Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c35.s7: The Haimavatas

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c35.s7

Language
English

The Haimavatas

v2.c35.s7.1

Bhavya and Vinītadeva enlist the Haimavatas as a branch of the Mahāsanghikas (Group I Schools) while Vasumitra remarks that the principal doctrines of this School were the same as those of the Sarvāstivādins.⁴ He adds that the original (*mūla*) Sthaviravāda changed its name to Haimavata.⁵ In the Ceylonese chronicles, however, the Hemavatikas are counted as one of the later sects, which came into existence some time after the appearance of the first eighteen schools. In view of these con-

v2.c35.s7.2

⁴ Masuda, p 53

v2.c35.s7.3

⁵ Masuda, p. 16; *Points of Controversy*, p. xxxvii.

v2.c35.s7.4

पुद्गल श्रुति । Cf. *Vedāntasūtra*, ii. 2, 23; *Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā* (Viz. S.S.), 383. See also *Kośa*, ii. 46; *Madhyamakavṛtti*, pp. 29, n. 5; 173, n. 8; 222, 413.

v2.c35.s7.5

flicting statements, and the acceptance of some doctrines of the Mahāsanghikas, it seems that this school might have branched out of the Sarvāstivādins or Sthaviravādins but doctrinally was inclined more towards the Mahāhanghikas than towards the Sarvāstivādins.

v2.c35.s7.6

Prof. Przyluski, however, identify the Haimavatas with the Kāśyapīyas on the following grounds:—

v2.c35.s7.7

(i) In the Ceylonese chronicles, the apostles sent to Himavanta are Majjhima and Dundubhissara of the Kassapagotta.

v2.c35.s7.8

(ii) On the relic caskets discovered in the stūpa of Sonari and Sanci are inscribed (a) sapurisasa Kāsapagotasa savahemavatācariyasa and (b) sapurisasa kotiputasa Kāsapagotasa savahemavatācariyasa.

v2.c35.s7.9

(iii) There are other inscriptions which mention Majjhima and Dundubhissara.

v2.c35.s7.10

He adds that there can be no doubt about the fact that the monks of Kassapa-gotta were responsible for the propagation of Buddhism in the Himavanta. This school also claims Kassapa as its founder, so the same school was known by two names, one local as Haimavata and the other after its founder Kassapa as Kassapiya (= Kāśyapīya). The former name fell into disetude, and so the Chinese pilgrims refer to it by the other name only, the Kāśyapīyas.¹

v2.c35.s7.11

¹ Le Concile de Rājagṛha, p. 317-18.

v2.c35.s7.12

The conclusion drawn by Prof. Przyluski from the inscriptional evidences does not appear to be logical. In the inscriptions it is stated that some monks of the Kassapagotta propagated Buddhism in Himavanta but there is nothing to show that the Kassapagotta monks necessarily belonged to the Kāśyapīya school. Hence the identification of Kāśyapīyas with the Haimavatas is not tenable.

v2.c35.s7.13

Vasumitra treats the Kāśyapīyas and the Haimavatas as separate schools upholding different doctrines. He attributes to the Haimavatas a few doctrines which are in close agreement with those of the Sarvāstivādins, e.g.,

v2.c35.s7.14

(i) The Bodhisattvas are average beings (*pṛthagjanas*);

v2.c35.s7.15

(ii) Bodhisattvas have neither *rāga* nor *kāma* when they enter their mothers' womb;

v2.c35.s7.16

(iii) Heretics cannot gain the five supernatural powers;

v2.c35.s7.17

(iv) There is no *brahmacaryāvāsa* among the gods; and

v2.c35.s7.18

(v) *Arhats* have ignorance and doubt; they are subject to temptation; they gain spiritual perception with the help of others; and the path is attained by an exclamation.¹

v2.c35.s7.19

¹ The last two opinions are in agreement with those of the Mahāsanghikas. See above, p. 85

Linked texts (2)