Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c29.s1: System of specialisation in different branches of Buddhist literature

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c29.s1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (8)