Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2: Volume 2

Early Monastic Buddhism v2

Language
English

Contents

Volume 2

Front matter

v2.c24.1

ARCHÆOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA ARCHÆOLOGICAL LIBRARY the *Reformation* was not a single event, but a complex, multifaceted process that unfolded over decades, reshaping the religious, political, and social landscape of Europe. It was a movement born of deep-seated dissatisfaction with the established Church, fueled by the intellectual currents of the Renaissance, and propelled by the technological revolution of the printing press. The call for reform, initially focused on correcting abuses within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, rapidly evolved into a fundamental challenge to the authority of the papacy and the theological foundations of medieval Christianity.

v2.c24.2

The initial spark, often attributed to Martin Luther’s posting of his Ninety-five Theses in 1517, was merely the catalyst for a much broader conflagration. Luther’s critique of the sale of indulgences struck a chord with a populace weary of clerical corruption and eager for a more direct, personal connection to the divine. His emphasis on *sola fide* (faith alone) and *sola scriptura* (scripture alone) provided a theological framework that empowered the individual believer and undermined the mediating role of the priesthood. This shift in focus, from institutional ritual to personal conviction, was revolutionary, challenging the very structure of society.

v2.c24.3

However, the Reformation was not a monolithic movement. It fractured into various denominations, each with its own distinct theological emphases and political alliances. The Lutheran movement in Germany, the Reformed tradition initiated by Huldrych Zwingli and later systematized by John Calvin in Geneva, and the Anglican Reformation in England all represented different responses to the same underlying pressures. These divisions were not merely theological; they were deeply intertwined with the political ambitions of princes and monarchs who saw in the Reformation an opportunity to assert their independence from Rome and consolidate their own power.

v2.c24.4

The social impact of the Reformation was equally profound. It fostered a new emphasis on literacy and education, as the ability to read the Bible in the vernacular became essential for the individual’s salvation. It also challenged traditional gender roles, as the rejection of monasticism and the elevation of marriage as a holy estate redefined the domestic sphere. Yet, the Reformation also brought with it periods of intense conflict, as religious differences became the pretext for wars that devastated large swathes of Europe, leaving a legacy of division that would persist for centuries.

v2.c24.5

VOLUME II

v2.c24.6

This image is blank. There is no text to transcribe.

v2.c24.7

*Calcutta Oriental Series No. 30*

v2.c24.8

VOLUME II

v2.c24.9

BY NALINAKSHA DUTT, M.A., B.L., P.H.D. (Cal.), D.LITT. (Lond.), *Premchand Roychand Scholar* · *Lecturer, Post-graduate Department of Pali and Ancient* *Indian History & Culture, Calcutta University;* *Philological Secretary, Royal Asiatic Society* *of Bengal*

v2.c24.10

CALCUTTA

Preface

v2.c25.1

The three Buddhist Councils are the three landmarks in the history and development of early monastic Buddhism. In the first volume of this work, an attempt has been made to present the history and doctrines of early Buddhism as far as can be gathered from the Nikāyas and the Vinaya. This volume has been brought to a close with the account of the first Buddhist Council, in which the direct disciples of Buddha met together to ascertain and compile the scattered discourses of the Founder. Though a discordant note is perceptible in the proceedings of the first Council, the Saṅgha was able to maintain its concord at least outwardly for about a century or a little less than a century. The disruptive forces were already at work within the Saṅgha and the Second Buddhist Council marked the complete cleavage of the Saṅgha into two groups, each of which again became divided into a few sub-groups. After the session of the second Council, the Saṅgha was no longer one but many, and each sub-Saṅgha considered itself independent and felt justified in giving its own interpretation to the teachings and disciplinary rules promulgated by the Teacher. Hence the history of Buddhism after the second Council is no longer the history of one group of thinkers but of the many groups of thinkers that came into being in the wake of the first cleavage. About a half of the present volume has therefore been devoted to the study and discussion of the materials available relating to the history, literature and doctrines of the many groups and sub-groups. This has been followed up by four chapters, the first dealing with the gradual change of relation of laity to the church, the second with the career of the religion during the regime of the Mauryas particularly Aśoka, the third with Aśoka's *Dhamma* and the fourth with the third Buddhist Council which marked the climax of sectarian differences and an effort of the Theravadins to propagate their point of view about Buddha's teachings in the different parts of India. This volume has been brought to a close with an analysis of the popular features which the religion incorporated in the pre-Aśokan and post-Aśokan period, thus paving the way for the advent of Mahāyānism.

v2.c25.2

For the convenience of the general reader not acquainted with the phraseology of the Buddhist texts, an exhaustive index of the Pāli and Sanskrit words with their nearest English renderings has been added to this volume. There is also a general index of both the volumes. Owing to the difficulties due to the last world-war there has been some delay in printing the second volume. I must again thank Mr. P. Das, Manager, *Indian Historical Quarterly*, for seeing this volume through the Press and preparing the two indexes.

v2.c25.3

N. DUTT

Contents

v2.c26.1

CHAPTER I: From Ajātasattu to Nagadāsaka ... 1-4 Udāyibhadda, 1 —Anuruddha's son Muṇḍa, 3 —Nāgadāsaka, 4.

v2.c26.2

CHAPTER II: Disruptive Forces in the Buddhist Church ... ... 5-11 Story of Kosambi, 6 —Episode of Devadatta, 6 —Apprehensive statements in the Nikāyas, 7 —Definition of *Saṅghabheda*, 9 —Differences in the first-Council Proceedings, 10.

v2.c26.3

CHAPTER III: Probable Causes for Dissensions in the Saṅgha ... ... 12-21 Absence of Supreme head of the Church, 12 —System of specialisation in different branches of Buddhist literature, 14 —Latitude allowed in discipline, 18 —Austerities made optional, 20 Faith instead of moral practices, 20.

v2.c26.4

CHAPTER IV: From Kālāsoka to Nanda ... 22-30 Principal Centres of Buddhism, 27.

v2.c26.5

CHAPTER V: Second Buddhist Council ... 31-46 The Story, 32 —Time and Site, 33 —No President, 34 —Ten un-Vinayic acts, 34 —Five Propositions of Mahādeva, 41 —Conclusion, 42.

v2.c26.6

CHAPTER VI: Appearance of the Buddhist Schools of Thoughts ... ... 47-50

v2.c26.7

CHAPTER VII: Schools of Groups I & II: Their History & Literature ... ... 51-61 Their origin & literature, 53 —Language of the Mahāsanghika-Pitaka, 57 —Principal Seats of the Schools, 58.

v2.c26.8

CHAPTER VIII (A): Doctrines of Group I Schools ... 61-73 Mahāsanghikas & Lokottaravādins, 62 —other opinions, 68.

v2.c26.9

CHAPTER VIII (B): Doctrines of Group II Schools 74-110 Is Buddha human? 74 —Are Bodhisattvas average beings? 81 —Are Arhats fully emancipated? 84 —Can there be retrogression of Arhats, Srotāpannas and other Phalasthas? 90 —Do the Atthamakas have anusaya and paryutthana? 92 —Are anusaya and paryavasthāna associated with mind or not? 93 —Can the Atthamakas have Saddhindriya? 96 —Is utterance of dukkha possible in meditation, and does it help perception of the truths? 97 —How Viññānas function? 99 —How many Avyākatas are there? How many Asamskrtadharmas are there? 102 —Other doctrines, 103 —Doctrines of the Śaila Schools only, 104 —Nirvāna in Nāgārjunikonda inscription, 106 —Doctrines of the Bahuśrutiyas only, 107 —Doctrines of the Prajñaptivādins only, 108 —Doctines of the Rājagirikas and the Siddhatthikas, 109 —Doctrines of the Vetulyakas only, 110

v2.c26.10

Chapter IX: Doctrines of Group III Schools ... 111-173

v2.c26.11

The Mahīśāsakas. Sarvāstivādins Dharmaguptakas, and other schools, 111 —The Earlier Mahīśāsakas, 112 —Doctrines of the earlier Mahīśāsakas, 114 —The Later Mahīśāsakas, 117 —The Sarvāstivāda, 117 —Succession of Teachers, 118 —Geographical Expansion, 122 —Buston’s information about the School, 123 —Language and Literature, 124 —Vinaya, 128 —Abhidharma, 130 —Doctrines: Sabbam atthi, 137 —Maitri and Karuṇā, 147 Arhats, 148 —Samyakatvanyāma, 152 —Anupubbābhisamaya, 154 —Puthujjana, Laukikamārga or Laukikāgradharma, 157 —Anuśaya and Paryavasthāna, 159 —Meditation, 159 —Viññāṇa, 161 —Avyākṛta, Asaṃskṛta and Antarābhava, 161 —Other opinions, 162 —The Dharmaguptas, 162 —Doctrines, 164 —The Kāśyapiyas, 165 —Doctrines, 166 —The Saṃkantikas or Sautrāntikas, 166 —Doctrines, 166 —Kośa on the Sautrāntika doctrines, 167 —The Haimavatas, 169 —Doctrines, 171 —The Uttarāpathakas, 171.

v2.c26.12

Chapter X: Doctrines of Group IV Schools ... 174-198

v2.c26.13

The Vātsīputrīya-Sāmmitiyas, Dharmottariyas and other Schools, 175 —Doctrines, 176 —Other doctrines, 194 —Dhammuttariya, Bhadrayānīya and Chan-nagarika, 195 —Vibhajyavāda, 195.

v2.c26.14

Chapter XI: Doctrines of Group V Schools ... 199-206 Sthaviravāda or Theravāda, 199 —Centres of popularity, 201 —Language, 202 —Literature, 203 —Doctrines, 203.

v2.c26.15

Chapter XII: Place of Laity in Early Buddhism 207-238 The Three Parisās, 210 —Aims and objects of Gahapatis, 211 —Discourses to Gahapatis, 213 —Gahapatāni, 217 Upāsakas and upāsikās, 220 —Lay-devotees and monks, 225 —Uposatha of the Upāsakas, 226 —Teaching imparted to lay-devotees, 228 —Upāsaka’s spiritual attainments, 232.

v2.c26.16

Chapter XIII: The Mauryas and Buddhism ... 239-257 Candragupta, 239 —Bindusāra, 241 —Aśoka, 242 —Buddhist-Sanskrit Traditions, 243 —Pāli Traditions, 248 —The two traditions compared, 251 —Aśoka’s successors, 253 —Jalauka, 255 —Daśaratha, 255, —Sampadi, 255 —Puṣyamitra, 256

v2.c26.17

Chapter XIV: Aśoka’s Dhamma ... ... 258-264

v2.c26.18

Chapter XV: Third Buddhist Council ... 265-274 The Traditional account, 267 —Propagation of the religion, 270.

v2.c26.19

Chapter XVI: Popular Buddhism ... ... 275-313 Pre-Aśokan Period, 276 —Ecclesiastical Rituals, 276 —Worship of Cetiya and Stūpa 282 —Four places of Pilgrimage, 284 —Nirvāṇa through Faith, 285 —Relaxation of Disciplinary Rules, 290 —Post-Aśokan Period, 292 —Deification of Buddha, 293 —Image-worship, 296 —Jātakas and Avadānas, 298 —Pāramitā-cult, 300 —Bodhisattva-doctrine, 305.

v2.c26.20

Index of Pāli and Sanskrit Words ... 329-347

v2.c26.21

Abbreviations ... ... ... 348-349 the *Consilium de emendanda Ecclesia* of 1537, which was drawn up by Contarini, Carafa, Sadoleto, and Pole, and which was intended to be the basis of the reform, was a document of the greatest importance. It was a frank admission of the abuses which had crept into the Church, and it proposed a series of measures to remedy them. But the *Consilium* was not destined to be carried out. The conservative party in the Curia, led by Carafa, was suspicious of the moderate reformers, and the Pope himself, though he had appointed the commission, was not prepared to go as far as they desired. The *Consilium* was never officially adopted, and the reform movement, which had seemed so promising, was checked.

v2.c26.22

The failure of the *Consilium* was a turning-point in the history of the Catholic Reformation. It showed that the reform could not be achieved by the moderate party alone, and that it would have to be carried out by a more radical and uncompromising group. This group was to be found in the new religious orders, especially the Jesuits, and in the Inquisition, which was re-established in Rome in 1542. The Jesuits, with their emphasis on education and missionary work, and the Inquisition, with its stern enforcement of orthodoxy, were to be the instruments of the Catholic reaction.

v2.c26.23

The pontificate of Paul III, which lasted from 1534 to 1549, was a period of transition. It saw the beginning of the Catholic Reformation, but it also saw the continuation of the old abuses. The Pope himself was a man of great ability, but he was also a man of his time, and he was not able to break completely with the traditions of the Renaissance papacy. He was a patron of the arts, and he was deeply involved in the political struggles of the time. But he was also a man of deep religious conviction, and he was genuinely concerned for the welfare of the Church.

v2.c26.24

The Council of Trent, which was opened in 1545, was the most important event of the pontificate of Paul III. It was the council that was to define the doctrines of the Catholic Church and to initiate the reforms that were to make the Church a more effective instrument of the Counter-Reformation. The Council was to last for eighteen years, and it was to be the most significant event in the history of the Church in the sixteenth century. It was to be the council that would finally settle the questions that had been raised by the Reformation, and it would provide the Church with the doctrinal and disciplinary framework that it needed to meet the challenge of Protestantism.

Chapter I

v2.c27.1

In the history of Buddhism, the session of the First Buddhist Council coincides with the eighth year of king Ajātasattu’s reign. Ajātasattu extended his father’s dominion beyond Magadha and ruled over Aṅga, Kāsī and the states of the Vajjian confederacies.¹ The Buddhist traditions are unanimous in stating that Ajātasattu in his early days was not very well-disposed towards Buddha and his religion, but later on he changed and became a patron of the religion, and whole-heartedly lent his support to the session of the First Council.

v2.c27.2

¹ See *Buddhist India*, ch. I, H C. Raychaudhuri, *Political History of Ancient India*, 3rd ed., p. 140 *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa*, p 604.

v2.c27.3

In the *Mahāvaṃsa*² and the *Mañjuśrī-mūlakalpa*³ (henceforth abbreviated as *Mmk.*), Ajātasattu’s enthusiasm for rendering service to the new religion is referred to but there is no evidence to show that his interest for the propagation of the religion was anything notable.

v2.c27.4

² In the *Vaṃsatthappakāsinī*. (p. 145). it is pointed out that Ajātasattu repaired the 18 great monasteries of Rājagaha

v2.c27.5

³ *Mmk*, p. 603: शासनार्थं तु बुद्धानां कारयिष्यति धर्मगृही: । महाराजाजातशत्रुतो मागधो नराधिप: ॥

Udāyibhadda

v2.c27.s1.1

According to the Buddhist and Jain traditions, though not according to the *Purāṇas*,⁴ Ajātasattu was succeeded by his son Udāyibhadda. He ruled for 16 years.¹ The *Mmk.* says that like his father he was not only enthusiastic about the religion but also had the sayings of Buddha collected.² In the same text³ again, it is stated that the religion would decline after Buddha's death, the kings would be fighting with one another, and the monks would busy themselves with various secular matters, find fault of one another, and lack in self-restraint. The monks and men would be demoralised, indulge in false disputations, and become jealous of one another. The non-Buddhists would gain the upper hand and the people would revert to Brāhmanism and take to animal killing and such other evil practices. If this self-contradictory statement of the *Mmk.* be considered along with the discreet silence of the Ceylonese chronicles about the activities of Udāyibhadda, it seems that the cause of Buddhism found little favour with the king. The text adds that there would be, however, some good men, gods and beings other than human, who would continue to worship the relics, and though the religion would be on the wane, there would be at least eight distinguished monks¹ with Rāhula as the chief to protect the religion.

v2.c27.s1.2

⁴ Raychaudhuri, *op. cit.* p 143

v2.c27.s1.3

¹ 20 years according to the *Mmk.*, p. 604 Prof. Chattopadhyaya assigns to him a reigning period of 25 years. Recently Prof. K. Chattopadhyaya has re-examined the question of succession of the kings of Magadha and arrived at the conclusion that Darśaka was an alternative name of Udāyi as Śreṇika was of Bimbisāra and Kunika of Ajātaśatru. (See *Proc of the Indian History Congress*, Lahore, 1940, pp. 140-7) Prof. Bhandarkar identifies Darśaka with Nāgadāsaka. Cf *Divyāvadāna*, p. 369.

v2.c27.s1.4

² *Mmk.*, p. 604:— तस्यापि सुतो राजा उदाराख्यः प्रकीर्त्तितः । भविष्यति तदा चित्रं शासनार्थं च उद्यतः ॥ तदेतत् प्रवचनं शास्तु लिखायिष्यति विस्तरम् । पूजांश्च महतों कृत्वा दिक् समन्तान् नमिष्यति ॥

v2.c27.s1.5

³ *Mmk.*, p. 597-8

v2.c27.s1.6

¹ The list of monks given elsewhere is as follows — Mmk, p. 64: Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Mahākāśyapa, Subhūti, Rāhula, Nanda, Bhadrika, Kaphiṇa. Ibid, p. 111: Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Gavāmpati, Piṇḍola-Bharadvāja, Pilindavatsa, Rāhula, Mahākāśyapa, Ānanda

v2.c27.s1.7

Buston² writes that the guardianship of the religion was entrusted by the Teacher to (Mahā) Kāśyapa, who in turn entrusted it to Ānanda. Both Kāśyapa and Ānanda passed away during the life-time of Ajātasattu. Ānanda charged his disciple Saṇavāsika to protect the religion after his demise and to ordain, in course of time, Upagupta of Mathurā. He foretold that, according to the prophecy of the Teacher, Upagupta would become a Buddha but not with all the characteristics of a Sambuddha.

v2.c27.s1.8

² Obermiller's Translation of Buston's History of Buddhism (henceforth abbreviated as Buston), II, p 88

v2.c27.s1.9

Just before his demise, Ānanda also ordained 500 Brāhmanical anchorites with Madhyāntika at their head, and entrusted him with the propagation of the religion in Kashmir. The episode of Madhyāntika and his activities in Kashmir do not find any mention in the Ceylonese chronicles.

Anuruddha's Son Munda

v2.c27.s2.1

Udāyibhadda, after a reign of 16 years, was succeeded by his son Anuruddha whose period of reign along with that of his son Muṇḍa was very short, being only 8 years in all. In the Divyāvadāna³ king Muṇḍa is described as the son of Udāyibhadda, and no mention is made of Anuruddha. In the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*,¹ king Muṇḍa is mentioned as approaching bhikkhu Nārada on the death of his queen Bhaddā. He listened to a discourse of bhikkhu Nārada delivered at Pāṭaliputta on the impermanence of worldly things. In the Jaina tradition preserved in the *Pariśiṣṭaparvan* (ch. vi), it is stated that a prince in the guise of a Jaina novice killed Udāyin. Prof. Chattopadhyaya surmises that this novice might be king Muṇḍa.²

v2.c27.s2.2

³ Divyāvadāna, p. 369

v2.c27.s2.3

¹ *Aṅguttara*, III, pp 57f.

v2.c27.s2.4

² K. Chattopadhyaya, *op. cit.*

Nāgadāsaka

v2.c27.s3.1

King Muṇḍa was succeeded by his son Nāgadāsaka, who ruled for 24 years. With Nāgadāsaka ended the rule of the line of kings that commenced with Bimbisāra.³ In the Ceylonese chronicles, all the successors of Bimbisāra are described as patricidal (*pitughātakavaṃsa*); how far this statement is reliable remains yet to be examined, but it seems that the Buddhists were not in much favour of these kings, and evidently, as the *Mmk.* says, Buddhism was on the wane all along this period of about half a century. Madhyāntika’s departure to Kashmir and his attempt to propagate Buddhism far away from Magadha is also an indirect hint to the unpopularity of the religion in the province of its origin.

v2.c27.s3.2

³ The *Divyāvadāna* (p. 369) says that Muṇḍa’s son was Kākavarṇi. In the *Aśokāvadāna* and *Divyāvadāna* the line of kings is given as follows:— Bimbisāra-Ajātaśatru-Udāyibhadra-Muṇḍa-Kākavarṇi-Sahali-Tu'akuci-Mahāmaṇḍala-Prasenajit-Nanda-Vindusāra-Susima-Aśoka.

Chapter II

v2.c28.1

If the suttas in the Nikāyas and the rules in the Vinaya, the compilation of a greater portion of which may be placed during the reign of Ajātasattu and his successors, be scrutinised, it will be found that the disruptive forces were already at work within the Saṅgha even at the time of Ajātasattu, *i.e.*, soon after Buddha's death. These forces were not totally absent during the life-time of Buddha as is evidenced by the story of Kauśāmbī and the episode of Devadatta. In the Nikāyas¹ also appear a few apprehensive statements regarding the possibility of dissensions in the Saṅgha and the condemnation of *saṅghabheda* as one of the five extreme offences like patricides, matricides and so forth. In the Vinaya, there are elaborate directions as to when a dissension among the monks should be regarded as a regular or an irregular *saṅghabheda*. In the proceedings of the First Council also, is noticeable a rift in the lute in the refusal of Purāṇa of Dakkhiṇāgiri to accept *in toto* the texts adopted by Mahākassapa and his followers as *Buddhavacana*. His insistence on the introduction of a few disciplinary rules clearly shows a lack of unanimity among the monks immediately after Buddha's death.²

v2.c28.2

¹ Majjhima, III, p 65; Mahāvagga, X. 3 1; Kathāvatthu, XIII. 1

v2.c28.3

² See my *Early Monastic Buddhism* (henceforth abbreviated as EMB), I, p. 331-2.

v2.c28.4

*The story of Kosambī*

v2.c28.5

At Kosambī, there were two teachers, one a Dhammadhara and the other a Vinayadhara, both imparting instructions in their respective subjects to two different groups of students. One day the Dhammadhara teacher committed a very light offence through inadvertence and when pointed out he expressed regret for it, but this was talked about by the Vinayadhara teacher among his students and lay-devotees. The students and lay-admirers of the Dhammadhara teacher became offended at this provocative attitude of the Vinayadhara teacher and his followers, and there was a sharp cleavage not only between the two groups of students but also between their respective lay-devotees. Buddha intervened, and at first failed to make up the difference, and it was out of sheer disgust that he preferred to retire to the forest to be served by an elephant than by quarrelling people of the world. At this attitude of the Teacher, the quarrelling teachers, students and lay public came to their senses and settled their dispute.¹ This episode cannot strictly be called a *sanghabheda*, but it shows the possibility of dissensions in the Sangha.

v2.c28.6

¹ *Mahāvagga*, X; *Majjhima*, Kosambisutta; *Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā*, Kosambivattha. In the Gilgit ms. of the *Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya*, the story remains substantially the same with slight variations in geographical details.

v2.c28.7

*The episode of Devadatta*

v2.c28.8

The episode of Devadatta is almost a *sanghabheda* though it is not recognised as such in the Vinaya. Devadatta was an advocate for more austere discipline and requested the Teacher to make the following five rules compulsory for all monks²:—

v2.c28.9

² *Cullavagga*, VII. 3. 14; *Jātakas*, I, p. 34.

v2.c28.10

That the monks
(i) should live all their life in the forest;
(ii) subsist solely on doles collected out-doors;
(iii) dress themselves in rags picked out of dust-heaps;
(iv) dwell always under a tree and never under a roof;
(v) never eat fish or flesh.

v2.c28.11

Buddha could not agree with Devadatta. He believed more in person's own initiative than in obligatory rules, and so he left to the monks the option of observing the rules. This was too much for Devadatta, who departed to Gayāsīsa with a number of disciples who supported him. It is said that at the instance of Buddha, Sāriputta and Moggallāna later on won them over to Buddha's side.¹

v2.c28.12

¹ Yuan Chwang writes that he saw three Buddhist monasteries at Karṇasuvarṇa, where, in accordance with the teaching of Devadatta, milk-products were not taken as food. Watters, II, pp. 191, 192. I-tsing states that milk is an unlawful food. See Takakusu, I-tsing, p. 43.

v2.c28.13

*Apprehensive statements in the Nikāyas*

v2.c28.14

Though Buddha did not admit that there was any dissension in his Saṅgha, he was fully conscious of the possibility of such dissensions. It is clear from his sayings here and there that he strongly apprehended dissensions among his followers. He laid stress upon the importance of samaggā parisā (concord in the saṅgha) and pointed out in one of his last discourses that so long as his disciples would perform the ecclesiastical functions in concord, the welfare of the Saṅgha was assured. Once Cunda and Ānanda approached him with the news of the death of Nigaṇtha Nātaputta and informed him about the quarrels that immediately followed his death among his disciples. Buddha assured them that among his disciples there was no disagreement as far as his fundamental teaching, consisting of the 37 *Bodhipakkhiya dhammas*,¹ was concerned. There might be, after his death, he said, some differences of opinion relating to *abhi-dhamma* (*atireka-dhamma* = minor points of doctrine),² *ājīvājīva* (minor rules of livelihood) and *adhi-pātimokkha* (minor rules of discipline) but these should be treated as negligible (*appamattake*), but should there be any differences relating to the fruits (*magga*), path (*paṭipadā*) or the congregation (*sangha*), it would be a matter of regret and cause harm to the gods and the people.³ In differences of minor matters, as mentioned above, his instruction was that the erring monks should be politely pointed out that they were putting a different interpretation on a text or misreading a text, and that in the interest of the Sangha, they should give it up; for practical purposes, he suggested, that a sane and reasonable member among the erring monks should be selected for the purpose.⁴ In the *Sanghādisesa* section of the *Pātimokkha* appear similar instructions (*vide* rules 10-11) with the addition that if the erring monk or monks do not change their views, he or they should be treated as guilty of the *Sanghādisesa* offence. In the *Anguttara*⁵ there is a reference to Ānanda complaining to Buddha that Anuruddha’s disciple Bāhiyo was in the habit of picking up quarrels among the monks and causing dissension in the Sangha while his teacher would not say a word to him. Buddha pacified Ānanda by saying that Anuruddha had never interfered in Sangha matters, and that all such disputes had so far been settled by himself or Sāriputta and Moggallāna.

v2.c28.15

¹ Viz., (i) four *satipaṭṭhānas*; (ii) four *sammāppadhānas*; (iii) four *iddhipādas*; (iv) five *indriyas*; (v) five *balas*; (vi) seven *bojjhangas*; (vii) eight-fold path. See *Digha*, XVI, 50; *Majjhima*, II, pp. 77, 103, 104; *Lalitavistara* (Bibl. Ind.), pp. 34-37; *Sangīti-paryāya* in *JPTS.*, 1904-5, pp. 71, 75.

v2.c28.16

² *Atthasālini*, p. 2.

v2.c28.17

³ *Majjhima*, II, p. 245, cf *Digha*, III, p. 117f.

v2.c28.18

⁴ *Majjhima*, II, pp. 238-9

v2.c28.19

⁵ *Anguttara*, II, p. 239.

v2.c28.20

Failing to make up differences by polite persuasion, Buddha’s instruction was to take resort to the seven methods of adhikaraṇasamathas, defined in the Majjhima and the Pātimokkha.¹ Buddha attributed all quarrels to selfish motives of the monks or their possession of certain wicked qualities. He held out the prospect of a happy and glorious life like that of the god Brahmā to a monk in after-life as the result of any act of his that would serve to re-unite the groups of monks separated from one another, while he declared that the monk sowing dissension among his brethren is doomed to perdition for an aeon.²

v2.c28.21

¹ See EMB., I, p. 307-8.

v2.c28.22

² Aṅguttara, V, pp. 73, 75, 78; Cullavagga, vii. 5.

Definition of Saṅghabheda

v2.c28.s1.1

Every quarrel or difference of opinions among the bhikkhus was not characterised by Buddha as a saṅghabheda. It is thus described in the Vinaya: “For not only is a formal putting forward and voting on the false doctrine essential to schism as distinct from mere disagreement, but the offending bhikkhus must also be quite aware that the doctrine so put forth is wrong, or at least doubtful, and also that the schism resulting from his action will be or will probably be disastrous to the Dhamma. In other words, the schism must be brought about deliberately by putting forward a doctrine known to be false, or at least doubtful, or with the express intention or object of thereby injuring the Dhamma.”[¹] This definition obviously represents the opinion of the conservative school of the Theravādins who usually looked upon all those who differed from them with an eye of suspicion and ascribed an evil motive to their entertainment of the dissenting views. It is very likely that the dissenters held an honest belief that their views were devoid of any evil motive of injuring the Dhamma. It will, therefore, be apparent from a neutral standpoint that evil intention is not an essential factor of the sanghabheda. The real essentials are:—(1) belief in a dissentient religious view regarding either one or more points of faith or discipline; (2) entertainment of the dissenting view by eight, or more than eight, fully ordained monks; (3) the division taken among the aforesaid eight or more monks must show a majority on the side of the dissenters. When the disunion is confined to eight monks, it is called Sangharāji. This restriction as to number forming the essential of sangharāji shows that it might at any moment develop into a sanghabheda, by drawing an additional monk into the difference. Of course, bonafide belief and the full ordination of monks are necessary requisites.[²]

v2.c28.s1.2

¹ Vinaya Texts (S. B. E.), pt. iii, p. 271 n.

v2.c28.s1.3

² Cullavagga, vii, 5, 1; Milindapañha, p. 108: “No layman can create a schism, nor a sister of the order, no one under preparatory instruction, nor a novice of either sex. It must be a bhikkhu under no disability, who is in full communion and co-resident” (S. B. E., vol. xxxv, p. 163).

Differences in the First Council Proceedings

v2.c28.s2.1

In the proceedings of the First Council it will be observed that Mahākassapa was keen on securing the approval of all the senior monks, particularly, of Gavampati and Purāṇa, of the texts settled by his Council as *Buddhavacana*.¹ Gavampati remained neutral, i.e., he did not wholeheartedly accepted the proceedings of the Council as final while Purāṇa expressed his inability to accept the same as the words of the Teacher.² He further insisted on the incorporation into the Vinaya of eight rules relating to food.³ The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya not only upheld these eight rules as pointed out by Prof. Przyluski⁴ and also gave special recognition to Purāṇa as one of the foremost teachers of the time.

v2.c28.s2.2

¹ See *EMB*, I, p. 331-2.

v2.c28.s2.3

² *Cullavagga*, xi. 1 11.

v2.c28.s2.4

³ The eight rules (as translated by Suzuki from Chinese) are:— (i) cooking food indoors; (ii) cooking indoors; (iii) cooking of one' own accord; (iv) taking food of one's own accord; (v) receiving food when rising early in the morning; (vi) carrying food home in compliance with the wish of the giver; (vii) having miscellaneous fruits; and (viii) eating things grown in a pond.

v2.c28.s2.5

⁴ Przyluski, *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*

v2.c28.s2.6

All these testimonies clearly indicate that the seeds of dissensions had already been sown in the Saṅgha during Buddha's life-time and that these sprouted forth in full vigour in the second century after Buddha's demise.⁵

v2.c28.s2.7

⁵ See Infra, Ch. VII.

Chapter III

v2.c29.1

In the preceding chapter, it has been shown that disruptive forces were already at work within the Saṅgha during and immediately after Buddha's life-time. On scrutinizing these and the state of the Buddhist church as presented in the Nikāyas and the Vinaya, we may point out the following as the probable causes for dissensions in the Saṅgha:—

v2.c29.2

*Absence of the supreme head of the church*

v2.c29.3

Buddha thought that the prescription of heavy punishments for schisms in the church would check them effectively and that his Dhamma and Vinaya were comprehensive enough to keep intact the religion established by him, obviating thereby the appointment of the supreme religious head. He magnified the unaided strength of *dhamma* and *vinaya*, and directed that his teachings would be the Teacher after his death.² Vassakāra asked Ānanda whether any bhikkhu had been specified by Buddha as would after his death become the leader of men under whom everybody would seek shelter. Ānanda answered in the negative. He asked again whether any bhikkhu had been selected by the Saṅgha as would become their leader etc. To this also Ānanda answered in the negative. Vassakāra was curious to learn the cause of the concord prevailng in the church inspite of there being no leader (lit. refuge). Ānanda replied “We are not without a refuge (appaṭisaraṇa), dhamma is our refuge. There is a treatise called Pātimokkha which has been formulated by the omniscient Teacher and which all the monks living in the same parish (gāmakkhetta) have to recite in a monastery where they assemble on the uposatha days. Should there occur any difference or doubt in the recitation, the bhikkhus present explain them in accordance with the dhamma (hence they have their refuge as dhamma).”¹ In answer to another question put by Vassakāra, Ānanda explained that though there was no supreme head of the fraternity but there was in each parish a qualified head who was respected by the people under his charge and whose guidance was strong enough to keep the great many parishes connected together in religious concord. This conversation makes it clear that each parish was under the control of the seniormost and the best qualified monk that the parish could furnish.²

v2.c29.4

¹ *Majjhima*, II, p. 105.

v2.c29.5

² *Digha*, II, p 154: *Yo mayā dhamma ca vinayo ca desito paññatto, so vo mam' accayena Satthā.*

v2.c29.6

¹ Majjhima, III, pp. 7ff.

v2.c29.7

² In the Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta (Digha, II, p. 77) it is enjoined upon the bhikkhus that they should offer due respect to the Saṅgha-pitara or Saṅgha-paṇāyaka (the head of the parish) who should be bhikkhus of long standing and experience for the well-being of this Saṅgha. See also Aṅguttara, IV, p. 21; V, p. 353.

v2.c29.8

In the Pātimokkha assemblies, the monks interpreted the terse expressions of the Teacher in differen. ways and intro-

v2.c29.9

Childers in his Pāli-Dictionary (s. v. saṅgha) says that a Saṅghat-thera is usually selected as the President of an assembly. He cites, for instance, Kassapa, the then Saṅghatthera was the President of the First Council. He also points out that a Saṅghatthera is not always the one who is the longest ordained for Sabbakāmin who was the longest upasampanna bhikkhu was not the President of the Second Council.

v2.c29.10

duced additional material in the interpretations, and passed them in the name of Buddha. This happened in most of the parishes scattered over the whole of northern India. There was none at that time in the whole of the Buddhist community who could dissolve the numberless divergences thus originated into one uniform whole and convert the threatening centrifugal forces then at work into centripetal, conducive to the well-being of the whole Saṅgha.

v2.c29.11

Mahākassapa made an attempt to remedy this defect of the Saṅgha as a whole by convening a Council, but he was also not fully successful as pointed out above (p. 10-11).

System of specialisation in different branches of Buddhist literature

v2.c29.s1.1

The Pali literature is replete with terms like (i) Suttantikas or masters of Suttanta (or the Sutta-piṭaka); (ii) Vinayadharas or repositories of the rules of discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka); (iii) Mātikādharas or those versed in mātikā (=abhidhamma); (iv) Dhammakathikas or the preachers of the Buddhist doctrine.¹ In the Aṭṭhakathās again, appear further terms like Dīgha-bhāṇaka and Majjhima-bhāṇaka (reciters of the Dīgha and Majjhima Nikāyas).²

v2.c29.s1.2

¹ Dīgha, II, p. 125; Aṅguttara, I. p. 117.

v2.c29.s1.3

² Sum. Vil., I, p. 15; Papañcasūdani, p. 79

v2.c29.s1.4

In those days, when writing was hardly used for putting on record the sayings and discourses of Buddha, the means for preserving and handing them down to posterity was recitation and memorization. This was akin to the method that had been in vogue in India from the earliest Vedic period, which also gave rise to the different Vedic schools. A similar cause produced a similar result among the Buddhists and we find that the memorizing of different portions of the Piṭaka was entrusted to different sets of bodies hardened and separated from one another in course of time and bearing names descriptive of their functions.¹

v2.c29.s1.5

¹ Vinaya, IV. 15. 4. (S. B. E. xiii, p. 339). "On the Pavāraṇā day the greater part of the night has passed away while the bhikkhus were in confusion: the bhikkhus were reciting the Dhamma, those versed in Suttantas were propounding the Suttantas, those versed in Vinaya were discussing the Vinaya, the Dhamma preachers were talking about the Dhamma". In the Sum. Vil, I. p. 15, it is stated that the memorization of the Majjhima-nikāya, Samyutta-nikāya and Aṅguttara-nikāya was entrusted to Sāriputta, Mahākassapa and Anuruddha respectively and their respective disciples.

v2.c29.s1.6

In the account of the first Council it will be observed that Ānanda was requested to recite the Suttas while Upāli the Vinaya. This would not have been the case if Ānanda or Upāli was not generally famed for proficiency in the particular branches of the Piṭaka. Elements of such specialisation can be noticed in the quarrel that took place between the dhammakathikas and the vinayadharas.² Commonness of duties gave rise to unity among the dhammakathikas on one side and the vinayadharas on the other in such a marked way that each group made the cause of one individual member its common cause and participated in the dispute.

v2.c29.s1.7

² See above, p. 6.

v2.c29.s1.8

It is an interesting reading how arrangements of beds and seats were made for the residence of the bhikkhus.³ Dabba Mallaputta, it is said, made such an arrangement that the bhikkhus, adopting the same mode of life (sabhāgā), resided in the same place in order that the Suttantikas could recite suttantas among themselves while the Vinayadharas could discuss the rules of discipline with one another, and the *Dhammakathikas* talk about the matters of doctrine. Instances are not rare of a feeling of rivalry among these bodies, each member of which wished and was pleased to see the body to which he belonged take precedence over other bodies in having seat or food in assemblies or in thanksgiving after a meal.¹

v2.c29.s1.9

³ Vinaya, II, pp. 75. 76.

v2.c29.s1.10

¹ *Cullavagga*, IV, 6, 2; *Mahāvagga*, IV, 15, 4

v2.c29.s1.11

These separate bodies, which existed for a particular function necessary for the whole Buddhist community, e.g., the preservation of a particular portion of the Piṭaka by regular recitations, imbibed in course of time, doctrines, which could be looked upon as peculiar to the body holding them and in this way, the body developed into a separate religious school of Buddhism. Such instances are found in the Theravādins who had developed into such a school from the *Vinayadharas*, and the Sautrāntikas from the *Suttantas*.

v2.c29.s1.12

The crystallization of bodies happened not only for the preservation of literature but also for the grouping of monks around a noted teacher. Buddha awarded prominence to some of his disciples by extolling them for their attainment of proficiency in certain branches of the Buddhist dhamma.² Of them the following may be mentioned:—(i) Sāriputta, the foremost of the highly wise (*mahāpaññānam*); (ii) Mahāmoggallāna, the foremost of the possessors of miraculous powers (*iddhimantānam*); (iii) Anuruddha, the foremost of the possessors of divine eyes (*dibba-cakkhukānam*); (iv) Mahākassapa, the foremost of the followers of *dhūta* precepts (*dhūtavādānam*); (v) Puṇṇa Mantāniputta, the foremost of the preachers of dhamma (*dhammakathikānam*); (vi) Mahākaccāyana, the foremost of the expositors (*saṅkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena attham vibhajantānam*); (vii) Rāhula, the foremost of the students (*sikkhākāmānam*); (viii) Revata Khadiravaniya, the foremost of the forest-recluses (*āraññikānam*); (ix) Ānanda, the foremost of the vastly learned (*bahussutānam*), and (x) Upāli, the foremost of the masters of Vinaya (*vinayadharānam*).

v2.c29.s1.13

² *Aṅguttara*, I, p. 24.

v2.c29.s1.14

Buddha indirectly pointed out to his new disciples the preceptor most suited to each in view of his peculiar mental leanings. This practice led to the grouping of students around a teacher or his direct disciples, hence the remark *dhātuso sattā samsandanti samenti*¹ on the principle that like draws like. In the *Samyutta Nikāya*,² we read of ten chief theras, viz. Sāriputta, Moggallāna, Mahākoṭṭhita, etc., each having ten to forty disciples under their tution. Buddha on a certain occasion pointed out that the group of bhikkhus formed round each of these theras was possessed of the same special qualifications that characterised the thera himself. Thus the bhikkhus accompanying Sāriputta were *mahāpaññavantā*, those accompanying Mahāmoggallāna were *mahiddhikā*, those accompanying Mahākassapa were *dhūtavādā*, those accompanying Devadatta were sinfully inclined (*pāpicchā*).

v2.c29.s1.15

¹ *Samyutta*, II, p. 157.

v2.c29.s1.16

² *Samyutta*, II, pp. 155, 156.

v2.c29.s1.17

Yuan Chwang noticed about a thousand years later that on auspicious days the Abhidhammikas worshipped Sāriputra, the Vinayists Upāli, the Śrāmaṇeras Rāhula, the Sūtraists Pūrṇa Maitrāyāṇiputra, the Samādhists Mahāmoggallāna, the bhikkhunīs Ānanda, the Mahāyānists Mañjuśrī and other Bodhisattvas.³

v2.c29.s1.18

³ Watters, *Yuan Chwang*, I, p. 302.

v2.c29.s1.19

In the first four classes of bhikkhus, the aforesaid affinity between them and their leaders is obvious. In the next three classes, the affinity existed all the same though it may not be apparent on the face of it. For the Samādhists followed Mahāmoggallāna because he was the master of *iddhi* par excellence which could be obtained only through *samādhi*, and the bhikkhunīs followed Ānanda because to him the order of nuns owed its origin.

v2.c29.s1.20

The principal points of resemblance between the followers and their preceptors were the ties that bound them together but these were the points which constituted the features by which the chief qualities of the preceptors were distinguished. These distinctions among them did not lie in any differences of doctrines which they professed but in the degrees of proficiency attained by each, in particular directions of Buddhistic *sādhana*. But the divisions though not proceeding from radical differences in doctrine grew stereotyped in course of time, and fusion between them later on became an impossibility due to the separatist frame of mind that their existence as separate bodies naturally developed. Thus the division which had commenced without any doctrinal differences gradually gave rise to the latter and grew into full-fledged schools.

Latitude allowed in discipline

v2.c29.s2.1

It has been already mentioned in connection with the episode of Devadatta¹ that Buddha allowed a certain amount of latitude to his disciples in the observance of Vinaya rules. He laid more emphasis on mental than on physical discipline. In his discussion with Upāli, a disciple of Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, he pointed out that he considered *manodaṇḍa* as more important than kāyadaṇḍa in spiritual culture.¹ In the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta*, his direction regarding the abrogation of minor disciplinary rules clearly revealed his viewpoint in regard to external discipline.² In short, in his estimation, *paññā* and *citta* practices were far more important than *sīla* observance.³ He realised the value of the latter for the new adepts but it was not the all and end all of his scheme of culture. From the history of the growth of the Vinaya code⁴ it will be observed how he made concessions after concessions for the physical comforts of his disciples. His code was not a hard and fast one. He made exceptions in favour of the bhikkhus who were placed at a disadvantage by reason of the locality in which they resided. In the border countries (*paccantima janapada*) such as Avantī, the converts were few and intractable, hence, Buddha at the request of Kaccāyana and Puṇṇa Mantāṇiputta made some exceptions in their favour in regard to the rules for the formation of an assembly for ordaining monks, and the use of leather-made shoes and other articles, prohibited to the bhikkhus dwelling in the Middle country.⁵

v2.c29.s2.2

¹ See above, p. 6-7.

v2.c29.s2.3

¹ *Majjhima*, I, p. 372f.

v2.c29.s2.4

² *Digha*, II, p. 154.

v2.c29.s2.5

³ See EMB., I, ch. XII.

v2.c29.s2.6

⁴ EMB., I, ch. XVI.

v2.c29.s2.7

⁵ For boundaries, see B. C. Law, *Geography of Early Buddhism*, Vinaya, I, pp. 197-8; *Divyāvadāna*, p. 21.

v2.c29.s2.8

Particularly noticeable is his reply to the Vajjiputtaka monk who expressed his difficulty in observing all the 250 rules of the *Pātimokkha*. Buddha said that he would be satisfied if the bhikkhu would practise the three *śikṣās*,⁶ viz., *adhisīla*, adhicitta and adhipaññā, by which he meant the minute observance of the discipline envisaged in the aṭṭhaṅka-magga.

v2.c29.s2.9

⁶ *Majjhima*, II, pp. 8, 9. Cf. *DhA.*, I, p. 334: ‘Sekho’ ti adhisīlasikkhā adhicittasikkhā adhipaññāsikkhā ti imā tisso sikkhā sikkhaṇato sotāpattimaggatthaṃ ādim katvā yāva arahattamaggatthā sattavidho sekho……

Austerities made optional

v2.c29.s3.1

From his personal experiences Buddha recommended to his disciples the middle path which eschewed austerities as a means of attaining the goal. Buddha himself led a life of severe austerity and he was convinced that such austerities could never fulfil his mission.¹ For this reason one is expected that austere practices should not figure in his disciplinary code and this is actually a fact,² but there are ample evidences to show that Buddha praised those ascetics who took to the dhūta precepts.³ Buddha yielded to the strong tendency of those disciples who believed in the efficacy of austerities and could not be satisfied with a religion barren of such practices. Mahākassapa, one of his most favourite disciples, was an advocate of austerities, and it was difficult for the Teacher not to comply with the wishes of disciples like him. The system of living a forest-life, therefore, came into vogue in the early days of Buddhism and so there are in the Vinaya special rules for the āraññakas. The āraññakas were required to attend the fortnightly Pātimokkha assemblies, but they were exempted from many formalities.

v2.c29.s3.2

¹ Majjhima, I, p. 17.

v2.c29.s3.3

² Vinaya, V, 131, 193.

v2.c29.s3.4

³ Aṅguttara, III, p. 344f.

(v) Faith instead of moral practices

v2.c29.s4.1

It cannot be exactly determined when firm faith in Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha came to be recognised as a means to the attainment of Nirvāṇa. In the Vatthūpamasutta, so much emphasis is laid on it, that a monk having firm faith in the Triratna is exempted from observing even the rules of food. This sutta further shows that a monk taking to faith need not practise the sīlas as recommended for the generality of monks.¹

v2.c29.s4.2

¹ See my paper in IHQ., vol. XVI: *Place of Faith in Early Buddhism*.

v2.c29.s4.3

In view of what has been stated above, we may conclude that strict observance of the Vinaya rules was not in the Teacher's mind though after his demise his disciples made the most of same. In fact, they became more and more ritualistic and failed in using common discretion. A slight deviation from the Vinaya laws made them sinners though it mattered very little in spiritual advancement. The protest raised by the Mahāsanghikas had nothing untoward in it and the Theravādins, we may say, magnified them. We do not mean to justify laxity in discipline but when discipline ends in literal and superficial observance of a set of rules, one has the right to examine them on merits.

Chapter IV

v2.c30.1

The Bimbisāra (or Haryaṅka) line of kings ended with the reign of king Nāgadāsaka.¹ The throne was taken by his minister Susunāga, who according to the traditions preserved in the *Uttaravihāra Aṭṭhakathā*, was the son of a Licchavi prince of Vesālī by a courtezan.² As he was adopted by a minister, he came to be known as a minister's son. According to a late tradition preserved in the *Mālālaṅkāravatthu*, Susunāga had his royal residence at Vesālī, to which place he later on transferred the capital from Rājagaha. He ruled for 18 years and is said to have humbled the Pradyota dynasty of Avantī.³ As far as the testimony of the Buddhist texts is concerned, no incident of note happened during his reign in the history of Buddhism.

v2.c30.2

¹ See above, p. 4.

v2.c30.3

² *Vamsatthappakāsini*, I, p. 155.

v2.c30.4

³ See Raychaudhury, *Political History*, (1932), p. 147.

v2.c30.5

Susunāga was succeeded by his son Kālāsoka of the Ceylonese chronicles or Kākavarṇi of the *Purāṇas*. Most of the scholars are of opinion that the two names are of an identical person. The *Aśokavadāna* places Kākavarṇi after Muṇḍa⁴ and makes no mention of Kālāsoka while the *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* speaks of Viśoka as the successor of Susunāga. Tāranātha has made a confusion of the Emperor Aśoka with Kālāsoka and makes Viśoka a son of Aśoka. In the *Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā* (p. 2) he is called simply Aśoka. The outstanding event that took place in the history of Buddhism during his reign is the session of the Second Buddhist Council (see infra).

v2.c30.6

⁴ See above, p. 3-4.

v2.c30.7

According to the *Mahābodhivamsa*, Kālāsoka was succeeded by his ten sons: Bhadrasena, Koraṇḍavarṇa, Maṅgura, Sabbañjaha, Jālaka, Ubhaka, Sañjaya, Koravya, Nandivardhana, and Pañcamaka, who ruled simultaneously for 22 years. This tradition, however, is not corroborated by other Buddhist sources, according to which Kālāsoka or Viśoka was succeeded by his son Śūrasena, who reigned for 17 years.¹

v2.c30.8

¹ Also called Ugrasena in the *Mahābodhi-vaṃsa*. Cf. *Mmk.*, p. 611: तस्मादनन्तरे राजा शूरसेनः प्रकथ्यते ।

v2.c30.9

Śūrasena supported the bhikṣus of the four quarters for three years, and offered a hundred kinds of requisites to all *caityas* existing on the face of the earth.² Tāranātha makes Arhat Śāṇavāsika and Arhat Yaśa contemporaries of Śūrasena and refers to the appearance of Mahādeva and his five propositions during his reign.

v2.c30.10

² Schiefner *Tāranātha's Geschichte des Buddhismus*. p. 50-51, The restoration from Tibetan may well be Śūrasena instead of Virasena. Cf. *Mmk.* p. 611: तेनापि कारिता शास्तुः कारा सुमहतौ तदा । स्तूपैरलंकृता सर्वा समुद्रान्ता वसुन्धरा ॥

v2.c30.11

Śūrasena was succeeded by Nanda, who, according to Tāranātha,³ was Śūrasena's son. The *Mmk.*⁴ says that king Nanda was very powerful, maintained a large army and made Puṣpapura his capital. He, it is said, acquired wealth through magical means. Jayaswal⁵ on the basis of the stanza in the *Mmk.*:

v2.c30.12

³ Schiefner, *op. cit.*, p. 52. King Nanda came of the Licchavi tribe, see p. 41.

v2.c30.13

⁴ *Mmk.*, p. 611-612.

v2.c30.14

⁵ *Imperial History of India*. p. 14.

v2.c30.15

नीचमुख्यसमाख्यातो ततो लोके भविष्यति ।
तद्धनं प्राप्य मन्त्री सौ लोके पार्थिवतां गतः ॥

v2.c30.16

remarks that Nanda was at first a minister of the previous king and that he belonged to a low family but was the leading man of the community. By unexpected acquisition of wealth he became the king of the country. He entertained the bhikṣus in Kāśī for many years.¹ King Nanda was surrounded by Brāhmaṇa ministers, on whom also he bestowed wealth. At the instance of his spiritual teacher (kalyāṇamitra) he offered several gifts to the caityas built on Buddha’s relics.² King Nanda ruled for 20 years and died as a true Buddhist at the age of sixty-six.³

v2.c30.17

¹ Schiefner, op. cit., p. 53.

v2.c30.18

² Mmk., p. 611-2.

v2.c30.19

³ Mmk., p. 612.

v2.c30.20

During the reign of Nanda, the bhikṣu Nāga began to speak highly of the five propositions of Mahādeva, which led to the appearance of four schools.⁴ In this connection, we may refer to the statement of Tāranātha that during the reign of Aśoka (i.e. Kālāsoka) appeared a brāhmaṇa Vatsa in Kashmir who was learned but very wicked. He took pleasure in preaching the Ātmaka theory, travelled over all the countries and turned the simple people into his own teaching and caused a dissension in the Saṅgha.⁵ It is a well known fact that the Vātsiputrīyas were one of the four schools, and probably this school came into existence at an earlier date but was recognised as a separate school at the time of king Nanda.

First 156 of 2,139 passages. Read on

Linked texts (75)