The Caitika () was an early Buddhist school, a sub-sect of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika. They were also known as the Caityaka sect.
The Caitikas proliferated throughout the mountains of South India, from which they derived their name. In Pali writings, members of this sect and its offshoots were generally referred to as the Andhakas, meaning "of Coastal Andhra".
The Caitikas branched off from the main MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school in the 1st or 2nd century BCE. Epigraphic evidence of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas in the Mathura region dates to the first century BCE, and the ' dates the formation of the Caitikas to 300 years after the Buddha. However, the ancient Buddhist sites in the lower Ká¹Âá¹£á¹Âa Valley, including AmarÃÂvati Stupa, NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âàand Jaggayyapeá¹Âa "can be traced to at least the third century BCE, if not earlier."
The Caitikas gave rise to the Aparaà Âailas and Uttaraà Âailas (also called Pà «rvaà Âailas). Together, they comprised an important part of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika located in South India. Two other sub-sects associated with the Caitikas include the RÃÂjagirikas and the SiddhÃÂrthikas, both of which emerged from the Andhra region around 300 CE.
The Caitikas are said to have had in their possession the Great Stupa at Sanchi. The Great Stà «pa was first commissioned by Asoka in the 3rd century BCE and became known as a Buddhist pilgrimage site. In the Ajaá¹Âá¹ÂàCaves, the only epigraphic reference to an early Buddhist sect is to that of the Caitikas, which is associated with an iconic image in Cave 10. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas were generally associated with the early veneration of anthropomorphic Buddha images.
When Xuanzang visited DhÃÂnyakaá¹Âaka, he wrote that the monks of this region were MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas, and mentions the Pà «rvaà Âailas specifically. Near DhÃÂnyakaá¹Âaka, he met two MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika bhiká¹£us and studied MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Abhidharma with them for several months, during which time they also studied various MahÃÂyÃÂna à ÂÃÂstras together under Xuanzang's direction.
The southern MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools such as the Caitikas advocated the ideal of the bodhisattva, the bodhisattvayÃÂna, over that of the arhat or à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna, and they viewed arhats as being fallible and still subject to ignorance. The main Caitika school, along with the Aparaà Âailas and Uttaraà Âailas, all emphasised the transcendent and supramundane character of the Buddha.
Xuanzang considered the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika doctrine of a mà «lavijñÃÂna ("root consciousness") to be essentially the same as the YogÃÂÃÂÃÂra doctrine of the ÃÂlÃÂyavijñÃÂna "storehouse consciousness". He also noted that the doctrine of the mà «lavijñÃÂna was contained in the ÃÂgama of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas.
A. K. Warder holds that the MahÃÂyÃÂna "almost certainly" first developed from the southern MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools of the ÃÂndhra region, among monastic communities associated with the Caitikas and their sub-sects.
Anthony Barber and Sree Padma note that "historians of Buddhist thought have been aware for quite some time that such pivotally important Mahayana Buddhist thinkers as NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, DignÃÂga, ÃÂandrakërti, ÃÂryadeva, and BhÃÂviveka, among many others, formulated their theories while living in Buddhist communities in ÃÂndhra."
Some early MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras reference wealthy female donors and provide evidence that they were developed in the ÃÂndhra region, where the Caitika were predominant. The MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂmegha Sà «tra, for example, gives a prophecy about a royal princess of the à ÂatavÃÂhana dynasty who will live in ÃÂndhra, along the Ká¹Âá¹£á¹Âa River, in DhÃÂnyakaá¹Âaka, seven hundred years after the parinirvÃÂá¹Âa of the Buddha.
Several scholars such as ÃÂtienne Lamotte, and Alex and Hideko Wayman, associate the ÃÂndhra Iká¹£vÃÂku dynasty with patronage of MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras. Epigraphic evidence at NÃÂgÃÂrjunikoá¹Âá¸Âa also provides abundant evidence of royal and wealthy female donors.
A number of scholars have proposed that the MahÃÂyÃÂna PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàteachings were first developed by the Caitika subsect of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas. They believe that the ' originated amongst the southern MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools of the ÃÂndhra region, along the Ká¹Âá¹£á¹Âa River. Guang Xing states, "Several scholars have suggested that the PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàprobably developed among the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas in Southern India, in the ÃÂndhra country, on the Ká¹Âá¹£á¹Âa River." These MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas had two famous monasteries near the AmarÃÂvati and the DhÃÂnyakaá¹Âaka, which gave their names to the schools of the Pà «rvaà Âailas and the Aparaà Âailas. Each of these schools had a copy of the Aá¹£á¹ÂasÃÂhasrikàPrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàSà «tra in Prakrit. Guang Xing also assesses the view of the Buddha given in the Aá¹£á¹ÂasÃÂhasrikàPrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàSà «tra as being that of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas. Edward Conze estimates that this Sà «tra originated around 100 BCE.
Brian Edward Brown, a specialist in TathÃÂgatagarbha doctrines, writes that it has been determined that the composition of the à ÂrëmÃÂlÃÂdevë Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda Sà «tra occurred during the ÃÂndhra Iká¹£vÃÂku dynasty in the 3rd century CE as a product of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas of the ÃÂndhra region (i.e. the Caitika schools). Alex Wayman has outlined eleven points of complete agreement between the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas and the à ÂrëmÃÂlÃÂdevë Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda Sà «tra, along with four major arguments for this association. After its composition, this text became the primary scriptural advocate in India for the universal potentiality of Buddhahood. Anthony Barber also associates the earlier development of the TathÃÂgatagarbha Sà «tra with the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas, and concludes that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas of the ÃÂndhra region were responsible for the inception of the TathÃÂgatagarbha doctrine.
In the 6th century CE, BhÃÂviveka speaks of the SiddhÃÂrthikas using a VidyÃÂdhÃÂra Piá¹Âaka, and the Aparaà Âailas and Uttaraà Âailas (Pà «rvaà Âailas) both using a Bodhisattva Piá¹Âaka, implying collections of MahÃÂyÃÂna texts within these Caitika schools. During the same period, Avalokitavrata speaks of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas using a Great ÃÂgama Piá¹Âaka, which is then associated with MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras such as the PrajñÃÂparamitàand the Ten Stages Sà «tra. Avalokitavrata also states that MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras such as the PrajñÃÂparamitàwere recited by the Aparaà Âailas and the Pà «rvaà Âailas.
According to the TheravÃÂdin text NikÃÂyasaá¹ graha, the large MahÃÂyÃÂna collection called the MahÃÂratnakà «á¹Âa Sà «tra (Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka No. 310) was composed by the "Andhakas", meaning the Caitika schools of the ÃÂndhra region. This collection includes the à ÂrëmÃÂlÃÂdevë Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda Sà «tra, the Longer SukhÃÂvatëvyà «ha Sà «tra, the Aká¹£obhyavyà «ha Sà «tra, a long text called the Bodhisattva Piá¹Âaka, and others. The MahÃÂratnakà «á¹Âa collection totals 49 MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras, divided into 120 fascicles in the Chinese translation.
In the MahÃÂvihÃÂra tradition of the TheravÃÂda school, Buddhaghoá¹£a grouped the Caitika schools in the ÃÂndhra region, such as the RÃÂjagirikas and the SiddhÃÂrthikas, as the "Andhakas". Works such as the KathÃÂvatthu show that MahÃÂvihÃÂra polemics were directed overwhelmingly at these "Andhakas" in India.
The Caitika schools rejected the post-Asokan texts that were in use by the Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya tradition such as the ParivÃÂra, the six books of Abhidharma, the Paá¹ÂisambhidÃÂmagga, the Niddesa, some JÃÂtakas, some GÃÂthÃÂs, and so on. For example, the Caitikas claimed that their own JÃÂtakas represented the original collection before the Buddhist tradition split into various lineages.
One dispute recorded in the KathÃÂvatthu between the MahÃÂvihÃÂravasins and the Andhakas was a fundamental matter concerning the interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. The Andhakas are said to have held that the Buddha's actions and speech were supramundane, but some may only perceive the conventional or mundane interpretation. For the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika branch of Buddhism, the ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words", and words were merely a conventional exposition of the Dharma. The TheravÃÂda MahÃÂvihÃÂravasins, in contrast, argued that literal interpretations of the Buddha's teachings were best.