The
entire development of the Buddha’s teachings can be described, interpreted, and
understood in multifarious ways. Each tradition may arise and thrive within or
transform into another spiritual or cultural movement or it may have dissipated
in some period or in a certain region. Some of the traditions may have
interconnected with one another. On the assumption that the Chinese translation
of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, which was translated at the beginning of the fifth century CE
by Buddhabhadra and Fa-hsien,[1] has conveyed the meaning of the Indian manuscripts, the thesis has
attempted to demonstrate some of the general significance of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition as it has been observed
through the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya in terms of the embodiment of the traditional value of
monastic discipline in its Vinaya
and the development of its Vinaya in
India.
In
the beginning of Chapter One, the establishment of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition was reviewed on the
basis of three different theories regarding the rationale for the first schism
in the Saµgha. These distinct theories include 1. disciplinary leniency (1.A), 2.
doctrinal points raised by MahŒdeva
(1.B), and 3. the expansion of the root Vinaya
(1.C). Instead of using any theory as the basis, the present research has
examined the MahŒsŒµghika tradition directly through observing the tradition and
development of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. While any account of other traditions concerning the
background of the MahŒsŒµghikas is one-sided, a thorough investigation of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya in this thesis has indicated the embodiment of the traditional
value of monastic discipline (Chapter Two) and the transitional structure of
this Vinaya (Chapter Three).
In
Chapter Two ― The
Traditional Value of the Vinaya in the Mo-ho-sng-chÕi-lŸ — it
was shown that the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya also contained the
traditional basis for the Buddha’s prescription of the vinaya in view of six
divisions — “harmony”, “calmness”, “purity”, “promulgation for others”,
“spiritual cultivation for oneself”, and “the utmost”.[2] The main concern of the vinayadhara
(masters who learned, upheld, and transmitted the monastic discipline) is to
cope with the everyday occurrences that are in keeping with these six
divisions. The vinayadharas may have realized already
that the particulars of a monastic life are unlikely to remain uniform, owing
to the immense variations in locality, dialect, custom, climate, or political milieu.
That there occurred a series of separations in the Saµgha after Buddha’s ParinirvŒöa may be considered to be natural and inevitable. Thus, those who
belonged to a specific tradition may not have been eager to embark on a new
mission to claim exclusive legitimacy of their own heritage and to declare the
heresy of others. This would throw light upon the reason that the extant Vinayas always refrain from censuring a
specific tradition within their texts. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that
there were still some who felt keen enough to declare that their way was the
exclusive representation of the Buddhist heritage. Each text seems to honor its
own tradition as for example the D´pavaµsa with its reference to disciplinary leniency (see 1.A), the Samayabhedoparacanacakra with its five
doctrinal points raised by MahŒdeva (see
1.B), or the êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-§Œstra with its expansion of the root Vinaya (see 1.C).
As
mentioned in Chapter One regarding the theory of disciplinary leniency (1.A),
the MahŒsŒµghikas were connected with those who claimed the legitimacy of the
ten disciplinary practices (including the vinaya
about receiving currency). However, in Chapter Two, it was pointed out that the
MahŒsŒµghikas treasured the monastic disciplines in the same manner as the
other traditions. Hence, it is doubtful that only the MahŒsŒµghikas were advocates of disciplinary
leniency.
In
Chapter Three — Development in the
Mo-ho-sng-chÕi-lŸ — the thesis viewed the formation of the Skandhaka (DharmŒnudharma) in light of two parts: A) nine kinds of textual evidences of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs and B) a three-tiered
structure of dharma, varga, and disciplinary topics (vinaya mŒt¨kŒs)
in the DharmŒnudharma of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya in order to provide an
alternative interpretation of the development of vinaya
texts.
With reference to
the first part (3.A), Ven. Yin-shun has examined in more detail the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs in the SarvŒstivŒda-vinayamŒt¨kŒ (the
fifth textual evidence), Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya (the seventh textual evidence)
and VinayamŒt¨kŒ-sètra (the eighth textual evidence) in his YŸan-shih-fu-chiao-shng-tien-chih-chi-ch’ng (The Compilation of the Scriptures
in Early Buddhism).[3] He also mentions briefly textual evidences in the ParivŒra (the third textual evidence) and in
the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ (the
fourth textual evidence).[4] In addition to his research, Hirakawa has pointed out the vinaya mŒt¨kŒ style in the Eastern Turkestan Sanskrit manuscripts,[5] and Rhys Davids and Oldenberg noticed the textual evidence of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒ in the Samathakkhandhaka of the TheravŒda Vinaya (the second
textual evidence).[6] In Chapter Three, Part A of the present thesis, two kinds of
textual evidences of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs have been added. These two kinds of textual evidences can be found
in the YogŒcŒrabhèmi-§Œstra (the first textual evidence) and
the appendix to the îrya MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin Bhik·uöi-vinaya (the ninth textual evidence). Nevertheless, the present thesis is the
first to collect all of these discoveries of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs into nine kinds of textual evidences.
In
Chapter Three, Part B, the discussion on the structural analysis of the DharmŒnudharma (Miscellanea-dharma and Deportment-dharma) in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya revealed two innovative characteristics — 1. Varga: Athematic Characteristic (3.B.3.D.1) and 2. Grouping Tendency
(3.B.3.D.2).
In
discussing the first (3.B.3.D.1) of these two innovative characteristics, it
has been pointed out that aside from both the last varga of the
Miscellanea-dharma and that of the Deportment-dharma, none of the vargas of the DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya is focused on a central
theme. If a central theme were to be held by each varga, then nineteen
(excluding the last varga in the Miscellanea-dharma and that in the Deportment-dharma) out of
the twenty-one vargas should have their own central theme. A varga rearranged according
to a central theme would suggest a later outgrowth; a varga without a central
theme seems to represent an earlier institution in which the older materials
were randomly ordered ever since the founding of the Saµgha. It is therefore unlikely that the MahŒsŒµghikas reorganized their varga structure
to preserve the older materials.
In
discussing the second innovative characteristic (3.B.3.D.2), the uddŒna had been explained as a mnemonic device even before the schism
between the SthaviravŒdins and
the MahŒsŒµghikas took place. Several epigraphic edicts from the time of King A§oka[7] attest to the fact that writing might have been utilized to compile
Buddhist texts. Thus, uddŒnas, that
prevailed during the oral transmission, seemed to have lost their momentum.
In
order to summarize the section on the second innovative characteristic (3.B.3.D.2),
a chart correlating the skandhakas
(chapters) of the Caturvargika-vinaya
and the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya was presented on the basis
of Ven. Yin-shun’s research. The contribution that the present thesis made to
this discussion lies in the correlation of the disciplinary topics of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya to the Dharma-skandhaka (ch. 18) of the Caturvargika-vinaya
and to the K·udraka-skandhaka (ch. 20). Further, a concordance between the related vinaya mŒt¨kŒs of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya and the Bhai·ajya-skandhaka (ch. 7) of the Caturvargika-vinaya
was added on the basis of Hirakawa’s work.[8]
With regard to
the theory of the expansion of the root Vinaya
as reviewed in Chapter One (see 1.C), the MahŒsŒµghikas were depicted as those who resisted
the expansion. On the basis of the êŒriputraparip¨cchŒ-sètra, Roth, Nattier and Prebish noticed that the MahŒsŒµghikas appeared in the wake of
resisting the expansion of the root Vinaya
by the SthaviravŒdins.
In
the present thesis, the resistance to expanding upon the root Vinaya has been discussed through an
examination of the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya (see 3.B). The use of vinaya mŒt¨kŒs (disciplinary topics) gives an alternative method of compiling the
Skandhaka (DharmŒnudharma), and it is remarkable that approximately ten vinaya mŒt¨kŒs were incorporated in such a structure of the uddŒna at the end of every varga (chapter). If resistance to expanding
upon the root Vinaya was the issue,
then the intention to preserve the root Vinaya
by the MahŒsŒµghikas is visible in their manner of using the uddŒna structure by their incorporation of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs. Although some scholars have used several approaches (see 1.C) to
date the antiquity of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, the suggestions provided
in the thesis may contribute another approach to this question.
In
view of how the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya became structured, there is
also a theory that claims the text to have been re-organized at some later time
rather than claiming the archaic nature of the text.[9] However, as it was pointed out in 3.B.3.D.2.2 (The Analysis of the
Grouping Tendency in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya), it is unlikely that the
“later” MahŒsŒµghikas would take such great pains to espouse an obsolete structure
of the uddŒna rather than to use some other popular forms such as the skandhaka, vastu, dharmaka, or saµyukta when embarking upon a “reshuffle”.
Nevertheless, the preservation of the archaic contents should be approached cautiously. Although it is acknowledged that the antiquity of the structure of the uddŒna or vinaya mŒt¨kŒ was employed to show the antiquity of the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, this does not prove that the contents of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs were preserved until the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya was translated into Chinese. On the other hand, there is no reason to conclude that the Vibhaºga (prŒtimok·a and its commentary) in the same Vinaya is necessarily as old, although the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya has been determined to be archaic owing to its structure (uddŒna or vinaya mŒt¨kŒs). Therefore, there is further need to research Ñ extensively and in depth Ñ the contents of the uddŒna or vinaya mŒt¨kŒs and the Vibhaºga in the study of the entire Buddhist vinaya literature.
CONTENTS PROLEGOMENON CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER THREE BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] According to Lamotte, Fa-hsien’s travel to India took place between 399 and 412 CE; see Lamotte, p. 138. In contrast, Hirakawa says that Fa-hsien returned to China in 416 CE, which was also the year that Fa-hsien started the work of translating this text; see his Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns, p. 4. Moreover, Nakamura indicates that Fa-hsien wrote his record of travel in 412, moved to Nanking in 413, completed his work in 414 and revised it in 416 CE; see his Indian Buddhism, p. 138. However, as noted in Fa-hsien’s autobiography, he left from Chang-an in 399 CE. It took him six years to arrive in Central India and he stayed for six years. It took him three years to return to China from India. Thus it is probable that he returned to China around 414 CE (i. e., 399+6+6+3); cf., T51. 857a5, 866b17-18 and 866b23 Kao-sng-fa-hsien-chuan (Taish‾ no. 2085).
[2] Ven. Yin-shun, YŸan-shih, pp. 197-200. The author charts out and shows the distribution of the Ten Benefits and the six divisions in all of the extant Vinayas.
[3] See Ven. Yin-shun, YŸan-shih, ch. 5.
[4] Ibid., p. 252.
[5] Hirakawa, Ritsuz‾, p. 82.
[6] Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, trans., Vinaya Texts, part 3, p. 41, nt. 1.
[7] Lamotte, pp. 234-38; there are three Buddhist inscriptions related to King A§oka.
[8] The details in this chapter are supplied on the basis of Hirakawa’s work; see his Ritsuz‾, pp. 649-53.
[9] Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya, p. 199; Hirakawa, Ritsuz‾, p. 663.