Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The History of Buddhist Thought c11.s4: The Schools

The History of Buddhist Thought c11.s4

Language
English

The Schools

c11.s4.1

It is during the first three centuries of Buddhism that the community is said to have split into seventeen or, including the original body, eighteen schools. There are several lists of the schools in existence.²

c11.s4.2

² See Appendix II.

c11.s4.3

That given by the Ceylon Chronicles is doubtless the oldest, but as it has been preserved by a school out of direct contact with India several of the names have been corrupted. There are also several lists coming from Sanskrit sources, but they all vary so much that it is impossible to suppose that we can form a chronological scheme of the growth of the divisions. They were naturally all drawn up long after the schools originated, and represent the attempts of the scholiasts to construct a history. They do, however, allow us to draw several important conclusions. The Chronicles call the schools *ācariyavāda*, " schools of teachers," and this suggests one cause of the origin of sects, that is, the rise of prominent teachers who were able to impose their views on certain communities. A number of the names are formed from personal names, those of the *ācariyas*, the teachers of the respective schools. Other names are place names, suggesting the development of schools in special localities, and some are formed from the peculiar doctrine of the school.

c11.s4.4

The real value of the lists is in giving us an approximate view as to what at various periods the various communities were held to be. From this point of view the list in the *Mahāvyutpatti* (275) is one of the most important. It is also of special interest in giving one of the few references in Sanskrit Buddhism to the schools of Ceylon. It is a Sarvāstivādin list, and may have been drawn up in the fifth or sixth century A.D.,¹ but it evidently contains older elements.

c11.s4.5

¹ The date of this list is, of course, independent of the question of the date of *Mvyut*.

c11.s4.6

The arrangement is not, as in the other lists, chronological, but the schools are arranged in four groups :

c11.s4.7

1. *Sarvāstivādas* : Mūla-Sarvāstivādas, Kāśyapīyas, Mahiśāsakas, Dharmaguptas, Bahuśrutīyas, Tāmraśātīyas, Vibhajyavādins.

c11.s4.8

2. *Sammatīyas* : Kaurukullakas, Āvantakas, Vātsīputrīyas.

c11.s4.9

3. *Mahāsanghikas* : Pūrvaśailas, Aparaśailas, Haimavatas, Lokottaravādins, Prajñaptivādins.

c11.s4.10

4. *Sthaviras* : Mahāvihāravāsins, Jetavanīyas, Abhayagirivāsins.

c11.s4.11

A few of these schools are mere names, but each of the groups is significant as being historically important for its doctrines.²

c11.s4.12

² The geographical distribution of the chief schools also throws light on their development. Magadha and Kosala, the primitive sphere of Buddhism, had become the Maurya empire, which extended more and more to the north-west. In this direction the Sarvāstivādins spread, their chief seat being at Mathurā (Muttra in the United Provinces) among the Sūrasenas. The Mūla-Sarvāstivādins were chiefly in Kashmir. Further south, on the Jumna, was Kosambī in the region of the Vatsas (Pāli, Vamsas), probably the seat of the Vātsīputrīyas. Still further west and north of the Vindhyas were the Avantis, with capital Ujjenī. This, as will be seen, is the probable region where the Pāli Canon as we now have it was elaborated in its present dialect. The trade route to the south was past Ujjenī, and it was by this route that Buddhism reached south India.

c11.s4.13

The Sarvāstivādins and Theravādins (Skt. Sthaviravādins) each have Scriptures which show that they developed in close connection. Both Canons were originally in a Prakrit dialect and compiled on a common plan. But they were for long preserved by memory, and the mere local separation of the various communities is enough to explain how differences of classification arose and grew. No doubt other differences began early, as we find at the second Council references to monks of the east and monks of the west. But it is not certain that the two schools considered themselves distinct even as late as the time of Asoka. The Chronicles appear to have put the separation before Asoka, Vasumitra puts it after. As there was no violent secession, it is not easy to see how the date of separation could be determined, especially as the two schools continued to live together for centuries.

c11.s4.14

In the above list the term Sarvāstivāda is a general one covering seven groups. The Chinese Canon, however, includes a Vinaya of this name, as well as one of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins.¹ One branch here given is that of the Vibhajyavādins. The term means one who distinguishes or discriminates, referring specially to a method of philosophical discussion. It is the same term by which the Theravādins are said to have described themselves to Asoka. If there is a basis of fact to this story, it may imply that the word had not yet become a party term, for it is one that no Buddhist would have disclaimed in its plain meaning.

c11.s4.15

¹ Mūla = "root". That this sect really was, as it claimed to be, the original one need not be assumed, any more than in the case of modern sects that describe themselves as primitive or apostolical.

c11.s4.16

Among the Sammatiya group we find the Āvantakas, i.e. people of Avanti in the western district with the chief city Ujjenī. The term Vātsīputrīya suggests a connection with another western district, that of the Vatsas (Pāli, Vamsas). The name Vātsīputrīyas has never been explained. In form it means the followers of Vatsīputra² or the Vatsīputras, the Vatsa people. This school, though only known from the statements of opponents, is important for its peculiar doctrine of *pudgalavāda*, the theory that the individual is something more than the sum of the constituents of which he is composed. The name Kaurukullaka is of interest as the survival of an early School of which nothing is really known. Even the name is uncertain, as it occurs in at least four forms, and the Chronicles class it with the next group.

c11.s4.17

² Lit. "son of the Vatsa woman". Such personal names are common, like Ajātasattu's name Vedehiputta, "son of the Videha woman." Vatsiputra is conceivably the name of the ācariya who founded the school. In the Chronicles the sect name is Vajjiputtaka. It occurs twice over, first as the name of the originators of the first schism, the Mahāsanghikas, or, as *Dpvs.* calls them, the Mahāsangītikas, and again as a sect that split off later with the Mahimsāsakas. The latter are the Vātsīputrīyas. The Pali term is a corruption, unless Vajji is here = Vṛji = Vraja, the district near Mathurā.

c11.s4.18

Of the Mahāsanghikas the only part of their Canon which has survived is that of the Lokottaravādin branch in the *Mahāvastu*. This school held a docetic theory of the nature of a Buddha, very important for Mahāyāna developments, and so also, according to the *Kathāvatthu* commentary, did the Pūrvaśailas and Aparaśailas, established in South India. The Haimavatas, says Vasumitra, were really Sthaviras (Theravādins) who had changed their name. It is likely enough that in his time there were no Theravādins in India except certain sects like the Haimavatas, who laid claim to the name. The same may be concluded from what Hiuen Tsiang reports of the Sthaviras in India in the seventh century. He describes most of them as being of the Mahāyāna sect. This group, in fact, includes those that were or became Mahāyānists.

c11.s4.19

The Sthaviras are the Pāli Theras, “elders,” the members of the Theravāda, “the school of the Elders.” Here we find all the three Theravāda schools established in Ceylon and divided just as described in the Ceylon Chronicles.¹

c11.s4.20

¹ *Mhvs.*, xv, xxxiii, 80–3; xxxvii, 32–9. Cf. *Dpvs.*, xix, 14; xii, 70–5.

c11.s4.21

The Mahāvihāravāsins, “inhabitants of the Great Vihāra,” claimed to be the orthodox Theravādins established by Mahinda at Anurādhapura at the time of the official introduction of Buddhism into Ceylon under Asoka when the Mahavihāra was built. From the *Mahāvaṃsa* we learn that two centuries later under king Vaṭṭagāmaṇi (29 B.C.) the Abhayagiri vihāra was built, and soon afterwards a schism resulted. This is evidently the school of the Abhayagirivāsins, the inhabitants of the Abhayagiri vihāra, also at Anurādhapura. According to the *Sāsanavaṃsa* (24) they were known as the Dhammarucis. The Jetavanīya school arose in the reign of Mahāsena (A.D. 325–352), when the Jetavana vihāra was built. The *Sāsanavaṃsa* identifies it with the Sāgaliya school.

c11.s4.22

The remarkable fact about the *Mahāvyutpatti* list is the extent to which it is corroborated by the Chronicles. The list in the latter is doubtless old, but besides the eighteen schools it records later ones, six in India and two in Ceylon. The *Mahāvyutpatti* has dropped seven that had become obsolete and meaningless, and has placed five of the additional schools among the eighteen. Only two of its names are not found in the Chronicles, and it has the three Theravādin schools of Ceylon, the orthodox Theravādins, the Dhammarucis, and the Sāgaliyas. Its grouping of the schools also allows us to see the main lines of development. The most widely extended school was the Sarvāstivāda, which at first and for long must have been closely associated with the Theravāda. What particular school was represented by the mission of Mahinda to Ceylon we do not know. No written Scriptures were taken by this mission, as it was not till two centuries later that they are said to have been written down.¹ There may have been such an official recording, but what we possess are not the Scriptures as introduced in the third century B.C. It is the Canon as it existed in some school that claimed to be Theravādin, and had been turned into the dialect of the place from which it came, the dialect which we call Pāli.² Where this locality was is still disputed. Oldenberg thought it was probably in south India, in the kingdoms of Andhra or Kalinga, but from what we know of the schools of south India this is unlikely. The close connection with the Sarvāstivāda Canon makes it more likely that this Pāli school developed somewhere in the north. We find in it legends told with reference to great Buddhist settlements, but none referring to south India. Franke on philological grounds fixed the dialect in the region of Ujjenī. Walleser and Geiger for different and even contradictory reasons prefer Magadha. Grierson put it in the north-west, which was a stronghold of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins.³ In any case it is generally agreed that it is a form of Northern Buddhism, but owing to the fact that it has spread from Ceylon to Burma, Siam, and further India it has usually been termed Southern Buddhism.

c11.s4.23

¹ *Mhvs.*, xxxiii, 100-1.

c11.s4.24

² The term Pāli as used by the Ceylon commentators means the text of the Scriptures as opposed to the commentaries. Western scholars have adopted it as the name of the language in which both text and commentary were written.

c11.s4.25

³ Przyluski, *La légende de l'empéreur Açoka*, p. vi.

c11.s4.26

The outstanding divisions in earlier Buddhism as determined by the literature are the schools of the Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, and Mahāsanghika, the last represented by the Lokottaravāda of the Mahāvastu. It was within the last two that the new tendencies and theories arose which produced the Mahāyāna schools.

Cites (4)