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.
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 perfection
– 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”.
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.
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,
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.
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,
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.
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’.
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,
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-nikaya.
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.
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.
Csoma Koros states that the ‘sutra on emancipation’ of the Mahasanghikas
was written in a corrupt dialect.
Wassiljew holds that the literature of this school was in Prakrit.
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,
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.
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 robe,
the lower part of which was pulled tightly to the left.
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:
‘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),
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 Sasanavamsa,
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.
---o0o---
[Content] [I]
[II]
[
III
] [IV]
[V]
[VI]
[VII]
---o0o---
Typing: Oanh Tran ; Layout: Nhi Tuong
Update : 01-04-2003
