Mahīśāsaka

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Gandhāran Mahīśāsakas are associated with the Pure Land teachings of Amitābha Buddha.

Mahīśāsaka (

Second Buddhist council. The Dharmaguptaka
sect is thought to have branched out from the Mahīśāsaka sect toward the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century BCE.

History

There are two general accounts of the circumstances surrounding the origins of the Mahīśāsakas. The

The Mahīśāsaka sect is thought to have first originated in the

Avanti region of India.[citation needed] Their founder was a monk named Purāṇa, who is venerated at length in the Mahīśāsaka vinaya, which is preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon
.

From the writings of

Yogācāra master and the elder brother of Vasubandhu, received ordination into the Mahīśāsaka sect. Asaṅga's frameworks for abhidharma writings retained many underlying Mahīśāsaka traits.[4] André Bareau
writes:

[It is] sufficiently obvious that Asaṅga had been a Mahīśāsaka when he was a young monk, and that he incorporated a large part of the doctrinal opinions proper to this school within his own work after he became a great master of the Mahāyāna, when he made up what can be considered as a new and Mahāyānist Abhidharma-piṭaka.[5]

The Mahīśāsaka are believed to have spread from the Northwest down to Southern India including Nāgārjunakoṇḍā, and even as far as the island of Sri Lanka.[6] According to A. K. Warder, the Indian Mahīśāsaka sect also established itself in Sri Lanka alongside the Theravāda, into which they were later absorbed.[7]

In the 7th century CE,

Oḍḍiyāna, the Kingdom of Khotan, and Kucha.[8]

Appearance

Between 148 and 170 CE, the

dhyāna, and penetrate deeply. They wear blue robes."[10]

Doctrines

According to the Mahīśāsakas, the Four Noble Truths were to be meditated upon simultaneously.[11]

The Mahīśāsaka sect held that everything exists, but only in the present. They also regarded a gift to the

Buddha.[12] 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 Saṃgha.[12]

The earlier Mahīśāsakas appear to have not held the doctrine of an intermediate state between death and rebirth, but later Mahīśāsakas accepted this doctrine.[11]

Works

Mahīśāsaka Vinaya

The Indian Mahīśāsaka sect also established itself in

Zhu Daosheng.[14] This translation of the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya remains extant in the Chinese Buddhist canon as Taishō Tripiṭaka 1421.[15]

Mahāyāna works

It is believed that the Mahāyāna

Gāndhārī language, a Prakrit used in the Northwest.[19] It is also known that manuscripts in the Kharoṣṭhī script existed in China during this period.[18]

Views on women

The Mahīśāsaka sect believed that it was not possible for women to become buddhas.[20] In the Nāgadatta Sūtra, the Mahīśāsaka view is criticized in a narrative about a bhikṣuṇī named Nāgadatta. Here, the demon Māra 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 (samyaksaṃbuddha):[20]

Māra therefore took the disguise of Nāgadatta's father and said thus to Nāgadatta: "Your thought is too serious. Buddhahood is too difficult to attain. It takes a hundred thousand nayutas of kotis of kalpas to become a Buddha. Since few people attain Buddhahood in this world, why don't you attain Arhatship? For the experience of Arhatship is the same as that of nirvāṇa; moreover, it is easy to attain Arhatship."

In her reply, Nāgadatta rejects arhatship as a lower path, saying,

A Buddha's wisdom is like empty space of the ten quarters, which can enlighten innumerable people. But an Arhat's wisdom is inferior.[20]

The Mahīśāsaka sect held that there were five obstacles that were laid before women. These are that they may not become a

cakravartin, Māra king, Śakra king, Brahma king or a Buddha. This Mahīśāsaka view is ascribed to Māra in the Nāgadatta Sūtra of the Sarvāstivādins:[20]

Māra said, "I have not even heard that a woman can be reborn as a cakravartin; how can you be reborn as a Buddha? It takes too long to attain Buddhahood, why not seek for Arhatship and attain nirvāṇa soon?" Nāgadatta replied, "I also have heard that a woman cannot be reborn as a cakravartin, a Sakra, a Brahma, and a Buddha, and yet I shall make the right effort to transform a woman's body into a man's. For I have heard that those Noble Ones, by the practice of bodhisattvacarya for a hundred thousand nayutas of kotis of

kalpas
diligently attain Buddhahood."

The Mahīśāsakas 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,

The Mahīśāsaka prejudice against women is based upon the traditional view of women. Like some of the other early Buddhist practitioners, they did not trust women, even nuns. This explains why they restricted nuns' social and religious activities in the sangha. Sometimes they liken the nuns' existence to hail which damages a good harvest.[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ ., p. 50
  2. ^ Buswell & Lopez 2013, p. 516.
  3. ^ Buswell & Lopez 2013, p. 859.
  4. ^ Anacker, Stefan. Seven Works Of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor. 1984. p. 58
  5. ., p. 5
  6. ^ Dutt, Nalinaksha. Buddhist Sects in India. 1998. pp. 122–123
  7. ., p. 280
  8. ., p. 19
  9. ^ a b c Hino & Wada 2004, p. 55.
  10. ^ Bhikkhu Sujato. Sects & Sectarianism (The Origins of Buddhist Schools). Santi Forest Monastery. p. i.
  11. ^ a b Potter, Karl. The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. IX: Buddhist philosophy from 350 to 600 AD. 2004. p. 106
  12. ^ a b Willemen, Charles. The Essence of Scholasticism. 2006. p. 17
  13. ^ Warder, A.K. Indian Buddhism. 2000. p. 280
  14. ., p. 163
  15. ^ The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalog (T 1421)
  16. ., p. 205
  17. ., p. 239
  18. ^ a b Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey With Biographical Notes. 1999. p. 205
  19. ^ Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (1996). India in Early Central Asia: a Survey of Indian Scripts, Languages and Literatures in Central Asia of the First Millennium A.D., p. 15
  20. ^ a b c d Kalupahana 2001, p. 109.
  21. ^ Kalupahana 2001, p. 113.

Sources