It’s interesting, since my sources tell me that the Samantapāsādikā recounts that at the time of this great unification carried out by Ashoka, the uposatha and the pavāranā ceremonies were able to be held for seven years because of discord in the samgha, and that Moggalīputta Tissa asked Ashoka to purify it.
I guess Ashoka’s envoys chopped off the heads of a bunch of monks whom Moggalīputta Tissa identified as true believers. So Moggalīputta Tissa conveyed a council and helped educate him so that he could query the monks one by one, and throw out those who didn’t conform to his understanding.
It’s important to keep clarity about these issues, because they have been continually confused in the literature. You’re referring to the events of the Śāripūtraparipṛcchā, which concerns redaction of Vinaya texts, not Vinaya practice.
At the end of S&S I give a chronological table, which I copy here for your delectation.
Since the Śāripūtraparipṛcchā is set after Puṣyamitra, it describes events following the incident of Mahādeva. (Probably!)
Perhaps the most certain thing we can say is that the situation was confused and multi-faceted, and it was probably always like that. There would have been many different disputes and arguments of different levels, some of which were serious, others less so, many of which have vanished entirely, and some of which we have tiny and partial memories of. There’s no reason to think that monks in Sri Lanka, for example, knew anything about the discussions on Vinaya redaction held in Mathura.
So there were definitely different forces at play:
vinaya practice (resolved at the Second Council, but knowing monks, would still have been an issue)
textual redaction (two separate and quite different disputes on this are preserved, and there would surely have been more.)
doctrinal issues.
geography
personal conflicts
Now, if we consider the major sectarian divisions where we know the basic issue with confidence, they are (to recap what I said earlier in the thread):
Sarvastivada - “all exists”
Puggalavada - the “person” is real
Vibhajjavada - rejects the above
So while minor schools were mostly localized versions, the major divisions were driven by doctrine. And this recalls MN 104:5.8.
“Ānanda, dispute about livelihood or the monastic code is a minor matter. But should a dispute arise in the Saṅgha concerning the path or the practice, that would be for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans.
It seems the differences were about doctrine rather than practice, but the point is similar.
Okay, so we know that major school division was driven by doctrine. Did the split between Mahasanghika/Sthavira follow this pattern, or was something else involved?
The Dīpavaṁsa and Śāripūtraparipṛcchā say it was text redaction. This is initially persuasive, until you look at the details and it becomes clear that they are both talking about different events, both of which must have happened long after the initial split. So we can say that the Sthaviras and Mahasanghikas disagreed about textual redaction, but it seems unlikely this was the initial cause.
The question of the nature of the arahant— the so-called “five points”—is the reason for the split in the Sarvastivada, especially in Vasumitra. According to Bhavya, it was also accepted in the Puggalavada. So that’s two out of the “big four”.
Then we find the same issue is mentioned in both the Theravada and the Mahasanghika texts, even though it is not said to be the reason for the split. It is of course discussed in the Kathavatthu. The Pali Vinaya explicitly states that an arahant cannot emit semen; this is not found in other Vinayas, and it must be a late addition, or else it would not have become a sectarian dispute. The Mahasanghika Vinaya, on the other hand, goes out of its way to argue that dreams are not real and that erections can be caused by the actions of non-humans, thus explaining the fact that arahants can emit semen (because Mara secretly brings it).
So we have two of the “big four” that explicitly say the first split was due to this issue, while the remaining two altered their texts to justify their positions. This seems to me as strong an agreement as we can hope for.
And again, this is precisely the kind of issue that actually splits communities. A seemingly trivial point of doctrine, which appears nonsensical to outsiders, can become a highly charged personal dispute, because it raises the question, “Just how enlightened is our teacher?” We see this kind of thing all the time in modern Buddhism, with apparently minor or (or major) behavioral issues used to criticize a teacher, and then their followers rallying behind them, then developing doctrines to explain it. Look at the whole Shambhala movement for a start, although there the problems of Trungpa’s conduct were anything but minor.
That’s correct, and it confirms the fact that there was no schism. They specifically avoided performing these because it risked triggering a schism. But this was a separate issue. It was non-Buddhists trying to con people out of money due to the extravagance of support for the Sangha in Ashoka’s time. Basically it’s similar to the bogus monks who plague Buddhist countries these days.
I mean I really hope not!
Indeed, but again, the “understanding” is a knowledge of basic Buddhist doctrines. The heretics answered that the Buddha’s teaching was eternalism, etc., drawing on the wrong views of the Brahmajala. The king concluded that they were not bhikkhus, but non-Buddhists (nayime bhikkhū, aññatitthiyā ime), so he kicked them out. None of the doctrines have anything to do with the issues that divided the Buddhist community, and following the expulsion of the non-Buddhists a unified uposatha was held. The text says:
Samaggo saṅgho sannipatitvā uposathaṃ akāsi
Having gathered together, the Sangha carried out the uposatha in harmony.
And yet modern scholars have managed to convince themselves that this was a schism. It beggars belief, really.
Absolutely. And of course, if we cast a critical eye we can find many details that seem unlikely. But the basic story rings true. The Sangha prospered under Ashoka’s generous patronage, which had the unintended side-effect of attracting a large number of grifters. The king worked together with the reputable monks of the famous forest monastery established by Sanavasin in Mathura, as represented by Moggaliputtatissa. They questioned the Sangha, expelled the bogus monks, and held an uposatha to affirm the unity of the Sangha. Then they organized to spread Buddhism throughout greater India, with Ashoka’s support amplifying the already-occurring natural dispersal of the Sangha. This most famously resulted in the mission of Mahinda and Sanghamitta to Sri Lanka, and in addition, took Buddhism to many new places on the Indian mainland, as well as to “Suvannabhumi” (lower Myanmar? )
Well not to push the gender issues, but no bhikkuni were invited to the First Council, and then Ananda was hassled for allowing them near Buddha’s body, etc. I think the scholars who argue that the First Council was sectarian to begin with are offering an astute and sophisticated understanding of things like canon formation.
It’s important to focus on the Minor for people who aren’t vested in one particular view or even necessarily something like “the truth.” I’m a strong defender of humanism, probably one of the last remaining human beings who is, but that’s the quiet warmth that only comes out among friends. Other than that I am extremely cautious of hegemonic discourse, particularly that which is patriarchal.
I’m willing to retain a critical perspective on all this stuff, and I think it’s very unhealthy for the community not to recognize power formation.
I don’t disagree with any of this, it just has nothing to do with the formation of Buddhist schools, that’s all. There’s a specific meaning to “schism” and a specific historical reality to the formation of Buddhist schools. To have a general discussion of “divisions and tendencies within the Buddhist communities” is quite a different matter, and scholars have too often conflated one with the other.
Do you read Japanese (and Chinese)? If so, you may read some works regarding the second council and its connection with the first schism, such as 前田惠學 MAYEDA Egaku：原始佛教聖典之成立史研究 (English title: A History of the Formation of Original Buddhist Texts, 1964), pp. 571-579.
To illustrate the point, here is my personal experience.
Around 2015, I had the fortune of visiting Bodhgaya, the site where Buddha attained enlightenment.
It was the first time I went there, and I was awed with many things. The beauty of the place, the carved stones with sutta quotes, the unending chanting by pilgrims, the mass of people circumambulating, etc.
And then there were monks and nuns. Some of them circumambulating, reciting scriptures, doing prostration, leading group of tourists.
One time, there was this lone monk. He smiled at me and gave me a beautiful, dried, intact bodhi tree leaf. Well I was grateful.
It seems that he tried to communicate with me. But I was uncomfortable with strangers. Also, I want to do my accumulation of merit (circumambulating, prostration, reciting mantra), taking photos, and studying the carvings. Nope, I don’t really want to talk.
Later, somehow I noticed something weird. I don’t really remember. Maybe I saw some lone monks giving bodhi tree leaf to tourist. Maybe I saw some lone monks talking to tourists group.
One night, as I was walking, I happen to encounter a group of asian tourists, most of them seems young, and they were sitting around a monk. This is a young monk I have seen several times around the site. I don’t remember why I remember him, maybe I already suspected him? Or maybe he also tried to give me bodhi tree leaf.
Anyway, I overheard the monk preaching to the group. I walked by and thought nothing of it.
But I walked back and encounter them again, and the scene had changed. One asian woman was loudly protesting to the monk, challenging whatever he said.
The monk loudly defending himself, but all he said was to loudly declaring that the Buddha teach Five Precepts.
I thought to myself, such a basic doctrine, why teach this? The asian group level was so low? No, by the sound of protest, it seems that they knew some things.
If the monk has ability, he should refute the protest, give them higher teaching, or something. What seems to be the problem?
As I walked leaving the place with my group, I ruminate over the problem. I think that the problem is with the monk. He only know how to teach Five Precepts, and can only repeat that as he was challenged? Did he learn nothing?
Or maybe he was not a true monk.
Once that thought hit me, everything became clear. Bodhgaya was a site of buddhist pilgrimage. Many pious tourist with lots of money came here, and the were liberal with donations.
It was easy to masquerade as a monk and tried to get donation from them. Just try to pretend to be good, nice monk in need of donation. Smile and give bodhi leaf to struck conversations.
Once I reached this conclusion, it was easy to differentiate the behavior of fake monks with genuine monks.
Fake monks usually operate alone.
Genuine monks, usually travel in groups of other monks or lay followers. In fact, I think most of genuine monks there are tourists themselves.
There are genuine lone monks and nuns. Usually they were very busy and had no interest in making conversations with strangers.
Busy with what? With religious activities. I saw a nun reciting sutras by her lonesome. I saw a monk doing maybe hundreds of prostration, tibetan style.
So, maybe what Asoka did by questioning the monks with basic buddhist doctrines is quite the right method. Those fake monks really don’t know anything.
And the situation in buddhist pilgrimage sites mirror the one with Asoka’s time.
What would a Monk be doing with a bodhi leaf? If they picked it they are harming plants, if they picked it up after falling they are taking what is not given.
Dont trust a monk giving you leaves.
(Ps I know nothing of such things, perhaps this is something pious monks do and i am just an ignorant sinner, certainly the last bit at least. )
This is very true. That said, many people can hold beliefs counter to a religion’s dogma and still not constitute a schism. I think of the Catholic Church’s stand on abortion. A very large percent of Catholics are pro-choice, but they attend church regularly. I think most Catholics don’t really buy that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus either, but that has less effect on their actual lives.
When a canon is forming, these differences can find their way into it. The New Testament being split on Torah laws is a good example. I think that we see something like this in the Pali canon with the levels of samadhi required for liberation. These do not constitute a schism, but not acknowledging the issue greatly confuses the practitioner. While some might dismiss this as an unimportant point, I think that the rationales behind the differences represent very important differences in beliefs about what constitutes liberation. This tends to lead to each practitioner having their own personal canon defined by what they take seriously.
Oh well if you know bodhi tree leaf, they are quite unique and beautiful. If it is dried, it can be a nice bookmark.
Not to mention the authentic leaf from Bodhgaya itself. Quite a souvenir for pious tourist.
You can’t pick fresh leaf from the tree directly, the area around the bodhi tree was cordoned. Pilgrims usually picked up the naturally fallen leaves. Among those leaves, some are quite intact and in good condition.
Unfortunately with so many pilgrims and too few fallen leaves, it is fierce competition to spot on good fallen leaves on the ground and pick it up. (So much greed just for leaves on holy site lol)
The fake monks, loitering around the place without anything to do all day, are in good position and opportunity to pick up good leaves. And offer them to rich looking asian tourists… . .
As a teenager I was taken to an old temple in the middle of a field of pampas grass on a very hot day, somewhere in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. I was given to some monk by my mom. My chosen mom. He told her to have me sit on the exterior wooden platform. It was a small temple and the centre was occupied by a glass case filled with things I had no idea about what. I was left there all day to decide whether I wanted to stare out at the grass, sky, distance, shimmering heat, look up at the stuff in the glass case, notice how incredibly hot and humid it was, listen to the sound of bugs, feel the dry wood, smell the smells, sense the senses, etc. I was so bathed in sweat by the time my mom came and found me at the end of the day my clothes had salt stains on them.
There was no doctrine. I was like, OK, you’re here, let’s go, interesting. My mom was very pleased with me. In my experience, Buddhist monks in Japan don’t say very much.
I think it’s normal, in fact pretty much everyone will hold some beliefs not in line with the dogma? And it’s probably healthy too. Too much conformity is the death of the spirit.
