At
the time of the Buddha, a remarkable harmony was present in the “monastic
community” (Saµgha) despite a few clashes or temporary ruptures. However, this harmony
gradually disappeared after the ParinirvŒöa of the Buddha, and the Saµgha became prone to discord. According to which work one uses, two,
three, four or five traditions can be listed as new and individual groups.
Whatever the depiction of such schism(s) may be, the MahŒsŒµghika has always been recognized as one
of the earliest traditions. There are many theories about the reasons that the Saµgha divided, because the scholars’ explanations vary from one another
concerning the rationale for the first schism. Among the various rationale,
three theories related to the establishment of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition will be given in the
beginning of Chapter One as partial background material.
The
first theory suggests that the division between and among different groups was
owing to the leniency held by the MahŒsŒµghikas towards the ten disciplinary practices, including that of
receiving gold, silver or currency. The second theory records that a person
proposed five doctrinal points which supposedly were accepted by the MahŒsŒµghikas. There was a serious discord
within the Saµgha over these five points. Such different stances served as an
instigation that split the monastic fraternity into two or more traditions. The
third theory holds that neither the leniency of the ten disciplinary practices
nor the five doctrinal points occasioned the first schism. Instead, it was the
expansion of the root Vinaya which
provoked critical dissent within the Saµgha; thereafter the accord within the monastic community dissipated. In
this regard, the MahŒsŒµghikas were referred to as conservatives who resisted the expansion
of the root Vinaya.
Since
the reference in each theory may be colored by a certain tradition (e.g., the
TheravŒda in the first theory [1.A], SarvŒstivŒda in the second [1.B], or MahŒsŒµghika itself in the third [1.C]),
without a close examination of the MahŒsŒµghika texts any accusation or claim would remain one-sided. Aside
from obtaining some impression from the above three theories, the alternative
is to observe the MahŒsŒµghika tradition directly through a study of its own vinaya literature Ñ the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya Ñ the main source of this thesis.
The
MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya is extant only in
its Chinese translation (Taish‾ no.
1425). The general layout and organization of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya is given in view of
the following five divisions:
1. The commentary of the disciplinary precepts for monks
(T22. 227a1 [fasc. 1] - 412b16 [fasc.
22]);
2. The Miscellanea-dharma (T22. 412b17 [fasc. 23] - 499a17 [fasc. 33]);
3. The Deportment-dharma (T22. 499a18 [fasc. 34] - 514a18 [fasc. 35]);
4. The commentary of the disciplinary precepts for the
nuns
(T22. 514a19 [fasc. 36] - 544c10 [fasc.
40]);
5. The bhik·uö´ Miscellanea-dharma and Deportment-dharma
(T22. 544c11-548a28 [fasc. 40]).
It
is commonly recognized that, among the seven extant collections of Vinayas, the tradition to which a text
belongs is as follows:
(1) PŒli Vinaya Ñ the TheravŒdins;
(2) SsÅ-fn-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1428, Caturvargika-vinaya) Ñ the
Dharmaguptakas;
(3) Mi-sha-sai-pu-huo-hsi-wu-fn-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1421, Pa–cavargika-vinaya)
Ñ the Mah´§Œsakas;
(4) Shih-sung-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1435, Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya)
Ñ the SarvŒstivŒdins;
(5) The Chinese texts that are named in connection with
“MèlasarvŒstivŒda”
(e.g., Kn-pn-shuo-i-ch’ieh-yu-pu-p’i-nai-yeh, Taish‾ no. 1442,
the MèlasarvŒstivŒda Bhik·u-vinaya) Ñ the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins;
(6) The Tibetan versions of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda-vinaya
Ñ the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins;
(7) The Mo-ho-sng-ch’i-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1425, MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya)
Ñ the MahŒsŒµghikas.
As
far as two traditions during the initial schism are concerned, the first six Vinayas (i.e., those of the TheravŒdins, Dharmaguptakas, Mah´§Œsakas SarvŒstivŒdins and MèlasarvŒstivŒdins) belong to the SthaviravŒdin tradition, whereas the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya belongs only to the MahŒsŒµghika tradition. The recognition of the
traditions for these texts may well make the study of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya worthwhile for
grasping the background of the MahŒsŒµghika tradition. The present research is to understand the MahŒsŒµghika tradition by differentiating a
study of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya from the other sources. The more significant concern of the
thesis is to go beyond any account of a particular tradition concerning the
background of the MahŒsŒµghikas so that the embodiment of its monastic discipline can be
understood. This information is provided in Chapter Two, and the transitional
structure of the Vinaya will be
viewed as-it-is in Chapter Three.
Chapter Two Ñ The Traditional
Value of the Vinaya in the
Mo-ho-sng-ch’i-lŸ
In
order to present the exceptional character of the structure of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, the traditional
context and significance of monastic discipline will be introduced in Chapter Two.
The traditional value of monastic discipline will be explored by analyzing the
text in view of six divisions Ñ
“harmony”, “calmness”, “purity”, “promulgation for others”, “spiritual
cultivation for oneself” and “the utmost”. Each division, in turn, will be
illustrated on the basis of the contents of the text.
Although
in Chapter One, the MahŒsŒµghikas were connected with those who claimed the legitimacy of the
ten disciplinary practices (regarding the theory of disciplinary leniency
[1.A]), in Chapter Two it will be pointed out that the MahŒsŒµghikas treasured the monastic
disciplines in the same manner as the other traditions. Hence, it is doubtful
that only the MahŒsŒµghikas were advocates of disciplinary leniency.
Chapter Three Ñ The
Development in the Mo-ho-sng-ch’i-lŸ
Subsequent
to introducing how the monastic discipline is valuable to the traditionally
monastic lifestyle, the structure of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya will be analyzed in Chapter Three. In general, the contents
of the Vinaya include two major
sections: 1) the Vibhaºga consisting of the disciplinary precepts and its commentary, and 2)
the DharmŒnudharma (some scholars such as Erich Frauwallner call this Skandhaka) consisting of various monastic guidelines.
The
DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya contains the Miscellanea-dharma and Deportment-dharma. These
two dharmas will be, in the main, the basis of a detailed analysis. The bhik·u DharmŒnudharma is noted as appearing under a variety of names such as skandhaka (chapter), vastu (issue), dharmaka (matter) or saµyukta
(correspondence) in other Vinayas.
On
seeing the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma, either Miscellanea-dharma or Deportment-dharma is the highest
stratum, which corresponds to a “dharma” (a collective term of diverse monastic
guidelines). Miscellanea-dharma comprises fourteen vargas
(chapters), and Deportment-dharma comprises seven vargas.
Each varga, for the most part, contains the explanations of ten topics. The
heading of each topic is designated “disciplinary topic” (vinaya mŒt¨kŒ), for its function is similar to the “doctrinal topics” (dharma mŒt¨kŒs) in the context of the Abhidharma literature. As a result, dharma,
varga and a disciplinary topic form a three-tiered structure. The
previous discussion can be summarized as follows:
Vinaya: I. Vibhaºga
a) prŒtimok·a (the corpus of disciplinary precepts)
b) commentary on prŒtimok·a.
II. DharmŒnudharma (Skandhaka)
a) various names according to text (skandhaka, vastu,
dharmaka or saµyukta).
b) MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya
1) Miscellanea (Prak´röaka-) dharma
14
vargas Ñ» 139 vinaya mŒt¨kŒs
2) Deportment (AbhisamŒcŒrika-) dharma
7 vargas Ñ» 70 vinaya mŒt¨kŒs.
Increasingly,
scholars have noticed that the dharma mŒt¨kŒs (doctrinal topics) served as the basis for the Abhidharma
literature. This shows that the mŒt¨kŒs had an important role in the transition of the literature from a
single set of doctrinal topics to a more elaborate framework of Buddhist texts.
To answer whether or not there were any vinaya mŒt¨kŒs (disciplinary topics) in a Buddhist text, nine kinds of the
textual evidences of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒ will be provided first in 3.A. Among the nine kinds, Ven. Yin-shun
has examined in more detail the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs in the Sa-p’o-to-pu-p’i-ni-mo-t-l-ch’ieh (Taish‾ no. 1441, SarvŒstivŒda-vinayamŒt¨kŒ, the fifth textual
evidence), Shih-sung-lŸ
(Taish‾ no. 1435, Da§abhŒöavŒra-vinaya, the seventh textual
evidence), and P’i-ni-mu-ching (Taish‾ no. 1463, VinayamŒt¨kŒ-sètra, the eighth textual evidence) in his YŸan-shih-fu-chiao-shng-tien-chih-chi-ch’ng (The Compilation of the Scriptures
in Early Buddhism, Chapter Five). He also mentions briefly textual
evidences in the ParivŒra (the third textual evidence) and in the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ (the fourth textual evidence). In addition to his research, Prof.
Akira Hirakawa has pointed out the vinaya mŒt¨kŒ style in the Eastern Turkestan Sanskrit manuscripts (the sixth
textual evidence); Thomas William Rhys Davids and Hermann Oldenberg noticed the
textual evidence of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒ in the Samathakkhandhaka of the TheravŒda Vinaya (the second
textual evidence). In the present thesis, two kinds of textual evidences of the
vinaya mŒt¨kŒs will be added. These two kinds of textual evidences can be found
in the YŸ-ch’ieh-shih-ti-lun (Taish‾ no. 1579, YogŒcŒrabhèmi-§Œstra, the first textual evidence) and
the appendix to the îrya MahŒsŒµghika-LokottaravŒdin Bhik·uöi-vinaya (the ninth textual evidence). Nonetheless, the present thesis is
the first to collect all of these discoveries of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs into nine kinds of textual evidences.
The
reasons for such a variety of textual evidences that demonstrate the traces of vinaya mŒt¨kŒs (disciplinary topics) are twofold. Firstly, there is a need to
grasp the role that the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs played in the development of the vinaya
literature. Secondly, the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya that corresponds to the skandhakas,
vastus, dharmakas or saµyuktas in the other texts needs to be examined in depth as long as the
remnants of the mŒt¨kŒs are still visible in the vinaya
literature.
Although
the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya and other extant Vinayas bear some similarities in
contents (see T51. 864b21-22, Kao-sng-fa-hsien-chuan, Taish‾ no. 2085), the organization of this Vinaya and those of the other texts are
diametrically opposed. Most scholars have overlooked a particular position that
the MahŒsŒµghikas adopted throughout their development of the Buddha’s
teachings. These researchers tend to standardize the structural analysis of the
MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya on the basis of
the framework of the other Vinayas
(Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya, pp. 47-48; Akira Hirakawa, Ritsuz‾, pp. 644-59). Studies to the present have left the formulation of
the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya unnoticed.
Consequently,
the DharmŒnudharma will be investigated in view of four topics in Chapter Three, Part
B (including the epilogue of Part B in 3.B.4). First in 3.B.1, two theories
concerning the evolution of the Skandhaka (DharmŒnudharma) will be reviewed. Of the two theories, the first suggests that the
Skandhaka grew out of the KarmavŒcanŒs, the formulae employed in establishing the various disciplinary
decisions in the Saµgha. However, this first theory proves to be inadequate because the KarmavŒcanŒ cannot be found in every chapter of the other Vinayas. The second theory will be discussed in view of six
problems that arise in the attempt to justify the hypothesis that the oldest Skandhaka work consists of twenty chapters, that it was compiled by a single
author in the first half of the fourth century BCE, and that the author drew
upon whatever materials were available to him.
Secondly
in 3.B.2 two general issues concerning the Skandhaka
(DharmŒnudharma) will be discussed at length. The first is the issue of having
various designations for the chapters, and the second concerns the many
varieties of compilations among the extant Vinayas
of the SthaviravŒdin tradition.
Thirdly
in 3.B.3 an analysis of the DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya will be undertaken in the light of the two general issues
discussed in 3.B.2. In this analysis, the 209 vinaya mŒt¨kŒs will be enumerated and listed consecutively in view of which ones
belong to the Miscellanea-dharma (3.B.3.A) and which ones belong to the
Deportment-dharma (3.B.3.B). Then an interpretation of DharmŒnudharma and the rationale for preferring this term over others follow
(3.B.3.C). After this, two salient characteristics of the DharmŒnudharma will be discussed (3.B.3.D). The two characteristics are:
3.B.3.D.1) Varga: Athematic Characteristic Ñ the varga (chapter) of the DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, for the most part,
contains several themes, and 3.B.3.D.2) Grouping Tendency Ñ systematization of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs into groups.
In
order to summarize the section on the second characteristic (3.B.3.D.2), a
chart correlating the skandhakas (chapters)
of the Caturvargika-vinaya and the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya will be presented on the
basis of Ven. Yin-shun’s research. The contribution that the present thesis
makes to this discussion lies in the correlation of the disciplinary topics of
the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya to the Dharma-skandhaka
(ch. 18) of the Caturvargika-vinaya
and to the K·udraka-skandhaka (ch. 20). Further, a concordance between the related vinaya mŒt¨kŒs of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya and the Bhai·ajya-skandhaka (ch. 7) of the Caturvargika-vinaya
will be added on the basis of Hirakawa’s work.
Since
the second characteristic, grouping tendency (3.B.3.D.2), is central to the
antiquity of the DharmŒnudharma structure in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, this characteristic will be elaborated in view of three
sections. The first section (3.B.3.D.2.1) will sketch out the formation of two
chapters. The second section (3.B.3.D.2.2) will delineate four clusters of vinaya mŒt¨kŒs in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya with respect to their grouping tendencies.
The
method utilized will be adopted from the ancient infrastructure such as the uddŒna (summary verse). When the disciplinary topics (vinaya mŒt¨kŒs) were summarized within an uddŒna that was affixed to
the end of a varga in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, the uddŒna was not meant to be a verse that summarized a combination of vinaya mŒt¨kŒs with a specified central theme. Therefore, the importance and
function of an uddŒna did not lie so much in its role of gathering together vinaya mŒt¨kŒs (disciplinary topics) having a central theme. Rather, the
importance and function of an uddŒna was one of a mnemonic device that aided a reciter and bearer of any
doctrinal or disciplinary corpus of literature to memorize the literature
during the oral transmission. However, it should not be assumed that this
mnemonic device originated with the systematization of the Vinaya, because the uddŒna as a mnemonic device was already in use when the Buddha’s
discourses and monastic discipline were first collected.
After
the antiquity of the structure of an uddŒna is ascertained, that the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs were differentiated in the uddŒna may be regarded as
the earlier compilation. When several explanations of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs were combined, or the explanations were not compiled in compliance
with the associated vinaya mŒt¨kŒs in an uddŒna, there appeared a development of the compilation. This is how the
grouping tendency is determined. In fact, the four clusters with grouping tendency
in the second section (3.B.3.D.2.2) more than likely foreshadow the process of
formulating a skandhaka (chapter) in the other extant
Vinayas.
Lastly,
the third section (3.B.3.D.2.3) will serve as a synopsis of the second
characteristic, “grouping tendency” (3.B.3.D.2), of the DharmŒnudharma. This synopsis will be expressed in terms of four types of
developments regarding the disciplinary topics of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya. These four types
of developments include: 1) those that come close to the skandhakas, 2) those that have the prototype of a skandhaka, 3) the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs that are sequentially adjacent, and 4) those that had not been
considered to group into a skandhaka. In this
way, the unique arrangement of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya in terms of its bhik·u Miscellanea-dharma and Deportment-dharma will provide another basis
for the compilation of the Skandhaka (DharmŒnudharma) of a Vinaya.
With
regard to the theory of the expansion of the root Vinaya as will be reviewed in Chapter One (see 1.C), the MahŒsŒµghikas were depicted as those who
resisted the expansion. In the present thesis, the resistance to expanding upon
the root Vinaya also will be
observed after an examination of the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya (see 3.B). The use of vinaya mŒt¨kŒs (disciplinary
topics) gives an alternative method of compiling the Skandhaka (DharmŒnudharma), and it is remarkable that approximately ten vinaya mŒt¨kŒs were incorporated in an archaic structure such as the uddŒna at the end of every varga (chapter). If
resistance to expanding upon the root Vinaya
was the issue, then the intention to preserve the root Vinaya by the MahŒsŒµghikas is visible in their manner of using the uddŒna structure by their incorporation of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs. Although some scholars have used several approaches (see 1.C) to
date the antiquity of the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, the suggestions provides
in the thesis may contribute another approach to this question.
Nevertheless, the preservation of the archaic contents should be approached cautiously. Although it is acknowledged that the antiquity of the structure of the uddŒna or vinaya mŒt¨kŒ is employed to show the antiquity of the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya, this does not prove that the contents of the vinaya mŒt¨kŒs were preserved until the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya was translated into Chinese. On the other hand, there is no reason to conclude that the Vibhaºga (prŒtimok·a and its commentary) in the same Vinaya is necessarily as old, although the bhik·u DharmŒnudharma in the MahŒsŒµghika-vinaya will be determined to be archaic owing to its structure (uddŒna or vinaya mŒt¨kŒs). Therefore, there is further need to research Ñ extensively and in depth Ñ the contents of the uddŒna or vinaya mŒt¨kŒs and the Vibhaºga in the study of the entire Buddhist vinaya literature.
CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER THREE CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY