A STUDY ON THE I-PU-TSUNG-LUN-LUN
Tao-Wei Liang
中華學術研究院駐外副研究員
p. 25
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. Restoration of the Sanskrit titles[1]
The-I-Pu-Tsung-Lun-Lun
is a book of history of the schisms which occurred in early Indian Buddhism.
The original text was written in Sanskrit by Vasumitra, but the Sanskrit text
is lost, and only three Chinese versions and one Tibetan version are preserved.
It is impossible for us to know the original title of this text whether from
the Chinese or Tibetan translations. Fortunately, however, in the beginning of
the Tibetanversion the transliteration of the Sanskrit title was givenm from
which we can know that it is the equivalent of the Sanskrit title
Samayabhedo-vyūhacakre according to the Sde-dge edition, or
Samayabhedopara-canacakra according to the Peiking edition. While in Tibetan
the literal translation of this title is Gshun lugs kyi brag bkodpahihkhor lo,
and Wassiljew has translated it as The Wheel of Statements (lit. arrangement)
of the Dissension of Doctrines.[2] Tāranātha’s History of Indian Buddhism[3] also mentioned this text as Sde (pa) bcu
brgyad kyi gshun (lungs) bye brag bkod pahihkhor lo (Treatise on the Wheel of
Propositions of Eighteen Different Schools). The three different Chinese
versions bear their respective titles:
1) The Ch’in version[4] bears the title Shi-pa-pu-lun (treatise
on Eighteen Schools). It is supposed that this title is only the abbreviation
of the Tibetan title which was mentioned in Tāranātha’s History of Indian
Buddhism.[5] In Nanjio’s catalogue[6] under the Shi-pa-pu-lun he also gave
the Sanskrit title Ashitādasanikāya-Śāstra, but we do not know from what
origin this title was derived.[7]
|
2) The Ch’en version[8] was entitled Pu-chi-I-lun (Treatise on
the holdings (of views) of different schools).
|
3) The T’ang version was entitled
I-pu-tsung-lun-lun (Treatise on the wheel of propositions of different
schools).[9] According to the
Chi-yuan-fa-po-k’an-t’ung-lu (至元法寶勘同錄)[10] under the title of the T’ang version
also gives the transliteration of the Sanskrit title in Chinese characters,
and I made a hazardous attempt to restore it into Sanskrit as
Prati-yamati-pada-śāstre. If my inference is correct, then it may be
translated as Treatise on Against Holding up Divisions. This title seems not
quite congruent with the I-pu-tsung-lun-lun. But it seems
p. 27 much more in conformity with the Pu-chih-I-lun. Anyhow the Tibetan transliteration of the title in the Peiking edition is undoubtedly the accurate original Sanskrit title of our I-pu-tsung-lun-lun. |
2. On the author
The authorship of our text is unanimously, both in the Chinese and
Tibetan sources, ascribed to Vasumitra. On this point it is positively
impossible for us to raise any doubt, but the point which is to be investigated
is the date of the author. According to Fa-jen[11] there are, so far as the Chinese Buddhist
literature is concerned, five Vasumitras:
1) The Vasumitra who appeared at the
beginning of the third century after the nirvāna of the Buddha and who is the
author of the Parakarana pāda and Dhātu kāya pāda sāstra.[12]
|
3) The Vaumitra of the Sautrāntika school
who taught a theory that even in the abstract meditation which is called
extinetion (nirodhasamāpatti) there is a subtle mind.[14]
|
4) The Vasumitra who appeared a thousand
years after the Buddha and whose name was given in the Abhidharmakosa
sāstra.[15]
|
5) The Vasumitra from whom Hsuan-chuang
learned the doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda school in Kashmir.[16]
|
Minayeff based on Tāranātha’s History of Indian Buddhism also
enumerated five Vasumitras:[17]
1) The Vasumitra who lived at the time of
Kaniska.
|
2) The Vasumitra who emigrated to a country
neighbouring to Tokhara accompanied by Gosaka.
|
3) The famous scholar of the Vaibhāsika
school.
|
4) The author of the Abhidharma sāstra
prakarana.
|
5) The author of the commentary on the
Abhidharmakosa and also of the work called Wheel showing the differences of
the Eighteen Schools.
|
Most
Chinese scholars are convinced that the author of our text is the Vasumitra
whose comments frequently appear in the Abhidharma mahāvibhāsa sāstra. But
Tāranātha deemed that the author of the Abhidharma prakarana sāstra should not
be confused with the author of the Wheel Showing the Differences of the
Eighteen Schools.[18] And he said that the author of our text is
the Vasumitra who wrote the commentary on Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma kosa sāstra[19] We know that the first translation of our
text by Kumarajiva, appeared in the fourth century A. D., and yet Kumarajiva
was the contemporary of Vasubandhu, how could the author of our text become the
commentator of Vasubandhu’s work? According to Rev. Yin-shun’s comment that the
doctrine of Sarvāstivāda dealt with in our text is in conformity with that of
Abhidharma jnāna prasthāna sāstra and Abhidharma prakaranapāda sāstra, and the
doctrine of Sautrāntika is still the doctrine of the early Samkrāntivāda, which
is different from the later Sautrān-tika. All these internal evidences betray
that the doctrinal features of our text can not be later than the Abhidharma
ma-hāvibhāsā sāstra.[20]
Concerning the life of Vasumitra there are only fragments which are
found in several books: In the Buddhist Records of the Western World
Hsuan-chuang has twice related Vasumitra:
1) In book Two,[21] “To the east of the city Puskarāvati
there is a stupa built by Aska-rāja, this is the place where the four former
Buddhas delivered the law (preached). Among former saints and sages many have
come (descended spiritually) from Mid-India to this place to instruct all
sentient beings. For example, Vasumitra, doctor of sāstras, who composed the
Chung Sze fen opitamo (Abhidharma prakarana pada sastra) was in this place”.
|
On this
Vasumitra answered, “The wise without doubt regard the law in the place of
Buddha, appointed for the conversion of the world, and therefore you reasonably
desire to compile true (orthodox) sāstras. As for myself, though not quick, yet
in my poor way I have investigated the meaning of words. I have also studied
with earnestness the obscure literature of the three pitakas and the recondite
meaning of the five vidyas; and I have succeeded in penetrating, their teaching
dull as I am.”[25]
The
Arhats answered, “It is impossible, but if it is as you say, you can stand by a
little and presently get the condition of ‘past learning’. Then you can enter
the assembly; at present your presence is not possible.”[26]
Vasumitra,
“I care for the condition of ‘past learning’ as little as for a drop of
spittle; my mind seeks only the fruit of Buddha; I do not run after little
quests. I will throw this ball[27] up into the air, and before it comes to
earth I shall have got the holy condition (fruit) of ‘past-leatning’.
Then all the Arhats roundly scolded him, saying, “intolerably
arrogant is your right title. The fruit of ‘past learning’ is the condition
praised by all the Buddhas. You are bound to acquire this condition and scatter
the doubts of the assembly.”
Then Vasumitra cast the ball into the air; it was arrested by the
Devas, who, before it fell, asked him this question: ‘In consequence of
obtaining the fruit of
Buddha, you shall succeed Maitreya in his place (in the Tusita heaven); the
three worlds shall honour you, and the four kinds of creatures (all flesh)
shall look up to you with awe.[28] Why then do you seek for this little fruit?”
Then
the Arhats, having witnessed all this, confessed their fault, and with
reverence asked him to become their president. All difficulties that occurred
in their discussion were referred to him for settlement.
In this
story thed escription of Va(a+ֹ)sumitra’s in participationin the assembly of
compiling the Mahāvibhasa sāstra is quite unbelievable, as in the Mahāvibhasa
there is strong evidence, which can prove the fallacy of this story. In the
45th fascicle it says: “As the Abhidharma jnānaprasthāna sāstra has already
spoken of the nature of Prthagjana, therefore the Prakarana sāstra need not
repeat it again.” It is thus proven that the Prakarana was composed later than
the former. Some other people have a reverse view as they say that because the Prakarana
has spoken of the dharma of Prthagjana, therefore the Jnāna prasthāna will not
repeat it again. Thus it proves that the Prakarana sāstrawas written earlier
than the Jnāna prasthāna.[29] Those compilers of the Mahāvibhāsā couldn’t
even distinguish whether Katyayaniputra or Vasumitra was earlier. Because those
compilers of the Vibhāsā were much later than both katyayaniputra and
Vasumitra, therefore they could make such a confused supposition.
The preface of the Ārya Vasumitra Bodhisattva Sangiti sāstra has
another story about Vasumitra:[30] “Vasumitra bodhisattva, the great master
shall become the successive Buddha after Maitreya, and his appellation shall be
called the Simhatathāgata, who had followed Sākyamuni and were born together in
the same country called ‘Pi-ti’. During that time he was the son of a brahman,
and his name was Uttara. Once his father sent him to see the Buddha, and also
told him to stay and serve the Buddha for four months, after thoroughly see the
marks, minor characteristics, and postures of the Buddha at various occasions,
then come back and tell what he has seen. But he never returned to his father,
because he had became a monk and changed his name to Vasumitra. After the
Buddha entered into nirvāna he wandered in ‘Chou-tu’ and ‘P’ an-nai’ to teach
people. He was a person of supreme talent with a free and undefiled mind. He
compiled this sūtra.[31] The former seven sections (of this sūtra)
are divided into thirteen chapters,[32] which were compiled by himself; while the
latter four sections are collected into one chapter, which explain the Buddha’s
gāthas. Thus there are altogather eleven sections in fourteen chapters. It
broadly embraces all profound doctrines, and is popular even in foreign
countries as parallel in importance with the Abhidharma
sātras. It is related to the Mahāyāna though its peculiarity is in the
revealing of the Āsravasaya (the exhaustion of transmigration). It deals vastly
with the ten dharmas,[33] and exharstively describes miscellaneous
practices.
“To seek it, it is vast and boundless as the ocean; how can one say
it is not spacious? To climb it, it is as hign and unreachable as the peak of
Mount M’un-lun;[34] How can one say it is not lofty? To look far
away at the treasure isle, it is just like the light emitting pearl which
shines in the night.[35] To raise eyes at the cave on the cliff, it
is just like the jade of heavenly wisdom.[36] It is exceedingly rich, what can surpass
this ṣūtra (sāstra)? Having climbed on a high seat, he has never fallen to the
ground. After having compiled this sūtra (sāstra) he entered into samādhi, and
in a ksana his spirit ascended the Tusita Heaven, where he met Maitreya,
Mitrasri and Sangharaksa in the heavenly palace. Those three superior men are
all bodhisattvas of the last stage. Mitrasri shall be the
‘Flame-light-tathāgatā, and Sangharaksa shall be the ‘Buddha of
Gentle-kindness’. Now, the four great bodhisattvas are gathering together in
one hall and discussing the upāyajnāna,[37] and the other holy sages are listening to
their eloquent talks with silence. How happy they are!”
This story was written by Tao-an (道安312-385
A.D.), who, of course, learned the whole story from the translator Sanghabhūti.
Though the story is a legend, yet it still reveals a part of the truth about
the founder of Sautrāntika (also called Samkrāntivāda). As it is said in the
Shi pa pu lun (or Treatise on the Eighteen Schools): “In the fourth century A.
B. from the Sarvāstivāda again seceded another school; for the great master
Uttara’s sake, this school was named Samkrāntivāda and also called
Sautrāntika.”[38] And in the Kathāvathu this school was
directly called Uttarāpathakas. This evidence is strong enough to support our
decision that this story is not in conformity with the author of our text.
Another story about Vasumitra appears in the Sutra on Several
Difficult Questions of Wei-zih:[39] “Bodhisattva Vasumitra served his master for
a short time, then he left and studied the four agamas for three times.
(Afterwards he came back) to scatter flowers on his master and said: ‘I have
studied the four Agamas’. But the master had already forgotten him and could
not even recognize who he was. Thus Vasumitra thought to himself: “I want to
collect those important words from the four Agamas and to make a Sūtra, then I
will preach it among the four varga.”[40] All those practisers who came to listen to
the sūtra, were very much pleased. Soon the audience increased, and they
engaged themselves in studying and discussing the sūtra, but they could not
concentrate their minds in the practise of meditation.
Then they said to each other: “We came to listen the sūtra only for the purpose
of using it to help with our meditation, now we should not study it any more,
let us abandon it and resume our practice.” In the men-time Vasumitra knew
their thoughts, then he put his hand in the fire, but was not burnt. Then he
asked his audience saying: “Is this not fortitude?” Then he sat on a big stone
as if on a soft seat, to show that he was also good at practicing meditation.
Meanwhile he said to those people: “I will throw this stone in the air, before
it falls on the ground I can attain arhatship.” Then he threw the stone in the
air, but it did not fall, because a deva caught it in the air and said: “You
are seeking for the way of a bodhisattva, and after twenty kalpas you shall
attain Buddhahood; Then all devas shall get emancipation through your help,
please do not give up your good desire!” There are some vulgar monks who said:
“This evil person, we should not allow him stay in our country.” Then they
wrote some scandalous words and went to make it known to others. Vasumitra also
sent some people to seek for that letter and added some opposite words to it:
“This good person, who has taught and enlightened people’s minds, yet he will
not be proud, only lest those evil people shall fall into wickedness.”[41]
The legend about Vasumitra is quite old. And the Sūtra on speaking of
the Various Difficulties of a Bodhisattva (惟曰雜難經) is
said to have been translated by Chi-ch’ien (支謙A. D.
240). The legend in this Sutra is quite suitable to the situation of the
Dārstāntika master Vasumitra. The story says: “Then Vasumitra thought: I want
to collect those important words from the four Agamas and make a Sūtra is
actually a sāstra, which is supposed to be the Ārya Vasumitra bodhisattva
sangiti sāstra. Most of the topics in this sāstra are really based on the
teachings of sūtras, and discuss and broably explain those gāthas which were
taught by the Buddha.[42]
In the Buddhabhāshite simhacandra Buddha jataka sūtra it says: “There
is a bodhisattva-bhiksu called Vasumitra, who wanders in the bamboo grove, and
climbs up and down trees, and his voice is just like that of a monkey.
Sometimes playing with three bells, he dances and sings. When elders and
passersby gather to watch him, then he climbs up to the tree-top and jumps from
one tree to another and makes sounds imitating monkeys……. In his last birth
after Maitreya Buddha he shall accomplish the supreme way of a Buddha, and his
appellation shall be the Simhacandra-tathāgata.”[43]
The preface of the Ārya Vasumitra bodhisattva sangiti sāstra said
that Vasumitra was the son of a Erahman, and he was born in the same age and in
the same country as the Buddha. Formerly his name was called Uttara, but after
he became a mnk he changed his name as Vasumitra.
The above two stories both describe that in the future after the
Maitreya Buddha he shall attain Buddhahood, and his appellation shall be the
Simhacandra-tathāgata. This is the same person as described in the Sūtra
Speaking of the Various Difficulties of a Bodhisattva, and it has already been
identified with the Dārstāntika master Vasumitra.
Again we find that in the Dharmatrāta dhyāna sūtra[44] Vasumitra’s name was placed between Upagupta
and Samgharaksa. While in the Record of Sarvāstivāda[45] Vasumitra was placed between Kātyāyaniputra
and Krsna. According to both Taoan[46] and Sen-jui[47] this Vasumitra is the author of the Ārya
Vasumitra bodhisattva Sangiti sāstra.
To sum up, in old legends all descriptions about Vasumitra
bodhisattva are suitable to the Dārstāntika master Vasumitra, but later on
people get it confused with the great Abhidharma master Vasumitra.
3. Works of Vasumitra
In Chinese translations of the Abhidharma-pitaka there are four works
which are ascribed to Vasumitra, Viz:
1) Abhidharma
prakarana pāfs sāstra, 18 fasciculi; 8 chapters. Translated
by Hsuan-chuang in A. D. 659, of the T’an dynasty.
|
2) Abhidharma
dhātukaya pāda sāstra, 2 fasciculi; 2 chapters. Translated
by Hsuan Chuang, A. D. 663, of the T’an dynasty.
p. 35 |
3) Ārya Vasumitra bodhisattva sangiti
sāstra, translated by Sanghabhūti and others, A. D. 384, of the former Ch’in
dynasty. 15 fasciculi; 14 khandas.
|
4) Samayabhedoparacanacakra sāstra,
translated by Hsuan-chuang, A. D. 662, of the T’an dynasty.
|
According to ‘Fa-jen’ the author of the first two words is not the
author of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra sāstra, while in Yasomitra’s
Abhidharma-kosa-vyākhyā, the author of the second work is Pūrna. Nāgārjuna in
his Mahāpra-jnāpāramita-sāstra said: “Among eight chapters of the
Avhidharma-prakarana-pāda-sāstra there are four chapters which were written by
Vasumitra, and another four chapters were written by the Arhat of Kubhāna.”[48] Lu-chen presumed that the four chapters
which were written by Vasu mitra are:
a) Discussion on all spheres.
|
b) discussion on seven items.
|
c) Discussion on the anusāyas.
|
d) Discussion on the ascription of all
dharmas.[49]
|
But Rev. Yin-shun said that he has found that the eight chapters of
the Abhidharma prakarna aāda sāstra are really separated into two groups: the
first group are inherited from the old treatises and through rewriting. The
second group are a rearrangemet of the old treatises, but with some new
additions. In each group there are four chapters:[50]
In the first group there are four chapters:
a) Discussion on seven items.
|
b) Discussion on the ascription of all
dharmas.
|
c) Discussion on one thousand questions.
|
d) Discussion on discrimination of
correctness.
|
In the second group there are also four chapters:
a) Discussion on five items.
|
b) Discussion on all wisdom.
|
c) Discussion on all spheres.
|
d) Discussion of the anuśāyas.
|
According to Rev. Yin-shun, the four cur chapters in the second group
were
written by Vasumitra.[51]
In regard to the third work, the Ārya Vasumitra bodhisattva
sangiti-sāstra many Buddhist scholars deemed that its author is the same
Vasumitra who wrote the Abhidharmaprakarna pāda sāstra, and regard it as an
Abhidharma work; but they did not perceive that it is a treatise which is
ascribed to the Dārstāntika master Vasumitra. Rev. Yin-shun has pointed out[52] that the Mahāvibhāsā-sāstra mentioned this
sāstra as ‘The Sastra of Questions’.[53] And Vasubandhu’s Mahāyāna karmasiddha sāstra
also mentiones this sāstra as ‘The Sāstra of Questions’[54], and he quotes the discussion about the
subtle mind in abstract meditation (nirodhasamāpatti).
The fourth work is the I-pu-tsung-lun-lun or ‘Treatise on the Wheel
of Propositions of Different Schools’, it was translated by Hsuan-chuang in the
T’an dynasy A. D. 662, and it is also called the T’an-lun. As I have already
mentioned the three different versions of this text in the beginning of this
introduction, it is needless to repeat them here again.
4. COMMENTARIES
The earliest commentary on this text should be Paramartha’s
commentary on the “Treatise on the differences of the views of the schools”.
According to the “Record of transmiting the lamp in the east” (東域傳燈錄)[55] this commentary has two editions: the
edition in ten fasciculi and the edition in four fasciculi. But unfortunately,
both editions are lost, and we can only see some fragments quoted in the
“San-lun-hsuan-i-chien-yu-chao” (三論玄義檢幽鈔).[56]
The next one is K’wei-chi’s learned commentary on the
“I-pu-tsung-lun-lun” in two fasciculi.
There are also twelve other commentaries which were written by
Japanese scholars:
1) “Shu-chi-chian-lu” (述記講錄), in
one fascicle, by Ki-ben (基弁A. D. 1718-1791).
|
2) “Shu-chi-mu-lun” (述記目論), in
five fasciculi, by E-ten (榮天A. D. 1737-1801).
|
3) “Shu-chi-pi-lu” (述記別錄), 3
fasciculi, by Shin-e (信慧).
|
4) “Shu-chi-wen-lu (述記聞錄), in
one fascicle,by Ryu-san (隆山A. D. 1801).
|
5) “Shu-chi-sze-chi” (述記私記), 3
fasciculi, by Kai-o (海應A. D. 1771-1833).
|
6) “Shu-chi-sze-chi” (述記私記), 3
fasciculi, by Shin-Kai (信海A. D. 1783-1856).
|
7) “Shu-chi-chian-lu” (述記講錄), 2
fasciculi, by Ho-wu (賓雲A. D. 1791-1847).
|
8) “Shu-chi-chian-lu” (述記講錄), 2
fasciculi, by Shin-shoku (神職A. D. ?).
|
9) “Shu-chi mu-ch’uan” (述記目纂), in
one fāscicle, by SO-en (宗丹).
|
10) “Shu-chi-fa-jen” (述記發軔), 3
fasciculi, by Ken-e (憲榮A. D. ?-1903).
|
11) “Shu-chi-chian-i” (述記講義),
one fascicle, by Koho-Terashima (寺島光法).
|
12) “Shu-chi-chian-i” (異部宗輪論講義),
one fascicle, by Funabashi (舟橋水哉).
|
5. OTHER TRANSLATIONS
1) Wassiljew’s translation in German “Der
Buddhismus, Seine Dogmen, Geschichteund Literatur” (1860 St. Petersburg).
|
2) Jiryo Masuda’s translation in English
“Origin and Doctrine of Early Indian Buddhist Schools”.
|
3) “Kuo-i-i-pu-tsung-lun-lun” (國譯異部宗輪論) by
Kimura (木村泰賢).
|
4) “Kuo-i-i-pu-tsung-lun-lun-shu-chi” (國譯異部宗輪論述記), by
Shio-bun Fukaura (深浦正文).
|
II CAUSES OF THE SPLITING OF THE SANGHA
The splitting of the Sangha was by no means a sudden happening with
merely a single cause, it was, however, a gradual fermentation with many causes
and through several centuries. According to the account in our text (the
I-pu-tsunglun-lun) the original split of the Sangha was caused by the five evil
views of Mahadeva,[57] who was then living in a monastery called
Kukkutārāama[58] in Kusumapūtra[59] in the Magadha kingdom, during the reign of
Asoka.[60] This fact is, only one of the many causes;
if we want thoroughly to know those many other causes, we must investigate
those questions which were discussed in the three (or four) councils:[61]
1 The First Council
According to the tradition recorded in several different texts[62] in the Chinese translation of the
Vinaya-pitaka, all unanimously say that the first council was held at Rājagṛha
immediately after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha. In the Dharmagupta vinaya[63] says that Mahākasyapa was not present at the
mahāparinvāṇa of the Buddha at Kusinārā. While he was proceeding from Pāvā to
Kusinārā with 500 great bhiksus, the news of the decease of the Buddha was brought
to him by an ascetic of the Ajivaka sect. On hearing of this woeful news these
monks who were not free from passions, were vociferous in their lamentations.
Among the 500 there was then a bhiksu called Pananda[64] exhorted those monks saying: "Elders,
just stop, and don't be so distressed as to cry like that! We are free from
that 'makala' (fool), when he was living he often instructed us "You ought
to be thus, you ought not to be thus; you should not do that." Now we are
free, we can do what we like and reject what we dislike."
It may be observed in this connection that Bhānanda (or Sudhadda) was
not the only person to have such thoughts. There were many others who felt that
with the passing of the Buddha the Dharma he had taught would disappear. This
general feeling of doubt and consternation as having been the motive for the
convocation of the first council. [65]
The proceedings of the First Council achieved three results:
1) the settlement of the Vinaya under the
leadership of Upāli.
p. 40 |
2) the settlement of the Sūtra pitaka under
the leadership of Anānda.
|
3) the settlement of the Abhidharma-pitaka.
[66]
|
Besides these results there were unharmonies among the few great
disciples, as in the Mahisāsaka-nikāya-pancavarga-vinaya says that after
Mahākāsyapa proclaimed the settlement of the vinaya and Sūtra pitakas Ananda
said to Kāsyapa: "I learned from the Buddha that after His parinirvāna if
monks want to remove minor disciplines, allow them do it. " Then Kāsyapa
asked Ananda: "What disciplines do you think are minor ones?" Ananda:
'I did not ask the Buddha." Why did you not ask?" "Because at
that time the Bhddha was feeling pain on his body, and I was afraid that it
would annoy him. "Kāsyapa then said: "Because you did not ask the
Buddha you have committed the Duskrta (wrongdoing, or evil action), you should
see your crime and repent before the Sangha. " Ananda said: "1 did
not ask the Buddha because I was afraid that it would annoy Him. It does not
mean that I hold any irreverence toward the disciplines. I cannot see there is
any sign of crime in this, anyhow I will respect you and repent before the
Sangha. "
Kāsyapa then charged Anand a with another crime saying that Ananda
had trod upon a garment of the Buddha while sewing it as there was no one to
help him. Then Anandap leaded and also made repentance before the Sangha.
Kāsyapa then charged Anand a with a third crime, because he had three
times asked the Buddha to admit women into the Order of Sangha. The fourth
charge is because Ananda did not ask the Buddha to stay in this world for a
kalpa, though the Buddha thrice mentioned that a person who has the four
supernatural powers could prolong his life to a kalpa or longer than a kalpa.
The fifth charge is because Ananda did not supply drinking water to
the Buddha though He had thrice asked for it.
The sixth charge is because Ānanda had permitted some women to salute
first the body of the Buddha after His parinirvāna.
Ānanda pleaded to Kāsyapa's charges one by one and also made
repentances before the Sangha in order to pay respect to Kāsyapa. [67]
It was just after the trial of Ānanda, when the Venerable Pūrna
arrived with his fonowers from the south and asked Kasyapa to repeat the
Vinaya, the Sutra and the Abhidharma pitakas which they had just settled. Then
Kāsyapa repeated them again as before. After Kasyapa finished the repeatitions,
Pūrna said to
Kāsyapa: "I have learned from the Buddha that (1) to keep food materials,
(2) to keep cooked food, (3) to cook for oneself, (4) to take food by oneself,
(5) to receive food from others, (6) to pick fruit from trees, (7) to pick
fruits out of bodies of water. These seven items are allowed as not being
impure. "
Kāsyapa said: "These seven items were allowed by the Buddha only
temp-or arily in Vaisāli, when there was a famine and because it was very
difficult to get food by begging. But afterwards, four items were prohibited in
Vaisāli; and when the Buddha arrived at Rājagrha the other three items were
also prohibited again. "
Pūrna said: "The Buddha should not allow at first, and then
prohibited again."
Kāsyapa said: "The Buddha was the master of the Dharma, He had
the sovereignty to all dharmas, even he allowed at first and then prohibied
again, what error could there be?"
Then Pūrna said: "I would bear other things, on]y cannot keep
these seven items!"[68]
2. The Second Council
The five different Vinaya texts [69] unanimously say that the Second Council was
held at Vaisāli, a century after the parinirvāna of the Buddha. It is recorded
that the monks of the Vrji country. were in the habit of practising the Ten
Indulgences (dasa vatthuni) which were regarded as impurities by Yasa, and he
declared these practices to be mega) and immoral in the extreme. The Ten
Indulgences recorded in the four vinaya texts [70] are slightly different from each other. In
the Mahisāsaka vinaya they are recorded as follows:
1) It is allowed to keep salt and ginger.
This is not impure.
|
2) After meal time if one got extra food
and picks up with two fingers and to eat is allowed. (The interpretation of
the southern tradition is: To take meals slightly after mid-day, that is when
the shadow is two finger broad). [71]
|
3) After a meal if there is another chance
to eat one can sit down and eat again. This is allowed as not impure.
|
4) To go to another village and to have .a
second meal there on the same day is allowed.
|
5) To drink honey mixed with butter is
allowed.
p. 42 |
6) To drink half brewed wine is alIowed.
|
7) To make a cloth mat the size of one's
choice is alIowed.
|
8) To practise what one has learned before
is alIowed.
|
9) To ask someone to inquire after a
friend's health is allowed.
|
10) To accept gold and silver and to keep
them is allowed.
|
The story connected with the tenth Indulgence goes like this:
"All the Vrji bhiksus on every 8th, 14th, and 15th sit together in the
swarming streets with their begging bowls filled with water in front of them as
a sign of auspice. When people pass by, they will point to their begging bowls
and say: "For good luck please give Some money for buying cloth, bowls,
shoes and medicine." Some people gave them money, some people rejected
them and saying: "Sramanas, the sons of the Buddha should not receive
money, even if people give money they should not look at it. Now, why should
you beg for money from people?"
In the meantime. Yasa, the son of Kākandaka was in the towered
meeting hall by the side of the Monkey River, he said to all bhiksus: "You
should not beg for money, I learned from the Buddha that if one begs not
according to the dharma, or one bestows not according to dharma, both of them
are guilty."
When those bhiksus got money they offered one share to Yasa, but he
refused and said: "I cannot accept the aIms obtained not according to the
dharma. "
Those bhiksus said: "If you do not accept, you may give it to
others."
Yasa said: "As I do not accept; why should I give it to
others?"
Then all bhiksus deemed that Yasa's former instruction charged and
put blame on the laity, so they pronounced the penalty of patisāraniya-karma[72] upon him.
Yasa defended his own view before the laity and by his elequent
advocacy won them over" to his side. This increased the fury of the
offending monks who pronounced the punishment of unkhepaniya-karma[73] upon him; which meant his virtual expulsion
from the Sangha. After the sentence of excommunication had been passed on him,
he went to Pācinā, where he got 60 pātheyyā bhiksus who would support him to
subdue those Vrji bhiksus. And in Watūra there were 30 Pātheyyā bhiksus, who
also agreed with Yasa and would support him to extinguish the evil deeds of
Vrji bhiksus. Again in Alavi he get the support of 30 Pātheyyā bhiksus. Then
they went to Ahoganga where they met the elder Sambhūta, and told him
about the Ten Indulgences of the Vrji bhiksus, and wanted him to join their
party to discuss the vinaya and subdue those Vrji bhiksus. Then they went to
Kausāmbi where they met elder Ravata, who also agreed to support Yasa and
extinguish the evil deeds of Vrji bhiksus, but he suggested that a suitable
place for their meeting would be Vaisāli. So they altogether went to Vaisāli,
where they met Venerable Sarvagāmin and asked him whether it is pure to keep
salt and ginger? But Venerable Sarvagāmin advised them that they had better ask
him this question before the Sangha, otherwise those unlawful bhiksus will
think that he is partial to Yasa. Thereupon elder Revata convoked a meeting of
all bhiksus in order to discuss the vinaya, but the meeting was rather tumultuous
and they could not arrive at any decisions; therefore Revata proclaimed that
each party should select four monks as its representatives to discuss problems
and made dicisions for each party.
Then the Vrji bhiksus firstly selected their own representatives:
1) Sarvagāmin
|
2) Reyata
|
3) Kubjasobhita
|
4) Sumana
|
Pātheyyā bhiksus also selected their four monks as delegates:
1) Sambhūta
|
2) Sāla?
|
3) Dirghakesa
|
4) Vasayagrāmika?[74]
|
At the meeting of these eight representatives Revata asked questions
and Sarvagāmin answered. One by one, Revata brought up the Ten Points and asked
for his opinion. But, Rarvagāmin's answers were altogether negative, and
Venerable Revata declared them one by one as invalid, and he also made a
conclusion and said: ''We have already settled the Vinaya, if it is not what
the Buddha had established, we should not establish it in vain; if it is what
the Buddha had established, we should not refuse it. We should learn earnestly
according to the Buddha's teachings. "[75]
3. The Third Council
The Third Council According to both northern and southern traditions
the
third counil was held at Pātaliputra under the reign of Asoka, and both
traditions agree that from this Council the Crder of the Sangha first split
into Sthaviravāda and Mahāsangika. But concerning the cause of the first
spliting of the Sangha, the southern tradition only mentions that after
Moggaliputta Tissa had converted Asoka. Buddhist monasteries were granted large
donations and the monks lived in ease and comfort. The heretics who had lost
their income and honour were attracted by these prospects to enter the Buddhist
Order. But they continued to adhere to their old faiths and practises and
preached their doctrines as being the doctrines of the Buddha.[76] While according to the northern tradition
the first spliting of the Sangha was caused by the discussion of Mahādeva's
five Points.[77] The detailed record of Mahadeva's story is
found in the Abhidharma-Mahāvibhāsāsāstra:[78] "There was a merchant in Mathurā, he
married during his early age, and his wife gave birth to a son, as the child
was quite handsome they gave him the name Mahādeva. Later on the merchant went
abroad with precious goods, and for many years he was occupied with his
business and had no chance to return home. The son had already grown up and had
incestuous relations with his mother. One day he learned that his father would
soon come back. In his fear he plotted with his mother and when his father
returned killed him. As he had committed a great sin (unintermitted karma), the
fact gradually became known to others, so he slipped away with his mother and
went to Pātaliputra.
Later he met an Arhat bhiksu who came frum his home twon. He was the
very monk his mother had often made offerings to. Because he was afraid that
the monk would reveal his sin, he tricked and murdered the monk. As he had
committed a second grave sin (uninter-mitted karma) his mind became more
grievous. Then he found that his mother was having relations with another man,
so he was filled with anger and said to his mother: "For your sake I
committed two grave sins, and have been wandering alone in foreign countries
without peace; but now you want to shift your love from me to another man, how
can I bear such fi1thy deeds from you!" Hence he again plotted and
murdered his mother.
After he had committed this third grave sin. because his virtuous good
roots were still not cut off, he was overwhelmed with grief and regret, and was
always thinking with an unpeaceful mind as to how to extinguish his grave sins.
He learned that sramanas have the dharma which can extinguish sins. He then
approached the Kukkutārāma monastery. Outside the gate he met a bhiksu who
walked slowly and recited the following gātha:
"If one has committed a grave
sin,
To cultivate virtues can remove
it;
He can then shine over the world,
As when the moon emerges from the
clouds. "
When he heard this his mind was leaping with joy and knew that if he
took refuge in Buddhism his sins would certainly be extinguished. Thereupon he
went to a bhiksu's place and earnestly asked to be ordained. In the meantime,
the bhiksu did not ask him any questions and directly ordained him and still
called him Mahādeva and taught him disciplines.
Mahādeva was intelligent. Not long after his ordaination he could
already recite and keep the literary meaning of the tripitaka. His words were
clear and skilful and he was able in teach others, so he was greatly respected
by the people of Pātaliputra. The king hearing of his fame often invited him to
the inner palace, payed him respect, made offerings to him and asked him to
expound the dharma.
When he came back from the palace to the monastery he harboured some
impure thoughts in his mind, and in his dreams he often had nocturnal
emissions. Though he had formerly said that he was an Arhat, yet he let his
disciple wash his defiled garments. Then his disciples asked him: "An
Arhat has already ended all outflows (passions), how could you, my master,
still have such things?"
Mahādeva said: "I was fascinated by the Devi Mara, you should
not wonder. Briefly speaking there are two kinds of outflows: one is passions,
the other is impurities; concerning the outflow of passions, an Arhat is
already free from them; yet he cannot be free from the outflow of impure
things. The reason is that although Arhats have put an end to their passions
how could they not have discharges such as mucus. saliva and so on. But the
Mara always dislike the Dharma. When they see a person cultivating virtue, then
they will come and destroy his virtue. Even an Arhat can be disturbed therefore
my outflows are produced by Maras, now you should not doubt and wonder."
This is called the samutthāna[79] of the first evil view.
Again Mahādeva, in order to please disciples and make them become
more adherent to his teachings, established the false upāya of grading them
with the four Fruitions. His disciples prostrated themselves before him and
said: "Arhats should have the wisdom of realization, while we altogether
know nothing about ourselves?" Then he said: "Arhats also have
ignorance, you should not Joss your
confidence. Briefly speaking, there are two kinds of ignorance: 1) the defiled
ignorance which an Arhat is already free from; and 2) undefiled ignorance which
an Arhat still has; hence you cannot know about yourselves. "This is
called the samutthāna of the second evil view.
All disciples asked him again: "We have heard that the sages are
already free from doubts, while we still have doubts about the true
reality?" He answered: "Arhats also have doubts, there are two kinds
of doubts: 1) the doubts which rise from anusāya, Arhats are free from them; 2)
the doubts concerning decision and undecision, Arhats are still not free from
them. Evew pratyeka-buddhas still have doubs, how could you srāvakas be free
from such doubts? Don't for this reason feel to be inferior." This is
called the samutthāna of the third evil view.
Later his disciples read sutras and they found that in the sūtra it
says that Arhats have the eye of holy wisdom, and that they can realize their
own emancipation. So they asked their master: "If we are Arhats we should
be able to realize our emancipation, but why only through our master's guidance
and completely without direct insight which could enable us to know our own
realization?"
Then he answered: "There are many cases which prove that Arhats
can know themselves only through other's guidance. For example, Sāriputra was
the first one in wisdom, and Mahāmaudgalyāyana was the first one in
supernatural powers, but if the Buddha did not tell them so, they could not
know by themselves, how much less could you know yourselves without guidance?
Therefore you should not inquire about this." This is called the
samutthāna of the fourth evil view.
Though Mahādeva formerly did many evil things yet he did not cut off
his virtuous good root, Later in a certain mid-night he thought about his grave
sins, and did not know to which hell he would go to suffer punishment. Sorrow
and fear pressed him to utter the word 'suffering' for seveal times. The
disciples who lived near by the master's place heard their master's utterance
and were alarmed and wondered. Early the next morning they approach their
master and inquired after his health. Mahādeva said: "I am happy and at
peace."
His disciples then said: "If so why did you utter the word
'suffering' last night?"
Then he said: "I was uttering the ĀIya Truth, you should not
wonder If one does not utter the truth of suffering earnestly the Holy Way will
never present
itself before one's face; therefore I uttered the word 'suffering' several
times last night. "This is called the samutthāna of the fifth evil view.
Later then Mahādeva composed a gātha about his five evil views:
"Fascinated by others,
undefiled ignorance,
One may have doubts, but through
guidance;
Utterance gives rise to the Way
Ārya,
These are called the true
teachings of the Buddha."
Afterwards the elder bhiksus at the Kukkutārāma monastery gradually
passed away. On the fifteenth night during the Uposatha it was in Mahādeva's
turn to mount on the sent and to elain the vinaya for the Sangha. Then he
recited the gātha which he had composed before. In the meantime among the
audience there were novices, learned bhiksus, bhiksus who are versed in Vinaya,
and bhiksus who practise samadhi. When they heard Mahādeya's gātha they were
all alarmed, and rejected him saying: "Alas, you big fool! why should you
speak such nonsense? In the whole tripitaka there is such nonsense!" Then
the audience read his gātha in reverse:
"Fascinated by others,
undefiled ignorance,
One may have doubts, but through guidance;
Utterance gives rise to the Way Ārya,
Your words are not the teaching of the Buddha!"
During the whole night there were chaotic quarrels, and the next
morning the unharmonious atmosphere between the two groups become more serious.
Common people, officials, even the minister of the state came, they all in vain
tried to pacify the quarrels. The king, hearing of this, also arrived the
monastery, whereupon th two groups hel fast to their own views. After
investigating both views the king was perplexed, he then asked Mahādeva:
"Who is right and who is wrong? Now to which side shall we belong?"
Mahādeva said to the king: "In the Vinaya sūtra it says that if
people went to extinguish quarrels, they must depend on the words of the
majority."
Then the king asked each group to stand apart from the other: in the
group
of sages, there were many elder bhiksus, yet the group was small; in Mahādeva's
group there were not many elder bhiksus, yet the group was much larger. The
king then depended on the majority of Mahādeva's side, he rejected and subdued
the others; and afterwards he returned to the palace.
In the meantime the quarrels at Kukkutāaāma continued. Later on
because of the two different views the whole Sangha was separated into two
sects: 1) the Sthaviravādins, and 2) the Mahāsanghikas. "
This tory reveals that Mahādeva was the First Advocate of the Mahāsanghikas,
and he was, of course an enemy of the Sthaviravādins. The authors of the
Abhidharma Mahāvibhāsā sāstra in writing of Mahādeva's story, from their
Sarvāstivādin point of view unavoidablly stirred up a scandal.[80] There are, however, also reverse evidences
in both canonical and non-canonical texts, for example, 1) in the
Cunanirdesa-sāstra (分別功德論)it says: "Only Mahādeva was a great
bodhisattva, the others were altogether slight people. "[81] 2) in K'ui-chi's An Outline of the
Yogācāryabhūmi - sāstra it says: "Maādeva was a person of lofty fame and
great virtues, he ttained the supreme fruition in his early age; therefore the
king and the nobility all admired him and monks of different posions honoured
him. Inasmuch as he was so prominent and pearless, hence he was disliked by
many of his vulgar contemporaries. "[82]
4. The Fourth Council
According to the record of Hsuan-chuang's Travels in India[83] the fourth Council was held in Kāsmira in
the four-hundredth year[84] after the nirvana of the Tathāgata. The
whole story goes as follows:
"In the four-hundredth year after nirvāna of the Tathāgata,
Kanishka, king of Gandhara, having succeeded to the kingdom his kingly renown
reached far, and he brought the most remote provinces within his jurisdiction.
During his intervals of duty he frequently consulted the sacred books of the
Buddha; daily he invited a priest to enter his palace and preach the Dharma,
but he found the different views of the sects so contradictory that he was
filled with doubt, and he had Do way to get rid of his uncertaty. At this time
the Venerable Parsva said, "Since the Tathāgata left the world many years
have elapsed. The different sects hold to the treatises of their several
masters. Each keeps to his own views, anb so the whole body is torn by
divisions. "
The king having heard this, was deeply affected and gave way to sad
regrets.
After a while he spoke to Parsva and said, "Though of no account
personally, yet, thanks to the remnant of merit which has followed me through
successive births since the time of the Holy One till now. I have come to my
present state. I will dare to forget my own low degree, and hand down in
succession the teaching of the Dharma unimpaired. I will therefore arrange the
teaching of the tripitaka of the Buddha according to the various sects. "
The Venerable Parsva replied. "The previous merit of the great
king has resulted in his present distinguished position. That he may continue
to love the Dharma of the Buddha is what I desire above all things."
The king then summoned from for and near a holy assembly.
On this they came together from the four quarters, and, lake stars,
they hurried together for thousands of Ii, men the most distinguished for
talents and for holiness of life. Being thus assembled for seven days offerings
of the four necessary things were made after which as the king desired that
there should be an arrangement of the Dharma, and as he feared the clamour of
such a mixed assembly, he said, with affection for the priestt, "Let those
who nave cbtained, the holy fruit remain, but those who are still bound by worldly
influences let them go!" Yet the multitude was too great. He then
published another order: "Let those who have arrived at the condition of
'freedom from study' remain; and those who are still in a condition of learners
go." Still there were a great multitude who remained. On this the king
issued another edict: "Those who are in possession of the enlightenments
and have the six spiritual faculties[85] may remain; the other can go." And yet
there was a great multitude who remained. Then he published another edict:
"Let those who are acquainted both with the tripitaka and the five vidays[86] remain; as to others, let them go."
Thus there remain 499 men[87] Then the king desired to go to his own
country, as he suffered from the heat and moisture of this country. He also
wished to go to the stone groto at Rājagrha, where Kāsyapa had held his
religious assembly. The Venerable Parsva and others then counselled him saying,
"We cannot go there, because there are many heretical teachers there, and
different theories are prevailing, there will be clamour and vain discussion.
Without having right leisure for cons ideration, what benefit will there be in
making treatises?"
The mind of the assembly is well affected towards this country
(Kāsmira); the land is guarded on eyery side by mountains, the Yahas defend its
frontiers, the
soil is rich and productive, and it is well provided with tood. Here both
saints and sages assemble and abide; here the spiritual Rsis wander and
rest."
After a deliberation seeing that all the assembly are clinging to
Kasmira the king said: "I am willing to fall in with the wishes of
Venerable parsva." Then with the Arhats, he went from the spot where they
had deliber ated to another monastery, where they held an assembly for
arranging the scriptures and composong the Vibhāsā sāara.
These five hundred sages and saints (including Vasumitra) first
composed the Upadesa sāstra in ten myriads of verses to explain the sūtra
pitaka. Next they made the Vinaya Vibhāsā sāstra in ten myriads of verses to
explain the Vinaya pitaka; and then they made the Abhidharma Vibhāsā sāstra in
ten myriads of verses to explain the Abhidharma pitaka. "[88]
III SUBDIVISIONS OF THE SANGHA
1. The Divisions in the Mahasanghikas
According to the I-pu-tsung-Iun-Iun[89] it says, "Afterwards, during the second
century (after the Buddha) three sects arose from the Mahāsanghika:
1) Ekaryavahārika
|
2) Lokottaravāda
|
3) Kaukkutika
|
Later on, again during the second century, another sect caned the
Bahusrutiya, issued from the Mahāsanghika.
Once again, during this second century, a sect caned Prajnā-ptivāda,
also issued from the Mahāsanghika.
Towards the end of the second century, there was a heretic priest who
abandoned his wrong beliefs and discovered the correct teachings of Buddhism.
He was also called Mahādeva. He received the ordaination and became a Buddhist
monk in the Mahāsanghika order. He was very learned and deligent. He lived at
the Caitya mountain and discussed the five points again in details with the
monks of his sect. On account of dissensions within the order, his sect was
split into three separate sects:
1) Caityasaila
|
2) Aparasaila
|
3) Uttarasaila.
|
Thus the Mahāsanghika was divided four or five times (including the
first schism). To reckon the root and branch separately it becomes in all nine
sects:
1) Mahāsanghika
|
2) Ekaryavahārika
|
3) Lokottaravāda
|
4) Kaukkutika
|
5) Bahusrutiya
p. 54 |
6) Prajnāptivāda
|
7) Caityasaila
|
8) Aparasaila
|
9) Uttarasaila
|
2. The Divisions in the Sthaviradins
The Sthaviravadins remained in perfect harmony for a number of years.
At the beginning of the third century (after the Buddha) there was some
dissension and it was divided into two sects:
1) the Sarvāstivāda, also called the
Hetuvāda.
|
2) the original Sthaviravāda, which changed
its name into Haimavata.
|
Subsequently during the third century, one sect named the
Vātsiputriya issued from the Sarvāstivāda.Immediately afterwards, during this
third century, from the Vātsiputriya arose four sects:
1) Dharmottariya
|
2) Bhadrāyaniya
|
3) Sammitiya
|
4) Channagirika
|
Immediately afterwards, during this third century, another sect
called the Mahisāsaka, issued from the Sarvāstivāda.
Immediately afterwards, during the same century, from the Mahisāsaka
issued a sect called the Dharmaguptika. (The founder of this sect) declared
that he was the successor of Maudgalyāyana.
Towards the end of the third century another sect, the Kāsyapiya,
also called Suvarsaka, issued from the Sarvāstivāda.
At the beginning of the fourth century from the Sarvāstivāda again
issued, another sect named the Sautrāntika, also called Sankrān-tivāda. (The
founder of this sect) declared: "I take Ānanda as my preceptor. "
Thus the Sthaviravāda was divided seven or eight times (including the
original schism). To reckon the root and branches separately, it becomes eleven
separate sects:
1) Sarvāstivāda
|
2) Haimavata
|
3) Vātsiputriya
|
4) Dharmottariya
|
5) Bhadrāyaniya
|
6) Sammitiya
|
7) Channagirika
|
8) Mahisāsaka
|
9) Dharmaguptika
|
10) Kāsyapika
|
11) Sautrāntika
|
IV GEOGRAPHICAL EXTESION OF SOME POPULAR
SCHOOLS
The sharp opposition between the eighteen sects of early Buddhism did
not last very long in India. The probable reason is that when the sectarian
doctrines became more developed the differences between their disciplines
became more tolerant. As a result even among the conservative Sthaviravādins
many of their followers changed their thought from Hinayāna; therefore they
were caned Mahāyānistsamong the Sthaviravādins. Besides, Buddhist monks, ever
since the time of the Buddha, had always been wanderers; they were not like
common people who can be settled in one place for their whole life. For
example, when Hsnan-chuang was in Kāsmira he stayed at a monastery called
Jayaindra, where he met Mahayana scholars, Sarvāstivāda scholars and scholars
of the Mahāsanghika school. They were altogether studying under one Sarvāstivāda
master (Sanghayaso).[90] These are some of the problems confront us
in the study of the geographicaI situation of the early Buddhist sects.
Fortunately, however, we can still find accounts aboout some popular sects in
both Hsuan-chuang's Buddhist Record of the Western World (A. D. 629-645), and
I-tsing's A Record of Buddhist Practices (A. D. 671-695).
1. Hsuan-Chuang's Record
a) MAHĀSANGHIKAS
1) "In Bamiyan there are ten
Sanghārāmas with about 1,000 monks. They belong to the Hinayāna of the
Lokottaravādin school." (T. E. T. 51, P. 873b).Cf. Beal's Translation
P.114.
|
2) "In Kapisa there are about 100
sanghārāmas with Some 6,000 monks. (Beal misinterpreted 600 monks). They
mostly study the rules of Mahāyāna." (T. E. T. 51, P.873c). Cf. Beal's
Translation P.117.
|
3) "In Udyna there are some 1,400 old
sanghārāmas. They are now generally waste and desolate; formerly there were
some 18,000 monks, but gradually they have become less, till now there are
very few. They study the Mahāyāna, they practise the study of quiet
meditation, and have pleasure in reciting texts relating to this
p. 57 subject, but have no great understanding as to them. They practise pure disciplines and they are specially versed in mantras." (Beal misinterpreted as "The priests who practise the rules of morality lead a pure life and purposely prohibit the use of charms.") (T. E. T. 51, P.882b). Cf. Beal's P. 167. |
4) "In Simhapura (North of India) to
the east of the stupa there is a sanghārāma, with about 100 monks given to
the study of the Mahāyāna. Going east from this 50 Ii or so, we come to an
isolated mountain, where there is a sanghārāma with about 200 monks in it.
They all study Mahāyāna." (T. E. T. 51. P.885c).Cf. Beals P. 187.
|
5) "In Kāsmira thsre are about 100
sanghārāmas and 5,000 monks. (both inayāna and Mahāyāna)." (T. E. T. 51,
P.886a) Cf. BeaI's P.189.
|
6) "In Magadha there are some fifty
sanghārāmas, with about 10,000 monks, of whom the great number study the
teaching of Mahāyāna." (T. E. T. 51. P.910c) Cf. Baal's P. 320.
|
7) "In Magadha in the sanghārāma of
Tiladaka, there are 1,000 monks who study the Mahāyāna." (T. E. T. 51.
P.913b). Cf. BeaI's P.335.
|
8) "In Udra there are some hundred sanghārāmas,
with 10,000 monks. They all study the Mahayana." (T. E. T. 51. P.928b).
Cf. Beal's P.411.
|
9) "In Kosala there are about one
hundred sanghārāmas and somewhat less than 10,000 monks; they all alike Study
the teaching of the Mahāyāna." (T. E. T. 51. P.929a). Cf. Beal's P.415.
|
10) "In Dhanakataka the sangharamas
are numerous, but are mostly deserted and ruined; of those preserved there
are about twenty, with 1,000 or so monks. They all study the law of the
Mahāsanghika school." (T. E. T. 51, P.930c). Cf. Bears P.423.
|
b) STHAVIRAVĀDINS
1) "In Dravida there are some hundred
of sanghārāmas and 10,000 monks. They all study the teaching of the Sthavira
school belong to the Mahāyāna." (T. ET. 51, P.931c). Cf. BeaI's P.429.
|
2) "In Kalinga there arc ten
sanghārāmas, with about 500 monks, who study
p. 58 the Mahāyāna according to the teaching of the Sthavira sohool." (T. E. T. 51, P. 929a) Cf. Beal's P.413. |
3) "In Samatata there are thirty or so
sanghārāmas, with about 2,000 monks. They are all of the Sthavira
school." (T. E. T. 51. P.927c) Cf. Beal's P.407.
|
4) "Surashtra (or Surat, Suratha,
Sorath) there are some fifty sanghārāmas in this kingdom, with about 3,000
monks; they mostly belong to the "Sthavira school of the Mahayana."
(T. E. T. 51, P.936c) Cf. Beal's P.459.
|
5) In Bharukaccha there are some ten
sanghārāmas, with about 300 monks. They adhere to the Mahāyāna of the
Sthavira school." (T. E. T. 51, P.935c). Cf. Beal's P.452.
|
c) SARVĀSTIVĀDINS
1) "In Kashgar there are several
hundreds of sanghārāmas, with some 10,000 monks; they study the Hinayāna and
belong to the Sarvā-stivāda school." (T. E. T. 51. P.942c) Cf. Bears
P.487.
|
2) "In Kuccha (or Kuche) there are
about one hundred sanghārāmas with five thousand and more monks. They belong
to the Hinayāna of the Sarvāstivāda school." (T. E. T. 51, P. 870a) Cf.
Beat's P.89.
|
3) "In Agni (or Karashar)[91] there are some ten or more sanghārāmas
with two thousand monks or so, belonging to the Hinayāna of the Sarvastivāda
school." (T. E. T. 51, P. 870a) cr. Beal's P.88.
|
4) "In Baluka (or Aksu) there are some
ten sanghārāmas; the number of monks is about one thousand. They follow the
teaching of Hinayāna, and belong to the Sarvāstivāda school." (T. E. T.
51, P. 870c) Cf.' Beat's P.93.
|
5) "In Kabandha (or Sarikul) there are
some ten sanghārāmas with about 500 monks. They study the Hinayāna according
to the Sarvāstivāda schools." (T. E. T.51, P.941c) Cf. Beal's P. 482.
|
6) "In Persia there are two or three
sanghārāmas, with several hundred monks, who principally study the teaching
of the Hinayāna according to the Sarvāstivada school." (T. E. T. 51,
P.838a) Cf. Beal's P.466.
|
d) THE SAMMITIYA
1) "In the kingdom of Sravasti, there
are several hundreds of sanghārāmas, mostly in ruin, with very few religious
followers, who study the books of the Sammatiya school. (T. E. T. 51, P.
899a) Cf. Beal's P.259.
|
2) "In Vārānasi (or Baranas) there are
about 30 sanghārāmas and 3.000 monks. They study Hinayāna according to the
sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P. 905b) Cf. Bears P.291.
|
2) "In Vārānasi (or Baranas) there are
about 30 sanghārāmas and 3,000 monks. They stlldy Hinayāna according to the
Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.905b) Cf. Beal's P.291.
|
3) "To the north-east of the river
Varana (or Vārānasi) about 10 Ii or so, we come to the Sanghārāma of Lu-ye
(Stag Desert). There are fifteen hundred monks in this monastery who, study
the Hinayāna according to the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.905b)
Cf. Bears P.292.
|
4) "In "Ahikshetra (or
Ahicchattra) there are about ten sanghāramas, and some 1,000 monks who study
the Hinayana of the Sammatiya school. (T. E. T 51, P. 892c-893a). Cf. Bears
P.228.
|
5) "In Kapitha there are four sangharamas
with about 1,000 monks, who study the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51,
P.893a). Cf. Beal's P.229.
|
6) "In Hayamukha (or Ayamukha) there
are five sangharamas, with about a thousand monks. They belong to the
Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.897a). Cf. Beal's P.250.
|
7) "In Hiranya-parvata (or
Iranaparvata) there are ten sangharamas, with about 4,000 monks. Most of them
study the Hinayana of the Sammatiya School." (T. E. T. 51, P.926a). Cf.
Beal's P.397.
|
8) "In Visakha there are 20
sangharamas and about 3,000 monks, who study the Hinayana according to the
Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.898c). Cf. Beal's P.258.
|
9) "In Kapilavastu there are 1,000 or
more ruined sangharamas, by the side of the royal precincts there is still a
sangharama with about 3,000 (read 30) monks,
p. 60 who study the Hinayana cf the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P. 900c). Cf. Beal's P.269. |
10) "In Karnasuvarna (or
Karanasuvarna) there are ten sangharamas or so, with about 2,000 monks. They
study the Hinayana of the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.928a). Cf.
Beal's P.408.
|
11) "In Malava there are about 100
sangharamas in which some twenty thousand (Beal mistaken for 2,000) monks
dwell. They study the Hinayana and belong to the Sammatiya school." (T.
E. T. 51, P.935c) Cf. Beal's P.453.
|
12) "In Valabhi there are some hundred
sangharamas, with about 6,000 monks. Most of them study the Hinayana,
according to the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.936b). Cf. Beal's
P.457.
|
13) "In Ānandapura there are some ten
sangharamas with less than 1,000 monks; they study the Hinayana of the
Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.936c). Cf. Beal's P.458.
|
14) "In Hindh (or Hindhu) there are
several hundred sangharamas, occupied by bout 10,000 monks. They study the
Hinayana according to the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.937a). Cf.
Beal's P.461.
|
15) "In Atyanabakela the are about
eighty sangharamas with some 5,000 monks. They mostly study the Hinayana
according to the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.937c). Cf. Beal's
P.464.
|
16) "In Pitasila there are some, fifty
sangharamas with about 3,000 monks; they study the Hinayana according to the
Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.938b). Cf. Beal's P.466.
|
17) "In Avanda there are about twenty
sangharamas, with some 2,000 monks; they mostly study the Hinayana according
to the Sammatiya school." (T. E. T. 51, P.938b). Cf. Beal's P.467.
|
2. I-tsing's Record
"Throughout the five divisions of India, as well as in the
islands of the Southern Sea, people speak of the four Nikayas:
1) Ārya-Mahasangha-nikaya has seven subdivisions:
1. Mahasanghika
|
2. Lokottaravada
|
3. Bahusrutiya
|
4. Prajnaptivada
|
5. Haimavata
|
6. Pūrvasaila
|
7. Avarasaila
|
2) Ārya-sthavira-nikaya, has three subdivisions:
1. Jetavanīya
|
2. Abhayagirika
|
3. Mahāvihāravāda
|
3) Ārya-Mūlasarvāsti-vada-nikaya, has four subdivisions:
1. Mūlasarvāstivada
|
2. Dharmaguptaka
|
3. Mahīśāsaka
|
4. Kāśapāya
|
4) Ārya-Saṁmatīya-nīkaya, has four subdivisions:
1. Sammatiya (Vātsiputriya)
|
2. Dharmottariya
|
3. Bhadrayāniya
|
4. Śṅṅaagarika
|
"In Magadha (Central India) the doctrines of the four Nikāyas
are generally in practice, yet the Sarvastivādānikāya flourishes the most. In
Lāṭa and Sindhu - - the names of the Countries in Western India - - the
Sanunitinikāya has the greater number of followers, and there are some few
members of the other three schools. In
the northern region (N. India) all belong to the Sarvāstivadānikāya, though we
sometimes meet the followers of the Mahāsaṅghikanikāya. Towards the South (S.
India), all follow the Sthaviranikāya, though there exist a few adherents of
the other Nikāyas. In the eastern frontier countries (E. India), the four
Nikāyas are found side by side.
In the Simhala island (Ceylon) all belong to the Āryasthaviranikāya,
and the Āryamahāsaṅghikanikāya is rejected.
In the islands of the Southern Sea--consisting of more than ten
countries - the Mūlasarvāstivadanikaya has been almost universally adopted,
though occasionally some have devoted themselves to Sammiti-nikāya; and
recently a few followers of the other two schools have also been found.
Counting from the West there is first of all pulushih island, and then the
Malayu country which is now the country of Sribhoga (in Sumatra), Mahāsin
island, Kalinga island (in Java). Tan-tan island (Natuna island), Pem-pen
island, P'o-li (Ball) island, K'u-Iun island (Pulo Condore ), Fo-shih-pu-Io
(Bhogapura) island, O-shan island, and Mo-chia-man island.
There are some more small islands which cannot be all mentioned here.
Buddhism is embraced in all these countires, and mostly the system of the
Hīnayana is adopted except in Malayu (Sribhoga), where there are a few who
belong to the Mahāyāna.
In Champa (Lin-i) Buddhists generally belong to the
Āryasammitinikāya, and there also a few followers of the Sarvastivadanikaya.
Pob-naIl (Kuo). formerly called Fu-nan. Of old it was a country, the
inhabitants of which lived naked; the people were mostly worshippers of heaven
(the gods or devas), and later on, Buddhism flourished there, but a wicked king
has now expelled and exterminated them all, and there are no members of the
Buddhist Brotherhood at all while adherents of other religions live
intermingled.
In the Eastern Hsia (China) Buddhists practise mostly according to
the Dharmagupta school, but in many places in Kwan Chung (Shen-si) some belong,
from olden times, to the Mahasanghikanikaya as well as to the above. In olden
times in Kiang-nan (south of he Yang-Tze-Kiang) and Ling-piao (south of the
Range, i. e. Kwang-tung and and Kwang-si) the Sarvāstivādanikāya has
fJourished."[92]
THE RESULT OF ITSING'S DESCRIPION OF THE
BUDDHIST SCHOOLS[93]
(A. D. 671-695)
The eighteen schools of Buddhism under the four principal heads:
I. The Ārya-mahasanghika-nikaya.
1. Seven subdivisions.
|
2. The Tripitaka in 300,000 slokas.
|
3. It is in practice in Mahadha (C. India);
a few in Lata and Sindhy (W. India); a few in N. and S. India. Side by side
with the other schools in E. India. Rejected in Ceylon. Lately introduced
into the islands of the Southern Sea (Sumatra, Java, &c.). Some followers
in Shen-si (W. China).
|
ll. The Ārya-sthavira-nikaya.
1. Three subdivisions.
|
2. The Tripitaka in 300,000 slokas.
|
3. Almost all belong to it in S. India; it
is in practice in Magadha (C. India). All belong to this in Ceylon. A few in
Lata and Sindhu (W. India). Side by side with other schools in E. India. (Not
in N. India.) Lately introduced into the islands of the Southern Sea. (Not in
China.)
|
III. The Ārya-mūlasarvāstivāda-nikāya.
1. Four subdivisions:
|
||||||||
2. The Tripitaka in 300.000 ślokas.
|
||||||||
3. Most flourishing in Magadha (C. India);
almost all belong to this in N. India.A few in Lāṭa anti Sindhu (W. India)
and in S. India. Sitle by side
p. 64 with the other in E. India. Three subdivisions, b,c,d, are not found in India proper, but some followers in Udyaua, Kharacar, and Kustana. (Not in Ceylon.) Almost all belong to this in the islands of the Southern Sea. A few in Champa (Cochin China). b is found in E. China and in Shen-si (W. China). a,b,c,d, flourishing in the south of the Yang-tse-kiang, in Kwang-tung and Kwang-si in S. China. |
IV. The Ārya-Sammitīya-nikāya.
1. four subdivisions.
|
2. Tripiṭaka in 200,000 slobs; the Vinaya
alone in 30,000 ślokas.
|
3. Most flourishing in Lāta and Sindhu (W.
India). It is in practice in Magadha. A few in S. India. Side by side with
the other in E. India. (Not in N. India.) (Not in Ceylon). A few in the
islands of the Southern Sea. Mostly followed in Champa (Cochin-China). (Not
in China proper.)
|
The geographical distribution of the schools in India and in other
places:
India in general. Eighteen schools are in existence.
C. India. Magadha; all the four Nikāyas in practice, but III
flourishes the most (except b,c,d of it).
W. India. Lāṭa and Sindhu; IV is most flourishing; a few of I. II, III.
N. India. Almost all belong fo III; a few fo I (II, IV not found).
S. India. Almost all belong to II; a few to the other schools.
E. India. I, II, III, IV side by side.
Ceylon. All belong to II; I is rejected (III, IV not found).
Sumatra, Java, and the neighbouring islands. Almost all belong to
III; a few to IV; lately a few to I, II.
Cochin-China. Champa; mostly IV; a few III (no I, II).
Siam. No Buddhism at present, owing to the recent persecution of
Buddhists by a king.
E. China. b of III flourishing.
W. China. Shen-si: b of III, and also I followed.
S. China. South of Yang-tse-kiang, Kwang-tung, and Kwang-si: all III
(a, b. c, d) flourishing.
The Mahāyāna and Hīnāyāna.
China in general belongs to the Mahāyāna.
Malayu (Śrībhoja) , a few Mahāyānists.
N. India and the ten or nore islsnds of the Southern Sea (Sumatra,
Java, &c.)generally belong to the Hīnayāna.
All the remaining places in India. Both yanas are found, i. e. same
practise according to the one some according to the other.
[1] Treatise on the Wheel of Propositions of
Different Schools. (異部宗輪論).
[2] Wassiljew, P.244, note 1. Cf. Jiryo Masuda’s
Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools P.6, note 6.
[3] Schiefner’s edition P.134.
[4] Treatise on Eighteen Schools was translated
by Kumārajiva in the Ch’in dynasty (A. D. 401-413). Therefore it is simply
called the Ch’in-lun.
[5] Cf. Kokuyaku-issaikyo Vol.20異部宗輪論解題P.1c.
[6] A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the
Buddhist Tripitaka P.282, No.1284.
[7] C f. Kokuyaku issaikyo Vol. 20, 異部宗輪論解題P.1c.
[8] Treatise on the Differences of the Views of
the Schools was translated by Paramartha in the Ch’en dynasty (557-568 A.D.),
for this reason, it is also called the Ch’en-lun.
[9] Treatise on the Wheel of Propositions of
Different Schools was translated by Hsuan-chuang of the T’ang dynasty (618-962
A.D.), so it is also called the T’ang-lun.
[10] Cf. The Complete Catalogue of the Chinese
Translation of the Buddhist Tripitaka Vol. II, P.232c.
[11] Fa-jen I. P. 1b.
[12] T. E. T. 41, P.817b.
[13] T. E.T. 51, P.886c. 大唐西域記Cf. the
Shuchi I; Fa-jen I, P.2b.
[14] T. E. T. 41, P.100b.
[15] T. E. T. 41, P.37b. This Vasumitra is
uncertain, because the note says that in another commentary mentioning that it
is Srirāta, the famous Sautrāntikāh master who was a contemporary of
Vasubandhu.
[16] T. E. T. 50, P.231b. The Fa-jen has made a
mistake, as the text mentioned that at that congregation in Kashmir there were
many learned monks, and among them there was a Sarvāstivāda student called
Vasumitra. But the venerable master, from whom Hsuan-chuang has learned the
doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda School, was called Sanghayaso.
[17] Minayeff, Recherches Sur le Bouddhisme, (Annales du
Musee Guimet, Tome IV). Paris 1894, P.196f.
[18] The Japanese Translation of Tāranātha’s
‘Indian Buddhist History’ P.114.
[19] The Japanese translation of Tāranātha’s
‘Indian Buddhist History’ P.246.
[20] Rev. Yin-shun’s ‘Abhidharma treatises and
Abhidharma Masters’ P.275.
[21] 大唐西域記T. E. T. 51, P.881a. Cf. Samuel Beal’s
translation of ‘Travels of Hiouen-thsang’ Vol. Two, P.159.
[22] 大唐西域記T. E. T. 51, PP.886c-887a. Cf. Samuel Bcal
Vol. III, PP.192-193.
[23] Samuel Beal has made a misinterpretation
here, the original meaning should be “Vasumitra was patching his robes.”
[24] This translation is rather inadequate, the
correct meaning is “The knot of your passions is not yet eradicated, so in
whatever discussion you can only produce quarrelsome follies.”
[25] This rendering is also inaccurate, the
meaning of the text is “For the Buddha’s sake you sages bestow teachings to
others, you are, of course doubtless in the dharma. Now, as you are going to
collect principal doctrines and want to make a correct treatise, I am, though
not wise, yet I hav roughly penetrated into the subtleness of the words, and I
have also deeply studied the profound literature of the tripitakas and the
ultimate truth of the five vidyas; and I have succeeded in attaining this goal.
[26] As the translation is not quite faithful to
the original text, so I must give the Chinese meāning here: “The Arhats said,
“You can’t speak like that, you had better to dwell in some secluded place and
quickly attain Arhatship. Then you may come to this assembly, it will not be
too late.”
[27] In the Chinese text it is not only a ball,
but it is a ball of thread.
[28] The Chinese meaning is “You shall become the
object, on which the four kinds of living beings will depend.”
[29] T. E. T. 27, 231c.
[30] T. E. T. 28., P.721a.
[31] This Sutra is
‘Arya-Vasumitra-bodhisattva-Sangiti-sāstra’.
[32] Chapter=khanda
[33] The ten dharmas are: (1) Skandhas; (2) the
mind; (3) amādhi; (4) four elemerts; (5) bondages and klesas; (6) actions (or
volitions); (7) wisdom; (8) views; (9) indriyas; (10) bhāvas. Cf the 14 khandas
of the ‘Ārya-Vasumitra-bodhisattva-sangiti-sāstra’, T. E. T. 28, PP. 721-808.,
except the fourth khanda ‘devas’; the sixth khanda ‘sūtra’; the seven khanda
‘more happy’; and the fourteenth kahnda ‘gāthas’.
[34] The Mt. K’un-lun, a high mountain in Tibet.
[35] “夜光之珠潛輝鬱浦” This saying appears in a book called Hsing-lun
(新論) which
was written by Huan-t’an (桓譚) of the Eastern Han dynasty (A. D. 25-220). “鬱浦” is
tha bank of the river Yu (鬱江), which is in the Province of Kuan-si, and its source is from
Vitnam.
[36] This sentence is referring to the sastra as
a piece of precious jade, and is a similar expression to “玉山崑岡” which
was based on Ts’ai’s commentary on the ‘Book of History’, in the ‘Yin-chen’ (胤征), as
it says that on the Mt. K’un-lun there produces precious jade.
[37] The wisdom or knowledge of using skilful
means for saving others, Cf. the ‘Vimalakirtti-nirdes’a-sūtra’ in the chapter
called ‘Manjusri inquires about Vimalakirtti’s sickness’, there are four
sentences about the ‘Upāyajnāna’: “Without upāya jnāna is bondage, with upāya
wisdom leads to emancipation; without jnāna upāya is bondage, with jnāna upāya
becomes a way of emancipation.” (T. E. T. 49, P.18b.)
[38] ‘Shi-pa-pu-lun’ (T. E. T. 14, P.545b.)
[39] ‘Sutra on Several Difficult Questions of Wei-zih’
(惟日雜難經), this
title is evidently a mistranslation in Nanjio’s catalogue, he might suppose
that the first two characters (惟日) were then name of a person; he simply mistakes ‘日’ for ‘曰’. The
meaning of ‘惟曰’ is unambiguously ‘speaking of’, then the whole title should be
‘Sūtra Speaking of the Varjous Difficulties of a Bodhisattva’. Furthermore, if
we investigate into the text itself, we can find that there is not a person
named ‘Wei-zih’ is mentioned; and yet instead of find difficult questions there
are only descriptions of various practices and deeds of bodhisattvas,
pratyekabuddhas and srāvakas. Cf. Nanjio’s Catalogue No. 1328.
[40] The four groups of the order of Sangha, i.
e. monks, nuns, male and femal devotees.
[41] T. E. T. 17, P.609a.
[42] Cf. Rev. Yin-shun’s ‘Abhidharma treatises
and Abhidharma masters’, P.391.
[43] T. E. T. 3, PP. 443c-446a. Cf.
‘Fa-yuan-chu-lin 26. (T.E.T. 53, PP. 477b-478b).
[44] ’T. E. T. 15, P. 301c.
[45] T. E. T. 55, P. 89a-c.
[46] T. E. T. 28, P. 721a Tao-an’s preface on the
‘Ārya-Vasumitra-bodhi-sattva-sangiti-sāstra’. (尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論序).
[47] T. E. T. 55, P. 65a. Sen-jui’s preface on
‘Dyana-sūtra’ (關中出禪經序).
[48] T. E. T. 25, P.70a.
[49] ‘A general discussion on Abhidharma Studies’
(‘Nei-Hsueh’ 內舉, or ‘The Interior Learning’ Vol. 2, P.167.)
[50] ‘Abhidharma Treatises and Abhidharma
Masters’ P. 150.
[51] ‘Abhidharma Treatises and Abhidharma
Masters’ P. 156.
[52] ‘Abhidharma Treatises and Abhidharma
Masters’ P. 379.
[53] T. E. T. 27, P. 38b.
[54] T. E. T. 31, P. 784a. Cf.
‘Ārya-Vasumitra-bodhisattva-sangiti-sāstra’, (T. E. T. 28, P. 741a.)
[55] T. E. T. 55, P. 1160c.
[56] T. E. T. P.379, No.2300.
[57] See I-pu-tsung-Iun-Iun (T.E.T. 49, P.15a),
cr. Abhidharma-mahā-Vibhāsā śāstra. 99. (T. E. T. 27, PP. 510c-511c).
The five evil views are:
1) That an Arhat has impure discharge. Cf.
Kāthāvathu II. 1. "Atthi arahato parūp hāro."
|
2) That an Arhat may lack knowledge. Cf.
Kāthāvathu II. 2. "Atthi arahato annam ti. "
|
3) That an Arhat may have doubts. Cf.
Kāthāthu II, 3. "Atthi arahato vimatiti."
|
4) That the Arhat is excelled by others.
Cf. Kāthāvathu, II, 4. "Atthi arahato paravitāranā ti."
|
5) That there is articulate utterance on
the part of one who has entered into dhyāna. Cf. Kāthāvathu II, 5.
"Yekeci duddham ti vācam bhāsanti maggam bhavanti."
|
[58] Travels of Hioueh-Thsang vol. III. P.329.
The Southern tradition mentions it as 'Asokārāma'. Cf. Prof. Kimura's
Investigation of the History of Sangiti and Schisms P. 14.
[59] T'an-lun mentions the city as Kusumapūtra,
but both Ch'in lun and Ch'en lun mention the city as 'Pātalipūtra'.
[60] Asoka (294-238 B. C.) came to the throne in
273 B. C., which was the 218th year after the nirvāna of the Buddha. But in our
text says that the split of the Sangha occurred about hundred years after the
nirvana of the Buddha.
[61] According to the records of both Northern
and Southern Buddhist texts that the first and the Second Councils are agree
with each other. The record of the third Council found in the
Mahāvibhāsā-sāstra is mainly the discussion of Mahadev's five points, but in the
Southern tradition Mahādeva is completely unknown. Moreover, the Southern
tradition had recorded only three Councils, the fourth Council of the Northern
Buddhism (the compilation of the Mahāvibhāsā-sāstra) they even do not recognize
it. Cf. 2500 Years of Buddhism P.48.
[62] Refer to 1) Dharmagupta vinaya; 2)
Mahāsanghika-Vinaya; 3) Mahisāsaka nikāya pancavarga vinaya; 4) Sarvāstivāda
Vinaya; 5) Sudarsana Vibhāsā vinaya; and Life of King Asoka.
[63] T. E. T. 22, PP.966a-967c.
[64] Both Dharmagupta vinaya (T. E. T. 22, P.
966b) and Mahisāsaka nikāyapancavarga vinaya (T. E. T. 22, P.190b) mention the
name of an elder bhiksu Bhānanda, but the Mahāsanghika vinaya (T. E. T.22, P.
490a.) only mentions a 'makala' (foolish) Bhiksu and did not give the name of
the person. The Sarvāstivāda vinaya (T. E. T. 23, P.445c) mentions it is a
foolish and wicked old bhiksu. While only the Sudarsana vibhāsā vinaya (T. E.
T. 24, P. 673c.) mentions a bhiksu called Subhadda-mahallaka.
[65] Cf. 2500 Years of Buddhism P. 36.
[66] Dharmagupta vinaya 54, (T. E. T. 22, P.
968b), but the Mahisāsaka-nikāya pancavarga vinaya did not allude to the 'Abhidharma-pitaka.
(T. E; T. 22, P. 191a-b).
[67]
a) Mahisāsakanikāya pancavarga vinaya 30
(T. E. T. 22, P. 191b-c).
|
b) Mahāsangika vinaya 32, (T. E. T. 22, P.
492a-b).
|
c) Dharmagupta vinaya
54, (T. E. T., 22, P. 967b-c).
|
d) Sarvāstivāda Vinaya
60, (T. E. T. 23, P. 449b-c).
|
Also Cf. 2500 Years of Buddhism PP.39-40.
But, in the Sudarsana vibhāsā vinaya the
trial of Ānanda is not mentioned.
[68] Mahisāsaka nikāya pancavarga vinaya 30. (T.
E. T. 22, P. 191c).
Dharmagupta vinaya 54,
(T. E. T. 22, P.968b-c).
But the other three vinayas did not mention
Pūrna's affair.
[69] a) Mahisāsaka nikāya pancavarga vinaya 30,
(T. E. T. 22, P.192a-b). 100 years after the Buddha.
b) Mahāsangika vinaya 32, (T. E. T. 22,
P.493a-b). No allusion to the year.
c) Dharmagupta yinaya 54, (T. E. T. 22,
P.96Sc). 100 years A. B.
d) Sarvāstivāda Vinaya
60, (T. E. T. 23, P.449b-c). 110 years A. B.
e) Sudarsana Vibhāsā Vinaya I, (T. E. T. 24.
P677c). 100 years A. B.
[70] In the Mahāsangika vinaya only mentions the
tenth Indulgence (to accept gold and silver and keep them is allowed), but did
not mention the other nine.
[71] Cf. 2500 Years of Buddhism P. 41.
[72] The offender is necessitated to apologize to
the laity who had been forbidden to carry out the precepts of the Vvji monks.
[73] He should abandon those views which caused
him not to see his own guilt.
[74] Cf. Keisho Tuskamoto's A History .of the
Farly Buddhist Order P. 220.
[75] Mahisāsaka Vinaya 30, (T. E. T. 22, P.194b).
[76] 2500 Years of Buddhism P.45.
[77] Samayabhedoparacanacakra
(I-pu-tsung-lun-lun) T. E. T. 49, P.15a.
[78] Abhidharma-mahāvibhāsā 90 (T. E. T. 27,
P.510c-512a).
[79] According to M. Monier Williams' Sanskrit
English Dictionary the word 'samutthāna' means the act of rising up together.
For example, when the mind arises, the speech and the action also arise.
[80] Refer to Thomas Watters' On Yuan-chwang's
Travels in India P. 270: "All accounts seem to agree in representing their
Mahādeva as a man of unusual abilities and learning; and the story of his great
crime as a layman, and his unscrupulous ambition as an abbott, related in the
Abhidharma treatises are probably the malicious inventions of enemies."
[81] Gunanirdesa sāstra I, (T. E. T. 2.5, P.32c).
[82] An Outline of the Yogācāryabhūmi sāstra (T.
E. T. 43. P.lb).
[83] Travels of Hsuan-chuang Ill, (T. E. T. 51,
P.886b).
[84] That is, 300 years after Asoka (B. C.
263-224), or about A. D. 75. Hsuanchuang places Asoka only 100 years after the
Buddha, while in Asoka's inscriptions the Buddha is placed 221 years before the
first Asoka's reign.
Cf. Beat's Travels of Hiouen-Thsang voL II,
Note 97.
[85] The trividyas and the shadabhijnās.
[86] The five vidyas are: 1) Sabdavidya, the
treatise on grammar; 2) Adhyatmavidya, the treatise on inner prnciples; 3)
Chikitsavidya, the treatise on eedicine, magic formulas, and occult scienimc;
4) Hetuvidya, the treatise on causes; 5) Silapasthanavidya, the treatise on the
scinces astronomy, meteorology, and mechatecal arts.
[87] In this story purposely leania vacancy for
Vasumitra, this is evidenvy an imitation of the First Council, in which Ānanda
was rejected by Mahākāsyapa.
Cf. P.7, and note 19.
[88] Travels of Hsuan-chuang III. (T. E. T. 51,
PP.886b-887a).
[89]
The Sangha
|
(1) Mahāsanghikas
|
(3) Ekavyavahāda first split, 2 nd c. A. B.
|
first split, 2 nd c. A. B.
|
|
(4) Lokottaravāda
|
||||
(5) Kaukkutika
|
||||
(6) Bahusrutiya second split, 2nd c. A. B.
|
||||
(7) Prajnāptivāda third split, 2nd c. A. B.
|
||||
(8) Caityasaila
|
fourth split, 2nd c. A. B.
|
|||
(9) Aparasaila
|
||||
(10) Uttarasaila
|
||||
(2)Sthavira
|
lst split
(11) Sarvāstivāda
(Hetuvāda)
3rd c. A. B.
|
2nd split
(12) Vātsiputriya
(3rd c. A. B.
|
(13) Dharmottariya
|
|
(14) Bhadrāyaniya
|
||||
(15) Sammatiya
3rd split
(3rd c. A. B.)
|
||||
(16) Channagirika
|
||||
3rd c. A. B.
(17) Mahisāsaka
(4th split)
|
||||
(18) Dharmaguptika (5th split)
3rd c. A. B.
|
||||
(19) Kāsyapika(Suvarsaka)(6th split)
3rd c. A. B.
|
||||
(20) Sautrāntika(Samkrāntivāda)
(7th split) 4th c. A. B.
|
||||
Haimavata(the original Sthavira)
|
[90] Cf. A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of
the Temple of Great Benevolence Fascicle II, P.18b.
[91] Cf. Prof. Mitsuno's Buddhist sects and their
system P.109.
[92] I-tsing's A Record of Buddhist Practices(T.
E. T. 54, P.205b) Cf. J. Takakusu's Translation P.8-13.
[93] From J. Takakusu's Life and Trayels of
I-tsing. PP. xxiii-xxv.