Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c5: Chapter I. A Historical Survey of the Period of Transition from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c5

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. A Historical Survey of the Period of Transition from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna

c5.1

A Historical Survey of the Period of Transition from Hinayāna to Mahāyāna

c5.2

The history of Buddhism for the first six or seven centuries may be looked upon as covering the following three periods:

c5.3

A. EARLY OR PURE HINAYĀNA BUDDHISM, preserved mainly in the Pāli Nikāyas and Vinaya, or in the fragments of their Sanskrit versions hitherto discovered.

c5.4

B. MIXED HINAYĀNA BUDDHISM, represented by the various schools which came into existence about a century after Buddha’s death. The sources for this period are scanty, being limited to a few books, either expressly attributed to a particular school, or having sufficient evidence to indicate the school to which the works belong, and also the treatises dealing exclusively with the history of the schools and their doctrines.

c5.5

C. THE BEGINNING OF MAHĀYĀNA, or as Rosenberg puts it, the period of conflict between Hinayāna and Mahāyāna.¹ The sources for this period are mainly the Prajñāpāramitās, the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka, the Daśabhūmikasūtra, the Gaṇḍavyūha, the Laṅkāvatāra as also the works of Nāgārjuna, Aśvaghoṣa, Asaṅga and others so far as they throw light on the relative position of Hinayāna and Mahāyāna.

c5.6

¹ A similar division was also suggested by Wassiljew in his Buddhismus, pp. 38 ff.: Die erste Periode = ein Jahrhundert nach dem Tode des Buddha; die zweite Periode = die Zeit des Streits; und die dritte Periode = Mahāyāna. Rosenberg divides the period a little differently in Die Probleme der buddhistischen Philosophie, p. 35: Die Periode des sogenannten “reinen

First Period: A. Early or Pure Hinayāna Buddhism

c5.s1.1

(i.e., circa 450 to 350 B. C.)

c5.s1.3

There has already arisen a fairly large amount of literature upon the first period (i.e., the first century after the inception of Buddhism), offering us solutions of many problems—a result which has been made possible by the strenuous labours of the Pāli Text Society in regard to the publication of the Pāli canonical texts. By the early or pure Hinayāna Buddhism, we mean only that form of Buddhism which is presented to us by a considerable portion of the Vinaya and the four Nikāyas.¹ For the present purpose of drawing a rough sketch of the period of transition from Hinayāna to Mahāyāna we shall state some of the conclusions reached by scholars about the Buddhism of this period in order to ascertain how it changed in course of time and gave rise to the different schools. These conclusions are as follows:—

c5.s1.4

¹ Not all the suttas of all the Nikāyas, because there are many that were incorporated in a later period. The Khuddaka Nikāya contains a few early works, but many are of much later date. The Divyāvadāna always speaks of four Āgamas, implying that the four Nikāyas or Āgamas were the only recognised canonical texts even at the time of the compilation of the Divyāvadāna. See Divyā., pp. 17, 253, 333. Prof. Bapat contends in his article, "The different strata in the literary material of the Dīgha Nikāya" in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute (vol. VIII, pt. i) that the Pāli canon like all other sacred literatures is 'a mosaic of earlier and later material.' His view is that the suttas, containing among other things, accounts of miracles, mythological, and metaphysical or Buddhological speculations, are later than those which contain simple teachings of sīla, samādhi, and paññā. It is difficult to agree with some of his conclusions, specially his remarks that the suttas of the first volume of the Dīgha Nikāya are earlier than those of the second, and that the suttas of the second are earlier than those of the third, for in the first volume there are suttas like Kevaddha, Ambattha, containing materials, which, according to his own statement, should be of a later date.

c5.s1.5

Hinayana" und seiner verschiedenen Richtungen, d. h. der älteste Buddhismus; die Periode des Entstehens des Mahayana und seines Kampfes mit dem Hinayana; die Periode des Sieges und des Aufblühens des Mahayana. The first two periods of Rosenberg's division cover our three.

c5.s1.6

As early as 1911, Prof. Winternitz in his learned review of the translations of the Dīgha Nikāya in the J.R.A.S. raised this point of the Nikāyas being a mosaic of materials, early and late. He analysed the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta and the Mahāpadāna-sutta, and showed the various strata contained in them. Prof. Bapat does not seem to have noticed this review as otherwise he could have seen many other means of testing the different strata. These matters, however, are still far from a complete solution.

c5.s1.7

1. The spread of Buddhism was confined to a few towns or villages situated in the central belt of India from the east to the west. Of these the more noteworthy are (commencing from the east): Kajaṅgala, Campā, Rājagaha, Gayā, Kāsī, Nālandā, Pāṭaliputta, Vesāli, Sāvatthi; the dominion of the Licchavis, Vajjis, Videhas, Mallas, Bhaggas, and Koliyas; Kosambi, Saṅkassa, Ujjeni, Avanti, Madhurā, and Verañja. There were a few adherents who came from the northern country of Maddaraṭṭha, and two brāhmaṇa villages of Kuru, and also from the southern places like Paṭiṭṭhāna. Gandhāra and Takkhasilā were as yet unknown to them.¹

c5.s1.8

¹ See my *Early History* etc., pp. 82 ff.; E. J. Thomas, *Life of the Buddha*, Map.

c5.s1.9

2. The kings and clans mentioned in them are all pre-Asokan, e.g., Bimbisāra, Ajātasattu, Pasenadi Kosala, and Caṇḍa Pajjota, and the clans like the Bulis, Koliyas, and Vajjis.²

c5.s1.10

² *Ibid.*

c5.s1.11

3. The place of the laity was not yet well defined. Laymen appeared more as supporters of the Saṅgha than as its actual members. They only revered Buddha and his disciples, heard their teachings, and observed some of the precepts and, on occasions, uttered the formulae of *tisaraṇa*—the only mark that distinguished a devotee of Buddha from others. This, however, did not affect their social status, which in India has always been associated with religion, as they continued to be the members of the society to which they belonged.³

c5.s1.12

³ N. Law, *Studies in Indian History and Culture*, ch. v, “Early Buddhism and the Laity.”

c5.s1.13

4. The religion in its full form was meant exclusively for those who would retire from the household life, enter the order of monks, and observe the Pātimokkha rules, the observance of which was not possible for a householder. Householders could not observe even the ten *sīlas*.

c5.s1.14

5. The Pāramitās were yet unknown. The *Life of Buddha* usually commenced from the time of retirement to the attainment of Bodhi with occasional references to his previous existences, as in the *Mahāgovinda sutta* or the *Mahāsudassana* sutta. The conception of the life of a Bodhisattva performing *pāramis* was hazy, if not unknown.¹

c5.s1.15

¹ See *E. R. E.*, II, sv. Bodhisattva.

c5.s1.16

6. The *Jātakas*, as one of the nine *Aṅgas*, referred to only some of the stories relating to the previous births of Buddha as found in the *Mahāgovinda*, *Mahāsudassana*, *Makhādeva* and other *Jātakas* traced by Dr. Rhys Davids in the *Nikāyas* and *Vinaya* but they did not appear as yet as a separate collection depicting the Bodhisattva's practice of the *pāramitās*.²

c5.s1.17

² See infra., pp. 6 f.

c5.s1.18

7. Buddha was a human being but possessed of omniscience, supernatural powers, and other attainments unattainable by other beings.³ The appearance of a Buddha is exceedingly rare in the world, only one occurring in several *kalpas*.

c5.s1.19

³ See Saunders, *Epochs in Buddhist History*, pp. xviii-xix for a scheme of Buddhology.

c5.s1.20

8. The doctrines were confined to the three essentials, *Anicca*, *Dukkha*, and *Anatta*, and the four *Ariyasaccas*, the *Paṭiccasamuppāda*, and the *Aṭṭhaṅgika-magga*; practices were limited to the thirty-seven *Bodhipakkhika dhammas*. The practices were usually divided under three heads: *sīla* (moral precept), *samādhi* (mental training), and *paññā* (development of insight and knowledge enabling one to realise the Truth).

c5.s1.21

9. The goal of life was Arhathood and rarely Pacceka-buddhahood, but never Buddhahood. The stages of progress to Arhathood were four, *viz.*, *sotāpanna*, *sakadāgāmi*, *anāgāmi* and *arahatta*.

c5.s1.22

10. *Nibbāna* was a state of absolute rest and marked the end of all *kilesas* (afflictions) and hence of all *dukkha*. It was an extremely happy and peaceful (*sānta*, *paṇīta*, *accantasukha*) condition.

Second Period: B. Mixed Hīnayāna Buddhism

c5.s2.1

(i.e., circa 350 to 100 B.C.)

c5.s2.3

The history of the events and doctrines of Buddhism of this period—one of the most important periods in its history—is still not fully known; first, because the sources from which the reconstruction can be made are scanty,¹ and secondly, because the dates of composition of those that are available have not yet been definitely ascertained. This period witnessed the breaking up of the Buddhist Saṅgha into many sections and the scattering of these sections over the various parts of India, each growing in its own way. Though dissensions in the Church may be undesirable from the orthodox point of view, they were indicative of the great interest taken by the disciples in ascertaining the real teachings of Buddha as also of the attempts to interpret the old teachings in a new way, and to adapt them to the changed circumstances brought about by the advancement of thought for over a century.

c5.s2.4

¹ E.g. Sanskrit: Mahāvastu, Lalitavistara, Divyāvadāna, Avadāna-śataka, Aśokāvadāna, Vasumitra's treatise on the Schools, fragments of the Sanskrit Canon discovered in Eastern Turkestan and the neighbouring regions; Pāli: Kathāvatthu, Milinda-pañha, Ceylonese chronicles, Nikāya-saṅgraha.

The Growth of the Abhidhamma Literature

c5.s2.t1.1

To keep pace with this movement of thought, the older schools had to gird up their loins in order to make their position strong and unassailable. As the result of this effort, we have the Abhidhamma literature of the Theravāda and the Sarvāstivāda schools. The great agreement between the Nikāyas (=Āgamas)² and the Vinaya³ of the Theravāda and the Sarvāstivāda schools, and the great disagreement between their Abhidhamma⁴ literatures show clearly that while compiling their Nikāyas and the essential parts of the Vinayas, the two schools lived close to each other in Magadha or thereabouts,¹ and utilised a common source,² but while compiling their Abhidhammas, they were far from each other and developed the Abhidhamma literatures independently.³ From the nature of the contents of the Kathāvatthu of the Theravādins, it is also evident that the Abhidhammas were developed not only to add strength to their respective views but also to criticise the views of their opponents and establish their own against them. Hence, we can say that this period witnessed not only the appearance of the new schools but also a new development of the older ones.⁴

c5.s2.t1.2

² Theravāda: Suttapiṭaka: Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Aṅguttaranikāya, Saṃyuttanikāya and Khuddakanikāya. Sarvāstivāda: Dīrghāgama, Madhyamāgama, Ekottarāgama and Saṃyuktāgama.

c5.s2.t1.3

³ Theravāda: Vinayapiṭaka: Pātimokkha, Mahāvagga, Cullavagga, Suttavibhaṅga and Parivāra. Sarvāstivāda: Vinayapiṭaka: Vinayavastu, Prātimokṣasūtra, Vinayavibhaṅga, Vinayakṣudrakavastu and Vinaya-uttaragrantha.

c5.s2.t1.4

⁴ Theravāda: Abhidhamma: Dhammasaṅgaṇi, Vibhaṅga, Dhātukathā, Puggalapaññatti, Kathāvatthu, Yamaka and Paṭṭhāna. Sarvāstivāda: Abhidhamma: Saṅgītiparyāya, Dhātukāya, Prajñaptisāra, Dharmaskandha, Vijñānakāya and Prakaraṇapāda. For details see Early History etc., pp. 277 ff.

c5.s2.t1.5

¹ i.e., in the first period.

c5.s2.t1.6

² For a comparison of the fragments of Sarvāstivāda Āgamas with the corresponding portions of the Pāli Nikāyas, see Hoernle, *Manuscript Remains* etc., pp. 30 ff. For the correspondence, verbal and otherwise, between the Prātimoksa-sūtra of the Sarvāstivādins and the Pātimokkha of the Theravādins, see J.A., 1913; see also Lévi, J.A., 1912; Oldenberg, Z.D.M.G., vol. iii; Watanabe, *Tables of Problems in the Samyukta Āgama and Samyutta Nikāya* (Tokio, 1926).

c5.s2.t1.7

³ See J.P.T.S., 1904-5, pp. 60 ff.

c5.s2.t1.8

⁴ An evidence for the later growth of the Abhidhamma literature is the orthodox tradition (*Attha*., pp. 28-32) that Buddha did not preach the Abhidhamma in *extenso* but gave only the *mātikā*, which was later on developed by Sāriputta and handed down by him through his disciples to Revata. This evidence is important in view of the fact that this is a statement made by persons who believe that every thing of the scriptures is Buddhavacana. The rejection of the Abhidhamma by the Mahāsānghikas as non-canonical is also an evidence in support of our contention. See *Early History* etc., p. 235. In the *Kośa-vyākhyā* (p. 12) it is stated that the Abhidharma was preached in fragments by Buddha.

The Appearance of the Jātakas and Avadānas

c5.s2.t2.1

Besides the efforts of the old and the new schools to vie with one another in the field of literature, one notices also a keen competition among them for propagating among the masses the tenets of their respective schools, which, as a matter of fact, resulted in a great measure in the wide propagation of Buddhism.⁵ It is a well-known fact that the Jātakas and the *Avadānas* were meant for inspiring in the minds of the people a faith in Buddhism and thus popularising the religion.¹ The *Jātakas* were only an afterthought of the Theravādins. They originally did not form part of their scriptures (*Buddhavacana*). The *Jātaka Book*² or the floating mass of *Jātakas*, some of which found their way into the famous stone-monuments of India, belongs certainly to an ancient date as is proved by scholars like Rhys Davids, Cunningham, Oldenberg, and Winternitz, but still all of them are not considered to be of the same age as the *Nikāyas*. Rhys Davids' suggestion that the stories found both in the *Nikāyas* (i.e., *Suttanta-Jātakas* of the *Cullaniddesa*) and in the *Jātaka* collection form the oldest type of *Jātaka* stories and may be called pre-*Jātaka* is of great value.³

c5.s2.t2.2

⁵ The inscriptions, which speak of the gifts made to a particular

c5.s2.t2.3

¹ See Speyer, Preface to the *Ava. S.*, pp. v, vi.

c5.s2.t2.4

² In the *I.H.Q.*, vol. iv, p. 6, Prof. Winternitz draws our attention to the fact that the Mandalay and Phayre Mss. of the *Jātaka-Book* (i.e., *Verse-Jātaka*) have been examined by Dr. Weller and found to be extracts made from the *Jātaka* commentary. He, however, still cherishes the view that there was a canonical *Jātaka-Book* and that it was in verses.

c5.s2.t2.5

³ *Buddhist India*, pp. 190 f.; Mr. G. D. De (*Cal. Rev.* 1929-30) however shows that versions of some of the *Suttanta-Jātakas* are posterior to the versions of those of the *Jātaka-Aṭṭhakathā*; hence all *Nikāya-Jātakas* are not of the oldest type and cannot be called pre-*Jātaka*.

c5.s2.t2.6

The mention of *Jātakas* among the *Navāṅgas*, a very ancient division of the Buddhist scripture, may lead one to think that the most ancient Buddhists were not without a *Jātaka* literature of their own. This seems plausible at first sight, but it should be remembered that the division of Buddhist scriptures into nine *Aṅgas* does not refer to nine different groups of literature but to nine types of composition to be found in the collections of the ancient Buddhists. In school, add sometimes that the gifts were meant also for the *cāturdiśa saṅghas*, i.e., members of the Buddhist Saṅgha in general.

c5.s2.t2.7

Compare the *Ava. S.*, p. xxxix (*Kalpadrumāvadāna*) :

c5.s2.t2.8

Gacchata bhiksave yūyam sattvānām vinayārthataḥ,
Deśān pratyabhigacchantaḥ prakāśayata *saṃvṛtim*.

c5.s2.t2.9

(The word *saṃvṛti* in this verse is noteworthy. The Mahāyānists will not admit that the *dharmas* which were mostly propagated by the Hīnayānists at first were anything but the truth in disguise. There is, of course, also the hint that *paramārtha* truth is a matter for realisation and cannot be the subject of preaching.)

c5.s2.t2.10

one Sutta or Suttanta there may be portions which can be called a sutta, a geyya¹, a gāthā, an udāna, a veyyākaraṇa, an abbhutadhamma, or a jātaka. It was long after the navāṅga division was known that the compilations Udāna, Itivuttaka, and Jātaka came into existence. The explanation of navāṅgas as attempted by Buddhaghosa² also shows that he did not know any particular sections of literature corresponding to the navāṅgas. It is very interesting to notice in his exposition that for two of the nine aṅgas, viz., Vedalla and Abbhutadhamma,³ he could not find any work or group of works which could be classified under these headings and so he named some suttas which came under them. Taking these two as our clue, we may suggest that the other seven of the navāṅgas should also be explained in the same way. Instead of putting the whole Abhidhamma collection under Veyyākaraṇa,⁴ the Suttas, in which Sāriputta, Mahākaccāna or Buddha⁵ gave detailed expositions of the four truths or the eightfold path, or of any tenet of Buddhism or of any of the pithy sayings of Buddha, should have been included. So also the Jātaka-Aṅga does not refer to the 550 Jātakas as Buddhaghosa says, but to the few stories found in the Nikāyas, in which Buddha refers to incidents in one of his

c5.s2.t2.11

¹ Attha., p. 26: Sabbam pi sagāthakam suttam Geyyan ti veditabbam.

c5.s2.t2.12

² Sum. Vil., pp. 23, 24; Attha., p. 26; Petavatthu A., p. 2.

c5.s2.t2.13

³ Attha., p. 26: Sabbe pi acchariyabbhutadhammapaṭisamyuttā suttantā Abbhutadhamman ti veditabbam. The ‘Acchariyabbhutadhamma Sutta’ (Majjhima, III, pp. 118 f.) may be treated as one of the Abbhutadhamma class. For Abbhutadhamma, see also Mtu., III, p. 200.

c5.s2.t2.14

⁴ As done in the Attha., pp. 27-28.

c5.s2.t2.15

⁵ The Mahākaccānabhaddekaratta-sutta (Majjhima, III, No. 133) offers an excellent example of a sutta containing gāthā and veyyākaraṇa. The Mahākammavibhaṅga-sutta (Majjhima, III, No. 136) is a type of veyyākaraṇa sutta.

c5.s2.t2.16

Buddhaghosa makes himself quite clear in his attempt to establish that the Kathāvatthu is as much Buddha-bhāsita as were the Madhupiṇḍika and such other Suttas expounded by Mahākaccāna, Ānanda and others. His argument is that Buddha at some places gave only the mātikā (substance), which was sometimes explained by Mahākaccāna, and the whole of it was regarded as Buddhavacana. Suttas of this type, in my opinion, were meant to be included under Veyyākaraṇa-division. See Attha., p. 5.

c5.s2.t2.17

previous births. Pūrvānusmṛti is one of the abhijñās (superior knowledge) acquired by the Arhats; so it is quite in keeping with the tenets of early Buddhism to speak of one's previous existences. But the idea of utilising these stories of Pūrvānusmṛti as a means of propagation of the religion came later, at least, subsequent by a century and a half to the inception of Buddhism. So it is in the second period of our division that we must place the compilation or composition of the Abhidhamma and the Jātaka literatures.¹

c5.s2.t2.18

¹ In addition to what has been said in connection with the Abhidhamma (see fn. ante, p. 6), it may be pointed out that the Mahāsāṅghikas also rejected the claim of the Theravādins that the Abhidhamma and the Jātakas were canonical. Compare the Yogācāra tradition that in the first part of his life, Buddha preached the four Āgamas, Dharmānusmṛtyupasthāna, Lalitavistara, Karmaśataka and Avadānaśataka. Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 352. According to the Sarvāstivādins, each of the Abhidharma books had a compiler. Cf. Kośa-vyākhyā, p. 12: Śruyante hi abhidharmaśāstrāṇām kartāraḥ.

c5.s2.t2.19

Like Buddhaghosa, the Mahāyānic expositors attempted to classify their literature according to the twelve aṅgas—a division current among the Sarvāstivādins, the Mahāsāṅghikas and others, placing the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā under Sūtra, the Gaṇḍavyūha, Samādhirāja and Saddharmapuṇḍarīka under Vyākaraṇa, and so forth.² But this division of scriptures into twelve Aṅgas was not the work of the Mahāyānists. It had been made by the Sarvāstivādins³ and the Mahāsāṅghikas and followed by some of the other Hinayānic schools. The three additional Aṅgas are Nidāna, Avadāna and Upadeśa.⁴ Burnouf explains Nidāna as those treatises which show the causes antecedent to events, e.g., how Śākyamuni became a Buddha. The cause was the completion of the Pāramitās by Buddha and so the treatises, or the portions of treatises, describing the completion of pāramitās are called Nidānas. He also points out that there is no literature which is classified under Nidāna.¹ The explanation of Burnouf is supported by the Nidānakathā of the Jātakaṭṭhavaṇṇanā. But in the Mahāyāna literature as well as in the Mahāvastu, Nidāna signifies the introductory description which sometimes contains, as in the case of the Mahāvastu,² hints of the topics to be dealt with in the treatise. The description of the preparations made by Buddha, viz., entering into samādhi and putting forth rays of light from the body, the appearance of Buddhas on lotus, and so forth before the preaching of the Prajñāpāramitā, is called Nidāna.³ In the Tibetan versions of the Ratnakūṭa-sūtras, the place where a particular Sūtra was delivered is referred to as Nidāna.⁴ Considering the uses of this expression, we may take it as that aṅga (portion) of a treatise, which contains the introductory matters. The sense of the term Avadāna is clear and needs no comment. It includes all stories of previous births whether of Buddha or of any of his disciples or of any prominent figure professing the Buddhist faith, and a huge literature has grown under this heading.⁵ In the explanation of the term Upadeśa, however, there is some obscurity. There is hardly any justification for considering the Buddhist Tantras as coming under the heading Upadeśa, for they had not come into existence when the term Upadeśa came into vogue.⁶ It certainly means "instruction" and this is supported by the Tibetan rendering of the term by bab-par-bstan pahisde. In one⁷ of the Chinese texts it has been explained as those discourses which contain expositions of the profound and mysterious dharmas. That the term later on bore this sense is also apparent from the fact that the *Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikā* is sometimes called *Prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstra*.¹

c5.s2.t2.20

² Burnouf, Intro., pp. 51-67; Hodgson, Notices etc., in the Asiatic Researches, XVI; Wassiljew, Buddhismus, pp. 118 f.

c5.s2.t2.21

³ Kośa, VI, 29b. Professor La Vallée Poussin drew my attention to the fact that the 12 aṅgas are mentioned in Yaśomitra's Vyākhyā and not in the Kośa itself.

c5.s2.t2.22

⁴ Taking Vaipulya=Vedalla, see Kern, Manual of Buddhism, p. 7. For a discussion about Vaipulya=Vaitulya, see J.R.A.S., 1907, pp. 432ff and 1927, pp. 268ff; but cf. Buddhaghosa's interpretation in the Attha., p. 26.

c5.s2.t2.23

¹ Burnouf also points out the technical signification of the term Nidāna=12 links of the Pratītyasamutpāda. Cf. Nidānasutta in the Dīgha.

c5.s2.t2.24

² Mtu., I, pp. 2, 4.

c5.s2.t2.25

³ Pañca., p. 17.

c5.s2.t2.26

⁴ M. Lalou's paper in the J.A., 1928.

c5.s2.t2.27

⁵ See Speyer's Intro. to the Ava. Ś. The Pāli collection has also an Apadāna. It contains accounts of the previous lives of Arhats.

c5.s2.t2.28

⁶ Burnouf, op. cit., pp. 55-6; As. Res., XVI, p. 427; Wassiljew, op. cit., p. 119: "die Upadesas eine analystische Untersuchung der Lehre."

c5.s2.t2.29

⁷ On 12 Aṅgas, see Nanjio's Catalogue, No. 1199 (Taisho ed. of the Tripitaka, vol. 31, p. 586).

c5.s2.t2.30

¹ See my Intro. to the Pañca.

Incorporation of Pāramis in the Doctrines of the Theravādins

c5.s2.t3.1

One can easily observe the type of literature that was intended for inclusion under at least two of these headings. It consisted more of anecdotes, stories, parables and so forth than of the actual doctrines of Buddhism. They were incorporated into the Buddhist literature in the garb of Pūrvānusmṛtis, and the chief object was to popularise Buddhism and to show that they were meant as much for the benefit of the masses as for the selected few who could retire from the world. This is an innovation which the earliest orthodox school, the Theravādins, had to make reluctantly under the pressure of circumstances. Their early literature was ignorant of the pāramitās,² and much later, when they spoke of pāramis it was only to inspire faith in the minds of the people and not to set an example to incite them to fulfil the pāramis. The attitude of the Sarvāstivādins and the Mahāsānghikas, however, was different. They did not diminish in the least the extreme difficulty of the task of fulfilling the pāramitās, but they did not discourage people from the endeavour. Not only to inspire faith, but also to encourage people in the performance of *dāna*, *śīla*, *kṣānti*, *vīrya*, *dhyāna* and *prajñā*, they invented story after story and associated them not only with the life of Buddha but also with the lives of persons who attained prominence in the history of the Buddhist faith.

c5.s2.t3.2

² The omission of the Pāramis in the Dasuttara and Saṅgīti suttantas of the Dīgha is significant. The word ‘pāramippatto’ (*Majjhima*, III, p. 28) is sometimes found in the sense of perfection but not in the technical sense of six or ten pāramis.

c5.s2.t3.3

The Theravādins, it will be observed, speak of ten pāramis, viz., dāna, sīla, nekkhamma, paññā, viriya, khanti, sacca, adhiṭṭhāna, mettā, and upekkhā. Throughout the Sanskrit literature, whether Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna, earlier or later, the pāramitās are mentioned as six¹. It is in the Daśabhūmika-sūtra² that we first find mention of ten pāramitās, adding the following four to the usual six,—Upāyakauśalya, Praṇidhāna, Bala, and Jñāna. If we compare the three lists, it is evident that the conception of six pāramitās was the oldest. The Theravādins added to it Nekkhamma, Sacca, Adhiṭṭhāna, Mettā, and Upekkhā, and dropped Dhyāna. Apparently this list lacks a system,³ for the last two Mettā and Upekkhā are the two of the four brahmavihāras and have to be practised by all Arhats to perfection, while Sacca may easily be included in Sīla. Of the other two, Adhiṭṭhāna is to form a resolution (which in the case of Sumedha only was to become a Buddha) and to carry it out at any cost. It corresponds to Praṇidhāna of the Mahāyānists.⁴ The Nekkhamma pārami, i.e., retirement from the household life, was emphasised by the Theravādins, and, in fact, formed one of the chief features of the doctrines of this school, while it was let alone by the Mahāsānghikas and the Sarvāstivādins. The Mahāyānists also gave to Nekkhamma a superior place, but they did not make it imperative upon every being to retire in order to derive the benefits of the religion.

c5.s2.t3.4

¹ Divyā., pp. 95, 127, 490; Lal. Vis., pp. 345, 474; Sata., p. 242.

c5.s2.t3.5

² Daśa., pp. 63, 72, 81, 94. Cf. Mvyut. 34.

c5.s2.t3.6

³ Cf. Prof. La Vallée Poussin's remark in the E.R.E., sv. Bodhisattva.

c5.s2.t3.7

⁴ See Infra, ch. IV; for four kinds of Adhiṭṭhāna, see Mvyut., 80 and P.T.S. Dict.; Adhiṭṭhāna in the Mahāvamsa, ch. XVII, śl. 46.

c5.s2.t3.8

One of the main reasons for the differential treatment of the Pāramitās by the three schools is that the Theravādins rejected the idea of any being aspiring to Buddhahood, while the other two regarded the probability of a being becoming Buddha as a very rare event. In the Divyāvadāna,⁵ we find passages in which it is said that after the delivery of a discourse, some beings were established in the Truth, some in one of the four stages of sanctification, some developed aspiration for the attainment of Śrāvakabodhi or Pratyekabodhi, and some for Anuttarasamyaksambodhi. Remarks like these are significant and show that the Sarvāstivādins, to which school the Divyāvadāna belongs, ¹ were not as conservative as the Theravādins. The Mahāsānghikas, as is well-known, were the first to bring about this change in the angle of vision. They were the precursors of Mahāyāna, and hence, it is hardly necessary to adduce reasons why the practice of Pāramitās should form an integral part of their doctrines. So the introduction and formulation of the Pāramitās were due originally either to the Mahāsānghikas or the Sarvāstivādins and were adopted later on in a modified form by the Theravādins.

c5.s2.t3.9

⁵ Divyā., pp. 226, 271, 368, 469, 476, 478, 495, 569.

c5.s2.t3.10

¹ Csoma Kőrösi, As. Res., XX; Speyer, Intro. to the Ava. S.

c5.s2.t3.11

Closely connected with the Pāramitās are the Jātakas and the Avadānas, and consequently the Bharaut and Sanchi sculptures. All the three schools put forth their best efforts in propaganda, but it is still an open question as to which of the three schools inspired the origin of the famous stone monuments. Attempts have been made by many scholars ² to identify the sculptural representations of Jātakas, and many have been traced in the Jātakaṭṭhavaṇṇanā, but still the identifications are not all beyond doubt, and it is not improbable that a better elucidation of these sculptures will be found in the huge literature of Avadānas which are still in manuscript.

c5.s2.t3.12

² Of whom Cunningham, Oldenberg, Barua, Charpentier may be mentioned.

Propagation

c5.s2.t4.1

The efforts of the various schools to propagate their particular faith met with success, as is evidenced by the early stone monuments of India. Every school no doubt increased the number of its adherents and we have evidence of this in some of the inscriptions, belonging to a period little later than that with which we are here concerned. These inscriptions are records of gifts made specially to a particular school ³. But along with these we find inscriptions in which no particular sect is mentioned, but gifts are made for the benefit of the saṅgha of the four regions (cāturdiśa saṅgha).¹ This shows clearly that the devotees might have had faith in the tenets of one of the schools but they supported all the schools, i.e., Buddhism in general. As the dates of these inscriptions do not help us much with regard to the period under review, we have to confine ourselves to the scanty evidence yielded by the few works, whose dates of composition might be a little later, but which may be regarded as yielding materials for this period.

c5.s2.t4.2

³ E.g. Lüder's List, Nos. 1105, 1107.

c5.s2.t4.3

¹ E.g. Lüder's List, Nos. 1099, 1107.

c5.s2.t4.4

We have seen from the Nikāyas that early Buddhism was confined to the central belt of India from Aṅga to Avanti, claiming also a few adherents from the distant countries of the north and the south.² The account of the distribution of relics as given in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta in its Pāli and Tibetan versions³ gives a fairly correct idea of the spread of Buddhism towards the beginning of the first period. The people who shared the relics were the Licchavis of Vesālī, Sākyas of Kapilavatthu, Bulis of Allakappa, Koliyas of Rāmagāma, Brāhmaṇas of Veṭhadīpa, Mallas of Pāvā and Kusinārā, Moriyas of Pipphalivana, and the people of Magadha. The places mentioned are all in eastern India. The only place mentioned outside the eastern territory is Gandhārapura where a tooth of Buddha is said to have been enshrined.⁴ This is, as the commentator points out, a later addition; in any case, the people of Gandhārapura did not share in the relics. A further hint about the spread of Buddhism in the first period is furnished by the boundaries of the Majjhima-janapada as given in the Mahāvagga of the Vinaya.⁵ The boundaries are as follows: Kajaṅgala nigama in the east, next to the Mahāsālā forest, the river Sallavatī on the south-east, Setakaṇṇika nigama on the south, Thūna brāhmaṇagāma on the west and Usīra pabbata on the north. According to this account, Avantidakkhiṇāpatha is a paccantima-janapada (border country) and so also the country in the east beyond Kajaṅgala, which is identified with Bhagalpur.² The Divyāvadāna³ preserves this tradition replacing only the eastern boundary Kajaṅgala by Puṇḍravardhana. If Puṇḍravardhana be identified with a place in North Bengal, the Divyāvadāna shows a slight extension of the eastern boundary. The only other name in this account that deserves attention is the Usiradhaja of the Mahāvagga and Usīragiri of the Divyāvadāna. We know of an Usira mountain situated near Mathurā,⁴ and Tāranātha also tells us that Upagupta, the famous monk of Mathurā and preceptor, according to the Sarvāstivāda tradition, of Aśoka, lived there for three years before going to Kashmir after leaving Vārāṇasī.⁵ So it is apparent that Mathurā, a stronghold of the Sarvāstivādins, was included in the Majjhima-janapada.

c5.s2.t4.5

² See for details, Early History, etc., pp. 92, 137ff., 155, 169ff; Dr. E. J. Thomas, Life of the Buddha, Map.

c5.s2.t4.6

³ Dīgha, II, p. 167; As. Res., XX, p. 316.

c5.s2.t4.7

⁴ Dīgha, II, p. 167.

c5.s2.t4.8

⁵ Mv., I, p. 197; Jāt., I, 49; Divyā., p. 21.

c5.s2.t4.9

² For the identification of the boundaries of the Majjhima-janapada see S. N. Majumdar's Intro. to Cunningham's Geography, p. xliii.

c5.s2.t4.10

³ Divyā., p. 21: Puṇḍravardhana on the east; Sarāvatī on the south; Sthūṇopasthūṇaka brāhmaṇagrāmas on the west; and Usīragiri on the north.

c5.s2.t4.11

⁴ Watters' Yuan Chwang, I, p. 308.

c5.s2.t4.12

⁵ Tāra., pp. 10, 13.

c5.s2.t4.13

From the accounts of the Vesāli Council also, as given in the Cullavagga⁶ and in the Vinayas of the Sarvāstivāda and Dharmagupta schools, it seems that the horizon of Buddhism, even at the beginning of the second century after the rise of Buddhism, did not extend far. The geographical information that can be derived from this account is as follows: Yasa, the convener of the orthodox council of Vesāli came from Vesāli to Kosambi, and from Kosambi he sent messengers to the bhikkhus of Pātheyya and Avantidakkhiṇāpatha. Sambhūta Sāṇavāsi was at that time living on the Ahogaṅga mountain where assembled the sixty bhikkhus of Pātheyya and eighty bhikkhus of Avantidakkhiṇāpatha, all observers of Dhutaṅga precepts. Revata, who lived at Soreyya, passing through Saṅkassa, Kaṇṇakujja, Udumbara and Aggalapura, came to Sahajāti. Saḷha of Sahajāti found after deliberation that the Pātheyyaka bhikkhus were right, while the Pācīnaka bhikkhus were wrong. For the settlement of the disputed questions was formed a committee on which Sabbakāmi, Saḷha, Khujjasobhita and Vāsabhagāmika represented the Pācīnakas, and Revata, Sambhūta Sāṇavāsi, Yasa, and Sumana represented the Pātheyyakas. An important fact that should be noticed in this account is the division of monks into two sections, the Pācīnakas and the Pātheyyakas. The Pācīnakas indicated the easterners, of whom the Vesālians were the foremost; to this section belonged Sabbakāmi,¹ a disciple of Ānanda, and Saḷha, a distinguished monk of Sahajāti. The Pātheyyakas were the monks dwelling in Kosambi, Pātheyya and Avantidakkhiṇāpatha; to this section belonged Sambhūta Sāṇavāsi, an important figure in the traditions of both the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins, also Revata, an old bhikkhu of Soreyya, and Yasa, famous in connection with the Second Council.²

c5.s2.t4.14

¹ Mv., I, p. 197.

c5.s2.t4.15

⁶ Cv., XII, i, 7f. See Ind. Ant., 1908, Councils, etc.; Pag Sam Jon Zang, p. viii; for the Mahiśāsaka tradition, see Wassiljew's notes in the App. to Tāra., pp. 289-290.

c5.s2.t4.16

¹ According to the *Cv.* (xii, 21) he was then ordained 120 years, *i.e.*, he must have been more than 140 years old. *Pag Sam Jon Zang* (p. 81) refers to his taking part in the Second Council, which was held, according to it, under the auspices of Mahāpadma Nanda.

c5.s2.t4.17

² For details, see *I.A.*, 1908.

Traditions of Ācariyaparamparā

c5.s2.t5.1

The traditions of the second council as preserved by the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins are the same,³ and as far as the succession of monks is concerned, there is also no disagreement. The Theravādins only refer to Sambhūta Sāṇavāsi as a member of the committee of the second council, while the Sarvāstivādins speak of him as the patriarch who succeeded Ānanda. The two traditions bifurcate after the second council, one speaking of the Asokan Council under the leadership of Moggaliputta Tissa, while the other ignores it, speaking of Upagupta as the religious adviser of Asoka, and dwelling at length on the Kaniskan Council at Jalandhara instead of the Asokan Council. This divergence of tradition is significant, and henceforth the history of Buddhism is no longer the history of one form of Buddhism but of many, principally of the three schools, Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, and Mahāsānghika.¹ The Theravāda is pre-eminently a Vinaya school,² and though the Tibetan tradition ascribes to Kaccāyana its leadership,³ we may notice that Upāli as the compiler of the Vinaya was highly venerated by the Theravādins, and his connection with the Asokan Council is established through his disciples. It should be observed that though the Theravādins speak of the line of disciples (*ācariyaparamparā*) from Upāli or Sāriputta, there is no idea of patriarchal succession. In the *Majjhima Nikāya*⁴ it is expressly stated that in the Buddhist Sangha there is no recognised head. The Tibetan and Chinese traditions have, in fact, given currency to the idea of patriarchal succession. The *Atthasālinī* also gives us a list of ācariyas of the Abhidhammikas, tracing it from Sāriputta, which, however, is not worth credence.⁵ The traditions of the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins about the ācariyaparamparā of the first two centuries may be combined thus:—

c5.s2.t5.2

³ *I.A.*, 1908, pp. 4 ff; 89 ff.

c5.s2.t5.3

¹ Tāranātha (p. 44) refers also to Sthavira Vatsa who introduced the Ātmaka theory. He adds that Dhitika, who succeeded Upagupta, convened a council in the Puskarinī vihāra (of Maru Land) to suppress the Ātmaka theory of Vatsa and succeeded to convince the followers of Vatsa and, ultimately, the teacher himself of the untenability of the theory. This legend evidently refers to the Vātsīputrīyas or the Vajjiputtakas, from whom sprang the Sāmmitīyas who attained prominence during the rule of Harṣavardhana. See *Early History etc.*, pp. 297 ff.

c5.s2.t5.4

² *Early History etc.*, p. 211; Watters, *Yuan Chwang*, I, p. 302 referring to the Vinayists, (*i.e.*, the Theravadins) as worshipping Upāli.

c5.s2.t5.5

³ Wassiljew, *op. cit.*, p. 295., Eitel, *Handbook etc.*

c5.s2.t5.6

⁴ *Majjhima*, Sutta 108; see also Dutt, *Early Buddhist Monachism*, pp. 141 f.

c5.s2.t5.7

⁵ *Attha.*, p. 32: Ācariyaparamparā: Sāriputtathero Bhaddaji Sobhito Piyajāli Piyapālo Piyadassi Kosiyaputto Siggavo Sandeho Moggaliputto Visudatto Dhammiyo Dāsako Sonako Revato ti. (Then in Ceylon) Mahindo Iddhiyo Uttiyo Bhaddanāmo ca Sambalo.

c5.s2.t5.9

Mahākassapa Ananda Sāṇavāsika (teacher of Śrāvastī and its neighbourhood) Upagupta (Tirhut-Mathura: Religious adviser of Aśoka according to the Sarvāstivāda tradition) Dhitika (Converted at Mathura, visited or lived in Kasmir, Tukhāra, Kāmarūpa, and Mālava. His contemporary and converts were Menander and Hermaios) Sāriputta Bhaddaji Sobhita Madhyāntika (Benares-Usīra, and then teacher of Kasmir) Upāli Dāsaka (Vesali) Sonaka (Rājagaha) Siggava (Pāṭaliputra) Moggaliputta Tissa (Pāṭaliputra: Religious adviser of Asoka according to the Theravāda tradition) Nāgasena of Milindapañha (if Mināra of Tāranātha= Milinda of the Pāli text)

c5.s2.t5.10

As I have already remarked, we must not take ācariya-paramparā as patriarchal succession, nor should we attempt to calculate the duration of abbotship on the basis of an average period, as is usually done in connection with kings, for the Buddhist saints were generally long-lived, and there was no custom of a disciple succeeding his teacher. Moreover the ordination of disciples could have happened in the earliest or the latest part of a teacher's life. According to Tāranātha, Madhyāntika was ordained by Ānanda shortly before his death;¹ hence it is quite possible that he was a contemporary of both Sāṇavāsī and Upagupta, or of Dāsaka, Soṇaka, Siggava, and Moggaliputta. Reading the tradition in this way, and also observing the names of places, which were the centres of activity of the various bhikkhus, we may say that after the Council of Vesālī, the Sarvāstivādins attained more and more popularity and spread towards the north, having two important centres, one at Mathura with Upagupta as the chief teacher, and the other in Kasmir with Madhyāntika as the chief, the two centres having later on coalesced under the leadership of Dhitika, who, it seems, greatly extended the horizon of influence of the Sarvāstivāda school by pushing it eastward to Kāmarūpa, westward to Mālava, and north-westward to Tukhāra, the realm of Mināra and Imhasa. The Theravādins retained their seat in Magadha all along with a branch at Ujjeni, founded by Mahākaccāyana. Mahinda and Saṅghamittā,¹ it seems, were closely connected with the Ujjeni branch of the Theravāda school and propagated the same in Ceylon.

c5.s2.t5.11

¹ Tāra., p. 9.

c5.s2.t5.12

¹ It is noteworthy that with the ordination of Mahinda are associated the names of Majjhantika (very probably of Kasmir fame) and Mahādeva, the propagator of Buddhism in Mahiṣamaṇḍala along with Moggaliputta. See also *Early History* etc., pp. 260 ff.

Asoka's Part in the Propagation of Buddhism

c5.s2.t6.1

We are yet in the dark about the part played by Asoka in the propagation of Buddhism. If he helped in the propagation of Buddhism at all, we are not aware whether he supported any particular school of Buddhism, or Buddhism in general. Throughout his exhortations, so far as they have been found in the Edicts, there is not the slightest hint of his actively helping the propagation of Buddhism. His edicts refer to the *dhammavijaya* as opposed to conquest by arms, but by *dhamma* he does not mean Buddhism. His *dhamma* consisted of maxims for leading an ideal life and performing meritorious acts which make a person happy in this world as well as the next. The edicts do not contain a single reference to Nirvāṇa or Śūnyatā, Anātma or Duḥkha, while on the other hand, they speak of heaven, and happiness in a heavenly life,² which was never an ideal of early Buddhism, for it considered existence in any one of the three dhātus, Kāma, Rūpa and Arūpa to be misery (*duḥkha*). But it must be admitted that when an emperor like Asoka shows a bias for a particular religion and even proclaims himself to be a Buddhist upāsaka and pays visits to the monasteries or sacred places of the Buddhists, the religion automatically receives an impulse, and its propagation by the Buddhist monks then becomes easy. So we may regard Asoka as a passive propagator of Buddhism, and, during his rule, the religion probably made its way throughout his kingdom, also reaching places beyond his dominion, viz., the kingdoms of the Yavanas, Kambojas, Gāndhāras, Pitinikas on the west, and Codas, Pāṇḍyas as far as the Tāmraparṇi on the south.¹ As Asoka was an adherent of Buddhism only as a supporter, or as an upāsaka,² we cannot expect him to be interfering in the sectarial disputes that were going on in his time. Hence it is difficult to attach importance to the tradition of the Mahāvaṃsa that he supported the Vibhajjavādins (=Theravādins),³ or to that of the Avadānas that he was an ardent devotee of Upagupta. It is also remarkable that he does not refer to the Bodhisattva conception, nor to the pāramitās, which could suitably have been incorporated into his code of moral maxims. His admonition to his subjects to choose the middle path, avoiding the two extremes, viz., of retirement from the world on the one hand and of indulgence in envy, anger, laziness and so forth on the other,⁴ shows that he was not so much in favour of retirement from household life, upon which the early Hīnayāna Buddhists always laid emphasis. Asoka's preference for the life of an ideal upāsaka as against that of a monk may have stimulated the Buddhist monks to devise ways and means to popularise their religion, and as the result of the efforts of the monks in this direction, we have the large number of the Jātakas and Avadānas.

c5.s2.t6.2

² Hultzsch, *Corpus*, p. liii. The remark of Dr. Hultzsch that Asoka's *dhamma*, preaching for heavenly life, represents an earlier stage of Nirvāṇa is without any foundation.

c5.s2.t6.3

¹ For details, see Hultzsch, *Corpus* (1925), pp. xxxviii, xxxix.

c5.s2.t6.4

² *Ibid.*, pp. xliv-xlv.

c5.s2.t6.5

³ *Mahāvaṃsa*, p. 54.

c5.s2.t6.6

⁴ Hultzsch, op. cit., p. 114. The rendering of Prinsep, Bhandarkar and Smith is adopted here in preference to that of Hultzsch whose rendering does not appear to be in consonance with the general tenor of the inscription. See M. N. Basu's remarks in this connection in the *I.H.Q.*, III, p. 349.

c5.s2.t6.7

The tradition of the Mahāvaṃsa about the part played by Asoka in the Third Council with Moggaliputta Tissa as its head, and about the despatch of missionaries to the various parts of India still awaits verification. It is not improbable that a sectarian council of the Theravādins was held under the leadership of Moggaliputta Tissa during Asoka’s rule, and that an active propaganda was set on foot to spread Buddhism in the various territories in and outside India,¹ which the *Mahāvaṃsa* recorded with a colouring of its own. In the same way, we can account for the two religious advisers of Asoka, namely Upagupta and Moggaliputta Tissa. Asoka as an impartial ruler offered equal treatment to the Buddhists and non-Buddhists. In the circumstances, it may be inferred that he would not support one school of Buddhism against another. The Theravādins as well as the Sarvāstivādins associated his name with the contemporaneous leading figures of their respective sects in order to add importance to themselves. So it would be fruitless to attempt an identification of Moggaliputta Tissa with Upagupta—as is done by Smith and other scholars.² We may with some amount of confidence accept the tradition of the *Mahāvaṃsa* that about the time of Asoka, Buddhism made its way to the countries of Kasmīra-Gandhāra, Mahisamandala, Vanavāsī, Yona, Mahāraṭṭha, Himavantapadesa, Suvaṇṇabhūmi and Laṅkādipa.³

c5.s2.t6.8

¹ The coincidence of the tradition of the Sarvāstivādins that Madhyāntika was the propagator of Buddhism in the north with that of the *Mahāvaṃsa* that Majjhantika was despatched to convert Kasmīra-Gandhāra, and the corroboration of the tradition by the caskets containing the relics with the inscriptions (on the top of the lid) ‘sapurisasa Kasapagotasa savahemavatācariyasa,’ and (inside the lid) ‘sapurisa(sa) Majhimasa’ deserve consideration. See Cunningham, *Bhilsa Topes*, p. 287.

c5.s2.t6.9

² Waddell in *J.A.S.B.*, 1897, pt. i, p. 76; *Proc. A.S.B.*, 1899, p. 70; Smith, *Early History of India*, 4th ed., p. 199 fn.

c5.s2.t6.10

³ *Mahāvaṃsa*, p. 94; *Sāsanavamsa*, p. 10. For detailed treatment see Smith, *Asoka* (3rd ed.), p. 44; Bhandarkar, *Asoka*, pp. 159ff.

Career of the Mahāsāṅghikas

c5.s2.t7.1

Further light might be thrown on the propagation of Buddhism during this period, if the tradition of the Mahāsāṅghikas had been to hand. It may be that the Chinese versions of the Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya may contain some information, but as yet we are in the dark about it. In the absence of any Mahāsānghika tradition, we cannot have much definite information about the Mahāsānghikas, or the part of India to which they confined their activities. From the account of the Vesālian Council, we can say that they retained their seat at Vesāli, and from the inscriptions on the Mathura Lion Capital (120 B.C.)¹ and on the Wardak vase in Afghanistan,² it may be inferred that they made attempts to proceed towards the north, but the caves of Karle and the location of the centre of activities of their offshoots, the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas, at Dhanakaṭaka³ indicate that they were later on successful in their propaganda more in the south than in the north.

c5.s2.t7.2

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, IX, pp. 139, 141, 146.

c5.s2.t7.3

² *Ibid.*, XI, p. 211; for other places in India where the Mahāsānghikas made their way, see *Early History* etc., pp. 241 ff.

c5.s2.t7.4

³ See infra; Pag Sam Jon Zang, p. 74: Dhana-srihi-gliṅ.

c5.s2.t7.5

According to Dr. Burgess the Amarāvatī stūpas at Dharaṇikoṭ (Dhānyakaṭaka) were originally constructed as early as the 2nd century B.C.⁴ and Nāgārjuna was closely associated with the Buddhist establishment of this place. At any rate there is no doubt about the fact that Dhānyakaṭaka was the chief centre of the Caityakas, the Pūrva- and Aparasaila branches of the Mahāsānghika school, and that the people living there and in its neighbourhood lavished gifts on this Buddhist establishment. It was one of the places mentioned in the *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa*⁵ as suitable for carrying on Buddhistic practices. The *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* also mentions that it contained the relics of Buddha.⁶ This is corroborated by the recent find of an inscription, recording a gift of a pillar by the sister of Mahārāja Mādhariputra Śrīvirapuruṣadatta to the caitya enshrining the dhātu of Sammāsambuddha. Among the inscriptions of this place, edited by Dr. Burgess, there is one (No. 121) which refers to the Caityakas, of which the Pūrva- and Aparasailas were branches. Among the recent finds in the neighbourhood of the place, two among other inscriptions have been found, referring to the Puvaseliya (Pūrvaśaila) and Avaras (Aparaśaila).¹ The inscriptions are supposed to be of the 2nd century A.D. Another important place near Dhānyakaṭaka was Śrīparvata (Srisailam), where, according to the Tibetan tradition, Nāgārjuna passed his last days.² The Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa also takes notice of this mountain as a suitable place for Buddhistic practices, and one of the inscriptions, recently found, records that some devotees constructed a number of caityas and vihāras, and dug wells for pilgrims visiting the sacred place from Gandhāra, Cina, Aparānta, Vaṅga, Vanavāsī, Tambapaṇṇidīpa, etc.³ From these facts, it may be concluded that about the beginning of the Christian era there was on the bank of the Krishna in the Guntur district a very important centre of the Mahā-sāṅghikas. The name Andhakas given to the offshoots of this school⁴ also point to the fact of its popularity in the Andhra country and of its being supported, as the Amarā-vatī inscriptions show, by the kings, nobles and people of the Andhra country.

c5.s2.t7.6

⁴ Burgess, *Amaravati and Jaggayapeta Stupas*, p. 100.

c5.s2.t7.7

⁵ *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series), p. 88.

c5.s2.t7.8

⁶ *Ibid.*: Śridhānyakaṭake caitye jinadhātudhare.

c5.s2.t7.9

¹ Annual Report of S. I. Epigraphy, 1924, p. 97; 1926, pp. 70, 92-03; 1927, p. 42; see also I.H.Q., V, pp. 794-6.

c5.s2.t7.10

² Burgess, op. cit., p. 6; Tāra., pp. 73, 81.

c5.s2.t7.11

³ Annual Report of S.I. Epigraphy, 1927, pp. 43, 71. Dr. L. D. Barnett kindly drew my attention to the recent finds of the inscriptions.

c5.s2.t7.12

⁴ Kathāvatthuppakaraṇaṭṭhakathā, p. 52.

Buddhism after Asoka

c5.s2.t8.1

The Mahāvamsa and the Sāsanavamsa present a connected history of Buddhism in India up to the period of Asoka, and then turn to the history of Buddhism in Ceylon, leaving us in the dark about the career of the Theravādins in India, till we come to the Milindapañha. From it we learn that king Milinda of Sāgala (Sialkot, Lahore) took great interest in Buddhism, and that Nāgasena, a native of Kajaṅgala, the easternmost boundary of the Majjhima-janapada, came to him, passing through Vaṭṭanīya and Pāṭali-putta. He stopped at the Saṅkheyya pariveṇa at Sāgala.

c5.s2.t8.2

This account of Nāgasena’s route indicates that Buddhism had already made its way as far north as Sāgala.¹

c5.s2.t8.3

¹ *Mil.*, pp. 8, 16.

c5.s2.t8.4

Tāranātha, however, continues the story and gives us an account of the spread of Buddhism after Asoka, but as his narrative is based mainly on the Sarvāstivāda tradition, we may regard this story as essentially that of the Sarvāstivādins. He tells us that Upagupta ordained Dhitika,² a native of Ujjayinī, at Mathura, the usual place of residence of Upagupta. The teachership was transferred from Upagupta to Dhitika, who spread the religion widely, and converted Mināra, the king of Tukhāra. Many monks of his time went thither from Kasmir and established firmly the religion at that place. They were supported by both King Mināra and his son Imhasa.³ He then went to the east at Kāmarūpa where he converted the rich brahmin Siddha and established the religion there. After this, he visited Mālava and converted the rich brahmin, Adarpa, laying thereby the foundation of the religion in that region. He came at length to his native place at Ujjayinī and there spent his last days. He was succeeded by Kāla or Kṛṣṇa,⁴ who was followed by Sudarśana of Bharukaccha. The spheres of activity of both these monks were in the west (Sindhu) and the north (Kasmir) of India generally. In connection with Kṛṣṇa, it is stated that he spread the religion in the south of India, in many small islands including Ceylon, and subsequently in Mahācīna.⁵ Poshadha who came after him spread Buddhism in Orissa during the rule of Vigatāśoka.⁶ Tāranātha’s history is full of legends, and as such all his statements cannot be taken as authentic. But considering the fact that he makes some statements which are not *prima facie* unreasonable, and are in many cases corroborated by the Chinese travellers, we can attach to them some importance, though, of course, great caution should be exercised.

First 134 of 299 passages. Read on

Linked texts (61)