Mahasamghika
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Mahāsāṃghika was one of the early buddhist schools in ancient India which is now extinct (i.e. its ordination lineage does not continue). The origins of the Mahāsāṃghika (Devanagari महासांघिक) (lit. "Great[er]-Community" or majority) sect of Buddhism are still extremely uncertain, and the subject of intense debate among scholars. The reason for the intensity of interest in the origins of the Mahasanghika school is that their Vinaya recension appears in several ways to represent an older redaction overall (see below), and so has important implications for the history of the Vinaya recensions of all sects.
Contents |
[edit] Location
The Mahāsāṃghikas were primarily situated in Northwestern India but also with an important presence in southeast India around Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda (the Sthaviravādins were in the Northeast). (ref. needed)
[edit] Origins
As one would expect with the history of the sectarian period, the different sects each have their own accounts. The account by the Theravada sect, found in the Dipavamsa, seems to be merely a mythic account designed to glorify the Theravada sect itself, written at a time when the historical situation had been forgotten.
According to one account, the Mahasamghika sect was formed in the first Buddhist schism around 320 BCE. It split from the Sthaviravāda (Elders) school over disputes about the authenticity of certain texts which the Mahasamghikas claimed had been invented by the Elders and were not genuine Word of the Buddha (Buddhavacana). In this account, they did not join the third buddhist council.
There are several other accounts: from the Sammitiya sect, the Sarvastivadin sect and others.
The Mahasamghikas' own account of their origins states that they divided from the Sthaviravadins on friendly terms at a meeting convened by the King following King Pushyamitra who persecuted Buddhism, probably meaning Agnimitra[1]; therefore after the Third Council. It is not clear from this account that this division would have counted as a formal 'schism' in the technical sense. The issue was, according to them, that the Elders had composed a new redaction of the Vinaya. According to them, the King (and implicitly the writers too) acknowledged both redactions as valid, but it was considered that the monks must choose to follow one or the other; they could not vacilate between both. So those who followed the old Vinaya edition were called the Mahasamghikas, and those who followed the new edition were called the Sthaviras. The Mahasamghikas' account gives each of the major sects listed, with the colour of the robe that they wear.
[edit] Vinaya Recension
The Mahasamghika Vinaya recension is essentially very similar to the other recensions, as they all are to each other. However, relatively, the Mahasamghika recension differs most from the other recensions in structure, nevertheless the rules are generally identical in meaning, if the Vibhangas (explanations) are compared. The features of the Mahasamghika Vinaya recension which suggest that it might be an older redaction are, in brief, these:
The Bhiksu-prakirnaka and Bhiksuni-prakirnaka and the Bhiksu-abhisamacarika-dharma sections of the Mahasamghika Vinaya are generally equivalent to the Khandhakas/ Skhandhakas of the Sthavira derived schools. However, their structure is simpler, and according to recent research by Clarke, the structure follows a matika (Matrix) which is also found embedded in the Vinayas of several of the Sthavira schools, suggesting that it is presectarian. The sub-sections of the Prakirnaka sections are also titled pratisamyukta rather than Skandhaka/ Khandhaka. Pratisamyukta/ Patisamyutta means a section or chapter in a collection organised by subject; the 'samyukta-principle', like the Samyutta-Nikaya/ Samyukta-agama. Scholars such as Master Yin Shun, Choong Moon Keat, and Bhikkhu Sujato, have argued that the Samyutta / Samyukta represents the earliest collection among the Nikayas/ Agamas, and this may well imply that it is also the oldest organising principle too. (N.B. this does not necessarily say anything about the age of the contents).
There are also fewer stories in general in the Vinaya of the subsidiary school, the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada, and many of them give the appearance of badly connected obvious interpolations, whereas in the structure of the Sthavira recensions the stories are integrated into the whole scheme which must originally have been a brilliantly artistic literary composition. In the formulations of some of the pratimoksha rules also, the phrasing (though generally identical in meaning to the other recensions) often appears to represent a clearer but less streamlined version, which suggests it might be older. This is particularly noticable in the Bhiksuni-Vinaya, which has not been as well preserved as the Bhiksu-Vinaya in general in all the recensions. Yet the formulation of certain rules which seem very confused in the other recensions (e.g. Bhikkhuni Sanghadisesa three = six in the Ma-L) seems to better represent what would be expected of a root formulation which could lead to the variety of confused formulations we see (presumably later) in the other recensions. The formulation of this rule (as an example) also reflects a semi-parallel formulation to a closely related rule for Bhiksus which is found in a more similar form in all the Vinayas (Pc64 in Pali). [See ibid. "Research on Bhikkhuni Sanghadisesa Three" by Bhikkhu Santi, forthcoming.]
[edit] Bibliography
"Arya-Mahasamghika-Lokuttaravadin Bhiksuni-Vinaya"; edited by Gustav Roth, 1970.
Abhisamacarikadharma of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravadins (input by Abhisamacarika-Dharma Study Group, Taisho University); GRETIL Archive http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/4_rellit/buddh/abhisdhu.htm
Mahasamghika and Mahasamghika-Lokuttaravadin Vinayas in Chinese translation; CBETA Taisho digital edition.
"The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature"; Frauwallner, Serie Orientale Roma, 8. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
"Vinaya-Matrka - Mother of the Monastic Codes, or Just Another Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner's Handling of the Mahasamghika Vinaya"; Shayne Clarke. Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 77-120, 2004.
"Sects and Sectarianism"; Bhikkhu Sujato, forthcoming.
"Researches on Bhikkhuni Sanghadisesa Three"; Bhikkhu Santi, forthcoming.
"Schism, Harmony and Communion"; Bhikkhu Santi, forthcoming.
"A Survey of Vinaya Literature"; Charles Prebish. Originally, Volume I of The Dharma Lamp Series. Taipei, Taiwan: Jin Luen Publishing House, 1994, 157 pages. Now published by Curzon Press.
"The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism"; Choong Mun-Keat. (Contains an account of Master Yin-Shun's theory that the Samyukt'Agama is the oldest collection, by a student of Prof. Rod Bucknell.)
"History of Mindfulness"; Bhikkhu Sujato, 2006. (Gives further evidence for the Anga-theory of Master Yin-Shun and the theory that the Samyukta-/ Samyutta- is the oldest organising principle.)
In the future, this article should also refer to:
"Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Pratimoksa Sutras of the Mahasamghikas and Mulasarvastivadins"; Charles Prebish. Volume I of the Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions Series. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975, 156 pages. First Indian Edition, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996. (This is only a translation of a small part of the Vinayas, on its own it is nearly useless.)
"Mahasamghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism"; Charles Prebish and Janice J. Nattier. History of Religions , 16, 3 (February, 1977), 237-272.
"The Pratimoksa Puzzle: Fact Versus Fantasy"; Charles Prebish. Journal of the American Oriental Society , 94, 2 (April-June, 1974), 168-176.
"A Review of Scholarship on the Buddhist Councils"; Charles Prebish. Journal of Asian Studies, XXXIII, 2 (February, 1974), 239-254.
"Theories Concerning the Skandhaka: An Appraisal"; Charles Prebish Journal of Asian Studies, XXXII, 4 (August, 1973), 669-678.
"Saiksa-dharmas Revisited: Further Considerations of Mahasamghika Origins"; Charles Prebish. History of Religions , 35, 3 (February, 1996), 258-270.
