The Split within Buddhism as an argument over the Abhidharma – Mahayana

Early in the tradition of Buddhism there were as many as eighteen schools of thought (and perhaps more than 30 have been discerned by modern scholars). Of these, a group called the Mahasanghika (Greater Assembly) proved the most controversial. Within India, their position became the majority viewpoint while Sthaviravadans (“keepers of the doctrine of the elders” – now called Theravadans with the same meaning but in Pali in Sri Lanka and south-east Asia) became the main opposition party. In India, the Sthaviravadan School became the Sarvastivadan School later responsible for the lost Sanskrit Canon. Another school (the Pudgalavadins (personal exponents) or Vatsiputriyas) believed in the actual existence of a soul (person – pudgala) beyond the skandas. The idea of the transmigration of ‘souls’ from lifetime to lifetime was also a controversial area (among many others). The Pudgalavadins were among those that sailed closest to the wind, which is part of the reason for their development of the idea of the pudgala. It was all very scholastic.

I mentioned in an earlier post that there were two accepted councils in the first hundred years after Siddhartha’s death. There was actually a second 2^nd council soon after the 2^nd council and soon after that the Mahasanghika split occurred. Mahayana Buddhism owes something to the Mahasanghika view but it is certainly a different view. The advent of Mahayana (after firstly being brought into existence) as the major of the two streams of Buddhism by the 5^th Century CE (as reported by 5^th Century Chinese pilgrims - the minor stream became Theravada) wasn’t simply brought on by an argument over abhidharma (although the existence of two versions presented that opportunity) but that was part of it. An orthodox Buddhism beyond the abhidharma had developed that was questioned and Buddhism had no problem intrinsically with any questioning. As I mentioned in an earlier post, monks and nuns could happily exist in the same communities for a long time despite holding different views.

Ultimately, though, disagreement upon Canon inclusions and especially the acceptable form of the vinaya forced new communities to be formed. Mahayanans still accepted the Sarvastivadan Canon in full, however. The scriptures that distinguish the Mahayana view appear to have been written around the time the Pali Canon was written but tradition asserts an earlier ultimate inspiration directly from Siddhartha (as does the tradition of the Pali Canon, of course). The name “Mahayana” probably arose in the 3^rd or 4^th Century CE possibly along with the derogatory “Hinayana” euphemistically translated as “the lesser way or vehicle”.

In this period the ‘Buddhist’ Mauryan Empire established by Asoka with its capital near modern-day Patna on the Ganges and extending to southern India and Afghanistan and Pakistan had been broken up by invasions from the north-west. Many of the invaders had taken on the Buddhist religion in some form for the same reasons Indians and others did (discussed in an earlier post). Two new Buddhist strongholds formed: one in the north-west of the old Empire under Kusana rule and one in the south. A further settlement project had occurred in Sri Lanka. Much later (by around the 13^th Century) Buddhism had virtually died out completely in India itself.

The disagreement in the views had to do with the ultimate aim of Buddhism.

The conservatives who had virtually fled to Sri Lanka believed the object of Buddhism was the making of Arhats as soon as possible. This process was individual and to be undergone essentially by the monks. Other Theravada Buddhists could really only hope to be reborn as monks before they could get to this stage in their own existences. This view meant that each monk was only responsible for achieving his own nirvana and thus becoming free of his own cycle of death and rebirth. They did, however, accept (naturally, as Mahayana arguments made a lot of sense within Buddhism) that Bodhisattva- and Buddha-hood were noble enterprises (while yet not accepting that they were superior pathways).

This view also had it that this was all Siddhartha had taught and that to teach anything else was to corrupt his message. The proto-Mahayana views, they held, claimed that the Arhat was still a conditioned being and that Siddhartha had planned something different for them.

This was actually a misrepresentation of the Mahayana view which was that the Arhat did become unconditioned but shouldn’t. He should rather pull back so that he might benefit others (I write “he” because nuns and other women were probably not considered as likely to arrive at being a potential Arhat in the first place).

The Theravadans were also most keen to stress the humanity of Siddhartha. The idea that he truly had a super human quality and was actually enlightened before the lifetime in which he taught Buddhism was another Mahayana view that they opposed. On that view, his whole life as Siddhartha was a teachable moment for humanity undergone due to this enlightened being’s extreme compassion.

But the Vaipulya (expanded – Mahayana) view gained the ascendency based on the newly recognised Vaipulya scriptures. There were five distinguishing features of the new teachings that led to claims of superiority:

1) It was better to also help others (as the historical Buddha, himself, did) rather than merely achieve nirvana for oneself only, as the Arhats did (thus the idea of being a Bodhisattva or Buddha was better than the idea of being an Arhat);

2) The more traditional view had wrongly changed since the time of Siddhartha to exclude even nuns from the possibility of Arhathood (thus the expanded teaching also accorded better with the original teaching, though there were several sub-views concerning the enlightenment potential of laypeople);

3) More upaya (ways to become enlightened) became available according to these scriptures (so Buddhism was actually easier than it had been claimed to be – even a king could remain a king and still become enlightened, though this hadn’t been Siddhartha’s path);

4) The newly revealed scriptures and thus commentaries upon them had a more comprehensive cosmology and ontology that also incorporated the first three features well (so it had a coherent theology); and

5) It had more canonical scriptures (84,000) so this made Buddhism easier to understand fully.

The Mahayanans claimed in addition that these teachings were genuine but had been initially hidden for the good reason that it was first necessary for a sufficient number of people to understand the traditional teachings before a critical mass could appreciate the expanded teachings. So these were the real teachings of gnosis. One particular correction to the old view was that Buddhas could in fact (and potential Arhats should also aim to) remain in existence in some sense beyond their parinirvana (for the good of others). The ultimate Mahayana view was that there were actually three so-called “turnings of the wheel of dharma” begun by Siddhartha and that the old Canons represented the first, only, of the turnings.

The opposing view also asserted that the Mahayana view was an innovation produced by simply bowing to popular pressure. There have been six Western scholarly views (all but the last of which are still held by some scholars):

1) The ‘new’ scriptures were the centre of a new “cult” of Buddhism;

2) The Mahayana view was a speculation prompted by new ideas within Hinduism (including the Bhakti tendency) as well as other Indian religions;

3) It was an anti-intellectualism anti-abhidharma trend and a trend towards a more holistic approach to Buddhism;

4) It was a set of ideas derived during meditation during which Buddhas had been encountered and had taught the meditators (the scriptures themselves support this idea);

5) Mahayana Buddhism was simply realised to be in the true spirit of the original teachings of Siddhartha (c.f. “the second and third turnings of the wheel of dharma” idea – further turnings may yet perhaps be realised); and

6) Some Japanese scholars especially suggested that pressure from the laity (Japanese priests marry
suggesting susceptibility to the scholars) led to Mahayana Buddhism (note that this view also agrees
with the traditional view).