The Pali based Sthavira school seems to have been dominant in the neighboring region of Tamil Nadu and in some parts of the Deccan so it makes sense they would be their main rivals.
3 Likes
There was more than one school or sect in early Buddhism. If a doctrine was taught by an early Buddhist school like the Mahāsāṃghika, then it was, by definition, an early Buddhist doctrine.
According to Wayman, the idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is an innately pure luminous mind[21] (prabhasvara citta[22]), “which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)”[22] This luminous mind is being mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya:[23] “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.”[24][note 10]
The Mahāsāṃghika coupled this idea of the luminous mind with the idea of the mulavijnana, the substratum consciousness that serves as the basis consciousness.[21]
Buddha-nature - Wikipedia
I’d like to find out more of what the Mahāsāṃghika taught about Buddha-nature.
Brian Edward Brown, a specialist in Tathāgatagarbha doctrines, writes that it has been determined that the composition of the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra occurred during the Īkṣvāku Dynasty in the 3rd century as a product of the Mahāsāṃghikas of the Āndhra region (i.e. the Caitika schools).[39] Wayman has outlined eleven points of complete agreement between the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Śrīmālā, along with four major arguments for this association.[40] Anthony Barber also associates the earlier development of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra with the Mahāsāṃghikas, and concludes that the Mahāsāṃghikas of the Āndhra region were responsible for the inception of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.[41]
According to Stephen Hodge, internal textual evidence in the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, Mahābherihāraka Parivarta Sūtra, and the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, indicates that these texts were first circulated in South India and then gradually propagated up to the northwest, with Kashmir being the other major center. The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra gives a more detailed account by mentioning the points of distribution as including South India, the Vindhya Range, Bharuch, and Kashmir.[42]
The language used in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and related texts, seems to indicate a region in southern India during the time of the Śātavāhana Dynasty. The Śātavāhana rulers gave rich patronage to Buddhism, and were involved with the development of the cave temples at Karla and Ajaṇṭā, and also with the Great Stūpa at Amarāvati. During this time, the Śātavāhana Dynasty also maintained extensive links with the Kuṣāṇa Empire.[42]
Using textual evidence in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and related texts, Stephen Hodge estimates a compilation period between 100 CE and 220 CE for the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. Hodge summarizes his findings as follows:[42]
[T]here are strong grounds based on textual evidence that the MPNS (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), or a major portion of it, together with related texts were compiled in the Deccan during the second half of the 2nd century CE, in a Mahāsāṃghika environment, probably in one of their centres along the western coastal region such as Karli, or perhaps, though less likely, the Amaravatī-Dhanyakaṭaka region.
In the 6th century CE, Paramārtha wrote that the Mahāsāṃghikas revere the sūtras which teach the Tathāgatagarbha.[42]
Mahāsāṃghika - Wikipedia
If a doctrine was taught by an early Buddhist school like the Mahāsāṃghika, then it was, by definition, an early Buddhist doctrine.
Wayman is a Mahayana scholar and the passage cited simply does not say what he claims. As I have repeatedly, tediously, pointed out. It is rather frustrating to see sectarian scholars cited as authorities in fields outside their expertise. All this passage really shows is that Mahayana scholars are an unreliable source of information about early Buddhism.
Early Buddhist texts are pre-sectarian and their teachings differ from those of the schools. Some of the teachings found in the schools are also in the EBTs, some are not.
5 Likes
It just depends on what you mean by “Early Buddhism”.
To be honest perhaps it is better to do what Japanese scholars do and use “pre-sectarian Buddhism” instead of early Buddhism, which seems to be quite a confused term (how early? early in what sense? etc) and is oftentimes applied to the 18 schools and so on. And of course some of the earliest manuscript material is not strictly “pre-sectarian” and includes Mahayana texts so that’s a problem too. So I have started to favor “pre-sectarian” over “Early Buddhism”. Also “Early Buddhism” seems to get a lot of Mahayanists in a tizzy from what I’ve experienced online.
3 Likes
Thank you for your response. According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, the Pali suttas are the scriptures of a particular Buddhist school, while nonetheless giving us a glimpse into pre-sectarian Buddhism. I am sorry if I am misrepresenting his views or using incorrect terminology.
I know I’ve shared this article here before, but it’s still one of my favorites:
http://www.lindaheuman.com/stories/Tricycle_Magazine_Whose_Buddhism_is_Truest.pdf
Like in early Christianity, diversity was the norm, rather than the exception, in early Buddhism.
I compare the split between the Mahasamghika and Sthavirava to the split between the Gnostics and the proto-Orthodox church.
What the historical Jesus or historical Buddha originally taught, free of any sectarian influence, we might not ever be 100% certain.
While I am not a Pali purist, I tend not to believe any Mahayana doctrine unless I can trace it to the Nikayas/Agamas, at least in seed form.
It might not be a good idea to dismiss a doctrine as a Mahayana invention if it was actually taught by an early Buddhist school or sect before the rise of the Mahayana.
While the Sthavirava might have interpreted the Buddha’s words in certain ways, and arrived to certain doctrinal conclusions as a result, other early schools and sects might have arrived at other doctrines instead.
The concept of Buddha-nature, for example, isn’t far removed from what the Buddha teaches in the Pali suttas.
Buddha-nature is simply the concept that the mind, when freed of impurities through Buddhist practice, is inherently enlightened, like what the Buddha taught regarding the luminous mind:
“Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements.” {I,v,9}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.” {I,v,10}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind.” {I,vi,1}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind.”
Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous
In this study we examine the early Buddhist teachings regarding the “radiant mind” or “brightly shining mind” (pabhassara citta) that exists whether the mind is defiled or is liberated. It is said that even an evil person destined for hell has a “radiant” mind but which is “covered up,” so to speak with the defilements that obscure it [4]. Buddhaghosa refers to this radiant mind as “the naturally pure (pakati parisuddha) bhavaga,citta”…
The Pabhassara Sutta, 29 found in the Acchar Saghta Vagga30 of the Aṅguttara, is another short remarkable text where the Buddha declares that our mind is intrinsically pure and bright (pabhassara), that is to say, our “original nature” is that of good and light. In other words, we are not born in sin and that evil is not in our nature. Understandably, since evil is not our nature, to persist in committing evil would only bring on conflict or suffering. As such, the purpose of the spiritual life is for one to return to this innate “original” pure goodness.
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.3-Radiant-mind.-piya.pdf
To a certain extent. Some early Christian literature is believably the innovative teachings of a radical Jewish mystic. Some of the early Christian literature features Greco-Roman deities as emanating cosmic aeons who give birth to an evil god who forms a covenant with the wicked Jews (Gnosticism). Some early Christian literature is dateable reliably to ~100AD. Some (Gnostic) Christian literature is dated to ~2-500 AD.
I really liked the books Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman and The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. They might be a reason why I am Buddhist today, rather than the Christian faith of my upbringing.