| Part ofa serieson |
| EarlyBuddhism |
|---|
 |
| Buddhism |
*This list is a simplification. It is likely that the development of Buddhist schools was not linear. |
TheMahāsāṃghika (Brahmi: 𑀫𑀳𑀸𑀲𑀸𑀁𑀖𑀺𑀓, "of the GreatSangha",Chinese:大眾部; pinyin:Dà zhòng bù; Vietnamese:Đại chúng bộ) was a major division (Nikāya) of theearly Buddhist schools inIndia. They were one of the two original communities that emerged from the firstschism of theoriginal pre-sectarian Buddhist tradition (the other being theSthavira Nikāya). This schism is traditionally held to have occurred after theSecond Buddhist council, which occurred at some point during or after the reign ofKalashoka. The Mahāsāṃghika Nikāya developed into numerous sects which spread throughoutancient India.
Some scholars think that the MahāsāṃghikaVinaya (monastic rule) represents the oldest Buddhist monastic source, although some other scholars think that it is not the case. While the Mahāsāṃghika tradition is no longer in existence, manyscholars look to the Mahāsāṃghika tradition as an early source for some ideas that were later adopted byMahāyāna Buddhism. Some of these ideas include the view that theBuddha was a fully transcendent being (term "lokottaravāda", "transcendentalism"), the idea that there are many contemporaneousbuddhas andbodhisattvas throughout the universe, the doctrine of theinherent purity and luminosity of the mind (Skt:prakṛtiś ćittasya prabhāsvarā), the doctrine of reflexive awareness (svasaṃvedana) and the doctrine ofprajñapti-matra (absolutenominalism or pure conceptualism).
Most sources place the origin of the Mahāsāṃghikas to theSecond Buddhist Council. Traditions regarding the Second Council are confusing and ambiguous, but it is agreed that the overall result was the first schism in theSangha between theSthavira Nikāya and the Mahāsāṃghika Nikāya, although it is not agreed upon by all what the cause of this split was.[1]
According toJan Nattier and Charles S. Prebish, the best date for the first schism and the creation of the Mahāsāṃghika as a separate community is 116 years after the Buddha's nirvāṇa.[2]
Some Buddhist historical sources mention that the cause for schism was a dispute over Vinaya (monastic rule), mainly the desire of certain Sthaviras (elders) to add extra rules to make the Vinaya more rigorous.[2] Other sources, especially Sthavira sources like those of the Sarvastivāda school, argue that the main cause was a doctrinal issue. They blame a figure named Mahadeva with arguing for five divisive points, four of which seearhatship as a lesser kind of spiritual attainment (which still has ignorance and desire).[2]
Andrew Skilton has suggested that the problems of contradictory accounts about the first schism are solved by the MahāsāṃghikaŚāriputraparipṛcchā, which is the earliest surviving account of the schism.[3] In this account, the council was convened atPāṭaliputra over matters ofVinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by a smaller group of elders (Sthaviras).[3] The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya and to make it more strict.[4] However, this text is not fully accepted by some Buddhist schools, such as theTheravāda, which instead claim that it was the Mahāsāṃghika who altered the original rules.
Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of Vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the Vinaya texts themselves, as Vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.[3]
Some scholars therefore agree that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest,[3] although some other scholars think that it is not the case.[5] According to Skilton, future historians may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravāda school.[4] According toBhante Sujato, there is no strong evidence that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest; both the Mahāsāṃghika and Theravāda Vinayas developed in parallel from shared ancient sources, each containing both older and later elements. Declaring one as definitively “the earliest” is an oversimplification not supported by the academic evidence.[5]
Regarding the issue with Mahadeva's doctrine, this seems to have been a later doctrinal dispute within the Mahāsāṃghika community (which happened after the schism). The followers of Mahadeva seem to have been the precursors of the southern Mahāsāṃghika sects, like the Caitikas.[2]
The original center of the Mahāsāṃghika sects wasMagadha, but they also maintained important centers such as inMathura andKarli.[6] TheKukkuṭikas were situated inEastern India aroundVārāṇasī andPāṭaliputra and theBahuśrutīya inKośala, Andhra, andGandhāra.
TheLokottaravāda subschool itself claimed to be of the 'Middle Country', i.e.Ganges Basin region in the north of India. The Mahāsāṃghikas and theLokottaravāda subschool also had centres in the Gandhāra region. TheEkavyāvahārika are not known from later times.[7]
TheCaitika branch was based in theCoastal Andhra region and especially atAmarāvati andNāgārjunakoṇḍā. This Caitika branch included the Pūrvaśailas, Aparaśailas, Rājagirikas, and the Siddhārthikas.
Finally,Madhyadeśa was home to thePrajñaptivādins.[8] The ancient Buddhist sites in the lowerKṛṣṇa Valley, includingAmarāvati,Nāgārjunakoṇḍā andJaggayyapeṭa, "can be traced to at least the third century BCE, if not earlier."[9]
The cave temples at theAjaṇṭā Caves, theEllora Caves, and theKarla Caves are associated with the Mahāsāṃghikas.[10]
Between 148 and 170 CE, theParthian monkAn Shigao came to China and translated a work which describes the color of monastic robes (Skt.kāṣāya) utilised in five major Indian Buddhist sects, calledDa Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (Ch. 大比丘三千威儀).[11] Another text translated at a later date, theŚāriputraparipṛcchā, contains a very similar passage corroborating this information.[11] In both sources, the Mahāsāṃghikas are described as wearing yellow robes.[11] The relevant portion of theŚāriputraparipṛcchā reads:[12]
The Mahāsāṃghika school diligently study the collected sūtras and teach the true meaning, because they are the source and the center. They wear yellow robes.
The lower part of the yellow robe was pulled tightly to the left.[13]
According to Dudjom Rinpoche from the tradition ofTibetan Buddhism, the robes of fully ordained Mahāsāṃghika monastics were to be sewn out of more than seven sections, but no more than twenty-three sections.[14] The symbols sewn on the robes were theendless knot (Skt.śrīvatsa) and theconch shell (Skt.śaṅkha), two of theEight Auspicious Signs in Buddhism.[14]
The Tibetan historianButon Rinchen Drub (1290–1364) wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas usedPrākrit, theSarvāstivādinsSanskrit, theSthaviravādins usedPaiśācī and theSaṃmitīyaApabhraṃśa.[15]
.jpg)
An important source for the doctrines of the Mahāsāṃghika is theSamayabhedoparacanaćakra (The Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines,Ch: 異部宗輪論) ofVasumitra (Sarvāstivāda scholar, c. 2nd century CE), which was translated byXuanzang.[17][18]
According to this source, some of the key doctrines defended by Indian Mahāsāṃghikas include:[19][20]
The Mahāsāṃghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of theBuddha andbodhisattvas, and the fallibility ofarhats.[21] Xing also notes that theAcchariyābbhūtasutta of theMajjhima Nikāya along with its ChineseMadhyamāgama parallel version is the most prominent evidence for the ancient source of the Mahāsāṃghika view of the Buddha. The Sūtra mentions various miracles performed by the Buddha before his birth and after. While the Pāli Sutta uses the term bodhisattva for the Buddha before his birth, the Chinese version calls himBhagavān. This points to the idea that the Buddha was already awakened before descending down to earth.[22]
Similarly, the idea that the lifespan of a Buddha is limitless is also based on very ancient ideas. TheMahāparinirvāna Sūtra states that the Buddha's lifespan is as long as an eon (kalpa) and that he voluntarily chose to give up his life.[22] Another early source for the Mahāsāṃghika view that a Buddha was a transcendent being is the idea of thethirty-two major marks of a Buddha's body.[22] Furthermore, theSimpsapa Sutta states that the Buddha had way more knowledge than what he taught to his disciples. The Mahāsāṃghikas took this further and argued that the Buddha knew the dharmas of innumerable other buddhas of the ten directions.[22]
Of the 48 special theses attributed by theSamayabhedoparacanaćakra to the Mahāsāṃghikas (Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, and Kukkuṭika), twenty concern the supramundane nature of Buddha and bodhisattvas.[17] According to theSamayabhedoparacanaćakra, these four groups held that the Buddha is able to know alldharmas in a single moment of the mind.[23] Yao Zhihua writes:[23]
In their view, the Buddha is equipped with the following supernatural qualities: transcendence (lokottara), lack of defilements, all of his utterancespreaching his teaching, expounding all his teachings in a single utterance, all of his sayings being true, his physical body being limitless, his power (prabhāva) being limitless, the length of his life being limitless, never tiring of enlightening sentient beings and awakening pure faith in them, having no sleep or dreams, no pause in answering a question, and always in meditation (samādhi).
A doctrine ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas is, "The power of the Tathāgatas is unlimited, and the life of the Buddhas is unlimited."[24] According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in Mahāsāṃghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through his skillful means (Skt.upāya).[25] For the Mahāsāṃghikas, the historicalGautama Buddha was merely one of these transformation bodies (Skt.nirmāṇakāya), while the essential real Buddha was equated with theDharmakāya.[26]
The Mahāsāṃghika Lokānuvartanā Sūtra makes numerous supramundane claims about the Buddha, including that:
Like the Mahāyāna traditions, the Mahāsāṃghikas held the doctrine of the existence of many contemporaneous buddhas throughout the ten directions.[28] In the MahāsāṃghikaLokānuvartana Sūtra, it is stated, "The Buddha knows all the dharmas of the countless buddhas of the ten directions."[28] It is also stated, "All buddhas have one body, the body of the Dharma."[28]
In the view of Mahāsāṃghikas, advanced bodhisattvas have severed the bonds ofkarma, and are born out of their own free will into lower states of existence (Skt.durgati) in order to help liberate other sentient beings. As described by Akira Hirakawa:[29]
TheSarvāstivādin also taught that the Bodhisattva was subject to the law of karma. If one attained arhathood, he was free of the karmic law; and once the arhat died, he entered nirvāṇa never to return to the world of saṃsāra. But living in the cycle of saṃsāra, the Bodhisattva was bound to the law of karma. In contrast to this school the Mahāsāṃghika held that the Bodhisattva has already sundered karmic bondage and, therefore, is born in durgati out of his own free will, his deep vow (praṇidhāna) of salvation.
The concept of many bodhisattvas simultaneously working toward buddhahood is also found among the Mahāsāṃghika tradition, and further evidence of this is given in theSamayabhedoparacanaćakra, which describes the doctrines of the Mahāsāṃghikas.[30] These two concepts of contemporaneous bodhisattvas and contemporaneous buddhas were linked in some traditions, and texts such as theMahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa use the principle of contemporaneous bodhisattvas to demonstrate the necessity of contemporaneous buddhas throughout the ten directions.[31] It is thought that the doctrine of contemporaneous buddhas was already old and well established by the time of early Mahāyāna texts such as theAṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, due to the clear presumptions of this doctrine.[30]
The Mahāsāṃghikas held that the teachings of the Buddha were to be understood as having two principal levels of truth: a relative or conventional (Skt.saṃvṛti) truth, and the absolute or ultimate (Skt.paramārtha) truth.[21] For the Mahāsāṃghika branch of Buddhism, the final and ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words," and words were merely the conventional exposition of the Dharma.[32] K. Venkata Ramanan writes:[33]
The credit of having kept alive the emphasis on the ultimacy of the unconditioned reality by drawing attention to the non-substantiality of the basic elements of existence (dharma-śūnyatā) belongs to the Mahāsāṃghikas. Every branch of these clearly drew the distinction between the mundane and the ultimate, came to emphasize the non-ultimacy of the mundane and thus facilitated the fixing of attention on the ultimate.
Some Mahāsāṃghikas held a theory of self-awareness or self-cognition (svasaṃvedana) which held that a moment of consciousness (ćitta) can be aware of itself as well as its intentional object. This doctrine arose out of their understanding of the Buddha's enlightenment which held that in a single moment of mind the Buddha knew all things.[34]
TheMahāvibhāṣa Śāstra explains the doctrine of self-reflexive awareness as follows:
Some allege that the mind (ćitta) and mental activities (ćaitta) can apprehend themselves (svabhāva). Schools like Mahāsāṃghika hold the following view: It is the nature of awareness (jñāna) and so forth to apprehend, thus awareness can apprehend itself as well as others. This is like a lamp that can illuminate itself and others owing to its nature (svabhāva) of luminosity.[35]
Some Mahāsāṃghikas also held that the mind's nature (ćittasvabhāva) is fundamentally pure (mūlaviśuddha), but it can be contaminated by adventitious defilements.[36] Vasumitra'sNikayabhedadharmamatićakra-Śāstra also discusses this theory, and cites the Sūtra passage which the Mahāsāṃghikas drew on to defend it.[37] The passage is quoted by Vasumitra as:
The self-nature of the mind (ćittasvabhāva) is luminous (prabhāsvara). It is the adventitious impurities (āgantukopakleśa) that defile it. The self substance of the mind is eternally pure.[38]
The commentary to Vasumitra byKuiji adds the following: "It is because afflictions (kleśa) are produced which soil it that it is said to be defiled. But these defilements, not being of the original nature of the mind, are called adventitious."[38] TheKathāvatthu (III, 3) also cites this idea as a thesis of the Andhakas.[38]
According to Vasumitra, the Mahāsāṃghikas held that there were ninedharmas (phenomena, realities) which were unconditioned or unconstructed (asaṃskṛta):[20]
According to Bart Dessein, theMohe sengzhi lu (Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya) provides some insight into the format of this school's textual canon. They appear to have had aVinaya in five parts, anAbhidharma Piṭaka, and aSūtra Piṭaka:
Of these texts, their Vinaya was translated into Chinese by Buddhabhadra and Faxian between 416 and 418 CE in the Daochang Monastery in Nanjing, capital of the Eastern Jin Dynasty. In this text, their Abhidharma is defined as "thesūtrānta in nine parts" (navāṅga). This suggests that the early Mahāsāṃghikas rejected the abhidharmic developments that occurred within Sarvāstivāda circles. As is the case with their Vinayapiṭaka, also their Sūtrapiṭaka seems to have consisted of five parts (āgama): *Dīrghāgama, *Madhyamāgama, *Saṃyuktāgama, *Ekottarāgama and *Kṣudrakāgama.
Dessein also mentions that the school probably also had a Bodhisattva Piṭaka, which included material that "in all likelihood consisted of texts that formed part of the early development of the bodhisattva path as an alternative career to that of the arhant, perhaps serving as a foundation for the later developments of the bodhisattva doctrine".[39]
According to Zhihua Yao, the following Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya texts are extant in Chinese:Mahāsāṃghika Bhikṣuni Vinaya,Prātimokṣa Sūtra,Sphutartha Srighanacarasamgrahatika, Abhisamacarikadharma and theMahāvastu.[40]
Zhan Ru also notes that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya (Chinese:Mohe Sengqi Lü) translated byFaxian (337–422 CE) contains proto-Mahāyāna elements and "reflects the nascent formation of the Mahāyāna Dharma teachings."[41]
TheMahāvastu (Sanskrit for "Great Event" or "Great Story") is the most well known of theLokottaravāda branch of the Mahāsāṃghika school. It is a preface to theirVinaya Piṭaka and contains numerousJātaka andAvadāna tales, stories of past lives of theBuddha and otherbodhisattvas.[42] It is considered a primary source for the notion of a transcendent (lokottara) Buddha, who across his countless past lives developed various abilities such as omniscience (sarvajñana), the lack of any need for sleep or food and being born painlessly without the need for intercourse.[43] The text shows strong parallels with the PaliMahakhandhaka.
TheŚariputraparipṛcchā (Shelifu Wen Jing, 舍利弗問經,Taishō Tripiṭaka No. 1465, p. 900b), translated into Chinese between 317 and 420, is a Mahasamghika Vinaya work which also provides a history of early Buddhism and its schisms.[44]
Some scholars such as Yao and Tse Fu Kuan consider theEkottara Āgama (Taishō Tripiṭaka No. 125) to belong to the Mahāsāṃghika school, though this is still up for debate.[40][45]
TheLokānuvartanā Sūtra (Chinese: 佛説内藏百寶經, pinyin:Fóshuō Nèi Zàng Bǎi Bǎo Jīng, Taishō Tripiṭaka No. 807) is a text preserved in some Sanskrit fragments as well as in Tibetan and Chinese translation.[27]
Furthermore, another Sūtra in the Chinese canon which has similar Mahāsāṃghika themes to theLokānuvartanā is thePusaxingwushiyuanshengjing (Sūtra Spoken by the Buddha on (the Characteristic Marks of) His Appearance as (the Result of) Fifty Causes of the Practice of Bodhisattva).[46]
According to some sources,Abhidharma was not accepted as canonical by the Mahāsāṃghika school.[47] The TheravādinDīpavaṃsa, for example, records that the Mahāsāṃghikas had no Abhidharma.[48]
However, other sources indicate that there were such collections of Abhidharma. During the early 5th century, the Chinese pilgrimFaxian is said to have found a Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma at a monastery in Pāṭaliputra.[48] Furthermore, whenXuanzang visitedDhānyakaṭaka, he met two Mahāsāṃghikabhikṣus and studied Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma with them for several months.[48][49] On the basis of textual evidence as well as inscriptions at Nāgārjunakoṇḍā, Joseph Walser concludes that at least some Mahāsāṃghika sects probably had an Abhidharma collection, and that it likely contained five or six books.[50]
TheTattvasiddhi-Śāstra ("The Treatise that Accomplishes Reality";Ch: 成實論,Chengshilun), is anAbhidharma work by a figure known as Harivarman (250–350). Some scholars including A. K. Warder, attribute the work to the Mahāsāṃghika-Bahusrutiyas, however others disagree and see it as aSautrantika work.[51][52] Chinese sources mention that he was initially a Sautrantika teacher who later lived with the Mahāsāṃghikas.[52]
The Chinese canon also includes a sūtra commentary called theFēn bié gōng dé lùn (分別功徳論) in the Volume 25th of the Taishō Tripiṭaka (No. 1507, pp. 30–52).[40]
The Chinese Buddhist monkXuanzang visited a Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādamonastery in the 7th century atBamyan,Afghanistan, and this monastery site has since been rediscovered by archaeologists.[53]Birch bark manuscripts andpalm-leaf manuscripts of texts in this monastery's collection, includingMahāyāna sūtras, have been discovered at the site, and these are now located in theSchøyen Collection. Some manuscripts are in theGāndhārī language andKharoṣṭhī script, while others are in Sanskrit and written in forms of theGupta script.
Manuscripts and fragments that have survived from this monastery's collection include the following source texts:[53]
Within the Mahāsāṃghika branch, theBahuśrutīyas are said to have included a Bodhisattva Piṭaka in their canon, and Paramārtha wrote that the Bahuśrutīyas accepted both theHīnayāna and Mahāyāna teachings.[21] In the 6th century, Bhāvaviveka speaks of the Siddhārthikas using a Vidyādhāra Piṭaka, and the Pūrvaśailas and Aparaśailas both using a Bodhisattva Piṭaka, all implying collections of Mahāyāna texts within the Mahāsāṃghika schools.[54] During the same period, Avalokitavrata speaks of the Mahāsāṃghikas using a "Great Āgama Piṭaka," which is then associated with Mahāyāna sūtras such as thePrajñāparamitā and theDaśabhūmika Sūtra.[54]
%2c_buddha_stante%2c_V-VI_sec..JPG)
In the 6th century CE,Paramārtha, a Buddhist monk fromUjjain inCentral India, wrote about a special affiliation of the Mahāsāṃghika school with the Mahāyāna tradition. He associates the initial composition and acceptance ofMahāyāna sūtras with the Mahāsāṃghika branch of Buddhism.[55] He states that 200 years after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, much of the Mahāsāṃghika school moved north ofRājagṛha, and were divided over whether the Mahāyāna teachings should be incorporated formally into their Tripiṭaka. According to this account, they split into three groups based upon the relative manner and degree to which they accepted the authority of these Mahāyāna texts.[56]
Paramārtha states that theKukkuṭika sect did not accept the Mahāyāna sūtras asbuddhavacana ("word of the Buddha"), while theLokottaravāda sect and theEkavyāvahārika sect did accept the Mahāyāna sūtras asbuddhavacana.[57] Paramartha's report states:
In this school, there were some who believed these sutras and some who did not. Those who did not believe them ... said that such sutras are made by man and are not proclaimed by the Buddha, ... that the disciples of theLesser Vehicle only believe in theTripitaka, because they did not personally hear the Buddha proclaim theGreater Vehicle. Among those who believed these sutras, there were some who did so because they had personally heard the Buddha proclaim the Greater Vehicle and therefore believed these sutras; others believed them, because it can be known through logical analysis that there is this principle [of the Greater Vehicle]; and some believed them because they believed their masters. Those who did not believe [them] did so because these sutras were self-made and because they were not included in the fiveAgamas.[58]
Paramārtha also wrote about the origins of the Bahuśrutīya sect in connection with acceptance of Mahāyāna teachings. According to his account, the founder of the Bahuśrutīya sect was named Yājñavalkya.[59] In Paramārtha's account, Yājñavalkya is said to have lived during the time of the Buddha, and to have heard his discourses, but was in a profound state of samādhi during the time of the Buddha'sparinirvāṇa.[59] After Yājñavalkya emerged from this samādhi 200 years later, he discovered that the Mahāsāṃghikas were teaching only the superficial meaning of the sūtras, and therefore founded the Bahuśrutīya sect in order to expound the full meaning.[59]According to Paramārtha, the Bahuśrutīya school was formed in order to fully embrace both "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth".[60] Bart Dessein links the Bahuśrutīya understanding of this full exposition to the Mahāyāna teachings.[61] In his writings, Paramārtha also indicated as much:[62]
In the Mahāsāṃghika school this Arhat recited completely the superficial sense and the profound sense. In the latter, there was the sense of the Mahāyāna. Some did not believe it. Those who believed it recited and retained it. There were in the Mahāsāṃghika school those who propagated these teachings, and others who did not propagate them. The former formed a separate school called "Those who have heard much" (Bahuśrutīya). [...] It is from this school that there has come theSatyasiddhiśāstra. That is why there is a mixture of ideas from the Mahāyāna found there.
Some early Mahāyāna sūtras reference wealthy female donors and provide evidence that they were developed in the Āndhra region, where the Mahāsāṃghika Caitika groups were predominant. The MahāyānaMahāmegha Sūtra, for example, gives a prophecy about a royal princess of theŚatavāhana dynasty who will live in Āndhra, along theKṛṣṇa River, inDhānyakaṭaka, seven hundred years after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha.[63]
Several scholars such asÉtienne Lamotte, and Alex and Hideko Wayman, associate theĀndhra Ikṣvāku dynasty with patronage of Mahāyāna sūtras.[63] Epigraphic evidence atNāgārjunikoṇḍa also provides abundant evidence of royal and wealthy female donors.[63]
A number of scholars have proposed that the MahāyānaPrajñāpāramitā teachings were first developed by the Caitika subsect of the Mahāsāṃghikas. They believe that theAṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra originated amongst the southern Mahāsāṃghika schools of the Āndhra region, along theKṛṣṇa River.[30] Guang Xing states, "several scholars have suggested that the Prajñāpāramitā probably developed among the Mahāsāṃghikas in Southern India, in the Āndhra country, on the Kṛṣṇa River."[31] These Mahāsāṃghikas had two famous monasteries near Amarāvati and the Dhānyakaṭaka, which gave their names to the schools of the Pūrvaśailas and the Aparaśailas.[30] Each of these schools had a copy of theAṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra inPrakrit.[30] Guang Xing also assesses the view of the Buddha given in theAṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra as being that of the Mahāsāṃghikas.[30]Edward Conze estimates that this Sūtra originated around 100 BCE.[30]
Brian Edward Brown, a specialist inTathāgatagarbha doctrines, writes that it has been determined that the composition of theŚrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra occurred during theAndhra Īkṣvāku dynasty in the 3rd century as a product of the Mahāsāṃghikas of the Āndhra region (i.e. theCaitika schools).[64]Alex Wayman has outlined eleven points of complete agreement between the Mahāsāṃghikas and theŚrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, along with four major arguments for this association.[58] Anthony Barber also associates the earlier development of theTathāgatagarbha Sūtra with the Mahāsāṃghikas, and concludes that the Mahāsāṃghikas of the Āndhra region were responsible for the inception of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.[65]
According to Stephen Hodge, internal textual evidence in theAṅgulimālīya Sūtra,Mahābherihāraka Parivarta Sūtra, and theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, indicates that these texts were first circulated in South India and then gradually propagated up to the northwest, withKashmir being the other major center. TheAṅgulimālīya Sūtra gives a more detailed account by mentioning the points of distribution as includingSouth India, theVindhya Range,Bharuch, and Kashmir.[66]
The language used in theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and related texts, seems to indicate a region in Southern India during the time of theŚātavāhana dynasty. The Śātavāhana rulers gave rich patronage to Buddhism, and were involved with the development of the cave temples at Karla and Ajaṇṭā, and also with the GreatStūpa at Amarāvati. During this time, the Śātavāhana dynasty also maintained extensive links with theKuṣāṇa Empire.[66]
Using textual evidence in theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and related texts, Stephen Hodge estimates a compilation period between 100 CE and 220 CE for theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. Hodge summarises his findings as follows:[66]
[T]here are strong grounds based on textual evidence that the MPNS (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), or a major portion of it, together with related texts were compiled in theDeccan during the second half of the 2nd century CE, in a Mahāsāṃghika environment, probably in one of their centres along the western coastal region such as Karli, or perhaps, though less likely, the Amaravatī-Dhanyakaṭaka region.
In the 6th century CE, Paramārtha wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas revere the sūtras which teach the Tathāgatagarbha.[66]
Since at least theMeiji period inJapan, some scholars of Buddhism have looked to the Mahāsāṃghika as the originators of Mahāyāna Buddhism.[67] According to Akira Hirakawa, modern scholars often look to the Mahāsāṃghikas as the originators of Mahāyāna Buddhism.[68]
According toA. K. Warder, it is "clearly" the case that the Mahāyāna teachings originally came from the Mahāsāṃghika branch of Buddhism.[69] Warder holds that "the Mahāyāna originated in the south of India and almost certainly in the Āndhra country."[70] Anthony Barber and Sree Padma note that "historians of Buddhist thought have been aware for quite some time that such pivotally important Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers asNāgārjuna,Dignāga,Ćandrakīrti,Āryadeva, andBhāvaviveka, among many others, formulated their theories while living in Buddhist communities in Āndhra."[71]
André Bareau has stated that there can be found Mahāyāna ontology prefigured in the Mahāsāṃghika schools, and has offered an array of evidence to support this conclusion.[72] Bareau traces the origin of the Mahāyāna tradition to the older Mahāsāṃghika schools in regions such asOdisha,Kosala,Koñkana, and so on. He then cites the Bahuśrutīyas and Prajñaptivādins as sub-sects of the Mahāsāṃghika that may have played an important role in bridging the flow of Mahāyāna teachings between the northern and southern Mahāsāṃghika traditions.[72]
André Bareau also mentions that according toXuanzang andYijing in the 7th century, the Mahāsāṃghika schools had essentially disappeared, and instead these travelers found what they described as "Mahāyāna." The region occupied by the Mahāsāṃghika was then an important center for Mahāyāna Buddhism.[72] Bareau has proposed that Mahāyāna grew out of the Mahāsāṃghika schools, and the members of the Mahāsāṃghika schools also accepted the teachings of the Mahāyāna.[72] Additionally, the extant Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was originally procured by Faxian in the early 5th century CE at what he describes as a "Mahāyāna" monastery in Pāṭaliputra.[73]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya recension is essentially very similar to the other recensions, as they all are to each other. The Mahāsāṃghika recension differs most from the other recensions in structure, but the rules are generally identical in meaning, if theVibhaṅgas (explanations) are compared. Some features of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya recension suggest that it might be an older redaction.
TheBhikṣuprakirnaka andBhikṣuniprakirnaka and theBhikṣu Abhisamacarikadharma sections of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya are generally equivalent to theKhandhakas /Skandhakas of theSthavira derived schools. However, their structure is simpler, and according to recent research by Clarke, the structure follows amatika (matrix) which is also found embedded in the Vinayas of several of the Sthavira schools, suggesting that it is presectarian. The sub-sections of thePrakirnaka sections are also titledPratisamyukta rather than Skandhaka / Khandhaka.Pratisamyukta /Patisamyutta means a section or chapter in a collection organised by subject; the 'samyukta-principle', like theSamyutta Nikāya /Samyukta Āgama. Scholars such as Master Yin Shun, Choong Moon Keat, andBhikkhu Sujato have argued that theSamyutta /Samyukta represents the earliest collection among the Nikāyas / Āgamas, and this may well imply that it is also the oldestorganising principle too. (N.B. this does not necessarily say anything about the age of the contents).
There are also fewer stories in general in the Vinaya of the subsidiary school, the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravāda, and many of them give the appearance of badly connected obvious interpolations, whereas in the structure of the Sthavira recensions the stories are integrated into the whole scheme. In the formulations of some of thePrātimokṣa rules also, the phrasing (though generally identical in meaning to the other recensions) often appears to represent a clearer but less streamlined version, which suggests it might be older. This is particularly noticeable in theBhikṣuni Vinaya, which has not been as well preserved as theBhikṣu Vinaya in general in all the recensions. Yet the formulation of certain rules which seem very confused in the other recensions (e.g.Bhikkhuni Sanghadisesa 3) seems to better represent what would be expected of a root formulation which could lead to the variety of confused formulations we see (presumably later) in the other recensions. The formulation of this rule (as an example) also reflects a semi-parallel formulation to a closely related rule for Bhikṣus which is found in a more similar form in all the Vinayas (Pali Canon 64).
According toReginald Ray, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya mentions the figure ofDevadatta, but in a way that is different from the Vinayas of the Sthavira branch. According to this study, the earliest Vinaya material common to all sects simply depicts Devadatta as a Buddhist saint who wishes for the monks to live a rigorous lifestyle.[74] This has led Ray to regard the story of Devadatta as a legend produced by the Sthavira group.[75] However, upon examining the same Vinaya materials, Bhikkhu Sujato has written that the portrayals of Devadatta are largely consistent between the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya and the other Vinayas, and that the supposed discrepancy is simply due to the minimalist literary style of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. He also points to other parts of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya that clearly portray Devadatta as a villain, as well as similar portrayals that exist in the LokottaravādinMahāvastu.[76]
The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is extant in theChinese Buddhist canon asMohesengzhi Lü (摩訶僧祗律; Taishō Tripiṭaka No. 1425). The Vinaya was originally procured byFaxian in the early 5th century at a Mahāyāna monastery in Pāṭaliputra.[73] This Vinaya was then translated into Chinese as a joint effort between Faxian andBuddhabhadra in 416 CE, and the completed translation is 40 fascicles in length.[77] According to Faxian, inNorthern India, the Vinaya teachings were typically only passed down by tradition through word of mouth and memorisation. For this reason, it was difficult for him to procure manuscripts of the Vinayas that were used in India. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was reputed to be the original Vinaya from the lifetime of the Buddha, and "the most correct and complete".[78]
Although Faxian procured the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya in India and had this translated into Chinese, the tradition ofChinese Buddhism eventually settled on theDharmaguptaka Vinaya instead. At the time of Faxian, theSarvāstivāda Vinaya was the most common Vinaya tradition in China.
In the 7th century, Yijing wrote that in Eastern China, most people followed the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, while the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was used in earlier times inGuanzhong (the region aroundChang'an), and that the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya was prominent in theYangzi region and further south.[79] In the 7th century, the existence of multiple Vinaya lineages throughout China was criticised by prominent Vinaya masters such as Yijing and Dao'an (654–717). In the early 8th century,Dao'an gained the support ofEmperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the Saṃgha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.[80]
Atiśa was ordained in the Mahāsāṃghika lineage. However, because the Tibetan EmperorRalpacan had decreed that only theMūlasarvāstivāda order would be permitted in Tibet, he did not ordain anyone.
.svg)