Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c37: Chapter XI: Sthaviravāda or Theravāda

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c37

Language: English

v2.c37.s1 Centres of popularity — 7 parts
v2.c37.s2 Language — 3 parts
v2.c37.s3 Literature — 1 part
v2.c37.s4 Doctrines — 35 parts

Chapter XI: Sthaviravāda or Theravāda

v2.c37.2

(including Mahāvihāravāsins and Abhayagirivāsins)

v2.c37.3

According to both Pāli and Sanskrit traditions, the original school, which the Ceylonese chronicles¹ would not count as a schismatic, was called Theravāda or Sthaviravāda.

v2.c37.4

¹ *Dipavaṃsa*, V. 51: Sattarasa bhinnavādā eko vādo abhinnako. See Watters, I, p. 164.

An alternative name of the Sthaviravādins is given as Vibhajyavādins. It is doubtful whether any independent school went by the name of Vibhajyavāda. It has been shown above that Vibhajyavāda was sometimes affixed to the name of a school to show that certain adherents of a school differed in minor points from the principal doctrines of a particular school and preferred to distinguish themselves as Vibhajyavādin of that particular school. In this way we may explain the Vibhajjavāda of the Ceylonese tradition, that is to say, the Ceylonese did not accept in toto the doctrine of Theravāda and preferred to distinguish themselves as Sthavira-vibhajjavādī or simply Vibhajjavādī.² In the Kathāvatthu the term Sakavāda is used instead of Sthaviravāda or Vibhajjavāda.³

v2.c37.6

² See above, p. 196.

v2.c37.7

³ *Points of Controversy*, p. xli.

v2.c37.8

Hiuen Tsang speaks of a group of monks as Mahāyānists of the Sthavira school. From his records,⁴ it seems that he divided the monks of Ceylon into two groups, calling the Mahāvihāravāsins as Hinayāna-Sthaviras and the Abhayagirivāsins as Mahāyāna-Sthaviras. He came across such Mahāyānist Sthaviras in the Mahābodhi-saṅghārāma, built in Gaya by a king of Ceylon,¹ in Kaliṅga² and Surat.³ In the monasteries of Samataṭa,⁴ Drāviḍa,⁵ he says, the monks belonged to the Sthavira school without any mention of Mahāyāna. He was aware of the split of the Buddhist church into two schools, Sthaviras and Mahāsaṅghikas,⁶ and quite deliberately used the expression Mahāyānist Sthaviras. His remarks about the division of monks in Ceylon remind us about the Ceylonese tradition that the Abhayagiri monastery became for some time a centre of the Vetulyakas, the immediate forerunners, we may say, of the Mahāyānists,⁷ and very probably the Chinese pilgrim referred to the Vetulyakas or the monks generally living in the Abhayagiri monastery as Sthaviras of the Mahāyāna school. By Mahāyānist Sthaviras Hiuen Tsang probably meant those monks who followed Vinaya rules of the Sthaviravādins but held views of the Mahāyānists like Suññatāvāda of the Vetulyakas.

v2.c37.9

⁴ Watters, II, p. 234.

v2.c37.10

¹ Watters, II, p. 138.

v2.c37.11

² *Ibid.*, II, p. 109.

v2.c37.12

³ *Ibid.*, II, p. 248.

v2.c37.13

⁴ *Ibid.*, II, p. 188.

v2.c37.14

⁵ *Ibid.*, II, p. 226.

v2.c37.15

⁶ Watters, I, p. 164; II, p. 161.

v2.c37.16

⁷ See above, p. 110.

v2.c37.17

In the *Abhidharmakośa* and its *bhāṣya*,⁸ certain erudite monks are referred to as Sthaviras e.g. Sthavira Saṃghabhadra, Sthavira Vasubandhu, Sthavira Śrīlāta while the Chinese commentators on the texts point out that by "nikāyāntara," the text referred to the Sthavira school. In the *Kośavyākhyā* (p. 705), there is a reference to the Tāmraparṇīyanikāya. These references, however, are too inadequate for drawing any conclusion.

v2.c37.18

⁸ See *Kośa*, Index, *s.v.* Sthavira.

v2.c37.19

Leaving aside for the present the Haimavatas, or the Mahāyānist Sthaviras let us turn to the original Sthavira school which claimed the Pāli scriptures as its own, or to be more precise, to the Sthaviravādins of the Mahāvihāra of Ceylon. Vasumitra has passed over the doctrines of this school while the Kathāvatthu refers to them by the word sakavāda. For the purpose of finding out the distinctive doctrines of this school, we shall elicit from the Kathāvatthu the views of the Sakavādins as against those of other schools on any particular doctrine.

Centres of popularity

v2.c37.s1.1

The Tibetan traditions ascribe the foundation of this school to Mahākaccāyana¹ who was a native of Ujjeni, son of the priest of king Caṇḍa Pajjota of Avanti. The Pāli traditions, however, give prominence to Upāli, and speak of the succession of his disciples, the chief of whom was Dāsaka. The latter’s disciples were Siggava and Caṇḍavajji who were young at the time of the Second Council.²

v2.c37.s1.2

¹ See also Mahākarmavibhaṅga, p. 61-2.

v2.c37.s1.3

² Aṭṭhasālini (p 32) however gives prominence to the disciples of Sāriputta, the chief of the Ābhidhammikas thus: Sāriputta-Bhaddaji-Sobhita-Piyajāli-Piyapāla-Piyadassi-Kosiyaputta-Siggava-Saṇḍeva-Moggaliputta, etc. Moggaliputta Tissa was a disciple of Siggava and Caṇḍavajji. See Samantapāsādikā, I, p. 40.

v2.c37.s1.4

The events of the Second Council, in which the Theravādins became separated from the main body, indicate that the monks of the west, specially of Kauśāmbi and Avanti, formed the nucleus of this sect. The biography of Mahinda, who is mainly responsible for the propagation of this school of Buddhism in Ceylon, also shows that this school was more popular in the west than in the east. Taking into consideration all these facts, it may be stated that the Theravādins had one centre at Pāṭaliputra along with other schools but were chiefly concentrated in and around Ujjeni, which became its second but more important centre.

v2.c37.s1.5

In the Sarnāth inscription, there is a reference to the existence of the Theravādins at that place in the early days, while in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions, mention is made of the activities of this sect in the propagation of Buddhism. In the Maṇimekhalai, we find that it had its popularity in countries around Kāñcī, which became one of their principal centres in the post-Christian eras.¹ The fact that Buddhaghosa and Dharmapāla had their training at Kāñcī goes to show that Kāñcī became later on the educational seat of the Theravādins. After Mahinda’s demise the school obtained a firm footing in Ceylon and made the Mahāvihāra its chief academic centre. Hiuen Tsang saw one hundred monasteries of the Sthavira school in Drāviḍa, and also in Samaṭaṭa. He says that Dharmapāla was born in the Drāviḍa country.² From this survey, it may be stated that the school originated at Pāṭaliputra, became popular in the western countries, making Ujjeni its second centre and then it gradually made headway towards the south, settling in and around Kāñcī, and was ultimately established in Ceylon.

v2.c37.s1.6

¹ See Aiyangar, ‘A Buddhist School at Kāñcī (Proceedings of the 4th Oriental Conference, Allahabad).

v2.c37.s1.7

² Watters, II, p. 226.

Language

v2.c37.s2.1

According to the Tibetan traditions, this school had its Piṭaka in the Paiśāci dialect. There is much value in this tradition. Grierson holds that Paiśāci had its home in the North-West (Kekaya and Gandhāra i.e. near Taxila) and that it gradually made its way to the western countries upto the Konkan coast.¹ Guṇādhya, who belonged to Ujjeni, it is said, wrote Bṛhatkathā in Paiśāci.² On philological ground Sten Konow localises Paiśāci around the Vindhya hills. He holds that Pāli is the literary form of Paiśāci. The traditions preserved in the Ceylonese chronicles also indicate that Pāli had its home somewhere in Avanti. So it is quite possible that the Tibetan tradition refers to Pāli as literary Paiśāci.

v2.c37.s2.2

¹ Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, pp. 119-120. see also IRAS, 1921, pp. 244-5; 424-8

v2.c37.s2.3

² ZDMG., LXVI, (1910), pp 114 f.

Literature

v2.c37.s3.1

The whole of the Pāli literature belongs to this school and as such it hardly needs any further comment. The only information that we should add is that Hiuen Tsang records that he carried to China fourteen volumes of the Sthavira Sūtras, Śāstras and Vinaya. No Sinologist has so far dealt with this literature and we are still in the dark about the Sthaviras whom the Chinese pilgrim had in view.

Doctrines

v2.c37.s4.1

The Theravāda doctrines are fairly well known and have been given in detail in the first volume of this work (chs. xii-xv). Our object here will be to mention the differences which this school had with the other schools, as pointed out by Vasumitra and Buddhaghosa. These differences are discussed in detail in connection with the doctrines of each school and so these are not repeated here. It should be noted that the doctrines of the Sarvāstivādins, Sammitīyas, Mahīśāsakas, Sautrāntikas and the Mahāsanghikas have been mainly kept in view.

v2.c37.s4.2

The views of the Theravādins as against the opinions of the above-mentioned schools are as follows:—

v2.c37.s4.3

*Re. Buddhas:*

v2.c37.s4.4

(i) Buddhas possess *rūpakāya* and worldly attributes and are subject to all the physical frailties of a human being; it is the attainment of *bodhi* that makes a being a Buddha.

v2.c37.s4.5

(ii) Buddhas are above *maitrī* and *karuṇā*, but they do show *maitrī* and *karuṇā* to beings.

v2.c37.s4.6

(iii) Buddhas cannot expound all the doctrines by a single utterance.

v2.c37.s4.7

*Re. Bodhisattvas:*

v2.c37.s4.8

(i) Bodhisattvas are average beings, and are subject to *kleśas*.

v2.c37.s4.9

(ii) They are not self-born (*upapāduka*).

v2.c37.s4.10

*Re. Reals:*

v2.c37.s4.11

Past and future *dharmas* do not exist, not even their *dharmatva*. To say that Arhat has *atīta rāga* though it is ineffective is wrong.

v2.c37.s4.12

*Re. Arhats:*

v2.c37.s4.13

(i) Arhats are perfect beings, hence they cannot have a fall from arhathood. They possess both *kṣayajñāna* (i.e. the knowledge that they have no more *kleśas*) and *anutpādajñāna* (i.e. the knowledge that they will have no more rebirths). There are, however, two grades of Arhats, viz., *svadharmakuśala* and *paradharmakuśala* (see above, p. 86-7).

Linked texts (3)

Dīpavaṃsa — Pāli
Samantapāsādikā — Sanskrit
Mahākarmavibhaṅga — Sanskrit