The Spread and Development of Later Buddhism MBI 105
Lesson 1
The Early Division into Schools
You will remember that we spoke of the possibility that there were two council meetings after the first, not one, as is suggested in Thervadin texts: one at Vaisali, sixty years after Buddha’s death, and a further council meeting forty years after that at Pataliputra. In Theravadin texts, the Vaisali council is considered the only council meeting. We must entertain the possibility, however, that the meeting where the Theravadins say the division took place may indeed have been the earlier meeting.
Assuming this thesis to be true, then we can place the first general split on the bases of Vinyana rules at the council at Vaisali and allow that a more serious split took place at the meeting in Pataliputra. This makes a great deal more sense, for one must logically assume that a major split having great consequences could not take place over so many trivial details of Vinyana.
Lesson One The Early Division into Schools
The Mahasanghika Separation
It was at this second meeting at Pataliputra that the arahat Mahadeva put forward five propositions that had nothing to do with the Vinaya. These indeed were more likely to have formed the subject of enflamed controversy among the bhikkus.
The five dogmas restated were:
(1) Arhats are not free from sensuality and may fall from grace through unconscious temptation.
(2) An Arahat is not all knowing
(3) Arhat may have doubts on matter of doctrine.
(4) One cannot attain arhatship (as many claim) without the aid of a teacher.
(5) "the noble ways" may begin with a shout. Meditating seriously on religion, one may make an intense exclamation such as "How sad" and by so doing attain progress towards perfection - the path may be thus attained by an exclamation of astonishment. (this is an antecedent idea very close to the Chan “awakening by shock” idea.)
One can see why these ideas may have caused the deep rift, for they threatened the very foundation of the Aryan Sangha. If Arahats were not as advanced as many had supposed, then they could not rest upon their laurels,-- as they appeared to have been doing,-- and had to strive diligently for a greater state (Awakening).
It was at Pataliputra that the Mahasanghika was probably proclaimed and really found its consolidation. It is claimed that despite the rift in Vaisali at the first council, there continued a solidarity that was only really deeply broken at Pataliputra, forty years later.
At the Pataliputra council, Mahadeva, this charismatic leader, received the support of many lay people, who resented the apparent arrogance that many enlightened arahants had within temple life. Buddha had died a hundred years before and, as normally happens when the leader dies, there was a great deal of discord, disarray and discontrol among his followers.
Mahadeva, we saw, put forth his views that the arahants were not yet really evolved and were arahats in name only. More important from a spiritual point of view was belief that the sutras were not the ultimate authority in Buddhism. Mahadeva held that it was possible for Buddha’s revelation to come anywhere at anytime, through correct practice and meditation and that sutras were not more than a guide.
Mahadeva won the popular debate and thousands of people followed his lead, but the established alternative group, now called the Theravadins renounced Mahadeva’s views as a heresy. Mahadeva’s sangha, called the Mahasanghikas, took their place as “the great community.” Although beginning gradually, within two or three centuries after Mahadeva, the thriving Mahasanghikas developed their new doctrine. Today, more than sixty percent of all the Buddhists in recorded history can trace their beliefs this one arahat.
But although Mahadeva’s ideas led to the Mahayana system, we cannot say that he himself was Mahayana. Indeed, later many of the Mahasanghikas who did not approve of the new Mahayana ideas were called members of the “lesser vehicle”,-- Hinayana-- and grouped with the Thervadins.
The Mahasanghika School also evolved from this and had many divisions within it. In this lesson, we will look at these differences and their evolution.
There were seven major schools: The Gokulika and the Ekoboharika evolved directly from the Mahasanghika. From the Ekobyoharika group came the important Lokottarvadaa school. From the Gokulika school evolved the Pannatvada or Prajnaptivada and the Bahussutika or Bahusrutiya schools, members of both joining later to form the Cetiyavada or Caityaka School.
Gokulika (Kukkutika/Kukkulika etc.)
The Gokulika (Kukkutika) school specialized in Abhidhamma discussions and held that all emotions are really unhappiness and all principles are false,-- only extinction is non-false and ultimately real. Even the thought of emptiness ceases in final extinction. This idea is precisely the idea of all the direct path schools of later Buddhism.
Around the end of the century, from the Gokulika there developed two further branches. Both seem to have arisen through the Abhidhamma discussions in which the Gokulikas are believed to have specialized. These two sub schools were:
(a) The Bahusrutiya (the "learned") was founded by a monk called Yajnavalkya. The Bahusrutiya’s principle idea was identical to their root school, the Gokuluka, regarding unhappiness and all principles. However, they developed a special doctrine, according to Vasumitra, that the Buddha has a "transcendent" teaching, having the power to produce the way, indicated by the 5 words: "impermanence", "unhappiness", "emptiness", "non-soul" and "extinction".
(b)The Prajnaptivada, the second school, called the “concept school” was founded by Maha-katyayana, however no prajnaptivada text seems now to be available.
Caityakas (or Caitika)
This school originated at the Andhra city of Dhanyakataka about a hundred years after the split, in the Sangha. It started with an arahat also called Mahadeva like the originator of the separation of the Great Sangha. He was a learned and diligent ascetic who dwelt on the mountain Caitya and as his followers grew he formed a separate school.
The Caitikas, from their center in Andhra, spread North West up the Godavani valley as far as Nasika. Their sub-divisions: the Apara Saila, Uttara (Purva) Saila, Rajagirika and Siddharthaka all appear to have begun as the communities of particular viharas close to where the Caitikas originated.
The Caityavada shared the fundamental doctrines of the original Mahasanghikas but deified Buddha and the Bodhisattvas. This ultimately led to the complete deification of Buddha and the Bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism.
Doctrines specially attributed to them are:
(1). One can acquire great merits by the creation, decoration, worship and circumambulation of the caityas.
(2). Offerings of flowers etc. to caityas are also meritorious.
(3). By making gifts, one can acquire religious merit and one can also transfer such merit to one's friends and relatives for their happiness (common in Mahayanism).
(4). The buddhas are free from attachment, ill-will and delusion and possessed of finer qualities. They are superior to the arhats.
(5). A person having right-view is not free from hatred and, as such, is not free from the danger of committing murder.
It is apparent that the doctrines of the Mahasanghika and their offshoots contain germs from which the later Mahayana doctrine developed.
This school was established almost immediately after the Mahasangha division producing the two schools. The Ekavyavaharika are hardly known in later times and perhaps were reabsorbed into the Mahasanghika. It itself later generated a new school of thought, the Lokottarivada.
Lokottaravada
This school was produced from the Ekavyavaharika School, and they considered that Buddha was a transcendental being. All schools agreed that Buddha attained the transcendental state in Nirvana, but the Lokottaravada considered that he was a fully transcendental being before his going forth and even before his birth. They are thus called the "transcendent" school. This led eventually to the major thesis of the Mahayana on the transcendental nature of Buddha.
They developed their own Vinaya text, the Mahavastu, called unorthodox by their rivals, and in it collected all the traditions concerning the biography of Buddha, including a good many jatakas. This book was well accepted among some of the Mahayanist groups later and was preserved in Nepal in Mahayana libraries.
The Mahayana Foundation
Later Mahayana began as “bodhisattvayana” in several of the seven schools of the Mahasanghikas (all now extinct), and even in some of the eleven Theravada schools. We will deal more with the Mahayana development in future lessons in this Unit.
Vibhajyavada: Theravadin
The Theravadin school, also known as the Vibhajyavada School, continued calling themselves the orthodox school of Buddhism. The Sthaviravada (Theravadin) Tripitaka texts, remain clearly the most authentic texts in the sense of preserving the discourses of Buddha in their wording as recognized before the schisms.
The Abhidharma text is the glory of the Sthaviravada school and consists of seven treatises. All the versions of the Pitaka were actually based upon one common original in Magadhabhasa (the dialect used by Buddha).
In contrast to the Mahasanghika School, their doctrine claimed the incorruptible nature of the arhat, although they accepted that understanding comes all at once by "insight" and does not arise gradually. This has nothing to do with the Gradual and Direct concepts of enlightenment, for that is concerned with the path itself, not the actual moment of enlightenment.
It also appears here that the Theravadin are claiming that the realization of Insight is Awakening, but this is not the case, for although that may have been the criteria for the acceptance of the state of Arahat, clearly Buddha advocated a stage beyond pure insight.
The Theravadins
The divisions in the Theravadin school also began a hundred years after their separation from the Mahasanghika when the elder Vatsiputra you will remember prepared a new recession of the Abhidhamma in nine sections and formulated his special doctrine that departed from Theravadin views.
From the Vatsiputriya, four schools arose: Bhadrayaniya, Dharmottariya, Sammitiya and the Sannagarika.
The Mahisasakas further divided into two schools, the Dhammagottika or Dharmaguptika and the Sabbathivada or Sarvastivada schools and still later the Sabbathivadan path gave rise to three schools, the Kassapika or Kasyapiyas, Samkrantikas or Sautrantikas and the Sankantivida or Sutravada school.
The Vatsiputriya Path
The division here came over the question whether the concept of "person" should be considered as a real principle among those listed in the Abhidhamma or whether it is merely a word used in conventional language, like "self' or "soul" or "being".
Vatsiputra later formulated his special doctrine about the "person" (pudgala) and his followers were called the Vatsiputriyas.
The Vatsiputriyas advocated the theory of the 'pudgala', the permanent substance of an individual, which was neither the same as nor different from the skandhas. It is certain that Buddha uses the word in some of his discourses, as he uses "being" in others. The question debated was whether Buddha was declaring that a person existed or was using the word as a conventional term.
Like all Buddhists, the Vatsiputriyas rejected the Brahmanical concept of an eternal soul, but they rejected the Theravada theory that a living being is nothing but the five Skahndas formed from the senses. However they could not define what a "person" could be. They, in fact, decided that it could not be said what it was, and it became a question to which no answer could be given.
They believed that an arhat could fall and that heretics could also attain miraculous powers.
After Vatsiputra had given his school the Abhidhamma in nine sections, his followers set out to develop this further by studying the sutras. The result of these studies was the production of no less than four new schools:
(a) Dharmottariya
(b) Bhadrayaniya
(c) Sammitiya
(d) Sannagarika or Channagarika
The only remarkable doctrine among them was that of the Sammitiyas regarding the nature of the pudgala. They admitted the impermanence of material composites but at the same time held the view that there was an entity that should be distinguished from the 5 skandhas, which meanwhile could not exist independently of those skandhas.
This entity served as the carrier of the 5 skandhas through the births and rebirths of beings. The Sammitiyas held that there is an ‘antarabhava’, an intermediate state (equivalent to the after-death Bardo state of the tantric Buddhists) between the death of a being and its rebirth. They also agreed with the Sarvastivadins and the Mahasanghikas in holding that the stage of an arahat is not immune from a fall to a lower stage and that spiritual progress is always gradual.
The school known as Mahisasakas also seceded over some points in the Abhidhamma. The had a disagreement with the Sarvastivadins, with whom they had joined initially, over one important basic concept. The difference between them and the Sarvastivadins, who formally split from them later, was that they held to the view that an arhat is beyond the reach of any seduction and cannot relapse, whereas the Sarvastivada and Kasyapiya, which also broke from the Theravadin fold, adopted the Mahasanghika opinion that the Arhat's perfection is not absolute.
There had been an earlier Mahisaka group that had not split off from the Theravadins, but nevertheless were in disagreement with them. This group may have started with Purna who, you will remember, withheld his consent to the decisions arrived at the First Buddhist Council.
The later Mahisasakas, however, held views that were divorced from the earlier Mahisasakas, who believed like the Theravadins, that neither past nor future existed. They maintained like the Sarvastivadins, the existence of past, future and present.
Also, though both admitted the continual flux of elements and their apparent momentary existence, the Theravadins believed that the elements of the past disappeared giving rise to the present and that the present disappeared in its turn, giving rise to the future.
You may consider this like the break in a chain which conceptually separates one whole chain into parts.
The Sarvastavadins believed that the elements of the past underwent changes, thus developing into the present and that the present likewise developed into the future. Thus the chain of time remained whole. The Sarvastivadins therefore admitted the reality of elements as existing in the past, present and future.
Sarvastivada
Although the Sarvastavada broke away from the Theravadins as Mahisasakas, it was not until after a great council held in Knishka that the Sarvastivada, who formed the majority of the council, rose to its highest importance and is deemed to exist as an independent school.
The president of the Council of Kanishka was Vasumitra, a Sarvastivadin in his beliefs. In this Council, the Vibhasa’s commentaries or discussions were compiled. This included the opinions of the different schools on the sutra, vinaya and abhidharma.
They held an almost identical view about the human life and the universe as the Theravadins, and believed in the non-existence of soul, impermanence and the law of karma. They considered Buddha as a man possessing divine attributes, but that arahats indeed could fall, agreeing with Mahadeva in this regard. However, they compensated for this fact by declaring that arahats could attain miraculous powers.
But the principal difference in dogma between them and the Theravadins was that though Theravadins considered the skandas to be unreal, they admitted the reality of the elements (Skandhas) that compose a being.
Sensation, which defines human form.
Emotion, which determines approach, avoidance and neutrality.
Perception, which gives name,form identification and interpretation.
Volition, which is intention, forming consequentially Karmic Formation.
Consciousness, which is the screen of all awareness.
Kasyapiyas
After the second council, the Theravadins of the Himavant country (Haimavatas), -- cut off from the main Sthavira 'territory' in Avanti by the Sarvastivada, who had left the Theravadin fold,-- became an independent school called the Kasyapiyas, named after Kassyapa, who was one of the great original missionaries in that area.
They represented a compromise between the Theravadin and the Sarvastivada approaches. The Theravada groups like the Mahisasaka held to the view that an arhat is beyond the reach of any seduction and cannot relapse, whereas the Kasyapiya agreed with the Sarvastavadins and adopted the stance that the arhat's perfection is not absolute.
They were thus in accord with those who had originally split from the Theravadins, the Mahasanghika. However, on minor points they differed from the Sarvastivadins and the Dharmaguptikas and were closer to the Theravadins on those points. They believed that a past that has borne fruit ceases to exist but that a past that has not yet ripened continues to exist. This is a subtle difference from the Sarvastivadin position that the past exists just like the present.
It is such small differences that led to the emergence of the different schools.
Samkrantikas
The Samkrantikas, also called the Sautrantikas, were much later consolidated into a strong school, probably early in the 2nd century A.D. The Sautrantikas supported the concept that past principles that had not yet produced their results could clearly be said to exist and to continue to exist into the present, being still in a sense effective and uncompleted.
Sutravada or Sankrantivada
This name literally means ‘reliance upon sutras’. They took this stance because the early Buddhist texts emphasized the efficacy and authority of the sutras. It also took a strong stance that the five Skandhas transmigrate from the former world to the later world, thus making the skandhas equivalent to a transmigrating identity.
You can see clearly that all these differences were philosophical differences and did not in any way detract from the pure and original Dharma. It can also be seen that the dividing line between many of the schools derived from the Theravadins after the division is not always rigid, in particular with the Sarvastavadins and the Vatsiputriya schools, though no others were in agreement with their concept of the existence of a “person”.
This school, called the Dharmaguptika after its founder, Dharmagupta, agreed closely with the Theravadins on the theme of the incorruptibility of the arahat, although in some minor features they differed, like the attachment of special importance to gifts "to the Buddha" and the honouring of pagodas.
The Dharmaguptika made greater efforts than any other school to successfully spread Buddhism outside India to Iran, Central Asia and China. Although the Mahisasakas and Kasyapiyas appear to have followed them across Asia to China, during the earlier period of Chinese Buddhism, the Dharmaguptikas constituted the main and most influential school. Even later, their Vinaya remained the basis of discipline in China and by the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., Buddhism was established there.
It is such small differences that led to the emergence of the different schools, but it can be seen that all these differences were philosophical in origin and did not in any way detract from the pure and original Dharma.
Conclusions
What conclusions can we draw from this overview of the divisions?
First: we can say, without doubt, that Buddha Dharma, for many thousands of years, was unaffected by the human foibles that arose during those times. Except for the advent of the Vatsiputriyas who, without intending to do so, threatened the idea of “no identity” with their doctrine of the "person" (pudgala), the Dharma remained unchanged and continues to be as clear as when Buddha delivered his first sermon.
Second: we must say that the idea that the arahats were untaintable and could not regress is not supported by the evidence presented of their corruptibility.
Third: The apparent deification of Buddha by the Lokottaravada does not affect the path and, provided such beliefs are used and incorporated within the practices and do not detract from either the method or the fruit, they do not provide an impediment to progress.
With regard to the earlier disputes over the rules that have assumed such great importance for the schools that have survived today, we can only make one statement: From all the units we have studied so far, we know that Buddha Dharma required no rules and that the early sangha lived on for twenty years without the necessity of any formalization of such rules.
We must remember that these rules were aids to liberation and are not the liberation itself. The following reaction of Buddha recorded in the Anguttara Nikaya.i.230 makes that clear:
A Vajjian monk visited the Buddha at the Kútágárasálá in Vaisali, and complained that he had to recite over two hundred and fifty rules twice a month, stating, "I cannot stand such training."
Buddha did not say “shape up or get out”. He asked the monk if he could train himself in three particulars. The monk agreed to do this and was told to develop higher morality (Buddhist virtue), higher thought (correct attitude) and higher insight (adhisíla, adhicitta, adhipaññá). The monk developed these and, as a result, reached the state of destroying all effects of identity.
The aftermath
Only three of the divided Theravadin schools have survived: the Theravadins, the Dharmaguptika and the Sarvastavadin.
But one question remains: if an idea or a concept is apparently no longer accepted, is it indeed destroyed? Clearly the answer is no. The second question, which also has a clear answer is: can Buddha Dharma be restored as it was during Buddha’s first twenty years of preaching, while at the same time developing Buddha’s concepts to enrich the path to liberation? The second answer, without doubt, is that it can and that is precisely the position we take here.
The Mahasanghika revolted against the strangulation of the rules and felt that less rigour was demanded. The Theravadins opposed them, and history always records the views and data of the winners. It is claimed that those who separated sought to improve upon Buddha’s teachings but claim that is unjust.
Ajahn Sona at the Birken Forest Monastery says, “The way to bring down a religion is by creating a conflicting sect within it.” In this lesson, we claim that it is not the introduction of a conflicting sect that brings down a religion, but the conflict itself, which is the result of Identity within both parties.
There is a song called, “Where have all the flowers gone?” The final lines are most appropriate here. “When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?” We must then take a neutral stance and try and judge the issue without identity bias and without preconceived identity notions, as Buddha himself would have done.
The final question
Now the final question remains,-- if we give a rebirth to the Buddha Dharma that was practiced before the Mahayana came into being, what name can we use to help in its diffusion?
To call it Theravadin or Sarvastivadin or any of the other names is to taint it. To call all Hinayana, as most do, is to malign it. The return to Buddha’s dharma must include all Buddha’s truth without limiting its extension. Yet, at the same time, it must not allow a departure from Buddha’s base. It must show the understanding and flexibility that we see through Buddha’s comments in the Anguttara Nikaya. It was in that understanding and flexibility that all the schools failed.
We need to follow the truth of Buddha that lay within all the early Buddhists who, with good heart, tried their best to follow the master. We must see the truth of Buddha within the hearts of all those who truly became Arahats. We must look within the hearts of those greatest early disciples who went beyond insight to full awakening.
Perhaps Dharmavada or Dharmayana would best serve as an appropriate name for the rebirth of Buddhism today.
Exercise 1
Elect one of the many groups discussed here that you most feel at home with and discuss why you chose that group and discarded the others.