sects & sectarianism

7/31/2019 Sects & Sectarianism

1/176

S & S


2/176

Also by Bhikkhu Sujato through Santipada

A History of MindfulnessHow tranquillity worsted insight in the Pali canon

BeginningsThere comes a time when the world ends

Bhikkhuni Vinaya StudiesResearch & reections on monastic discipline for Buddhist nuns

A Swift Pair of MessengersCalm and insight in the Buddhas words

Dreams of BhaddSex. Murder. Betrayal. Enlightenment. The story of a Buddhist nun.

White Bones Red Rot Black SnakesA Buddhist mythology of the feminine

SANTIPADA is a non-prot Buddhist publisher. These and many otherworks are available in a variety of paper and digital formats.

http://santipada.org
http://santipada.org/http://santipada.org/


3/176

S & SThe origins of Buddhist schools

BHIKKHU SUJATO

S A N T I P A D A


4/176

S A N T I P A D ABuddhism as if life matters

Originally published by The Corporate Body of the Buddha Education Foundation,Taiwan, 2007.This revised edition published in 2012 by Santipada.

Copyright Bhikkhu Sujato 2007, 2012.

C C A-N D W 2.5 A

You are free to Share to copy, distribute and transmit the work under the follow-ing conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specied by theauthor or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or

your use of the work).No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

With the understanding that:Waiver Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission

from the copyright holder.Other Rights In no way are any of the following rights aected by the

license:o Your fair dealing or fair use rights;o The authors moral rights;o Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work

is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

Notice For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others thelicense terms of this work.

ISBN: 9781921842085

Typeset in Gentium using LATEX.

Cover image kindly made available by Kirk Dunne:

http://kirkdunne.com/blog/?attachment_id=135
http://kirkdunne.com/blog/?attachment_id=135http://kirkdunne.com/blog/?attachment_id=135


5/176

The Sangha of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis has been made unied.

As long as my children and grandchildren shall live, and as long as the sunand the moon shall shine, any bhikkhu or bhikkhuni who divides the

Sangha shall be made to wear white clothes and dwell outside themonasteries.

What it is my wish?

That the unity of the Sangha should last a long time.

K A, M P E, S


6/176

Contents

Foreword 1

Abstract 7

0.1 The Early Period (BCE) 70.2 The Middle Period (CE) 9

0.3 Comparing pre-CE & post-CE evidence 12

0.4 The Mahvihravsins 12

0.5 The Dharmaguptakas 140.6 The Mlasarvstivdins 15

1 The Unity Edicts 17

1.1 Schism & unity 18

1.2 Aoka & unity 22

1.3 The Third Council 241.4 What were the heretics teaching? 26

1.5 Aoka in the Mahsaghika Vinaya? 31

2 The Saints of Vedisa 34

2.1 Gotiputa 362.2 Mogaliputa 39

2.3 Vchiputa 41

3 The Dpavasa 44

3.1 The heresy of grammar 503.2 The Sri Lankan context 54

3.3 Was Buddhaghosa a Theravdin? 59


7/176

4 Monster or Saint? 65

4.1 Vasumitras Samayabhedoparacanacakra 66

4.2 Bhavyas Nikyabhedavibhagavyakhyna 684.3 riptraparipcch 724.4 Xuan-zangs Records of the Western Lands 784.5 Kuei Chi 79

5 Three Sins & Five Theses 80

5.1 Which Mahdeva? 905.2 The ve heresies 92

5.3 Outows 945.4 Dhamma or Vinaya? 99

6 More on the Vibhajjavdins 101

6.1 The Kathvatthu 1036.2 Later Mahvihravsin sources 1066.3 What does Vibhajjavda mean? 108

7 Vibhajjavda vs. Sarvstivda? 1137.1 The early controversies 1157.2 What schism? 118

8 Dharmagupta: the Greek missions 120

8.1 Dharmaguptaka & Moggallna 1258.2 Dhammarakkhita: some other stories 1298.3 Dharmaguptaka texts & doctrines 130

9 The Mlasarvstivdins of Mathura 134

9.1 Mathura in the Suttas 1379.2 Mathura & schism 1399.3 Soaka & Saka 1419.4 The dragons of Kamr 144

A Chronology 150

B Asoka & the First Schism 153

Bibliography 158


8/176

Sectarian Views on the Schools

Mahsaghikariputraparipcch

The Mahsaghika school diligentlystudy the collected Suttas and teachthe true meaning, because they arethe source and the center. They wear

yellow robes.

The Dharmaguptaka school masterthe avor of the true way. They areguides for the benet ofall. Their wayof expression is special. They wearred robes.

The Sarvstivda school quickly gainunobstructed knowledge, for theDhamma is their guide. They wearblack robes.

The Kayapya school are diligent andenergetic in guarding sentient beings.They wear magnolia robes.

The Mahsaka school practice jhana,and penetrate deeply. They wear bluerobes.

(T24, 1465, p. 900, c1218)

Theravda Dpavasa

These 17 sects are schismatic,only one sect is non-schismatic.

With the non-schismatic sect,there are eighteen in all.

Like a great banyan tree,the Theravda is supreme,

The Dispensation of the Conqueror,

complete, without lack or excess.

The other sects aroselike thorns on the tree.

(Dpavasa 4.9091)


9/176

FOREWORD

T , each from essential texts, highlight two radicallydierent perspectives on the Buddhist schisms.1 Are we to see the emerg-ing schools as a corruption ofan originally pure unity, or as unique un-foldings of the potential of the Dhamma? My own belief is that both ofthese perspectives are likely to contain some truth, and yet neither ofthem contains the whole truth.

2 Ifwe reect on the issues that divided the schools, we nd much that

is reminiscent of contemporary Buddhist dialogue. It is a shame that thecomplex and profound history of Buddhist thought is reduced to the faciledismissal of other schools simply because they disagree with the interpre-tation of ones own chosen party. As much as we would like to imaginethat all the answers are wrapped up, the nature ofphilosophy is such thatthe basic issues that generated schools of thought remain, and reappearin varied guises in discussions within the school itself.

3 For example, the Mahsaghikas basic thesis was the transcendental

nature of the Buddha. We might regard some of the extremes of this viewwith amusement such as the idea that dirt never clings to the Buddhasbody, but he washes it in conformity with everyday usage but it addressa genuine Buddhist concern: how do we conceive of the nature of Buddha-hood, so intensely human yet so totally beyond our lives ofanxiety andfear? This is a live issue within Theravda Buddhism even today. Whilethe ocial (read rationalist, modernist, middle class) position is that

1 The riputraparipcchs claims about the robe colors of the various schools need notbe taken literally.


10/176

2 Sects & Sectarianism

the Buddha was just a perfected human, the devotional perspective ofordinary Theravdins sees him as something quite other.

4 Similarly, the Sarvstivdins taught a philosophical realism that tendedto treat external objects as existing in and of themselves, so that evenan abstract relation like possession comes to be considered as a real sub-stance. This comes across as nave, but in shaping their philosophy theyshow a consciousness of a fundamental problem of metaphysics: if we al-low the existence of one thing it becomes dicult to deny the existence ofeverything. So the Sarvstivdins considered that the past and the future

exist in exactly the same sense as the present. The Sarvstivdins wereperfectly aware that this appeared to aunt the fundamental Buddhistaxiom of impermanence. But they were trying to explain impermanencebased not on ontology, but on causal ecacy: the present exists just asthe past and future exist, but the present is distinguished in that it isoperative or functional. To invoke a modern analogy, compare this withthe buttons on the word processing document Im typing; they all exist,but only become operative when I hover the cursor above them: that mo-

ment is the present. We may question the exact formulation of this idea,but we should do so as the Sarvstivdins themselves did, that is, within aBuddhist context, seeking the best way to articulate Buddhist truths. Wewould need toaddress the same question faced by theSarvstivdins: ifallis impermanent, what is there that connects the past, future, and present?This question is much more than an abstract musing. In a devotional reli-gion like Buddhism, it is crucial in forming our emotional attitude towardsour beloved Teacher, so present in our consciousness, yet so remote intime. Theravdins, despite the stern ocial doctrine of radical momentari-ness, still popularly treat the Buddha as somehow still existing, resultingin an uneasy dichotomy between the ocial and the popular perspectives.The Sarvstivdin approach would allow a less fractured understandingthroughout the community, which might be one reason behind its extraor-dinary success in ancient India.

5 As another example, the Puggalavdins took their stand on the thesis

that there exists a person who is neither identical with nor separate fromthe ve aggregates that make up our empirical reality. This person isindescribable, but is not the self of the non-Buddhist theorists. It is this


11/176

Foreword 3

person which experiences the fruit of kamma and which attains libera-tion. The Puggalavdins were not blind to the diculties in reconciling

this theory with the teaching of not-self. Quite the opposite; their mainphilosophical eorts went into a sophisticated articulation of how theperson was in fact the correct understanding of not-self. Once more,this is a key issue in modern Buddhist dialogue. How do we reconcile theatomic reality of our empirical experience with the undeniable sense ofpersonal identity? This problem is especially acute in the relation betweenBuddhist and psychological thought. Much of psychology is concerned

with building a coherent and integrated self, a project that is anathemato a literal interpretation of traditional Buddhism. But the psychologicalapproach has developed in response to a genuine problem, the fracturedand alienated modern psyche. This is a very dierent context to what theBuddha was facing when he critiqued Brahmanical or Jainist theories ofapermanent and enduring essence that survived death. As we develop ourmodern responses to such questions, it would seem sensible to recognizethat we are not the rst generation to grapple with how to apply Buddhism

in a historical context far removed from the Buddhas own.6 In pursuing the historical inquiry throughout this work, then, I take

it for granted that the various sects all attempted to articulate and prac-tice sincerely the Buddhas teachings. When examined closely, the doc-trines of the schools cannot be explained away as simplistic errors or alieninltrations or deliberate corruptions. It would then follow that moresympathetic and gentle perspectives on the schools are likely to be moreobjective than bitterly partisan accounts.

7 It seems to me that far too much weight has been ascribed to the Dpa-vasa, the earliest Sri Lankan chronicle. This version of events, despitestraining credibility in almost every respect, continues to exert a pow-erful inuence on the Theravdin sense ofcommunal identity. The factthat some modern scholars have treated it favourably only reinforces thistendency.

8 The research contained in this work was primarily inspired by my in-

volvement in the reformation of the bhikkhuni order within Theravda.While we will only glance upon this issue here, one of the central questionsin the revival of the bhikkhuni lineage from the Theravdin perspective is


12/176


the validity ofordination lineages in other schools. The traditional Thera-vdin view has it that the bhikkhunis in existence today are Mahyna.

Mahyna, it is claimed, is descended from the Mahsaghikas, and theDpavasa asserts that the Mahsaghikas are none other than the evilVajjiputtakas, who advocated the use of money by monks, and who weredefeated at the Second Council, but who later reformed and made a newrecitation. Hence the Mahyna is representative of a tradition whosefundamental principle was to encourage laxity in Vinaya. They are schis-matic and it is impossible to accept them as part of the same communion.

9

This view, ultimately traced to the Dpavasa, underlies the positiontaken by many mainstream Theravdins today. I intend to show how theDpavasas position is incoherent and implausible, and that a more rea-sonable depiction of the origins of Buddhist schools can be constructedfrom a sympathetic reading of all the sources.

10 Recently I was at a meeting where these issues were discussed. A Viet-namese monk acknowledged his lineage from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya;a Tibetan monk noted his heritage from the Mlasarvstivda Vinaya; but

the Theravdins continued to speak as if they were simply Mahyna.This situation, regrettable though it is, isunderstandable since most Thera-vdins have never heard of Dharmagupta or Mlasarvstivda. Oncethe 17 schools had been dismissed as schismatic and thorns by the Dpa-vasa, and their doctrines had been refuted by the Kathvatthu, therewas no need to be informed about the other schools.

11 But there has never been a distinctively Mahyna Vinaya or ordina-tion lineage. Rather, some bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, having ordained inone of the lineages of the early schools, study and practice the texts andethical ideals known as Mahyna. This was, so far aswecan tell,the casein ancient India and it remains the case today. Today, the bhikkhus andbhikkhunisoftheEastAsiantraditionsfollowtheVinayaofthe Dharmagup-taka school, while the Central Asian traditions follow the Mlasarvstivda.There is, therefore, no such thing as a Mahyna bhikkhu or bhikkhunifrom the Vinaya point of view. The Vinayas themselves are silent on the

question of the sects. If we wish to understand the relationship betweenthe existing Sanghas of the various schools, then, we must investigate


13/176

Foreword 5

the relationships between the early schools of Buddhism from whom theVinayas and ordination lineages derive.

12 One way of doing this is to examine the origins of the schools in question.Here we enter into the swirling and uncertain world of mythology, whereinterpretation reigns sovereign, and sectarian bias is not merely expected,but is the driving motivation. Given the contradictory, incomplete, anddoubtful nature of the literary sources it is unclear whether we can expectto nd even a glimmer of truth. But our surest evidence derives from thehappy coincidence of the historical/mythic accounts and archeological

ndings, and it is here that we begin our search.13 I would like to oer a more realistic picture of sectarian formation to

practicing Buddhists. Though I use the methods and results ofmodernscholarship, I do not wish to speak to a purely academic audience. I hopethere are some Buddhists willing to take the time to examine history alittle more carefully, and not just to accept the polemics of their schoolbased on ancient sectarian rivalries.

14 It would have been nice if I could have digested the work of modern

researchers and simply presented that in a palatable form. But there aremany of the ndings of the moderns that are as unacceptable as the tra-ditions of the schools. It seems to me that much modern work, while ithas accomplished a great deal, is hampered by the problems that bedevilBuddhist studies in general: uncritical acceptance of textual evidence overarchaeological ndings; bias in favour ofeither the southern or northerntraditions; reliance on inaccurate or mistaken readings from secondaryworks and translations; simplistic and unrealistic notions of religious lifein general and monastic life in particular; little knowledge of the Vinaya;backreading of later situations into earlier times; and perhaps most impor-tantly, an ignorance of myth, so that historical information is divorcedfrom the mythic context that gave it meaning.

15 Extraordinary thanks are due to Bhikkhuni Samacitt for her help in theChinese translations, and Bhikkhu Santidhammo helping me understandthe nature of schism and community. Thanks are also due to Bhikkhu Bodhi,

who gave his time to reading my work and oering his comments. Mar-cus Bingenheimer, Bhikkhuni Thubten Chodren, Rod Bucknell, BhikkhuniChi Kwang Sunim, Bhikkhuni Jampa Tsedron, Terry Waugh, Mark Allon,


14/176


Bhikkhuni Sudhamma, and many others have oered feedback and sup-port. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the donors who have

supported my monks life, oering me what I needed make this work pos-sible: sdhu, sdhu, anumodmi!

16 While researching I have investigated several areas that are tangentialto the main argument of the book. In some cases these are mere technicalremarks, while others critique certain specic interpretations of relevantissues, and still others are sketches toward further study. These essays,together with the text of the current book, may be found at:

http://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org
http://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org/http://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org/


15/176

ABSTRACT

T that has been evolving in my mind as Ipursue this work has something to do with the notion of a distinct totality:a group of Sangha who see themselves as in some sense distinct from otherSangha, and who view their own system as complete, adequate for a fullspiritual life. This would involve a textual tradition, devotional centres,lineage of masters, institutional support, etc. When these factors are thereto a sucient degree for a particular portion of the Sangha to agree that

they themselves constitute such a distinct totality, we can speak of aschool.2 Let us consider the main evidence for sectarian formation, dividing our

sources into two groups, those before and those after the Common Era(about 400500 ), and see where such a distinct totality can be observed.Within each group I shall consider the archeological evidence rst, asthat can clearly be xed in time. The dates ofall of the textual sources arequestionable, and most of them probably straddle our divide. Nevertheless,

I try to assign a place as best I can.

0.1 The Early Period (BCE)

3 Here our main sources are the archaeological evidence of the Aokaninscriptions and the Vedisa stupas and inscriptions, the doxographicalliterature (Kathvatthu and Vijnakya), and the Sinhalese Vinaya Com-mentary (which by its denite links with the archaeological evidence isproved to have roots in this period). We might also include the Aoka leg-ends which, while lacking such distinct archaeological conrmation as the


16/176


Vinaya Commentary, nevertheless may have at least some origins in thisperiod.

4 The Aokan inscriptions do not mention any schools or any explicitoccurrence of schism. When the edicts say the Sangha has been madeunied, this suggests that there has been some conict, but it falls short ofestablishing that aschismhadoccurred. In any case, even if therehadbeena schism, the edicts assert that it had been resolved. Nor do the Aokanedicts mention any doctrines, texts, or anything else that might even hintat the existence of schools. The main sect-formative factor at work here

would appear to be the geographical spread of the Sangha, which was tobecome a powerful force in the evolution of distinct sectarian identities.5 The inscriptions on reliquaries retrieved from the stupas in Vedisa men-

tion several sectarian-formative factors, such as local saints, local institu-tions, and the name Hemavata, which at least at some time was taken to bethe name ofa school. But there is no clear and denitive evidence for theexistence of a school. Hemavata may be purely a geographical term here.As Cousins observes, no unambiguous evidence for any Hemavata texts

has survived, so the status of this school is doubtful in any case. The emer-gence of a local identity is a natural progression from the geographicalspread under Aoka, and we have no evidence that the Vedisa communitysaw itself as distinct from other Buddhist communities.

6 The doxographical literature likewise shows sectarian-formative factors,particularly the articulation of controversial doctrines that characterizedcertain schools. But there is no explicit acknowledgement of the existenceofschools, with the sole exception of the mention of the Puggalavda inthe Vijnakya.

7 The Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary was nalized much later, but thereis denite archaeological evidence that proves the relevant portions muststem from genuine historical records. This is particularly true in the caseof the Sudassanavinayavibhs, which was evidently taken to China andtranslated from a text predating Buddhaghosas revision of the commen-taries in the the 5th century . This details an extensive account of the

period in question, and nds no reason to mention even in passing theexistence of any schools.


17/176

Abstract 9

8 Likewise the Aokavadna, Aokarjastra, Divyavadna, etc., give manyelaborate stories ofAoka without involving the schools. Of course these

legendary works were much augmented over time, but if anything thisstrengthensour argument: since these texts weredoubtless nalized in thesectarian period, there must have been a temptation to explicitly associateAoka with their own school. But this was not done.

9 Summing up this period, there is no evidence unambiguously belongingto the early period that mentions or implies the existence ofschools. Wend only the mention of various forces that lead to sectarian formation,

never to the actual schools that resulted from these forces. This remainstrue even if we allow texts that are actually nalized later, but whichprobably have roots in this period.

0.2 The Middle Period (CE)

10 For this period our primary sources are the inscriptional evidence, the

various schism accounts, and the stra/commentarial literature.11 The inscriptions, starting in Mathura around 100 , regularly mention

the names of schools.12 The stras (e.g. Abhidharmakoa, etc.) and commentaries (e.g. Kath-

vatthu-ahakath, Mahvibh, etc.) regularly mention schools by name,anddiscuss their doctrines. The textual sources agree fairly well with eachother, and also with the inscriptions.

13 The schism accounts again mention similar names and sometimes simi-

lar doctrines as the other sources.14 It is the schism accounts we must discuss in more detail, as they are

the main sources from which the idea of an early schism was derived. Themain four texts are closely related and must harkback to thesameoriginalin certain respects. But in the form we have them today they representthe perspectives of the four main groups of schools. Certain other lists aredisregarded here (such as Bhavya I & II) but I believe they will not changematters signicantly. These four main texts are the riputraparipcch(Mahsaghika); Vasumitras Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Sarvstivda:this should be interpreted together with the Mahvibh), the Dpavasa(Mahvihra/Vibhajjavda/Sthavira), and Bhavya III (Puggalavda).


18/176


15 These accounts can be further divided into two pairs by date. The ri-putraparipcch and Vasumitra are earlier, probably dating around 200 .

The Dpavasa and Bhavya III are more like 400 (although the text ofBhavya III is later still, 600+ ).

16 The riputraparipcch, which is the earliest or second-earliest of theschism accounts, stems from the Mahsaghika. This account, which at-tributes the schism to an attempt on the part of the Sthaviras to expandthe ancient Vinaya, dates the schism about a century after Aoka. As wehave seen, this is in perfect accord with all the inscriptural evidence, and

with all the early textual evidence. It has been discounted by scholars whohave asserted the text is corrupt and chronologically confused. However,a close examination of the text does not support this. The text is, admit-tedly, a poor and dicult translation, but the chronology of the periodin question ts coherently into an overall narrative. The schism cannotbe arbitrarily moved back before Aoka without destroying this context.Indeed, one of the main purposes of the narrative is to claim the mythicauthority of Upagupta, Aokas teacher, for the Mahsaghika school.

17 Vasumitra places the schism at the time of Aoka, which for his shortchronology is 100+ . This version, which attributes the schism to a dis-pute on the ve thesesat Paliputta, is closely related to the Mahvibhand Bhavya III. But we note that, while these three sources describe thesame event, only Vasumitra connects this explicitly with Aoka. Due todierent ways of counting the years between the Buddha and Aoka, thedating is hoplessly confused: Vasumitra places the events at Aoka, whichit says is 100+ ; Bhavya III places the same events before Aoka, but thedate is 137 . The Mahvibh does not name the king, so provides nosupport for any particular dating. In addition, the story, which is an outra-geously polemical attack on Mahdeva, is only found in the larger andpresumably later Mahvibh, which dates at least half a millenium afterthe event. From the Mahvibh we can see how the Sarvstivda schoolused these events to develop a distinctive mythos explaining how theycame to be established in Kamr. This would provide ample motivation

for the Sarvstivdins to associate the schism with Aoka, regardless ofany actual historical facts.


19/176

Abstract 11

18 The Dpavasa was compiled shortly before Buddhaghosa, and is there-fore signicantly later than the riputraparipcch or Vasumitra. Dating

700 years after the events, it is the rst text that claims that the schismwas pre-Aokan, in fact just after the Second Council in 100 . The ac-count of the schisms has been inserted from a Vasumitra-style text. How-ever, the cause of the schism (textual corruption), the date, and the place(Vesl) are all completely dierent. It has been crudely interpolated intoa retelling of the story of the Councils otherwise preserved in the SinhalaVinaya Commentaries. There is no need to assume that the original con-

text of the interpolated schism account placed the events in this particularhistorical context; on the contrary, the setting is obviously incongruous.The Dpavasas dating of the schism just after the Second Council wasprobably an invention of the author(s) of the Dpavasa itself, whose aimwas to establish an exclusivist mythos for the Mahvihra. The historicalcredibility of this account approaches zero.

19 Finally, like the Dpavasa, Bhavya III places the schism before Aoka.But the events have nothing to do with the account of the Dpavasa.

Rather it attributes the schism to the ve theses as does Vasumitra, withdating inconsistencies as I mention above. The lack of mythic contextmakes this account harder to assess, but no doubt it was pressed intoservice to authorize the Puggalavda school. We note that it is the twolatest sources (Bhavya III and Dpavasa) that place the schism pre-Aoka.It seems that the schism date is gradually getting earlier, a natural featureof the mythic process.

20 To summarize this period, then, we have consistent, clear evidence ofthe Buddhist schools dating from the middle period (post-). In all of ouraccounts of Buddhism of this period, the existence and basic nature ofthe schools is taken for granted and constitutes an essential component.The agreement of the sources as far as the names of the schools, theirinterrelationships, and their distinctive doctrines is, all things considered,reasonably high, as we would expect since they are describing contempo-rary conditions. But their accounts of the origins of the schisms, already

in the far distant past from their own perspective, are a mass ofcontra-dictions. In the three schism accounts that supply sucient information(riputraparipcch, Vasumitra/Mahvibh, Dpavasa), the primary


20/176


function of the accounts was not to record history but to authorize theirown school. I believe this provides sucient reason to explain how the

schools came up with their various dating systems.21 Ofcourse, this does not prove that the dates in these texts are all wrong.

It is quite possible and in fact very common to construct a mythologyout of real events. But given the evident contradictions I think it is sheernavity to use the dates given in these texts to reach any simple historicalconclusions. Like all myths, they are describing the situation in their owntime (a situation of sectarian Buddhism) and backdating that in search of

archaic authorization.

0.3 Comparing pre-CE & post-CE evidence

22 Despite the complexities of the situation, which any account includingmy own must inevitably distort by simplifying, the overall pattern is re-markably consistent. All the evidence of the early period (pre-) seemsto be quite happy to talk about Buddhism with no mention of the schools.In stark contrast, in the middle period (post-) material the existenceof the schools is inherent in how Buddhism is conceived. The textual andarchaeological evidence is in good agreement here.

23 I conclude that various separative forces gathered momentum throughthe early period and manifested in the emergence of schools towardsthe end of the early period, as depicted in the riputraparipcch (andvarious Chinese and Tibetan works). As the question ofsectarian identity

became more conscious, mythic accounts of the schisms emerged in themiddle period.

0.4 The Mahvihravsins

24 To nd a more realistic description ofhow the schools may have arisenwe shall have to look elsewhere. One of the fullest accounts of the origina-tion of any school is found in the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary, which ex-ists in a Pali version the Samantapsdik, and an ancient Chinese transla-tion the Sudassanavinayavibhs (T24 Shan-Jian-Lu-Pi-Po-Sha). The Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary recounts several decisive events


21/176

Abstract 13

that took place in the time of Aoka. There was a conict in the Sanghathat was resolved by the expulsion of corrupt monks by Aoka together

with the Elder Moggaliputtatissa, following which the Third Council washeld to rearm communal identity. Subsequently Moggaliputtatissa orga-nized the sending out of missionaries to various parts of India. The mainpurpose of this narrative is to establish the credentials of the Sinhaleseschool.

25 Today we call this school Theravda, but this name invites variousforms of confusion. In particular it is a mistake to identify this school

with the Sthaviras who split from the Mahsaghikas at the rst schism.Rather, the Mahvihravsins are just one branch of the Sthaviras who be-came established in Sri Lanka with their headquarters at the Mahvihrain Anuradhapura. In their own texts they refer to themselves as the Mah-vihravsins (Dwellers in the Great Monastery) and I will adopt this term.It should be noted that when I refer to texts of this school this does notimply that the school necessarily created the texts in question; I simplymean the texts as accepted by or as passed down by the Mahvihra. In

some cases these texts were authored by the school, but many of them areshared in common with other schools, with varying degrees of editorialdierences.

26 There are two major pieces of inscriptional evidence that derive fromthe early period of Indian Buddhism: the Aokan edicts and the reliquariesat Vedisa. Strikingly, both of these conrm the evidence found in SinhaleseVinaya Commentary. The Vedisa inscriptions mention the names of severalmonks who the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary says were sent as mission-aries to the Himalaya soon after the Third Council. And Aokas so-calledschism edicts (which actually state that the Sangha is unied, not schis-matic!) mention an expulsion of corrupt bhikkhus, which many scholarshave identied with the events prior to the Third Council. We shouldalso note that Moggaliputtatissas sending out of missionaries has oftenbeen compared with Aokas sending out of Dhamma-ministers; and thatthe Sri Lankan archaeological record is in general agreement with the

picture of the missions. These two evidences, while not decisive, providefurther points ofagreement between the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentaryand the archaeological record. This correspondence between epigraphic


22/176


and textual evidence encourages us to take the missions account of theSinhalese Vinaya Commentary seriously as a source for the origins of the

schools.27 The missions account describes how the Sinhalese school was estab-

lishedbyAokassonMahindaandhisdaughterthebhikkhuniSaghamitt.Several other teachers are described as being sent out to dierent places.While many of these missions cannot be conrmed, Frauwallner and oth-ers have shown that there is a general pattern of plausibility in the account.

28 In the current context of the revival of the bhikkhuni lineage in Thera-

vda, it is worth remembering the mission ofSoa and Uttara to Suvaa-bhmi, which is believed by Burmese to refer to Burma, and by Thais torefer to Thailand. This mission, which to this day forms a crucial narra-tive of self-identity for Buddhists in these regions, was said to result inthe ordination of 1500 women. Thus bhikkhuni ordination is intrinsic toSoutheast Asian Buddhism from the beginning.

0.5 The Dharmaguptakas29 One of the other missionaries was Yonaka Dhammarakkhita. He was, as

his name indicates, a Greek monk, native of Alasanda (Alexandria). Oneofthe major gures in the missions narrative, he features in the Pali traditionas a master of psychic powers as well as an expert on Abhidhamma. Hewent to the Greek occupied areas in the west of India. Long ago Pryzluski,followed by Frauwallner, suggested that Dhammarakkhita be identied

with the founder of the Dharmaguptaka school, since dhammarakkhita anddhammagutta have identical meaning. Since that time two pieces of evi-dence have come to light that make this suggestion highly plausible. Oneis the positive identication of very early manuscripts belonging to theDharmaguptakas in the Gandhra region, exactly where we expect to ndYonaka Dhammarakkhita. The second is that his name in the Sudassana-vinayavibhs (the Chinese version of the Sinhalese Vinaya commentary)is evidently Dharmagutta rather than Dhammarakkhita. We also notethat several texts say that the Dharmaguptaka was started by a certainMoggallna. While this is traditionally identied with the great discipleof that name, I think it is more reasonable to see this as a reference to


23/176

Abstract 15

Moggaliputtatissa, the patriarch of the Third Council, who is also regardedby the Mahvihravsins as their founder. We are thus perfectly justied

as seeing the Mahvihravsins and the Dharmaguptakas, not as warringschismatic parties, but as long lost brothers parted only by the accidentsof history and the tyranny of distance.

0.6 The Mlasarvstivdins

30 With regard to the third of our schools, the Mlasarvstivdins, thehistory is decidedly murky. In my opinion the most persuasive theory forthe origin of this school was again provided by Frauwallner, who arguedthat they were originally based in Mathura. This would align this schoolclosely with the famous arahants of Mathura: avsin and Upagupta.avsin features as a revered Elder and Vinaya master in the Vinayaaccounts of the Second Council. He is said to have established a major

forest monastery, which is called Urumua in the northern sources andAhogaga in the Pali.31 Later on, it was to this very monastery that Moggaliputtatissa resorted

for retreat. The spiritual power Moggaliputtatissa derived from his timein avsins forest monastery was decisive in convincing Aoka to en-trust him with the task of purifying the Sagha and organizing the mis-sions. Thus the establishment of the Mahvihravsin and Dharmaguptakais closely associated with the avsin lineage. It is even possible that

Soaka, the preceptor of Moggaliputtatissas preceptor, is simply a mis-spelling for aka(-vsin), in which case the Mahvihravsin ordinationlineage is directly descended from avsin and the forest tradition ofMathura.

32 If Frauwallners theory of the distinct Mathuran origins of the Mlasarv-stivda school is found to be incorrect, then it would seem inevitablethat we should seek the origins of this school as somehow related to theSarvstivdins of Kamr. Buddhism was brought to Kamr by one of theother Aokan missionaries, Majjhantika. After serving as Mahindas ordina-tion teacher in Paliputra, he went to Kamir and established the schoollater known as the Sarvstivda. This account associating Majjhantika and


24/176


Mahinda agrees with the versions of the northern schools (except theygenerally place the date earlier).

33 In conclusion, we nd that there is no evidence whatsoever of the origi-nation ofschoolsdue to schism in thenarrowly dened sense required bythe Vinaya. The emergence of monastic communities as distinct totalitiesprobably occurred gradually after the Aokan period as a natural conse-quence of geographical dispersion and consequent dierentiation. Theaccounts of the origins of the schools that we possess today are responsesto events at the time the accounts were written, not genuine historical

records. In the normal mythic manner, contemporary conicts shapedhow the past is imagined, motivated by the need for archaic authorization.


25/176

Chapter 1

THE UNITY EDICTS

A in three placesconcerning theSangha, whichhave become known as the Schism Edicts. This is a misnomer, and itselfwas probably inuenced by the expectations of modern scholars that inAokas time the Sangha was already fragmented. The edicts depict a state

of unity in the Sangha, not a state of schism.2 The three tantalizingly brief inscriptions are found on the Minor Pil-

lar Edicts of Sarnath, Sch, and Kosambi in varying states of disrepair,strung along the route between Paliputta, Aokas capital, to Avanti andVedisa. These are all within the older realm of Buddhism.

3 The edicts instruct Aokas ministers that, now that the Sangha hasbeen made united,1 any bhikkhu or bhikkhuni who divides the Sanghashould be made to wear lay clothes and dwell apart. The Sch edict addsthat this united Sangha, of both bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, should not bedivided as long as my sons and grandsons shall rule, and the sun andmoon shall shine, for it is my wish that the united Sangha should remainfor a long time.2 The Sarnath edict adds that a copy of this edict is to bemade available for the lay devotees, who should review this message eachfortnightly uposatha.

4 The statement that the Sangha has been made unied suggests an ac-

tual, not a theoretical event, to which these Edicts respond by warning

1 Sch: [Sa](ghe)e*[sa]*mag(e) kate; Kosambi: (sa)ma(ge)* kate* saghas[i].2 Ich hi me ki-ti saghe samage cilathitke siy.


26/176


of the grave consequences of schismatic conduct. The fact that the Edictsare found in several places suggests that the tendencies to schism were

widespread, and, if the Edicts were implemented, there may have beenseveral episodes. The Sarnath Edict starts with a partially defaced reading:pa[liput] , which seems to be referring to Paliputta. This suggests that,asonemight expect, theschismatic forceswere at work in thecapital, prob-ably centred there. If this is so, then Aokas instructions to his ministerswould, as usual, be for them to follow his personal example. Thus we couldthink of a central crisis in the capital dealt with by Aoka personally, and

possibly several lesser repercussions throughout the realm, dealt with bythe ministers.5 There is no precedent in Vinaya for a secular ruler to interfere in this

way in the Sanghas operations. While the Vinaya envisages a Sangha thatis competent to look after its own aairs, with a tacit assumption thatthe governing powers will provide general support, now we have a rulerdirectly imposing his will on the Sangha. Perhaps the most surprising thingis that the Sangha seems to have welcomed this interference. This could

only be explained if the problem was a genuine one, which the Sangha wasunable to deal with using its normal procedures (saghakamma). Sanghaprocedures almost always require consensus, and so they assume a highdegree of sincerity and co-operativeness. This is how the dispute wassolved at the Second Council. But if the problematic individuals disruptthe very functioning ofsaghakamma, the Sangha is powerless.

1.1 Schism & unity

6 To understand the Unity Edicts, we must rst consider the nature ofschism and unity. In Buddhism, the original and archetypical schismaticis the Buddhas wicked cousin Devadatta, the Judas or Set ofBuddhism.His story is too long and too well known to repeat here.3 All stories ofschism have Devadatta in the back of their mind, and all tellers of those

stories are struggling to balance two forces: to justify and authorize their

3 A typical popular account of Devadattas story at http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17 . An alternative view in R.
http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/ebooks/pageload.php?book=0003&page=17


27/176

1. The Unity Edicts 19

own separate school, while at the same time strenuously avoiding anysuggestion that they are following in Devadattas footprints.

7 This is apparent in the Unity Edicts, for the terminology Aoka usesechoes exactly that of the famous passage where the Buddha warns Deva-datta that one who divides a unied Sangha will suer in hell for an aeon,whereas one who makes unied a divided Sangha4 will rejoice in heavenfor an aeon. This phrasing occurs repeatedly in the passages that follow.5

When the Sangha, having been divided on one of these issues, holds sepa-rate uposatha, pavra or saghakamma, a schism results.6

8

This parallels the meaning ofschism given in my Oxford ReferenceDictionary: The separation of a Church into two Churches or the secessionof a group owing to doctrinal, disciplinary, etc., dierences. It will be one ofour tasks to determine whether all of the historical divisions of Buddhisminto dierent schools, or indeed any of them, were schisms in this sense.

9 Contemporary discussion of this question has emphasized two ratherdierent forms ofschism. Bechert uses the terminology ofsaghabhedato refer to a split of an individual community, and nikyabheda to refer to

the process of school formation. Sasaki uses kammabheda and cakkabhedato make a similar distinction: kammabheda occurs when two groups holduposatha separately within the same boundary, while cakkabheda refersto the splitting of the religious community on doctrinal grounds.7 Thekey point in these distinction is that the formation of schools does notnecessarily imply a saghabheda. To clarify this point let us look moreclosely at the Vinaya passages, starting with the Pali.

4 Pali Vinaya 2.198: Sagha samagga karoti.5 Incidentally, these passages also clarify that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the

case that all schisms entail that the schismatic will be doomed to hell for an aeon. Thisonly applies ifone deliberately and maliciously divides the Sangha, declaring Dhammato be not-Dhamma, Vinaya to be not-Vinaya, etc., in the manner of Devadatta.

6 Pali Vinaya 2.204. Uposatha is the fortnightly recitation of the monastic code; pavra isthe mutual invitation for admonition at the end of the yearly rains retreat;saghakammais a general term for such formal acts of the Sangha, including ordination (upasampad).

7 My response to Sasaki is at http://sectsandsectarianism/santipada.org/sasakiandschism.In brief, I argue that the historical shift from cakrabheda to karmabheda is not sucientlyestablished by Sasakis evidence, and would rather see these two as representing theinformal and formal aspects of the same process: karmabheda is the legal juncture atwhich cakrabheda is complete.
http://sectsandsectarianism/santipada.org/sasakiandschismhttp://sectsandsectarianism/santipada.org/sasakiandschismhttp://sectsandsectarianism/santipada.org/sasakiandschism


28/176


10 Devadattas conduct occasioned the laying down of a saghdisesa ruleprohibiting the deliberate agitation for schism. The rule itself says: A uni-

ed Sangha, mutually rejoicing, without dispute, with one recital, dwellsin comfort.8 Here the notion ofunity is closely connected with the recitalof the pimokkha on the fortnightly uposatha. The sentiment is repeatedin the concluding lines to the pimokkha recital: Therein each and everyone should train, with unity, with mutual rejoicing, without disputing.9

11 But we are a little unclear what exactly is meant here: does unity requireall monastics to participate, at least potentially, in the same saghakamma,

or only those in one particular monastery? The denition of unied alittle below says: Unied means a Sangha that is of the same communion,staying within the same monastic boundary.10 This refers to the Sanghawithin a particular boundary, rather than the universal Sangha of the fourdirections.

12 This is claried further in the passage where the fortnightly recital islaid down:

13 Now on that occasion the group ofsix bhikkhus, according to theirassembly, recited the pimokkha, each in their own assembly. TheBlessed One declared regarding that matter: Bhikkhus, you shouldnot, according to your assembly, recite the pimokkha, each in yourown assembly. Whoever should thus recite, this is an oence of wrong-doing. I allow, bhikkhus, an act ofuposatha for those who are unied.

14 And then the bhikkhus thought: The Blessed One has laid downan act ofuposatha for those who are unied. To what extent isthere unication, as far as one monastery, or for the whole earth?

The Blessed One declared regarding that matter: I allow, bhikkhus,unication to extend as far as one monastery.11

15 Thus the notion ofunity of the Sangha is closely tied to the fortnightlyuposatha recitation as a ritual armation of the Sanghas communal iden-tity. For normal purposes, the Sangha should gather all who live within thesame monastic boundary (sm) to recite the pimokkha each fortnight.

8 Pali Vinaya 3.172: Samaggo hi sagho sammodamno avivadamno ekuddeso phsu viharatti.9 Pali Vinaya 4.207: Sabbeheva samaggehi sammodamnehi avivadamnehi sikkhitabbanti.10 Pali Vinaya 3.172: Samaggo nma sagho samnasavsako samnasmya hito.11 Pali Vinaya 1.105.


29/176


16 Dening schism in this way would seem too narrowly legalistic. Butthe story of Devadatta (and those of the bhikkhus of Kosambi and Camp)

depicts a gradual deterioration of harmony, a disintegrative process thatpersists despite repeated eorts to contain it. The actual performance ofthe separate uposathas is merely the legal act that sets the seal on schism.While this formal act is technically limited to one local Sangha, there is nodoubt the repercussions were felt to be relevant for Buddhism generally.

17 And so despite this localization ofsaghakamma it seems that on majoroccasions the Sangha would gather in larger groups to perform acts that

were valid throughout the monastic community. Such were the First andSecond Councils. These Councils combined aspects of Dhamma and Vinaya,which is hardly surprising since for the Sangha, Vinaya is merely the day-to-day application of Dhamma. The form of the dialogue in the Councilsechoes that of the saghakammas, even though the procedure for a Councilis not laid down in the Vinaya as a saghakamma. The narratives are in-cluded in the Vinaya Skandhakas, and both Councils discuss Vinaya issues:for the First Council, the disputed lesser and minor rules and other issues;

for the Second Council the Ten Points which prompted the event. In eachcase, the decisions of the Council are clearly held to be valid throughoutthe whole of the Buddhist Sangha.

18 Startlingly, this has no precedent or justication in the Vinaya itself. Aswe have seen, the Vinaya treats acts ofsaghakamma as pertaining only toan individual monastery. Only the Buddha laid down rules for the Sanghaas a whole. But with the Buddha gone, there is no procedure for universalSangha decision making. The Elders no doubt did the best they could, andtheir procedure has met with general agreement in the Sangha since then.But it must be remembered that they acted without explicit justicationfrom the Vinaya.

19 This is not so much of a problem as might appear. Actually, for those ofus who live the Vinaya every day, it is obvious that much of it operates asguidelines. There are countless situations that crop up constantly whichare not explicitly dealt with in the Vinaya. The Vinaya itself includes prin-

ciples for how to apply precedents in new situations. Very often, the rulesof Vinaya are phrased in a legalistic manner which makes them quite easyto get around in practice, ifone is so inclined. And so in Myanmar they


30/176


say: If you know the Vinaya you can kill a chicken. It is, perhaps, onlyin the minds ofacademics that the Vinaya minutely governs every facet

of a monks life. In real life this is simply impossible. This has nothing todo with the question of whether one takes a rigorist or laxist approach tothe rules, emphasizing the letter or the spirit. It is simply to acknowledgethe plain fact that the rules only cover a limited amount of contexts, andbeyond that we must use our best judgement.

20 As its very name suggests, the Third Council, which we shall see hasclose connections with the Unity Edicts, stands rmly in the tradition of

the Councils. It is presented as an act that is valid throughout the Sanghain exactly the same way as the First and Second Councils. And like them,ifone tried to examine the Vinaya itself for justication for the Council,

youd have a hard time. Nevertheless it is accepted within the Vinayatraditions as a valid act.

1.2 Aoka & unity

21 We should carefully consider exactly what Aoka had in mind in sayingthat the Sangha has been made unied. It seems to me quite incrediblethat Aoka would take the trouble to create three Edicts across a largearea of the Buddhist heartland if he was referring to a mere local dispute.Aoka had a big mind: he was used to thinking in the broadest pan-Indianterms. Surely when he said the Sangha has been made unied he musthave meant the Sangha in a universal sense.

22 Since his language here is derived closely from the well known storyof Devadatta, he was implicitly placing this event in that context, seeingthe conict as a serious one threatening the Sangha as a whole, and thecorresponding resolution being a similarly magnicent act (with, needone add, altogether pleasant kammic results for the unier!). While theproblematic events at Paliputta itself may well have involved only onecentral monastery,12 the presence of the Unity Edicts in several places

makes it certain that Aoka meant the solution to apply generally, not justin one monastery.

12 The Aokrma or Kukkutrma.


31/176


23 The language Aoka uses, such as the unied Sangha, when used in itstechnical Vinaya sense, as we have seen, refers to a local Sangha. But this

is the only language he has, and he must use this to link the story withthe recognized vocabulary. Buddhists at that time, as today, would haveunderstood and used the words in a more informal sense than required bythe limited technical denition in the Vinaya.

24 It would, therefore, be going seriously beyond the evidence to assertthat the statement that the Sangha has been made unied proves thatthere had previously been a state of schism.13 Again, the Vinaya texts

usually depict the situations as black & white: either there is a schism orunity. But they are legal texts whose character is to seek clear cut black &white denitions. Reality, unfortunately, always comes in shades of grey.We shall see that the accounts of the Third Council depict a state of unrest,an issue arisen and unresolved that seriously interupts the functioningof the Sangha for many years. This can hardly be depicted as unity, yetthe state of a formal schism is not reached. It is neither schism nor unity.In such a context the Unity Edicts are in fact exquisitely accurate. They

depict the arrival at a state of unity, without asserting that there has beena schism.

25 We should then ask, did Aoka mean that he had unied the Sanghaof one particular school, or the Sangha of all Buddhism? The evidence ofthe edicts shows unambiguously that Aoka was entirely non-sectarianand tolerant in his outlook. No sects are mentioned, either by name orby implication. There is a famous list of texts that Aoka recommends forthe bhikkhus and bhikkhunis to study. While there is some doubt aboutthe exact texts that are referred to, they all belong to the early sharedstrata of non-sectarian Suttas and are not sectarian texts, such as theAbhidhamma.AsBechertsays:Itcanclearlybeshownbyacarefulanalysisof historical records and inscriptions that the king was not partial towardsany section of the Sangha.14 Without any serious evidence pointing inanother direction, then, we can only conclude that Aoka meant the entireSangha was unied.

13 Contra S 1989, 186.14 B, Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Mahayana, 26.


32/176


26 Aokas act signalled a sea change in Sangha/state relations. The Sanghawas set up as an international self governing body, and the role of the

rulers was to support, not to control. The Vinaya accounts of the First andSecond Council mention no royal involvement. It must have taken a majorinstitutional crisis for Aoka to interfere so dramatically.

27 Could this have arisen due to the sectarian disputes? Could, say, anargument over the exact nature of the arahants enlightenment lead tosuch a pass? This hardly seems reasonable. We can only imagine that therewas a serious crisis which personally involved Aoka. When we look at

the texts we see that there is in fact one such record: the account of thePali tradition, especially the Vinaya commentary Samantapsdik, andits Chinese version Sudassanavinayavibhs.15 In addition, a short passagefrom the Mahsaghika Vinaya may give us a clue what actually happened.

1.3 The Third Council

28 The main story tells of the Third Council in Paliputta, held on accountofmany corrupt, non-Buddhist heretics16 seekinggains and honour, manyof whom entered the Sangha fraudulently by ordaining themselves, thusmaking the normal functioning of the Sangha impossible:

15 The Sudassanavinayavibhs is a Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary taken to China and

translated by Saghabhadra about 489 . The title is a reconstruction from the Chinese (at T49, 2034, p. 95, c3 it is referred to as , Sudassana-vibhs). This text is little known, despite the fact that there is a good English transla-tion by B and H. Bapat and Hirakawa follow the Taish in treating thisas a translation of the Samantapsdik, although they note the presence ofmanydierences from the existing Pali text. In fact G is surely correct to argue thatthe Sudassanavinayavibhs is not a translation of the Samantapsdik; while thetwo have much in common, the dierences are too far reaching. The passages I havecompared would support the thesis that it was an earlier version of the Sinhala commen-tary that was used by Buddhaghosa, adapted by him in minor ways to conform to theMahvihravsin viewpoint. This makes it a uniquely important historical document.

16 Dpavasa 6.47: Tithiy lbha disvna sakkraca mahraha/Sahimattasahassni theyya-savsak ah. Described in more detail at Dpavasa 6.35 as: Paarag jail ca ni-gahcelakdik, and at Dpavasa 6.37 as: jvak aaladdhik nn.


33/176


29 The heretics, whose gain and honour had dwindled to the extentthat they failed even to get food and clothing,17 went forth in the

ssana seeking gains and honour, each declaring their own twistedviews: This is Dhamma, this is Vinaya. Those who did not gain thegoing forth, having shaved themselvesandputtingon theyellow robe,wandered into the monasteries, intruding on the uposatha, pavra,and saghakamma. The bhikkhus did not perform uposatha togetherwith them.18

30 Thedetails that thesemonkswere misrepresentingDhammaand Vinaya,and that they intruded on uposatha, pavra, and saghakamma leave no

doubt that the authors of this passage had the Vinaya precedent of theSaghabhedakkhandhaka in mind, just as Aoka did in his Edicts.19 Thetexts are quite consistent in this point: the good monks did not performuposatha with the heretics; in fact, the uposatha at the central monasterywas interrupted for seven years.20 This clearly means that there was noschism in the legal sense (kammabheda), for this requires that separateuposathas be carried out within the same sm.

31 Accordingly, in the Dpavasa the rst account of the troubles21 doesnot mention schism (bheda). But, in a seeming contradiction, the secondversion of the same events22 mentions bheda,23 saying that 236 years afterthe Buddha: another bheda arose for the supreme Theravda. This still

17 Cf. Dpavasa 6.34: Mahlbho ca sakkro uppajji buddhassane/Pahalbhasakkr tithiyputhuladdhik.

18 Samantapsdik 1.53. Also below the bhikkhus say to Aokas minister: We do notperform uposatha with heretics. (Na maya titthiyehi saddhi uposatha karomti.)

19 Similar concerns are reected elsewhere, for example in the Sthaviran San-Lun-Xian-Yi,

composed by Jia-xiang between 397419: At that time in Magadha there was an upsakawho greatly supported Buddhism. Various heretics for the sake of gains shaved theirhair and went forth. Thus there came to be the so-called thief-dwelling bhikkhus, ofwhom Mahdeva was the chief. (T45, 1852, p. 9, a2224.)

20 E.g. Dpavasa 6.36: Ariy pesal lajji na pavisanti uposatha, Sampatte ca vassasate vas-sa chattisa satni ca. Or else Samantapsdik 1.53: Asokrme sattavassni uposathoupacchijji.

21 Dpavasa 6.3442.22 Dpavasa 6.4358. Due to its haphazard compilation, the Dpavasa frequently includes

more than one version of the same events.23 Dpavasa 6.43. Nikkhante dutiye vassasate vassni chattisati, Puna bhedo ajyitha thera-

vdnamuttamo. Other verses use terms related to bheda, but there they mean thedestruction of the teachings: 6.534: Buddhavacana bhidisu visuddhakacana iva./Sabbepi te bhinnavd vilom theravdato


34/176


does not suggest that there were separate uposathas or anything else thatmight characterize a formal schism. The Dpavasa is, of course, mythic

verse rather than a legal text, and we need not read the use ofbheda here asconrming that aschismhad in fact occurred. Actually, schism is too stronga word for bheda, as bheda is used very commonly to mean separation,division, analysis, etc., in all sorts of contexts, while schism in Englishonly really corresponds to the more formal idea of saghabheda as thedeliberate division of a monastic community.

32 It is in the Samantapsdik that we might expect to nd more for-

mal mention ofschism. But this does not speak ofbheda at all. After theproblems arose in Paliputra, Moggaliputtatissa reects that an issue(adhikaraa) had arisen in the Sangha.24 In like manner, the dispute isreferred to as an adhikaraa throughout the following paragraphs. Thismeans that there was a problem demanding resolution by performanceof a saghakamma. If an issue was still pending, there cannot have beena schism at this point, because one does not perform saghakamma withschismatics. From the Vinaya point of view, there was no schism.

1.4 What were the heretics teaching?

33 The heretical imposters are depicted as propounding many teachings,such as eternalism, partial eternalism, eel-wriggling, and so on, a list fa-miliar to any learned Buddhist as the 62 wrong views refuted in the Brah-majla Sutta.25 The mention of the 62 views is conventional, and does notrepresent the actual views of the heretics.

34 We might wonder why the heretics were described in this way: whatare the implications or connotations of these views, as the Buddhists ofthe time would have seen it? In the Pali canon, the 62 views are all seen asspringing from the root heresy of belief in a self. This interpretation isexplicitly stated in the Pali Sayutta Nikya:

24 Samantapsdika 1.53: Uppanna dni ida adhikaraa, ta nacirasseva kakkhaa bhavis-sati. Na kho paneta sakk imesa majjhe vasantena vpasametunti.

25 DN 1/DA 21/T1 21, also in Tibetan and Sanskrit. Cf. Dpavasa 6.2633. The Sudassana-vinyavibhs agrees: T24, 1462, p. 684, a29b1.


35/176


35 These 62 twisted views taught in the Brahmajla; these views,householder, exist when identity view exists, when identity view

does not exist they do not exist.26

36 But the Sarvstivdin version of this same Sutta, while similar in otherrespects, does not mention the 62 views of the Brahmajla. Instead, thetext simply mentions views ofself, views ofa being, views ofa soul (jva),views of the auspicious and inauspicious.27

37 This makes us consider whether the emphasis on the 62 views of theBrahmajla might be a sectarian bias of the Mahvihra. Of course theSutta itself is found in Dharmaguptaka, Sarvstivdin, and other versionsand must be regarded as part of the shared heritage. But there is reasonfor thinking that the Mahvihravsins treated this particular discoursewith special reverence.

38 In their account of the First Council, the Mahvihravsins made theBrahmajla the rst of all Suttas, unlike all other schools we know of exceptthe Dharmaguptaka. Bhikkhu Bodhi suggests that this placement is not

a matter of chance or of haphazard arrangement, but of deliberate designon the part of the Elders who compiled the canon and set it in its currentform.28 He goes on to reect on the Dhammic relevance of this position:... just as our sutta, in terms of its position, stands at the entrance to thetotal collection of discourses spoken by the Buddha, so does its principlemessage provide a prolegomenon to the entire Dispensation itself. Indeed,onemight suggest that this Sutta represents the rst factor of the eightfoldpath, right view, while the subsequent Suttas of the Dgha concentrate on

the ethical and meditative components of the path.39 But while the position of this Sutta fulls an important Dhammic role,

we should not neglect the political dimension of this choice. In assertingthat the rst priority of the Elders who organized the Dhamma at the FirstCouncil was to condemn the 62 kinds of wrong view, the Mahvihravsinsestablished a mythic precedent for the acts of Aoka and Moggaliputtatissa

26 SN 41.3: Yni cimni dvsahi dihigatni brahmajle bhaitni; im kho, gahapati, dihiyosakkyadihiy sati honti, sakkyadihiy asati na hontti.

27 (SA 570 at T2, 99, p. 151, a1213).28 B, The Discourse on the All-embracing Net of Views, 1.


36/176


in cleansing the Sangha from the 62 kinds of wrong view at the ThirdCouncil.

40 We begin to suspect that the canonical Mahvihravsin (and also Dhar-maguptaka?) account of the First Council has been adjusted to providea precedent for the Third Council.29 This suspicion is conrmed whenwe look at the only other Sutta mentioned in the Mahvihravsin FirstCouncil, the Smaaphala Sutta. This concerns the story ofAjtasattu, apowerful king ofMagadha, who at the start ofhis reign had committed aterrible act of violence, but, experiencing dreadful remorse, made a dra-

matic public confession of his sins, took refuge in the Buddhas Dhamma,and, according to the Mahvihravsin sources, later sponsored the FirstCouncil. Aoka was also a powerful king of Magadha, who at the start of hisreign had committed a terrible act of violence, but, experiencing dreadfulremorse, made a dramatic public confession ofhis sins, took refuge inthe Buddhas Dhamma, and, according to the Mahvihravsin sources,later sponsored the Third Council. May we be forgiven for seeing anotherpossible connection there?

41 The motivation for emphasizing the Smaaphala would seem to betransparent enough. After Aokas coronation, his bloody campaigns, es-pecially at Kalinga, must have been widely loathed by the peacelovingBuddhists. Politics in those days being exactly as cynical as they are today,it would have taken a great deal to convince people that his conversionand remorse were genuine. The story of Ajtasattu could be invoked as amythic paradigm for Aokas sincerity and credibility as a Buddhist sympa-thizer. This would have been especially crucial in order to justify Aokasunprecedented step of actually intervening in the Sanghas internal aairsand deciding who was heretical and who was not.

42 After examining the bad monks and hearing of all their wrong views,Aoka asks the good monks what the Buddha taught (kivd bhante sam-msambuddhoti?) and they say the Buddha was a vibhajjavdin (vibhajjavd

29 On other grounds, I believe the Mahvihravsin account of the recitation of the Vinayaat the First Council was adapted to form a precedent for the Second Council. The sym-metry is neat: the Second Council was over a Vinaya dispute, and so corresponds withthe Vinaya side of the First Council; the Third Council was over a Dhamma dispute, andso corresponds with the Dhamma side of the First Council.


37/176


mahrjti).30 This was conrmed by the hero of the story, Moggaliput-tatissa, who in the Mahvihravsin accounts is the kings close mentor

and adviser, and is regarded by the school as a root teacher. Later we willlook more closely at what vibhajjavda means in this context, but for nowwe will concentrate on those details that can be conrmed in the Edicts.

43 According to the Samantapsdik, Aoka had studied Buddhism underMoggaliputtatissa before the Council and so was able to recognize the falseclaims of the heretics. He reected that:

44 These are not bhikkhus, they are recluses from other religions.

Knowing this, he gave them white clothes and expelled them.31

45 In this case, the exact words used in the Samantapsdik and the Edictsdier, but the meaning is identical.32 After thebadbhikkhus were expelled,Aoka declared to Moggaliputtatissa:

46 Now, bhante, the ssana is pure, may the Sangha perform the up-osatha. Having given his protection, he entered the city. The Sanghain unity gathered and performed the uposatha.33

47 As far as the main details go, the Samantapsdik and the Edicts arein perfect accord:34 the Sangha has been made unied; the dividers of theSangha should be made to wear lay clothes and expelled; this expulsion isassociated with the temporal rule of Aoka rather than being an act of theSangha; and the event is associated with the uposatha.35

30 The Dpavasa does not use the term vibhajjavdin here, referring instead to the Thera-vda and Sakavda. Vibhajjavdin is found in the commentaries, including the Samanta-

psdik and the Sudassanavinayavibhs: (T24, 1462, p. 684, b45).

31 Samantapsdik 1.61. Cp. Dpavasa 4.52: Therassa santike rj uggahevna ssana,Theyyasavsabhikkhuno nseti ligansana.

32 The Samantapsdik refers to the giving of white lay clothes as: setakni vatthni datv;the Edicts have: odtni dusni sanadhpayitu. Being physically expelled from themonastery is expressed in the Samantapsdik as: uppabbjesi; in theEdicts as: anvsasivsayiye. Sudassanavinayavibhs has: (T24, 1462,p. 684, b3).

33 Samantapsdik 1.61.34 Much academic ink has been spilt on this matter. For alternative points of view see

S, Buddhist Sects in the Aoka Period. (1) The Meaning of the Schism Edict.35 The only substantial dierence is that, for Aoka, the trouble makers are bhikkhus and

bhikkhunis, whereas for the Sri Lankan accounts some are ordained, while others are


38/176


48 This version of events also allows us to understand why Aoka should in-terfere. It was he who had so lavishly supported the Sangha, inadvertently

creating the crisis. While he may or may not have felt any responsibilityfor the problems, he would have certainly been unhappy about continuingto furnish imposters with their material needs.

49 Thewhole story is eminently plausible, and is familiar inmany countrieswhere Buddhism ourishes today. As soon as the Sangha attracts lavishsupport from wealthy and generous patrons, there is an inux ofbogusmonks who are solely interested in ripping o as much money as they

can. These are a persistent nuisance and it is dicult or impossible forthe Sangha alone to deal with them. They ourish unchecked unless theGovernment has the will power to forcibly remove their robes and preventthem from harassing and deceiving Buddhist donors.

50 The fact that Aoka expelled the fake monks and made them revertto lay clothes is a crucial detail. The opponents at this Council were notBuddhist monks who diered in interpretation of certain doctrinal points,they were non-Buddhists, not deserving of being monks at all. Though

the Mahvihravsins claimed to be the only non-schismatic sect, eventhey did not go so far as to assert that members of other schools must bedisrobed. Even ifwe were to accept the Mahvihravsin position that allother schools were schismatic in the literal sense dened in Vinaya, thiswould simply mean the communities could not share the same communaluposatha recitation. It does not mean the opponents are not monks: infact, only bhikkhus can cause a schism, so if the opponents at the ThirdCouncil were really laypeople, there is no way they could cause a schism.The only recourse would be to recognize their fraudulent status and expelthem. So the story of the Third Council is not, from the Aokan or theMahvihravsin point of view, the story of a schism. In fact, the main-stream Mahvihravsin Vinaya commentary, in both the Pali and Chineseversions, does not mention schism at all.

51 It seems to me that the implications of these schism edicts have beenbrushed aside by scholars due to their predisposition, based primarily on

theyyasavsika, fraudulent pretenders who just put the robes on themselves and arenot really ordained. But this is a minor point, since these may also be referred to astheyyasavsika bhikkhus, and the edicts are doubtless not concerned with such legalniceties.


39/176


the textual accounts of the Dpavasa and Vasumitra, to see the schisms aspre-Aoka. Thus Cousinssays: I fthere were dierent Buddhist fraternities

at this time, and at least the dierence between the Vinaya traditionsofMahsaghika and Theravda/Theriya is likely to be earlier than thisdate, then the king would have taken no account of that.36 Lamotte, withequally little attempt at justication, says: The kings intentions wereto force dissidents to return to lay status However, his orders werenot followed.37 Warder says: It is not known what Aoka proposed todo about the fact that the Buddhists were already split into at least ve

schools.

38

None of these interpretations attempt to grapple seriously withthe undeniable fact that none of Aokas words give any hint that dierentBuddhist sects existed in his time.

1.5 Aoka in the Mahsaghika Vinaya?

52 Sasaki points out that a unique passage in the Mahsaghika Vinayamay be referring to Aokas involvement in the returning of schismaticmonks to lay status. The relevant passage appears in the MahsaghikaVinaya Skandhaka, according to Sasaki, at just the point where it breaksaway from the pattern of the other Sthavira Skandhakas. He thereforesuggests that this episode, based on real events in Aokas time, was acrucial inuence in stimulating the reshaping of the Mahsaghika Vinaya.Here is his translation of the relevant passage:

53 If the monks have noticed that a particular monk is going to do

saghabheda they must say to him: Venerable, do not do saghabheda.Saghabheda is a serious sin. You will fall into an evil state ofbeingor go to hell. I will give you clothes and an alms-bowl. I will instruct

you in the Stras and read Stras for you. If you have some question,I will teach you.

54 Ifhe still does not stop it, they must say to a powerful upsaka:Mr. So-and-so is going to do saghabheda. Go and dissuade him fromdoing it. The upsaka must say to [the monk]: Venerable, do notdo saghabheda. Saghabheda is a serious sin. You will fall into an

36 C, On the Vibhajjavdins, 138.37 L, History of Indian Buddhism, 238.38 W, 262.


40/176


evil state of being or go to hell. I will give you clothes, an alms-bowl,and medicine for curing illness. If you feel dullness in the life ofa

monk return to secular life. I will nd a wife for you and give you thenecessities of life.

55 Ifhe still doesnot stop it,the monks must dismiss him by removingthealka (voting stick) that indicates hismembership [in the Sangha].After dismissing him, the Sangha must proclaim as follows: Every-body! There is a man who is plotting saghabheda. Ifhe approaches

you, watch out!56 If, despite these precautions, he has done saghabheda it is called

saghabheda 39

57 Sasaki believes that the unique phrase powerful upsakarefers to noneother than Aoka himself. His acts in persuading the bad monks to returnto lay life here come across more like a social security safety net thana shameful expulsion. This would make sense ifwe see the bad monksas freeloaders and opportunists, rather than heretics trying to destroyBuddhism, or genuine Buddhists developing a new doctrine or practice. Ifthey had simply joined the Sangha to scrounge a living, oering to supporttheir needs after disrobal may have been a means ofnon-confrontationalproblem solving.

58 Like our other sources, this text falls well short ofestablishing that aschism occurred during Aokas reign. First we must remember that theconnection with Aoka is, of course, speculative, and the passage might aswell refer to something quite dierent. It only discusses theoretical events,and does not assert that a schism occurred. And the stage of calling upon a

powerful upsaka is only the second of three preliminary stages before aschism can occur. Even if, as I think quite possible, the passage does in factrefer to the same actual events as the Unity Edicts and the Third Council,there is no need to suppose that all three stages were completed. In fact,our only source on the event as a whole, the Third Council narratives,asserts that the intervention of the powerful upsaka was eective andschism was averted.

59 It is also crucial to notice that if this did refer to an actual schism, it

must have been the root schism between the Mahsaghikas and the

39 S, Buddhist Sects in the Aoka Period. (1) The Meaning of the Schism Edict,193194. Translation slightly modied. Original text at T22, 1425, p. 441, a1123.


41/176


Sthaviras. But this is highly problematic. Our source is the MahsaghikaVinaya, but the Mahsaghika riputraparipcch puts the root schism

much later, which would entail a gross inconsistency on this issue withinthe Mahsaghikas. Even worse, our three sources from the Sthavira,Mahsaghika, and Aokan points of view all take the same side, againstthe schismatic monks who are returned to lay life. It is impossible thatthese could represent opposing sides in the debate. The simplest interpre-tation of our sources is to agree that there was no schism at this time.


42/176

Chapter 2

THE SAINTS OF VEDISAO for the date of the schisms derives from therelic caskets of the ancient Hemavata teachers, which has recently beenclaried by Michael Willis.

2 The reliquaries have been dated to around the end of the second century

, that is, a little over a century after Aoka. These inscriptions are ouroldest epigraphic evidence for personal names, locations, and dates ofmonks. Willis shows that ve monks mentioned on the caskets may beidentied with ve monks who, as recorded in the Samantapsdik andother Pali sources, were sent to the Himalayan region as part of the Aokanmissionary eort. Additional names are the students and followers of theoriginal missionaries. Thus the Pali sources nd important vericationin our two oldest sources ofepigraphical information: the Aokan Edictsconrm the Third Council, and the Vedisa inscriptions conrmthe accountof the missions.1

3 The reliquaries describe thesemonks as the teachers of all the Himalaya.Hencewemust alsosee this groupas the fraternitythat later sourceswould

1 One of the missions is supposed to have gone to Suvaabhmi, usually identiedwith Thaton in Burma or Nakorn Pathom in Thailand. But Buddhism is usually said tohave arrived there much later. Hence Lamotte asserts that the missions account couldnot have been compiled before the 5th century (L, History of Indian Buddhism,298). But the identication of Suvaabhmi with this region is uncertain. Thus thelater arrival of Buddhism in Southeast Asia, even if true, cannot be used as proof thatthe mention of an Aokan mission to Suvaabhmi is unhistorical. See discussion athttp://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tawsein8.htm .
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tawsein8.htmhttp://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tawsein8.htmhttp://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tawsein8.htm


43/176

2. The Saints of Vedisa 35

Table 2.1: Hemavata Teachers

Pali texts Reliquaries at Sonrstupa 2

Reliquaries at Schstupa 2

Reliquaries atAndher

Majjhima MajhimaKoinputa

Majhima/Koinputa

Kassapagotta KotputaKsapagota

Ksapagota

lavakadeva lbagira pa(=la?)gira

Sahadeva Kosikiputa Koskiputa

Dundubhissara GotiputaDudubhisaradyda

Gotiputa

Hritputa Hritiputa

Mogaliputa Mogaliputa,pupil of Gotiputa

VchiyaSuvijayita, pupilof Goti[puta]

Vchiputa, pupilof Gotiputa

Mahavanya

describe as the Himalayan School (Haimavata Nikya). I would question,however, to what extent the epigraphic evidence allows us to concludethat a school existed at that time.

4 Clearly, there are many elements that are essential for the creation ofa school. We see a tightly bound group, all of whom would have known

each other, with common teachers. We see the arising of a cult of worship-ping local saints, as well as the Buddha and the great disciples who werehonoured by all Buddhists. We see a well developed and lavishly supportedinstitutional centre.

5 But there are also many things we do not see. We dont, so far as I amaware, see the use of the term nikya or other terms denoting a school.We have no evidence of a separate textual lineage, or independently devel-oped doctrines. We have no evidence that this group carried out separate

saghakamma.6 I would suggest that, simply reading the evidence in the most literal

way as we did with the Aokan edicts, the Vedisa inscriptions show that


44/176


a centre was developed around a monastic group that at a later date wasknown as the Haimavata school. We do not know whether they regarded

themselves as a distinct school at this stage. Rather than seeing the Vedisands as evidence that schools already existed at this date, we would bebetter to consider this evidence for what it can teach us regarding howschools emerge.

7 While identication of the Himalayan missionaries is fairly certain, therest of the names present us with some intriguing questions.

2.1 Gotiputa

8 Gotiputa was obviously an important monk, and was probably instru-mental in establishing the Hemavata presence at Vedisa. Willis puts hisdate at roughly mid-second century .2 However, this conclusion restsonseveral quite exible assumptions, and really Gotiputaandhis disciplesmay have lived any time between the mission period and the erection of

the stupas.3

9 Gotiputa is said to be the heir (dyda) of one of the original ve mis-sionaries, Dundubhissara. The appellation dyda is not a regular Vinayaterm indicating a direct student-teacher relationship, so Willis takes itto indicate that Gotiputa lived some time after the original mission. How-ever, the meaning ofdyda would seem to rather imply an intimate livingrelationship, rather than a distant inheritor of a lineage. In the spiritualsense (dhammadyda or ssanadyda) it means one who is truly worthy

of the living religion. In a more mundane sense, an inheritor is one who isthe most worthy to receive the material possessions ofone who has died.Thus for laypeople in the patriarchal society of the time, the son is theinheritor rather than the sister.4 When a monk dies, his belongings returnto the Sangha. However, since a nurse is ofgreat benet, the Sangha isencouraged to give the dead monks requisites to the attendant monk whowas looking after the deceased.5 In the Mahsaghika Vinaya the monk

2 W, 228.3 See http://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org/namesanddatesatvedisa.4 Pali Vinaya 3.66.5 Pali Vinaya 1.303.
http://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org/namesanddatesatvedisahttp://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org/namesanddatesatvedisahttp://sectsandsectarianism.santipada.org/namesanddatesatvedisa


45/176

2. The Saints of Vedisa 37

who inherits the requisites is not merely a direct student (saddhivihrika orantevsin), but must be also trustworthy and agreed upon by the Sangha.6

The word dyda is not used in this context in the Pali Vinaya. Nevertheless,I think these examples show that a dyda is more likely to be a special,closely anointed heir, rather than a distant descendant from the samelineage. In this sense it may be more intimate than student (antevsi), fora teacher may have any number of students, and while the teacher andstudent are ideally supposed to regard each other like father and son, inreality they may not have any specially close relationship. This would also

suit our context, for it would exalt Gotiputas status more if he was seen asbeing the one truly worthy of carrying on Dundubhissaras mission afterhis death. If the relationship ofdyda is something like we have proposed,then it would seem likely that Gotiputa was a younger contemporary ofthe original Hemavata teachers.

10 We next feel obliged to ask, who then was this Gotiputa? He was clearlyan important teacher. But he is mysteriously unknown or is he? TheVinaya commentary account of the Third Council tells the following story.

I translate from the Chinese, which in this case is similar to the Pali:11 Atthattime,king Aoka had ascended the throne for 9 years. There

was one bhikkhu, called Kotaputtatissa,7 who became severely ill.Walking for alms for medicine, he received but a pinch of ghee. The ill-ness grew until his life force was ending. He approached the bhikkhusand said: In the three realms, be watchful, not lazy! Having said this,he ew into the air. Seated in space, he entered the re element,burned up his body and entered Nibbana. At that time king Aoka

heard people speak of this, and then made oerings. The king re-ectedandsaid: Even in my realm thebhikkhuswhoneedmedicationcannot get it! ... 8

12 Here we have a teacher whose name would seem uncannily similar tothe Haimavata teacher of the inscriptions. Pali variants of his name include

6 T 1425, 479b23c23. Translation at W, 143145.7 (T24, 1462, p. 682, a1516). This is, of course, only an approximation

of the Indic form.8

(T24, 1462, p. 682, a1521).


46/176


Kontiputta, Kuntaputta, and Kontaputta.9 The relic inscriptions includethe forms Kotputa and Gotiputa.10 It seems that these are two dierent

monks, for these two forms appear on two reliquaries discovered as partof the same collection of ve.

13 However, might there not be some kind of family connection?11 Thelanguage of the inscriptions regularly contracts what are formed as conso-nant clusters in Pali or Sanskrit; thus, for example, the Pali Dundubhissarabecomes Dudubhisara in the inscriptions. We also note several cases onthe caskets where the spelling oscillates between i and .Jayawickrama sug-

gests the identication ofGoti- and Kot-, pointing out the change of gkin Northwestern Prkrits12 (although we are not in the North-west!). With-out concluding one way or the other, we raise the possibility that theseare variant forms of the same name. But if there is a family connection,exactly what kind of family are we talking about?

14 The Mahvasa elaborates the story. Kontiputtatissa is the son of akinnar (wood-nymph) called Kunt, who was seduced by a man fromPaliputta and it seems (kira) gave birth to two sons, Tissa and Sumitta.

They both went forth under the elder Mahvarua.13 (Evidently having awood-nymph as mother does not disqualify one from being considered ahuman being for ordination purposes.) Kontiputtatissa was bitten by aninsect, but although he told his brother that a handful ofghee was neededas cure, he would not go in search of it after his meal. This version agreeswith the others in the manner ofKontiputtatissas death. All versions alsoconcur that Aokas remorse in hearing of the story caused him to dramat-ically increase his already generous support of the Sangha, motivatingcorrupt elements to enter the Sangha and precipitating the crisis that ledto the Third Council. We notice that Kontiputtatissas brother Sumitta alsodied within the year. This story of the wood-nymph and her two ill-fated

9 J, 1986, 173.10 W, 223.11 As sugge

sects & sectarianism

Documents