The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika (Brahmi: ð«ð³ð¸ð²ð¸ðÂÂÂðÂÂÂðºðÂÂÂ, "of the Great Sangha", ) was a major division (NikÃÂya) of the early Buddhist schools in India. They were one of the two original communities that emerged from the first schism of the original pre-sectarian Buddhist tradition (the other being the Sthavira NikÃÂya). This schism is traditionally held to have occurred after the Second Buddhist council, which occurred at some point during or after the reign of Ashoka Maurya. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika NikÃÂya developed into numerous sects which spread throughout ancient India.
Some scholars think that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya (monastic rule) represents the oldest Buddhist monastic source, although some other scholars think that it is not the case. While the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika tradition is no longer in existence, many scholars look to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika tradition as an early source for some ideas that were later adopted by MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism. Some of these ideas include the view that the Buddha was a fully transcendent being (term "lokottaravÃÂda", "transcendentalism"), the idea that there are many contemporaneous buddhas and bodhisattvas throughout the universe, the doctrine of the inherent purity and luminosity of the mind (Skt: praká¹Âtià  ÃÂittasya prabhÃÂsvarÃÂ), the doctrine of reflexive awareness (svasaá¹Âvedana) and the doctrine of prajñapti-matra (absolute nominalism or pure conceptualism).
Most sources place the origin of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas to the Second Buddhist Council. Traditions regarding the Second Council are confusing and ambiguous, but it is agreed that the overall result was the first schism in the Sangha between the Sthavira NikÃÂya and the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika NikÃÂya, although it is not agreed upon by all what the cause of this split was.
According to Jan Nattier and Charles S. Prebish, the best date for the first schism and the creation of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika as a separate community is 116 years after the Buddha's nirvÃÂá¹Âa.
Some Buddhist historical sources mention that the cause for schism was a dispute over Vinaya (monastic rule), mainly the desire of certain Sthaviras (elders) to add extra rules to make the Vinaya more rigorous. Other sources, especially Sthavira sources like those of the SarvastivÃÂda school, argue that the main cause was a doctrinal issue. They blame a figure named Mahadeva with arguing for five divisive points, four of which see arhatship as a lesser kind of spiritual attainment (which still has ignorance and desire).
Andrew Skilton has suggested that the problems of contradictory accounts about the first schism are solved by the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika à ÂÃÂriputraparipá¹ÂcchÃÂ, which is the earliest surviving account of the schism. In this account, the council was convened at PÃÂá¹Âaliputra over matters of Vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (MahÃÂsaá¹Âgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by a smaller group of elders (Sthaviras). The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya and to make it more strict. However, this text is not fully accepted by some Buddhist schools, such as the TheravÃÂda, which instead claim that it was the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika who altered the original rules.
Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of Vinaya, and have noted that the account of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas is bolstered by the Vinaya texts themselves, as Vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya.
Some scholars therefore agree that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya is the oldest, although some other scholars think that it is not the case. According to Skilton, future historians may determine that a study of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the TheravÃÂda school. According to Bhante Sujato, there is no strong evidence that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya is the oldest; both the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika and TheravÃÂda Vinayas developed in parallel from shared ancient sources, each containing both older and later elements. Declaring one as definitively âÂÂthe earliestâ is an oversimplification not supported by the academic evidence.
Regarding the issue with Mahadeva's doctrine, this seems to have been a later doctrinal dispute within the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika community (which happened after the schism). The followers of Mahadeva seem to have been the precursors of the southern MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika sects, like the Caitikas.
The original center of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika sects was Magadha, but they also maintained important centers such as in Mathura and Karli. The Kukkuá¹Âikas were situated in Eastern India around VÃÂrÃÂá¹Âasë and PÃÂá¹Âaliputra and the Bahuà Ârutëya in Koà Âala, Andhra, and GandhÃÂra.
The LokottaravÃÂda subschool itself claimed to be of the 'Middle Country', i.e. Ganges Basin region in the north of India. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas and the LokottaravÃÂda subschool also had centres in the GandhÃÂra region. The EkavyÃÂvahÃÂrika are not known from later times.
The Caitika branch was based in the Coastal Andhra region and especially at AmarÃÂvati and NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸ÂÃÂ. This Caitika branch included the Pà «rvaà Âailas, Aparaà Âailas, RÃÂjagirikas, and the SiddhÃÂrthikas.
Finally, Madhyadeà Âa was home to the PrajñaptivÃÂdins. The ancient Buddhist sites in the lower Ká¹Âá¹£á¹Âa Valley, including AmarÃÂvati, NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âàand Jaggayyapeá¹Âa, "can be traced to at least the third century BCE, if not earlier."
The cave temples at the Ajaá¹Âá¹ÂàCaves, the Ellora Caves, and the Karla Caves are associated with the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas.
Between 148 and 170 CE, the Parthian monk An Shigao came to China and translated a work which describes the color of monastic robes (Skt. kÃÂá¹£ÃÂya) utilised in five major Indian Buddhist sects, called Da Biqiu Sanqian Weiyi (Ch. 大æ¯Âä¸Âä¸ÂÃ¥ÂÂå¨ÂÃ¥ÂÂ). Another text translated at a later date, the à ÂÃÂriputraparipá¹ÂcchÃÂ, contains a very similar passage corroborating this information. In both sources, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas are described as wearing yellow robes. The relevant portion of the à ÂÃÂriputraparipá¹Âcchàreads:
The lower part of the yellow robe was pulled tightly to the left.
According to Dudjom Rinpoche from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the robes of fully ordained MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika monastics were to be sewn out of more than seven sections, but no more than twenty-three sections. The symbols sewn on the robes were the endless knot (Skt. à Ârëvatsa) and the conch shell (Skt. à Âaá¹ kha), two of the Eight Auspicious Signs in Buddhism.
The Tibetan historian Buton Rinchen Drub (1290âÂÂ1364) wrote that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas used PrÃÂkrit, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins Sanskrit, the SthaviravÃÂdins used Paià ÂÃÂcë and the Saá¹Âmitëya Apabhraá¹Âà Âa.
An important source for the doctrines of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika is the SamayabhedoparacanaÃÂakra (The Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines, Ch: ç°é¨å®Â輪è«Â) of Vasumitra (SarvÃÂstivÃÂda scholar, c. 2nd century CE), which was translated by Xuanzang.
According to this source, some of the key doctrines defended by Indian MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas include:
The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of the Buddha and bodhisattvas, and the fallibility of arhats. Xing also notes that the AcchariyÃÂbbhà «tasutta of the Majjhima NikÃÂya along with its Chinese MadhyamÃÂgama parallel version is the most prominent evidence for the ancient source of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika view of the Buddha. The Sà «tra mentions various miracles performed by the Buddha before his birth and after. While the PÃÂli Sutta uses the term bodhisattva for the Buddha before his birth, the Chinese version calls him BhagavÃÂn. This points to the idea that the Buddha was already awakened before descending down to earth.
Similarly, the idea that the lifespan of a Buddha is limitless is also based on very ancient ideas. The MahÃÂparinirvÃÂna Sà «tra states that the Buddha's lifespan is as long as an eon (kalpa) and that he voluntarily chose to give up his life. Another early source for the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika view that a Buddha was a transcendent being is the idea of the thirty-two major marks of a Buddha's body. Furthermore, the Simpsapa Sutta states that the Buddha had way more knowledge than what he taught to his disciples. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas took this further and argued that the Buddha knew the dharmas of innumerable other buddhas of the ten directions.
Of the 48 special theses attributed by the SamayabhedoparacanaÃÂakra to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas (EkavyÃÂvahÃÂrika, LokottaravÃÂda, and Kukkuá¹Âika), twenty concern the supramundane nature of Buddha and bodhisattvas. According to the SamayabhedoparacanaÃÂakra, these four groups held that the Buddha is able to know all dharmas in a single moment of the mind. Yao Zhihua writes:A doctrine ascribed to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas is, "The power of the TathÃÂgatas is unlimited, and the life of the Buddhas is unlimited." According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through his skillful means (Skt. upÃÂya). For the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas, the historical Gautama Buddha was merely one of these transformation bodies (Skt. nirmÃÂá¹ÂakÃÂya), while the essential real Buddha was equated with the DharmakÃÂya.
The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika LokÃÂnuvartanàSà «tra makes numerous supramundane claims about the Buddha, including that:
Like the MahÃÂyÃÂna traditions, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas held the doctrine of the existence of many contemporaneous buddhas throughout the ten directions. In the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika LokÃÂnuvartana Sà «tra, it is stated, "The Buddha knows all the dharmas of the countless buddhas of the ten directions." It is also stated, "All buddhas have one body, the body of the Dharma."
In the view of MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas, advanced bodhisattvas have severed the bonds of karma, and are born out of their own free will into lower states of existence (Skt. durgati) in order to help liberate other sentient beings. As described by Akira Hirakawa:The concept of many bodhisattvas simultaneously working toward buddhahood is also found among the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika tradition, and further evidence of this is given in the SamayabhedoparacanaÃÂakra, which describes the doctrines of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas. These two concepts of contemporaneous bodhisattvas and contemporaneous buddhas were linked in some traditions, and texts such as the MahÃÂprajñÃÂpÃÂramitÃÂupadeà Âa use the principle of contemporaneous bodhisattvas to demonstrate the necessity of contemporaneous buddhas throughout the ten directions. It is thought that the doctrine of contemporaneous buddhas was already old and well established by the time of early MahÃÂyÃÂna texts such as the Aá¹£á¹ÂasÃÂhasrikàPrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàSà «tra, due to the clear presumptions of this doctrine.
The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas held that the teachings of the Buddha were to be understood as having two principal levels of truth: a relative or conventional (Skt. saá¹Âvá¹Âti) truth, and the absolute or ultimate (Skt. paramÃÂrtha) truth. For the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika branch of Buddhism, the final and ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words," and words were merely the conventional exposition of the Dharma. K. Venkata Ramanan writes:
Some MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas held a theory of self-awareness or self-cognition (svasaá¹Âvedana) which held that a moment of consciousness (ÃÂitta) can be aware of itself as well as its intentional object. This doctrine arose out of their understanding of the Buddha's enlightenment which held that in a single moment of mind the Buddha knew all things.
The MahÃÂvibhÃÂá¹£a à ÂÃÂstra explains the doctrine of self-reflexive awareness as follows:<blockquote>Some allege that the mind (ÃÂitta) and mental activities (ÃÂaitta) can apprehend themselves (svabhÃÂva). Schools like MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika hold the following view: It is the nature of awareness (jñÃÂna) and so forth to apprehend, thus awareness can apprehend itself as well as others. This is like a lamp that can illuminate itself and others owing to its nature (svabhÃÂva) of luminosity.</blockquote>Some MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas also held that the mind's nature (ÃÂittasvabhÃÂva) is fundamentally pure (mà «lavià Âuddha), but it can be contaminated by adventitious defilements. Vasumitra's NikayabhedadharmamatiÃÂakra-à ÂÃÂstra also discusses this theory, and cites the Sà «tra passage which the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas drew on to defend it. The passage is quoted by Vasumitra as:<blockquote>The self-nature of the mind (ÃÂittasvabhÃÂva) is luminous (prabhÃÂsvara). It is the adventitious impurities (ÃÂgantukopakleà Âa) that defile it. The self substance of the mind is eternally pure.</blockquote>The commentary to Vasumitra by Kuiji adds the following: "It is because afflictions (kleà Âa) are produced which soil it that it is said to be defiled. But these defilements, not being of the original nature of the mind, are called adventitious." The KathÃÂvatthu (III, 3) also cites this idea as a thesis of the Andhakas.
According to Vasumitra, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas held that there were nine dharmas (phenomena, realities) which were unconditioned or unconstructed (asaá¹Âská¹Âta):
According to Bart Dessein, the Mohe sengzhi lu (MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya) provides some insight into the format of this school's textual canon. They appear to have had a Vinaya in five parts, an Abhidharma Piá¹Âaka, and a Sà «tra Piá¹Âaka:<blockquote>Of these texts, their Vinaya was translated into Chinese by Buddhabhadra and Faxian between 416 and 418 CE in the Daochang Monastery in Nanjing, capital of the Eastern Jin Dynasty. In this text, their Abhidharma is defined as "the sà «trÃÂnta in nine parts" (navÃÂá¹ ga). This suggests that the early MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas rejected the abhidharmic developments that occurred within SarvÃÂstivÃÂda circles. As is the case with their Vinayapiá¹Âaka, also their Sà «trapiá¹Âaka seems to have consisted of five parts (ÃÂgama): *DërghÃÂgama, *MadhyamÃÂgama, *Saá¹ÂyuktÃÂgama, *EkottarÃÂgama and *Ká¹£udrakÃÂgama.</blockquote>Dessein also mentions that the school probably also had a Bodhisattva Piá¹Âaka, which included material that "in all likelihood consisted of texts that formed part of the early development of the bodhisattva path as an alternative career to that of the arhant, perhaps serving as a foundation for the later developments of the bodhisattva doctrine".
According to Zhihua Yao, the following MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya texts are extant in Chinese: MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Bhiká¹£uni Vinaya, PrÃÂtimoká¹£a Sà «tra, Sphutartha Srighanacarasamgrahatika, Abhisamacarikadharma and the MahÃÂvastu.
Zhan Ru also notes that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya (Chinese: Mohe Sengqi Lü) translated by Faxian (337âÂÂ422 CE) contains proto-MahÃÂyÃÂna elements and "reflects the nascent formation of the MahÃÂyÃÂna Dharma teachings."
The MahÃÂvastu (Sanskrit for "Great Event" or "Great Story") is the most well known of the LokottaravÃÂda branch of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school. It is a preface to their Vinaya Piá¹Âaka and contains numerous JÃÂtaka and AvadÃÂna tales, stories of past lives of the Buddha and other bodhisattvas. It is considered a primary source for the notion of a transcendent (lokottara) Buddha, who across his countless past lives developed various abilities such as omniscience (sarvajñana), the lack of any need for sleep or food and being born painlessly without the need for intercourse. The text shows strong parallels with the Pali Mahakhandhaka.
The à Âariputraparipá¹Âcchà(Shelifu Wen Jing, èÂÂå©å¼ÂÃ¥ÂÂç¶Â, Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka No. 1465, p. 900b), translated into Chinese between 317 and 420, is a Mahasamghika Vinaya work which also provides a history of early Buddhism and its schisms.
Some scholars such as Yao and Tse Fu Kuan consider the Ekottara ÃÂgama (Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka No. 125) to belong to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school, though this is still up for debate.
The LokÃÂnuvartanàSà «tra (Chinese: ä½Â説å èÂÂç¾寶ç¶Â, pinyin: Fóshuà  Nèi Zàng BÃÂi BÃÂo Jëng, Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka No. 807) is a text preserved in some Sanskrit fragments as well as in Tibetan and Chinese translation.
Furthermore, another Sà «tra in the Chinese canon which has similar MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika themes to the LokÃÂnuvartanàis the Pusaxingwushiyuanshengjing (Sà «tra Spoken by the Buddha on (the Characteristic Marks of) His Appearance as (the Result of) Fifty Causes of the Practice of Bodhisattva).
According to some sources, Abhidharma was not accepted as canonical by the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school. The TheravÃÂdin Dëpavaá¹Âsa, for example, records that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas had no Abhidharma.
However, other sources indicate that there were such collections of Abhidharma. During the early 5th century, the Chinese pilgrim Faxian is said to have found a MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Abhidharma at a monastery in PÃÂá¹Âaliputra. Furthermore, when Xuanzang visited DhÃÂnyakaá¹Âaka, he met two MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika bhiká¹£us and studied MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Abhidharma with them for several months. On the basis of textual evidence as well as inscriptions at NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸ÂÃÂ, Joseph Walser concludes that at least some MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika sects probably had an Abhidharma collection, and that it likely contained five or six books.
The Tattvasiddhi-à ÂÃÂstra ("The Treatise that Accomplishes Reality"; Ch: æÂÂ實è«Â, Chengshilun), is an Abhidharma work by a figure known as Harivarman (250âÂÂ350). Some scholars including A. K. Warder, attribute the work to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika-Bahusrutiyas, however others disagree and see it as a Sautrantika work. Chinese sources mention that he was initially a Sautrantika teacher who later lived with the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas.
The Chinese canon also includes a sà «tra commentary called the FÃÂn bié gà Âng dé lùn (Ã¥ÂÂå¥åÂÂå¾³è«Â) in the Volume 25th of the Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka (No. 1507, pp. 30âÂÂ52).
The Chinese Buddhist monk Xuanzang visited a MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika-LokottaravÃÂda monastery in the 7th century at Bamyan, Afghanistan, and this monastery site has since been rediscovered by archaeologists. Birch bark manuscripts and palm-leaf manuscripts of texts in this monastery's collection, including MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras, have been discovered at the site, and these are now located in the Schøyen Collection. Some manuscripts are in the GÃÂndhÃÂrë language and Kharoá¹£á¹Âhë script, while others are in Sanskrit and written in forms of the Gupta script.
Manuscripts and fragments that have survived from this monastery's collection include the following source texts:
Within the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika branch, the Bahuà Ârutëyas are said to have included a Bodhisattva Piá¹Âaka in their canon, and ParamÃÂrtha wrote that the Bahuà Ârutëyas accepted both the HënayÃÂna and MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings. In the 6th century, BhÃÂvaviveka speaks of the SiddhÃÂrthikas using a VidyÃÂdhÃÂra Piá¹Âaka, and the Pà «rvaà Âailas and Aparaà Âailas both using a Bodhisattva Piá¹Âaka, all implying collections of MahÃÂyÃÂna texts within the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika 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 Daà Âabhà «mika Sà «tra.
In the 6th century CE, ParamÃÂrtha, a Buddhist monk from Ujjain in Central India, wrote about a special affiliation of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school with the MahÃÂyÃÂna tradition. He associates the initial composition and acceptance of MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras with the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika branch of Buddhism. He states that 200 years after the parinirvÃÂá¹Âa of the Buddha, much of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school moved north of RÃÂjagá¹Âha, and were divided over whether the MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings should be incorporated formally into their Tripiá¹Âaka. According to this account, they split into three groups based upon the relative manner and degree to which they accepted the authority of these MahÃÂyÃÂna texts.
ParamÃÂrtha states that the Kukkuá¹Âika sect did not accept the MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras as buddhavacana ("word of the Buddha"), while the LokottaravÃÂda sect and the EkavyÃÂvahÃÂrika sect did accept the MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras as buddhavacana. Paramartha's report states:<blockquote>In this school, there were some who believed these sutras and some who did not. Those who did not believe them ... said that such sutras are made by man and are not proclaimed by the Buddha, ... that the disciples of the Lesser Vehicle only believe in the Tripitaka, because they did not personally hear the Buddha proclaim the Greater Vehicle. Among those who believed these sutras, there were some who did so because they had personally heard the Buddha proclaim the Greater Vehicle and therefore believed these sutras; others believed them, because it can be known through logical analysis that there is this principle [of the Greater Vehicle]; and some believed them because they believed their masters. Those who did not believe [them] did so because these sutras were self-made and because they were not included in the five Agamas.</blockquote>ParamÃÂrtha also wrote about the origins of the Bahuà Ârutëya sect in connection with acceptance of MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings. According to his account, the founder of the Bahuà Ârutëya sect was named YÃÂjñavalkya. In ParamÃÂrtha's account, YÃÂjñavalkya is said to have lived during the time of the Buddha, and to have heard his discourses, but was in a profound state of samÃÂdhi during the time of the Buddha's parinirvÃÂá¹Âa. After YÃÂjñavalkya emerged from this samÃÂdhi 200 years later, he discovered that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas were teaching only the superficial meaning of the sà «tras, and therefore founded the Bahuà Ârutëya sect in order to expound the full meaning.
According to ParamÃÂrtha, the Bahuà Ârutëya school was formed in order to fully embrace both "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth". Bart Dessein links the Bahuà Ârutëya understanding of this full exposition to the MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings. In his writings, ParamÃÂrtha also indicated as much:
Some early MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras reference wealthy female donors and provide evidence that they were developed in the ÃÂndhra region, where the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Caitika groups 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 Aá¹£á¹ÂasÃÂhasrikàPrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàSà «tra 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 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 Andhra êká¹£vÃÂku dynasty in the 3rd century 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. 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.
According to Stephen Hodge, internal textual evidence in the Aá¹ gulimÃÂlëya Sà «tra, MahÃÂbherihÃÂraka Parivarta Sà «tra, and the MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra, indicates that these texts were first circulated in South India and then gradually propagated up to the northwest, with Kashmir being the other major center. The Aá¹ gulimÃÂlëya Sà «tra gives a more detailed account by mentioning the points of distribution as including South India, the Vindhya Range, Bharuch, and Kashmir.
The language used in the MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra and related texts, seems to indicate a region in Southern India during the time of the à ÂÃÂtavÃÂhana dynasty. The à ÂÃÂtavÃÂhana rulers gave rich patronage to Buddhism, and were involved with the development of the cave temples at Karla and Ajaá¹Âá¹ÂÃÂ, and also with the Great Stà «pa at AmarÃÂvati. During this time, the à ÂÃÂtavÃÂhana dynasty also maintained extensive links with the Kuá¹£ÃÂá¹Âa Empire.
Using textual evidence in the MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra and related texts, Stephen Hodge estimates a compilation period between 100 CE and 220 CE for the MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra. Hodge summarises his findings as follows:In the 6th century CE, ParamÃÂrtha wrote that the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas revere the sà «tras which teach the TathÃÂgatagarbha.
Since at least the Meiji period in Japan, some scholars of Buddhism have looked to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika as the originators of MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism. According to Akira Hirakawa, modern scholars often look to the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghikas as the originators of MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism.
According to A. K. Warder, it is "clearly" the case that the MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings originally came from the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika branch of Buddhism. Warder holds that "the MahÃÂyÃÂna originated in the south of India and almost certainly in the ÃÂndhra country." Anthony Barber and Sree Padma note that "historians of Buddhist thought have been aware for quite some time that such pivotally important MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhist thinkers as NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, DignÃÂga, ÃÂandrakërti, ÃÂryadeva, and BhÃÂvaviveka, among many others, formulated their theories while living in Buddhist communities in ÃÂndhra."
André Bareau has stated that there can be found MahÃÂyÃÂna ontology prefigured in the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools, and has offered an array of evidence to support this conclusion. Bareau traces the origin of the MahÃÂyÃÂna tradition to the older MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools in regions such as Odisha, Kosala, Koñkana, and so on. He then cites the Bahuà Ârutëyas and PrajñaptivÃÂdins as sub-sects of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika that may have played an important role in bridging the flow of MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings between the northern and southern MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika traditions.
André Bareau also mentions that according to Xuanzang and Yijing in the 7th century, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools had essentially disappeared, and instead these travelers found what they described as "MahÃÂyÃÂna." The region occupied by the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika was then an important center for MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism. Bareau has proposed that MahÃÂyÃÂna grew out of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools, and the members of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools also accepted the teachings of the MahÃÂyÃÂna. Additionally, the extant MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya was originally procured by Faxian in the early 5th century CE at what he describes as a "MahÃÂyÃÂna" monastery in PÃÂá¹Âaliputra.
The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya recension is essentially very similar to the other recensions, as they all are to each other. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika recension differs most from the other recensions in structure, but the rules are generally identical in meaning, if the Vibhaá¹ gas (explanations) are compared. Some features of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya recension suggest that it might be an older redaction.
The Bhiká¹£uprakirnaka and Bhiká¹£uniprakirnaka and the Bhiká¹£u Abhisamacarikadharma sections of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya are generally equivalent to the Khandhakas / Skandhakas of the Sthavira derived schools. However, their structure is simpler, and according to recent research by Clarke, the structure follows a matika (matrix) which is also found embedded in the Vinayas of several of the Sthavira schools, suggesting that it is presectarian. The sub-sections of the Prakirnaka sections are also titled Pratisamyukta rather than Skandhaka / Khandhaka. Pratisamyukta / Patisamyutta means a section or chapter in a collection organised by subject; the samyukta-principle', like the Samyutta NikÃÂya / Samyukta ÃÂgama. Scholars such as Master Yin Shun, Choong Moon Keat, and Bhikkhu Sujato have argued that the Samyutta / Samyukta represents the earliest collection among the NikÃÂyas / ÃÂgamas, and this may well imply that it is also the oldest organising principle too. (N.B. this does not necessarily say anything about the age of the contents).
There are also fewer stories in general in the Vinaya of the subsidiary school, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika-LokottaravÃÂda, and many of them give the appearance of badly connected obvious interpolations, whereas in the structure of the Sthavira recensions the stories are integrated into the whole scheme. In the formulations of some of the PrÃÂtimoká¹£a rules also, the phrasing (though generally identical in meaning to the other recensions) often appears to represent a clearer but less streamlined version, which suggests it might be older. This is particularly noticeable in the Bhiká¹£uni Vinaya, which has not been as well preserved as the Bhiká¹£u Vinaya in general in all the recensions. Yet the formulation of certain rules which seem very confused in the other recensions (e.g. Bhikkhuni Sanghadisesa 3) seems to better represent what would be expected of a root formulation which could lead to the variety of confused formulations we see (presumably later) in the other recensions. The formulation of this rule (as an example) also reflects a semi-parallel formulation to a closely related rule for Bhiká¹£us which is found in a more similar form in all the Vinayas (Pali Canon 64).
According to Reginald Ray, the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya mentions the figure of Devadatta, but in a way that is different from the Vinayas of the Sthavira branch. According to this study, the earliest Vinaya material common to all sects simply depicts Devadatta as a Buddhist saint who wishes for the monks to live a rigorous lifestyle. This has led Ray to regard the story of Devadatta as a legend produced by the Sthavira group. However, upon examining the same Vinaya materials, Bhikkhu Sujato has written that the portrayals of Devadatta are largely consistent between the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya and the other Vinayas, and that the supposed discrepancy is simply due to the minimalist literary style of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya. He also points to other parts of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya that clearly portray Devadatta as a villain, as well as similar portrayals that exist in the LokottaravÃÂdin MahÃÂvastu.
The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya is extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon as Mohesengzhi Lü (æ©訶å§ç¥Âå¾Â; Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka No. 1425). The Vinaya was originally procured by Faxian in the early 5th century at a MahÃÂyÃÂna monastery in PÃÂá¹Âaliputra. This Vinaya was then translated into Chinese as a joint effort between Faxian and Buddhabhadra in 416 CE, and the completed translation is 40 fascicles in length. According to Faxian, in Northern India, the Vinaya teachings were typically only passed down by tradition through word of mouth and memorisation. For this reason, it was difficult for him to procure manuscripts of the Vinayas that were used in India. The MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya was reputed to be the original Vinaya from the lifetime of the Buddha, and "the most correct and complete".
Although Faxian procured the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya in India and had this translated into Chinese, the tradition of Chinese Buddhism eventually settled on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya instead. At the time of Faxian, the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya was the most common Vinaya tradition in China.
In the 7th century, Yijing wrote that in Eastern China, most people followed the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, while the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika Vinaya was used in earlier times in Guanzhong (the region around Chang'an), and that the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda Vinaya was prominent in the Yangzi region and further south. In the 7th century, the existence of multiple Vinaya lineages throughout China was criticised by prominent Vinaya masters such as Yijing and Dao'an (654âÂÂ717). In the early 8th century, Dao'an gained the support of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, and an imperial edict was issued that the Saá¹Âgha in China should use only the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya for ordination.
Atià Âa was ordained in the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika lineage. However, because the Tibetan Emperor Ralpacan had decreed that only the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda order would be permitted in Tibet, he did not ordain anyone.