Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c29: Chapter III

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c29

Language
English

Contents

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.

Linked texts (17)