~disSl. )'1I!tukathrl. p. 16.

200 Bli'DDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

cia not clearly Uau~ that puggo!a (as a paiinatli) is different from the elements , the reason ass.iglled by Buddhaghosa l is th at the que:.o;lion~ o f the o pponl!nts have a mixture of sammu/i and pnramaltha truths, and as such the Th. have no o ther ait('r· native bill to leave tbem UDanswer~d (rhapanl)'o),:

The nexi atlempt of the Th . is 10 ihow that the Sam. should ad vocnle ei ther Ul'ChedtHiida or SOilQIa\'iida. With t his end in view, Ihe Th . put the queuions whether pugga/a is identical with or different from "ipa, o r pugga/a is in rlipo (l ike the container and the contai n~) o r vice versa. The Sam. reject all the fou r propositions as, o therwise, they would oecome either an Ucchedaviidi n or a Sassatavadin. Though, according to the Sflm., plfggafa is of the same nature (eklldhammo) as nipa and other ejemen ts,3 they would not treat it as an element iepa rate fr om, and independent o f, the 57 elements.

The Th. now assail their opponents by questioning on lakkho(IQs of pl~8nla, nnd ask whether puggala is sappacea)'a (caused) or appaceaya (uncaused) like Nibblina. The Sam. deny both and ask how the Th. wOiJld e.>::plain the 'puggala· in the statement of Buddha: 'Auhi puggaio attahita~' a pa\ipanno ti .' Is the 'puggala' referred to in this passage sappaccaylI, saltlkhata or oppacco)'ya, Qsaqlkhola? The T h. deny both, as in their opinion the term puggaJa is only a sammlllisacca, and as such it is non-existent.

The next argument put forward by the Th . is, whether the s taiement "pugga/a perceives" is the same as the statement, " that which ~rceives is puggala'" i.e. whether the two ;; tate­ments are identical as cilia is with mano or different as "ipa is from l'edollii. Buddhaghosa interprets the position of the opponents thus: the Sam. ho ld that puggalo perceives, but not everything that perctives is puggo/a; e.g., rupa, l'cdonii, etc. are not puggala, but puggula perceives and that which perceives refers only to the percepien t ( puggala), and not to rlipiidi. l The opponents, however, rely on the statement "atthi puggnlo

I. Sce hl5 Ayl1akatlla, p. 16. 2. K.·"., Pl' . 14-17, paras 13().137 di :ate on the ntove question, eompar­

ma 'I' '' Gi~la' wilh e~ch of the 57 tlement~. 3. Af/hukathri, p. 18. ... . Puggalo upalabbhati (yo yo) upalabbhati (so $0) puggalo Ii ? Kyu,

p. 24.

"DOCTR.INES DF GROUP IV SCHOOLS 201

aUahilaya pa!ipauno Ii" whieh <l.gain is count::red by the Th. by Sa)illg Ihat the Sam. should equaJly rely on the statcment "s uililato lokalJl avt:kkha~su, etc." and admit that therc is no puggulu.

The Th. now pnx;eeli lu eAamine the paii/latti (description) of puggu/u. In answer lu lhe question, .... heth: r tbc puggala of the Rwpudhiiru is rupt and likewise of the Kiimodhiiru is kiiml and of loc AriipadhiilU, arupf, the Sam. affirm the first und the Ihird hut nol the second. TI]I;~ Sam. argue that pugga/a = salta­J IyU and kiJya= sarira. Though they d o not admit either the identi ty of, or difference belw..-:eu, jlvu and sarlra, they hold, though not logically tenable, thaL ki1yu must be different from jJlIgga!a as there are such sLatetnenb :as 'so kaye kAyanupassi viharati and so forth; in which so cannot but refer to pugga!a.

The next discussion relating lo uplJdli·pwinaui (rebirth) of puggala raises the question of transmigralion. The Sam. affirm that plIggala passes from this existence IO uelll but it is neither the self-same puggala nor a different puggala-a statelllent similar to what the 'Th. would sa)· about the passing of the .khl1l1dhas-avoiding the two heretical opinions of su~·sutaviida and IIccliedaviido as also the ekaccasassatlko,lJda ami omara­j'ikklupikadi!!hP I n suppo« of their contention the Sam. quote the p assage,> in which a ' puggala' is said to pass from onc existence to another (5andhiimli sa'flsarall).

Acco rding to the opinion of the opponents that the self-same, o r a different, puggala does not pasS f rom one existence to another, the Th. point out that they admit that some form of pU!Igala referred to in the abo\e-mentioned passages, does pass from one e."(istence to another. This puggala can then have no death, it once beComes a man and then a god and so forth, which is absurd.~ In reply, the Sam. point out that a sOIApanna-

1. Af(hllkllilrii, p. 20: The opponents say : Mama pUg&8io, atlhi jluggalo 'Ii sallhuvacanlo upalabbhati. Yo pana upalabbhali, na so sabbo puggalo. Atha kho te hi ei oa puggalo ke h i cI na puggalo 'II. Trmha iwk"rallhr krkJ,·v Idkill" co II;pa(!lIl!<1lta. Koc:i pU8gulo koci n1 puWlo ' t i 1yam pan' ellM attho. Idal'(l vullam holi : PlIW10 pi hi rnp ~ dl'lI ,,; yo ~nd dhal'(lmo Ilpalabbhali yeva. Tattha puggal0 'va Pllisalo rOplidisu pana kod pi na pugga10 'Ii.

2. See my Early Monastic Buddhism (1941), I, pp. 63 fr. 3. See my t;arly Monastic lJurtdhism (19~1 ) I. p. 63 r.

202 BUDDHrST SECTS IN IND!A_

manussa is knuwn to take rebirth as a sotiipanna-dcva and que~lion how r.;an this sotiipanna-hood pass from one existence to anuther unil:5S there C)I:;sts some form of pliggala to carry the quaii(j",s. In order to show the unsoundness 0: the statement, the Th. ask whether the passing puggala remains identical in every rcspect1 and does not lose any of its qualities.~ T he oppo­nents first negative it on the ground that a man docs not continue to be a man in the deraloka; but on secon d thought they affirm it ill view of the fac t that the carrier of certain qualities from one c1.islcncc to another is a pugga/a, an an!arli­bha)'a-pu;:;gala.3 The Sam. take care to keep clear of the two c.\treme views; (QllljlV(l!!1 rar!1 S;JI'lrOl!1 and alliia,!l jlVQll1 al1iia'11

sarl,a',I. They affirm that the transformed kllalidltas and pliggala, and not the identical khandhuJ and p:tggall1, pass from one e\i:;tence 10 anoth:r. T he khandltas are, however, impermanent allu cUllstiluled, wllile the puggula is not so, but it is not per­lJlallt:1ll and Ullconstituteu either. Without khalldlta , iiyalana, dflllrll, indriyl.l anu cilta, puggala cannOI remain alone but for that rt:d:;un, lile colour and other qualities of the khandha, iiyu/unu, etc. UO 1I0l afft:ct the puggala. Again the pugga/a is nul a shalluw (c1ulyii) of lhe khandhas.

In reply to the question, whether tile pugga!a is perceivable in every momentary thought, the Sam. answer in the affirm"'tive, but they would not accept the inference drawn by the Th. that the pugga/a in that case would have momentary existence (khat)ika-bhii vaf71), i.e" would disappear and re-appear every moment like celasikas (thoughts).

The Sam. now lIsk the Th. wh~ther they would admit that one (yo) who sees snmething (yml') hy means of an organ o f sense (yel1a) is th~ [luggalo. or not. The Th .. after as;;enting to it as a conventinnal truth (sammuti-.sacca), put the same question in the neglltive form thus: One ()'o) , who' does not see ~nyth ing (Yalll) hy means nf an organ of sense (rena\ is

I . A.,ai'lilo _ s"bb::ikarena elc:a~adj~o .

2. A vigato=ekena pi akar~1)a avigato. 3. The self \\hich exists bclweell death and rebirth. See above pp.

114,125. 4. E.g., a bHnd man, an asannisalta.

DOCTRINES OF GROU P IV SCIIOOLS 203

not apuggala. The Sam., however, withoul a lguiug further, quote a few passages, in which Buddha said: 1 ( i.t::. Ihe puggala, according to the S<'.rp.) see by means of my di\ille eyes (d,bbm{}. cakkhu~la) beings appearing and disappt:arilIt, and so forth, and inter therclrom that the seer is puggala.

Their next discussions related to purusakiira. Th e T h. do not admit the existence of any doer, so they asked the Sam . whether the latter would subscribe to the ;;arne opinion. On their denial the Th . ask whether the Sam. would admlt the existence of the doer, and; crealor of the doer, which is negatived by the Sam. on account of H.e heretical doctrine of issaranimllla~1il (God the creator of the world) but which on second thought is affirmed by t h~m in view of the fact hat the pzrents, teachers elc. are also in a sense the makers (kaffii, kfireuT) of a person. The TIL without going into the implied sense of the r<:plies. say Ihat such a state cf things (i. e., a doer havi ng a doef and a deed which implies not just a deed but also a doer) would lead to the conclusion that so long as there is deed (kammo), there is its doer (kiirako puggalo), and hence there can be no end to puggda-paramparii and that would falsify the fact that by the stoppage of the wheel of actions, dukkha can be brought to an end. Then again nibbana, mahiipalhavi, etc. must also have a doer. All the inferences drawn by the Th. are rejected by the Sam. I n conclusion, the Sam. deny that the deed a nd the doer can be distinct, just to avoid admitting that the pugga,fa has menta l properties.

While in the above discussion, the 'doer of a deed is enquired into in the following discussion it i5 the identity of the doer of a deed with the enjoyer of its fruit that is enquired into.

The Th. deny the existence of a feeler or enjoyer apart fmm vijXlka-pavalti (that which is realized, t hll! fructification of an efleet). The Sam. hold th at l'alisar!n'('di/,1hhn is vil'iika (result) but the pugga/a is not vipiikn .1 They fUrTher state that Nibhiina

J. But il may happen tha: pIIlIlIala, who is in the enjoy'''ent of hi~ f, uiti (i.e. merits), may be again an object ofeniovment of another pU!I!l:ala, e.g. a 50n enjoying the fruits of his actions may be the objo:.::t of affection of his mother, and SD forth. This explanation of Iluddhaghosa should be compared with the above like rhe k iileUl of Ir:aflii.

"204 BUDDHIST SECTS IN INDIA

or Mahapalhavi, eh.:. is noL .'ipiika like divine happiness (dibba~ukha) or /1II111un hl.lppillf:l·S (llIaDussasukha) so none of t l:eIU is au objeci of t"njuYIlIt"1Il of the puggala but again Ihe Sam. do not admit Il ia! .lukhu isdistim.:1 from the sukha-enjo)"er. TIle: Th, logically wauted tu make their oppont:nts admit tha t thele must nOI oilly 1Jt:: an cuju)cr uf a fruit but also an enjuyer of II:!;! enjoycr of Ult:: fruit ami ~u 011 lile au endless chain; ill olllt:!" "olds, accurding 10 them, as shm'n above, dllkkha can IJJ ve !lO cnu .

The Th. !lOW pUI the crucia l question thus : whether the Lloer uf a deeu is identical with, or di:ferent from, the enjoyer of its fruit. The opponents first deny both to avoid contradiction in Buddh;o 's sayiug; sayafll kala/.n para'll karafl1 sukhadukkhw/l, etc. but on second thought, in view of thei r theory that there is a common element keeping the link bet ween the present and the future life, they admit it. I n short, the Sam. affirm that t here is a kl1raka (doer) a nd I'edaka (feeler or enjoyer) of a deed, but the two nre neither identical nor dj ff"er:n t, neither both iden tical and different, nor not both identical and different.

The Sa m. next apply the test of abhifiiia (supernormal powcrs), 1fllr/ (relatives) aod phato (attainments) and put the arguments tbus:

(i) How can a person perform certain miracles keeping his organs of sense. etc. inert and inactive, unless there is some­thing else as puggala.

(ii) How cen one recognize the e}i islence of paren ts, castes, e tc. without positing that there is a pugga/a, and

(ii!) How can a pltalastfla continue to be the same in more than onc li fe, unless the c}iistcnce of a pllggala is admitted.

The Th . avoid the issues by submitting the counter-a rgumen t to the efrect that one who cannot perform miracles is not a pl/dgala. In Ihis way Ihey re fule the other 1\. ... 0 arguments.

The next question of the ·l h. is whether t he puggala is cons­titu ted (sol1 lk!za/O) or unconstituled or neither constituted nor unconstituted (n 'eva san/khat niisa'llkhalo). The Sam. affirm the last nltern~t i \'e but would not treat t~e puggafa as something apart (ai/flo) from tbe sOlilkiwl kltandfJOs. They state that the pugga/a has certain aspects of sOIllkhata, e.g., it is subject to sukha, duk kha. and so forth; again it has certain aspects of

DOCTR INES OF GRO UP IV sCHOOLS 205·

asa'llkhara, e. g., il is Dul subj~t to birth, o ld egc and death Ul1t1, farO, and n;arur:IU).

In reply 10 the Th.'s queslion whether n parill;bbuto puggalo exists in Nibbana ur not, the Sam. negative both, as the affir­mation of eitht:r would male Ihem either a SnssatQviidm or 110

U(eh~davadi[[.

);low the S::.m. put tbe counter-question: Docs not a perion say that he is feding happy or unhappy Dud so forth ? How can a person sa) so ullkss he is a puggalo and not n m ere cong­lomeration of st:parat..:: khandhas? In refu ting thi! contention, the Th. put the same question in a negative form thus: Well, if a person uot:s not f~d happiness or unhappiness, then there is no pligga/a. T he Th . further ask whether Sam. would treat sllk!ra and pugga/a as something separate and distinct. The Sam. evade a dirt:d Huswer and ask: \Vell, when a puggala (kocf or so) is suiu tu lJe kiiyc kriycilwpass Yiharari, does it not affirm the existt:nc~ uf a puggala ?

The comrovelsy is tht:u dosed by citations of passages from th= Nik<1yas, the Th. qUOtillg oilly those which dearly express allatra of all things, while the Sal11. quote those passages in whieh the word puggalu or utfuhito or so appear.

Throagh these controyt:rsi~ s, it is apparent that the Sam. a re se=king to e!>ta bHsh that tltt: fi\'C kbandhas which are distind from one another cannot give risc to the consciousness of I-ness, a uDity. The fac ts that u perso!l acts or thinks as one and not as five seplTate objects, that in mallY pasS<."lgc~ Buddha docs actually use the \\onls- SU, u!fu a ud pl'gsa/a, that a person ':; attainments like sotlipannu!zIJutl cvnlinue to be the same ill different ex istence~, amI that ulle speaks of his past exi!tences, and so fonh, do Jeau to the cunclusion tha t, besi des the: five: kh~tndhas, t here exists SOlllt: meuml property which ful'ms the: basis of I-ness, anLl mainwim tJ,c cOlllinuity (If karma from o lle existence 10 another. Thatllltli tal property, however, is chans­ing kba nuhas but ill vit:w uf the fact that olle call think of his past, even of th: evt:llt~ uf llis past exislt: t1 CeS, the chaugi ng khandhas alone cannot uc made respo llsilJlc fOf thc memory. The Sam. tliercfon: affirm the ell.i~t ellce of a sixlh (mental) property and caB it pl/gga/u, which can rema in only a long with khandhas anLl w J ]j u ~t disappear when the khandh <ls di~appca r

205 RlJ l)nHJST SI'.CT~ TN' 1!\"llIA

in Nibbana. As this me ntu l property or puggakl is not k iQ(liko (con slilUted, momentary objec t"1 C! nd again, as it is not also unchanging and ever existinB like Nibbanu, so it is not aSllf/l ­

k lima. Therefore the puggo/a must be admitted to be neither ,faT!,kflOIQ nor asoll'kl:ata.1

Rererri ng to the pudge/a-l'Ma of the Sam., S:illiarak ~jta in h is Tatfl'osOl:graita, eh. \'ii (f) remarks jokingly that the Saugat35 (i.e ., Ihe Bu ddh ists) as lhe upholders of the QI/otta doctrine should bother their head with identity and diffrrence of the doer of a d~d lind the enjoYcr of its fruit. Siintaraksi ta, of course, di smisses both (ma((.'iriida and pl/dgaIa-viida from lhe stnndpoint of the Veda nta ;chool of philosophy, according to which the eternali ty of (illllall is maintained.

Va sumitra summarizes the doctrines of the Sammitiyas or the Val~ipu{riyas thus:

I. T he plldg(l/a is ne ither the same as the skandha.l· nor different from the skal1dltas. Th~ name pudga/a is provisionally given to An aggr('gatc of j·kandflas. iiya:allrls and dha/Us.

2. Dharmns cannot tra nsmigrate fro m one existence t o another apart from the pudga/a. These can be said to tm ns~

migra l.e along with the pudga/a.

Otlter ductrilles

VaSUinitra attributes 10 Ih~ V:itsiputriyas a few other views which h(!ve :I\ready been discussed. These are:

(i) The five vijii5nas conduce neither to saraga (desire) nor to I'irl/ga (removal of desi res);:

tii) To become iree from dl:sire ( l'iriiga), one mus: relinquish the saqlyojmJaJ wh ich can be destroyed by a n adcpt when he

I. Cf. Obermiller's A lfal)-Jil 0/ ,he Ab/riran:aycJa'Pkiira, III, p. 380, rerefrin;: 11'1 Trrl'k"i"/;/ri Inri Scha}"r. Kl1mn/"ii/(i. f(.itH: ""J P",igainvJda. Obermiller writes 'th~ \' at~ipl.ltriyas, Dhadrayiinikas, S~rnmityas. Dharma­guptas and Sa:pkramivG.clins ale those that adrr.it the reality of the 'indivi­dual' They say trot the 'jndi\idua!' is something inexpressible, being neither Identical with the five groups of clements nor dilferent from them. It is to be ~08niscd by the six forms of y,jii<ill"'" and is ~ubjcct to .. ml'Jiira

(phcnomen"1 e~j'll':nre) . 2. Seeatl/f, pp.1]O, 1G~.

.D OCTRII\ E S OF GROUP IV SCHOOLS 207

reaches hhii~'al;iimarga, and not while he remains In

darlal/amarga. (iii) When one has entered the samyok ll'aflycima, one is

called pratipanllak a ill the first twelve moments of the dadal/a­miirga and when one is in the thirteenth moment one is called pf;alasrl:a. 1

(iv) There i5 alltaraMaI'Q.! The Sammiiiyas, like the Sa rva­stiv:idins. hold that every being, whether destined for Kamaloka o r Riipaloka by his k arma, remains for some lime in an inter~ mediate stale of existence. At Ihat time the body takes no mat­erial fo rm, not even the !ka"dhas. It is not an in dependent state of existence but just a waiting stage pr:liminary to its existence in one of lhe two lokas . The Sammitiyas add that those beings, who arc destined for hells. or Asaili1i sphere, or Arupa loka, 1131/:: no an(ariibfwva.

(1/) Parihiiyati arahii arahartii (i (Kvu. I. 2).3 (IIi) N'aulli Jel'C's lI bralimacal'iy(iwiso Ii (KvII. I. 3).'

(vii) Odhisodhiso kf/e.te jahatlli (KI'II. I. 4).6 (vii i) Jahar!' put/tujjallo kamariiga~byiipMan li ? (K\'U, I. 5).'

DHAMMUTTARiYA, BHADRAYANiYA AND C UA N' NAGARIKA

Vasumitra skips over the strecial doctrines of these three sdools: mentioning in "Crse only tha t they differed rega rding the attai nments of an arhat, and the consequent chances of his fa ll from amathood. It seems that in other matters, these three schools agrced with the vie .... 'S of the SammiHyas. In t he XI·II. II 4 : T o the Bhadra)'anilms is att ributed the doctrine of "3nupubba­bhisamaya" (grndual realization of the four truths). In tl:e XI'II. u"ha.'cQ/hii (p. 56), to the Chan~nag,:uikas i ~ attributed the

1. Cf. MaJllld,, 's notes in the A sia M"j()~, II . p. sr.. tn ~hort, the Sammillyus ~olln t in all the f01!rteen moments instead or SarvAs:iv~in>' sill ;eeo. ; so the 13th momerl t of tbe S3mrni1iya~ corresponds to Ihe 15th of the SarvAstillAdins; seep. 164·:;.

2. Se;; ante, pp. 114, 125. 3. Sec: aMe, pp. 82, lOS. 4. Ste tmte, p. J63. 5_ See allle. p. 165. 6. See allte, p. 166. 7. See a'lte, p. 30

208 BUDDHIST SECT$ IN I~DL,\

doctrine DukkhiihiirOli i.e., the ullerancf: of the word "dukkha" leads to knowledge (r.dl)o) (cr. above p. 110).

VrnHAll' A VAOA

This is one of (I.e ~chools ~1l1islcd by Bhav}'" and Vinitadeva but llot by Vasumitra. H J oes nut appear in Ih~ list of schoOl~ of the CeyloJle~e I,;hruuides. Bhavya and Vinlladeva treat it as au oIT:d!uut of Un: S;!f viistivuda school. Prof. La Vallee Poussin ba!> trau:u in the Chim::::.c comm~ntary of the Vijiiaprimiifratd _ l'id~hi a pas!):Jge in which Vibhajyavi1dins are identified with P."lJjj:ltJti~a~jns.l This apparemly refers to the Bahusrutiyu_ ~· J l.Ih<lJyavadIIlS.1 by which name the Prajl\aptivadins dis tillgu. I ... hetl themselves from the Bahu$rutiyas. Prof. Po ussin has sho\\u thai the position ~f the Vibhajyavadins cannot be clearly made uut tiS Ihelr doctrmes have mlJcb in common with the doctrines of the Sarv4sliv4dins, Maba.sal'lghikas, Samrnitiyas aod o tbers. To add to this confUSion, we have the Ceylonese tradition in ~hich t~e ~Ali school, i.e. , the Therav1dins, preferred to call nsel.f VI~haJ)av1dins.3 This anomalous poSitio n of the Vibhajya. Vadl~S, It seems, may be explained by regarding them not as an Independent school, but as a term deno ting those who did no t accept t he dOCtrines of a particular school in toto.t It may be Sh~wn t.ha~ those San'Astiviidins, who d id not accept t he san'am aSl/ theSIS 10 tolO and held instead the opinion that the past, which has not yet produced its frui ts, aod the future do not exist were known as Vibhajyavad in, i.e., SarvaSlivada. vi bhaj~nvildj n , JUSt as we have Bahusruuya.vibhajyavadin. On th iS analogy w:: may say tha t among the Theravadio:; there were perhaps some dissenting groups. who were distinguished as

I. Kola, IOlro., p. Iv. 2. So:e abo~e , p. lOl. 3. Ma"aVUlII$t~, p. 54.

4 ,,, See ~"'Ir.: Ind"x: p . tlJi; ~'_ p . 23.24 fn ., quolina Anhoprcdfpa, 3, p. 48 .. Le5 Vlb~aJyaVAdms ou bien sonl des maitres divcracnts du Grand Veblculc, 0\1 bien IOUleS les ~oles du Petit Vchicule S0l11 nom-'-, " ·bh . -d ' . !lIt:C v i a;ya. ViI inS : Cl: UX~1 nc sont p~s une eco~e delermin~. Par COOsequenl, dans Ie AfaJl~:;allasa"g'Qha (Na~j :o 1183), les Vlbhajyavadins sonl exphqucs comme Mah,{~$akas; d.l ns la Vlbhilf1, corrulle SIil'JlmiliyQs."

J

DOCTRI NES O P CROUP tv SCH OOLS 209

Theravacta·vibhajyavadins. The Ceylonese monks of Maha­vihara probably preferred to call themselves Vibhajjavad in as we find it clearly expressed in the ver.,ified t..1.ble o f contents of chapter JI[ of the Cullavagga1 and in the colophon of the commentary on the Tikapallhiina,2 as also in the Dipava/f,sa (xvi ii. 41,44). In the account of the Third Council, as given in the Ceylonese chronicles,' a3 also in Budd hagho~a's commen­tary,~ the Vib~ajjavad i ns are declared to be orthodox monks.5

As Vasumitra does not count the Vibhaj yavadins as one of the sects, he has not mentioned any special doctrines of theirs. It is o nly in the Abbidharlllokosa that we come across certain doctrines at tributed to this sect. Eviden tly Vasubandh u had in his mind the Sami.stivada-vibhajyavadi ns. The doctrines summa­rized by Prof. La Vallee Poussin are in short as follows :-

i, So und is an effect (saddo vip5.ko, XI'Ii. xii. 3; Kosa, i. 37). Ii. The facult ies of fa ith. memory. etc. (sraddhendriya, smrtin·

driya etc.) a re pure (amlsro~a). (Kosa, ii. 9). iii. There is no intermediate state of e.",istence (4J1(oriibhal'a)

(Kola, iii. 10). iv, Pratitya5amulp5.da is ullconslituted (llJal11sk[la) (Kosa,

Ii. 28) .

v. Ahhidhya, vyapada, mithy{J.clr~l i are physical acts (kiiyika).

t. s co Yin:.yo. CV., pp. 72, 112 : Acariy~n:up Vihha.!jawdanam T~mMI'H~{lirl il'~pa!!l.dakii.nam MaMvih!l.ravlisinal'l1 vlican!l saddhamma­IIhitiyl ti .

2. TikQ_pa!!htim (Cy.), P 366 : IicariyAnalll vAdam ivit>Aya \'l bhaJja· vAdi-s t<;slinal'(l etc.; p. 5~7 ; thcravarpsapp,ldipllrlarn Ihcrai:u~r" Maht­vlMravaslnarp v'Hjl,alar.r kQ\~ lrh llcna vi pulr, -vi1uddhD-budrlhi n~ Buddha. ghoso Ii ... Iherena hta.

l. MtlhiivalJlw. V. 211. 4. Kmhdvallhu-alf.lrakulha. p. 6. 5. Ikforc Vibh.1jjava.da came \0 CC r,,~arded 85 II sect, it m"ant Ihore

who dealt wi lh the mtlaphy51cal problems ~nalyllcall!, from iI pan iculu sta1dpoint as op;"'~<.I 10 1!IOR who solycd Ihe problems s l r:aightwsy {t!kQ'1uQ vddlrr, by a dir«:t amwer. See M aJihimlJ, II . I'll. 99.101; cr. £,118. , I , P 124: Vihhajjavy!l.k:araoiya and Ekarpsavya.karaQiya. I II the MajjMma T. o. 163 ; Papaiiwsitialli, lt , p. Il l , Buddha declared thlt he knew t f,uawidfl , which, accordin~ 10 Buddbagho!a. . TTM:ant thirabMvavAda (mer, tal stea.d iness), T hough these two tern1§, Vib"ejjariida and Thermt/du, wer: used in 'he Nikayas. Ihey di<.l I'QI dCllote any sect, bUI we may take IMm 10 me~n the ~our<:c. from which Ihe ""I"rian name i.~, oed later 01.

210 BUDDIII~T SI':(ITS I ", IN DIA

vi. B hagavan is always in meditation (Kosa, Fr. transl. iv. p. 43 n.l and has no midtlfw (torpor) (Ibid).

vii. Vi bhavatnl)a is :lbando!1ed by bh;ivana (Kosa , vi. 10-11). VIII. Arhats have no fall f rom Arhathood (Xo ia. vi. 58).

LX. T here UTC 43 Dodhipuk ~ I ka-dharmas (Koia. vi. p. 281 n.) : the six additional dharmas are anicca-;;anna, dukkha-s., l\nattars., pahiina-s., viraga-s., and nirodha-s.

x. T here is nipa (matter) ill the Arupya-dhatu (Koio . viii. 3. Xoia, F r. Iransl, p. 135 n.).

Some schools like the Andhakas, Mahiisa nghikas, MahiSasakas point out that riipa exists in Ariipyadhatu but in a very subtle stale. The coTltention of the Vibhajyavadins is pmsibly the same as that of the Tiim,apar!1iya~·l (K oia i, 38) who state that mano_ dhiiw is a material organ, which they call hadaya-l'tll1hll (see Vi!Uddhamaggo, p. 447). This basis of mono--dhiiru, which is mate­rial, exists in the Arupyadhii tu also.

xi. T he Arya of the 4th A.rupya (i.e .. nevasaijljiianas:lIJIjiiA­yatana) dhitu obtains arhathood without the aid of the mogga. This i~ a doctrine 0 1" the Ma hisasakas.

xii. There are twelve viparyasas, (see K osa-I'yiikhyii p. 454), of which eight are removed in dorsal/amarga and four in bJ,ii­I'alliilpiirga (KoSa, v. p. 23 n. ) .

xiii. Jiiiina is the same as dharmas. which are £000 by nature (sl'abhiivatafJ), while vijiiiina means those dharmas which arc fOod by association (samprayogala/.l) with j,iiino (K asa. iv. p. 33 n.; ix. p. 248 n).

.xiv. Realization of the four truths takes p lace all at once, a nd not gradually2 (Kosa. vi, pp. 123, 185).

t. ' ,)(i}"lry,i, 1'. 39. 1. Se< ~bow, p. ss.

J

CHAPTER IX

DOCTRI NeS OF G ROU P V SCHOOLS

Sthavirvada or Theraviida

(includ ing Mahaviharavasins and Abhayagirivasins)

According to both Pali and Sanskrit traditions, the origina l school, which the Ceylonese chronicles l do not connt as scllis· mmic, was called Theraviida or Sthaviravada.

An alternative name of the Sthaviravadins is gi\'en as Vibha· jyavadins. It is doubtful whether th(!re was any independent sdJool having the name of Vibhajyavada. It hlS been shown ~bove (p. 208) thai Vibhajyaviida was sometimes affixed to the na me o f a school on account of certain adherent3 differing in minor points from the principal doctrines of a particular school ~nd preferring to disti nguish themselves as Vibhajyavadins of that pfl rticular school. ln this way, we may explain the Vi bhajyavada of the Ceylonese t radition, that is, the Ceylonese did not accept in toto the doctrines of Theravada and preferred to dist inguish themselves as Sthavira.vibhajjaviidi or simply as Vib hajjaviidi. Tn the Kathiil·fltlllII. the.term Saka\'ada is used instead of Sthavira­'liidfl or Vibhajjavada.:

Hillen Tsang speaks of a group of monks as Mahayanists of the Sthavira schooL From his records,3 it seems that he divided Ihe monks of Ceyl on into two groups, calling the Mahavihara­v:'isins as Hinayftna·Sthaviras and the Abhayagirivasins as Mahii­Yiina-Sthaviras. He {'"me across such Mahayani;; t Sthaviras in the Maha bod hi-s.1 righarama, built at Gaya by a king ofCeylon,4

L Dipav(;'(lsiJ, V. 51 : SaUarasa bhinnav~d~ eko vado abhinnako. Sce W~tte r.; . I, p, 164.

2. Poili/s"fCo"'r"ycr:JY.~. xli. 3. W atte rs, II, p. 234_

4. Wauers. II. p. 138.