The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka (; ) is one of the early Buddhist schools according to some records. Its origins may go back to the dispute in the Second Buddhist Council. The Dharmaguptaka sect is thought to have branched out from the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect toward the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century BCE.
There are two general accounts of the circumstances surrounding the origins of the Mahëà ÂÃÂsakas. The TheravÃÂdin Dëpavaá¹Âsa asserts that the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect gave rise to the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda sect. However, both the à ÂÃÂriputraparipá¹Âcchàand the SamayabhedoparacanaÃÂakra record that the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins were the older sect out of which the Mahëà ÂÃÂsakas emerged. Buswell and Lopez also state that the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka was an offshoot of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins, but group the school under the VibhajyavÃÂda, "a broad designation for non-SarvastivÃÂda strands of the Sthaviranikaya", which also included the KÃÂà Âyapëya.
The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect is thought to have first originated in the Avanti region of India. Their founder was a monk named PurÃÂá¹Âa, who is venerated at length in the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka Vinaya, which is preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon.
From the writings of Xuanzang, the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka are known to have been active in Kashmir in the 4th century CE. Xuanzang records that Asaá¹ ga, an important YogÃÂcÃÂra master and the elder brother of Vasubandhu, received ordination into the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect. Asaá¹ ga's frameworks for Abhidharma writings retained many underlying Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka traits. André Bareau writes:
The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka are believed to have spread from the Northwest down to Southern India including NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸ÂÃÂ, and even as far as the island of Sri Lanka. According to A. K. Warder, the Indian Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect also established itself in Sri Lanka alongside the TheravÃÂda, into which they were later absorbed.
In the 7th century CE, Yijing grouped the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka, Dharmaguptaka, and KÃÂà Âyapëya together as sub-sects of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, and stated that these three were not prevalent in the "five parts of India", but were located in the some parts of Oá¸Âá¸ÂiyÃÂna, the Kingdom of Khotan, and Kucha.
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 (). Another text translated at a later date, the à ÂÃÂriputraparipá¹ÂcchÃÂ, contains a very similar passage corroborating this information. In both sources, members of the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect are described as wearing blue robes. The relevant portion of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika à ÂÃÂriputraparipá¹Âcchàreads, "The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka school practice dhyÃÂna, and penetrate deeply. They wear blue robes."
According to the Mahëà ÂÃÂsakas, the Four Noble Truths were to be meditated upon simultaneously.
The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect held that everything exists, but only in the present. They also regarded a gift to the Saá¹Âgha as being more meritorious than one given to the Buddha. They disagreed with the Dharmaguptakas on this point, as the Dharmaguptakas believed that a giving a gift to the Buddha is more meritorious than giving one to the Saá¹Âgha.
The earlier Mahëà ÂÃÂsakas appear to have not held the doctrine of an intermediate state between death and rebirth, but later Mahëà ÂÃÂsakas accepted this doctrine.
The Indian Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect also established itself in Sri Lanka alongside the TheravÃÂda, into which these members were later absorbed. It is known that Faxian obtained a Sanskrit copy of the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka Vinaya at Abhayagiri VihÃÂra in Sri Lanka, c. 406 CE. The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka Vinaya was then translated into Chinese in 434 CE by Buddhajiva and Zhu Daosheng. This translation of the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka Vinaya remains extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon as Taishà  Tripiá¹Âaka 1421.
It is believed that the MahÃÂyÃÂna Infinite Life Sà «tra was compiled in the age of the Kushan Empire, in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, by an order of Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka bhiká¹£us that flourished in the Gandhara region. It is likely that the Longer SukhÃÂvatëvyà «ha Sà «tra owed greatly to the LokottaravÃÂda sect as well for its compilation, and in this Sà «tra there are many elements in common with the MahÃÂvastu. The earliest of these translations show traces of having been translated from the GÃÂndhÃÂrë language, a Prakrit used in the Northwest India. It is also known that manuscripts in the Kharoá¹£á¹Âhë script existed in China during this period.
The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect believed that it was not possible for women to become buddhas. In the NÃÂgadatta Sà «tra, the Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka view is criticised in a narrative about a bhiká¹£uá¹Âë named NÃÂgadatta. Here, the demon MÃÂra takes the form of her father, and tries to convince her to work toward the lower stage of an arhat, rather than that of a fully enlightened buddha ('):
In her reply, NÃÂgadatta rejects arhatship as a lower path, saying:
The Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka sect held that there were five obstacles that were laid before women. These are that they may not become a ÃÂakravartin, MÃÂra king, à Âakra king, Brahma king or a Buddha. This Mahëà ÂÃÂsaka view is ascribed to MÃÂra in the NÃÂgadatta Sà «tra of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins:
The Mahëà ÂÃÂsakas believed that women essentially could not change the nature of their minds or physical bodies, and would cause the teachings of Buddhism to decline. Of this, David Kalupahana writes: