XI. Buddhist Notes. the “Five Points” of Mahadeva and the Kathavatthu

BUDDHIST NOTES

THE " FIVE POINTS " OP MAHADEVA AND THE KATHAVATTHU By LOUIS DB LA VALLEE POUSSIN ILE preparing an article on Buddhist Councils for Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Iffliics, I came to identify the so-called " Five Points " of Maha- deva with some " heretical" tenets of the Kathavatthu. If I am right in this identification, and I believe I am, the fact cannot be without importance, for it establishes a link, hitherto wanting, between the Cingalese tradition of the Third Council and the Northern traditions concerning councils and the origin of the Mahasamghikas. I do not intend to draw the conclusions that can be derived therefrom, namely, as concerns the redaction of the Kathavatthu : this book, one of the richest of Buddhist antiquity, has not yet been studied enough, and its interpretation is beset with many difficulties. Careful comparison with " Northern" documents on sects would prove very useful, and, to say the truth, much help will be derived from the forthcoming translation of the Katha- vatthu itself. What I shall try to do is (1) to " situate " the problem, and in doing so I shall refer to the excellent article of Mr. V. A. Smith: " Identity of Piyadasi with As"oka Maurya, and some connected Problems" (JRAS., 1910, p. 827)1 ; (2) to show that the author (?) of the

1 The title is somewhat misleading ; therefore Professor R. O. Franke ("Buddhist Councils at Rajagaha and Vesali" : JPTS., 1908) and myself ("Buddhist Councils": MvMon and Indian Antiquary, 1908) may be excused for having ignored Mr. V. A. Smith's origina and persuasive views. .TEAS. 1910. 27

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 08 Mar 2018 at 13:17:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00039599 414 THE FIVE POINTS OF MAHADEVA

Kathavatthu has dealt with the " Five Points" styled " Mahadeva's Points ". I 1. According to Bhavya (Nikayabhedavibhariga- vyakhyana),1 there is a tradition—which we know from elsewhere to be a tradition of the Samrnitiyas2—that a council was held at Pataliputra, 137 A.B., under the kings Nanda and Mahapadma.8 The controversy seems to have been concerned with the Five Points [of Maha- deva], and to have resulted in the Mahasamghikas' schism. 2.' Again, according to the same Bhavya, professing to follow the Sthaviras' tradition, a council was held at Pataliputra, 160 A.B., under Dharmasoka, on some contro- verted points (vivadavastu), and resulted in the Maha- samghikas' schism. 3. According toVasumitra(Samayabhedoparacanacakra),4 a council at Pataliputra, 100 A.B., under A£oka, on the Five Points [of Mahadeva]: Mahasamghikas' schism. The same tradition apud Yuan-Chwang (Beal, i, p. 150), who knows Mahadeva by name, but does not allude to the Five Points. To sum up, several traditions indicate that there was a council concerning the Five Points, and that this controversy was the origin of the Mahasamghika sect. Concerning Mahadeva— 1. Bhavya mentions two originators of the Five Points. We may summarize his narrative as follows :5 "In the 1 See Rockhill, Life of Buddha, pp. 181 ff. I have used the "red" edition of Tandjur, Mdo, vol. xc. 2 Mafijughosahasavajra's Siddhanta, the treatise quoted by Wassilieff, p. 260 (287), fol. 133b of my copy, a precious gift of M. de Stcherbatskoi. 3 See V. A. Smith, JRAS., 1901, p. 851. The Tibetan has "King Nanda and Mahapadma" ; but the remarks of Rockhill, Life, p. 186, note, do not seem conclusive. 4 See Wassilieff, p. 223 (245) ff. 5 In the words of Mafijughosahasavajra; Rockhill's translation seems to be inaccurate. On Mahadeva, see Professor Rhys Davids, JRAS., 1892, p. 9.

year 137 after the Nirvana, at the epoch of the kings Nanda and Mahapadma, in Pataliputra, Mara the wicked, (under the name) ' Bhadra' (bzan-po), wearing the cloth of a monk, exhibited manifold miracles, and owing to the Five Points created a great division of the Church . . . [These Points are part of the doctrine of the Maha- samghikas.1 For, later,] from a branch of the Gokulikas, the sthavira named Caitika. This man, an ascetic named Mahadeva, became a monk, resided on the mountain ' where is a caitya', and professing the [Five] Points of the Mahasamghikas, created the sect named Caitika." 2. More details in Taranatha (pp. 41 = 51), where occurs Mahadeva as the originator of the Five Points; 3. And in Yuan-Chwang (Beal, i, p. 117). See Watters (i, p. 267), who refers to the Abhidharmamahavibhasa- sastra. Mahadeva, a parricide, a matricide, an arhatcide, committed schism with equal success and perversity. He defeated his adversaries in the council and established his doctrine in Pataliputra; while the orthodox (500 arhats), embarked in rotten boats on the Ganges, were going to Kasmlr by aerial ways. 4. Whether, as pointed out by Watters, bur schismatic has something to do with the Mahadeva of Buddhaghosa, a saint and a missionary (Samantapasadika, Pali Vinaya, iii, p. 316)—-whether he is merely an incarnation of Siva, as suspected by Professor Kern—we confess we do not know. It is safer to believe that there was a schismatic Mahadeva. II Concerning the tenets of Mahadeva, we possess, from Pali and Tibetan sources, short " formulas" or points (gzhi = vastu), which are very like some other "aphorisms" of Buddhist antiquity; for instance, the " points " of the

1 " In den chinesischen Memoiren Tschu-san-thsang-ki heisst es sogar dass die Anhanger Mahadeva's sich Mahasamghikas benannt hatten " (Wassilieff, apud Taranatha, p. 293).

Council of Vaisall and the rules of the Pratimoksa as given in the Mahavyutpatti. These formulas may be the actual words of the schismatic (or the schismatics), the " phrases " or " idioms " into which the sectarian tenets were embodied. We possess also some more explicit documents, Pali, Tibetan, and Chinese, which seem to be commentaries or rather glosses on the " points". These commentaries do not always agree, and there are also discrepancies in the wording of the " points " themselves. Let us begin with the sources which explicitly refer to Mahadeva — soiirces to be compared with the Pali documents which profess to refer to the Third Council ; and to make the reading easier, let us begin with two documents en langage chair, two Chinese " commentaries " on the " points ". 1. According to the Abhidharmamahavibhasasastra, the five tenets of Mahadeva, as translated by Watters,1 are— (1) " An arhat may commit a sin under unconscious temptation." (2) " One may be an arhat and not know it." (3) "An arhat may have doubts on matters of doctrine." (4) " One cannot attain arhatship without the aid of a teacher." (5) " The ' noble ways' may begin with a shout, that is, one meditating seriously on religion may make such exclamation as ' How sad!' and by so doing attain progress towards perfection." 2. According to Palladius2— (1) " Obwohl die Arhants slindlos sind, giebt es solche, welche sich Schwachen zu Schulden kommen lassen." 1 Nanjio, No. 1263, a commentary on Jfianaprasthana (see Takakusu, JPTS., 1905, p. 129). See Watters, I, p. 267. 2 Arbeiten der Pekinger Mission, ii, p. 122, quoted apud Taranatha, p. 293. As appears from (4), the source of Palladius is not the source of Watters.

(2) " Ein Arhant kann sich auch nicht als Arhant anerkennen, obwohl er in der That ein solcher ist." (3) " Der Arhant kann Zweifel und Missverstandnisse haben." (4) " Der Arhant kann sich von seiner Wiirde durch Versicherungen anderer iiberzeugen." (5) " Die Stimme (die Ausrufungen) kann als Hiilfs- mittel bei der Vervollung dienen." 3. According to Vasumitra*— (1) " Gzhan-gyis ne-bar-bsgrub-pa." (2) " Mi ses-pa." (3) "Som-ni." (4) " Gzhan-gyi rnam-par-spyod-pa." (5) " Lam sgra-hbyin-pa dan bcas-pa." 4. According to Bhavya (fol. I79a) and to Taranatha (p. 41. 20-52)—2 (1) " Gzhan-la Ian gdab-pa." (2) " Mi ^es-pa." (3) " Yid gfiis-pa." (4) " Yons-su b[r]tag-pa." (5) " Bdag-nid gso-bar byed-pa ni lam yin-te." 5. According to Vinltadeva—3 (3, 2, 1) " Som-ni dan mi Ses-pa yod-de bstan dgos-so."

• 1 See Wassilieff, p. 223 (245) ff. The Points are quoted—(1) As the origin of the Mahasamghikas' schism ; (2) as adhered to by the Maha- samghikas : "In the Arhats, there is gzhan-gyis . . . " ; 2 and 3 wanting ; (3) as adhered to by the Bahusrutlyas and the Haimavatas. 2 The Points are quoted by Bhavya (see Rockhill, Lift, pp. 181 ff.) (1) as the origin of the schism ; (2) as adhered to by the Ekavyavaharikas (with variants, a. dgra-bcom-pa-rnams kyaii gzhan-dag-gis bstan-pa bsgrub- par byed-do . . . e. sdug-bsnal spon-bahi lam yod-do) ; (3) on the Bahusrutlyas : dgra-bcom-pa-rnams-la gzhan-gyis ne-bar-bstan-pa bsgrub- paho . yan-dag-par bsgrags-pahi lam yaii yod-do . miiam-par bzhag-pa-la yaii-dag-par hjug-pa-la (?) yod-do; (4) the " Purvasthaviras " deny the Five Points ; the first one = dgra-bcom-pa-rnams-la gzhan-gyi[s] ston-sin bsgrub-pa ni [med-do~]. 3 Nikayabhedopadesana nama samgraha (?), fol. 188" (Tandjur, Mdo, xc)—doctrine of the Lokottaravadins.

(4) " Hbras-bu-la gzhan-gyi brda-sprod dgos-so." (5) " Sdug-bsiial smos-sin sdug-bsnal tshig-tu brjod-pas lam skye-bar hgyur-ro." 6. Mahadeva, according to Taranatha (p. 41. 14-51), lirst proclaimed his heresy in the following stanza :— " Lha-rnams ma-rig-pa-yis bslus lam ni sgra-yi rgyun-las byuii the-thsom can-rnams gzhan-gyis hjug hdi ni sans-rgyas bstan-pa yin." 1

It will be seen that the heretical tenets in the Katha- vatthu, ii, 1—5 (6),2 agree with the Tibetan and Chinese " points", sometimes in meaning, sometimes in wording, sometimes in both.

First Point.—The reading of Vasumitra may be translated [arhatah] parena upahdrah. °hdra is doubtful ; sgrub is one of the words which cannot be safely " transposed " into Sanskrit; one has the equivalents : sadh, yam, arj, anusthd, vidhd, upapad, har. This last (mnon-par bsgrub-pa = abhinirhdra) is far from being the most common, and I only claim for provisional acceptance of the translation parena upahdra. If it turns out to be right, we have to recognize here Kathavatthu, atthi arahato parupahdro ti. The reading of Bhavya and Taranatha is translated by Schiefner " der Antwort", by Rockhill, " answer to another," or " advice to another". But our Lexx. give the equivalence lan-hdebs-pa = visarjayati = (1) "answer questions, so the Pali visajjeti" (Divyavadana, p. 162. 20, and Index), (2) " to emit, to create," etc. There is, therefore, a curious analogy between Bhavya's lesson 1 See below, p. 421. 2 These figures refer to the sections in Kathavatthuppakarana (PTS., 1894-7) ; the Atthakatha (JPTS., 1889) differs, 2, 3, and 4 forming § 2. The reader will, of course, compare Professor Rhys Davids' article, " Schools of Buddhist Belief," JRAS., 1893.

and another reading of the Kathavatthu, [aswci sukkd] visatthi = visrnti.1 From the other variants apwd Bhavya, it follows that there has not been unanimity in the exegesis of this Point, which is made by several additions to " clearly " refer to the teaching necessary to an arhat (as heretics say).2 To say the truth, the Pali interpretation is far from being conclusive. * # * * * The Tibetan wording of the Second Point is clear: mi ses-pa = ajnanam. The Kathavatthu has " atthi arahato anndnam ti " (ii, 2). But the meaning cannot be as easily ascertained. "With what sort of ignorance are we concerned ? It happens that an arhat is ignorant of the names of men or women, of herbs and trees, of the direction of a road (ii, 2, 22-3).3 But according to the orthodox author of the Pali treatise, an arhat is not unaware of [his possessing] the fruits of Srotaapatti ... of arhatship.4 Compare the translation

1 Kathavatthu: "Atthi arahato asucisukkavisatthiti " (ii, 1, 1) . . . '' Handa hi Marakayika devata arahato asucisukkavisatthim upasam- haranti " (ii, 1, 3) ... "Atthi arahato parupaharo ti" (ii, 1, 23). In the words of Professor Rhys Davids, "Can an arahat be guilty (un- wittingly and through the action of Mara) of indecency ?" Succubus deities are here intended. The Kathavatthu denies, against the Seliyas (comm.), the possibility of such an event, and refers to a formal assertion— too formal !—of Buddha himself (ii, 1, 21); it admits parupahdra in this sense only that "others" {pare) may "take away" (upasamhareyyum) the robe of an arahat, etc. (ii, 1, 23). 2 Addition (?) of bstan-pa and ston-sin (see p. 417, n. 2: Arhantah parair (or parena) deiitah sddhyanti). 3 Compare Milinda, pp. 266-7 (Rhys Davids' translation, ii, p. 100). Ignorance concerning such trivial matters even in a Buddha, see the rather heretical assertion, JRAS., 1894, p. 372, n. 2. 4 One may refer to Professor Rhys Davids' excellent article on Arhat in Hastings Encyclopaedia, I, p. 774 (quoting Majjhima, III, p. 100; see also Anguttara, V, pp. 155, 162), and to the delicious Psalms of the Early Buddhists (Sisters), PTS., 1909. The history of Ananda clearly shows that a clever man is well aware of his spiritual deficiencies (Culla, xi, 1, 6), but it may be said that Ananda is not an ordinary " ordinary man " (prihagjana) (Anguttara, I,.p. 225).

of Watters and Palladius. Last, not least, the ignorance may be the ignorance of the Law. ***** Third Point.—The som-ni of Vasumitra is kdnksd ; the yid-gnis of Bhavya, etc., is vimati (mati-dvayam). The Kathavatthu has atthi arahato kdnkhd ti (ii, 3, 1), atthi arahato vimatiti (ii, 1, 5). Doubt can be understood as bearing on the names of men, women, etc. (ii, 3, 21), on arhatship : " Am I an arhat ? " (ii, 3, 22). But there is a third " edge " to the problem : " Does an arhat have any doubt on the Teacher, the Law, the Congregation, the rule, the past, the future, the past and the future, the things produced by dependent- origination ?" (ii, 1, 5). Thus understand Watters, Palladius, and possibly Vinitadeva too, for his Lokottara- vadins seem to say: " As there are ignorance and doubt in the arhat, teaching is necessary." 1 ***** Fourth Point.—We have now some reasons to suppose that the Mahadeva's Fourth Point will be found in Katha- vatthu, ii, 4 : atthi arahato paravitarand ti. Vasumitra's [arhatah] parasya(l) vicdrah (°caranam)(?) and Bhavya's paricintana (or pariksd) are not clear by themselves; but Vinltadeva's gloss agrees with the original Pali commentary. It may be translated : phale paravyd- karanaprayojanam, = " Another must say [to the arhat] that he has acquired the fruit ".2 Thus Palladius and Katha vatthu, ii, 4, 22 : " Do others teach an arhat that he has obtained the fruit of Srotaapatti ... of arhatship " ( . • • sotdpattiphalam pare vitdreyyuvi . . . ). Wassilieff quotes an instance to support the affirmative (heretical) answer : in the Mahisasakas' Vinaya, the heroes of the Vaisall's Council, Revata and Sarvakama, ask

1 Above, p. 417, under 5. 2 Vyaharoti is the phrase used in Pali for " declaring " one's spiritual progress (anna) (Anguttara, V, p. 155, etc.).

one another whether they are arhats or not (ad Taranatha, p. 293). But Watters has : " One cannot obtain arhatship without the help of another;" and vitdrand seems to be understood as meaning " leading over ", " bringing across " in Kathavatthu, ii, 4, Iff.: " Is an arhat to be led by another, dependent on another, etc. ?"l To sum up, there are three possible translations of the "Points" 2-4, namely, (1) an arhat may be ignorant of the names of men . . . ; he has doubts on such matters . . . ; he learns them from others ; (2) an arhat may be unaware of his arhatship; he doubts whether he is an arhat; he gets certitude from the asseveration of another; (3) being ignorant and subject to doubt, an arhat ought to receive instruction. The last interpretation gives us probably (?) the original meaning of Mahadeva. His sloka2 is somewhat obscure, but the general import seems to be a strong depreciation of the arhats — if arhats are really concerned : " Gods (arhats ?)3 are deceived (or beguiled) by ignorance ; Path is produced by the stream of voice ; who doubt, enter [into the Path] through others : such is the teaching of Buddha." # # * # # Fifth Point.—The Tibetan tradition shows a great variety of forms. (1) Vasumitra : mdrgo vdg-udlranena sahitah (or sabdo- diranena, in Pali vacibhedena), " Path is accompanied by emission of voice." That is a tenet of the Mahasamghikas,4 and Vasumitra adds that they affirm : " Suffering causes Path ; to say ' Suffering !' is useful; in order to abandon suffering, wisdom is of use (?)." 1 But, again, the "crossing over" may refer to doubt: vitinnalcankha is a well-known phrase, see Childers. 2 See above, p. 418. 3 Arhats are visuddhidevas, kings sammatidevas, and gods uppattidevas, in Vibhanga (PTS., 1904), p. 422. 4 See above, p. 417, n. 1.

(2) Vinitadeva, instead of the " Point", gives us a gloss: " Saying ' Suffering !', pronouncing ' Suffering !', Path is born." Compare Watters and Palladius. (3) Bhavya is obscure, and, I may say, troublesome. It is difficult to guess what is meant by Rockhill's " restoration of the self " or Schiefner's " Wiederherstellung der Selbstheit", and how such " restoration " may be said to be the " Path ". The Sanskrit rendering seems to be something like dtmaposanam mdrgah. Gso-ba = pus, " to feed," 1 may be connected with the dhdra of the Pali tradition dukkhaharo maggaiigam, for one of the meanings of dhdra is " food " ; but bdag-nid (dtman) cannot be an equivalent of duhkha, which we want in this place (?). (4) The following tenet of the Lokottaravadins (apud Vasumitra), samdhito pi vdcam bhdsate? " one speaks even in trance, during samddhi or samdpatti," is not reckoned as one of the " Points ", but, as it will be seen from the Pali sources, it is not here without interest. (5) The Mahasanighikas seem to maintain the contrary. They say, concerning Buddha: nety (ndstity) api na vadati nityam samdhitatvat = " he does not say even ' no ', for he is always concentrated "?

The Kathavatthu deals (ii, 6) with the dukkhdhdra- kathd, " problem concerning the exclamation (Suffering!' " and (ii, 5) with the vacibhedakathd, " problem concerning voice-bursting-out." Aharati, " to tell, to relate;" therefore dhdra, " naming, pronouncing;" at least, the author understands the heretical tenet, dukkhaharo maggangam maggaparyd- pannam, as meaning " the phrase ' suffering!' is a limb

1 Also cilcits, "to cure." 2 " Mnam-par bzhag-pa yan tshig smraho." 3 "Med ces kyau mi gsuns te rfcag-tu mnam-par bzhag-pa nid-kyi phyir." On that doctrine of the "silence of Bhagavat", see JRAS., 1902, April, p. 374, and my Souddhisme (1909), p. 253.

of the Path ". " Not so ! " answers the Pali orthodox ; " whosoever says ' suffering!' {ye keci dukkhan ti vacant Nwisanti) does not cultivate or produce the Path (maggam blidventi)."1 Compare Vinitadeva, Watters, and Palladius. Emission of voice is not possible during dhyanas ; such is the import of Kathavatthu, ii, 5 : samdpannassa atthi vacibhedo ti. Compare the opinion of the Lokottaravadins and the Mahasamghikas.

We opine that, as a matter of fact, Kathavatthu, ii, 1-5 (6), forms the Pali counterpart of the Northern Mahadeva's " Points ". Whether these tenets—four concerning Arhatship, one concerning Samadhi or Path—are rightly styled Mahadeva's, whether they were the leading motive of the Mahasamghika schism, is an altogether different question. Again, one may maintain that this strongly tied group of points seems to be en place, as geologists say, in the Northern tradition, whilst it looks in the Pali treatise like a bloc erratique. But we said at the beginning that we should abstain from concluding. There are so many " points " in the Kathavatthu that any judgment on his value as a Tissan work would appear presumptuous. As has been well said by M. A. Foucher, Indian history is too often " un exercice de philologie a l'usage des indianistes avec des regies du jeu connues des seuls inities "? 1 The exclamation " Suffering !" does not always imply the notion of the Noble Truth of suffering ; in the same way, one may realize the notion '' space (dkdsa) is infinite" without being a saint. On the importance of such exclamations, see Mrs. Rhys Davids' Buddhist Psychology, p. 71, note. Compare Kathavatthu, ix, 9 ; xi, 4 ; xviii, 8. 2 Compare ,IRAS., 1909, p. 577, n. 1.