The PrajñaptivÃÂda (Sanskrit; ) was a branch of the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika, one of the early Buddhist schools in India. The PrajñaptivÃÂdins were also known as the Bahuà Ârutëya-VibhajyavÃÂdins.
According to Vasumitra, the PrajñaptivÃÂda school is said to have developed as one of several MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika subschools. They are recorded as having taken up residence in the Himalayas. According to TÃÂranÃÂtha, the PrajñaptivÃÂdins continued to flourish in Magadha through the Pala Empire as late as the 10th century. A. K. Warder writes that the PrajñaptivÃÂdins were not known to have left Buddhism's original territory (modern Northeast India, Bengal and Nepal).
The SamayabhedhoparacanaÃÂakra records that the doctrines of the PrajñaptivÃÂda school were similar to those of the main MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika school.
According to André Bareau, the name PrajñaptivÃÂda refers to their doctrine that phenomena are the product of conceptualisation (Skt. prajñapti). The PrajñaptivÃÂdins distinguished between conventional truth (Skt. saá¹Âvá¹Âti) and ultimate truth (Skt. paramÃÂrtha), and between reality (Skt. tattva) and mere concepts (Skt. prajñapti).
Vasumitra writes that the PrajñaptivÃÂdins viewed all conditioned phenomena as being mere concepts or notions (Skt. prajñapti), and therefore they were considered to be suffering. Contrary to the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins, the PrajñaptivÃÂdins did not view the skandhas or the five elements as suffering. Instead these were viewed as existing merely as nominal entities without any ultimate existence.
The PrajñaptivÃÂdins believed that the Noble Path is eternal and immutable, and that it is not possible for it to be lost or destroyed. They also held that the path was not something that could be cultivated through contemplation. However, they believed that the path could be attained through all-knowledge (Skt. sarvajñÃÂna) and the accumulation of merit. Whether one meets an untimely death or attains the Noble Path, the PrajñaptivÃÂdins viewed all such outcomes as being the result of merit and karma.
The PrajñaptivÃÂdins held that the Buddha's teachings in the various Piá¹Âakas were nominal (Skt. prajñapti), conventional (Skt. '), and causal (Skt. hetuphala). Therefore, all teachings were viewed by the PrajñaptivÃÂdins as being of provisional importance, since they cannot contain the ultimate truth. It has been observed that this view of the Buddha's teachings is very close to the fully developed position of the MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras.
André Bareau considers the origin of the MahÃÂyÃÂna tradition to be in the early MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika schools, and 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.
The PrajñaptivÃÂdins were early articulators of the two truths doctrine that is so important to the MahÃÂyÃÂna, where it is usually found in the relationship between skillful means (Skt. upÃÂya) and wisdom (Skt. prajñÃÂ). Ian Charles Harris has noted that the doctrines of the PrajñaptivÃÂda school are indeed similar to the early MahÃÂyÃÂna view of the two truths.
There is also evidence that the PrajñaptivÃÂdins were an influence on NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, who is also among the storied promulgators of the two truths doctrine (using some of the same technical terms), and who in his Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikàonly cites one text by name, that being the KÃÂtyÃÂyana Gotra Sà «tra, of which the PrajñaptivÃÂdins were known to be fond.