Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31.s5: Conclusion
Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31.s5
- Language
- English
Conclusion
v2.c31.s5.1
Now the questions that can be raised are: To which of the two causes is due the schism? Or is the schism due to both the causes? We prefer the second alternative and may account for the two traditions thus: The division of monks began with the differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the ten Vinaya rules some time before the appearance of Mahādeva (or Nāga)¹ i.e., during the reign of Kālāsoka. It was about half a century after this event that Mahādeva or Nāga propounded his five dogmas during the reign of king Nanda and his disciple Sthiramati propagated it further. As regards the fact that the tradition of the breach of ten Vinaya rules appears in the Vinaya texts and the Ceylonese chronicles while the tradition about Mahādeva’s five dogmas appears in the Tibetan and Chinese versions of Vasumitra’s and other writers’ text on the doctrine of the schools, we may state that the Vinaya texts being concerned with the disciplinary aspect of the religion passed over the doctrinal differences while Vasumitra and other writers being more concerned with doctrinal differences than with disciplinary rules, considered it unnecessary to repeat the ten un-Vinayic acts of the Vesālian monks. The sources of information of the Ceylonese chronicles being the Vinaya texts, these also passed over the doctrinal differences, Yuan Chwang, being an annalist, was interested in both doctrines and disciplines and so he recorded the divergences in regard to both. It is quite probable that the schism began with disciplinary rules and in course of time, incorporated matters of doctrine.
v2.c31.s5.2
¹ See above, p. 24, where Nāga is described as a disciple of Mahādeva, and Sthiramati as a disciple of Nāga.
v2.c31.s5.3
It is apparent from the subject-matter of the ten un-Vinayic acts and the five points of Mahādeva, that the Vesālians wanted a certain amount of latitude and freedom in the interpretation and observance of the rules,¹ and to carry into their organizations and general governance a democratic spirit which was gradually disappearing from the Buddhist Saṅgha. The exclusive powers and privileges which the arhats claimed for themselves were looked upon with disfavour by the Vesālians. The claim of the arhats to become members of important Councils and make their decisions binding on the non-arhats did not appeal to the Vajjians—a clan imbued with a thorough democratic spirit. The five propositions of Mahādeva also indicated that the arhats were not ‘perfect’ men as was claimed by the orthodox and that the arhats also had a few limitations. The Vesālians refused to be bound down by the decision of the arhats, and instead they convened a Council of all arhats and non-arhats, calling it a Mahāsangīti and agreed to abide by the decisions of the enlarged Council. This new body believed sincerely that the decisions taken by them were in conformity with what they had learnt from Buddha.
v2.c31.s5.4
¹ The Vesālian monks are called Vajjiputtakas in the Pali tradition. In the Aṅguttara (I, p. 230) we notice that a Vajjiputtaka monk approached Buddha saying that it would be difficult for him to observe the 250 rules of the Pātimokkha.
Linked texts (1)
- Khettasutta — Pāli