 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Early Buddhist schools" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(April 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Theearly Buddhist schools refers to theIndian Buddhist "doctrinal schools" or "schools of thought" (Sanskrit:vāda) which arose out of the early unifiedBuddhist monastic community (Saṅgha) due to variousschisms in thehistory of Indian Buddhism. The various splits and divisions were caused by differences in interpretations of themonastic rule (Vinaya), doctrinal differences and also due to simple geographical separation as Buddhism spread throughout theIndian subcontinent.
The early Buddhist community initially split into two mainNikāyas (monastic groups, divisions): theSthavira ("Elders"), and theMahāsāṃghika ("Great Community"). This initial split occurred either during the reign ofAśoka (c. 268-232 BCE) or shortly after (historians disagree on the matter).[1]
Later, these groups became further divided on doctrinal grounds into numerous schools of thought and practice (with their own monastic rules and doctrinalAbhidharma texts). Some of the main sects included theSarvāstivādins ("Temporal Eternalists"), theDharmaguptakas ("Preservers ofDharma"),Lokottaravādins ("Transcendentalists"), thePrajñaptivādins ("Conceptualists"), theVibhajyavādins ("Analysts"), and thePudgalavādins ("Personalists"). According to traditional accounts these sects eventually proliferated into 18 (or, less-commonly, 20) different schools.[2]
The textual material shared by the early schools is often termed theearly Buddhist texts and these are an important source for understanding their doctrinal similarities and differences. There were various works ofAbhidharma and other treatises written by these various schools which contain more unique doctrines which were specific to each school.
| Part ofa serieson |
| EarlyBuddhism |
|---|
 |
| Buddhism |
*This list is a simplification. It is likely that the development of Buddhist schools was not linear. |
| Part ofa series on | ||||||||
| Theravāda Buddhism | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| Buddhism | ||||||||
Key figures
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
According to the scriptures (Cullavagga XI.1 ff), three months after theparinirvāṇa ofGautama Buddha, a council was held at Rajagaha (Rajgir) by some of his disciples who had attainedarahantship, presided over byMahākāśyapa, one of his most senior disciples, and with the support of kingAjātasattu, reciting the teachings of the Buddha. The accounts of the council in the scriptures of the schools differ as to what was actually recited there. Purāṇa is recorded as having said: "Your reverences, well chanted by the elders are theDhamma andVinaya, but in that way that I heard it in the Lord's presence, that I received it in his presence, in that same way will I bear it in mind." [Vinaya Piṭaka:Cullavagga XI:1:11]. According toTheravāda tradition, the teachings were divided into various parts and each was assigned to an elder and his pupils to commit to memory, and there was no conflict about what theBuddha taught.
Some scholars argue that the First Council did not actually take place.[3][4]
The expansion of orally transmitted texts in early Buddhism, and the growing distances between Buddhist communities, fostered specialisation and sectarian identification.[1] One or several disputes did occur during Aśoka's reign, involving both doctrinal and disciplinary (Vinaya) matters, although these may have been too informal to be called a "council". The Sthavira school had, by the time of Aśoka, divided into three sub-schools, doctrinally speaking, but these did not become separate monastic orders until later.
In Theravādin tradition, the first schism's precipitating dispute is supposed to have occurred during theSecond Council atVaishali, approximately one hundred years after Gautama Buddha's parinirvāṇa; the result of the council was—according to this tradition—the first schism in the Saṅgha, between theSthavira and theMahāsāṃghika, though the exact cause of the split is not well agreed-upon.[5] While the Second Council probably was an historical event,[6] details regarding its course and outcome are less certain.
Lamotte and Hirakawa both maintain that the first schism in the Buddhist Saṅgha occurred during the reign of Aśoka;[7][8] Collett Cox places the date slightly later, writing that "most scholars would agree that even though the roots of the earliest recognised groups predateAśoka, their actual separation did not occur until after his death."[1] Only two ancient sources (theDīpavaṃsa andBhāviveka's third list) place the first schism before Aśoka, and only one (the MahāsāṃghikaŚāriputraparipṛcchā) attributes it to a dispute on Vinaya; several (especially Sthaviravādin) sources give the cause as a dispute over doctrine.
The various splits within the monastic organisations went together with the introduction and emphasis onAbhidharmic literature by some schools. This literature was specific to each school, and arguments and disputes between the schools were often based upon these Abhidharmic writings. However, modern scholars generally hold the first schisms to have been based upon disagreements onVinaya (monastic discipline), though it is also asserted that—by c. 100 CE or earlier—they could be based upon doctrinal disagreement.[9] Pre-sectarian Buddhism, however, did not have Abhidharmic scriptures, except perhaps for a basic framework, and not all of the early schools developed an Abhidharma literature.
Theravādin sources state that, in the 3rd century BCE, a council was convened under the patronage of Aśoka.[10] Some scholars argue that there are certain implausible features of the Theravādin account which imply that the Third Council was ahistorical. The remainder consider it a purely Theravāda-Vibhajyavāda council.[11]
According to the Theravādin account, this council was convened primarily for the purpose of establishing an official orthodoxy. At the council, small groups raised questions about the specifics of theVinaya and the interpretation of doctrine. The chairman of the council,Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book, theKathāvatthu, which was meant to refute these arguments. The council sided with Moggaliputta and his version of Buddhism as orthodox; it was then adopted by Emperor Aśoka as his empire's official religion. In Pali, this school of thought was termedVibhajjavāda, literally "thesis of [those who make] a distinction".
The distinction involved was as to the existence of dharmas in the past, future and present. The version of the scriptures that had been established at the Third Council—including theVinaya,Sūtra, andAbhidharma Piṭakas (collectively known as theTripiṭaka)—was taken toSri Lanka by Emperor Aśoka's son, the VenerableMahinda. There it was eventually committed to writing in the Pali language. ThePali Canon remains the most complete set of survivingNikāya scriptures, although the greater part of the Sarvāstivādin canon also survives inChinese translation (along with parts of other—sometimes unidentified—canons); some parts exist in Tibetan translations; and some fragments exist in Sanskrit manuscripts, and in some other Indo-Aryan languages (e.g.,Gāndhārī).
Some time after the reign of Aśoka, further divisions began to occur within the Buddhist movement, and a number of additional schools emerged.Étienne Lamotte divided the mainstream Buddhist schools into three primary doctrinal types:[12]
One Sthavira faction began to call themselves the Vibhajyavādins, based (in part) in Sri Lanka and in certain areas ofSouth India, such as Vanavasi in the southwest and the Kañci region in the southeast; this group later ceased to refer to themselves specifically as "Vibhajjavādins", but reverted to calling themselves "Theriyas", after the earlier Theras (Sthaviryas). Still later, at some point prior to theDīpavaṃsa (4th century), the Pali name Theravāda was adopted and has remained in use ever since for this group.
Other groups included theSarvāstivāda, theDharmaguptakas, theSaṃmitīya, and thePudgalavādins. The Pudgalavādins were also known asVātsīputrīyas, after their putative founder. Later, this group became known as theSaṃmitīya school, after one of its subdivisions. It died out around the 9th or 10th century. Nevertheless, during most of the early medieval period, the Saṃmitīya school was numerically the largest Buddhist group in India, with more followers than all the other schools combined. The Sarvāstivādin school was most prominent in theNorthwest India, and provided some of the doctrines that would later be adopted by the Mahāyāna. A related group was theSautrāntika school, which only recognised the authority of the sūtras, and which rejected the Abhidharma transmitted and taught by theVaibhāṣika wing of the Sarvāstivāda. Based on textual considerations, it has been suggested that the Sautrāntikas were actually adherents of Mūlasarvāstivāda. The relation between the Sarvāstivāda and theMūlasarvāstivāda, however, is unclear.
All of these early schools ofNikāya Buddhism eventually came to be known collectively as "the eighteen schools" in later sources. With the exception of the Theravāda—and, in Tibet alone, the Mūlasarvāstivāda—none of these early schools survived beyond the late medieval period (by which time, several were long-extinct already); however, a considerable amount of the canonical literature of some of these schools has survived, mainly in Chinese translation. Moreover, the origins of specificallyMahāyāna doctrines may be discerned in the teachings of some of these early schools; in particular, those of the Mahāsāṃghika and the Sarvāstivāda.
The schools sometimes split over differences concerning the "real" meaning of teachings in theSūtra Piṭaka, and sometimes over disagreement concerning the proper observance ofVinaya. These differences became embedded in large works such as theAbhidharmas and commentaries. Comparison of existing versions of theSūtra Piṭakas of various sects shows evidence that doctrines from theAbhidharmas sometimes found their way back into theSūtra Piṭakas to support the statements made in thoseAbhidharmas.[citation needed]
Some of these developments may be seen as later elaborations on the teachings. According toGombrich, unintentional literalism was a major force for change in the early doctrinal history of Buddhism; i.e., texts were interpreted according to a strict literal reading of the words used therein, with little consideration paid to otherhermeneutic techniques.[note 1]
| The Eighteen Schools | ||
|---|---|---|
TheŚāriputraparipṛcchā ("Questions of Śāriputra") is aMahāsāṃghikan history, which gives the following list:
| ||
TheSamayabhedo Paracana Ćakra, composed by theSarvāstivādin monkVasumitra (d. 124 BCE) gives the following list:
| ||
The Sri Lankan chronicles,Dīpavaṃsa (3rd–4th century CE) andMahāvaṃsa (5th century CE), discern the following schools:
In addition, theDīpavaṃsa lists the following six schools without identifying the schools from which they arose:
| ||
Vinitadeva (c. 645–715), aMūlasarvāstivādin monk, gives the following list:
| ||
| Twenty schools according to Mahāyāna scriptures in Chinese: |
During thefirst millennium, monks from China such asFaxian,Xuanzang, andYijing made pilgrimages to India and wrote accounts of their travels when they returned home. These Chinese travel records constitute extremely valuable sources of information concerning the state of Buddhism in India during the early medieval period.
By the time the Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang and Yijing visited India, there were five early Buddhist schools that they mentioned far more frequently than others. They commented that theSarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda,Mahāsāṃghika, andSaṃmitīya were the principal early Buddhist schools still extant in India, along with theSthavira school.[13] TheDharmaguptakas continued to be found inGandhāra andCentral Asia, along the Silk Road.
It is commonly said that there were eighteen schools of Buddhism in this period. What this actually means is more subtle. First, although the word "school" is used, there was not yet an institutional split in the Saṅgha. The Chinese travelerXuanzang observed even when the Mahāyāna were beginning to emerge from this era that monks of different schools would live side by side in dormitories and attend the same lectures. Only the books that they read were different. Secondly, no historical sources can agree what the names of these "eighteen schools" were. The origin of this saying is therefore unclear.
A. K. Warder identified the following eighteen early Buddhist schools (in approximate chronological order):Sthaviravāda,Mahāsāṃghika,Vātsīputrīya,Ekavyāvahārika, Gokulika (a.k.a.Kukkuṭika, etc.),Sarvāstivāda,Lokottaravāda, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya,Saṃmitīya, Sannagarika,Bahuśrutīya,Prajñaptivāda,Mahīśāsaka, Haimavata (a.k.a.Kāśyapīya),Dharmaguptaka,Caitika, and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila. Warder says that these were the early Buddhist schools as of circa 50 BCE, about the same time that thePali Canon was first committed to writing and the presumptive origin date of the Theravāda school, though the term 'Theravāda' was not used before the fourth century.[note 4]
A hypothetical combined list would be as follows:
|
|
The classic sets of ten, six or fourpāramitās (perfections) were codified and developed by these various schools in later sources.[note 6][note 7] Though the actual ideas of these virtues (likedhyāna,śila,prajñā, etc.) and the idea of the Buddha's past lives are drawn from early Buddhist sources (such as earlyJātakas), they were developed further into specific doctrines about thebodhisattva path and how exactly the Buddha undertook it.
The new schools also developed new doctrines about important Buddhist topics. The Sarvāstivādins for example were known for their doctrine oftemporal eternalism. Meanwhile, the Mahāsāṃghikaschool was known for its doctrine of "transcendentalism" (Lokottaravāda), the view that the Buddha was a fully transcendent being.
As the third major division of the various canons, theAbhidharma collections were a major source of dispute among the various schools. Abhidharma texts were not accepted as canonical by theMahāsāṃghika school[15][16] and several other schools.[note 8] Another school included most of their version of theKhuddaka Nikāya within their Abhidharma Piṭaka.[15] Also, the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictlyTheravāda collection, and has little in common with the Abhidharma works recognised by other Buddhist schools.[17] The various Abhidharma philosophies of the various early schools disagree on numerous key points[18] and belong to the period of sectarian debates among the schools.[18]
The earliest texts of thePāli Canon (theSutta Nipāta and parts of theJātaka), together with the first four (and early)Nikāyas of theSutta Piṭaka, have no mention of (the texts of) the Abhidhamma Piṭaka.[19] The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned at the report of theFirst Buddhist Council, directly after the death of the Buddha. This report of the first council does mention the existence of theVinaya and the fiveNikāyas (of theSutta Piṭaka).[20]
Although the literature of the various Abhidharma Piṭakas began as a kind of commentarial supplement upon the earlier teachings in the Sūtra Piṭaka, it soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life.[note 9][21] The various Abhidharma works were starting to be composed from about 200 years after the passing away of the Buddha.[note 10]
Traditionally, it is believed (in Theravādin culture) that the Abhidhamma was taught by Buddha to his late mother who was living inTāvatiṁsa. However, this is rejected by scholars, who believe that only small parts of the Abhidharma literature may have been existent in a very early form.[note 11] The Sarvāstivādins also rejected this idea, and instead held that the Abhidharma was collected, edited, and compiled by the elders (Sthaviras) after the Buddha's death (though they relied on the Buddha's words for this compilation).
Some schools of Buddhism had important disagreements on subjects of Abhidharma, while having a largely similar Sūtra Piṭaka and Vinaya Piṭaka. The arguments and conflicts between them were thus often on matters of philosophical Abhidharmic origin, not on matters concerning the actual words and teachings of Buddha.
One impetus for composing new scriptures like the Adhidharmas of the various schools, according to some scholars, was that Buddha left no clear statement about theontological status of the world – about whatreally exists.[note 12] Subsequently, later Buddhists have themselves defined what exists and what does not (in the Abhidharmic scriptures), leading to disagreements.
Oliver Abeynayake has the following to say on the dating of the various books in theKhuddaka Nikāya:
The Khuddaka Nikaya can easily be divided into two strata, one being early and the other late. The textsSutta Nipata,Itivuttaka,Dhammapada,Therigatha (Theragatha),Udana, andJataka tales belong to the early stratum. The texts Khuddakapatha, Vimanavatthu, Petavatthu, Niddesa, Patisambhidamagga, Apadana, Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka can be categorized in the later stratum.[22]
The texts in the early stratum date from before the second council (earlier than 100 years after Buddha's parinirvāṇa), while the later stratum is from after the Second Council, which means they are definitely later additions to the Sūtra Piṭaka, and that they might not have been the original teachings by the Buddha, but later compositions by disciples.
The following books of the Khuddaka Nikāya can thus be regarded as later additions:
| And the following three which are included in the Burmese Canon: |
The original verses of theJātakas are recognised as being amongst the earliest part of the canon,[19] but the accompanying (and more famous) Jātaka stories are commentaries likely composed at later dates.
TheParivāra, the last book of theVinaya Piṭaka, is a later addition.[note 13]
Early Mahāyāna came directly from "early Buddhist schools" and was a successor to them.[23][24]
Between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, the terms "Mahāyāna" and "Hīnayāna" were first used in writing, in, for example, theLotus Sūtra. The later Mahāyāna schools may have preserved ideas which were abandoned by the "orthodox" Theravāda, such as the Three Bodies doctrine, the idea of consciousness (vijñāna) as a continuum, and devotional elements such as the worship of saints.[25][26][note 15]
Although the various early schools of Buddhism are sometimes loosely classified as "Hīnayāna" in modern times, this is not necessarily accurate. According toJan Nattier, Mahāyāna never referred to a separate sect of Buddhism (Skt.Nikāya), but rather to the set of ideals and doctrines for bodhisattvas.[27] Paul Williams has also noted that the Mahāyāna never had nor ever attempted to have a separateVinaya or ordination lineage from the early Buddhist schools, and therefore eachbhikṣu orbhikṣuṇī adhering to the Mahāyāna formally belonged to an early school.
Membership in theseNikāyas, or monastic sects, continues today with theDharmaguptaka Nikāya inEast Asian Buddhism, and theMūlasarvāstivāda Nikāya inTibetan Buddhism. Therefore, Mahāyāna was never a separate rival sect of the early schools.[28] Paul Harrison clarifies that while Mahāyāna monastics belonged to a Nikāya, not all members of a Nikāya were Mahāyānists.[29] From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side.[30] Additionally, Isabella Onians notes that Mahāyāna works rarely used the termHīnayāna, typically using the termŚrāvakayāna instead.[31]
The Chinese Buddhist monk and pilgrimYijing wrote about relationship between the various "vehicles" and the early Buddhist schools in India. He wrote, "There exist in the West numerous subdivisions of the schools which have different origins, but there are only four principal schools of continuous tradition." These schools are namely the Mahāsāṃghika, Sthavira, Mūlasarvāstivāda and Saṃmitīya Nikāyas.[32] Explaining their doctrinal affiliations, he then writes, "Which of the four schools should be grouped with the Mahāyāna or with the Hīnayāna is not determined." That is to say, there was no simple correspondence between a Buddhist monastic sect, and whether its members learn "Hīnayāna" or "Mahāyāna" teachings.[33]
Timeline: Development and propagation of Buddhist traditions(c. 450 BCE – c. 1300 CE) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 450 BCE[note 16] | 250 BCE | 100 CE | 500 CE | 700 CE | 800 CE | 1200 CE[note 17] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Early Buddhist schools | Mahāyāna | Vajrayāna | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Theravāda | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Kadam | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Kagyu |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Dagpo | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sakya | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Jonang | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Early Buddhist schools | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Chan |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Thiền,Seon | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Zen | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Tiantai /Jìngtǔ |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Tendai |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 450 BCE | 250 BCE | 100 CE | 500 CE | 700 CE | 800 CE | 1200 CE | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
.svg)