Printer Friendly

Legends and transcendence: sectarian affiliations of the ekottarika agama in chinese translation.

Of the four complete Agama collections, the Ekonarika Agama (EA) has generated the most controversy about whether it can be attributed to any early Buddhist school and, if so, which school it could belong to. This paper examines the various hypotheses about the sectarian affiliation(s) of the EA. It shows that a considerable part of this corpus is likely to be of Mahasamghika derivation, and that the EA contains numerous salient features of Mahusarrighika doctrine, particularly the transcendence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This study also argues that the seeming affinity between several legends in the EA and those in the Millasarviistiviida Vinaya is likely to have resulted from Mahasiimghika influence on the Malasarvastiviidins. The Mahasamghika hypothesis for the school affiliation of the EA is substantially strengthened in this inquiry while the others are shown to be probably untenable.


Various early Buddhist schools or sects were once thriving in India and its neighborhood. Among them, only the Theravada (1) school survives until today whereas all the others have died out. The Pali texts are well preserved by the Theravadins still prevalent in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. By contrast, the scriptures of the other early schools are largely lost. Many of the extant early texts remain unclear in terms of their sectarian identities. It usually takes much effort for scholars to identify the school affiliation of these surviving texts, especially sutras. The four Agamas preserved in Chinese translation are counterparts to the four main Nikayas in the Pali canon. General agreement has been reached about the sectarian affiliations of the three Agamas other than the Ekottarika Agama (Zengyi ahanjing T 125), which corresponds roughly to the Anguttara Nikaya in the Pali tradition.

The Ekottarika Agama (T 125) is associated by a number of scholars with the Dharma-guptakas, a connection that will be discussed near the end of this paper. It is ascribed to the Mahasarpghikas by Bareau (1955: 55-56,57), Ui (1965: 137-38), Akanuma (1981: 38-39), Bronkhorst (1985: 312-14), Schmithausen (1987: 318-21), Yinshun (1994: 755-56), and PasAdika (2008: 147-48 and 2010: 88-90). I have also identified a sutra of the Ekottarika Agama as affiliated with the Mahasamghikas (Kuan 2013: 52-58). The Mahasarnghika

This paper has greatly benefitted from the immense knowledge and kindness of Ven. Analayo, Mr. L. S. Cousins, and Dr. Roderick S. Bucknell, who provided me with lots of invaluable advice, for which I am very grateful. Dr. Bucknell also helped me improve the English. My thanks are due to Professor Charles Willemen, Professor Peter Skilling, Professor Paul Harrison, Dr. Yun-kai Chang, Dr. Elsa Legittimo, Dr. Giuliana Martini, and Professor Peter Harvey for references or suggestions, and to Ms. Natalie Koehle for translating part of a German article into English. I am also indebted to the two anonymous readers and Professor Stephanie Jamison for helpful suggestions and the National Science Council of Taiwan for the funding (NSC 98-2410-H-155-0604 hypothesis seems to prevail, but the arguments for this attribution, many of which are mentioned only en passant, are by no means conclusive and are based only on fragmentary evidence or insufficient conjecture. This paper aims to conduct a more extensive investigation founded on more substantial evidence. Some peculiarities and anomalies in the Ekot-tarika Agama (hereafter EA) will be picked out for discussion. These are mostly legends of Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas and passages relating to the transcendence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This research of a voluminous corpus of sutras is not intended to be exhaustive, an impossibility in a journal article. Considering the complex problems regarding how this corpus was translated and redacted (see below), it is almost impossible to ascertain the school affiliation of the entire EA.

This extant complete version of the EA presents considerable historical problems, (2) but a plausible reconstruction of its history has been made by Lin (2009) as follows: During 384 and 385 CE (twentieth and twenty-first years of Jianyuan) Zhu Foniank completed a Chinese translation of the EA recited by Dharmanandin, a monk from Tukhara. This first translation, in forty-one fascicles, was later revised and expanded by Zhu Fonian into the EA in fifty-one fascicles that has come down to us. Zhu Fonian probably added new material to his first translation and even replaced some passages of his first translation with new material. The now-lost first translation still existed in 516 CE (3) when the Jing 1u yi xiang (T 2121) was composed and quoted over twenty passages from it. (4) These quotations are recognized as belonging to the first translation on the grounds that none of the EA passages quoted by the Jing lu yi xian has the same fascicle number as the fascicle in which its parallel in the EA (T 125) appears, (5) and that more than half of the quotations are inconsistent with their parallels in T 125 or have no parallels there at al1. (6)

Nattier (2010) demonstrates that the Shizhu duanjie jing (T 309), purportedly a sutra translated by Zhu Fonian, contains substantial material that Fonian drew from existing Chinese scriptures, including texts translated by Moksala, Zhi Yao, Dharmaraksa, and Zhi Qian. She calls attention to the possibility of "apocryphal interpolations" in Fonian's earlier translations, including the EA (2010: 257). Accordingly, I will be cautious about quoting passages from the EA when examining its school affiliation.


By convention, Buddhist tradition counts eighteen early schools (excluding the Mahayana schools), while many more school names have come down to us and some of these schools were recognized to have arisen later. (7) The whole picture of the extant early Buddhist texts in relation to those early schools is not yet clear. As Lamotte (1988: 518) says, in Indian Buddhist history the term nikaya 'group' is usually translated as "sect" and designates a "school" that professes particular opinions on certain points of the doctrine and discipline (vinaya). (8) Slcilton (1997: 59-63) sketches three types of Buddhist schools: (1) the nikayas, based on variations in Vinaya; (2) the different -vadas, based on variations in doctrine; (3) the four "philosophical schools," which are essentially a development of the doctrinal schools. i.e., the second type. Basically, therefore, school affiliation is a concept that refers to the adherence to a certain Vinaya tradition; apart from that it is also used to refer to the adherence to certain doctrinal ideas within Buddhist scholastic literature.

In view of the material available to us, it seems that the redactors of Agama texts and collections never found it necessary to add school names to their texts, and in this regard they notably differed from those who dealt with Vinaya texts.(9) A possible explanation is that the Agamas were presented purely as the Buddha's teaching, unaffected by any sectarian dogma. By contrast, the Buddhists were aware that they belonged to different nikayas because they disagreed on the monastic code (Vinaya), which prescribed rules about behavior, etiquette, routine, and discipline. Therefore, in order to distinguish between nikaya lineages and maintain one's own identity, some Buddhists found it necessary to label the various schools' Vinayas with nikaya names. Here arises a question: apart from the Vinaya, did the various schools also disagree on satras or Agama collections?

Scholars suggest that the formation of the sects or schools was due mainly to the geographical extension of the Safigha (Buddhist Order) over the vast Indian territory, (10) and that the geographical spread also led to different recensions of the Buddha's discourses (i.e., sutras) and Vinaya. (11) With regard to this issue, Salomon (2008: 14) makes a point:
  We do not know with any confidence that the distribution of
  recensions of Buddhist texts in early times strictly followed
  sectarian, as opposed to, for example, geographical, patterns.
  ... The assumption that one school had one and only one version
  of a given text, and conversely that no two schools shared the same
  or very similar versions of it, is a dubious one. Although such
  situations do seem to have developed in later times, after formal
  closed canons were developed by (at least some of) the schools,
  there is no good reason to read this situation back into earlier
  periods, in which this process seems not yet to have taken
  place or at least not to have been fully elaborated.

This is a plausible view on the situations concerning different recensions of Buddhist texts in relation to schools and geography. In early times regional diversity might have been a key factor in causing the divergences. (12) Two schools in a region could have shared the same or very similar versions of a text. In a similar vein, I once suggested two mutually compatible possibilities--that the EA (T 125) could be affiliated to the Mahasamghikas in Magadha and that it could belong to the Mulasarvastivadins also in Magadha (Kuan 2012). Although none of the surviving Agamas bears a school name, there is evidence that at some point in history a certain Agama collection was attributed to a certain school. As will be discussed below, in the fourth century CE (13) the Mahayana-samgralia by Asanga explicitly refers to the "Mahasarpghika" EA. This period may be considered the "later times, after formal closed canons were developed by (at least some of) the schools." Skilling (2010: 19) points out:
  In the fourth century CE, Vasubandhu assessed the condition of
  the literature of the schools and found it problematic. The
  "original recitation" (malasamiti) was no longer intact;
  different schools arranged their canons differently and included
  or excluded sutras differently. In the Vyalchytiyukti and the
  Karmasiddhiprakaratia, Vasubandhu notes that at his time not all
  the sutras were preserved.

In his Abhidharmakosabhasya, Vasubandhu also mentions an interpolation into a sutra by an unnamed school (nikatya), as discussed in Kuan 2005: 298f.:

Thus the Sautrantikas identify the sukha faculty with sukha as a factor of the first three dhyanas, and regard it as only bodily, not mental. Then they rebut the authenticity of a sutra that defines the sukha faculty as pleasant bodily and mental feeling: (14)
  This reading [i.e., "mental"] is interpolated. Why'? (1)
  Because in all other schools (nikaya) the reading is only
  "bodily." (2) And because the [canonical] statement in its
  own words is "And he feels sukha with the body." (15)

Fenbie gongde lun (T 1507), a partial commentary on T 125, (19) says that the Sarvastivadin EA has neither a prologue nor a section on Elevens. (20) This is to deny that T 125 is affiliated to the Sarvastivadins since this EA does have a prologue and a section on Elevens.

Harrison (1997) identifies forty-four sutras in the Foshuo qichu sanguan jing (T 150a) and six individual sutras as belonging to the incomplete EA translated by An Shigao. He says (1997: 280): "The relatively large number of parallel texts in the Afiguttara-nikaya certainly suggests a nikaya on the Sthaviravadin side of the divide." Following a discussion based on four reasons he concludes (p. 280):
  It is therefore highly probable that among An Shigao's works we
  have a sizable set of early translations of the Sarvastivadin
  Ekonarikagama. Of course, if we accept this identification,
  then in view of the substantial differences between the An
  Shigao corpus and the Zengyi ahan jing (of the possible total of
  50 individual Ekottarikagama sutras translated by An Shigao,
  only 8 have parallels in T 125, and there are, what is more,
  quite significant differences in wording in most of these cases),
  it is clear that 1 125 cannot be Sarviistivadin, or
  MUlasarvAstivadin for that matter.

According to the above discussion, our EA is unlikely to be of Sarvdstivadin provenance.


Hiraoka (2007, 2008) demonstrates affinity at different levels (very close, close, and slightly close) between some passages of the EA and certain schools. particularly the Malasarvastivada. The following three legends in the EA do seem to be closer to their parallels in the Malasarveistivada Vinaya (MSV) than to the parallels in other texts (see Hiraoka 2007: 304-2 sic):

1. When the Buddha prophesies life after death, the light that he sends forth disappears to different parts of his body to signify the various destinies. (Sutra 2 in Chapter 43 of the EA, abbreviated to "EA 43.2": T II 758b; MSV: Gnoli 1978: 162) (21)

2. Devadatta, having smeared his fingers with poison, visits the Buddha and then goes to hell. The Buddha foretells that Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha in the distant future. (EA 49.9: T II 804a-c; MSV: Gnoli 1978: 261-62)

3. The Buddha was King Mahasudargana in a previous life. The king had a son who became a Pratyekabuddha. After the Pratyekabuddha had attained final Nirvana and been cremated, a stapa was erected for him. One day the king visited the stapa and covered it with his own parasol. By virtue of this merit he was able to become a Buddha in his last birth and enjoyed the honor of being offered 2500 parasols on one occasion. (EA 38.11: T II 726c-727b; MSV: T XXIV 22c-23b)

Accordingly, the EA may be linked to the Mulasarvastivada tradition. Incidentally, the various texts of the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya were translated into Chinese from 702 to 710 cE, (22) long after Zhu Fonian translated the EA. so there can be no suspicion of appropriation by him.

I would like to add another case that indicates a seemingly close relation between the EA and MSV. This is a legend about the birth of gaivala, one of the Buddha's disciples. It is found in both EA 33.2 (T II 683a) and the last three fascicles of the Bhaisajya-vastu of the MSV (T 1448 XXIV 82b), which form a section on the Buddha's and his disciples' accounts of their past lives delivered at Lake Anavatapta. The legend goes as follows in brief:
  When Saivala was just born, he said: "My family is very rich. I
  would like to help the poor." People in the house were scared
  and ran away, but his mother stayed there and asked: "Are you a
  god, ghost, or  demon?" He replied: "I am a human being, not a
  god, ghost, or demon."

To my knowledge, this legend is not found in the Pali texts. (23) Apart from the EA and the above-mentioned section of the MSV, the legend is found only in two texts corresponding to this section of the MSV. One of them is the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing (T 199), (24) translated into Chinese by Dharmaraksa (Zhu Fahu), and the other is a Sanskrit recension consisting of four manuscripts considered to be part of the MSV. (25) These texts, along with some Gandhari fragments, are generally referred to as the Anavatapta-gatha, a title given by Bechert (1961).

A comparative study of the different versions of the Anavatapta-giaha in Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Gandhari leads Salomon (2008: 45-46) to conclude:
  [T]he Indic archetype of Dhr was an authentic and relatively
  early form of the AG comprising only thirty recitations by
  the disciples instead of thirty-six as in the canonical
  text of the MSV.

In other words, Dharmarakp's Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing (Dhr) could be very close to the original form of the Anavatapta-gatha (AG), while the version in the Bhaisajya-vastu of the MSV is a later addition to this Vinaya and has been expanded to its present form. Salomon (2008: 15) says:
  Although the AG was definitely incorporated into the canon
  of the Mulasarvastivada school in the form of an insertion
  into the Bhaisajya-vastu of their vinaya, it is not clear
  whether it ever attained fully canonical status as an independent
  text in any of the other schools, despite its evident
  popularity in antiquity.

On the other hand, Salomon (2008: 17) suggests that the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing (Dhr) is likely to be canonical since it "opens with an introductory niclana formula characteristic of a sutra, explaining the place and circumstances in which the text was first spoken: 'The Buddha ... staying at ravasti ... himself said to his bhiksus.'" Regarding this issue, I would like to show that the Anavatapta-gathei indeed "attained fully canonical status as an independent text" in one school, namely the Mahasarpghika, and that the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing could be the Mahasarnghika version of the Anavatapta-geithii.

According to the Mahasii rlighika Vinaya (T 1425), when the Buddha instructs the monks how to teach their disciples to recite texts, the following five texts are mentioned as examples: *Astakavarga-satra (equivalent to Anhakavagga in Pali), *Parayarja-sutra (equivalent to Parayanavagga in Pali), Lun nan satra, *Anavatapta-hrada-siitra, *Pratyekabuddha-satra. (26) The Mahaseimghika Vinaya, after describing the four Agamas, states: "the Ksudraka-pitaka Ma refers to the stanzas such as [those recited by] Pratyeka- buddhas and Arhats telling of their own previous lives with causes and conditions." (27) Yin-shun (1994: 865) considers the above five texts listed in the Mahasamghika Vinaya to be collections of archaic verses, and convincingly identifies the *Anavatapta-hrada-satra with "the stanzas recited by Arhats telling of their own previous lives with causes and conditions" as part of the Ksudraka-pitaka, as stated in the Mahasarrtghika Vinaya. Likewise, the so-called Anavatapta-gatha was originally composed entirely in verse according to Salomon's finding (2008: 56), based on the combined evidence of the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing and the Gandhari versions.

In this connection, two points should be noted. First, the title Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing actually means "the sutra on the Buddha's five hundred disciples telling of their own previous lives," although this text comprises verses recited by only thirty Arhats, namely the Buddha and twenty-nine of his disciples. Thus the content of this text corresponds to that of the *Anavatapta-hrada-sfitra discussed above. (28) Second, the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing is a bare collection of verses grouped into thirty chapters, and the short prologue located before the first chapter is apparently a preface added at a later time to the collection of verses. The genre of this text is identical to that of the *Anavatapta-hrada-siitra discussed above. In view of these two points, the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing could be the Mahasamghikas' *Anavatapta-hrada-satra.

As mentioned above, Salomon asserts that the Anavatapw-gatha was incorporated into the canon of the Mulasarvastivadins, namely the Bhaicajya-vastu of their Vinaya. In other words, the *Anavatapta-hrada-scara of the MahAsarpghikas (i.e., Dhr, which Salomon regards as an authentic and relatively early form of the AG) may have crept into the MSV at some point. If this happened after the EA had been introduced to China, we may safely conclude that the aivala legend in the EA originated from the Mahasartighikas rather than from the MalasarvAstivadins. Alternatively, either the Mahasamghika or the Mulasarvastivada tradition could be the source of this legend in the EA. Unfortunately, there is no way to find out whether this insertion happened after or before 384 CE, when the translation of the EA had just begun.

If it is the case that the *Anavatapta-hrada-siitra had already been assimilated into the MSV before the EA was brought to China, then we may admit the possibility that the legend of aivala in the EA was drawn directly from the Millasarvastivada tradition. This possibility is supported by the following fact. In EA 4.6 (T II 558a) and EA 33.2 (T II 683) the name of this disciple of the Buddha is rendered as Shipoluo, whose Early Middle Chinese pronunciation is reconstructed as oi-ba-la by Pulleyblank (1991: 282, 241, 203). Shipoluo ki-ba-la is most likely to be transcribed from an Indic word equivalent to aivala in Sanskrit because of the similarity in pronunciation, and because Saivala is exactly the disciple's name given in the Sanskrit version of the MSV (Bechert 1961: 141). The word laivala could be the name of a serpent-demon in Buddhist literature according to MW (p. 1090, col. 3, s.v. thivala). This agrees with the account in EA 33.2 that the Buddha named him Shipoluo because when he was born, people ran away, calling him a shipoluo demon. (29) In contrast, the transcription "Shililuo" as the disciple's name in the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, presumably the Mahas-amghikas' *Anavatapta-hrada-sfitra, points to an Indic name other than Saivala. Such lexical divergence is common in Buddhist literature, as Norman points out.(30) Shiliuo 1,1A1, (31) probably pronounced ci-[li.sup.h]-la in Early Middle Chinese (Pulleyblank 1991: 282, 188, 203), may be transcribed from an Indic word equivalent to Srilabha in Sanskrit, a name of various men in Buddhist literature according to MW (p. 1100, col. 1, s.v. sri). Furthermore, Srilabha could literally mean 'prosperity-gain', which tallies with the account in this Mahasamghika text: "When I was newly born, my family immediately became prosperous. Therefore, the ascetics named me Shililuo." (32) The disciple's name in the EA conforms to that in the MSV rather than to that in the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, hence the legend in the EA seems more likely to come from the MulasarvAstivadins than from the Mahasrupghikas. Incidentally, considering the different etymologies of the disciple's name, we can exclude the possibility that the legend in the EA was borrowed by Zhu Fonian from Dharmarakp's Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, a possibility we should be alert to, as mentioned above.

Although the legend in the EA looks more likely to come from the Mfilasarvastivadins than from the Mahasatpghikas, the EA still cannot be identified with the Millasarvastivada if we take the following into account. Some Sanskrit EA fragments from Gilgit, attributed to the Mulasarvastivadins by several scholars, (33) contain many more sutras in common with the Ariguttara Nikaya than they do with the EA (T 125).(34) Therefore, it is unlikely that our EA is affiliated with the Mulasarvdstivada and perhaps even unlikely that it belongs to a sect on the Sthavira side of the divide as opposed to the Mahasamghika side. (35) This case is analogous to the above-mentioned research by Harrison (1997) and in line with his conclusion.

Thus, we now face a paradox. It seems that the Mulasarvastivadins rather than the Mahasarrighikas provided the legend for the EA, but the EA appears more likely to be Mahasarpghika than Malasarvastivildin (on the Sthavira side). A tentative solution is proposed as follows. The EA in general is closely linked to the Mahasamghikas. This sect had developed into several subsects (see below) before the EA was brought to China. A certain subsect called the legendary disciple "aivala" in their *Anavatapta-hrada-satra and introduced this text into the MCilasarvastivadin tradition, and it was this subsect that transmitted the EA that was translated into Chinese. Another subsect called him "rildbha" and transmitted the *Atzavatapta-hrada-satra that was translated into Chinese as the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing. This tentative reconstruction of the textual history explains why the EA seems fairly close to the Mahasartighikas (as further elaborated below), though the Saivala legend in the EA is closer to the Mulasarvastivada version than the Mahasamghika version. A clarification of the relationship between these two schools will cast valuable light on relevant issues.


As argued above, the Saivala legend in the *Anavatapta-hrada-sutra of the Mahasamghikas was incorporated into the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. Scholars have noticed a close relationship between the Malasarvastivadins and the Mahasamghikas. Several instances indicate that the Mulasarvastivadins were profoundly influenced by the Mahasamghikas.

As Clarke (2004: 77) sums it up, we have today six seemingly complete Vinayas available to us, one in Pali and the other five in Chinese translation.(36) Hirakawa (1999: 299424) conducted a comparative study of these six Vinayas in light of the Sutta-vibhanga, the core of the Vinaya literature. He suggests that of these six the MSV is the newest in many respects (pp. 389, 415), and holds that the MSV is newer than the Ten Recitations Vinaya of the Sarvastivada school (pp. 389, 416). Similarly, Lamotte (1988: 178) contends that the Sarvastivada and Mahasamghika Vinayas are the closest to the ancient Vinaya of Upaili, whereas the MSV originated from an immense compendium of discipline that was closed much later. Prebish (1994: 84) says: "Of the Vinaya collections encountered so far, that of the Mulasarvastivada nikaya is undoubtedly the most voluminous." It can therefore be inferred that many of its contents were originally not part of the Vinaya. Even though some components of the MSV can be dated back to very early times, Frauwallner (1956: 24) remarks "that the legends inserted in the text [MSV] are here much more elaborate, and that above all a great quantity of tales is added." According to the above discussion, there is hardly any doubt that the extant MSV by and large represents a rather late stage of composition in comparison with the other schools' Vinayas. It is noteworthy that the name "Mulasarvastivada" seems not to appear until the seventh century CE.(37) Lamotte (1988: 657) argues that we cannot attribute to the MSV a date earlier than the fourth to fifth centuries.(38)

Willemen (2008: 45-50) presents the following theory about how the Sarvdstivadins evolved. From the end of the second century the Sarvastivadins were divided into two groups: on the one hand the Kdgmira Vaibhasika "orthodoxy" and on the other the majority of Sarvastivadins, including the Sautitntikas. A characteristic of these non-Vaibhasika Sarvastivadins is that they were eclectic in their meditative practices and used Mahasi-upghika "emptiness." At the end of the seventh century the Kagmira Vaibhasika "orthodoxy" disappeared through being absorbed into the non-Vaibh4ikas, and thus all were called Mulasarvastivildins.

According to Willemen's theory, the name "Miilasarvastivada" may have appeared quite late, but before this name appeared, their predecessors, the non-Vaibhasika Sarvastivadins or Sautrantikas, had been active for a long time. If we use the term "Millasarvastivada" in a broader sense, it may cover all the non-Vaibhasika Sarvastivadins before the term existed. A characteristic of the "Malasarvastivadins" is that they adopted some MahRsarpghika ideas, as Willemen points out in the work cited above and elsewhere (2003: 18-20: 2012: 3-14). This is corroborated by a biography of Harivarman included in the Chu sanzang ji ji (T 2145) by Sengyou (445.-518). (39) According to this biography, Harivarman (ca. 300)(40) was ordained in the Sarvastivada school and became a disciple of *Kumaralabdha, who was a master of the Sautrantikas, (41) the Mulasarvastivadins-to-be according to Willemen. Later on, with the help of the Mahasamghika monks in Pataliputra, he composed the Jnanakaya-prodbhutopadesa, (42) which soon swept Magadha. (43) This is a notable example of how a (Mula-)Sarvastivadin monk was influenced by the Mahasamghika school. Yinshun (1985: 132f.) affirms that the concept of "emptiness of dharmas" expounded in the *Jnanakaya-prodbhutopadesa is drawn from the Mahasamghikas.

Let us now move on to the geographical and historical backgrounds of these two schools in relation to the EA. An earlier study of mine (Kuan 2012) compares the EA sutras with their parallels and finds that the EA has a statistically significant preference for Magadha when selecting place names as the settings of sutras. According to historical sources, the Mahasamghikas prevailed in Magadha from the time when this sect came into being as a result of the original schism until at least the fifth century, when Faxian acquired this school's Vinaya in Magadha. From this viewpoint, along with some textual indications, I argue that the EA may belong to the Mahasamghika. Meanwhile the statistics of my comparative study shows that the two Chinese versions of the Sanzyukta Agama (SA and SA2) also have a strong inclination to choose Magadha for sutra settings. Since the SA and SA2 are widely ascribed to the Mulasarvastivada, (44) the EA may also belong to this school. According to Yijing, the Mulasarvastivdda was the predominant Buddhist school in Magadha when he visited India in the seventh century. From this I infer that the Mulasarvastivada could have already taken root in Magadha by the first half of the fifth century, when the Mulasarvastivadin SA and SA2 were introduced into China (Kuan 2012: 201). 1 continue:
  It is also very likely that the Mulasarvastivadins as latecomers were
  under the long-standing influence of the Mahasamghikas in Magadha,
  and thus could have borrowed some materials from the Mahasamghika
  tradition and incorporated them into their own texts.

This may explain the following two paradoxes confronting us:

1. The EA contains several passages that have led scholars to ascribe it to the Mahasamghikas, but it is in fact affiliated with the Mulasarvastivadins.

2. The EA contains several passages which are closer to the parallels in the Malasarvastivada Vinaya than to those in other texts while the EA is actually derived from the Mahasamghikas.

This earlier study (Kuan 2012: 201) accepts the first paradox as possible, but this may be ruled out because, as mentioned above, the extant Mulasarvastivadin EA in Sanskrit is very different from our EA (T 125). By contrast, the second paradox makes sense in view of the foregoing discussions. As illustrated above, the Mulasarvastivadins and their predecessors were influenced by the Mahasarpghika for several centuries, so while developing their texts, including their Vinaya, they may have adopted some Mahasdryighika concepts, legends, and even an entire text, the *Anavatapta-hrada-srara. As argued above, both the aivala legend in the EA and that in the MSV may have been drawn from the *Anavatapta-hrada-satra transmitted by a certain subsect of the Mahasarpghikas. Two more instances of Mulasarvastivadin texts being affected by the Mahasamghikas will be discussed below.

As stated above, Hiraoka shows that some legends in the EA are very close to their parallels in the MSV. Considering the scarcity of Mahasarpghika sources that still survive today, there exists the possibility that these legends also appeared in some Mahasarpghika texts that are lost now, and the Malasarviistivada Vinaya had borrowed them from such Mahasarpghika material. Therefore, despite the apparent affinity between some legends in the EA and those in the MSV, it is still highly probable that the EA is closely linked to the Mahasarpghikas rather than to the Millasarvastivadins, especially in view of the following elucidations of distinctive Mahasamghika features in the EA.


Very few texts of the Mahasamghika tradition have survived. Most of them belong to the Vinaya literature, (45) including the Mahavastu, (46) a text of the Lokottaravadin subsect of the Mahasamghikas. Some doctrines peculiar to the Mahasamghika tradition can be discerned in its own literature. Besides, several Buddhist texts of other early schools and even a Mahayana text attribute some particular ideas to the Mahasamghikas. As shown below, these sources provide us with materials that correspond to several unique concepts in the EA.

1. Transcendence of Buddhas

Williams (2000: 128) states: "The best known Mahasamghika doctrine is that of the supramundane nature of the Buddha,' and the Mahasamghika 'supramundane doctrine' (lokottaravada) appears to be characteristic of the school." Harrison (1982: 227) makes the following apt remark concerning "the nature of the Buddha which we regard as characteristically Lokottaravadin'":
  ... as Bareau has pointed out, ideas of this kind were by no means
  exclusive to that particular subsect of the Mahasamghikas known as
  the Lokottaravadins, but were the common property of the
  Mahasamghikas in general.

This opinion may be corroborated by the fact that the Kathavatthu, a 'Theravadin Abhidharma work, refutes the following thesis: "The Buddha, the Blessed One's common use is supra-mundane (lokuttara)," (47) which the commentary on the Kathavatthu (Kv-a 59-60) attributes to the Andhakas, a collective term covering four subsects of the Mahasamghikas. (48) We should remember, however, that the Kathavatthu itself does not ascribe the theories that it raises to any school, and that the identification of schools is only made in its commentary, which was written four or five centuries later, (49) so there is no way of knowing whether this held true already for the author(s) of the Kathavatthu itself.

Transcending. the world

The idea that all Buddhas are supra-mundane or transcending the world (lokottara) in all aspects is ascribed to the Mahasamghika school and its three offshoots in the Bu zhiyi lun (T 2033) by Vasumitra of the Sarvastivada: "All Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, transcend the world. Nothing pertaining to Tathagatas is possessed of taints (asrava)." (50) More specifically, the Mahasamghikas even regard the Buddha's physical .body as supramundane. This concept is recorded in the *Abhidhartma-vibhasa (T 1546), a Sarvastivada text:
  The Mahasamghikas hold that the Buddha's body is absolutely
  free from taints. Question: Why do they hold this opinion?
  Answer: They invoke a Buddhist sutra, which says that the
  Tathagata was born in the world and grew up in the world,
  yet he transcends the world and is undefiled by the world.
  [Therefore.] they hold this opinion: Since the Buddha is
  transcendental and is undefiled by the world, it should be
  known that the Buddha's body is absolutely free from
  taints. (51)

As Guang Xing (2005: 19-20) points out, the Sarvastivadins differed from the Mahasamghikas in using the two-body theory to interpret the same quotation: the rupakaya (physical body) is impure while the dharmakaya is not. Now let us refer to the Mahasamghika's own text, the Mahavastu: "The Sugata's body, which brings about the destruction of the fetters of existence, is also transcendental ... The pre-eminent men display the four postures of the body, though no fatigue comes over these men of shining deeds ... the wind does not harm their bodies ... the sun's heat does not torment them ... hunger never distresses them." (52) (Translation based on Jones 1949: 132-33.) The same notion that are transcendental even in regard to their bodies is expressed in EA 29.6:
  Are Tathagatas' bodies produced by their parents? This is also
  unthinkable. The reason is that Tathagatas' bodies are pure and
  undefiled, endowed with divine dispositions ... They transcend
  human activities. Are Tathagatas' bodies divine bodies? This is
  also unthinkable. The reason is that Tathagatas' bodies cannot be
  produced and transcend all deities.53

Such a peculiar description of Buddhas tallies with the above concept of Buddhas unique to the Mahasarpghikas. From this we can deduce that this EA passage originated from the Mahilsamghikas.

conforming to the world

While emphasizing Buddhas' supra-mundane nature in such .a way that even their bodies are considered transcendental, the Mahasdrpghikas also recognize that the historical Buddha Lived in the manner of a normal human being. They try to reconcile this paradox by postulating that the Buddha, despite being supra-mundane, behaved like an ordinary man in order to conform to the world. Such an idea is articulated in the Maharastu as follows:
  The Buddhas conform to the world's conditions, but in such a way
  that they also conform to the traits of transcendentalism. ...
  They are in the habit of taking medicine, but there is no disease
  in them. ... This is mere conformity with the world.... They take
  on the semblance of being old, but for them there is no old age....
  This is mere conformity with the world.(54) (Translation based on
  Jones 1949: 132-33.)

Similarly, EA 26.9 has the following account (T II 639b--c). The Buddha's two chief disciples, Sariputra and Mahamaudgalyayana, intend to attain final Nirvana before the Buddha attains final Nirvana. gariputra visits the Buddha and requests permission to attain final Nirvana, but the Buddha remains silent. On being so requested three times, the Buddha asks Sariputra: "Why do you not live for a kalpa (eon) or even more than a lcalpa?" Sariputra replies:
  I have heard from the Blessed One in person ... that sentient
  beings have very short life-spans, and that the longest life-span
  is but one hundred years. It is because sentient beings have short
  life-spans that the Tathagata also has a short life-span. Should
  the Tathagata live for a kalpa, I too will live for a kalpa .(55)

It is stated in the Buddhist canons that the Buddha, since he had cultivated the four bases of supernatural power (rddhiptida), could have lived for a kalpa or even longer if he had wished. (56) But the idea that "it is because sentient beings have short life-spans that the Tathagata also has a short life-span" is unique to the EA, and is characteristic of the Mahasiirpghika concept of Buddhas. The above EA passage expresses the same notion that even though Buddhas are transcendental, they still conform to the world's conditions, and thus it was merely for conformity with the world that Sakyamuni Buddha lived for eighty years like an ordinary man instead of living for a kalpa or even longer. Besides, the Katheivatthu in the light of its commentary criticizes the Mahasanighikas for taking the above-mentioned canonical passage too literally as meaning that one can actually prolong one's lifespan up to a kalpa by means of the four bases of supernatural power. (57) The same literalism develops so much further in EA 26.9 as to imply that the Buddha and even **ariputra could live for a kalpa if they wished, presumably because they both possess the four bases of supernatural power. This reinforces the possibility that EA 26.9 is linked to the Mahasainghikas.

Moreover, according to the Maluisarpghikas, the Buddha lives like an ordinary man and may take medication so that he can benefit sentient beings, as stated in the Mahasatrtghika Vinaya: "Even though the Blessed One does not need medicine, he is willing to take it for the sake of sentient beings." (58) This idea is suggested in EA 35.7 as follows (abridged):
  The Blessed One told Upavdna: "You should enter the city of Rajagrha
  to find some hot water. The reason is that my spine is afflicted by
  winds today." Upavana followed his instruction and entered the city.
  He thought: "...the TathRgata has destroyed all fetters and
  accumulated all wholesome states. Yet, the Tathagata said: 'I am
  afflicted by windss' and did not designate [the giver by] name. Which
  household should I approach?" Then with his divine eye he saw a
  householder without any wholesome roots, and thought: The Tathagata
  must intend to save this householder. The reason is that he will be
  reborn in the Wailing Hell after his death." ... the householder gave
  him hot water. The Blessed One bathed with the hot water and his
  winds [affliction] soon disappeared. Five days later, the
  householder died and was reborn in a certain heaven. (59)

This sutra has three parallels in the Buddhist canons of different traditions, namely SN 7.2.3 (Sutra 3 in Chapter 2 of the 7th Sarnytitta in the Sargyutta Nikaya), SA 1181 (T II 319b--c), and SA2 95 (T II 407b--c). The Pali version has the following in brief:

The SA and SA2 versions have a story line roughly identical to the above except for a few discrepancies.61 These three versions depict the Buddha as being sick and really in need of hot water, whereas in EA 35.7 the Buddha tells Upavana that he is ill as a pretext for asking Upavana to find hot water in the city. In this version Upavana is said to have the thought: "The Tathagata has destroyed all fetters and accumulated all wholesome states. Yet, the Tathagata said: 'I am afflicted by winds.' This echoes the foregoing Mahavastu passage: "The Sugata's body, which brings about the destruction of the fetters of existence, is also transcendental.- Upavana doubts the Buddha's claim to be ill on the presumption that the Buddha is absolutely transcendental so that even his body is free from illness--an idea unique to the Mahasamghikas. Later on Upavana understands the Buddha's intention in the feigning of an ailment: the Buddha wants him to save a householder from going to hell; then he accomplishes the mission and helps the householder go to heaven. The episode of the householder being saved from hell is not found in SN, SA, or SA2. It was probably interpolated in EA 35.7 in order to highlight the point that the Buddha claims to be ill and receives treatment simply for the benefit of others, as just quoted from the Maheislinzghika Vinaya: "Even though the Blessed One does not need medicine, he is willing to take it for the sake of sentient beings."

2. Five Obligations of a Buddha According to EA 24.5, the Buddha says:

A Tathagata should perform five deeds in the world. What five?

1) He should set rolling the wheel of Dharma.

2) He should preach Dharma to his father.

3) He should preach Dharma to his mother.

4) He should establish the practice of a Bodhisattva in ordinary people.

5) He should confer on a Bodhisattva the guarantee of Buddhahood. (62)

Similar lists appear in the Mahasamghika and Mulasarvastivadin texts as indicated by Skilling (1997: 305) and Lamotte (1988: 659). In the Mahtivastu, as one of the former Buddhas, Samitavin Buddha says:

The five obligations of a Buddha should certainly be fulfilled. What five?

1) The wheel of Dharma should be set rolling.

2) [My] mother should be instructed.

3) [My] father should be instructed.

4) Those who are to be instructed by a Buddha should be instructed.

5) The heir to the throne should be anointed. After my death, he will become a Buddha in the world. (63)

The Kpdraka-vastu of the Mulasarvastiveida Vinaya (MSV, T 1451) reads: A Buddha must definitely perform five deeds. What five?

1) to arouse the unsurpassed great bodhi-mind in those whose [bodhi-imind has not arisen,

2) to anoint the Dharma Crown Prince whose wholesome roots have long been planted;

3) to make his parents see the truth;

4) to display a great miracle in Sravasti;

5) to liberate all those who are instructed by the Buddha. (64)

A comparison of the above two passages with EA 24.5 shows that the Mahavastu version is much closer to EA 24.5 than is the MSV version. All the obligations in the EA list have counterparts in the Mahavastu list, and in both lists the five items are in almost the same order. Although obligation 4 in EA 24.5 seems different from obligation 4 in the Mahavastu, both obligations are about instructing untaught ordinary people. By contrast, the EA list of obligations is arranged in a sequence different from that of the MSV list. Moreover, "to set rolling the wheel of Dharma" listed as the first obligation in both the EA and Mahavastu is missing from the MSV list, whereas the MSV list includes the obligation "to display a great miracle in i-avasti," which is absent from the EA and Maheivastu.

Accordingly, the EA list of the Buddha's obligations probably originated from a tradition fairly close to that of the Mahavastu, i.e., the MahIsamghika-Lokottaravadins, and is more distant from the Mulasarvastivada tradition. The Bhaisajya-vastu of the MSV (Hofinger 1954: 175-77) and the Divyavczdana (Divy 150), which draws heavily on the MSV, (65) even enumerate ten obligations of a Buddha, among which only three are common to the Mahavastu and EA. The Mulasarvastivadins apparently borrowed the list from the Mahasamghikas and then revised and expanded it.

3. Superiority of Bodhisattvas (Buddhas-to-be)

Since the Mahasamghikas regard Buddhas as absolutely supra-mundane, a natural corollary for this school is that such transcendence must be inherent in the preparatory stage for Buddhahood. In other words, a Bodhisattva in the sense of a "Buddha-to-be" or "heir to the throne" (just quoted from the Mahavastu) is no ordinary person, but is already transcendental in some way. The Bu zhiyi lun (T 2033) by Vasumitra attributes the following doctrine to the Mahasarpghikas and their subsects: "All Bodhisattvas are without thought of craving, without thought of anger, without thought of harming others." (66) Similarly, EA 27.5 describes Bodhisattvas as "without having thought of attachment" and "without giving rise to anger." (67)

This EA sutra emphasizes the superiority of Bodhisattvas in an unusual tone: "Among all kinds of living beings, Bodhisattvas are supreme." (68) This statement is in accordance with the following feature of the Mahasdrnghikas. The Tarkajvala, ascribed to Btaiviveka in the sixth century, states: "It also is generally accepted in the texts of most of the eighteen schools (nikliya) that [monks] should pay homage to Bodhisattvas" (Eckel 2008: 166). Then it goes on to cite examples from the scriptures of these schools, namely six schools of the Mahasanrighika lineage and eleven schools of the Sthavira lineage. It is noteworthy that according to these seventeen quotations, four out of the six Mahasdnighika schools mention the superiority of Bodhisattvas over Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, whereas no such mention is found in any passages quoted from the eleven schools of the Sthavira lineage (Eckel 2008: 169-73).

Therefore, the supremacy of Bodhisattvas over t-avakas and Pratyekabuddhas is apparently not recognized by the non-MahasEunghika schools. (69) The Theravadins criticize this notion as a heresy held by the Mahasamghikas. The Kathiivatthu (IV.8) refutes this thesis: "During the dispensation of Kassapa Buddha, the Bodhisattva had entered an assured state ...(70) The Kathavatthu commentary (Kv-a 78) attributes it to the Andhakas, i.e., the four Mahasa-mghika subsects (see above), and indicates that this thesis is based on the reference to an account in the Chatikara Sutta (MN II 46ff.), where Jotipala, a previous life of Sakyamuni Buddha, joins the Order under Kassapa (Skt. Kagyapa) Buddha. The Kathavatthu refutes this thesis by questioning the presumably Malfasiimghikas: "If the Bodhisattva had entered an assured state, would the Bodhisattva have practiced severe asceticism? Would the Bodhisattva have looked to someone else as his teacher?" (71) This means to say that Sakyamuni, even during his earlier lifetime as a Bodhisattva, undertook futile ascetic practices and followed two heretical teachers. How, then, could the Bodhisattva be seen as having entered an assured state and as being superior to Srdvakas? From the foregoing discussion, we can infer that the Mahasarpghikas could easily explain it away by saying that the Bodhisattva had done all this simply in conformity with the world. (72) The Theravddins, however, would not subscribe to it, and their KatliCivatthu further argues that if the Bodhisattva had entered an assured state, he must have become a gravaka under Kassapa Buddha, just as Ananda, Citta, and Hat-thalca had entered an assured state after having become the Buddha's disciples, i.e., grAvakas (Pali stivaka);

the Mahasamghikas deny the identification of the Bodhisattva as a SrAvaka. (73) Instead, they contend that the Bodhisattva under Kassapa Buddha had aspired to attain Buddhahood in the future and thus had begun a career different from that of a gravaka, whose aim is Arhatship. They do this by invoking a sutra passage: "Is there not a sutta in which the Buddha said: 'Amanda, under Kassapa Buddha I lived the holy life for perfect enlightenment in the future"?" (74) As Dutt (2003: 16) points out, the Theravddins do not recognize Bodhisat-tvas as superior in attainment to Sravakas; neither do they want to make any distinction between a grdvaka and a Bodhisattva in terms of their practice of the noble path. This is a significant difference from the Mahasarnghika view of Bodhisattvas.

4. Clearing away Pratyekabuddhas

The term pratyekabuddha (paccekabuddha in Pali) is customarily rendered as "one enlightened by himself" or "one awakened for himself."75 An interesting account of such enlightened people is found in EA 38.7 and its only parallel text, the Pali MN 116. In both versions the Buddha says that, while four of the five mountains near Rajagrha had different names in ancient times, the fifth mountain was already called Mount of Seers Isigili in Pali) in former times. The Pali version continues by giving a popular -etymology for the name- Isigili. This etymology could- be rather latem and is absent from EA 38.7, which instead reports the following episode (abridged):
  When the Tathagata was in the Tusita Heaven, wishing
  to come down and be reborn, the deities of the Pure
  Abodes came here and said among themselves: "[Let us]
  give instructions throughout the world that the
  Buddha-field be cleared. In two years a Tathagata
  will appear in the world."

  These Pratyekabuddhas, having heard the words of the
  deities, all rose up into the air ... Then the
  Pratyekabuddhas cremated their bodies in the air and
  attained final Nirvana.77

This episode is absent from the Pali version, but is found in the Mahavastu:
  "In twelve years the Bodhisattva will leave his abode in Tusita."

  So did the deities of the Pure Abodes proclaim to the Pratyekabu
  -ddhas in Jambudvipa, "The Bodhisattva is about to descend. Qui
   the Buddha-field!"... Now the Pratyekabuddhas passed away into
  final Nirvana ... There dwelt five hundred Pratyekabuddhas. They
  too ... passed away into final Nirvana. ... They rose up into the
  air, attained absorption in the element of fire without clinging,
  and passed away into final Nirvana.78 (Translation partly follows
 Jones 1949: 302-3.)

The Mahavastu explicitly states that the deities tell the Pratyekabuddhas to clear themselves off the world for the Bodhisattva to arrive. This point is also implicit in EA 38.7. A similar episode appears in the Safighabheela-vastu of the Malasarviistivada Vinaya as follows (abridged):

An episode even closer to those in the Mahavastu and EA is found in the Lalitavistara; it states that 501 Pratyekabuddhas cremate themselves after the deities come to iambudvipa and tell them to leave the Buddha-field. (80) Ruegg (2004: 38) comments: The Lalitavistara, a biography of the Buddha, is also described in its title as a Mahayanasilira; but very much of the work is far from being specifically Mahayanist." Yinshun (1981: 580-81) observes that the two Chinese translations of the Lallwvistara, the Puyao jing (T 186) and the Fangguang da zhuangyan jing (T 187), present a biography of the Buddha that is consistent with the Millasarvastivadins' biography, i.e., their Safighaltheda-vastu. Mizuno (1996: 63) and Thomas (1940: 241) also ascribe the Lalitavistara to the Sarviistivada lineage. Okano (1989, 1990), however, following extensive research, sees the Lalitavistara as closely connected with the Mahasamghikas, on the grounds that it contains several passages and vocabulary items that are characteristic of this school. This may be another instance of a (Milla-)Sarvastivadin text influenced by the Mahasiimghikas. The probability of this is strengthened by the following discussion.

The episode of Pratyekabuddhas' self-cremation is not found in the earlier translation of the Lalitavistara (T 186) by Dharmarakp in 308 CE, (81) but appears only in the later translation (T 187) (82) by Divakara 1, WriJni in 685. (83) T 187 (in twelve fascicles), which agrees generally with the extant Sanskrit text, (84) is larger than T 186 (in eight fascicles). Moreover, T 187 and the Sanskrit version differ from T 186 in the arrangement of chapters. The earlier versions of the Lalitavistara, including T 186, apparently underwent a process of revision and expansion, which resulted in the extant Sanskrit text and an Indic text from which T 187 was translated. The episode of self-immolation was interpolated into the text at some point during this process between the early fourth century when T 186 was translated and the late seventh century when T 187 was translated.

Jones (1949: xi) says: "the Mahavastu ... is a compilation which may have been begun in the second century BC, but which was not completed until the third or fourth century AD." (85) According to the above chronology of the texts, the episode in question probably already appeared in the Mahavastu when Dharmarakp translated T 186, which does not include the episode. In other words, this episode had already existed in the Mahavastu before it was inserted into the Lalitavistara, a work probably derived from the (Mbla-)SarvAstivadins and considerably influenced by the Mahdsamghikas. A similar episode (cited above) also appears in the Salighabheda-vastu of the MSV. As mentioned above, the voluminous MSV represents a rather late stage of composition and contains a great quantity of tales as late additions. In all likelihood, therefore, the Mahlisdryighikas adopted this episode earlier than the (Mi sarvastivadi ns.

This episode may well have originated among the MahasaiTighikas to emphasize the impossibility of the coexistence of a Buddha and Pratyekabuddhas: they went so far as to say that any Pratyekabuddhas have to self-immolate before a Buddha, more precisely a last-life Bodhisattva, is born. This peculiar and eccentric idea arose in line with the Mahasarrighikas' emphasis on the transcendence and supremacy of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In their view the Buddha, as well as his last birth as a Bodhisattva, is superior to all other beings, including other enlightened people, to such an extent that his manifestation presupposes the disappearance of all Pratyekabuddhas, who became enlightened by themselves rather than by a Buddha's teaching. In contrast, there is no problem with the coexistence of a Buddha and his Arhat disciples because they are enlightened by a Buddha's instruction so are necessarily his contemporaries. In sum, this conception of Pratyekabuddhas, along with the episode of their self-cremation common to the Mahavastu and EA, may be traced back to the MahasatTighikas.

5. Consciousness as the Root

In the fourth century CE Asanga states in his *Mahayana-saingraha (She dasheng lunM T 1592):
  The Hinayana sutras mention that consciousness (vifriana). For
  example, the Ekottarika Agama states: "Delighting in alaya IS1JV115,
  [sentient beings of] the world cling to alaya, are produced by alaya,
  and seek alaya. When the Dharma is taught for the abolition of
  alciya, they listen closely ... When the Tathagata appears in
  the world, he preaches this precious Dharma in the world."

  Thus is it stated in the Satra on the Benefits from
  the Manifestation of the Tathagata . For this reason,
  even a Hinayana sutra mentions the alaya-vijiiana
  (substratum consciousness) using a different
  designation. The Mahasamghika Ekottarika Agama even
  refers to it as the "root" tk* (*mala), for it
  is just like the root on which a tree depends. (86)

The Stitra on the Benefits from the Manifestation of the Tathagata cited above has parallels in the extant Chinese Ekottarika Agama (EA 25.3) and the Pali Anguttara Nikiiya (AN 4.128), being two versions of a Hinayana sutra on the four benefits or wonderful things that appear on the manifestation of the Tathagata. The passage quoted from this satra is attested by the following in AN 4.128:
  People for the most part delight in attachment (Maya),
  take delight in attachment, rejoice in attachment. But
  when the Dhamma of non-attachment is taught by the
  TathAgata, people wish to listen to it ... This is the
  first wonderful and marvelous thing that appears on the
  manifestation of the Tathagata ... (87) (tr. Bodhi 2005: 191)

Its counterpart in EA 25.3 reads:
  Sentient beings for the most part have attachment (alaya)
  88 When the Dharma of non-attachment is preached, they still
  accept it ... When the Tathagata appears in the world, four
  marvelous things appear in the world, and this is the first
  marvelous thing that appears in the world. 89

The word alaya (a-411) in Pali and in Buddhist Sanskrit has two shades of meaning: 1. settling-place, fundamental base; 2. clinging, attachment (DOP I 335, Edgerton 1953: 106). Alaya in the above AN and EA versions of the sutra conveys the second shade of meaning; in the EA version it is rendered as AY 'attachment' by Zhu Fonian, and in his English translation of the AN version Bhikkhu Bodhi also renders it as 'attachment'. The Mahliyana-saingraha, however, interprets alaya in this sutra as implying alaya-vijNana 'substratum consciousness' a concept formulated by the Yogacara school to designate "an ever-changing stream which underlies samslic existence" (Williams 1989: 91).

The above quotations from EA 25.3 and AN 4.128 confirm the first part of the foregoing Mahayana-sarpgraha passage, which invokes the EA to argue that even the Hinayana hints at ala-consciousness. The second part of the Mahayana-sartzgraha passage indicates that it is the "MahAsarlighika" EA which regards this consciousness as the 'root' (*mala), but it does not cite any specific passage from this school's EA. A clue is found in our EA 38.4, where the Buddha says the following in retrospect about his enlightenment: *
  Then, again, I had this thought: "This consciousness (vijiiana)
  is the very source that makes people subject to birth, aging,
  illness, and death, but [people] cannot understand the root itci*
  (*mula) of birth, aging, illness and death. ... With the arising
  of ignorance (avidyii), volitional formations (satpskam) arise.
  That which is produced by volitional formations results from
  consciousness. Now I have understood consciousness. Let me now
  expound this 'root' * (*mala) to the four assemblies. [They] should
  all understand what arises from this root."

This asserts again and again that consciousness (vijiiiina) is the root or basis underlying the round of rebirths (samsara), i.e., the repeated cycle of birth, aging, illness, and death. Such an expression is not, however, found in any of the available texts equivalent to EA 38.4.91 This EA passage appears to be what the Mahayana-sarpgraha is alluding to since this passage highlights the conception that consciousness is the "root" underlying the round of rebirths, which the Yogacara school utilized to support the idea of "substratum consciousness" that they posited. Therefore, EA 38.4 is very likely to belong to the Mahasamghikas.

The above are arguments in favor of attributing the EA to the Mahasamghikas. Hirakawa (1989: 33-34) disagrees with such an attribution on the grounds that the EA differs from the IVIahasargghika Vinaya regarding the listing of the arigas, the number of pratimokya rules, the content of the Kyudralca pitaka, and the sequence of listing the four Agamas. However, Analayo (2009: 823) has demonstrated that all of these four objections are inconclusive.


The EA is ascribed to the Dharmaguptakas by Matsumoto (1914: 349) and Warder (2000: 6). Their arguments for this affiliation are refuted in my earlier study (Kuan 2012: 180). While Shizutani (1973: 57-58) suspects that the EA may be affiliated to the Mahasamghikas or the Sarv5stivAdins of non-Kagmira-orthodoxy, he regards the Dharmaguptaka as a strong candidate for the EA's affiliation for the following reason (Shizutani 1973: 55, 57, 59 n. 2) in addition to two other reasons suggested by Hirakawa (see below).92 When the cult of Mai-treya was popular in the Kuar.fa Empire, a statue of a Bodhisattva regarded as Maitreya was donated by Kugpa people to the Dharmaguptakas in Mathurd. Shizutani seems to suggest that the promotion of the Maitreya cult among the Dharmaguptakas resulted in the frequent mention of Maitreya in the EA,93 which is affiliated to this school. If this were the case, it would be difficult to explain why Maitreya appears only once in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya T 1428) and also only once in the Dirgha Agama T 1) (94) of the Dharmaguptakas. (95) Therefore, this argument for Dharmaguptaka affiliation is weak.

Hirakawa (1989: 40-43) adduces two cases as evidence of close correspondence between the EA and the Dharmaguptakas.

First, according to the EA, Ambapali gives her grove to "the Tathagata and the Order of monks (bhiktru)"; (96) likewise, a cowherd gives cheese to "the Buddha and the Order of monks." (97) Hirakawa (p. 40) contends that different Vinayas use different stock phrases to describe an act of donation. In the Pali Vinaya, a donation is said to be made to "the Order of monks (bhikkhu, Skt. bhikyu) with the Buddha at its head." (98) In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (T 1428), the stock phrase contains the expression "the Buddha and the Order of the four directions." (99) The Mahigasaka Vinaya (Five-Part Vinaya T 1421) instead has only "the Order of the four directions."1[degrees][degrees] Hirakawa regards the Dirgha Agama as largely agreeing with the Dhannaguptaka Vinaya in saying: "Give to 'the Buddha as head and the Order of the four directions.'" (101)

He concludes that as regards these stock phrases, the EA wording agrees with the Dhar maguptaka. In my opinion, however, the stock phrases in the EA are closer to the Pali version than to the Dharmaguptaka versions. The Dirgha Agama in Chinese translation is widely attributed to the Dharmaguptakas, (102) and it is therefore no wonder that the stock phrase in the Dirgha Agama tallies with that in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya as Hirakawa remarks. It is noteworthy that according to the Dharmaguptakas, donations should be made to "the Buddha [as head] and the Order of the four directions" without making a distinction between monks (bhikyu) and nuns (bhilqw://). In a striking contrast, both the EA and the Pali Vinaya specify "the Buddha and the Order of monks [with the Buddha at its head]," thereby mentioning only the monks. Moreover, unlike the Dharmaguptaka versions, the EA and the Pali Vinaya make no mention of "the four directions" in the stock phrases. Consequently, the EA cannot be attributed to the Dharmaguptakas.

Second, EA 48.2 contains a legend about the recitation of precept-stanzas by the six former Buddhas and SAkyamuni Buddha. Regarding the last, it is stated:
  Now I, a Tathagata, have appeared in the world. The noble Order
  of 1250 people was without blemish for twelve years. I also used
  one stanza as precept: "Keep your speech and mind pure, and also
  your bodily action pure. Purify these three kinds of action.
  Practice the path of seers."

  During the twelve years I preached just this single stanza as
  precept. [It is] because people began to infringe the Vinaya that
  250 pratimolcva rules have been laid down gradually. (103)

The Bhilqu-pratimaya-satra of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya ( T 1429) in its legend of the seven Buddhas has the following:
  "Carefully guard your speech. Purify your own mind. Let not your
  body do evil. These three courses of action are purified. Such
  practice is the path of great seers."

  This is the precept-sutra preached to the blameless Order
  for twelve years by galyamuni Tathagata . .104

This conforms to the foregoing EA passage. Hirakawa (1989: 41-43) points out that the Mahasanighika Vinaya, while recording the stanzas recited by the seven Buddhas, does not mention that the Order was without blemish for twelve years. The Sarvastivadin and Mulasarvastivadin Vinayas suggest that the Order was without blemish for twelve years, but this appears only in contexts where no mention is made of the seven Buddhas. The Samantapasadika in Pali says that the first pratimoksa rule was not prescribed until twenty years after the Buddha's enlightenment. Based on the above, Hirakawa concludes that the EA is closer to the Dharmaguptakas than to the other schools. This seems a strong indication that the EA is affiliated with the Dharmaguptakas, but it is not beyond doubt.

In EA 48.2 the episode of the Buddha refusing to recite the pratimokya rules in an impure assembly is followed by the legend of the seven Buddhas. Unlike the EA version, however, in all the parallels to EA 48.2, including those of the Theravada, Sarvastivrida, and Mahigasaka, (105) this episode is followed by an exposition of the eight marvels of Dharma-Vinaya compared to the eight qualities of the ocean. Therefore the occurrence of the legend of the seven Buddhas in EA 48.2 looks suspect as noted by Mizuno (1996: 411). Could this be an "apocryphal interpolation" drawn from an existing Chinese text, as Nattier warns us? It is possible in this case. According to Sengzhao's Mfg (384-414) (106) preface to the Dirgha Agama, Zhu Fonian translated (31) the Dirgha Agama and the Dharmaguptaka Vinayal[degrees]7 recited (Ha) by Buddhayagas.108 The Bhilsvu-pratimolqa-sutra of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya is ascribed only to Buddhayagas in the TaishO edition. It seems doubtful that Buddhayagas could have translated it alone without any Chinese collaborator. It would not be far-fetched to speculate that Zhu Fonian was at least aware of, if he did not participate in, the translation of this text, which is supposed to be attached to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya that he translated. If this is the case, then the possibility cannot be ruled out that he borrowed the legend of the seven Buddhas from this text and inserted it into EA 48.2.


It is very difficult to identify the sectarian affiliation of the Ekottarika Agama (T 125) in Chinese translation due to the complexities involved. This research cannot prove that the entire collection is affiliated to a certain school, but it has demonstrated that a considerable part of this corpus is likely to be of Mahasamghika derivation, and that the EA contains numerous salient features of Mahasamghika doctrine, particularly the transcendence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. On the other hand, it is possible that Zhu Fonian had access to a considerable amount of Mahasiutighika material and drew on it when revising his first translation of the EA. This study also illustrates that the seeming affinity between several legends in the EA and those in the Malasarvastivada Vinaya is likely to have resulted from Mahasarpghika influence on the Malasarvilstivddins. Some of the points made in this paper are admittedly hypothetical in nature owing to the paucity of Mah5skarrighika sources. Nevertheless. the Mahasfirpghika hypothesis for the school affiliation of the EA has been substantially strengthened while the others are shown to be probably untenable.


References to Pali texts are to the Pali Text Society editions, unless otherwise noted.

AK Abhidharma-koscabha.yya, ed. P. Pradhan. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.

AN Atiguttara Nikaya

BJT Buddha Jayarzti Tripitaka Series. Government of Ceylon, 1968.

CBETA CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripitoka Collection, Version 2010. Taipei: Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text AssoCiation, Dip The Dipavargsa: An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record, ed. and tr. Hermann Oldenberg. Lon- don: Williams and Norgate, 1879.

Divy Divyavadana, ed. E. B. Cowell and R. A. Neil. Cambridge: The University Press, 1886.

DN Digha Nikaya

DOP I A Dictionary of Pali, part I, ed. Margaret Cone. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 2001.

EA Ekottarika Agama

FDC Foguang Da Cidian ed. Kaohsiung: 1988.

Kv Kathavatthu

Kv-a Kathiivatthuppakurava-attlzakatha

MA Madhyama Agama 113.101A-kii Zhong ahanjing

MN Majjhima Nikitya MSV Malasarvastivada Vinaya (Chinese and Sanskrit)

Mvu. Mahavastu, electronic version of the Mahavastu-Avadana based on the ed. by Emile Senart, 3 vols., Paris 1882-97, input by Emmanuel Faur6, under the supervision of Prof. Boris Oguibenine. Data conversion in cooperation with Stefan Baums, Seattle ( gretil/1_sanslcr/4_rellit/buddh/mhvastuu.htm)

MW A. Sanskrit-English Dictionary, ed. Monier Monier-Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899.

PTS Pali Text Society edition

SA Sar.nyukta Agama Za ahanfing

SA2 Other Translation of. the Sarpyukta Agama (Bieyi Za ahanjing)

SJD (A Sanskrit-Japanese Dictionary with Equivalents in Chinese Transla- tion), ed. Unrai Wogihara , revised 'ed. Tokyo: AWL 1986..

SN Samyutta Nikaya

T Taisho Shinshu Daizayo (cited from CBETA) Vin The Vinaya Pitakam, 5 vols., ed. Hermann Oldenberg. Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1.879-83.


English titles in parentheses are my translations.

Akanuma, Chizen. 1981. (On the History of the Buddhist Scriptures).

Analayo. 2006. The Ekottarika-aganza Parallel to the Saccavibhatiga-suna and the Four (Noble)

Truths. Buddhist Studies Review 23(2): 145-53. 2009. Zeng-yi A-han. In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 8 fasc. 3, ed. W. G. Weeraratne.

Pp. 822-27. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs.

2010. The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal. Hamburg: Hamburg Univ. Press.

2011. A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikilya, 2 vols. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation.

Bareau, Andre. 1955. Les sectes bouddhiques du petit vihicule. Paris: Ecole Francaise d'Extrame-Orient.

Bechert, Heinz. 1961. Bruchstacke bucldhi.vtischer Verssammlungen aus zentralasiatischen San-skrithandschriften: I Die Anavataptagatha und die Sthaviragatha. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Bodhi, Bhikkhu, tr. 2000. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Oxford: Pali Text Society. 2005. In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon.. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Bongard-Levin, Gregory; Daniel Boucher; Takamichi Fukita; and Klaus Wille. 1996. The Nagaropamasutra: An Apotropaic Text from the Samyuktagama. In Sanskrit-Texte aus dem bud-dhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen III, ed. Gregory Bongard-Levin et al.. Pp. 7-131. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bronkhorst, Johannes. 1985. Dharma and Abhidharma. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48(2): 305-20.

Clarke, Shayne. 2004. Vinctya Matrka--Mother of the Monastic Codes, or Just Another Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner's Handling of the Mahasarnghika Vinaya. Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 77-120.

Cooper, John M. 1980. A Fragment of the Nicianasiitra. Pali Buddhist Review 5(3): 53-58.

Dutt, Nalinaksha.. 2003. Doctrines of the .Mahasanghika School of Buddhism. In Buddhist Sects and Philosophies, ed. Dr. Mahendra and P. Mittal. Pp. 9-32. Delhi: Originals.

Eckel, Malcolm David. 2008. Bhaviveka and His Buddhist Opponents. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Edgerton, Franklin. 1953,- Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. II: Dictionary. Rpt.

Motilal Banarsidass, 1993.

Enomoto, Fumio. 2000. Mulasarvasti v d in' and 'Sarvastivadin . In Vividharamaka:(laka: Festgabe far Adelheid Metre, ed. Christine Chojnacki et al. Pp. 239-50. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.

Frauwallner, E. 1956. The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature Rome: Is. M. E. O.

Fukita, Takamichi. 1982. (Restoration of the Pratityasamut- pada in the Sanskrit Mahavadanasatra).10-gMARBt Bukkya. Shigaku Kenkya 24(2): 26-43.

1988.--Nagaropantavyakaratta (= Nagarasatra) --(A Text Recited by the Sarvastivadins in Eastern Turkestan: The Nagaropamavyakaratta (= Nagarasatra) and a Charm). Sankio Bunka Kenkyasho Nenpo 20: 27-49. Gnoli, Raniero, ed. 1977. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Sarighabheclavastu: Being the 17th and Last Section of the Vinayu (?I' the .Mrilasurvastivadin. part I. Rome: Is. M. E. 0.

1978. The Gilgit Manuscript (f the Satighabhedavastu: Being the 17th and Last Section of the Vinaya of the Mulasarvastivadin, part II. Rome: Is. M. E. 0.

Guang Xing. 2005. The Concept of the Buddha. London: Routledge.

Harrison, Paul. 1982. Sanskrit Fragments of .a Lokottaravadin Tradition. In Indologiccil and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. L. A. Hercus et al. Pp. 211-34. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University.

1997. The Ekottarikagama Translations of An Shigao. In Bauddhavidyasudhalcarah: Stud- ies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th. Birthday, ed. Petra Kieffer-Palz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Pp. 261-84. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.

Harvey, Peter. 2007. Pratyeka-bu.ddhas. In Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Damien Keown and Charles S. :Prebish. Pp. 600-602. London: Routledge.

von Hinilber, Oskar. 1997. A Handbook of Pali Literature, 1st Indian ed. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (First published 1996. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & CO.)

2001. Das illtere Mittelindisch irn Uberblick. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akad- emie der Wissenschaften.

Hitakawa, Akira. I (A Study of Early Mahayana Buddhism,

vol. I). Tokyo:#WE.

2008. Reopening the Maitreya-files: Two Almost Identical Early Maitreya sutra Translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong Attributions and Text-historical Entanglements. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31(1-2): 251-93.

Sylvain. 1910. Textes-sanscrits de Touen-Houang. journal asiatique, Novembre-Decembre 1910: 433-56.

Lin, Jia'an. WAKrz: 2009. (An Investigation into the Translator of the Extant Chinese Translation of the Ekottarika A gama). MA thesis. Chungli, Taiwan: Yuan Kuang Buddhist Institute, /thesis /94_19/94_19_03.pdf Cheng. 1963. Agama (I). In Encyclopaedia of

Buddhism, vol. I, fasc. 2, ed. G. P. Malalasekera.

Pp. 241-44. Government of Ceylon.

Matsumoto, BunzaburO 1914. SA (A Study of Buddhist Texts). Tokyo:

Mayeda, Egaku. 1985. Japanese Studies on the Schools of the Chinese Agamas. Zur Schulzugehorig-keit von Werken der Hinayana-Literatur, pt. 1, ed. Heinz Bechert. Pp. 94-103. Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht.

Mizuno, Kogen. haltikit 1996. ILASCIAT0f9-1, (A Study of Buddhist Literature). Tokyo: MM[+ or -]. Mori, Sodo. 1970. On the Fen.-bie-gong-de-lim Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 19(1): 458-52.

Nakamura, Hajime. 1980. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Hirakata City: KUFS Publication.

Rap amoli , Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi. tr. 2001. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, revised ed. Oxford: Pali Text Society, Nattier, Jan. 2010. Re-Evaluating Zhu Fonian's Shizhu duanjie jing. (1309): Translation or Forgery?

Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13: 231-58.

Norman, K. R. 1999. Collected Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

2006. A Philological Approach to Buddhism, 2nd ed. Lancaster: Pali Text Society.Oberlies, Thomas. 2003. Ein bibliographischer Oberblick ither die kanonischen Texte der i-a-vakayana-Schulen des Buddhismus. Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde Siidasiens 47: 37-84.

Okano. Kiyoshi.(The Sect of the Lalitavistara). Shakyo kenkya 279: 181-82.

1990. (A Study of the Puyao fing, pt. 2), Bunka 53(3-4): 55-74.

Okubo, Yusen. 1982. The Ekottara-agama Fragments of the Gilgit Manuscript. Bud- dhist Seminar 35: 1-30.

Pasadika, Bhikkhu. 2008. The Ekottaragama Parallel to the Malapariyayasutta. The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9: 141-49.

2010. Gleanings from the Chinese Ekottaragama regarding School Affiliation and Other Topics. In Translating Buddhist Chinese: Problems and Prospects, ed. Konrad Meisig. Pp. 87-96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Prebish, Charles. 1994. A Survey of Vinaya Literature, vol. I. London: Routledge.

Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Ruegg, D. Seyfort. 2004. Aspects of the Study of the (Earlier) Indian Mahayana. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27(1): 3-62.

Salomon, Richard. 1999. Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandha ra: The British Library Kharosthi Fragments. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press. 2008. Two Gandhari Manuscripts of the Songs of Lake Anavatapta (Anavatapta-gatha).

Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.

Schmithausen, Lambert. 1987. Beitrage zur Schulzugehorigkeit und Textgeschichte kanonischer und postkanonischer buddhistischer Materialien. In Zur Schulzugeharigkeit von Werken der Hinayana-Literatur, ed. Heinz Bechert. Pp. 304-406. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Schopen, Gregory. 2008. Separate but Equal: Property Rights and the Legal Independence of Buddhist Nuns and Monks in Early North India. JAOS 128(4): 625-40.

Shizutani, Masao. 1973. (Sectarian Affiliations of the Ekottarika Agama in Chinese Translation).Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 22(1): 54-59.

Skilling, Peter. 1997. Maheisatras: Great Discourses of the Buddha, vol. H. Oxford: Pali Text Society. 2009. Theravada in History. Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies 3rd series, no. 11:61-93.

2010. Scriptural Authenticity and the ra'vaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Per- spective. The Eastern. Buddhist 41(2): 1-47.

Skilton, Andrew 1997. A Concise History of Buddhism, 2nd ed. Surrey: Biddies Ltd. (1st ed. 1994) Su, Ken. "OVPII 2007. An Investigation into Mizuno Kogen's "A General Introduction on Chinese Ekottara-agama." Fuyan Buddhist Studies 2: 91-160.

Sujato, Bhildchu. 2012. Sects and Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools, revised ed. Australia: Santipada. (1st ed. 2007)

Thomas, E. J. 1940. The Lalitavistara and Sarvastivada. Indian Historical Quarterly 16(2): 239-45.

Tournier, Vincent. 201.2. The Mahavastu and the Vinayapiplca of the Mahasamshika-Lokottaravadin.

Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 15: 87-104.

Tripathi, Chandrabhal. 1962. Funfundzwanzig Sutras des Niclanasamyukta. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1995. Ekottareigama-Fragmente der Gilgit-Handschrift. Reinbek: Verlag filr Orientalist- ische Fachpublikationen.

Ui, Hakuju. 1965. (A Study of Indian Philosophy, vol. II). Tokyo:

Vaidya, P. L., ed. 1958. Lalita-Viszara. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute.

Waldschmidt, Ernst. 1980. Central Asian Sutra. Fragments and Their Relation to the Chinese Agamas. The Language of the. Earliest Buddhist Tradition, ed. Heinz Bechert. Pp. 136-74. Gottingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht.

Warder, A. K. 2000. Indian Buddhism, 3rd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (1st ed. 1970)

Willemen, Charles. 2003. From Where Did Zen Come? Dhyana in the Early Buddhist Tradition. The Numata Yehan Lecture in Buddhism. Calgary: Univ. of Calgary.

2006. The Sanskrit Title of Harivarman's Chengshi Lun AMA (T 1646). Journal of Bud- dhist Studies 4: 244-50.

2008. Kumaraliva's "E.xplanatory Discourse" about Abhidharmic. Literature. Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 12: 37-83.

2012. Outlining the Way to Reflect (T.XV 617). Mumbai: Somaiya Publications.

Willemen, Charles; Bart Dessein; and Collett Cox. 1998. Sarvastivada Buddhist Scholasticism. Leiden: Brill.

Williams, Paul. 1989. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge.

2000. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Mdian Tradition. London: Routledge.

Y.inshun. 1981. (The Origin and Development of Early Mahayana Buddhism). Taipei: BEJ ihJtk.

1985. (Exploration of Emptiness).

1994. (Compilation of the Original Buddhist Scriptures). 3rd ed.


(1.) The use of this term is reexamined by Skilling 2009.

(2.) Zhu Fonian was the translator despite the wrong attributions to Gautama Sarpghadeva. See Legittimo (2005: 3 n. 7), Andlayo (2006: 145f.), Lin (2009), and Nattier (2010: 233 n. 8).

(3.) The fifteenth year of Tianjian. See T 2121 LIB 1 a.

(4.) Su (2007: 115ff.) and Lin (2009: 32ff.) respectively identify twenty-four and sixteen passages.

(5.) See Lin (2009: 33) and Su (2007: 145-47, Table 8).

(6.) See Lin (2009: 1081.) and Su (2007: 115).

(7.) See Warder (2000: 277), Skilton (1997: 59), and Hiralcawa (1990: 114f.).

(8.) See Skilling (2010: 2 n. 3): "A nikaya was primarily a vinaya or monastic ordination lineage, and hence is best rendered as 'order.' But the orders also transmitted ideas, tenets, and practices, and thus they were also 'schools.' They were not 'sects' in the usual senses of the word in English."

(9.) The above two sentences are modified quotations from Reader I's report.

(10.) E.g., Lamotte (1988: 518): Sujato (2012: 8).

(11.) See Ski1ton 1997: 61.

(12.) One of the anonymous readers commented: "After many years of studying Agama literature and dealing with questions of school affiliation I have come to the conclusion that certain differences between versions we formerly used to interpret as school-related are in fact rather editorial differences due to regional diversity, and that they tell us little or nothing about schools."

(13.) For the dating of Asanga, see Warder 2000: 414.

(14.) Ak 439: sutra uktam "sukhendriyam katamat? yat kayikam caitasikam Aram veditam ..." iti.

(15.) Ak 439: adhyaropita parhah. kenapi? sarvanikayantargu kayikam ity eve pathat. "sukharn ca kayena pratisaqivedayata" in svaiabdena vacanac ca. I have slightly revised my translation found in Kuan 2005: 299.

(16.) See von Hinuber 1997: 89.

(17.) Dip V 36 (p. 36): chaddetva ekadesan ca suttam vinayan ca gambhiram. patirapam suttavinayam tan ca annam karimsu te.

(18.) 1 cite from Skilling (2010: 2) referring to a point drawn by Vasubandhu in his Vyakhyayukti.

(19.) Mori (1970: 457) and Mizuno (1996: 461) note that this text usually explains the EA (T 125) word for word and in the same order. Mizuno (p. 462) even contends that this text was not "translated" but was composed according to the translation of T 125.

(20.) T XXV 34b:

(21.) This correspondence between the two texts is pointed out by Shizutani (1973: 58).

(22.) From the second year of Chang'an to the fourth year of Jinglong according to the catalog (T 21-57 LV 868b).

(23.) Salomon (2008: 28-31) enumerates the Pali parallels to some parts of the Anavatapta-gatha. They do not include the legend in question.

(24.) For the legend about Saivala, see T IV 194a-b.

(25.) See Salomon 2008: 24. For the story about Saivala, see Bechert 1961: 141-43.

(26.) T XXII 337a:

(27.) T XXII 491c:

(28.) Cf. Yinshun 1994: 468.

(29.) T II 683c: J

(30.) Norman (2006: 123) notes that the Buddha's teachings had been transmitted in the dialects of Middle Indo-Aryan for some hundreds of years before Sanskritization of Buddhist literature began. It is conceivable that during this period an "original" word in a certain Buddhist text could have developed into different forms or even different words in the various dialects covering extensive regions. An example is the divergence of pracaga, prace'a, pac-ceka. and paueya as shown by Norman (1999: 240f.). On the other hand, Sanskritization also caused problems when backformations were made. For example, as a parallel to the Middle Indo-Aryan word dipa in the Dhamrnapada, "the Sanskrit Uditnoarga has dvipa 'island', but the Chinese version has 'lamp', showing that it is based upon a Sanskrit version which had dipa 'lamp--(quoted from Norman 2006: 131).

(31.) Another of the anonymous readers suggests that this may be a corruption of Shiheluo, and that rila is also a plausible candidate. The reading is not given in the TaishO edition, which is a recension based on the Korean edition collated with the Song, Yuan, and Ming .editions. The Jin edition and Qisha edition, which are the earliest editions available to me, also read.

(32.) T IV194b:

(33.) S. Dietz, etc. See Tripiithi (1995: 28).

(34.) See Okubo (1982: 2-7) and Tripathi (1995: 48-55). Cf. also Waldschmidt (1980: 173f.).

(35.) It is generally agreed that the Buddhist Order was first split into two sects: the Sthavira (Sthaviravada) and the Mahasamghika. See, e.g., Dip V 16-47 (pp. 35-37) of the Theravada tradition; Bu zhiyi lun115-03.4311 (T 2033 XLIX 20a-21b) of the Sarvastivada tradition; Shelifu wen jing (T 1465 XXIV 900b-c) of the Mahasamghika tradition.

(36.) The MSV is also extant in Tibetan translation.

(37.) See Frauwallner (1956: 25), Willemen et al. (1998: 85). and Enomoto (2000: 242).

(38.) According to Schopen (2008: 626): "there is now a general consensus that the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya was very likely to have been redacted in the early centuries of the Common Era."

(39.) See FDC 1552.

(40.) See Willemen 2008: 54, Yinshun 1985: 132.

(41.) Xuanzang's Dawns xiyu ji (T 2087 LI 884c) says:.

(42.) The Sanskrit title of the Chengshi lun (T 1646) has usually been conjectured to be Tattvasiddhi or Satyasiddhi[sastra]. Willemen (2006) demonstrates that the correct form of its title could be Jnanakaya-prodbhutopadesa.

(43.) T LV 78c-79a:

(44.) For details, see Kuan 2012: 179 n. 3, 180 n. 4.

(45.) For a survey of Mahasamghika literature, see Oberlies 2003: 71-77.

(46.) For its Vinaya nature, see Tournier 2012.

(47.) Kv II.10, p. 221: Buddhassa bhagavato voharo lokuttaro.

(48.) Kv-a 52: Andhaka nama Pubbaseliya Aparaseliya Rajagiriya Siddhatthika.

(49.) See Skilling 2010: 3.

(50.) T XLIX 201:

(51.) T xxvin 293b:

(52.) Mvu I 167-69: yat tat sugataaram bhavate bhavasya bandhanaksayakaranam / lokottaram tad api iryapatham dadayanti catvarah purttyottamah / no ca parisramas tesam jayate subhakarminam // ... vatani ... vikopenti na dehakam atapas: ca na badhati ... na caisam badhate ksudha.

(53.) T II 657b:

(54.) Mvu I 168-69: lokanuvartanam buddha anuvartanti laukikim I prajnaptim anuvartanti yatha Iokottaram api // ... ausadham pratisevanti vyadhi caisam na vitlyate ... esa lokanuvartana // jaram ca upaddesenti na caisam vidyate jar(' ea lokanuvartana /-

(55.) T 11 639c:

(56.) For the Theravada, see DN II 103: Tathagatassa kho pana Ananda eartaro iddhipada bhavira ... susainaraddhei. So akankhamano Ananda tathagato Icapparp va tittheyya kappavasesarp t'a. For the Dharmaguptalca, see the Dirgha Agama at T I 15b:

(57.) Kv XI.5 (p. 456) begins with the thesis being refuted: iddhibalena samannagato kapparp tigheyya ti, and (p. 457) refers to the passage at DN II 103 mentioned in the previous footnote as a canonical source cited by the opponents to support their thesis. The commentary identifies the opponents as the Mahasiurtghikas (Kv-a 131: Tattha iddhipadabhavananisamsassa attham ayoniso gahetva iddhibatena .samannagato kapparp tittheyya ti yesam laddhi. seyyathapi Mahasanghikanam).

(58.) T XXII 481a:

(59.) T II 699c-670b:

(60.) SN I 174-75: Bhagava vatehi abadhiko hofi Bhagava ayasmantam Upaveinam amantesi: ingha me tvam Upavana uohodakam janahi ti. ... yena Devahitassa brahmanassa nivesanam ten' upasankami. ... atha kho Deva-hito brahmano unhodakassa kajam purisena gahapetva phanitassa ca putam ayasmato Upavanassa padasi ... Bhagavantam unhodakena nahopetva ... Bhagavato so abadho patippassambhi ... Devahito brahmatio yena Bhagava ten' upasankami ... kattha dajja deyyadhammam kattha dintram mahapphalam, katham hi yajamemassa kattham ijjhati dakkhitta ti. pubbenivasam yo tie& sagglipayati ea passati, atho jatikkhayam patto abhiflnavosito muni....

(61.) In SA the Buddha suffers from back pain and asks Upaviina to visit a certain Brahmin called Devahita without asking for hot water, but the Brahmin provides hot water. In SA2 the Buddha does not ask anyone to do anything, but Upavana volunteers to visit the Brahmin and begs for hot medical water.

(62.) T II 622c:

(63.) Mvu 1 51: paryca ca buddhakaryani avasyam kartavyani // katamani paryca // dharmacakram pravartayitavyam, mata vinetavya, pita vinetaryo, bcatddhavaineyaka satva vinetavyta, yuvaraja abhisimcitavyo // eso mamatyayena buddho loke bhavitsyati.

(64.) T XXIV 329o-330a

(65.) See Hiraoka 1998.

(66.) T XLIX 20c

(67.) T II 645b10:

(68.) T 645b:

(69.) As Analayo (2010: 38f.) notes, the following canonical discourse of the Theravada seems to regard the Bodhisattva Gautama as superior to anyone else right at his birth. According to MN 123 (III 123), as soon as this Bodhisattva was born, he took seven steps and then proclaimed: "I am supreme in the world." Analayo (2010: 41) indicates that the Chinese version. MA 32 (T I 470b), records only the seven steps without any proclamation made at all. He continues: "Nakamura (1980/1999: 18) is probably right when he concludes that the verse claimed to have been proclaimed by the Buddha at his birth wascomposed very late.--Furthermore, even the TheravAda commentary on this discourse explains each aspect of the event at his birth, including the proclamation, as a foretoken of the Buddha's later attainments (Nrinamoli and Bodhi 2001: 1336 n. 1165). Therefore, the canonical passage is not taken literally to mean that the Bodhisattva was, at his birth, already superior to anyone else.

(70.) Kv 286: Bodhisatto Kassapassa Bhagavato pavacane okkantanlyamo ...

(71.) Kv 287: Bodhisatto dakkarakarikam akasi ti? ... Bodhisatto aparantapam akasi, aflnain sattharam uddisi (BJT; PTS addisi) ti?

(72.) This matches the following in the Mahavastu (Mvu 1 1 70): "Having attained perfection in wisdom for incalculable kotis of kalpas, they yet make a show of (foolish) childhood; this is conformity with the world" (trans. Harrison 1982: 218).

(73.) Kv 287-88: 4. Ayasma Anando bhagavato pavacane okkantaniyamo caritabrahmacariyo, ayasma Arland() bhagavato savako ti?


Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato pavacane okkantaniyarno caritabrahmacariyo, Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato savako ti? Na h'evarp vattabbe--pe--

Citto gahapati, Hatthako alavako bhagavato pavacane okkantaniyamo caritabrahmacariyo, Citto gahapati Hatthako alavako bhagavato savako ti?


Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato pavacane oklccuztaniyamo caritabrahmacariyo, Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato servako Na h'evam vattabbe--pe-

5. Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato pavacane okkantaniyamo caritabrahmacariyo, na ca Kassapassa bhaga- vato setvako ri.

(74.) Kv 288: Nanu vuttam bhagavata--"Kassape aham Ananda bhagavati brahmacariyam acarim ayatim sambodhaya" ti. Atth'eva suttanto ti.

(75.) See Harvey (2007: 601) and Kloppenborg (1983: 1). Different meanings can be attached to this term and its other Indic counterparts based on several possible etymologies. See Norman (1999: 237-48) and von Hinuber (2001: 193).

(76.) See Analayo 2011: 655 n. 83.

(77.) T 11723a--b:

(78.) Mvu 1 357: dveidadehi varsehi bodhisatro tusitabhavanato cyavipwii // duddhavasa devil. jambudvipe pratyekabuddhanam arocayanti bodhisatvo cyavisyati rimeatha buddhak.setram // ... re dani pratyekabuddha ... parininviib // ... tatra pamca pratyekabuddhadatani prativasensu // te pi ... parinirvrta // ... vaihayasam ahhyudgamya tejodhatutp samapadyitva anupadaya parinirvrta//

(79.) Gnoli 1977: 92: evam yavad dadaputra fatal?: sarvaid ea pravrajya pratyekii bodhii saksatkrta: tesam matet vrddha; sa tehhyab dapakani civarany anuprayacchati; tair abhihita: "... kin tu rajliab duddhodanasya dakyamunir nama putralt kumaro 'nuttaram samyaksambodhim abhisambhotgate ."ity uktvei jvalana-tapana-vargina-vidyotana-pratiltaryani krtvii nirupadhide,ve.nirvanadhatau parinirvrtab.

(80.) Vaidya 1958: 13: tatha anye 'pi deiapztril fambudripam agatya pralyekabuddhebhya arocavanti marsa buddhaksetram I ito dvadadavatsare bodhisauvo ma* kuksim avakramisyati tena khalu puma bhilqavab samayena rajagrhe mahanagare golarigulaparivartane parvate matango naina pratyekabuddho viharati sma I so tarp dabdam .rutva kardama iva dilayarp prasthaya vihayasa saptatalamatram atyudgamya ea tejodhatuip samapadyolkeva parinirvano 'yam I ... [p. 141 tem khalu punar bliikvava,i samayena varanasyam rcipatane mrgadave pafica pratyekabuddhadatani viharanti sma I te 'pi tam .sabdam drutva vihayasa saptatalamatram atyud-gamya tejodhatum samapadyolkeva parinirvanti sma I

(81.) The second year of Yongjia iica, according to the Chu sanzang ji ji .(T LV 48b).

(82.) Till 541c:

(83.) The The first year of Chuigong according to the catalog (T 2153 LV 379c).

(84.) See Digital Dictionary of Buddhism.

(85.) Edgerton (1953: 10) describes the Mahavastu as "probably the oldest" of all Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit works.

(86.) T XXXI 98a:

(87.) AN 11 131: Mavaranza bhikkhave paja alayarard idayasammuditd, Kahagatena analaye dhamme desiyameme sussfisati ... Tathagatassa ... patubhavd ayam pathamo acchari.vo abbhuto .dhammo pambhavad.

(88.) While the word ii/ova appears only once in EA 25.3 it occurs three times in AN 4.128 and four times in the sutra cited by the Mahayana-samgraha.

(89.) T 11 631b:

(90.) T11718b--c:

(91.) See SN 12.65(11 104-7) in Pali; Sanskrit fragments/versions in Levi (1910: 438-40), translated into English by Cooper 1980: 55-58), Tripathi (1962: 94-106), Fukita (1982: 32-40), and Bongard-Levin et al. (1996: 38-89); four versions in Chinese translation, viz., SA 287 (T 11 80b-81a), T 713, T 714, and T 715. These references are found in Online Surto Correspondence Project ( Fukita (1988) is referred to in this source but is not included in my inquiry because it deals with the appendix (protective charm) rather than the canonical text.

(92.) Shizutani refers to an earlier edition of Hirakawa (1989) without specifying the date.

(93.) Legittimo (2008: 263) counts thirty-five occurrences of Maitreya.

(94.) By searching CBETA.

(95.) For the Dirgha Agama's school affiliation, see below.

(96.) T II 596c:

(97.) T ff 686a: is a literal translation of samgha, which is elsewhere transcribed .as seng.

(98.) Buddhapamukho bhikkhusamgho, e.g., Vin I 233.


(100.) catur-dis'a-samgha, SjD 465.

(101.) T I 14b:Zhao ti seng is transcribed from an Indic word equivalent to clitur-dida-samgha in Sanskrit.

(102.) See Li) (1963: 242), Kumoi (1963: 248), Ui (1965: 135), Waldschmidt (1980: 136), Akanuma (1981: 34f.), Mayeda (1985: 97). and Salonion (1999: 173f.).

S103.) T II 787b:

10.4. T xxlt 1022c:

(105.) AN 8.20 (TV 204-208), Udana 51-56, Vin H 236-240, MA 37 (T 26 I 478b-479c), T 33, T 34, T 35, Sarvilstivada Vinaya (T 1435 XXIII 239b-240a), Mahigasaka Vinaya (T 1421 XXII 180c-181b). The above references are found in Mizuno (1996: 442) and Online Sutta Correspondence Project (

(106.) FDC 5748.

(107.) Vinaya-pitaka of Four Parts

(108.) TI 1 a ; T LV 20c:

COPYRIGHT 2013 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Oct 1, 2013
Previous Article:"Blessed are the cheese makers" Reflections on the Transmission of Knowledge in Islam.
Next Article:Three places of mind-transmission: the polemical application of mind-transmission stories in korean son buddhism.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters