Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c5.s2.t13: The Mahāsānghikas Were Essentially Hīnayānists

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c5.s2.t13

Language
English

The Mahāsānghikas Were Essentially Hīnayānists

c5.s2.t13.1

Thus we see that the Sarvāstivādins were as much responsible for the growth of Mahāyāna as the Mahāsānghikas.

c5.s2.t13.2

Apart from the Buddhological speculations, the Mahāsānghikas cannot claim much as their contribution to the growth of Mahāyāna. It may be that the *Prajñāpāramitā* which, as the Tibetan tradition tells us, was possessed by the Pūrvaśailas, contributed much to the philosophy of Mahāyāna but as yet we are completely in the dark about this *Prajñāpāramitā*. From Vasumitra's account of the tenets of the Mahāsānghikas¹ or from the discussions found in the *Kathāvatthu* about the doctrines of the Mahāsānghikas, one hardly notices anything particularly Mahāyānic in them. For instance, the Mahāsānghikas speak

c5.s2.t13.3

¹ Masuda, *op. cit.*

c5.s2.t13.4

(i) of the pañca- (or ṣad-) vijñānakāya, differing from the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins as to the function of the physical organs of sense;²

c5.s2.t13.5

² Masuda, *op. cit.*, I, 22-4, *Kvu.*, xviii, 9; x, 3-4.: Pañcaviññānasamangissa atthi maggabhāvanā (one may practise the path while he has fivefold consciousness). The conception of Vijñāna of the Mahāsānghikas is a little different from that of the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins, specially, in view of two other tenets held by them, viz., "At one and the same moment, two minds (citta) can arise side by side" and "the nature of mind is pure in its origin, etc". Masuda, *op. cit.*, A. 43, B. 3.

c5.s2.t13.6

(ii) of the four or eight Hinayānic stages of sanctification with the attainments appertaining thereto,³ the *Kathāvatthu* adding that the Mahāsānghikas assert that the Arhats have avijjā-vicikicchā as they cannot comprehend the things that come within the purview of Buddha (Buddhaviṣaya) ;⁴

c5.s2.t13.7

³ Masuda, *op. cit.*, I, 26-30, 33-5, 39, 48; *Mtu.*, I, p. 139.

c5.s2.t13.8

⁴ *Kvu.*, xxi, 3; i, 2. The Theravādins hold that sabbaññutañāṇa (omniscience) is a special acquisition of Buddhas and beyond the scope of Arhats; so it is wrong to hold that Arhats have avijjā-vicikicchā. Cf. Vasumitra (Masuda, *op. cit.*, I, 35): "That according to the Mahāsānghikas, Arhats are liable to sink while the *Kathāvatthu* (i, 2, *Cy.*, p. 35) says that some of the Mahāsānghikas hold that Arhats are not thus liable".

c5.s2.t13.9

(iii) of the indispensability of the application (prayoga) of prajñā for destroying duḥkha and obtaining sukha (i.e., final beatitude, Nirvāṇa), one of the most important tenets of the Hinayānic schools;⁵ (iv) of samyagdṛṣṭi, śraddhendriya as not laukika (worldly). the *Kathāvatthu*¹ adding that the Mahāsānghikas hold that old age and death could neither be lokiya (worldly) nor lokuttara (transcendental), because they are aparinipphanna, (unmade),² and because the "decay and death of supramundane thing is supramundane and cannot be mundane";³

c5.s2.t13.10

⁵ Masuda, *op. cit.*, I, 31: For Prajñā and Prayoga, see also *Mtu.*,

c5.s2.t13.11

¹ *Kvu.*, xv, 6.

c5.s2.t13.12

² Mrs. Rhys Davids translates it by "not pre-determined".

c5.s2.t13.13

³ *Points of the Controversy*, xv, 6.

c5.s2.t13.14

(v) of samyaktva-niyāma⁴ (destined for right knowledge) and the consequent destruction of samyojanas (fetters);

c5.s2.t13.15

⁴ i.e., one who has entered into the Darśanamārga, see Masuda, op. cit., p. 27 fn.; Cf. Pañca., leaf 262b.

c5.s2.t13.16

(vi) of Buddha’s preaching the dharma in the nītārtha sense;⁵

c5.s2.t13.17

⁵ Masuda, op. cit., I, 5, 40. This goes directly against the Mahāyānic view that Buddha’s discourses have two senses, nītārtha and neyyārtha, and also against the Sarvāstivāda view. See Masuda, op. cit., p. 52.

c5.s2.t13.18

(vii) of asaṃskṛta dharmas as being nine in contrast to three of the Sarvāstivādins;⁶

c5.s2.t13.19

⁶ Masuda, op. cit., I, 41.

c5.s2.t13.20

(viii) of upakleśas (impurities), anuśayas (dormant passions) and paryavasthānas (pervading passions);⁷

c5.s2.t13.21

⁷ Ibid., I, 44.

c5.s2.t13.22

(ix) of the non-existence of phenomena of the past and future, as against the opinion of the Sarvāstivādins,⁸ and

c5.s2.t13.23

⁸ Ibid., I, 45.

c5.s2.t13.24

(x) of the non-existence of antarābhava (existence intermediate between death and re-birth) as against the opinion of the Sarvāstivādins⁹ and the Sāmmitīyas.

c5.s2.t13.25

⁹ Ibid., I, 47.

c5.s2.t13.26

In these and on a few other points of difference noticed in the work of Vasumitra and the *Kathāvatthu*, there is very little to distinguish them as distinctly Mahāyānic. In the *Mahāvastu*¹⁰ also, the discourses on the Truths¹¹ or the Causal I, p. 270. Throughout *Mtu.* one notices that Nirvāṇa was conceived as sukha (kṣeme sthale śame śive nirvāṇe, *Mtu.*, I, p. 34). The Mahāyānists will have nothing to do with duḥkha or sukha.

c5.s2.t13.27

¹⁰ It does not really belong to the Mahāsānghikas; so its date must be later, and it may be relegated to the third period of our division. Only those passages which corroborate the tenets of the Mahāsānghikas mentioned in the treatise of Vasumitra are referred to here.

c5.s2.t13.28

¹¹ *Mtu.*, III, pp. 334, 446.

c5.s2.t13.29

Law, or on anitya, duḥkha, and anātma do not go beyond the limits of the Hinayāna conceptions. The only Mahāyānic traces in the tenets of the Mahāsānghikas are:—

c5.s2.t13.30

(i) the Buddhological speculations, *viz.*, that Buddhas are lokottara (supramundane), without any sāsrava dharma (defiled elements), possessed of limitless rūpakāya,¹ prabhāva (power), and āyu² (length of life), can remain without any sleep or dream, are always in Samādhi, and do not preach by name or designation, possess kṣaṇacitta (*i.e.*, understand all dharmas with a moment's thought), and so forth; and

c5.s2.t13.31

¹ Cf. *Mtu.*, I, p. 263: Buddha appears everywhere. In the Nikāyas one also reads "eko pi hutvā bahudhā hoti, etc." *Dīgha*, I, p. 78. In the *Lalita Vistara* (p. 100) we read of the Bodhisattva appearing in all the houses presented to him by the Sakiyans.

c5.s2.t13.32

² Masuda, *op. cit.*, I, pp. 18, 19; *Kvu.*, xi, 5: The Mahāsānghikas cite the passage of the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, in which Buddha said to Ānanda that he could live many kalpas if he had wished so. The Theravādins without refuting this statement cite another passage which goes against this view.

c5.s2.t13.33

(ii) the Bodhisattva conception, *viz.*, that the Bodhisattvas are not born and do not grow in the womb in the same way as an ordinary being, are not defiled by the impurities of the womb,³ enter the womb in full consciousness,⁴ never harbour any feeling of kāma (lust),⁵ hatred or injury, and take birth in hina-gatis (lower forms of existences) for the benefit of the various classes of sentient beings, and so forth.⁶

c5.s2.t13.34

³ *Mtu.*, I, p. 143; II, pp. 14-15: Garbhāvakrānti and sthiti are all miraculous; Bodhisattvas are not touched by any impurities, *Mtu.*, II, pp. 16, 20.

c5.s2.t13.35

⁴ *Mtu.*, II, p. 10.

c5.s2.t13.36

⁵ *Mtu.*, I, p. 153: Kāmā na sevanti. Rāhula was an aupapāduka. He descended from Tuṣita heaven and remained in mother's womb for six years (*Mtu.*, III, p. 159).

c5.s2.t13.37

⁶ Masuda, *op. cit.*, p. 21.

c5.s2.t13.38

These Buddhological speculations are more or less corollaries to the Mahāsānghika conception of the life of Śakyamuni. The Mahāsānghikas do not show thereby any recognition that all beings can become Bodhisattvas and ultimately Buddhas. The conception of the four caryās and the ten bhūmis of the Lokottaravādins indicates a slight leaning to Mahāyānism. Thus there appears to be little of Mahāyāna in the tenets of the Mahāsānghikas.¹ The Mahāsānghikas, therefore, were essentially Hinayānists, only with the conception of Buddha slightly different.

c5.s2.t13.39

¹ The tenet of the Mahāsānghikas that "the nature of mind is pure in its origin; it becomes impure when it is stained by passions (upakleśas), the adventitious dust (āgantukarajas)" has, according to Masuda, been developed by Aśvaghoṣa in his *Awakening of Faith*. See Masuda, *op. cit.*, p. 30.

c5.s2.t13.40

Now we can state briefly the history of Buddhism in the second period thus:

c5.s2.t13.41

1. Buddhism is no longer one. It divides itself into three principal sections, viz., the Theravāda, the Sarvāstivāda, and the Mahāsānghika. The Theravādins remained in the central belt of India, making their position stronger in Avanti where Mahākaccāyana had laid the foundation of Buddhism and from which place Mahinda was sent out to Ceylon to propagate the Theravāda Buddhism. The Sarvāstivādins were also in the central belt of India with their centres of activity in Mathura and Kasmir, the former being founded by Upagupta and the latter by Madhyāntika. Dhitika, the successor of both Upagupta and Madhyāntika, spread it widely all over Northern India including Tukhāra on the north-west, Mālava, and Odivisa (Orissa), and Kāmarūpa on the east. The Mahāsānghikas established themselves at Vesāli and had followers sprinkled all over Northern India, but they became popular in the south. In short, Buddhism during this period spread all over Northern India and portions of Southern India.

c5.s2.t13.42

2. Emperor Asoka took a great interest in Buddhism but did not help any particular sect. The dhamma preached in his edicts is mainly ethical and lacks the specific colourings of any school of Buddhism or of later Buddhism. He encouraged more the leading of a righteous household life than that of a monk or an ascetic. He, however, respected and supported the monks and recluses. The interest taken by rulers, like Mināra and Imhasa, helped greatly the propagation of Buddhism outside India.

c5.s2.t13.43

3. The relation of the laity to the Buddhist Saṅgha was not materially altered as compared with previous conditions but a greater interest was created for the laity by popularising Buddhism through the Jātakas and Avadānas, and by holding up the Pāramitā practices before their view.

c5.s2.t13.44

4. Much stress was laid on the composition of the Jātakas and Avadānas, and great religious merit was attached to reading, writing, painting, and carving them. This caught the fancy of the laity as a means of earning religious merit, and resulted in many sculptures, only some of which are preserved to us at Sanchi and Bharaut. The credit of popularising the religion through the Jātakas and Avadānas is due, in the first instance, to the Sarvāstivādins, and later, to the Theravādins.

c5.s2.t13.45

5. The old division of Navāṅga is increased to Dvādaśāṅga by the addition of Nidāna, Avadāna, and Upadeśa. Though the Jātakas formed one of the divisions of the Navāṅga, they did not exist as a separate literature, but were embodied in the discourses purporting to have been delivered by Buddha and his disciples.

c5.s2.t13.46

6. The Life of Buddha commenced not from the time of Siddhārtha’s retirement but from the first resolution (praṇidhāna) formed by Sumedha brāhmaṇa, and the prophecy (veyyākaraṇa) made by Dīpaṅkara Buddha.

c5.s2.t13.47

7. The essential doctrines are still the same as in the first period with slight changes, e.g., the addition of śūnya to the usual anitya, duḥkha, and anātma, and of the six pāramitās to the thirty-seven Bodhipakṣika dharmas.

c5.s2.t13.48

8. Some radical changes were effected in the tenets of the schools which developed during this period, e.g., the Sarvāstivādins started their doctrine of realism, of the existence of past, present, and future, and so forth, while the Mahāsāṅghikas conceived Buddha docetically and introduced the Bodhisattva conception.

c5.s2.t13.49

9. The goal of life remained Arhathood and Pratyekabuddhahood with the Theravādins, while the Sarvāstivādins added to them the Samyaksambuddhahood.

c5.s2.t13.50

10. The conception of Nirvāṇa as sukha, śānta, etc., did not change much, the Sarvāstivādins and the Mahāsāṅghikas agreeing mainly with the Theravādins.¹ But the doctrine of realism of the Sarvāstivādins has led Prof. Stcherbatsky to interpret their Nirvāṇa as an ultimate lifeless state.²

c5.s2.t13.51

¹ The Sarvāstivādins held that the vimukti of the Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas is the same. Masuda, op. cit., p. 49. The Mahiśāsakas held the same view (Masuda, op. cit., p. 62), but not the Dharmaguptas. The Sūtrālaṅkāra, however, holds that with regard to vimukti, the Buddhas and the Śrāvakas stand on the same footing. This is also the opinion of the other Yogācāra texts. See infra. Cf. also Miu., II, pp. 285, 345.

c5.s2.t13.52

² Stcherbatsky, Con. of N., pp. 25 ff., but see ch. III. (c).

c5.s2.t13.53

11. The growth of the Abhidhamma literature took place during this period. As the principal schools located their centres of activity in different places of India, the development of this literature of each school was independent of that of the rest. This accounts for the wide divergence between the Abhidhamma literature of the Theravādins and that of the Sarvāstivādins.

c5.s2.t13.54

12. The conception of the Bodhisattva, the Pāramitā practices, and the goal of Buddhahood are the only Mahāyānic traces that appear in the doctrines of the Mahāsāṅghikas and the Sarvāstivādins, and their offshoots.

Linked texts (9)