2500 Years Of Buddhism
P.V. Bapat
---o0o---
CHAPTER VI
PRINCIPAL SCHOOLS AND SECTS OF BUDDHISM
A. IN INDIA
It appears that even during the lifetime of the Buddha there were people who would not accept his authority. His cousin, Devadatta, out of jealousy for the Buddha conspired with King Ajatashatru and made several attempts on his life. He also tried to create divisions in the Buddhist monks, such as living throughout the year under trees, forgoing meat and fish, and refusing all invitations from faithful adherents. There were also monks like Upananda, Channa, Mettiya-Bhummajaka, or Sadvargiya (Pali Chabbaggiya) who would take the earliest opportunity of transgressing the rules of the Vinaya. Besides, there is a perverse tendency among some people to oppose a rule simply because a rule has been laid down. Some like to live a life of ease and comfort and consequently look askance at all restrictions on individual freedom. For example, Subhadra, on hearing of the death of the Buddha, gave a sigh of relief saying that he would now no longer have to abide by “do this, do not do that.”
When the Buddha died, he left no one to take his place as the supreme authority. In fact told his personal attendant, Ananda, that the Dharma and the Vinaya would be the supreme authority in the future. All statements claimed to have been made by learned monks or the Sangha or even the Buddha himself have to be tested by direct reference to the words of the Buddha recorded in the suttas and Vinaya.
When the first recital (sangiti) of the Buddhist texts was made under the presidency of Mahakasyapa at Rajagrha by five hundred monks, there were some, like Purana, or, according to Tibetan sources, Gavampati, who did not approve them as they felt that what was recorded there was not in agreement with what they had heard from the Buddha himself. Common interests arising from personal attachment to certain persons or groups of persons, or created by various causes, such as associations, studies, geographical regions, as well as honest differences of opinion that gathered strength in the course of time, probably led to the formation of different sects or schools.
The Buddha’s sayings and their commentaries were handed down orally from teachers to disciples. Unlike the Vedic texts, however, not enough care was taken for the preservation of the actual words of the Teacher, not to speak of their interpretations. In the Mahaparinibbanasutta, the Teacher apprehended that his sayings might suffer distortion, and so, as noted above, he cautioned his disciples about the four ways in which his instructions were to be verified. A century is a long time, and about a hundred years after his passing, differences arose among the monks about the actual words of the Teacher and their interpretations. Once the monks took the liberty of bringing dissensions to the Sangha, they went on multiplying till the number of sects reached the figure of eighteen in the second and the third centuries after the Buddha’s death. The first dissension was created by the Vajjian monks of Vaisali. It is stated in the Vinaya (Cullavagga) and in the Ceylonese Chronicles that the Second Council was held at Vaisali a century after the Buddha’s parinirvana to discuss the breach of the ten rules of discipline (dasa vatthuni) by the Vajjian monks.1
In the Tibetan and Chinese translations of Vasumitra and others quite a different account appears. Here the Council is said to have been convened on account of the differences of opinion among the monks regarding the five dogmas propounded by Mahadeva.
Mahadeva was the son of a Brahmin of Mathura and was ‘a man of great learning and wisdom’. He received his ordination at Kukkutarama in Pataliputra and then became the head of the Sangha which was patronized by the king. His five dogmas were:
(i) An Arhat may commit a sin by unconscious temptation.
(ii) One may be an Arhat and not know it.
(iii) An Arhat may have doubts on matters of doctrine.
(iv) One cannot attain Arhatship without a teacher.
(v) ‘The noble ways’ may begin by a shout, that is, one meditating seriously on religion may make such an exclamation as ‘How sad! How sad!’ and by so doing attain progress towards perfection1 – the path is attained by an exclamation of astonishment.
Traditions differ as to why the Second Council was called. All the accounts, however, record unanimously that a schism did take place about a century after the Buddha’s parinirvana because of the efforts made by some monks for the relaxation of the stringent rules observed by the orthodox monks. The monks who deviated from the rules were later called the Mahasanghikas, while the orthodox monks were distinguished as the Theravadins (Sthaviravadins). It was rather ‘a division between the conservative and the liberal, the hierarchic and the democratic’. There is no room for doubt that the Council marked the evolution of new schools of thought.
The decision of the Council was in favour of the orthodox monks. The Vajjians refused to obey the decision of the majority and were expelled from the Sangha. In consequence, the Council came to an abrupt close, and the long-feared schism came into being, threatening the solidarity of the Sangha. The monks who would not subscribe to the orthodox views convened another Council, in which ten thousand monks participated. Indeed, it was a great congregation of monks (Mahasangiti), for which they were called the Mahasanghikas, as distinguished from the orthodox monks, the Theravadins (Sthaviravadins). S. Beal writes, “and because in the assembly both common folk and holy personages were mixed together, it was called the assembly of the great congregation”2. all the seceders unanimously agreed to abide by the historic decision of their council. They were convinced that their decision was in conformity with the teachings of the Great Master and claimed more orthodoxy than the Theravadins. Thus occurred the first schism in the Sangha which accounted for the origin of the two sects – the Theravada (Sthaviravada) and the Mahasanghika – in the early Buddhist Sangha. This split went on widening and in the course of time several sects came into existence out of those two primitive schools.
In the history of the succession of schools, it is found that the first schism in the Sangha was followed by a series of schisms leading to the formation of different sub-sects, and in the course of time eleven such sub-sects arose out of the Theravada while seven issued from the Mahasanghikas. Later, there appeared other sub-sects also. All theses branches appeared one after another in close succession within three or four hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvana.
There are different authorities, such as the traditions of the Theravadins, Sammitiyas, Mahasanghikas, and subsequently the Tibetan and Chinese translations which give us accounts of the origin of the different schools. Although these traditions are not unanimous about the latter, a French scholar, M. Andre Bareau, has recently arrived at a fairly correct conclusion, on the basis of the information available in different traditions.1
It is not possible here to give an account of all the different schools. Only a few important ones among these will therefore be considered.
The Sthaviravadins or the Theravadins
The earliest available teaching of the Buddha to be found in Pali literature belongs to the school of the Theravadins, who may be called the most orthodox school of Buddhism. This school admits the human character of the Buddha and he is often represented as having human foibles, though he is recognized as possessing certain superhuman qualities. He is described in some passages as Devatideva, still, as in the Catuma-sutta,2 he is impatient with some of his bhikkhus whom he dismisses for making a noise like undisciplined folk, such as fishermen in a fish market. He is also subject to human weaknesses when he says that he is eighty years old and that he has a pain in his back : pitthi me agilayati.3
The teaching of the Buddha according to this school is very simple. He asks us to ‘abstain from all kinds of evil, to accumulate all that is good and to purify our mind’. These things can be accomplished by the practice of what are called shila, samadhi, and prajna. These have been explained in detail. Shila or good conduct is the very basis of all progress in human life. An ordinary householder must abstain from murder, theft, falsehood, wrong sexual behaviour and all intoxicating drinks. If he becomes a monk, he must live a life of celibacy, observe the remaining four rules of good conduct for the householder and further refrain from using garlands or decorating his person ; he must avoid soft seats and beds, must not use gold or silver, nor watch dancing, nor attend concerts or unseemly shows, nor after midday. Sometimes good conduct is also described as refraining from the evil ways of life (dasha akushala karmapatha), i.e., murder, theft and sexual misbehaviour ; falsehood, slander, harsh words and vain garrulous talk ; greed, ill-will and wrong philosophical views. Samadhi, meditation, is to be attained by means of one or other of the forty objects of meditation. The purpose of this meditation is to keep one’s mind perfectly balanced so that it may be possible to gain a proper insight into the real nature of things. This is done by cultivating insight (prajna) . the cultivation of prajna helps one to understand at one and the same time the Four Noble Truths and the Law of Dependent Origination,1 which tries to explain the phenomenon of life by showing the interrelation of life with the one that precedes and the one that follows. Karma, the actions of an individual, regulates all life, and the whole universe is bound by it, so that karma is like the axle of a rolling chariot.
The philosophy of this school is also very simple. All worldly phenomena are subject to three characteristics – they are anitya, or impermanent and transient ; duhkha, or full of sufferings : and anatma, that is, there is nothing in them which can be called one’s own, nothing substantial, nothing permanent. All compound things are made up of two elements – nama, the non-material part, and rupa, the material quality, and four non-material qualities – sensation (vedana), perception (sanjna), mental formatives (samskara), and lastly consciousness (vijnana). These elements are also classified into twelve organs and objects of sense (ayatanani) and eighteen dhatus. The former consist of the six internal organs of sense – the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind (which is, from the Buddhist point of view, material objects, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles and those things that can be apprehended only by the mind (dharmayatana). In the latter classification, one must add six consciousnesses to the list of twelve ayatanas, i.e., eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness andmind-consciousness and thus arrive at eighteen dhatus. Hence, this most orthodox school of Buddhism has a pluralistic conception of the constituent elements of the universe. The number of the constituents increases gradually from two to five, then to twelve, and finally to eighteen. This number, as will be seen later, increases still further in the case of other schools. At the Council of Pataliputra, the teachings of this school were, according to Pali sources, certified to be those of the Vibhajyavada school.
In the Abhidhammattha-sangaha, a later manual (about 8th-12th centuries A.D.) of the psycho-ethical philosophy of this school, Anuruddhacarya, the author, gives the following as the four ultimate categories : consciousness (citta), mental properties (caitasika), material qualities (rupa), and nirvana. Consciousness is further classified into eighty-nine types (a hundred and twenty-one types according to another classification), mental properties into fifty-two, and material qualities into twenty-eight, Nirvana is a happy state which is free from passion, ill-will and delusion; in reality it is a state which is beyond description.
When an individual thus understands the true nature of things, he tries to renounce worldly life since he finds nothing substantial in it. He avoids both indulgence in the pleasures of the senses and self-mortification, follows the Middle Path (Madhyama-pratipat), and moulds his life according to the Noble Eightfold Path which consists of Right View, Right Resolve, Right Words, Right Actions, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.1 he realizes that all worldly suffering is due to craving or hankering (trsna) and that it is possible for him to bring his suffering to an end by following the Noble Eightfold Path. When he reaches that perfect state of dispassionateness, nirvana, he becomes a ‘worthy man’, an Arhat. The life of an Arhat is the ideal of the followers of this school, ‘a life where all (future) birth is at an end, where the holy life is fully achieved, where all that had to be done has been done, and there is no more return to worldly life’.1
The Mahisasakas
The confusion regarding this school among various authorities is largely due to the fact that there were two groups of this school which were prominent at two different periods. According to Pali sources, this school, along with the Vajjiputtakas, branched off from the Sthaviravadins and gave rise to the Sarvastivadins. The earlier Mahisasakas may probably be traced back to Purana who, as mentioned earlier,2 withheld his consent to the decisions arrived at the first Council of Rajagrha. This school, it appears, also spread to Ceylon. In an introductory stanza of the Jatakatthakartha it is said that the author was persuaded by Buddhadeva, a friend born in the Mahisasaka tradition, to write it. Like the Theravadins, the earlier Mahisasakas believed in the simultaneous comprehension of truths. For them the past and the future did not exist, while the present and the nine asamskrta dharmas did. These nine asamskrta dharmas were : (1) pratisankhya-nirodha, cessation through knowledge ; (2) apratisankhya-nirodha, cessation without knowledge, i.e., through the natural cessation of the causes; (3) akasa, space; (4) anenjata, immovability; (5) kusala-dharma-tathata; (6) akusala-dharma-tathata, and (7) avyakrta-dharma-tathata, that is, suchness of the dharmas that are meritorious, unmeritorious and neither the one, nor the other; (8) marganga-tathata; and (9) pratitya-samutpada-tathata, or suchness of the factors of the Path and suchness of the Law of Dependent Origination. The last corresponds to that in the list of the mahasanghikas.
The Mahisasakas believed, like the Theravadins, that the Arhats were not subject to retrogression. However, they held that those who were in the first stage, srotapannas, were subject to such retrogression. No diva or god could lead a holy life, nor a heretic attains miraculous powers. There was no antara-bhava, or interim existence between this life and the next. The Sangha included the Buddha and therefore charities given to the former were more meritorious than those given to the Buddha only. Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood were not to be considered real factors since they were not mental actions. These were therefore to be excluded from the factors of the Noble Path.
It is interesting to note that the later Mahisasakas held views contrary to those held by the earlier followers of the sect. Like the Sarvastivadins, they believed in the existence of the past, the future and antara-bhava, and held that the skandhas, the ayatanas and the dhatus always existed in the form of seeds.
The Sarvastivadins
Among the Buddhist schools which adopted Sanskirt for their literary medium, the Sarvastivadins come closest to the Sthaviravadins. With the decline of the Sthaviravadins in India this school bore the brunt of the battle against the Mahayanists. Acarya Vasubandhu, the writer of the Abhidharma-kosa, was a great champion of this school before he was converted to Mahayanism under the influence of his brother Asanga. This school flourished in India in the Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (now I Pakistan) and Kaniska (1st century A.D.) was its great patron. It was in his reign that a Council was held which became famous in the history of Buddhism. It is said that at this Council, held under Vasumitra’s guidance, the Buddhist texts of the Sutra the Vinaya and the Abhidharma were ordered to be engraved on sheets of copper and exposited inside a stupa. However, these engraved sheets have not yet been traced.
The belief that all things exist, sarvam asti, advocated by this school perhaps goes back to the Samyutta-nikaya1. where the expression, sabbham atthi, occurs. It is this belief that has given the school its name. Like the Sthaviravadins, the Sarvastivadins were the realists among the Buddhists. They believed that it was not only the things in the present that existed, but also the things in the past and future which were in continuity with the present. Like the Vatsiputriyas, the Sammitiyas and some of the Mahasanghikas, they revolted against the dominance of the Arhats who had attained a position of unsurpassed eminence among the Sthaviravadins. They maintained that an Arhat was subject to fall or retrogression, while, curiously enough, they maintained at the same time that a srotapanna, or an individual in the first stage, was not liable to such retrogression. They also said that a continuous flow of mind might amount to concentration (samadhi) of mind. This school, like the Sthaviravadins, denied the transcendent powers ascribed to the Buddha and the Bodhisattva by the Mahasanghikas. It was their faith that holy life was possible for gods and that even heretics could have supernatural powers. They believed in antara-bhava, an interim existence between this life and the next. They maintained that the Bodhisattvas were still ordinary people (prthag-jana) and that even the Arhats were not free from the effects of past actions and still had something to learn.
They believed in nairatmya, the absence of any permanent substance in an individual, though they admitted the permanent reality of all things. Like the Sthaviravadins, they believed in the plurality of elements in the universe. According to them, there were seventy-five elements, seventy-two of them samskrta, compounded, and three asamskrta, uncompounded, which were akasa or space, pratisankhya-nirodha, or cessation, or cessation through knowledge, but through the natural process of the absence of required conditions. The seventy-two samskrta dharmas were divided into four groups : rupa, or matter which was held to be of eleven kinds, including one called avijnapti-rupa, unmanifested action in the form of a mental impress; citta, mind, forty-six mental concomitants (citta-samprayukta dharmas) and fourteen dharmas which were not connected with mind (cittaviprayukta), the last being a new class of forces which were not classed as mental or material, although they could not be active without a mental or material basis. These seventy-five elements were linked together by casual relations, six of which were dominant (hetu) and four subsidiary (pratyaya). According to some the followers of this school were also called the Hetuvadins.
The Haimavatas
The very name suggests that the Haimavatta school was originally located in the Himalayan regions. Vasumitra, in his book on the Eighteen Sects, calls the Haimavatas the inheritors of the Sthaviravadina, but other authorities like Bhavya and Vinitadeva look upon this school as a branch of the Mahasanghikas. Like the Sarvasivandins, the Haimavatas believed that the Bodhisattvas had no special eminence, but unlike them, they said that the gods could not live the holy life of brahmacharya and that heretics could not have miraculous powers.
The Vatsiputriyas
The Vatsiputriyas, with whom the sub-sect of the Sammitiyas has been identified, are singled out among the Buddhists on account of their advocacy of the theory of the pudgala, the permanent substance of an individual. This school took its stand on passages in sacred texts which contain the word pudgala, rebirth could not be contemplated. Vasubandhu in his Abhidharma-kosa tried, in a special chapter at the end of the book, to refute this view. The pudgala, according to the Vatsiputriyas, was neither the same as nor different from the skandhas. Like the Sarvastivadins, they believed that an Arhat could fall and that heretics could also attain miraculous powers. A god, according to their sub-sect, the Sammitiyas, could not practice the holy life. They also believed in antara-bhava and, like the followers of the Abhidharma, believed in a stage, between the first and second trance of the Sautrantikas, where vitarka, the first application of thought, disappears, but vicara, or continued reflection, remains. Like the Mahisasakas, they believed in the five factors of the Noble Path. It is said that during the reign of Harsha, this school was patronized by his sister, Rajyasri. The followers of this school were sometimes called Avantika, the residents of Avanti.
The Dharmaguptikas
The Dharmaguptikas broke away from the Mahisasakas with whom they differed on points dealing with gifts to the Buddha or to the Sangha. This school proffered gifts to the Buddha and greatly revered the stupas of the Buddha as is clear from their rules of the Vinaya. Like the Mahisasakas, they believed that an Arhat was free from passion and that heretics could not gain supernatural powers.
This school was popular in Central Asia and China, and had its own Sutra, Vinaya and Abhidharma literature. The rules of its distinctive Pratimoksa were followed in the monasteries of China.
The Kasyapiyas
The Kasyapiyas differed on minor points from the Sarvastivadins and the Dharmaguptikas and were closer to the Sthaviravadins. Hence they are also called the Sthavariyas. Tibetan sources refer to them as Suvarsaka. The Kasyapiyas believed that the past which has borne fruit ceases to exist, but that which has not yet ripened continues to exist, thus partially modifying the position of the Sarvastivadins, for whom the past also exists like the present. The Kasyapiyas are sometimes represented as having effected a compromise between the Sarvastivadins and the Vibhajyavadins and also claim a Tripitaka of their own.
The Sautrantikas or the Sankrantivadins
According to Pali sources the school of the Sankrantivadins is derived from the Kasyapiyas and the school of the Sautrantikas from that of the Sankrantivadins, while according to Vasumitra the two are identical. As the very name suggests, this school believed in sankranti or the transmigration of a substance from one life to another. According to its followers, of the five skandhas of an individual, there is only one subtle skandha which transmigrates, as against the whole of the pudgala of the Sammitiyas. This subtle skandha according to the Kasyapiya school is the real pudgala. The latter is the same as the subtle consciousness which permeates the whole body according to the Mahasanghikas, and is identical with the alaya-vijnana of the Yogacarins. It is possible that this school borrowed its doctrine of subtle consciousness from the Mahasanghikas and lent it to the Yogacara school. It also believed that every man had in him the potentiality of becoming a Buddha, a doctrine of the Mahayanists. On account of such views his school is considered to be a bridge between the Sravakayana often, though not justifiably, called the Hinayana and the Mahayana.
The Mahasanghikas
It is universally believed that the Mahasanghikas were the earliest seceders, and the forerunners of the Mahayana. They took up the cause of their new sect with zeal and enthusiasm and in a few decades grew remarkably in power and popularity. They adapted the existing rules of the Vinaya to their doctrine and introduced new ones, thus revolutionizing the Buddhist Sangha. Moreover, they made alterations in the arrangement and interpretation of the Sutra and the Vinaya texts. They also canonized a good number of sutras, which they claimed to be the sayings of the Buddha. They rejected certain portions of the canon which had been accepted in the First Council, and did not recognize as the Buddha’s sayings the Parivara, the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhida, the Niddesa and parts of the Jataka. The Parivara is an appendix to the Vinaya and is probably the composition of a Simhalese monk. The Abhidhamma was compiled in the Third Council held under the patronage of King Ashoka. The Patisambhida, the Niddesa and a part of the Jataka are not accepted as the Buddhavacana even today. Opinion differs as to their authenticity as canonical texts, since theses works were compositions of a later period. All these texts are therefore additional and are not included in the canonical collection of the Mahasanghikas. Thus they compiled afresh the texts of the Dhamma and the Vinaya and included those texts which had been rejected in Mahakassapa’s Council. Thus arose a twofold division in the Canon. The compilation of the Mahasanghikas was designated the Acariyavada as distinguished from Theravada, compiled at the First Council.
Yuan Chwang records that the Mahasanghikas had a complete canon of their own which they divided into five parts, viz., the Sutra, the Vinaya, the Abhidharma, the Dharanis and Miscellaneous.1 the Vinaya of the Mahasanghikas, according to Yuan Chwang, was the same as that compiled at Mahakassapa’s Council. He writes that he studied the treatises of the Abhidharma with two monks at Dhanakataka in the South. He carried 657 Sanskrit works from India back to China and translated them into Chinese under the orders of the Emperor. Among them were fifteen Mahasanghika works on the Sutra, the Vinaya and the Abhidharma, Still earlier, Fa-hien had taken away a complete transcript of the Vinaya of the Mahasanghikas from Pataliputra to render into Chinese. Nanjio’s Catalogue furnishes us with the names of the two Mahasanghika Vinaya texts, the Bhiksu-vinaya and the Bhiksuni-vinaya, which are extant in Chinese only. The only original work of the Mahasanghika sect available to us is the Mahavastu, or the Mahavastu-avadana. It is the first book of the Vinaya-pitaka of the Lokottaravadins of the Mahasanghika school. According to it, the Buddhas are lokottara (supramundane) and are connected only externally with the worldly life. This conception of the Buddha contributed much to the growth of the Mahayana philosophy. The biography of the Buddha is the central theme of the Mahavastu and it gives us the history of the formation of the Sangha and the first conversations. It is written partly in Sanskrit and partly in Prakrit or mixed Indian dialect allied to Sanskrit. The work was probably composed between the 2nd century B.C. and the 4th century A.D.
Inscriptions provide further evidence of the existence of the Mahasanghika canon. In the Amaravati inscriptions, for instance, terms like Vinaya-dhara, Mahavinaya-dhara and Samyuktabhanaka, have been used for monks and nuns. Similarly, the Nagarjunakonda inscription bears the words Digha-majjhima-pamcamatuka-osaka-vacakanam, Digha-majjhima-nikaya-dharena, and so on. From all this evidence it may be concluded that the canon of the Mahasanghkas was in existence at least as early as the first century A.D.
According to Vinitadeva (8th century A.D.), the Mahasanghikas employed Prakrit for their literary medium. Bu-ston tells us that the canon of the Mahasanghikas was written in Prakrit.1 Csoma Koros states that the ‘sutra on emancipation’ of the Mahasanghikas was written in a corrupt dialect.2 Wassiljew holds that the literature of this school was in Prakrit.3 The Mahavastu, as already observed, is in mixed Sanskrit, by which is meant a variety of Prakrit. There is therefore no room for doubt that the literature of this school was in Prakrit.
During the second century after the Buddha’s death, the Mahasanghika sect was split up into Ekavyaharika,4 Lokottara, vada, Kukkutika (Gokulika), Bahusrutiya and Prajnaptivada and shortly afterwards appeared the Saila schools. The Caityakas were so called because of their cult of the caityas (shrines). Both of them paved the way for the growth of Mahayanism. The Sailas derived their name from the hills located round the principal centers of their activity. They were also called the Andhakas in the Cylonese Chronicles on account of their great popularity in the Andhra country. The Pali commentary, however, mentions that ‘both the Cetiyavadin (Caityavadin) and the Andhaka schools were merely names, remote, provincial, standing for certain doctrines’. Among the sections into which the Mahasanghikas were divided, the Caityakas and the Saila schools were the most prominent and had great influence in the South.
In their early career the Mahasanghikas could not make much headway because of the strong opposition of the orthodox monks, the Theravadins (Sthaviravadins). They had to struggle hard to establish themselves in Magadha, but they steadily gained in strength and became a powerful sect. This is borne out by the fact that the sect established centres at Pataliputra and Vaisali and spread its network to both the North and the South. Yuan Chwang tells us the ‘the majority of inferior brethren at Pataliputra began the Mahasanghika school’. I-tsing (671-695 A.D.) also states that he found the Mahasanghikas in Magadha (central India), a few in Lata and Sindhu (western India) and a few in northern, southern and eastern India. The inscription on the Mathura Lion Capital (120 B.C.) records that a teacher named Budhila was given a gift so that he might teach the Mahasanghikas. This is the earliest epigraphic evidence that the Mahasanghika sect existed. The Wardak vase in Afghanistan containing the relics of the Buddha was presented to the teachers of the Mahasanghikas by one Kamalagulya during the reign of Huviska. At Andharah (Afghanistan) Yuan Chwang found three monasteries belonging to this sect, which proves that this sect was popular in the North-West. The cave at Karle in Maharashtra records the gift of a village as also of a nine-celled hall to the adherents of the school of the Mahasanghikas. Clearly, the Mahasanghikas had a center at Karle and exercised influence over the people of the West. They were thus not confined to Magadha alone but spread over the northern and western parts of India and had adherents scattered all over the country. Nevertheless, this was not true of the branches of this sect which were concentrated only in the South. The inscriptions at Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda mention the Hamghi (Ayira-haghana) the Caityika (Cetiavadaka), the Mahavanaseliyana (Apara-mahavanaseliya), the Puvasele, the Rajagirinivasika (Rajasaila), the Siddhathika, the Bahusrutiya and the Mahisasaka sects. Most of these were local and, barring the last mentioned, all were branches of the Mahasanghika sect. The Amaravati stupa is situated about 18 miles west of Bezwada. The stupa was probably constructed in the 2nd century B.C. its outer rail was erected in the 2nd century A.D. and the sculptures in the inner rail are supposed t belong to the 3rd century A.D. The Nagarjunakonda represents, next to Amaravati, the most important Buddhist site in southern India. We owe the monuments of Nagarjunakonda to the piety of certain queens and princess of the royal family of the Iksvakus who were devoted to Buddhism. These monuments may be assigned to the 3rd century, although the Mahacetiya is probably of an earlier date. These structures at Nagarjunakonda obviously flourished as important centres of the branches of the Mahasanghika sect and became places of pilgrimage. It is thus apparent that the Mahasanghikas extended their activities both towards the North and the South. However, they gained more influence in the South, particularly in the Guntur and Krishna districts where the popularity of the Caityakas and the Saila sub-sects contributed much to their success. The name Andhaka also testifies to the great popularity of the Sailas in Andhra.
The general doctrines of the Mahasanghikas with all their branches are contained in the Katha-vatthu, the Mahavastu and the works of Vasumitra, Bhavya and Vinitadeva. The Bahusrutiyas and the Caityakas were later offshoots of the Mahasanghika sect and differed somewhat from the original Mahasanghikas in their views.
The Mahasanghikas, like the Theravadins, accepted the cardinal principles of Buddhism, and were, in this regard, not different from them. The fundamentals are the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the non-existence of the soul, the theory of karma, the theory of pratitya-samutpada the thirty-seven Bodhipaksiya-dharmas, and the gradual stages of spiritual advancement. According to them the Buddhas are lokottara (supramundane); they have no sasrava dharmas (defiled elements); their bodies, their length of life and their powers are unlimited; they neither sleep nor dream; they are self-possessed and always in a state of samadhi (meditation); they do not preach by name; they understand everything in a moment (ekaksanika-citta); until they attain parinirvana, the Buddhas possess ksayajnana (knowledge of decay) and anutpadajnana (knowledge of non-origination). In short, everything concerning the Buddhas is transcendental. The Mahasanghika conception of the Buddhas contributed to the growth of the later Trikaya theory in Mahayana. Thus the Mahasanghikas conceived of the Buddha docetically and gave rise to the conception of the Bodhisattvas. According to them, the Bodhisattvas are also supramundane, and do not pass through the four embryonic stages of ordinary beings. They enter their mother’s wombs in the form of white elephants and come out of the wombs on the right side. They never experience feelings of lust (kama), malevolence (vyapada or injury (vihimsa). For the benefit of all classes of sentient beings, they are born of their own free will in any form of existence they choose. All these conceptions led to the defecation of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. A section of the Mahasanghikas (the adherents of Mahadeva) maintains that Arhats also have frailties; that they can be taught by others; that they still have a degree of ignorance, and a degree of doubt; and that they can acquire knowledge only with the help of others. Thus, Arhathood is not the final stage of sanctification.
The other main beliefs of the Mahasanghikas are as follows:
(i) The five vijnanas (sense-perceptions) conduce both to saraga (attachment to worldly matters) and viraga (non-attachment to the same state).
(ii) The rupendriyas (organs of sense) are mere flesh.
They themselves cannot perceive the vijnanas of the organs.
(iii) One can eliminate suffering and obtain the highest bliss (nirvana) through
knowledge (prajna).
(iv) A srotapanna (once who has entered the path of sanctification) is liable to retrogress while an Arhat is not.1 He is capable of knowing his own nature (svabhava) through his citta and caitasika dharmas. He is also liable to commit all kinds of offences except the five heinous crimes (pancanantaryani), namely, matricide, patricide, the murder of an Arhat, shedding the blood of the Buddha and creating a split in the Sangha.
(v) Nothing is indeterminate (avyakrta). i.e., the nature of things must be either good or bad for it can not be neither good nor bad.
(vi) The original nature of the mind is pure; it becomes contaminated when it is stained by upaklesa (passions) and agantukarajas (adventitious defilements).
[This view of the Mahasanghikas may be considered the precursor of the idealistic philosophy of Yogacara, in which the alayavijnana is the storehouse of pure consciousness which becomes impure only when it is polluted by worldly objects.]
(vii) After death and before rebirth a being has no existence.
Thus the Mahasanghikas differ considerably from other sects in doctrinal matters as well as in their rules of discipline. The followers of the school wore a yellow robe1, the lower part of which was pulled tightly to the left.2
The Bahusrutiyas
The Bahusrutiya school is mentioned in the inscriptions at Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda and is a later branch of the Mahasanghikas. It owes its origin to a teacher who was very learned in Buddhist lore (Bahusruitya).
As for the fundamental doctrines of the Bahusrutiyas they maintained that the teachings of the Buddha concerning anityata (transitoriness) dhukha (suffering), sunya (the absence of all attributes), anatman (the non-existence of the soul) and nirvana (the final bliss) were lokottara (transcendental), since they led to emancipation. His other teachings were laukika (mundane). On this point the Bahusrutiyas may be regarded as the precursors of the later Mahayana teachers. According to them, there was no mode which led to salvation (nirvanika). Further, the Sangha was not subject to worldly laws. They also accepted the five propositions of Mahadeva as their views. In some doctrinal matters they had a great deal in common with the Saila schools, while in others they were closely allied to the Sarvastivadins.
According to Paramartha, this sub-sect made an attempt to reconcile the two principal systems of Buddhism – the Sravakayana and the Mahayana. Harivarman’s Satyasiddhisastra is the principal treatise of this school.
The Bahusrutiyas are often described as ‘a bridge between the orthodox and the Mahayana school’, as they tried to combine the teachings of both. Harivarman believed in atma-nairatmya (the absence of soul in individuals) and in dharma-nairatmya (the soullessness of all things). Like the followers of the orthodox schools, he believed in the plurality of the universe which, according to him, contained eighty-four elements. Like the Mahayanists, he maintained that there were two kinds of truth – conventional (samvrti) and absolute (paramartha). He further maintained that, from the point of view of conventional truth, atma or the classification of the universe into eighty-four elements existed, but, from the point of view of absolute truth neither existed. From the point of view of absolute truth there is a total void (sarva-sunya). He believed in the theory of Buddha-kaya as well as of Dharma-kaya, which he explains as consisting of good conduct (sila), concentration (samadhi), insight (prajna), deliverance (vimukti) and knowledge of and insight into deliverance (vimukti-jnana-darsana). Although he did not recognize the absolute transcendental nature of the Buddha, he still believed in the special powers of the Buddha, such as the ten powers (dasa balani), and the four kinds of confidence (vaisaradya) which are admitted even by the Sthaviravadins. He believed that only the present was real, while the past and the future had no existence.
The Caityakas
The Caityavada school originated with the teacher Mahadeva towards the close of the second century after the parinirvana of the Buddha. He is to be distinguished from the Mahadeva who was responsible for the origin of the Mahasanghikas. He was a learned and diligent ascetic who received his ordination in the Mahasanghika Sangha. He professed the five points of the Mahasanghikas, and started a new Sangha. Since he dwelt on the mountain where there was a caitya, the name Caityaka was given to his adherents. Furthermore, this name is also mentioned in the Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda inscriptions. It may be noted here that Caityavada was the source of the Saila schools.
Generally speaking, the Caityakas shared the fundamental doctrines of the original Mahasanghikas, but differed from them in minor details. The doctrines specially attributed to the Caityaka school are as follows:
(i) Once can acquire great merit by the creation, decoration and worship of caityas; even a circumambulation of caityas engenders merit.
(ii) Offerings of flowers, garlands and scents to caityas are likewise meritorious.
(iii) By making gifts one can acquire religious merit, and one can also transfer such merit to one’s friends and relatives for their happiness – a conception quite unknown in primitive Buddhism but common in Mahayanism. These articles of faith made Buddhism popular among the laity.
(iv) The Buddhas are free from attachment, ill-will and delusion (jita-raga-dosa-moha), and possessed of finer elements (dhatuvara-parigahita). They ate superior to the Arhats by virtue of the acquisition of ten powers (balas).
(v) A person having samyak-drsti (the right view) is not free from hatred (dvesa) and, as such, not free from the danger of committing the sin of murder.
(vi) Nirvana is positive, faultless state (amatadhatu).
It is thus apparent that the doctrines of the Mahasanghikas and their offshoots contain germs from which the later Mahayana doctrine developed. They were the first school to deify the Buddha and the Bodhisattva, which ultimately led to the complete deification of the Buddha and the Bodhisattva in Mahayana, and to the consequent popularity of the religion among the masses. Their conception of Sambhogakaya led to the Trikaya theory which is one of the prominent features of Mahayan. The worship of caityas and the making of gifts advocated by the branches of the Mahasanghika school was to large extent responsible for the evolution of the popular form of Buddhism. The Mahasanghikas can, therefore, be said to be the precursors of the Mahayana movement, through which Buddhism came to attract more people than it would otherwise have done.
The commentary on the Katha-vatthu mentions a few more schools, namely the Rajagirika, the Siddhatthaka, the Pubbaseliya, the Aparaseliya, the Vajiriya, the Uttarapatha, the Vetulya and the Hetuvadins. The first four are known by the general name of Andhakas. About Vajiriya there is little information to be had. The Uttarapathakas prevailed in the North and in the north-western countries including Afghanistan. They are credited with the doctrine of Tathata which, as will be clear later, was a peculiarity of the Mahayanists. This school maintained that even the excreta of the Buddhas was fragrant. They maintained that there was only one path and not four as maintained by the orthodox schools, and that even laymen could become Arhats. The Vetulyakas or the Mahasunyatavadins maintained that the Buddha or the Sangha had no real existence, but were merely abstract ideas. They are also credited with the view, which seems to be influenced by the Tantric schools, that sex relations may be entered upon out of compassion, even in the case of recluses. The Hetuvadins are, as already observed, identified by some with the Sarvastivadins, while the Katha-vatthu commentary considers them to be a distinct school and ascribes to them the view that insight is not meant for men of the world and that happiness may be handed on by one man to another.
Inscriptions of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. indicate, among others, the presence of the Sarvastivadins, the Mahasanghikas, the Caityakas, the Sammitiyas, the Dharmottariyas, the Bhadrayaniyas, the Mahisasakas, the Purvasailiyas, the Aparasailiyas, the Bahusrutiyas, and the Kasyapiyas. The accounts of the travels of Yuan Chwang and I-tsing in the 7th century A.D. give us detailed information about the number of monasteries that existed and about their inmates who belonged to various Buddhist schools. In I-tsing’s account there are references to specific sects belonging to the orthodox or Sravakayana and the Reformed Church, but it is also clear that, broadly speaking, the Buddhist community was divided into two main groups, the old Orthodox Church or Sravakayana and the later reformed Church or Mahayana.
The Madhyamika School
Mahayana Buddhism is divided into two systems of thought: the Madhyamika and the Yogacara.
The Madhyamikas were so called on account of the emphasis they laid on madhyama-pratipat (the middle view). In his first sermon at Banaras, the Buddha preached the Middle Path, which is neither self-mortification nor a life devoted to the pleasures of the senses. However, the middle path, as advocated by the adherents of the Madhyamika system, is not quite the same. Here, the middle path stands for the non-acceptance of the two views concerning existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity, self and non-self, and so on. In short, it advocates neither the theory of reality nor that of the unreality of the world, but merely of relativity. It is, however, to be noted that the middle path propounded at Banaras has an ethical meaning, while that of the Madhyamikas is a metaphysical concept.
The Madhyamika school is said to have originated with the teacher, Nagarrjuna or Arya Nagarjuna (2nd century A.D.). he was followed by a galaxy of Madhyamika thinkers, such as Aryadeva (3rd century A.D.), Buddhapalita (5th century A.D.), Bhavaviveka (5th century A.D.), Chandrakirti (6th century A.D.) and Santideva (7th century A.D.). nagarjuna wrote a number of works of which the Madhyamika-karika is regarded as his masterpiece. It presents in a systematic manner the philosophy of the Madhyamika school. It teaches that sunyata (the indescribable absolute) is the absolute. There is no difference between samsara (phenomenal world) and nirvana or sunyata (reality). Sunyata or the absolute corresponds to the nirguna Brahman of the Upanisads. In the invocation in verse at the beginning of the work, Nagarjuna gives the fundamentals of his philosophy in a nutshell. He describes Pratitya-samutpada (Dependent Origination) by means of eighth negatives. ‘There is neither origination nor cessation, neither permanence nor impermanence, neither unity nor diversity, neither coming-in nor going-out, in the law of Praitiya-samutpada.’ Essentially, there is only non-origination which is equated with sunyata. Elsewhere he also states that Praitiya-samutpada is called sunyata. Hence sunyata referring as it does to non-origination, is in reality the middle path which avoids the two basic views of existence and non-existence. Sunyata is the relative existence of things, or a kind of relativity Dr. Radhakrishnan writes:1 ‘By sunyata therefore, the Madhyamika does not earn absolute non-being, but relative being.’ The Madhyamika view holds sunyata to be the central idea of its philosophy and is therefore designated the sunyavada. The Madhyamika-karika further deals with two kinds of truths : samvrti (conventional or empirical truth) and paramartha (higher or transcendental truth). The former refers to ignorance or delusion which envelops reality and gives a false impression, while the latter is the realization that worldly things are non-existent like an illusion or an echo. Paramartha-satya (transcendental truth) cannot be attained without resorting to samvrti-satya (conventional truth). Samvrti-satya (transcendental truth) is only a means, while paramartha-satya (transcendental truth) is the end. Thus, viewed from the relative standpoint (samvrti), Pratitya-samutpada explains worldly phenomena, but looked at from the absolute standpoint (paramartha), it means non-origination at all times and is equated with nirvana or sunyata.
Towards the beginning of the 5th century A.D., the Madhyamika was divided into two schools of thought : the Prasangika school and the Svatantra school. The Prasangika school uses the method of reductio ad absurdum to establish its thesis, while the Svatantra school employs independent reasoning. The former was founded by Buddhapalita and the latter by Bhavaviveka.
A study of the Madhyamika works reveals that dialectic is the core of Madhyamika philosophy.
China
It is said that the Indians arrived in 217 B.C. at the capital of China in Shen-si to propagate their religion. About the year 122 B.C. a golden statue was brought to the Emperor and, according to the Chinese Chronicle, this was the first statue of the Buddha to be brought to China for worship.
In the year 61 (or 62) A.D., Emperor Ming-ti sent an embassy to India to collect Buddhist canons and to invite monks to come to China. A native of central India, named Kasyapa Matanga, went to China with them, and translated a small but important sutra, Forty-two Sections. According to the ChineseChroncile, he died at Lo-yang.
Early in the fourth century, the Chinese people began to adopt Buddhist monastic rituals. In the year 335 A.D., for instance, a prince of the Ch’au Kingdom, in the reign of the Eastern Ts’in dynasty, allowed his attendants to keep Buddhist observances. In this period, a number of monasteries were established in northern China, and nine-tenths of the people were said to have embraced Buddhism.
Between the fourth and seventh centuries A.D., famous scholars like Fa-hien and Yuan Chwang came to India and returned to China with a number of Buddhist texts, which were worshipped alike by high and low. Some Indian scholars, too, went to China at the request of Chinese emperors. Among the latter may be mentioned Kumarajiva, Bodhidarma and Paramartha. With Fa-hien and Yuan Chwang, they became the founders of the various schools of Chinese Buddhism.
When Buddhism first came to China there was no specialized school of any kind, but gradually the Chinese Buddhists became acquainted with different schools of Buddhism and the various practices associated with them. As the Buddhist faith spread in China, its sub-divisions also spread throughout the country from the North to the South. Orthodox Buddhism thus steadily became heterodox and came to acquire characteristics of its own.
The Ch’an (Dhyana) School
Bodhidharma evolved a system of his own according to which the human being could attain Buddhahood only through a consciousness of the identity of both the relative and the absolute.
Bodhidharma came to China about 470 A.D. and became the founder of esoteric schools which came to be divided into five principal branches. The esoteric schools are called dan or ch’an (Skt. dhyana, Jap. zen) in the modern pronunciation. Bodhidharma was said to be the third royal son who came either from South India or Persia. It is also said that he had practiced meditation against the wall of the Shao-lin-ssu monastery for nine years. The followers of Bodhidharma were active everywhere, and were completely victorious over the native religions with the result that the teachings of the esoteric schools have come to be highly prized even in modern Japan.
It is natural that Bodhidharma, although a founder of the esoteric schools, should have based his own philosophy upon that of Nagarjuna, the most important teacher of Mahayana Buddhism. Nagarjuna founded the Madhyamika school of philosophy, which reduces everything to sunyata (non-substantiality), and thus established the Madhyama Pratipad (the Middle Way). His philosophy influenced Kau Hwei-wen, who had studied the sastra Ta-chi-tu-lun, and adopted the conception of concentration upon the Middle Way (Chungkwan). On the basis of the ideas of Kau Hwei-wen, Tu Hwei-yang and Lieu Highn-si established the Nan-ngo and Ts’ing-yuen schools.
According to these schools, to look inwards and not to look outwards is the only way to achieve enlightenment, which to the human mind is ultimately the same as Buddhahood. In this system, the emphasis is upon ‘intuition;, its peculiarity being that it has no words in which to express itself, no method to reason itself out, no extended demonstration of its own truth in a logically convincing manner. If it expresses itself at all, it does so in symbols and images. In the course of time this system developed its philosophy of intuition to such a degree that it remains unique to this day.
Besides the Ch’am-Buddhism (Dhyana Buddhism), it may be worth summarizing the different sub-divisions of Buddhism which, with the exception of the Tien-t’ai sect, have declined and are no longer active.
The Vinaya School
The Vinaya School is based upon the Vinaya of the sacred books, which were compiled at the Council held after the Buddha’s death. The founder of this school in India was Upali (Yeu-po-li; U-P-Li in old Chinese, Jap. Upali), one of the ten chief disciples of the Buddha. He is known as the author of Si-pu-luh. He preached the doctrine of the Discipline of Four Divisions. It was Tao Hsuan who established this school as a sect in the 7th century A.D. This school is also called Hing-si-fang-fei-chi-ngo, or Nan-shan, and was popular in Nanking at that time. Its priests wear black and believe in the protection of oneself against errors.
The Tantra School
The founder of the Tantra school (the secret teaching of Yoga) is called Shan-Wu-Wei (Subhakara). It was recognized as a sect in Japan. About the year 720 A.D. Tantrism was introduced into China by Shan-Wu-Wei (Subhakara) and Kin-kang-chi (Vajramati). Shan-Wu-Wei was said to be a king of Orissa in eastern India.
Yoga means “to concentrate the mind”, and has also come to mean “containing the secret doctrines”. This sect, which taught the magic observances in Buddhist practices, has another name, ‘Yoga-mi-kiau’. At one time, this school was so prosperous that the Pan-Jo-tsung (Prajna school) and Ssu-lun-tsung (Four Madhyamika Tratises school) were absorbed in it.
The Vijnanavada School
This school, which devoted itself to the study of the sastra Wei-shi-lun (Nanjio, Nos. 1215,1240) and other works of its kind, is called Wei-shi-siang-kiau. The authors of these books were Wu-cho and T’ien-ts’in, who had an excellent disciple in Kiai-hien, an Indian living at the monastery at Nalanda. It may be observed that this Indian established this school and contributed much to the arrangement of the Buddhist canons. Yuan Chwang, to whom Kiai-hien handed over the sastra, founded this school in his native land, China. The school is also called Fa-siang-tsugn and was led by Yuan Chwang’s disciple, Kwei-ki.
The Sukhavativyuha School
The Sukhavativyuha or the Pure Land sect was founded in China by Tan-lan (Jap. Donlan) in the reign of the Than dynasty (7th century A.D.) According to the doctrine of this sect, the Western heaven is the residence of the Amita Buddha (Amitayur Buddha). This sect bases its belief on the formula that salvation is to be attained “through absolute faith in another’s power”, and lays emphasis on the repetition of the formula, Namo’ mitabha-Buddhaya (Glory be to Amita Buddha), which is regarded as a meritorious act on the part of the believer. The repetition of the formula is looked upon as the expression of a grateful heart. This belief was also introduced into Japan and has been revived in a modified form. In China the third patriarch of this school was Shan-tao (Jap. Zendo) in the seventh century A.D. He preached the doctrine of the Pure Land sect for more than thirty years teaching the humble people to believe in salvation through Amita Buddha.
The Pure Land sect of Shan-tao was introduced into Japan where it has obtained a firm footing and is a living religion today.
The main texts of this school are the Aparimitayus-sutra (No. 27), the Sukhavatyamrtavyuha-sutra (No. 200) and the Buddhabhasitamitayurbuddhadhyana-sutra (No. 198).
The Avatamsaka School
The Buddhist sect founded by Fa-shun is called Fa-sing-tsung, meaning “the school of the true nature” of the Buddhist canons. It concentrates on the Hwa-yen-sutra (the Avatamsaka-sutra No. 87). Fa-tsan, the third patriarch of the Hwa-yen or the Avatamsaka school, built up the sect and when he died in 643 (or 699-712) A.D. was honoured with the title, Hien-sheu-ta-shi.
Seven works are ascribed to him. Among these are Hwa-yen-yi-shan-ciao-i-fan-tshi-can, a treatise on the distinction of the meaning of the doctrine of one vehicle, ekayana, of the Buddhavatamsaka-sutra (No. 1591)1,
Hwa-yen-cin-min-faphin-nei-li-san-pao-can (No. 1602). The Avatamsaka school is one of the most important sects in China and, like the T’ien-t’ai, is representative of the genuine philosophy of Chinese Buddhism.
The Madhyamika School
The San-lun-tsung (or the Three Madhyamika Treatises school) is divided into two groups. The first follows the tradition from Nagarjuna to Kumarajiva; and the second the tradition from Chitsang (549-623 A.D.), a disciple of Kumarajiva, to the time of its decline (8th century A.D.). The first tradition is called the “old” and the second the “new” San-lun-tsung. The main texts of this school consist of Chun-lun (the Madhyamika-sastra, No. 1179), Pai-lun (the Sata-sastra, No. 1188) and Shih-erh-men-lun (the Dvadasanikaya-sastra, No. 1186), which, in the opinion of Dhi-tsang, constitutes the San-lun literature of Chinese Madhyamika Buddhism.
The San-lun-tsung was a Buddhist sect which expressed the Madhyamika doctrine according to absolute truth (paramarth-satya, Chen-ti). Besides this sect, there were others which laid emphasis on different aspects of Madhyamika Philosophy. The texts of these sects are Ta-chin-tu-lun (the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, No. 1169), Shih-chu-phi-pho-sha-lun (the Dasabhumivibhasa-sastra, No. 1180) and other texts together with the main texts already mentioned. The groups which embrace Madhyamika Buddhism are Si-lun-tsung, Pan-jo-tsung, and Hsing-tsung, in which the San-lun-tsung and Hwa-yen-tsung, in which the San-lun-tsung and Hwa-yen-tsung are also included. These schools stress the doctrine of samvrti-satya (conventional truth), according to which “all beings are conditioned and merely interrelated, but do not come into existence in the absolute sense”. The practical aspect of the Madhyamika philosophy was expressed by these schools in their approach to human life.
Although these schools contributed to the cultural development of ancient China for eight centuries, today they are only objects of historical, textual and philosophical study. They no longer exist as religious institutions in China except in the modified form of Tibetan Lamaism.
The T’ien-t’ai School
Now to turn to the T’ien-t’ai, the only living Buddhist school in China today. The Buddhist school founded by Chi-k’ai is called T’ien-t’ai-tsung, after Mount T’ien-t’ai, where Chi-k’ai died (597 A.D.) in his sixty-seventh year in the reign of the Souei dynasty. It is said that in his early life, Chi-k’ai followed the teachings of the school established by Bodhidharma. Afterwards he grew tired of this system, and initiated a new branch of Buddhism, the main texts of which are Miao-fa-lien-hwa-chin (the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra, No. 134), Ta-ci-tu-lun (the Mahaprajna-paramita-sutra-sastra, No. 1169), Nei-phan-chin (the Mahanirvana-sutra, No. 113) and Ta-pan-jo-po-lo-mi-to-chin (the Mahap ajnaparamita-sutra, No. 1).
Chi-k’ai established a threefold system of comprehension which is called Chi-kwan, or ‘perfected comprehension’. This system consists of three comprehensions; namely, ‘empty’ (k’ung), ‘Mahypothetical’ (kia) and ‘medial’ (chung). These three modes of comprehending beings are like the three eyes of the God Mahesvara. The ‘empty’ mode destroys the illusion of sensuous perception and constructs supreme knowledge (prajna). The ‘hypothetical’ mode does away with the defilement of the world and establishes salvation from all evils. Lastly, the ‘medial’ mode destroys hallucination arising from ignorance (avidya) and establishes the enlightened mind. The system of threefold observation is based on the philosophy of Nagarjuna, who lived in south-eastern India about the second century A.D.
These Buddhist schools in China had their origin in Indian Buddhism, but the ceaseless study of the Buddhist texts by the Chinese schools resulted in completely new religious experiences which seem to have grown out of the historical background of China rather than of India. Although this development was possible through the introduction of Indian Mahayana Buddhism, its theories were interpreted in a characteristic Chinese interpreted the Indian texts in consonance with the traditional pattern that they had inherited from their ancestors.
Japan
The Buddhist sects in Japan are said to be thirteen in number. They are the Kegon (the Avatamsaka school), the Ritsu (the Vinaya school). The Hosso (the Dharma-laksana school), the Tendat, the Shingon (Tantric Buddhism), the Jodo, the Jodo-shin, the Yuzunenbutsu, the Ji, the Rinzai, the Soto, the Obaku, and the Nichiren sects. Besides these, there were three others, namely, the Sanron (the Three-sastra school of Madhyamika), the Kusha (the Abhidharma-kosa school) and the Jojitsu (the Satyasiddhi-sastra school), but they are more or less extinct and have little independent influence.
Most of the Buddhist sects in Japan, it may be noted, originally came from China. The Kegon, the Ritsu and the Hosso have retained their Chinese character while the others are local creations and have been completely remodeled. The chief features of the latter sects are briefly discussed in the following pages.
The Tendai Sect
The Tendai sect was founded in Japan 804 A.D. by Saicho, who was better known as Dengyo-Daishi. He entered the Order young and went for further study to China, where he received instruction in the Dharma from teachers at the famous T’ien-t’ai school. On his return to Japan, he propagated the new doctrine in the temple called Enryakuji on Mount Hiei. This temple soon grew to be an important to note that not a few of the founders and scholars of the other sects were associated with this temple as students. Though an offshoot of the Chinese T’ien-t’ai, the Tendai sect absorbed the ideas and principles of other doctrines such as Tantric Buddhism and those of the Dhyana and the Vinaya schools.
It differs from the Chinese T’ien-t’ai in its practical approach, though both base themselves essentially on the Mahayana text. The Saddharma-pundarika, laying stress on the Ekayan theory. Saicho also introduced a practical method called Kwanjin (intuition of the mind).
The Shingon Sect
The founder of this sect in Japan was Kukai (also known as Kobo Daishi) who was a younger contemporary of Saicho. An ascetic, a traveler, and a famous calligrapher and sculptor, Kukai was a versatile figure and a remarkable scholar. Inspired by Saicho’s example, he went to China in 804 A.D., and studied the esoteric Shingon doctrine as a disciple of the Chinese priest, Houei-Kouost.
On his return to Japan he established the most widely know monastery of the Shingon sect on the mountain of Koya-san.
The doctrine of the Shingon sect is based mainly upon the mahavairocana-sutra and the other Tantric sutras. The cult is essentially one of magical or mystical practices as found in the Tantric Buddhism of Tibet. The name Shingon comes from the Sanskrit mantra, meaning sacred formula. According to the doctrine of this sect, enlightenment can be attained through the recitation of a mantra or Dharani.
The Shingon sect is now the only sect in Japan which has retained the Tantric ideals. However, by following a well formulated line of development, it was able to avoid the degeneration which was the fate of Tantric Buddhists of India and Tibet.
Pure Land Buddhism
This comprises the Jodo, the Jodo-shin, the Yuzunenbutsu and the Ji sects. The essential doctrine of these sects is that salvation can be attained only through absolute trust in the saving power of Amitabha. The followers of this faith recite the name of Amitabha, longing to be reborn in his paradise through his grace.
The Jodo sect was founded in Japan in 1175 by Genku. He was a renowned saint and is better known as Honen. His doctrine was based largely upon that of Shan-tao (613-681 A.D.), one of the most famous teachers of the Amitabha school in China. He selected the Sukhavativyuha-sutras (both the larger and the smaller editions) and the Amitayurdhyana-sutra as canonical texts, teaching the benefits of faith in the Amitabha Buddha. His principal belief was that it was Amitabha who had willed that every one should, after death, be born in his paradise called Sukhavati. Hence it was by believing in Amitabha that one could, at the end of life, gain access to the pure land of one’s desire. The system, being a simple one, is suited to the common people. Nenbutsu or the recitation of the name of Amitabha Buddha is a natural practice among the followers of this faith, but the emphasis is on the belief rather than on practical recitation. None the less, Nenbutsu should not be considered to be of secondary importance. It is held that even those who are too preoccupied with their affairs to go deeply into the doctrines of Buddhism will be born in the heaven of Amitabha if they have implicit faith in his name. Honen’s teachings found great favour among the masses and the Jodo sect thus became one of the most influential in Japan.
The teachings of the Jodo-shin sect, founded by Shinran, introduced several important reforms in the Jodo sect. According to Shinran, all living beings shall be saved on account of the vow taken by Amitabha. Hence, the recitation of the name of the Buddha, as also other practices in ordinary life, is but the expression of a grateful heart.
Shinran introduced several important reforms in the organization of the church, the object of which was to remove the division between the clergy and the laity. He did not recognize any difference between the two occupations. All human beings are equally capable of being reborn in the pure land of the Buddha. “There were to be no masters of disciples. All were to be friends and brothers before the Buddha.” Shinran, as others belonging to this sect, led an ordinary life among the people and considered himself not a preceptor, but merely a follower of Amitabha’s way.
Because of Shinran’s liberal outlook, the Shin sect rapidly became popular among the people, especially among the farmers and the peasants. The religious freedom which his followers learnt from him impelled them to seek political and social freedom which found expression in several revolts of the farmers against their feudal lords in the 16th century A.D.
The Yuzunenbutsu sect was founded by Ryonin (1072-1132 A.D.) and the Ji sect by Ippen (1239-1289 A.D.). these sects have no significant influence in Japan. The doctrine of Ryonin was influenced by the Kegon philosophy and that of Ippen by Zen Buddhism.
Zen Buddhism
The word Zen comes from zena (Chinese : Chan) which is a transcription of the Sanskrit dhyana, meaning contemplation.
Zen Buddhism has three branches in Japan, namely, the Rinzai, the Soto, and the Obaku. The first group was founded in Japan by the Japanese monk, Eisai (1141-1215 A.D.), the second by Dogen (1200-1253 A.D.) and the third by a Chinese monk called Igen, about 1653 A.D. Eisai and Dogen spent several years studying in China.
The essence of Zen Buddhism is summed up as follows : “Look into the mind and you will find Buddhahood,” This sect lays great stress on meditation or contemplation which alone can lead one to enlightenment.
We now turn to the doctrine of Dogen, which is one of the most important and representative features of Zen Buddhism.
Dogen started life as a monk seeking an answer to the question: “Why did so many Buddhas practice the way of self-enlightenment, although all living beings, by their very nature, already had Buddhahood in them.” As nobody in Japan could satisfy him with a convincing answer, he went to China to seek light. There he attained enlightenment under the instruction of a Zen Buddhist monk. On his return to Japan he propagated the following doctrine: “All human beings have already been enlightened. They are Buddhas by nature. The practice of meditation is nothing but the Buddha’s act itself.”
The Buddha’s acts continue incessantly and ceaselessly for the improvement of human society, but human being should also constantly strive for the welfare of the community in which they live.
Zen Buddhism found great favour among the warriors for whom steadiness of mind was necessary. Patronized and encouraged by the Shoguns, Zen Buddhism rapidly spread all over the country. The Rinzai sect had closer contact with the Shogunate Government than the Soto, which, however, was very popular among the local lords and the farmers. As far as the number of followers is concerned the Soto sect is now next only to the Shin sect.
ZEN Buddhism made a significant contribution to the development of Japanese culture. It brought to Japan the higher Chinese culture of those days. The painting in black and white, the Noh dance, the tea ceremony and the flower arrangements – all came into vogue as a result of the influence of Zen Buddhism. Moreover, we cannot overlook the fact that the spirit of Zen Buddhism played a considerable part in the formulation of the tenets of Bushido (Japanese chivalry).
The Nichiren Sect
This sect is called after its founder, Nichiren, who was a great patriot and saint of Japan. He was born in 1222 A.D. in Kominate in the house of a fisherman. He received ordination at the age of fifteen in a monastery on a hill called Kiyozumi. He studied various branches of Buddhist literature and traveled widely over the country in search of the essential doctrine of Buddhism. After long years of study and of travel, he declared the Saddharma-pundarika (the Lotus of the Good Law) to be the final revelation of the truth. He introduced the formula, nemu myocho renge kyo (homage to the sutra of the Lotus of the Good Law), perhaps to counteract the influence of Nen-butsu of the Jodo sect. According to him, the Sakyamuni Buddha is the eternal, absolute Buddha, and the recitation of the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra or even its title is the best way of attaining enlightenment.
He expressed his views against the other sects so violently that he was often in trouble, although he always had miraculous escapes.
C. IN SOUTHERN COUNTRIES
Fortunately, in the Buddhist countries of southern Asia, there never arose any serious differences on the fundamentals of Buddhism. All these countries except Viet-Nam – which is a Mahayana country – have accepted the principles of the Theravada school and any difference there may be between the various schools is restricted to minor matters.
Ceylon
Ceylonese sources refer to the schools of Abhayagiri, Dfakkhinavihara and Jetavana which had brought about serious splits in the Buddhist community of Ceylon. Of these, the Abhayagiri school, which was also sometimes called the Dhammaruci-nikaya, flourished as a respectable rival to the Mahavihara school from which it differed in certain fundamentals. The followers of theses schools were also called Vetulyavadins. In the course of the long struggle between the Mahavihara school and the Abhayagiri school, the former ultimately won in Ceylon. There are now three different fraternities in Ceylon which owe their names to the places from which Upasampada was brought i.e., Siam, or Upper or Lower Burma.
Burma
As we know from the Sasanavamsa1, the Burmese Sangha was also split up over minor matters like the interpretation of certain Vinaya rules. One of the questions under consideration was whether Buddhist monks upon being offered an elephant as a gift by the King should retain it for their own use of let it go free into the forest. Another matter of dispute was whether or not a monk should make a personal recommendation of his pupil to any householder. Later, controversies arose as to whether monks, when they went begging in a village, should cover only the left shoulder with their robe, leaving the other bare (ekamsika), or cover both the shoulders (parupana). The argument raged for over a hundred years until the controversy was finally settled by a royal decree in the reign of King Badoah Pra (1781 A.D.). Sometimes trifling matters such as the use of a fan or the use of palm leaves as a head-dress also became matters of controversy and resulted in further splits.
At present there appear to be three main fraternities in Burma. These differ mostly on qu7estions of personal behaviour and very little on essential points. The Sudhamma fraternity which is the oldest and the largest numerically permits the use of umbrellas and sandals, the chewing of betel-nuts or betel-leaves, smoking, and the use of fans at the time of the recitation of the parittas (protective hymns). The Schwegin group, founded by Jagara Mahathera in the reign of King Mindon (19th century A.D.), does not permit the chewing of betel-nuts or betel-leaves in the afternoon, nor does it favour smoking. The Dvaranikaya group of monks uses the expressions kaya-dvara, vaci-dvara, mano-dvara (the doors of body, tongue and mind) instead of kaya-kamma, vacikamma and mano-kamma (actions of the body, tongue and mind).
Thailand and Cambodia
In Thailand and Cambodia, also, there are two fraternities, namely, the Mahanikaya, and the Dhammayuttika-nikaya which is descended from the Ramann sect of Lower Burma. The latter is considered to be stricter in discipline. In Cambodia, the difference is restricted mainly to the pronunciation of Pali words and to very minor rules of conduct.
1 1. See Chapter IV pp. 36-37
1 1. Cf. Katha-vatthu, II, 1-4 and XI, 4.
2 2. Records of the Western Countries, Vol. II 64, 1.p.
1 1. Les Sectes Bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule, (Saigon, 1955).
2 2. Majjhima, No. 67.
3 3. The Sekha-sutta, Majjhima, No. 53.
1 1. These have been explained briefly in Chapter III, p. 26.
1 1. See Chapter III, pp. 27-28.
1 1. Khina jati, vusitam brahmacariyam, katam karaniyam, naparam itthattaya ti….
2 2. See pp. 86-87.
1 1. S. iv, 15; also of. M, i, 3.
1 1. Watters, on the travels of Yuan Chwang, Vol. II, p. 160;Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 4
1 1. Bu-ston, Vol. II. P. 100.
2 2. J. A. S. B. 1838, p. 134.
3 3. Der Buddhismus, pp. 294,295
4 4. Often styled Ekavyavaharika.
1 1. This view seems to be held by only a section of the Mahasanghikas for we are told that another section, and the Mahadevas in particular, held exactly the opposite viewpoint, i.e., that an Arhat is liable to fall and that a srotapanna is not. See Kvu. XXI, 3 and its commentary, p. 35; also N. Dutt Early Monastic Buddhism, Vol. II. Pp. 64-65.
1 1. See ‘Introduction to the History of Early Buddhist Schools’ by R. Kimura in Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volume, Vol. III, Oriental, pt. 3, p. 126.
2 2. Takakusu, I-tsing, pp. 66-67.
1 1. Indian Philosophy, V ol. I, p, 661.
1 1. this and the following numbers refer to those in Nanjio’s Catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment