I’ve been tossing this idea around in my head for a little while, and I don’t really have much support for it, but I figure that if there’s any case that could be made for it, this community is most likely to have some answers or leads.
I’ve wondered for a while now about the some of the accounts of the Mahasamghika schism, since the scholarly consensus, promoted by Jan Nattier and Charles Prebish, is that the Mahasamghika schism was over vinaya rules and the story of Mahadeva and the status of an arhat is an anachronism.
I take a little while to build my case here (apologies for the length!), but my speculative hypothesis here (I am not a scholar, so this is just purely speculation based on some fragmented information that’s been sleuthed together) is this:
- Both the accounts of the Five Theses and Ten Points, attributed to the Mahasamghikas as responsible for the first Buddhist schism, are in fact actually discussing (at least somewhat accurately) schisms that occurred within the Sthaviranikaya, between the Vaibhasika Sarvastivadins and either the Sautrantika Sarvsativadins or the Vibhajyavadins
The first account I’ll discuss involves a figure named Mahadeva that allegedly promoted ‘Five Theses’ on the status of the Arhat, which refers to the fallibility of an arhat. According to the above paper, this account apparently describes the schism between the Mahasamghikas, who are said to have agreed with Mahadeva, and the either the Sthaviras or the Sarvastivadins, which rejected it.
The Theravadin account specifically is over the Ten Points, where the Mahasamghika were accused of laxity in their vinaya over these ten points of controversial conduct, most important of which is handling money. In a follow-up paper by Prebish, he points out (again) that it does not look like the Mahasamghika were actually lax over these ten points, and continued to prohibit them. Two of the important Ten Points I will bring up later are the handling of money, and the drinking of fermented beverages, specifically wine.
Recently on the DharmaWheel forum, there was a discussion about different types of arhats, and quotes Vasubandhu describing the Sarvastivadin view (emphasis mine):
The schools mostly agree that an Arhat is a person whose liberation is incontrovertible <<1>>. However, the Vaibhasikas distinguish six different types of Arhats, five of whom can “fall back.” That is, although they have experienced the elimination of the coarse afflictions that can cause suffering, they may not have eliminated the subtle afflictions and, therefore, can still commit unethical acts. commit suicide, etc., and thereby lose the status of Arhat.
It’s elsewhere mentioned the Mahasamghika did not hold to a view that arhats could regress.
And in Bhikkhu KL Dhammjoti’s Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma , he wrotes that the Sarvastivadins, and only them, distinguished arhats circumstantially liberated (samaya-vimukta) who started as faith-followers (śraddhānusārin) and those non‑circumstantially liberated (asamaya-vimukta) who began as Dharma-followers (dharmānusārin).
So this suggests to me that the account of the Mahadeva’s Five Theses might actually be, perhaps, a polemical account of the five types of arhats the Sarvastivadins saw as being able to regress, but rendered into a pejorative. The issue here really would be that this account is found within Sarvastivadin literature, so… it’s somewhat difficult to parse. We do know that the Sautrantika rejected the idea that arhats can regress, so I think it may be possible the reason we see this in Sarvastivadin literature is because (assuming the Sautrantika and the Darsantika are the same school), the Sarvastivadin orthodoxy was still engaged in polemical dispute with the Darstantika/Sautrantika sub-school and this is part of a record of their competing with one another.
But this is sort of an aside, because I think there’s a stronger case for the Ten Points in the Theravadin account referring to the Sarvastivadins, rather than the Mahasamghika: money and wine. These are points that Jan Nattier and Charles Prebish, in the first linked paper, show very easily that the Mahasamghika did not permit, in spite of the account given. But there is a school for which we know permitted both of these, and that school is–you guessed it–the Sarvastivadins.
The first point is pretty simple and I won’t delve into it too much, because I don’t know how particularly strong it is, but we know through Gregory Schopen’s work on the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya, particularly in the collection whose title begins Money Matters and… (I can’t recall the rest of the title off the top of my head) that the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya permitted monasteries to act as banking institutions, offering loans to aristocrats, taking collateral, etc. And while the relationship between the Sarvastivadins and the Mulasarvastivadins is unclear, I think a case could be made here that the Sarvastivadin monastics handled money. I’m a little curious to see if the Chinese version of the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya (which I’ve heard differs to many degrees) includes these banking regulations, or if other Sarvastivadin Vinayas contain it as well.
Now, the alcohol. I think most people (who study such things) are already familiar with Vasubandhu’s short line in the Abhidharmakosha:
“The Abhidharmikas maintain that strong liquor does not have the characteristic of being a transgression by its nature. A transgression by its nature is committed only by a person whose mind is defiled: now it happens that, as a remedy, one can drink strong liquor in a quantity where it is not inebriating. But the mind of one who drinks knowing that such a quantity is inebriating is defiled; the mind is not defiled when one drinks knowing that such a quantity is not inebriating.”
So this suggests that the Sarvastivadins, those that held the Abhidharma as authoritative anyway, felt that drinking a non-intoxicating amount of liquor was not a transgression.
But there’s something more! This paper by Harry Falk shows some reliefs across several Gandharan monasteries that depict monastics engaged with the production of wine.
I don’t know if anything here on its own is really much of anything, but taken altogether, it makes me feel that both of these accounts of schism are actually about the Sarvastivadins. The Five Theses, imo, was probably composed as an attack on the Vaibhasika from a Darstantika perspective, and at a later point in time may have been revised to refer to the Mahasamghikas. But this is something of a weak argument. The position I do think is more likely: that the Theravadin account of the Ten Points is actually a record of the schism between the Vaibhasikas and the Vibhajyavada, within the Sthaviranikaya, but has misidentified the original historical event it’s actually discussing.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Are there any holes here? Plausible, maybe? Or if anyone knows of any additional research here, I’m pretty curious (just to sate that curiosity). I think it’s pretty wild speculation, but it does seem to line up a little closer to what we know of the early schools’ doctrines and practices.