The
unanimity that was present in a “monastic community” (Saµgha) at the time of the
Buddha[2] gradually disappeared after his ParinirvŒöa,[3] and the Saµgha became prone to dissonance. According to which work one uses, two,
three, four or five traditions can be listed as new and individual groups.[4] Whatever the depiction of such schism(s) may be, the MahŒsŒµghika has always been recognized as one
of the earliest traditions. There are many theories about the reasons that the Saµgha divided, because the scholars’ explanations vary from one another
concerning the rationale for the first schism. Among the various rationale,
traditionally there are three theories related to the establishment of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition.[5]
The
first theory suggests that the division between and among different groups was
owing to the leniency held by the MahŒsŒµghikas towards the ten disciplinary practices, including that of
receiving gold, silver or currency. The second theory rests on the recorded
incident that a person proposed five doctrinal points which supposedly were
accepted by the MahŒsŒµghikas.[6] There was a serious discord within the Saµgha over these five
points. Such different stances served as an instigation that split the monastic
fraternity into two or more traditions. The third theory holds that neither the
laxity of the ten disciplinary practices nor the five doctrinal points
occasioned the first schism.[7] Instead, it was the expansion of the root Vinaya which provoked critical dissent within the Saµgha; thereafter the amicable unity within the monastic community
dissipated. In this regard, the MahŒsŒµghikas were referred to as conservatives who spurned addition to the
root Vinaya. Based on these three
theories as summarized above, the following sections present in more detail how
each theory contributes to an explanation of the emergence of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition.
The
first theory assumes that the schism in the Saµgha stemmed from the
leniency of the MahŒsŒµghikas toward the ten disciplinary practices. The foundation for the
theory can be found in the D´pavaµsa and MahŒvaµsa, two texts rooted in the TheravŒdin lineage. Both state that the Second Council arose when a number
of the V¨jian monks claimed the legitimacy of
ten disciplinary practices. They made allowances for the following ten
activities as recorded by Thomas William Rhys Davids and Hermann Oldenberg:[8]
(1) That storing salt in a horn vessel was permissible;
(2) That the midday meal might be eaten when the sun’s shadow showed
two finger breadths after noon;
(3) That he who intends to go into the
village could begin to eat again after
he had
once left off;
(4) That a number of Bhikkhus residing
within the same boundary might
hold
Uposatha[9] separately;
(5) That a Saµgha not at unity within itself might carry out an official act,
undertaking to inform Bhikkhus of it;
(6) That it was permissible for a Bhikkhu to
do anything adopted as a
practice by his UpajjhŒya;
(7) That curds might be eaten by one who had
already finished his midday
meal;
(8) That it was permissible to drink unfermented toddy;
(9) That a rug or mat need not be of the
limited size prescribed if it had no
fringe;
(10) That it was permissible to receive gold and silver.
These ten practices aroused the disputes in the Saµgha, and subsequently seven hundred monks congregated at Vai§Œl´ to deal with the clashes over the ten
practices. They conducted a series of monastic meetings, mediated the conflicts
and eventually nullified the ten practices. Although all extant Vinayas universally depict this
momentous event,[10] none associate the
V¨jian monks with the MahŒsŒµghikas or their predecessors.[11] The forerunners of the MahŒsŒµghikas seem not to be involved in this event. However, there are
some negative impressions with regard to the emergence of the MahŒsŒµghikas. Thus, the following discussion
will focus on two issues: (1) the identification of the MahŒsaµg´tikas with the MahŒsŒµghikas, and (2) accepting currency by the MahŒsŒµghikas.
It
is noteworthy that the D´pavaµsa ascribed the ten disciplinary practices to the V¨jian monks,[12] connected them with “those who held the Great Council” (MahŒsaµg´tikas), and charged the MahŒsaµg´tikas with leading the earliest schism
in the Saµgha. In chapter five of the D´pavaµsa, the indictment is recorded as follows:
The wicked Bhikkhus, the Vajjiputtakas who
had been excommunicated by the Theras, gained another party; and many people,
holding the wrong doctrine, ten thousand, assembled and (also) held a council.
Therefore this Dhamma council is called the Great Council (mahŒsaµg´ti). (5.30-31)[13]
Rejecting single passages of the Suttas and of the profound Vinaya, they [the
monks of the Great Council] composed other Suttas and another Vinaya which had
(only) the appearance (of the genuine ones). Rejecting the following texts,
viz.: the ParivŒra which is an abstract of the contents
(of the Vinaya)...they composed new ones. (5.36-37)[14]
Those who held the Great Council were the first schismatics. (5.39)[15]
The D´pavaµsa neither referred to nor alluded to the MahŒsŒµghika. It is the MahŒvaµsa that expressly identified the first
offshoot which separated from the unified Saµgha as the MahŒsaµghika (MahŒsŒµghika).[16] However, some scholars do not differentiate “MahŒsaµghika” from “MahŒsaµg´tika”.[17] As far as the MahŒsaµg´tikas’ redaction of the Vinaya and ParivŒra (appendix) is concerned, there are
two intrinsic problems related to such a depiction in the D´pavaµsa.
Firstly,
the above mentioned accusations against the MahŒsaµg´tikas concerning their redaction of the Vinaya and ParivŒra are unique to the D´pavaµsa.[18] However, the accounts of remodeling the Vinaya and ParivŒra by the MahŒsŒµg´tikas are missing in the other
chronological records, including the MahŒvaµsa. Since both the D´pavaµsa and MahŒvaµsa arose from the “...historical Introduction to the great Commentary
of the MahŒvihŒra”,[19] why is it that these passages are absent from such a far more
refined work as the MahŒvaµsa?[20] If the reorganization of the Vinaya
and ParivŒra by the MahŒsŒµg´tikas had such an impact, it should have been mentioned in the MahŒvaµsa and the works of other traditions.
Secondly,
there is a passage in the TheravŒda Vinaya that overtly shows the final
redaction of this text was not on the Indian subcontinent, but in Ceylon. The
“summary verse” (uddŒna) of the “Chapter on Accumulation (of Transgressions)” (Samuccaya-kkhandhaka) in the Cullavagga states:
îcariyŒnaµ vibhajjapadŒnaµ Tambapaööid´papasŒdakŒnaµ
MahŒvihŒravŒs´naµ vŒcanŒ saddhammaÊÊhitiyŒ ’ti[21]
The recitation is for the maintenance of true dhamma among the teachers of the Vibhajja doctrines, and who, dwellers in the MahŒvihŒra, illuminate Tambapaööid´pa.[22]
Although the term “Tambapaööi” also occurred in A§oka’s
Edicts II and XIII,[23] the place name MahŒvihŒra undoubtedly indicates the historically famous monastery at
Anuradhapura in Ceylon. The uddŒna, thus, was incorporated into the Vinaya after the Buddhist teaching was introduced to this island.[24] There are at least three possibilities regarding the activities of
editing the Vinaya insofar as uddŒna is concerned. First, it is possible that only the above quoted uddŒna from this chapter (Samuccaya-kkhandhaka)
in the Cullavagga was added in Ceylon. Second, it is possible that all of the uddŒnas, or their related chapters, were recast on the island. Third, it
is possible that the whole set of the TheravŒda Vinaya with its uddŒnas assumed its final form in Ceylon rather than in India. Regardless
of which possibility appears most likely, the above passages from chapter five
of the D´pavaµsa that charge the MahŒsaµg´tikas of modifying the Vinaya,
give rise to two potential situations. The first is that the D´pavaµsa was completed earlier than the final
redaction of its Vinaya. The second
is that the allegation of modifying the Vinaya
could be a demonstration that the editor(s) of the D´pavaµsa tended to adopt a defensive attitude
toward the TheravŒda Vinaya,
despite its reorganization. Understood in the above manner, the entire critique
of the MahŒsaµg´tikas regarding their remodeling the Vinaya is primarily apologetic. Thus,
two intrinsic issues that arise from the description given in chapter five of
the D´pavaµsa so far have been addressed.
The
first intrinsic issue of the D´pavaµsa description that the MahŒsaµg´tikas reshuffled the Vinaya and ParivŒra is that such a description finds no
patron in the other texts, including the MahŒvaµsa Ñ a work closely related to the D´pavaµsa. The second intrinsic issue regarding the D´pavaµsa statement arises from the information
found in the TheravŒda Vinaya itself that suggests that part
or all of the TheravŒda Vinaya could have assumed its final
shape in Ceylon. Accordingly, the accusation that the MahŒsaµg´tikas remodeled the Vinaya
becomes rather one-sided.
If
the MahŒsaµg´tikas are taken to be identical to the
MahŒsŒµghikas, then the above citation from chapter five of the D´pavaµsa gives rise to two other problematic
perspectives regarding the accusation that the MahŒsaµg´tikas modified and remodeled the Vinaya.
The
first problematic perspective is that among the scholars who equate “MahŒsaµg´tika” with “MahŒsŒµghika”, in his PŒli
Literature, Kenneth Roy Norman gives two arguments for
the absence of the ParivŒra in the MahŒsŒµghika tradition. Norman argues in the first instance that the ParivŒra had not come into existence at the
time of the schism. Here he suggests that the ParivŒra was compiled later than the other
parts of the TheravŒda Vinaya. This suggestion concurs with
the observation of various scholars.[25] Once the activity
of compiling the ParivŒra is verified as being later, it would explain why the MahŒsŒµghikas could not have the ParivŒra removed because it had not yet appeared.
Given Norman’s claim that the MahŒsaµg´tika and MahŒsŒµghika are equated, the accusation from
the foregoing quotation (p. 16) in the D´pavaµsa would be unfounded.
In
the second instance, he presumes that, if existing, such a text had not yet
acquired “canonical status at that time”.[26] The non-canonical status of the ParivŒra reflects the fact that its
composition may have been an one-sided or regional effort that related only to
the SthaviravŒdins (or in a narrower sense, the
TheravŒdins) without reference to the MahŒsŒµghika lineage. It is also possible that
the MahŒsŒµghikas disagreed with the SthaviravŒda method of arranging the vinaya
materials in the ParivŒra, a disagreement that would have made the breach between the
SthaviravŒda and MahŒsŒµghika inevitable. In this regard, the
MahŒsŒµghikas appeared to have treated the Vinaya in a conservative manner. This perspective bears resemblance
to a possible third theory, the expansion of the root Vinaya, that may have provoked the initial schism within the Saµgha. This possible third theory will be discussed in more detail later
in 1.C, the Expansion of the Vinaya
(p. 30).
The
second problematic perspective is in regard to the fact that, among the extant Vinayas of the MahŒsŒµghika, Dharmaguptaka, TheravŒda, SarvŒstivŒda, Mah´§Œsaka and MèlasarvŒstivŒda, both the MahŒsŒµghika and Mah´§Œsaka texts possess no appendix such as ParivŒra.[27] It is noteworthy that the editor(s) of the D´pavaµsa was (were) not unacquainted with the Mah´§Œsaka (MahiµsŒsaka in PŒli),[28] because the latter branched off from the SthaviravŒdins according to this PŒli text.[29] If it is granted that the MahŒsaµg´tika and MahŒsŒµghika are identical, then why does the D´pavaµsa not mention the lack of an appendix
to the Vinaya of the Mah´§Œsakas and merely mention that of the MahŒsaµg´tikas? Since there is no appendix in either the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya or the Pa–cavargika-vinaya of the Mah´§Œsakas, how plausible is it that the earlier layout of the Vinaya should have had the appendix?
So
long as there is a strong indication that the ParivŒra was organized at a later date, the
aforementioned citation in the D´pavaµsa tends to lose its basis. In brief, given that the MahŒsŒµghikas were the MahŒsaµg´tikas, the MahŒsŒµghikas still do not deserve the charge of having altered the Vinaya, because the accounts found in
the D´pavaµsa are still problematic.
Besides
the above issue regarding the identity of the MahŒsaµg´tika and MahŒsŒµghika, what also needs to be questioned is the intensely negative
impression of the MahŒsŒµghikas or their predecessors, being identified with the V¨jian monks in Vai§Œl´ who were blamed for their improper
practices of accepting gold, silver or currency and nine other practices.[30] The MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya simply points out one illegitimate practice, namely
accepting gold, silver or currency,[31] but the negative impression that the MahŒsŒµghikas derived can be seen in the
following conclusion by Hirakawa:
Since the ten practices which they (the MahŒsŒµghikas) had supported had been rejected by the assembly [of the seven hundred monks], they must have removed these references from the text. However, since the acceptance of money was clearly prohibited in the Nissargika-pŒcattika No. 18, they could not delete this reference and left only this part of the prohibitions. Since they removed references to the “ten practices,” they must have added that Da§abala, a transmitter of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, had compiled the Navadharma-nidŒna and the Pa–ca Vi§uddhi Dharma.[32]
However convincing the conclusion may be, Hirakawa’s
argument that the account of the Second Council regarding the acceptance of
money was retained in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya seems untenable for three reasons.
Firstly,
if the so-called MahŒsŒµghikas had eradicated the references to the other nine practices,
they could have also ruled out the reference to the practice of accepting gold,
silver or currency. That the practice of accepting gold, silver or currency may
be defied can find its precedent in the account of the First Council.[33] On that occasion, “a group of six monks” (·a¶vargika-bhik·u) suggested that the Buddha would have regarded all disciplinary
precepts as trivial and then would have discarded them, had he attended the
First Council when there was a proposal regarding which of the trivial precepts
were to be abandoned. Likewise, the MahŒsŒµghikas could have followed the
suggestion given by the group of six monks, neglected the precept of not taking
gold, silver or currency, and totally removed all of the ten practices.
Secondly,
Hirakawa’s view that the MahŒsŒµghikas could not delete only the tenth practice regarding “receiving
money”, because it was also found in the Nissargika-pŒcattika, can be questioned on the basis of the research done by Janice J.
Nattier and Charles S. Prebish. They found that the first, second, third,
seventh, ninth, and tenth practices appear in the bhik·u PrŒtimok·asètra[34] and the fourth, fifth, and sixth appear in the Skandhaka for which there is no extant Sanskrit text. The seven practices
that could be traced to the bhik·u PrŒtimok·asètra belonged to either the Nissargika-pŒcattika or the PŒcattika and consequently, this discovery challenges Hirakawa’s view that
only the tenth practice regarding “receiving money” could not be deleted.
However, the research done by Nattier and Prebish falls short of their
objective insofar as they have to defer to the Chinese text[35] of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya.
Thirdly,
if it were the case that MahŒsŒµghikas or their forerunners actually received currency, they should
have provided strong arguments to defend their practice of taking currency.[36] However, such a position of defense had not been taken by the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. The above
conclusion drawn by Hirakawa dismisses why the MahŒsŒµghikas or their forerunners did not
defend themselves. Furthermore, his description that the deletion of the “ten
practices” was followed by the compilation of the Navadharma-nidŒna (nine categories of matters, including the preface to the
disciplinary precepts) and the Pa–ca Vi§uddhi Dharma (five principles determining
whether a practice conforms to purity) by Da§abala is also an one-sided interpretation, because these can be accounted
for in the proceedings of the First Council.[37]
Consequently,
instead of conceding to Hirakawa’s conclusion, the opposite may be taken up. It
is not that the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya ignores the description of the other nine practices, but
rather it reflects an earlier development in the Saµgha when the other nine
practices had not yet come into being. Since all other versions of the Vinayas belong to the SthaviravŒdin lineage,[38] it is hardly surprising that the other extant Vinayas refer to ten improper practices in comparison to a single
one in the MahŒsŒµghika counterpart.
Although
the above two issues (1.A.1 and 1.A.2) have been discussed in view of the
negative impressions of the MahŒsŒµghikas regarding their origin, there could be, on the contrary, one
hypothesis that provides a suitable cause for the first schism in the Saµgha. This hypothesis assumes that the forerunners of the SthaviravŒdins added the other nine proper practices to that of not taking
currency in order to emphasize their high esteem for the vinaya. Such an addition might have been presented after the rejection of
receiving currency had been justified.[39] The predecessors of the MahŒsŒµghikas could have strongly resisted the
presentation of the addition of the nine by the SthaviravŒdins perhaps in a meeting that took place between the second and
third recorded councils,[40] and the discord between two groups could have eventually led to an
uncompromising division. If this postulation were the case, then, why do those
extant Vinayas of the SthaviravŒdin lineage not connect the other nine illegitimate practices with
the MahŒsŒµghikas? Here two possibilities can be considered. Firstly, the term
“MahŒsŒµghika” could have arisen after the first schism in the Saµgha. Secondly, the vinaya masters in
the SthaviravŒdin lineage may not have felt obliged
to ascribe the nine practices to the MahŒsŒµghikas for whatever reason. For
example, the vinaya masters in the SthaviravŒdin
lineage could have realized that the MahŒsŒµghikas did not assume all
responsibilities for the schism in this connection.
The
extant Vinayas of the SthaviravŒdin lineage do not relate the other nine improper practices to the
MahŒsŒµghikas, nor do these Vinayas
consider the MahŒsŒµghikas to be lenient. When some scholars characterize the MahŒsŒµghikas as lenient in disciplinary
practice,[41] the criterion for judging the laxity is open to question. The
extant Vinayas of the SthaviravŒdins do not declare that their own attitude toward the monastic
discipline is more appropriate or stringent than that of the MahŒsŒµghikas; therefore, as far as the
disciplinary laxity of the MahŒsŒµghikas is concerned, there is no textual evidence. Conversely, it
could be possible that the predecessors to the SthaviravŒdins augmented the other nine practices to display their high regard
for the vinaya. Such augmentation probably led to the schism.
Besides
the ten disciplinary practices, the five doctrinal points raised by MahŒdeva were given as the rationale for the first schism in the Saµgha. The details of these five doctrinal points
may vary from text to text.[42] According to the I-pu-tsung-lun-lun (Taish‾ no. 2031, hereafter: Samayabhedoparacanacakra)
translated by HsŸan-tsang, the five points raised by MahŒdeva are:
1. An Arhat can be tempted by others.
2. An Arhat is subject to unawareness (avidyŒ).
3. An Arhat still hesitates.
4. Arhatship is achieved through another.
5. The path (mŒrga) arises from uttering a voice.[43]
ƒtienne Lamotte maintains that the MahŒsŒµghikas took the side of MahŒdeva’s five points[44] and he concludes that these points are aimed primarily to strip the
Arhat of his authority with which he had been honored from the time of the
Buddha.[45] The five points seem to be a “syllabus...of laxity in relation to
rigorism”. The belief that the MahŒsŒµghikas took the side of MahŒdeva’s
five points “...led to the opposition and separation of the Buddhist schools.”[46]
Nattier
and Prebish cite Paul DemiŽville’s
opinion that the patronage of the five points by the MahŒsŒµghikas reflects the disciplinary laxity
of the tradition in view of their doctrinal position.[47] Nattier and Prebish in quoting DemiŽville’s viewpoint accept two orbits of oral traditions. One is the
oral tradition of the vinaya masters and
the other is that of the Dharma masters. The former was inclined to use the vinaya sources to interpret the disciplinary clashes as the origin of
schism. The latter appeared to interpret the doctrinal discrepancies as the
origin of schism through the Dharma sources. Taking into consideration the Sh-li-fu-wn-ching (hereafter: êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra, Taish‾ no. 1465) a “Dharma source”, Nattier and Prebish draw the
conclusion that it was the clashes over the Vinaya rather than over the Dharma that were the focal point of the
schism. Their key point that the vinaya issues occur
in the “Dharma source” such as the êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra is intended to prove DemiŽville’s
theory untenable.[48]
Further,
as Nattier and Prebish point out, AndrŽ Bareau
contends that the five points of MahŒdeva are
intimately related to the monastic discipline. Bareau suggests that the first
point could be bound up with the first precept in the SaµghŒti§e·a category of the PrŒtimok·asètra, and the other four points could be related to the qualities with
which a Master (upŒdhyŒya) or “Deputy of the Master” (ŒcŒrya) should be endowed, since these qualities are specified in the
context of receiving the higher ordination. Thus, Bareau concludes that the
SthaviravŒdins tightened the stringency of the
disciplinary precept or the qualities possessed by an upŒdhyŒya or ŒcŒrya, in comparison to the leniency of the MahŒsŒµghikas.[49] It appears that the five points proposed by MahŒdeva are assumed to mirror the disciplinary laxity of the MahŒsŒµghikas. Nevertheless, as questioned in
the previous section (1.A: Disciplinary Leniency) to establish a standard for
measuring laxity is problematic. Such association of the five points with the
disciplinary leniency thus tends to be baseless.
On
the other hand, Nattier and Prebish, after a detailed investigation of the five
points, deduce that the time when MahŒdeva
advanced these five doctrinal points should be later than the time traditionally
attributed to him.[50] That event pertains not so much to the initial schism in the Saµgha but to the subsequent divisions within the MahŒsŒµghika lineage. Consequently, the
accusation regarding the MahŒsŒµghika’s laxity in doctrine is also to be questioned. MahŒdeva’s five points were not causes for the MahŒsŒµghika to arise but were points that
prompted the emergence of several branches within the MahŒsŒµghika tradition.
Apart
from the ten disciplinary practices and the five doctrinal points, the
expansion of the Vinaya can be
understood as the third theory of the unprecedented schism within the Saµgha. Gustav Roth, as well as Nattier and Prebish come to such a
conclusion on the basis of the êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra.[51] According to this sètra, on one occasion, the Saµgha was confronted with a discord brought about by augmentations to the
original Vinaya in the Council over
which Venerable KΤyapa presided. One party strongly
disapproved of the expansion of the original Vinaya proposed by the other party. Therefore, two diametrically
opposed groups arose and clashed. They approached the emperor and sought his
advice.[52] The emperor eventually suggested that the two groups of monks cast
a vote. As it turned out, when voting chips were counted, those who were in
favor of not changing the Vinaya
exceeded those who preferred an augmented version. The king did not rule
against either party but rather requested that the two live apart so that the
clash would vanish. Since those who were in favor of not changing the Vinaya were in the majority, they
henceforth were known by the name “the Majority” (MahŒsŒµghikas/Mo-ho-sng-ch’i). On the other hand, those who adopted the augmented version
were designated the “Seniors” (SthaviravŒdins/T’a-pi-lo), owing to the fact that many members were seniors in
the Saµgha.[53] The MahŒsŒµghikas seemed to have preserved the original Vinaya ever since, and thus they have looked upon their own Vinaya as the most archaic version.
Despite
the fact that the third theory is not exempt from the coloring of a particular
lineage, such an explanation on the expansion of the root Vinaya is susceptible to be seen as an apologia. Nevertheless,
there have been several scholars acknowledging the antiquity of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. What follows are the views of AndrŽ Bareau, W. Pachow, Marcel Hofinger, Erich Frauwallner, Gustav Roth
and Charles S. Prebish regarding the question of antiquity.[54]
Bareau
based his research on comparing the length of the §aik·a-dharma (the precepts that are to be learned) category in the MahŒsŒµghika PrŒtimok·asètra with its counterpart in other
versions. He discovered that the PrŒtimok·asètra presentation of the §aik·a-dharma is shorter, and he used his discovery to prove its antiquity.
Pachow, after a thorough comparative study of the disciplinary precepts in the PrŒtimok·asètra, reached the conclusion that: “The
most ancient among the texts [PrŒtimok·asètras] compared, seems to be the text of the MahŒsŒºghika School, which is worthy to be
specially mentioned and recommended as such.”[55] “Hofinger’s thesis is founded on an examination of all the second
council material found in the various Vinayas.”[56] In studying a list of masters in the Vinayas of the TheravŒda, MèlasarvŒstivŒda and MahŒsŒµghika traditions, Frauwallner came to realize that the Vinaya of the MahŒsŒµghikas was the “original one” which, in
particular, displayed an ancient character.[57] After reading Fa-hsien’s travel record,[58] which states that
the text had been constantly followed since the time of the Buddha, Roth noted
that the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya appeared to be quite archaic.[59] On the basis of
Prebish’s research, Roth also suggested that the antiquity of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya could be based on
a grammatical and linguistic analyses of the Sanskrit MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin texts.[60] In his recent research, êaik·a-Dharmas Revisited, Prebish gives more details on the §aik·a-dharma on the basis of the two most “ancient” texts of the MahŒsŒµghika and the TheravŒda PrŒtimok·asètras and thus hints at the antiquity of the MahŒsŒµghika text.[61] Therefore, the conclusions drawn from the above approaches are in
harmony with the description on the cause of discord found in the êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra that ascertains the probable cause
for the first schism in the Saµgha to be the expansion of the original Vinaya.
Thus
far, we have discussed three theories each of which describes how the first
schism in the Saµgha may have taken place. These theories also are related to the
establishment of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition. When giving the rationale for the schism, the
editors of the D´pavaµsa (1.A),
Samayabhedoparacanacakra (1.B) and êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra (1.C) elevate their own tradition and denigrate the others to
varying degrees.
Since
each theory reflects the view of a certain tradition (e.g., the TheravŒda in the first theory [1.A], SarvŒstivŒda in the second [1.B], or MahŒsŒµghika itself in the third [1.C]),[62] without a close examination of the MahŒsŒµghika texts any accusation, claim, or
depiction would remain one-sided. Aside from obtaining some impression from the
above three theories, the alternative is to observe the MahŒsŒµghika tradition directly through a
study of its own vinaya literature Ñ MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya Ñ in light
of its tradition and development. Therefore, the thesis will discuss the tradition
of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya in Chapter Two by illustrating the traditional value of the
monastic discipline in the text in view of six divisions. In Chapter Three, the
development of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya will be examined by means of a three-tiered structure of the
DharmŒnudharma Ñ dharma, varga (chapter) and vinaya mŒt¨kŒ (disciplinary topic).
Owing
to the fact that the observation of the tradition and development of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya is the focal
point of the thesis, the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya is considered to be the basic source. The text is extant
only in its Chinese translation (Taish‾ no.
1425), although there are also fragments of the certain portions of the
Sanskrit MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin text.[63] The general layout and organization of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya and its
counterparts in the LokottaravŒdin
offshoot is given in view of the following five divisions:[64]
1. The commentary of the disciplinary precepts for monks
(T22. 227a1 [fasc. 1] - 412b16 [fasc. 22]);[65]
2. The Miscellanea-dharma (T22. 412b17 [fasc. 23] - 499a17 [fasc. 33])[66] Ñ the Summary of the îrya-MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin Bhik·u-
Prak´röaka,[67] namely the collection of all fourteen summary verses
(uddŒnas);
3. The Deportment-dharma (T22. 499a18 [fasc. 34] - 514a18 [fasc. 35])
Ñ the AbhisamŒcŒrika-Dharma of the LokottaravŒdins;[68]
4. The commentary of the disciplinary precepts for the nuns
(T22. 514a19 [fasc. 36] - 544c10 [fasc. 40])[69]
Ñ the Bhik·uö´-vinaya of the LokottaravŒdins;
5. The Miscellanea-dharma and Deportment-dharma for the nuns
(T22. 544c11-548a28 [fasc. 40])
Ñ the Bhik·uö´-Prak´röaka of the LokottaravŒdins.
It
is commonly recognized that, among the seven extant collections of Vinayas,[70] the tradition to which a text belongs is apparent:
(1) PŒli Vinaya Ñ the TheravŒdins;
(2) SsÅ-fn-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1428, Caturvargika-vinaya) Ñ the
Dharmaguptakas;
(3) Mi-sha-sai-pu-huo-hsi-wu-fn-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1421, Pa–cavargika-vinaya)
Ñ the Mah´§Œsakas;
(4) Shih-sung-lŸ (Taish‾ no. 1435, Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya)
Ñ the SarvŒstivŒdins;
(5) The Chinese texts that are named in connection with
“MèlasarvŒstivŒda”
(e.g., Kn-pn-shuo-i-ch’ieh-yu-pu-p’i-nai-yeh, Taish‾ no. 1442,
the MèlasarvŒstivŒda Bhik·u-vinaya) Ñ the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins;
(6) The Tibetan versions of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda-vinaya
Ñ the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins;
(7) The Mo-ho-sng-ch’i-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1425, MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya)
Ñ the MahŒsŒµghikas.
That is to say, the PŒli Vinaya belongs to the
TheravŒdins, SsÅ-fn-lŸ (Caturvargika-vinaya) to the Dharmaguptakas, Mi-sha-sai-pu-huo-hsi-wu-fn-lŸ (Pa–cavargika-vinaya) to the Mah´§Œsakas and Shih-sung-lŸ (Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya) to the SarvŒstivŒdins. Furthermore, the Chinese texts
that are named in connection with “MèlasarvŒstivŒda” belong to the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins.[71] Likewise, the Tibetan versions[72] of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda-vinaya
belong to the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins. With
respect to the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, Fa-hsien mentioned only
that this text had been followed by the Saµgha since the time of
the Buddha.[73] A specific tradition was not given by Fa-hsien, but both Ven.
Yin-shun and Prof. Hirakawa conclude that this Vinaya belongs to the MahŒsŒµghika lineage.[74] As far as two traditions during the initial schism are concerned, the
first six Vinayas (i.e., those of
the TheravŒdins, Dharmaguptakas, Mah´§Œsakas SarvŒstivŒdins and MèlasarvŒstivŒdins) belong to the SthaviravŒdin tradition, whereas only the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya belongs to the MahŒsŒµghika tradition.[75] The recognition of the traditions for these texts may well make the
study of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya worthwhile for grasping the background of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition.
As noted above, because each theory is founded on the orientation of a certain tradition, without an investigation into the MahŒsŒµghika texts any comment would appear partial. In order to observe the MahŒsŒµghika tradition from research into its vinaya text Ñ the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya Ñ the traditional value of vinaya will be discussed and exemplified in light of six divisions. Further, the development of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya will be interpreted in terms of the three-tiered structure of DharmŒnudharma Ñ dharma, varga and vinaya mŒt¨kŒs. Since the focal point of the thesis is not to rest on any account of a specific tradition regarding the background of the MahŒsŒµghikas, the present research is attempted to grasp the MahŒsŒµghika tradition by focusing on observations made from the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. Thus, the embodiment of monastic discipline in the text will be explained in Chapter Two, and the organization of the Vinaya will be presented in Chapter Three.
CONTENTS PROLEGOMENON CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER THREE CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Mo-ho-sng-ch’i-lŸ is the transliteration of the Chinese title of the MahŒsŒµghika text of “monastic discipline” (vinaya), which is number 1425 in the Taish‾ Shinshè Daiz‾ky‾ (the Chinese TripiÊaka). From now on any text in the Taish‾ version will be expressed by the notation “Taish‾ no. 1425”, whereas a citation from a certain volume will take the form “T22. 548b1”. Hereafter the text will be called “the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya”. Throughout this thesis, the term vinaya (lower-case and in italics) will refer to monastic discipline, whereas Vinaya (capital ‘V’ and in bold) will be used for the text or literature concerning the monastic discipline. This distinction is in accord with Richard Francis Gombrich, TheravŒda Buddhism (London & New York: Routledge, 1996 reprint), p. 5.
[2] At the time of the Buddha, a remarkable unanimity was present in the “monastic community” (Saµgha) despite a few clashes or temporary ruptures. See ƒtienne Lamotte, A History of Indian Buddhism, trans. Sara Webb-Boin (Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1988), p. 517. Actually, ƒtienne Lamotte bases his account on J. N. Banerjea’s “Schools of Buddhism in Early Indian Inscriptions,” Indian Historical Quarterly 24.4 (1948): 251.
[3] This word literally means “fully blowing out”, and here it is interpreted as “the passing away of the Buddha”, cf., Ven. Wapola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught (London: Gordon Fraser, 1978 reprint), pp. 60 and 145.
[4] Lamotte, pp. 529-46. Regarding the two traditions it is certain that the “Seniors” (Sthaviras) and “the Majority” (MahŒsŒµghikas) are the two earliest branches. Further, the three traditions refer to the Sthaviras, MahŒsŒµghikas and VibhajyavŒdins (those who make distinctions of the dharmas). The four traditions consist of the Sthaviras, MahŒsŒµghikas, SarvŒstivŒdins and Saµmat´yas. Lastly, the five traditions consist of the MahŒsŒµghikas, Dharmaguptakas, Mah´§Œsakas, KŒ§yap´yas and SarvŒstivŒdins. This distribution can also be found in the concluding notes of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, see T22. 548b1-25, fasc. 40. Cf., Akira Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism, ed. & trans. Paul Groner, Asian Studies At Hawaii Ser. 36 (Honolulu: U of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 118-19. The author concisely depicts several types of traditions and then gives the Buddhist offshoots which were mentioned occasionally by Brahmanical philosophical texts.
[5] Cf., Janice J. Nattier & Charles S. Prebish, “MahŒsŒµghika Origins: the Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism,” History of Religions 16.3 (1977): 237-72. These authors discuss three theories. According to Lance S. Cousins, there are two theories on the cause of the first schism in the Saµgha. The first is of SarvŒstivŒdin origin in around third or fourth century CE and refers to the doctrinal disputes over the “Five Points”. The second theory is of TheravŒdin and MahŒsŒµghika origins and is attributed to vinaya issues. For these two theories, see Lance S. Cousins, “The ‘Five Points’ and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools,” The Buddhist Forum, ed. Tadeusz Shorupski, vol. II (New Delhi: Heritage Publishers, 1992), pp. 31-34. Furthermore, Gustav Roth gives four proposals in his interpretation of the first schism, see Gustav Roth, Bhik·uö´ Vinaya: Including Bhik·uö´-Prak´röaka and a Summary of the Bhik·u-Prak´röaka of the îrya-MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Ser. 12 (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Inst. 1970), pp. vii-viii. He lists four different conceptions with reference to the division of the Saµgha: (1) The vote required by the majority of monks who held that they possessed the original Vinaya; (2) Several groups who varied in the meaning and tenets called for the arbitration by King A§oka; (3) Five Points of MahŒdeva; (4) The split happened as a consequence of the Council at Vai§Œl´. In fact, these four are not different from those proposed by Nattier and Prebish.
[6] See the discussion at the beginning of “Five Points Raised by MahŒdeva (1.B)”.
[7] Prebish & Nattier, pp. 265-70, the authors deem this theory as a new approach to explore the MahŒsŒµghika-Sthavira schism; cf. Roth, pp. vii-viii, the editor considers the reason that occasioned the schism.
[8] T. W. Rhys Davids & Hermann Oldenberg, trans., Vinaya Texts, part 3 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991 reprint), p. 386; see also Nalinaksha Dutt, Buddhist Sects in India, 2nd ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1978), pp. 15-16; Prebish & Nattier, pp. 242-44; Isaline Blew Horner, trans., The Book of Discipline, vol. 5 (London: Pali Text Society [hereafter: PTS], 1938-1966), p. 407; D´pavaµsa, ed. & trans. Hermann Oldenberg (New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1982 reprint), p. 139; and MahŒvaµsa, trans. Wilhelm Geiger et al. (London: PTS, 1964 reprint), pp. 19-20. Regarding the ten practices, Nalinaksha Dutt notes that there is only a slight difference between the Sanskrit and PŒli sources, see ibid., p. 20.
[9] The Sanskrit equivalent is po·adha. This is the fortnightly service in which the prŒtimok·a was recited.
[10] For Mah´§Œsaka’s Pa–cavargika-vinaya (henceforth “Mah´§Œsaka Vinaya” will be used interchangeably with “Pa–cavargika-vinaya”), see T22. 192a26-194b20, fasc. 30; for MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, see T22. 493a25-c11, fasc. 33; for Dharmaguptaka’s Caturvargika-vinaya (henceforth Dharmaguptaka Vinaya will be used interchangeably with “Caturvargika-vinaya”), see T22. 968c18-971c2, fasc. 54; for SarvŒstivŒdin Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya, see T23. 450a27 (fasc. 60) - 456b8 (fasc. 61); for MèlasarvŒstivŒda-vinaya K·udrakavastu, see T24. 411b28-414b11, fasc. 40; for TheravŒda Vinaya, see Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, trans., Vinaya Texts, part 3, pp. 386-414, Cullavagga, ch. 12. The terms Pa–cavargika-vinaya, Caturvargika-vinaya and Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya are based upon Akira Hirakawa’s Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Ser. 21 (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Inst., 1982), pp. 1-14.
[11] Cousins, pp. 47-48; Roth, p. x; A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism 2nd rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991 reprint), p. 214.
[12] D´pavaµsa, ed. & trans. Oldenberg, p. 139.
[13] Ibid., p. 140. However, A. K. Warder demonstrates how unlikely it is that the “Great Council” was conducted right after the conclusion of Vai§Œl´ communal recitation; see his Indian Buddhism, p. 214.
[14] D´pavaµsa, ed. & trans. Oldenberg, p. 141, the words in the square bracket are absent in the text.
[15] Ibid.
[16] MahŒvaµsa, trans. Geiger, p. 26, verse 5.3-4; MahŒvaµsa, ed. Wilhelm Geiger (London: PTS, 1958 reprint), p. 28~7. Both the PŒli and the translation use the word “MahŒsaµghika”. According to Unrai Wogihara, the word “MahŒsaµghika” is an erroneous form of “MahŒsŒµghika”; cf., “MahŒsaµghika,” Bon-wa-daijitan (Sanskrit-Japanese Dictionary), (Taipei: Hsin-wn-fng, 1979 reprint). However, “MahŒsŒµghika” is regarded as equivalent to “MahŒsaµghika” in the entry of “MahŒsŒµghika” of the same work. In Franklin Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. 2 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale UP, 1953), only is the word “MahŒsŒµghika” included. As noted by Monier Monier-Williams, the word “MahŒsaµghika” also is considered a wrong reading of “MahŒsŒµghika”; cf., “MahŒ,” A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997 reprint).
[17] Lamotte, p. 289; N. Dutt, p. 58; Kenneth Roy Norman, PŒli Literature, A History of Indian Literature, vol. 7, fasc. 2 (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983), p. 27; Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism, p. 113; Akira Hirakawa, “An Evaluation of the Sources on the Date of the Buddha,” The Dating of the Historical Buddha, ed. Heinz Bechert, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gšttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Folge 3, Nr. 189 (Gšttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 263 and 273. Cf., Roth, p. vii, the editor does distinguish these two.
[18] Lamotte, p. 288. The author gives his insight as follows:
Of the Sinhalese chronicles, the D´pavaµsa is the only one to mention the MahŒsaµg´ti and the MahŒsaµg´tikas.... The part concerning the MahŒsaµg´tikas was eliminated from the chronicle by the compilers of the MahŒvaµsa and the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ and, as will be seen, replaced by a completely different document in the NikŒyasaµgraha.
However, it does not necessarily follow that the author(s) of the D´pavaµsa deemed the MahŒsaµg´tika to be the same as the MahŒsŒµg´tika.
[19] D´pavaµsa, ed. & trans. Oldenberg, p. 7; cf., Lamotte, p. 288, states that other works remain silent about the insinuation of the reshuffle.
[20] Norman, p. 117. The author says that the MahŒvaµsa was regarded as the alternative of the D´pavaµsa.
[21] Vinaya PiÊakaµ, ed. Hermann Oldenberg, vol. 2 (London: PTS, 1977 reprint), p. 72. According to the editor, there is a variant reading for “vibhajjapadŒnaµ”, which is “vibhajjavŒdŒnaµ”, see ibid., p. 312.
[22] Horner, trans., The Book of Discipline, vol. 5, p. 95.
[23] “Tambapaööi,” Dictionary of PŒli Proper Names, ed. Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera (1937; New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983 reprint), vol. 1.
[24] Rhys Davids and Oldenberg trans., Vinaya Texts, part 1, p. 238, nt. 3; Horner, trans., The Book of Discipline, vol. 5, p. 95, nt. 9.
[25] T. W. Rhys Davids, trans., The Questions of King Milinda, part 1, introduction, Sacred Books of the East Ser. 35 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975 reprint), p. xxxix; Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, trans., Vinaya Texts, part 1, introduction, p. xxiv; ParivŒra, ed. Bhikkhu Jagadisa Kasyapa, introduction, NŒlandŒ-DevanŒgar´-PŒli-Series (Bihar: Pali Publication Board, 1958), p. X; Dutt, pp. 58-59. Furthermore, Oldenberg made the following statement:
However, our investigations regarding the origin of the Vinaya offer some compensation for the chronological supports that are lost. If the view put forth above is correct Ñ according to which the first four portions of our version of the Vinaya received the fixed form in which we now possess them about a century and a half before the time of A§oka, except as regards the dialect Ñ there can scarcely be any great cause for lamenting the loss of those other chronological data.
See Vinaya PiÊakaµ, ed. Hermann Oldenberg, vol. 1, introduction (London: PTS, 1969 reprint), p. lv. In “the first four portions of our version of the Vinaya” Oldenberg excluded the antiquity of the ParivŒra, for it is the fifth portion of the TheravŒda Vinaya (The other four are: PŒrŒjika, PŒcittiya, MahŒvagga, and Cullavagga, cf., Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, trans., Vinaya Texts, part 1, p. ix). Besides these scholars, Lamotte indicates that ParivŒra is the work of a Sinhalese monk, and thus implies that this part is later than the other parts of the TheravŒda Vinaya which had been compiled on the India subcontinent, cf., Lamotte, p. 168.
[26] Norman, p. 27. The point is that if the ParivŒra existed at all, it would not have “canonical status”.
[27] Ven. Yin-shun, YŸan-shih, p. 432.
[28] Vinaya PiÊakaµ, ed. Oldenberg, vol. 1, introduction, p. xlii. Oldenberg considered Mah´§Œsaka to be the same as MahiµsŒsaka.
[29] D´pavaµsa, ed. & trans. Oldenberg, p. 141, verse 5.45; MahŒvaµsa, trans. Geiger, p. 26, verse 5.6. According to both D´pavaµsa and MahŒvaµsa, the editors thought that they were the orthodox heir of the SthaviravŒdins.
[30] As indicated in the beginning statement, “The Identification of the MahŒsaµg´tikas with the MahŒsŒµghikas (1.A.1)”, it is the D´pavaµsa which ascribed the ten disciplinary practices to the V¨jian monks and connected them with “those who held the Great Council” (MahŒsaµg´tikas) rather than with the MahŒsŒµghikas.
[31] T22. 493c9-10, fasc. 33.
[32] Hirakawa, “An Evaluation of the Sources On the Date of the Buddha,” p. 263. The words inside square bracket have been added by me and in the parenthesis have been added for clarification.
[33] T22. 492c6-17, fasc. 32.
[34] Nattier & Prebish, pp. 242-44.
[35] Nattier and Prebish seem to consider the Sanskrit text of the bhik·u PrŒtimok·asètra to correspond to that of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. Although not discovering any concordance for the fourth to sixth practices, they conclude:
For MahŒsŒµghika agreement on the condemnation of these points we must defer to the Chinese texts, as no Sanskrit counterpart for the Skandhaka portion of the Vinaya seems to be extant (Nattier &Prebish, p. 244).
[36] W. Pachow, A Comparative Study of the PrŒtimok·a (Santiniketan, India: Sino-Indian Cultural Society, 1955), p. 30. The author poses the question: “Why should they [the MahŒsŒµghikas] not say something in defence of their practice of accepting money, instead of condemning it?”
[37] For the Navadharma-nidŒna, see T22. 492b15-18, fasc. 32; for the Pa–ca Vi§uddhi Dharma, see T22. 492a6-19, fasc. 32.
[38] See the paragraph immediately following the five divisions of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya (pp. 36-37).
[39] AndrŽ Bareau proposed this view, see Nattier & Prebish, pp. 241-42.
[40] 2500 Years of Buddhism, ed. Purushottam Vishvanath Bapat (New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Govt. of India, 1987 reprint), pp. 39-42. The Third Council was said to be sponsored by King A§oka at PŒÊaliputra. According to Ven. Yin-shun, the claim that the ten disciplinary practices were illegitimate reflects the summation of all the clashes between the Second Council and the establishment of the SthaviravŒdins, see Ven. Yin-shun, YŸan-shih, p. 342.
[41] Nattier & Prebish, p. 238, nt. 4, the authors summarize Paul DemiŽville’s view that “...laxity [was] inherent in the future MahŒsŒµghikas at the time of the council of Vai§Œl´,...” They also conclude AndrŽ Bareau’s argument that “the laxity did not emerge until after the proceedings.”
[42] Nattier & Prebish, pp. 251-55, delineate different works for these five points, including the AbhidharmamahŒvibhŒ·Œ-§Œstra, KathŒvatthu, and the works of Vasumitra, Bhavya, Vin´tadeva and ParamŒrtha. Besides, Lamotte enumerates additional texts, which include: the J–Œna-prasthŒna (Taish‾ no. 1543, [fasc. 10]; Taish‾ no. 1544, [fasc. 7]), the Abhidharmako§a, the Glosses of ParamŒrtha and the Treatise on the Sects by Chi-tsang. Nonetheless, Lamotte does not provide the Chinese sources for the last two works, see op. cit., p. 274.
[43] T49. 15a22-23 and 15c17-20, cf. Jiryo Masuda, “Origins and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools,” Asia Major 2 (1925): 15.
[44] Lamotte, p. 518; cf., Masuda, p. 24. The author of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra thought that the MahŒsŒµghikas were in favor of these five doctrinal points.
[45] Cf., “Arahant,” Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 2 (Colombo: Government of Ceylon, 1966). In early Buddhism, the Buddha was regarded as an Arhat, along with other Arhats, without any distinction. For example, after the first five monks achieved Arhatship, the TheravŒda Vinaya states: “At that time there were six Arahats...in the world.” (Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, trans., Vinaya Texts, part 1, p. 102). The only distinction between the Buddha and Arhats lies in the fact that the former is the pioneer on the path to the awakening, whereas Arhats are “those who attain the same state having followed the path trodden by the Buddha,” see “Arahant,” Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 2 (Colombo: Government of Ceylon, 1966).
[46] Lamotte, p. 275.
[47] Nattier & Prebish, p. 240.
[48] Ibid., p. 241.
[49] Nattier & Prebish, p. 266.
[50] Ibid., pp. 250-65; Cousins, p. 40, the author argues that the accounts connected with MahŒdeva are “late and probably subsequent to the period of conflict between MahŒyŒna and the early schools which seems to have occurred around the third century AD.”
[51] Roth, pp. vii-viii; Nattier & Prebish, pp. 266-70.
[52] The name of the emperor was not recorded in this context, but when an emperor name appears, in the other part of the text, it is either King A§oka or Pu·yamitra, cf., T24. 900a15-16. Since the conflict and the search for arbitration were so critical, it is unlikely that either A§oka or Pu·yamitra is the emperor from whom advice was requested here.
[53] T24. 900b20-28.
[54] The views of these scholars are discussed mostly in Nattier & Prebish, pp. 267-68.
[55] Pachow, Comparative Study, p. 68.
[56] Nattier & Prebish, pp. 267-68.
[57] Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya, pp. 60-61.
[58] T51. 864b19-20 Kao-sng-fa-hsien-chuan (Taish‾ no. 2085).
[59] Roth, p. vii.
[60] Charles S. Prebish, “êaik·a-Dharmas Revisited: Further Considerations of MahŒsŒµghika Origins,” History of Religions 35.3 (1996): 262 and 266.
[61] Prebish, “êaik·a-Dharmas Revisited: Further Considerations of MahŒsŒµghika Origins,” pp. 258-70.
[62] In the D´pavaµsa of TheravŒdin origin, the MahŒsaµg´tikas are accused of the first schismatics (see 1.A.1). In the Samayabhedoparacanacakra of SarvŒstivŒdin origin (according to Lamotte, p. 275, the author of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, Vasumitra, was a SarvŒstivŒdin scholar), the five doctrinal points which occasioned the first schism are connected with the MahŒsŒµghikas (see 1.B). In the êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra of MahŒsŒµghika origin (Lamotte, p. 389), it was maintained that the other party, the SthaviravŒdins, attempted to augment the root Vinaya (see 1.C).
[63] Roth, pp. lvi and lx. In fact, Roth called the textual language “quasi-Prakrit-cum-Sanskrit” because it was used in the transition from Prakrit to Sanskrit. For comparative research, see Yasunori Ejima, “Dai-sho-bu-kei-ritsu-ten-bon-pon-nitsuite (On the Sanskrit Manuscripts of Editions of the MahŒsŒºghika Vinaya),” Okuda Ji‾ Sensei Kiju Kinen Bukky‾ Shis‾ Ronshè (Studies in Buddhist Thought. Dedicated to Prof. Ji‾ Okuda in Commemoration of His Seventy-seventh Birthday) (Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1976), pp. 911-22. In this article, the author encapsulates his study which includes the comparison between each of three published LokottaravŒdin texts and the counterparts of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. These three texts are the PrŒtimok·asètra (see note 65), AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ-Dharma (edited by JinŒnanda, see note 68 [1]) and Bhik·uö´-vinaya (edited by Roth, see note 5).
[64] According to Charles Prebish, there are three existing translations (1, 2 and 3 in the following list) and one research especially on the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya:
(1) A variety of selections from the Chinese text, which were translated into French by Èdouard Chavannes in Cinq Cents Contes et Apologues. Extraits de TripiÊaka Chinois (Tome II, reprint; Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1962), pp. 270-335 (nos. 340-364);
(2) Hirakawa’s translation of the bhik·uö´ vinaya, see note 10.
(3) M. Hofinger has translated T22.493a21-c11 into French in ƒtude sur la concile de Vai§Œl´ (Louvain: Bureaux du Mu§eon, 1946), pp. 145-48.
(4) For the only research on the Chinese MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, see Masahiro Shimoda’s “The SphuÊŒrthŒ êr´ghanŒcŒrasaºgrahaÊ´kŒ and the Chinese MahŒsŒºghika Vinaya,” Indogaku Bukky‾gaku Kenkyè (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 39.1 (1990): 492-95. In this research, the passages quoted are the commentaries on the “not stealing” precept. For detail, see Charles S. Prebish, A Survey of Vinaya Literature (Taipei: Jin Luen, 1994), pp. 56-61.
[65] Although the LokottaravŒdin tradition has no equivalent to this division (i. e., Division One), the PrŒtimok·asètra of the tradition is available. This text corresponds to the MahŒsŒµghika bhik·u PrŒtimok·asètra (Taish‾ no. 1426). The relevant studies of this literature are listed as follows:
(1) For the translation of the LokottaravŒdin PrŒtimok·asètra, see Charles S. Prebish, Buddhist Monastic Discipline: the Sanskrit PrŒtimok·a Sètras of the MahŒsŒµghikas and MèlasarvŒstivŒdins (University Park & London: Pennsylvania State UP, 1975).
(2) For the Hybrid Sanskrit text, see W. Pachow & Mishra Ramakanta, eds., “The PrŒtimok·a Sètra of the MahŒsŒºghikas,” Journal of the GaºgŒnŒth JhŒ Research Institute 10.1-4 (1952-1953), Appendix, pp. 1-48.
(3) For another edition of the text, see PrŒtimok·asètram of the LokottaravŒdimahŒsŒºghika School, ed. Nathmal Tatia, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Ser. 16 (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Inst., 1975).
(4) For a comparative study of the diverse PrŒtimok·asètras, see Pachow, Comparative Study. These versions of PrŒtimok·asètras include those of the SarvŒstivŒda, Dharmaguptaka, Mah´§Œsaka, MèlasarvŒstivŒda, MahŒsŒµghika, KŒ§yap´ya and TheravŒda. Besides these texts, Pachow also extracts the precepts from the MahŒvyutpatti to his comparative study.
[66] Cf., Roth, p. xlv. The term “Miscellanea” is borrowed from Roth. He considers “Miscellanea” to comprise two parts in the MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin Vinaya: (1) the Bhik·u-Prak´röaka, which is equivalent to the 2nd division in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, and (2) the Bhik·u AbhisamŒcŒrika-Dharma that corresponds to division 3. According to Hirakawa, the 2nd division (the Miscellanea-dharma) is called K·udrakavarga, and the 3rd division (the Deportment-dharma) is named Vratadharmaka, see his Ritsuz‾, English Intro., p. 23.
[67] Roth, pp. 327-33.
[68] (1) For the text of the Indian language, see AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ (Bhik·uprak´röaka), ed. B. JinŒnanda, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Ser. 9 (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Inst., 1969).
(2) For modern research, see Maulichand Prasad, A Comparative Study of AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Inst., 1984), which involves a comparative study between the LokottaravŒdin and TheravŒdin Vinayas.
(3) For the Romanized text and its English translation of Chapter One, see Sanghasen Singh & Kenryo Minowa, eds. & trans., “A Critical Edition and Translation of AbhisŒmŒcarikŒ NŒma Bhik·u-Prak´röakaú,” Buddhist Studies (Research Journal of the Dept. of Buddhist Studies, Univ. of Delhi) 12 (1988): 81-146.
(4) For the introduction to the manuscripts, see Yasuo Matsunami, “On the Manuscript of the ‘AbhisamŒcŒrika’,” Indogaku Bukky‾gaku Kenkyè (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 45.2 (1997): 1030-34.
[69] Hirakawa translated this (4th) and 5th divisions into English in 1982, see his Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns.
[70] Hirakawa, Ritsuz‾, English Intro., pp. 1-2.
[71] Prebish, A Survey of Vinaya Literature, pp. 89-99. These texts comprise Taish‾ nos. 1442-51 and no. 1457.
[72] Tibetan versions of the fundamental texts of MèlasarvŒstivŒda-vinaya according to the Chinese translations are Vinaya-vastu [no. 1030 Peking; no. 1 Tohoku]; PrŒtimok·a-sètra [no. 1031 Peking; no. 2 Tohoku]; Vinaya-vibhaºga [no. 1032 Peking; no. 3 Tohoku]; Bhik·uö´-prŒtimok·a-sètra [no. 1033 Peking; no. 4 Tohoku]; Bhik·uö´-vinaya-vibhaºga [no. 1034 Peking; no. 5 Tohoku]; and Vinaya-k·udraka-vastu [no. 1035 Peking; no. 6 Tohoku].
[73] See note 58.
[74] Ven. Yin-shun, YŸan-shih, p. 70; Hirakawa, Ritsuz‾, p. 140.
[75] Lamotte, pp. 529-35, there are seven different lists of depicting the two traditions. The term “Sthavira” is used in the six lists, as compared to “TheravŒda” in the PŒli list.