The Mahāsāṃghika (Brahmi: 𑀫𑀳𑀸𑀲𑀸𑀁𑀖𑀺𑀓, "of the Great Sangha", ) was a major division (Nikāya) of the early Buddhist schools in India. They were one of the two original communities that emerged from the first schism of the original pre-sectarian Buddhist tradition (the other being the Sthavira Nikāya). This schism is traditionally held to have occurred after the Second Buddhist council, which occurred at some point during or after the reign of Ashoka Maurya. The Mahāsāṃghika Nikāya developed into numerous sects which spread throughout ancient India.
Some scholars think that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya (monastic rule) represents the oldest Buddhist monastic source, although some other scholars think that it is not the case. While the Mahāsāṃghika tradition is no longer in existence, many scholars look to the Mahāsāṃghika tradition as an early source for some ideas that were later adopted by Mahāyāna Buddhism. Some of these ideas include the view that the Buddha was a fully transcendent being (term "lokottaravāda", "transcendentalism"), the idea that there are many contemporaneous buddhas and bodhisattvas throughout the universe, the doctrine of the inherent purity and luminosity of the mind (Skt: prakṛtiś ćittasya prabhāsvarā), the doctrine of reflexive awareness (svasaṃvedana) and the doctrine of prajñapti-matra (absolute nominalism or pure conceptualism).
History
Most sources place the origin of the Mahāsāṃghikas to the Second Buddhist Council. Traditions regarding the Second Council are confusing and ambiguous, but it is agreed that the overall result was the first schism in the Sangha between the Sthavira Nikāya and the Mahāsāṃghika Nikāya, although it is not agreed upon by all what the cause of this split was.Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. p. 47.
According to Jan Nattier and Charles S. Prebish, the best date for the first schism and the creation of the Mahāsāṃghika as a separate community is 116 years after the Buddha's nirvāṇa.Nattier, Jan; Prebish, Charles S. Mahāsāṃghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism, History of Religions Volume 16, Number 3 Feb., 1977.
Some Buddhist historical sources mention that the cause for schism was a dispute over Vinaya (monastic rule), mainly the desire of certain Sthaviras (elders) to add extra rules to make the Vinaya more rigorous. Other sources, especially Sthavira sources like those of the Sarvastivāda school, argue that the main cause was a doctrinal issue. They blame a figure named Mahadeva with arguing for five divisive points, four of which see arhatship as a lesser kind of spiritual attainment (which still has ignorance and desire).
Andrew Skilton has suggested that the problems of contradictory accounts about the first schism are solved by the Mahāsāṃghika Śāriputraparipṛcchā, which is the earliest surviving account of the schism.Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. p. 48. In this account, the council was convened at Pāṭaliputra over matters of Vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by a smaller group of elders (Sthaviras). The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya and to make it more strict.Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. p. 64. However, this text is not fully accepted by some Buddhist schools, such as the Theravāda, which instead claim that it was the Mahāsāṃghika who altered the original rules.
Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of Vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the Vinaya texts themselves, as Vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.
Some scholars therefore agree that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest, although some other scholars think that it is not the case. According to Skilton, future historians may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravāda school. According to Bhante Sujato, there is no strong evidence that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest; both the Mahāsāṃghika and Theravāda Vinayas developed in parallel from shared ancient sources, each containing both older and later elements. Declaring one as definitively “the earliest” is an oversimplification not supported by the academic evidence.
Regarding the issue with Mahadeva's doctrine, this seems to have been a later doctrinal dispute within the Mahāsāṃghika community (which happened after the schism). The followers of Mahadeva seem to have been the precursors of the southern Mahāsāṃghika sects, like the Caitikas.
Geography The original center of the Mahāsāṃghika sects was Magadha, but they also maintained important centers such as in Mathura and Karli.Potter, Karl. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. 8: Buddhist Philosophy from 100 to 350 AD. 2002. p. 23. The Kukkuṭikas were situated in Eastern India around Vārāṇasī and Pāṭaliputra and the Bahuśrutīya in Kośala, Andhra, and Gandhāra.
The Lokottaravāda subschool itself claimed to be of the 'Middle Country', i.e. Ganges Basin region in the north of India. The Mahāsāṃghikas and the Lokottaravāda subschool also had centres in the Gandhāra region. The Ekavyāvahārika are not known from later times.Warder, A. K. Indian Buddhism. 2000. pp. 281–282.
The Caitika branch was based in the Coastal Andhra region and especially at Amarāvati and Nāgārjunakoṇḍā. This Caitika branch included the Pūrvaśailas, Aparaśailas, Rājagirikas, and the Siddhārthikas.
Finally, Madhyadeśa was home to the Prajñaptivādins.Elizabeth Cook. Light of Liberation: A History of Buddhism in India. Dharma Publishing, 1992. pp. 242–243. The ancient Buddhist sites in the lower Kṛṣṇa Valley, including Amarāvati, Nāgārjunakoṇḍā and Jaggayyapeṭa, "can be traced to at least the third century BCE, if not earlier."Padma, Sree. Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. SUNY Press 2008, p. 2.
The cave temples at the Ajaṇṭā Caves, the Ellora Caves, and the Karla Caves are associated with the Mahāsāṃghikas.Gadkari, Jayant. Society and Religion: From Rgveda to Puranas. 1996. p. 198.
Appearance and language Appearance
Between 148 and 170 CE, the Parthian monk An Shigao came to China and translated a work which describes the color of monastic robes (Skt. kāṣāya) utilised in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (Ch. 大比丘三千威儀).Hino, Shoun. Three Mountains and Seven Rivers. 2004. p. 55. Another text translated at a later date, the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, contains a very similar passage corroborating this information. In both sources, the Mahāsāṃghikas are described as wearing yellow robes. The relevant portion of the Śāriputraparipṛcchā reads:.
The lower part of the yellow robe was pulled tightly to the left.Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 47.
According to Dudjom Rinpoche from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the robes of fully ordained Mahāsāṃghika monastics were to be sewn out of more than seven sections, but no more than twenty-three sections.Dudjom Rinpoche. Perfect Conduct: Ascertaining the Three Vows. 1999. p. 16. The symbols sewn on the robes were the endless knot (Skt. śrīvatsa) and the conch shell (Skt. śaṅkha), two of the Eight Auspicious Signs in Buddhism.
Language The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub (1290–1364) wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas used Prākrit, the Sarvāstivādins Sanskrit, the Sthaviravādins used Paiśācī and the Saṃmitīya Apabhraṃśa.Yao, Zhihua. The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition. 2012. p. 9.
Doctrines and teachings
List of doctrinal tenets An important source for the doctrines of the Mahāsāṃghika is the Samayabhedoparacanaćakra (The Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines, Ch: 異部宗輪論) of Vasumitra (Sarvāstivāda scholar, c. 2nd century CE), which was translated by Xuanzang.Sree Padma. Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. 2008. p. 56.
According to this source, some of the key doctrines defended by Indian Mahāsāṃghikas include:Andre Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule (Ecole Fransaise d'Extreme-Orient, 1955), Chapitre I 'Les Mahasanghika', pp. 55–74.Willemen, Charles; Tsukamoto Keisho (2004). Treatise on the Elucidation of the Knowable, The Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines, pp. 97–101. Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai and Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.
The Buddhas is supramundane (lokottara), devoid of āsravas and the mundane natures. All words spoken by Tathāgatas turn the wheel of Dharma and none of their words are false. Buddhas teach all dharmas with a single sound. The material body (rupakaya), supernatural power (prabhava) and lifespan (ayus) of a Buddha is unlimited (ananta). The Buddha’s heart never tires of converting living beings by awakening faith (śraddhā) in them. The Buddha does not sleep or dream. The Tathāgata answers questions without thinking (or reflecting on things). Buddhas never say a single word because they are always in samādhi, but beings rejoice, thinking that they utter words. In a single moment of thought (ekaksanikacitta), Buddha comprehend all dharmas. The buddhas remain in all directions. There are buddhas everywhere in the four directions. When the bodhisattvas enter into a womb (garbha), they possess nothing impure and are entirely provided with organs and members, rather than developing gradually. When they enter a womb, bodhisattvas also take on the appearance of a white elephant. Bodhisattvas, because they want to help beings become perfect, make vows to be reborn in bad destinations (durgati). The different aspects of the Four Noble Truths are known in a single moment (ekaksanika). The five sensory (indriya) faculties consist of balls of flesh, therefore only consciousness (vijñana) sees forms, hears sounds, etc. There are no indeterminate (avyākṛta) things, that is, there are no dharmas that are neither good nor bad. When one enters certainty [to become a buddha] (samyaktvaniyama) one has abandoned all the fetters (saṃyojana). "Stream enterers" (srotāpanna) can commit all misdeeds, except for the irremediable crimes (anantarya). All sūtras uttered by Buddha are nītārtha ("of plain or clear meaning"). Since they do not know everything (sabba), there are arhats who lack knowledge (ajñana), who have doubts (kariksa), who are saved by others. The self-presence of mind is bright. It is soiled (i.e. darkened) by adventitious secondary defilement. The tendencies (anusaya) are neither consciousnesses (ćitta) nor mental factors (ćaitta), and are devoid of object (anālambana). The past and the future have no substantial existence (dravya). There is no intermediate state (antarābhava). Virtue (śila) is not mental (acetasika) and it is not consecutive to thought (ćittanuparivatti). Tendencies (anusaya) are indeterminate (abyakata), not-caused (ahetuka) and disjointed from thought (ćittavippayutta). There is a root-consciousness (mūlavijñāna) which serves as the support (dsraya) for eye-perception and the other sensory perceptions, like the root of the tree is the principle of the leaves, etc. The current consciousnesses (pavattiviññāna) can be simultaneous (sahabhu) and do not carry karmic seeds (bīja). The path (mārga) and the defilements (kleśa) appear together. The act (karman) and its maturation (vipāka) evolve at the same time. Material things last a long time and so go through transformation (as milk turns into curds), but mental factors and consciousnesses do not because they have a swift production and cessation. Thought (ćitta) penetrates the whole body (kaya) and, depending on the object (visaya) and the support (asraya), it can contract or expand.
Buddhas and bodhisattvas