Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c5.s2.t5.1

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:—