Note: Accompanying my book Sects & Sectarianism I wrote a series of short articles on related matters. I recently came across these, tidied them up, and present them here for your enjoyment.
We have examined at some length the more important sources dealing with the first schism, and it is evident that it is not possible to fully resolve the differences. Clearly there were multiple forces acting to break the Sangha apart, and it is not easy to tell which may have been the decisive factor in provoking the first schism. There have been various attempts by modern scholars to interpret this evidence. I will not review these in detail, but will focus on the most recent trend. L.S. Cousins and Charles Prebish have written on this topic, and while their perspective differs somewhat, their overall theses are quite similar, emphasizing that the schism happened because of Vinaya differences rather than Dhamma. I have addressed several problems with their ideas incidentally above, and here will explain why I cannot accept their explanations.
While both Cousins and Prebish explicitly reject the DÄ«pavaį¹saās account,1 the version of events they come up with is strangely familiar. The schism did not happen immediately after the Second Council, but a few years after. It did not happen because of Vinaya laxity on behalf of the proto-MahÄsaį¹ ghikas, but because of Vinaya strictness by the proto-Sthaviras. It seems to me this is just the DÄ«pavaį¹saās theory exhumed.
Many of the ideas on which Cousins and Prebish base their theories are not supported by a careful reading of the texts. Cousins says that the ÅÄriputraparipį¹cchÄ: āā¦ sees the MahÄsaį¹ ghikas as the conservative party which has preserved the original Vinaya unchanged against reformist efforts to create a reorganized and stricter versionā.2 Similarly, Prebish says: āā¦ if the Buddhist community was plagued by the genuine threat of saį¹ ghabheda in the aftermath of the council of VaiÅÄlÄ«ā¦ it may well have been both logical and reasonable to tighten the monastic code by the addition of a number of rulesā¦ā.3 In fact the ÅÄriputraparipį¹cchÄ speaks neither of an increase in the number of rules nor of a stricter discipline.
Neither Cousins nor Prebish considers the narrative context of the ÅÄriputraparipį¹cchÄ: the texts were endangered under Puį¹£yamitra; the texts were saved by taking them to Tusita; the texts were retrieved safely; the texts were housed in a pavilion; the texts were revised by a bhikkhu conceited with his learning. Nowhere is there a hint of problems with discipline. And indeed Prebish has already stated: āIt is certainly not logical to assume brevity equals disciplinary laxity.ā4 Then how can it be that expansion equals strictness?
To illustrate this, compare the following statement from the Buddha to MahÄkassapa:
āSo it is, Kassapa, when beings are in decline and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in deep knowledge.ā (SN 16.13)
This suggests that the more rules there are, the less spiritual attainment, and one can only presume, more disciplinary laxity there is. This is simple common sense: Vinaya rules are only promulgated in a community with disciplinary problems. If bhikkhus are enlightened, or at least practicing sincerely, there is little or no need for a disciplinary code. For this reason, the Buddha explicitly refused to lay down a Vinaya rule, even when begged to do so by SÄriputta:
āNow is the time, Blessed One! Now is the time, Fortunate One! May the Blessed One make known a training rule for disciples and recite the pÄį¹imokkha, so that this holy life shall last for a long time!ā
āWait, SÄriputta! Wait, SÄriputta! The TathÄgata will know the time for that. The Teacher will not make known a training rule for disciples or recite the pÄį¹imokkha until certain defiling dhammas manifest here in the Sangha. But SÄriputta, when certain defiling dhammas manifest here in the Sangha, then the Teacher will make known a training rule for disciples and recite the pÄį¹imokkha for the resistance of those defiling dhammasā¦ā (Pali Vinaya 3.9)
We are thus perfectly justified in thinking that a Vinaya with more rules is indicative of a community with more disciplinary problems. This remains the case today. In a small monastery with a few sincere bhikkhus practicing together, there is little need for disciplinary measures or restraints beyond the basic Vinaya. Only in the large monasteries, which attract many monastics of differing motivations, is there a need to promulgate extra controls on conduct.
Cousins and Prebish treat the DÄ«pavaį¹sa and the ÅÄriputraparipį¹cchÄ as similar in that both attribute the root schism to Vinaya rather than Dhamma.5 We have shown that this position is incorrect, and stems from in part a misreading of the sources and in part a failure to distinguish the difference between a dispute in Vinaya practice and the redaction of Vinaya texts. Ironically, while the DÄ«pavaį¹sa and the ÅÄriputraparipį¹cchÄ are not connected by attributing the schism to Vinaya, they are connected by attributing the schism to textual redaction.
Cousins and Prebish also develop similar arguments to dispose of the idea that the schism was due to Dhamma, i.e. the five points. They both agree that the dispute over the five points was not fundamental to the MahÄsaį¹ ghikas, and was rather a doctrine that was propagated later by MahÄdeva II in the southern Andhaka schools. How plausible is this idea?
The support for this thesis is twofold. First, certain sources mention MahÄdeva II in association with the formation of MahÄsaį¹ ghika sub schools in the Andhra region. These include the ÅÄriputraparipį¹cchÄ, Vasumitra, and Bhavya III. This tradition, then, is quite widespread, although we note that these sources are all closely related, and may not constitute independent evidence. In addition, certain sources associate the activities of this MahÄdeva II specifically with the five theses. In fact, only the two later Chinese translations of Vasumitra make this association.6 The consensus position does not associate MahÄdeva II with the five theses, and the natural explanation would be that this became a part of Vasumitraās later translations due to the growing notoriety of MahÄdeva. We also notice that Vasumitraās primary theory is that the five points, taught not by MahÄdeva, at the time of AÅoka in PÄį¹aliputta, were the cause of the root schism. It is bizarre, if not perverse, to use the later translations of his work to support the theory that the five points, taught by MahÄdeva after AÅoka in Andhra, were the cause of subsequent schisms.
This position rests on slim textual grounds, but is further buttressed by the attempt to show a difference in doctrine between the southern and northern MahÄsaį¹ ghikas. If it can be shown that the southern MahÄsaį¹ ghikas held the five points but the northern schools did not, this would lend substantial support to the suggestion by the later translations of Vasumitra that MahÄdeva II propagated these theses in the Andhra region.
Prebish does this by geographically analyzing a series of theses attributed to the MahÄsaį¹ ghikas, which are supposedly connected with the fifth point, that the path can be aroused by exclaiming āAho, what suffering!ā7 There is some uncertainty as to this point, so we are not surprised that Prebish quotes a series of varying possibilities. But in fact his theses 6ā12 have nothing to do with the fifth point, except they include the word āsufferingā. These are obviously irrelevant and should not have been introduced here. They were apparently mentioned because they are geographically associated with the southern regions, and thus support Prebishās argument. Leaving them aside, Prebishās points 1ā5, which are connected with the vocal utterance of āAho, what suffering!ā are attributed to the MahÄsaį¹ ghikas generally; only his point 3 is specific to the Andhakas. Thus Prebishās data establishes clearly that the fifth point is connected with the MahÄsaį¹ ghikas in general, not specifically the southern schools.
Cousins also suggests a connection between the doctrines attributed to the Andhakas and the later introduction of the five points by MahÄdeva in Andhra.8 But wisely he does not make much of this, since the weakness of the argument is obvious. Cousins is primarily working from the KathÄvatthu and its commentary, and these works betray their Sinhalese connection by attributing half the theses to the Andhakas. This tells us only that the MahÄvihÄravÄsins learnt of such theses from the Andhakas, and tells us nothing of what the other MahÄsaį¹ ghikas believed. The KathÄvatthu commentary does not pretend to give exhaustive lists of schools for each thesis. For example it says that the first of the five points was held by some: āsuch as, these days, the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas.ā9 Perhaps a detailed examination of these points in conjunction with the corresponding northern sources might yield something of value, but to my knowledge this has not been undertaken.
Cousinsā more important argument is his detailed philosophical reconstruction of the history of the five points. His historical approach is sound: the KathÄvatthu is the earliest source, so we should see what this says, without reading into this work presuppositions deriving from later listings of the five points. The KathÄvatthu, of course, does not present us with a neat list of āfive pointsā, although it does mention the points, they are listed one after the other, and are treated in a similar way. We cannot be sure, however, what the original group was.
Cousinsā analysis is insightful, its main merit being to display the inner logic of these points, otherwise presented as bare axioms. But I am cautious about using the results of such philosophical inquiries as the basis for historical inferences. It seems to me that such reconstructions can proceed along many different lines, and it is not easy to extrapolate from logical to historical development.
I also cannot accept his conclusion that the five points must have originated as startling paradoxes to stimulate Abhidhammic discussions. It seems to me much more likely that the MahÄvibhÄį¹£aās account is realistic here, and the five points arose due to the disparity between a teacherās assumed attainment and his conduct.
Further, Cousinsā main argument rests on the evident close connections in form between the five theses as presented in the KathÄvatthu and the preceding thesis, that an arahant is subject to falling away from his attainment.10 Cousins takes this as evidence that these were originally part of the same discourse. While the formal coincidence is striking, I donāt think this tells us anything about the origins of the five points. Schematic formalism is a universal characteristic of the Abhidhamma. There are countless examples of doctrinal terms or sets that originated from quite distinct sources, yet become grist for the same Abhidhammic mill. So, while clarifying the philosophical logic of the five points, I donāt think Cousins has established a clear case for the proposition that the five points were developed later among the Andhaka schools.
In conclusion, then, we can say that the theory that the five points are not at the root of the MahÄsaį¹ ghika schism is supported only by the later translations of Vasumitra. The geographical evidence presented by Prebish in fact supports the opposite view, and Cousinsā arguments are too textually and philosophically speculative to be conclusive.
Contrary to all these views is the evidence which we have reviewed earlier that the first of the five points is clearly implied in the MahÄsaį¹ ghika Vinaya. This Vinaya was obtained by Fa-xiang in PÄį¹aliputta, so must represent the central MahÄsaį¹ ghikas, not the southern schools. Of course, this is only one of the five points, but as the others have little to do with Vinaya it is unlikely we will find anything relevant there.
1 Cousins, āPali Oral Literatureā 104, Nattier and Prebish 204ā205. Note, however, that Nattier and Prebish quote Lamotte 288 (315 in French edition) in saying that the later MahÄvihÄra works the MahÄvaį¹sa and NikÄyasaį¹ graha do not follow the DÄ«pavaį¹saās theory that the Vajjiputtakas = MahÄsaį¹ ghikas. Lamotteās mistake was already noted in Warder 207.
2 Cousins, āThe āFive Pointsā and the Origins of the Buddhist Schoolsā 56.
3 Prebish, āSaiksa-Dharmas Revisitedā 194.
4 Nattier and Prebish 204.
5 Nattier and Prebish 201; Cousins, āThe āFive Pointsā and the Origins of the Buddhist Schoolsā 57, 67.
6 Prebish appears to be mistaken in asserting that Bhavya III also attributes the five points to MahÄdeva II. (Nattier and Prebish 216). See Rockhill 189.
7 Nattier and Prebish 217ā218. They rely on Bareauās Les Sectes bouddhiques, which I do not have access to, so unfortunately I cannot check the original sources, but simply treat the data as they have presented.
8 Cousins, āThe āFive Pointsā and the Origins of the Buddhist Schoolsā 65.
9 KvA 0.54: seyyathÄpi etarahi pubbaseliyÄ ca aparaseliyÄ ca.
10 Cousins, āThe āFive Pointsā and the Origins of the Buddhist Schoolsā 59.
