The Date and Cause of the First Schism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/bsrv.v25i2.210Keywords:
Schism, Vesali, Aśoka, Ashoka, Pataliputra, Councils, Mahasanghika, Sthavira, Dipavamsa, sects, missionsAbstract
The texts and inscriptions dating from the early period – roughly the first 500 years after the Buddha’s passing away – do not support the conclusion that fully-fledged sects existed at that time. Rather, we should think in terms of ‘sectarian tendencies’ that emerged as actual sects towards the end of the early period. The available sources that speak of the First Schism are best read as sectarian accounts depicting the situation in the Buddhism of their own time – roughly 100-500 CE – rather than as historical records of the pre-Asokan era. 2. All of the Sthavira sources mention the so-called ‘five theses’ of the Mahasanghika (later ascribed to a certain ‘Mahadeva’) as either the cause of the First Schism or as important doctrinal issues. And a review of relevant Vinaya sources demonstrates that the ‘five theses’ were probably accepted within the Mahasanghika, which confirms that this was likely the principal cause of the First Schism.
References
Bandaranayake, Senake. ‘The Pre-modern City in Sri Lanka: The “First” and “Second” Urbanization’. www.arkeologi.uu.se (13 May 2008): hwww.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/projects/BOOK/Bandaranayake/bandaranayake.pdf
Bapat, P. V. and A. Hirakawa. 1970. Shan-Chien-P’i-P’o-Sha: A Chinese Version by Sanghabhadra of Samantapasadika. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Bechert, Heinz. 1982. ‘The Importance of Asoka’s so-called Schism Edict’. In Indological and Buddhist Studies, ed. L. A. Hercus, 61–8. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies (ANU).
Bechert, Heinz. 2005a. ‘Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Mahayana’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. II, ed. Paul Williams, 23–33. London: Routledge. Originally published in German Scholars in India, vol. I, 6–18, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series (Varanasi, 1971).
Bechert, Heinz. 2005b. ‘The Date of the Buddha Reconsidered’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. II, ed. Paul Williams, 64–71. London: Routledge. Originally published in Inologica Taurinensia 10 (1982): 29–36.
Cousins, L. S. 1996. ‘The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society series 3, 6(1): 57–63.
Cousins, L. S. 2001. ‘On the Vibhajjavadins’. Buddhist Studies Review 18(2): 131–82.
Cousins, L. S. 2005a. ‘Pali Oral Literature’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. I, ed. Paul Williams, 96–104. London: Routledge. Originally published in Buddhist Studies Ancient and Modern, eds P. Denwood and A. Piatigorsky, 1–11 (London: Curzon Press/Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1982).
Cousins, L. S. 2005b. ‘The “Five Points” and the Origins of the Buddhist Schools’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. II, ed. Paul Williams, 52–83. London: Routledge. Originally published in The Buddhist Forum Volume II, ed. T. Skorupski, 27–60 (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1991).
Frauwallner, E. 1956. The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature. Roma: Is. M. E. O.
Guruge, Ananda W. P. 2005. ‘Shan-Jian-Lu-Piposha as an Authentic Source on the Early History of Buddhism and Asoka’. In Dhamma-Vinaya: Essays in Honor of Venerable Professor Dhammavihari (Jotiya Dhirasekera), eds Asanga Tilakaratne, Toschiichi Endo, G. A. Somaratne, and Sanath Nanayakkara, 92–110. Sri Lanka Association for Buddhist Studies (SLABS).
Jawawickrama, N. A. 1986. The Inception of Discipline and Vinaya Nidana. London: Pali Text Society.
Lamotte, Etienne. 1976. History of Indian Buddhism. Paris: Peeters Press.
Nakamura, Hajime. 1996. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass.
Nattier, Jan & Charles S. Prebish. 2005. ‘Mahasanghika Origins’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. II, ed. Paul Williams, 199–228. London: Routledge. Originally published in History of Religions 16 (1976–7): 237–72.
Oldenberg, Hermann. 1879. The Vinaya Pitaka, vol. I. London: Pali Text Society.
Pachow, W. 2000. A Comparative Study of the Pratimoksa. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass.
Prebish, Charles S. 2005a. ‘Review of Scholarship on Buddhist Councils’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. I, ed. Paul Williams, 224–43. London: Routledge. Originally published in 1974, in Journal of Asian Studies 33(2) (1974): 239–54.
Prebish, Charles S. 2005b. ‘Saiksa-Dharmas Revisited’. In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, vol. II, ed. Paul Williams, 186–98. London: Routledge. Originally published in History of Religions 35(3) (1996): 258–70.
Rockhill, W. Woodville. 1992. The Life of the Buddha. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Sasaki, Shizuka. 1989. ‘Buddhist Sects in the Asoka Period. (1) The Meaning of the Schism Edict’. Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu) 18: 157–76.
Strong, John S. 1994. The Legend and Cult of Upagupta. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass.
Sujato, Bhikkhu. 2007. Sects & Sectarianism. Taipei: Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation. Full text and supplementary essays at Sects & Sectarianism, http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com.
Willis, Michael. 2001. ‘Buddhist Saints in Ancient Vedisa’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 11(2): 219–28.
Wynne, Alexander. 2003. ‘How Old is the Suttapitaka?’ Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, http://www.ocbs.org/research.php.
