By Ann Heirman, Ghent
In 488-489, the monk Samghabhadra made a partial translation into Chi¬
nese of the Päli Samantapasadika, a fourth or fifth century Mahävihära
commentary on the Päli Vinaya. Several buddhologists indicated that this
Chinese translation shows influence of the Dharmaguptakavinaya. This led
to the assumption that Samghabhadra was a monk of the Dharmaguptaka
tradition, often accepted to be the most prominent tradition in China. 1
However, given the fact that all other Chinese translations of Päli texts are
often linked to the Abhayagirivihära tradition, and that recent studies 2 have
shown that, in the fifth century, the Chinese Dharmaguptakavinaya was
not at all the most prominent one, this paper aims to re-examine the school
affiliation of the Chinese Samantapasadika. 3
The Chinese Samantapasadika: a Mahävihära text?
Three, maybe five, texts have been translated from Päli into Chinese: the
now lost Ta-p'i-li (ft & #4); the Chieh-t'o tao-lun (A? tit Ü i&, T. 1648;
Vimuttimagga); the Shan-chien lü p'i-p'o-sha (-§- JL # Jf, ty, T. 1462;
Samantapasadika); and maybe also the non-extant Wu-pai pen-sheng ching
(If^l SI), 4 and the Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching (ft j& $ R 1% ML, T. 1466). 5
They all were translated in the fifth or early sixth century. At that time, the
Sinhalese Abhayagirivihära was strongly sponsored by the royal family of
Sri Lanka, and seems to have been superior to the Mahävihära, its rival. 6 It is
1 P. V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. LIX.
2 Z. Tsukamoto 1985 [1979], vol. II, pp. 889-892; A. Heirman 2002b.
3 In 1986, pp. 137-138, H. Bechert briefly hinted at the possibility of an Abhaya¬
girivihära version of the Samantapasadika, a version that might have been the source of Samghabhadra's translation. He further adds that this hypothesis, and not the influence
of the Dharmaguptaka School, might explain the differences between the Päli and the
Chinese version of the Samantapasadika.
4 See note 44.
5 The Päli origin of this text is rejected by many scholars (see below).
6 P. V. Bapat 1937, p. liii; H. G. A. van Zeyst 1961, p. 26.
therefore not surprising that the above translations of Pali texts all point to
an Abhayagirivihära connection, as will be shown in this paper.
A. The Abhayagirivihära texts
The Abhayagirivihära was founded by king Vattagämani Abhaya between 29
and 17 bc. It became a strong rival of the Mahävihära, founded circa two hun¬
dred years earlier. 7 With the support of several kings, the Abhayagirivihära
gradually expanded. It was particularly associated with a tooth relic which
was the personal possession of the king. In his travel account (399-414), the
monk Fa-hsien describes the Abhayagirivihära as a very rich monastery with
five thousand monks, receiving the support of the royal house. 8 Alongside the
monastery, there is an enormous Bodhi tree, 9 worshipped by many people.
The most particular event is the special worship of the tooth relic, an event
that takes three months, during which various ceremonies are performed
day and night without ceasing. The Mahävihära, according to Fa-hsien, has
three thousand monks. Fa-hsien describes it as the second most important
monastery, also frequented by the king. He does not tell us about any rivalry
between the two monasteries.
Not a lot is known on ideas particular to the Abhayagirivihära
monks. Most, if not all their texts have completely disappeared after king
Parakkamabähu I (1153-1186) decided to reunify the three Theraväda
groups of Anurädhapura: the Abhayagirivihära, the Jetavanavihära 10 and
the Mahävihära. The monks of the first two vihäras (monasteries) were
re-ordained according to the Mahävihära tradition. Consequently, the
Mahävihära texts gradually became the only ones to survive, while the
Abhayagirivihära viewpoints were only known from a very small amount of
quotations in non-Abhayagirivihära Päli texts. 11 Some buddhologists, how¬
ever, have identified two extant Chinese translations as Abhayagirivihära
texts: the Chieh-t'o tao-lun, a translation of the no longer extant Vimut-
timagga; and the Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching, Questions of Upäli, possibly a
translation of an original Päli text of a non-extant *Upäliparipucchäsutta.
7 W. Geiger 1960, pp. 186, 223; D.T. Devendra 1961, p. 21.
8 Kao-seng Fa-hsien chuan, T. 2085: 864c24-865bl2.
9 Symbol of the sacred tree under which the historical Buddha attained Enlightenment.
10 In the third century, the Sägalikas, later called the Jetavanavihäraväsins, split from the Mahävihära. The role of this school has remained obscure (H. Bechert 1993, p. 11).
11 O. von Hinüber 1996, pp. 22-23. In addition, one Päli text (Saddhammopayana), the date of which is uncertain, is sometimes attributed to the Abhayagirivihära tradition because of the title Abhayagirikavicakravartl given to its author (O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 203). This attribution is contested (see K. R. Norman 1991, pp. 45-47).
In addition, two no longer extant translations, the T'a-p'i-li and the Wu-
pai pen-sheng ching, might also be related to the Abhayagirivihära. As we
will see, the affiliation of these texts, and especially of the Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo
ching, is still under debate. It remains striking, however, that not one text
proven to have been translated from Päli into Chinese can be identified as a
Mahävihära text, and that, more precisely, some arguments directly point to
an Abhayagirivihära connection.
1. The Chieh-t'o tao-lun, a translation of the non-extant Päli Vimuttimagga
One of the texts translated from Päli, is the Chieh-t'o tao-lun i% it ifc,
T. 1648), Vimuttimagga, a manual of the Theraväda tradition compiled by a
certain Upatissa. 12 Whereas the original Päli text is lost, the Chinese transla¬
tion is still extant. It was made by the monk *Samghabhara 13 (ft # *|t) of
Fu-nan 14 in515 15 .
Nothing is known about the compiler Upatissa. 16 On the translator
;:'Samghabhara, however, we do have some information since his biography
is included in the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Kao-seng chuan, T. 2059:
345b9-13) compiled by Hui-chiao around 530 17, and in the Further Biog¬
raphies of Eminent Monks (Hsü kao-seng chuan, T. 2060: 426a322) com¬
piled by Tao-hsüan (596-667) 18 . Other texts containing a biography of
::"Samghabhara are Fei Chang-fang's Li-tai san-pao chi (T. 2034: 98b24-cl3),
Tao-hsüan's Ta-t'ang nei-tien lu (T. 2149: 266al-14), Ching-mai's Ku-chin
i-ching t'u-chi (T. 2151: 364b21-c6), and Chih-sheng's K'ai-yüan shih-chiao
lu (T. 2154: 537c7-26).
12 P. Skilling 1994, p. 171; O. von Hinüber 1996, pp. 123-124.
13 P. C. Bagchi 1927, Tome I, p. 415; P. Demieville/H. Durt/A. Seidel 1978, p. 281;
P. Skilling 1994, pp. 171-173: the reconstruction of the name is uncertain.
14 Along the Mekong River. In the first centuries ad, Fu-nan had a very important sea¬
port frequented by both Indian and Chinese travelers. Because of the winds, these travel¬
ers were often obliged to remain in the port for several months. This stimulated a cultural dialogue, particularly between Fu-nan and India (N. Tarling 1999, vol. I, pp. 192-196).
See also P. Kieffer-Pülz 2000, pp. 455-459.
15 According to Tao-hsüan (T. 2149: 265c27), the translation took place in the four¬
teenth year of the t'ien-chien !£) period, i.e. ad 515. This is repeated in Ming-ch'üan et al., T. 2153: 435a29-b2; in Chih-sheng, T. 2154: 537c2, and in Yüan-chao, T. 2157:
835c7. The Chinese version has been translated by N.R.M. Ehara, Soma Thera and
Kheminda Thera under the title The Path of Freedom by the Arahant Upatissa. Trans¬
lated into Chinese by the Tipitaka Sanghapäla of Funan (Colombo 1961).
16 O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 124.
17 A. Wright 1954, p. 400.
18 The final version has probably been written by Tao-hsüan's disciples shortly after his death (K. Shinohara 1988, p. 195, note 6; R.B. Wagner 1995, pp. 78-79).
The Kao-seng chuan does not give a lot of information. It actually only
contains a very brief biography attached to the biography of the monk
Gunavrddhi. The above mentioned catalogues, as well as the Hsü kao-seng
chuan contain more information. 19 In the latter text, Tao-hsüan tells us that
in the language of Liang 20 , ::"Samghabhara was called 'nourishment of the
samgha (community)' (ff ^-) or 'armor of the samgha' (ft il). He was born
in Fu-nan. At an early age, he studied abhidharma texts (philosophical
texts). After his ordination, he applied himself to the vinayapitaka (basket
of discipline). When he heard that the land of Ch'i 21 favored Buddhism, he
embarked on a ship and reached the capital 22 . He stayed at the Cheng-kuan
monastery, and he was a disciple of the Indian sramana (religious mendicant)
Gunabhadra 23 . Under the guidance of Gunabhadra, he studied vaipulya (ex¬
tensive) texts. 24 He became famous for his knowledge and in the fifth year of
the t'ien-chien period (506), he was summoned by the imperial house to five
places in the capital, 25 where he conducted translation work for seventeen
years. The Chieh-t'o tao-lun is one of the eleven translations 26 he made. On
the first day of *Samghabhara's translation activity, at the Shou-kuang hall,
the Emperor Wu personally wrote down the text. He then ordered several
sramanas 27 to edit " Samghabhara's translations. There were no translation
failures. The emperor honored :;'Samghabhara most extensively and he asked
him to become the personal advisor of the imperial family. "'Samghabhara
did not have personal belongings, but with the offerings given to him, he
19 The following summary is based on the Hsü kao-seng chuan.
20 The southern Chinese Liang dynasty (502-557).
21 The southern Chinese Ch'i dynasty (479-502).
22 The present-day city of Nan-ching.
23 The most renowned monk called Gunabhadra (394-468) (& SSpSft. rfc/#-*P&rt S) was born in Central India. After traveling to Sri Lanka, he arrived in Kuang-chou in 435. A few years later, he reached Nan-ching, where he died in 468. He was known as a Mahäyäna master. For his biography, see R. Shih 1968, pp. 148-155, translated from the Kao-seng chuan. Since "Samghabhara only arrived in Nan-ching by the end of the fifth
century, the famous Gunabhadra cannot have been his teacher (contrary to what is stated by M. Nagai 1917-1919, pp. 70, 80; see also P. C. Bagchi 1927, tome I, p. 416).
24 The term vaipulya is a title given to a text (sütra) said to include profound doctrines.
It is included as a category in the early divisions of Buddhist scriptures. According to some Mahäyäna texts, Mahäyäna sütras should be identified with the vaipulya category (A.
Hirakawa 1990, p. 279). Study of vaipulya texts was also allowed in the Abhayagirivihära (H. G. A. van Zeyst 1961, pp. 25-26).
25 The Shou-kuang hall (4£ 7Tj#S.), the Hua-lin garden (s£#. IS), the Cheng-kuan mon¬
astery (SL $L ^), the Chan-yün temple (£ & and the Fu-nan temple (•& i$j #).
26 See P. C. Bagchi 1927, tome I, pp. 417-418.
27 Pao-ch'ang (f °g), Hui-ch'ao (ft M.), Seng-chih (ff *g), Fa-yün (j£ f ), and Yüan T'an-yün (^. &)■
built a monastery. He died in the fifth year of the p'u-t'ung period (524) at
the Cheng-kuan monastery at the age of sixty-five.
The various versions of his biography generally agree. On two points,
however, the texts differ. First, there is some confusion as to the name
of ::"Samghabhara's teacher. While in the Hsü kao-seng chuan, Tao-hsüan
says that his teacher was Gunabhadra, in the Ta-t'ang nei-tien lu (T. 2149:
266a5-6) he states that *Samghabhara was a disciple of Gunavarman ($. 8$ 5£
J$ ; Ch'iu-na-pa-mo) 28 , but learned the vaipulya texts from Gunabhadra #ß
5£ PS: Ch'iu-na-pa-t'o). This version is also found in most variant readings
of Fei Ch'ang-fang's Li-tai san-pao chi (T. 2034: 98cl-2). Since both the fa¬
mous monks Gunavarman and Gunabhadra died before ::'Samghabhara ar¬
rived in China, they cannot have been his teachers. If ::"Samghabhara had an
Indian teacher in China, it was probably Gunavrddhi #ß & i&; Ch'iu-na-
p'i-ti) 29 . Born in Central India, Gunavrddhi arrived in Nan-ching around
479. He was a master in Hlnayäna as well as in Mahäyäna texts. In Nan-
ching, he had several disciples. With gifts offered to him, he looked after the
construction of the Cheng-kuan monastery. It is at this monastery that he
died in 502. Since " Samghabhara arrived in Nan-ching before the end of the
Ch'i dynasty (502) and since he also stayed at the Cheng-kuan monastery,
he certainly must have known Gunavrddhi. It seems likely that the latter,
being a very known and experienced monk, also became his teacher. This
would also explain why the Kao-seng chuan attaches *Samghabhara's biog¬
raphy to the biography of Gunavrddhi.
A second point of divergence is that, according to some sources, the texts
translated by :;"Samghabhara were brought from Fu-nan to the Chinese capi¬
tal by another monk, named Man-t'o-lo (§i ft US; Mandra 30 ). In the earliest
catalogues 31 , however, Mandra is only mentioned as a monk who in the
beginning of the sixth century translated a few texts, some of them in col¬
laboration with :;"Samghabhara. Most later catalogues 32 , such as Tao-hsüan's
28 The most famous monk called Gunavarman (367-431) was born in Kashmir. He
traveled to Sri Lanka and Java, and later arrived in Nan-ching in 431. He died the same year. For his biography, see R. Shih 1968, pp. 125-137, translated from the Kao-seng chuan. Since "Samghabhara only arrived in Nan-ching by the end of the fifth century, the famous Gunavarman cannot have been his teacher.
29 Suggested also by RC. Bagchi 1927, tome I, p. 416. For Gunavrddhi's biography, see R. Shih 1968, pp. 156-157, translated from the Kao-seng chuan.
30 Cf. Taishö Shinshü Daizökyö, Index Vol. 31: 53.
31 Fa-ching et al. (ad 594), Chung-ching mu-lu, T. 2146: 116bl0,122al3-14; Yen-ts'ung et al. (ad 602), Chung-ching mu-lu, T. 2147: 151 al2, 152a28-29, 158al8-19; Ching-t'ai et al. (ad 664), Chung-ching mu-lu, T. 2148: 182b5, 184al9-20, 191a26-27.
32 Tao-Hsüan (ad 664), T. 2149: 265cl2-15;Ching-Mai (ad 627-649),T. 2151: 364bl4-20;
Chih-sheng (ad 730), T. 2154: 537bl0-15; Yiian-chao (ad 800), T. 2157: 835bl6-21.
Ta-t'ang nei-tien lu, contain a small biography stating that Mandra is a man
from Fu-nan and that he brought texts to China. He translated these texts
in collaboration with :;"Samghabhara. His knowledge of Chinese, however,
was not very developed. The biographies of Mandra never mention the
Chieh-t'o tao-lun, and the text also never figures among the texts trans¬
lated by him. The only link between the Chieh-t'o tao-lun and Mandra is
that, according to Tao-hsüan's Ta-t'ang nei-tien lu (T. 2149: 266al0-ll), all
texts translated by *Samghabhara, and thus also the Chieh-t'o tao-lun, are
texts brought from Fu-nan by Mandra. This information corresponds to Fei
Ch'ang-fang's Li-tai san-pao chi (T. 2034: 98c6-8), compiled a few decades
earlier. To my opinion, this information is not very reliable. First of all, Fei
Ch'ang-fang is known to have made many mistakes, 33 and secondly, his data
on Mandra are repeated in only one catalogue, the one compiled by Tao-
hsüan. In Tao-hsüan's biographical work Hsü kao-seng chuan, however, this
information is not repeated. 34
In conclusion, we can say that *Samghabhara's biography is not very
instructive to determine his affiliation. It only seems that he had a broad
knowledge of all kinds of texts, among which he also knew vaipulya texts.
It thus is certainly not impossible that he was also interested in a text
containing Abhayagirivihära viewpoints, such as the Vimuttimagga? 5
According to O. von Hinüber 36 , "in case the connection with the
Abhayagirivihära is correct", the Vimuttimagga might have been written
"when the Abhayagirivihära enjoyed strong royal support under Mahäsena
(334-361/274-321)". As we have seen above, the Chinese catalogues and
biographical works do not contain any element that goes against this hy¬
pothesis, nor can they confirm it.
33 K. Mizuno 1995 [1982], pp. 105-106.
34 The Hsü kao-seng chuan does contain a brief biography of Mandra attached to
"Samghabhadra's biography (T. 2060: 426a22-26). It says that Mandra and ""Samghabhadra translated three texts together. The Chieh-t'o tao-lun is not one of them.
35 On the latter text, see in particular, P. V. Bapat 1937, pp. xlix, liv; P. Skilling 1994, pp. 199-202; O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 126. For more references on the on-going debate on the affiliation of the Vimuttimagga, see K.R. Norman 1991, pp. 43-44. K.R. Norman underlines that although the text might contain Abhayagirivihära views, it does not mean that the Vimuttimagga is necessarily an Abhayagirivihära text. The statements under discussion could 'have been current at some time at the Mahävihära'. P. Skilling (1994, p. 202), however, is more affirmative and states that the Vimuttimagga was 'a manual transmitted by the Abhayagiri school within the greater Theravädin tradition'.
36 O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 126.
2. The Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching, possibly translated from a non-extant Pali '•'Upäliparipucchäsutta
A second text that is sometimes considered to be based on a Päli original 37
is the Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching (ft j& & ?A # T. 1466), Questions of Upäli.
The Taishö edition 38 ascribes the translation, done between 424 and 454, to
Gunavarman. Since the Chinese catalogues and biographical works do not
agree on this, the attribution raises questions and, as shown by V. Stache-
Rosen (1973), the translator was probably someone else. 39 According to
V. Stache-Rosen (1984), the Päli original of the Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching, a
non-extant ''Upäliparipucchäsutta (Skt. Upälipariprcchäsütra), was probably
compiled in the Abhayagirivihära School. 40 She based her hypothesis mainly
on the fact that, although the Chinese text shows many similarities with the
Päli vinaya texts, the order of the rules is not identical. Many scholars, how¬
ever, have contested the above hypothesis. 41 They particularly point to it that
the relation between the Chinese text and the extant Päli texts is not strong
enough to allow an hypothesis on a Päli origin of the Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching.
Consequently, the question on the affiliation of this text remains unsolved.
3. The T'a-p'i-li, a Theraväda vinaya text, and the Wu-paipen-sheng ching,
The Sütra of the Five Hundred Jätakas
As pointed out by B. Wang 42 , the catalogue compiled by Seng-yu around
518 mentions that during the reign of Emperor Wu (483-493) of the Ch'i
dynasty, a certain monk called Mahäyäna 43 translated two texts in Kuang-
chou: one is entitled Wu-pai pen-sheng ching (i "5" The Sütra of the
Five Hundred Jätakas,* 4 and the other is a Theraväda vinaya text, entitled
T'a-p'i-li (f& & 3'J). 45 The two texts were, however, never presented to the
37 W. Pachow 2000 [1955], pp. 32, 39; V. Stache-Rosen, ed. H. Bechert 1984,
pp. 9-31; H. Bechert 1987, pp. 138-139.
38 T. 1466: 903al6.
39 V. Stache-Rosen 1973, particularly pp. 32-34. See also V. Stache-Rosen, ed. H.
Bechert 1984, pp. 26-28; H. Matsumura 1990, pp. 70-93.
40 V. Stache-Rosen, ed. H. Bechert 1984, pp. 10-15; 28-31.
41 See, for instance, K.R. Norman 1983, p. 29; 1985, pp. 217-218; 1991, pp. 44-45; J.W.
de Jong 1986 (agreed upon by H. Bechert 1993:14); H. Matsumura 1990.
42 B. Wang 1994, pp. 171-172.
43 This seems to be a surname given to a monk well-versed in Mahäyäna texts. See, for
instance, the Indian monk Gunabhadra (died 468) who was called 'Mahäyäna' because of
his study of Mahäyäna texts (Hui-chiao, Kao-seng chuan, T. 2059: 344a5-6).
44 Maybe also translated from a Päli original (cf. O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 57).
45 Seng-yu, Ch'u san-tsang chi-chi, T. 2145: 13bl6-19 (ad 518).
emperor, and were subsequently lost. Later compilers, such as Fei Ch'ang-
fang (T. 2034: 95bl4-17) 46 , Tao-hsüan (T. 2149: 262a27-bl) 47, Ching-mai
(T. 2151: 363bl8-20) 48 , Chih-sheng (T. 2154: 649al7-18) 49 , and Yüan-chao
(T. 2157: 985al4-15) 50 , do not tell us anything new. The Ta-chou k'an-ting
chung-ching mu-lu (T. 2153: 434al0-12) compiled by Ming-ch'üan et al. in
695, adds that the translation of the T'a-p'i-li took place in the 'Bamboo-
grove Monastery' (ft #. Venuvana Monastery). This information is said
to be based on Fei Ch'ang-fang's catalogue.
The Chinese catalogues identify the T'a-p'i-li as a Theraväda vinaya.
Therefore, it is not unlikely that also the Wu-pai pen-sheng ching is
a Theraväda text. Still, it remains unclear to which Theraväda lineage the
translated vinaya belongs. The fact that the translator was called 'Mahäyäna'
might, however, be a minor clue to it that the vinaya belonged to the Abhaya¬
girivihära School or to the Jetavaniya School, schools that were more open
to Mahäyäna ideas than the Mahävihära School was. 51
B. The Chinese Samantapasadika
Above, we have pointed out two texts that to all probability are translated
from Päli into Chinese. One (the Chieh-t'o tao-lun) is somehow related to
the Abhayagirivihära, while a second one (the T'a-p'i-li) is not extant, but
might possibly have had some connection with the Abhayagirivihära, given
the predominance of the latter monastery in Sri Lanka, and given the trans¬
lator's name Mahäyäna. Let us now turn to a third text, the Päli Samanta¬
pasadika [further: Sp] and its Chinese translation. Four points particularly
attracted my attention: the biography of the translator, the introduction to
the text, the discussion on the nun Mettiyä, and the position of the Parivdra.
In what follows, I will deal with each of these items separately.
1. The translator Samghabhadra
We do not know a lot about Samghabhadra. A rather brief biography is
found in five texts of the Taishö edition, three relatively early works and two
later ones: the Li-tai san-pao chi (T. 2034), a work compiled by Fei Ch'ang-
46 Fei Ch'ang-fang, Li-tai san-pao cht, T. 2034 (ad 597).
47 Tao-hsüan, Ta-t'ang nei-tien lu, T. 2149 (ad 664).
48 Ching-mai, Ku-chin i-ching t'u-chi, T. 2151 (ad 627-649).
49 Chih-sheng, K'ai-yiian shih-chiao lu, T. 2154 (ad 730).
50 Yüan-chao, Chen-yuan hsin-ting shih-chiao mu-lu, T. 2157 (ad 800).
51 See H.G. A. van Zeyst 1961, pp. 26-27; P. Kieffer-Pülz 2000, p. 300.
fang in 597, p. 95bl9-cl7; the Ta-t'ang nei-tien lu (T. 2149), compiled by
Tao-hsüan in 664, with a biography of Samghabhadra (p. 262b2-29) that is
identical to the one of the Li-tai san-pao chi; the K'ai-yüan shih-chiao lu (T.
2154), a catalogue compiled by Chih-sheng in 730, pp. 535cl2-536all; the
Fo-tsu t'ung-chi (T. 2035), an historical work compiled by the thirteenth
century monk Shih-p'an, p. 350cl2-23; and the Fo-tsu li-tai t'ung-tsai
(T. 2036), an historical work compiled by the fourteenth century monk
Nien-ch'ang, pp. 543c25-544a20. Since there are only three earlier works,
and since Chih-sheng's catalogue is considered to be a standard reference
that corrects many errors made by Fei Ch'ang-fang 52 ,1 have chosen to trans¬
late Samghabhadra's biography as found in the catalogue compiled by Chih-
sheng, while indicating the differences with Fei Ch'ang-fang's work. 53
In the language of Ch'i 54, the sramana Samghabhadra 55 is called 'the virtuous
one of the community' 56 . He was a man of the western regions. He fully ap¬
plied himself to the path. His friendliness in conversion was inexhaustible. The tradition transmitted by the disciples says: "After the Buddha's [parijnirväna,
Upäli compiled the vinayapitaka. He then honored the vinayapitaka with
incense and flowers at the end of the invitation ceremony 57 on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month of that year. He put a dot on the front of the
vinayapitaka. Year after year, one did the same. When Upäli was about to
enter [parijnirväna, he transmitted [the vinayapitaka] to his disciple Däsaka.
When Däsaka was about to enter [parijnirväna, he transmitted it to his disciple
Sonaka. Sonaka transmitted it to his disciple Siggava. Siggava transmitted it
to his disciple Moggaliputtatissa, and Moggaliputtatissa transmitted it to his
disciple Candavajji 58 ." In this way, the succession of teachers 59 continued until
the present dharma master (master of doctrine). 60 The dharma master brought
the vinayapitaka to Kuang-chou, and then took a ship back home. He had
transmitted the vinayapitaka to his disciple Samghabhadra.
52 K. Mizuno 1995 [1982], p. 106.
53 For a translation of the biography as mentioned by Fei Ch'ang-fang, see P.H.L.
Eggermont 1956, pp. 134-136; Y. Chen 1992, pp. 90-91.
54 The language of the southern Ch'i dynasty (479-502).
55 ft faStLffc $ [seng-chia-pa-t'o-lo].
56 $ commun'ny-samgha and virtuous- bhadra.
57 Pravdrand ceremony at the end of the rainy season. On this occasion, every monk (nun) is expected to invite his (her) fellow monks (nuns) to point out his (her) wrong¬
doings.
58 Usually seen as a friend of Siggava together with whom he gave instruction to Mog¬
galiputtatissa (compare T. 1462: 678b27-c4, 679b22-c8, 716c25-28).
59 The above list of teachers is found in the Theraväda tradition. Therefore, their names are given in Päli. See £. Lamotte 1958, pp. 223-225.
60 A note added by the compiler says that his name is unknown.
In the sixth year of the yung-ming period 61 of the Emperor Wu (488), in
the year wu-ch'en bl , Samghabhadra together with the sramana Seng-i (fif #) 63
translated the Shan-chien liip'i-p'o-sha in the Chu-lin (ft Venuvana) 64 mon¬
astery in Kuang-chou. They spent the rainy season together. In the seventh
year of the yung-ming period, in the year chi-szu (489) 65 , in the middle of the seventh month, after the invitation ceremony, they honored the vinayapitaka
with incense and flowers, and added a dot, the way the former masters had
done. In that year, they arrived at 975 dots. 66 One dot represents one year.
In the ninth year of the ta-t'ung period 67 of the Liang 68 (543), Chao Po-hsiu
($L f£) #•) encountered on Mount Lu the vinaya master Hung-tu (JA }%), who
was practising ascetism. He obtained this record of the dots of many sages, that
was made after the Buddha's [parijnirväna. It stopped in the seventh year of
yung-ming. Po-hsiu visited Hung-tu and said: "Why do we see no dots after
the seventh year of yung-ming}" Hung-tu answered: "Before that time, all the
dots were personally added by sages who had obtained the path. 69 We are only
common people of a poor level. We can only receive and revere it. We cannot
add dots just like that." Because of this, Po-hsiu started to count 70 until the ninth year of ta-t'ung, the year kuei-hai 7i (543). He came to 1028 years. 72 Con¬
tinuing from the counting by Po-hsiu, in the eighteenth year of the k'ai-yüan period 73 of the Great T'ang dynasty (730), in the year keng-wu, we reach 1216
61 Yung-ming (#. *ft) period: 483-494.
62 Counted according to the Chinese cycles of sixty year. The year 488 is indeed a wu-ch'en (r\ JI) year. A note added by the compiler says that Fei Ch'ang-fang places the event in the year chi-szu (fL £.). This is the year 489. Fei Ch'ang-fang's Li-tao san-pao chi (T. 2034), however, does not indicate the cyclic year.
63 T. 2034, p. 95c3: instead of
64 It is interesting to note that this is the same monastery where, according to the Ta- chou k'an-ting chung-ching mu-lu, a Päli vinaya was translated into Chinese, at around the same period (see above).
65 A note added by the compiler says that Fei Ch'ang-fang places the event in the year keng-wu (/£ ^p). This is the year 490. T. 2034, p. 95c4, indeed contains this indication.
66 This places the year of the death of the Buddha in 486 bc. On the interpretation of the 'Dotted Record' and its data on the time of the Buddha's death, many studies have
appeared. See, for instance, P. H.L. Eggermont 1956, pp. 132-143; W. Pachow 1980,
pp. 69-86; H. Bechert 1986, pp. 136-140; H. Bechert 1991, pp. 228-229; H. Durt 1991, pp. 486-489; A. Hirakawa 1991, pp. 287-290; Y. Chen 1992, pp. 90-92.
67 Ta-t'ung (*. IS]) period: 535-546. T. 2034, p. 95c7: X I5] ?L (the first year of ta- t'ung, 535) instead of ^ I5) & (the ninth year of ta-t'ung).
68 The southern Liang dynasty (502-557).
69 I.e. arhats (H. Nakamura 1985 [1981], p. 1020, s.v. ft i£ K).
70 In some variant readings and in T. 2034, p. 95cl2: $S 3fe T 1£ (to add the old dots) instead of % (to count).
71 Kuei-hai,%-%.
72 From the year 486 bc until the year 543, there should be 1029 years, as noted by J.
Takakusu 1896, p. 437 and P. H. L. Eggermont 1956, p. 138.
73 K'ai-yüan (Hfl k.) period: 713-742.
years. 74 If this is correct, then we can calculate the year of the [parijnirväna of the Tathägata. Still, we yet cannot know for sure.
In a commentary (T. 2154: 536a7-ll), Chih-sheng adds that the tradition
of the ink dots does not correspond to the account made by Fa-hsien when
he was at the Sinhalese 'Buddha-tooth' monastery (# % sft *#")• Also, Chih-
sheng doubts that the tradition mentioned in Samghabhadra's biography can
be the tradition started by Upäli. He arguments that the Shan-chien lü p'i-
p'o-sha is not the vinaya compiled by Upäli, but an explanation of selected
vinaya matters, made in one of the schools that came into being after Upäli.
What might have happened, according to Chih-sheng's commentary, is that
after the compilation of the Shan-chien lü p'i-p'o-sha, one again started a
tradition of adding dots.
Fa-hsien's brief reference to the time of the Buddha's death is indeed
totally different from the data in Samghabhadra's biography. According to
Fa-hsien (T. 2085: 865a27), during the preparations of the Buddha-tooth
ceremony, one announces that the Buddha died fourteen hundred and
ninety-seven years before. Counted from 412, the year that Fa-hsien went
to Sri Lanka, it puts the Buddha's death in the year 1085 bc. In this sense,
Samghabhadra's biography clearly deviates from the tradition of the Bud¬
dha-tooth ceremony, a ceremony linked to the Abhayagirivihära. 75 On the
other hand, Samghabhadra's biography also deviates from the standard
Theraväda chronology, 76 mentioned also in the Sp (vol. I, p. 41), that places
the Buddha's death in the year 544 bc.
In conclusion, we can say that Samghabhadra's biography supplies unsuf-
ficient evidence to decide on his school affiliation. Still, his biography does
seem to indicate that, at the end of the sixth century, at least Samghabhadra's
work was related to a Sinhalese (chronological) tradition different from the
standard one.
2. The introduction to the text
Although the Samantapdsddikd has traditionally been attributed to Bud¬
dhaghosa, the connection between Buddhaghosa and the Sp most probably
is of a later date. 77 According to the introductory verses of the Sp, the work
74 T. 2034, p. 95cl4-15: 'in the seventeenth year of the k'ai-huang (Sfl ft) period (597), in the year ting-szu (T EL), we reach 1082 years'.
75 Several scholars point to it that the date used by Fa-hsien is probably influenced by a Chinese tradition (see H. Bechert 1991, p. 234; A. Hirakawa 1991, p. 290).
76 Probably Mahävihära (A. Hirakawa 1991, p. 290).
77 O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 104.
intends to be a Päli version of already existing Sinhalese commentaries in order
"to make the orthodox opinion of the Mahävihära internationally accessible". 78
In 488-489, the text was partially translated into Chinese by Samghabhadra.
It was entitled Shan-chien lü p'i-p'o-sha (4t- SL # & %t :&\ T. 1462) [further:
ChinSp]. Contrary to the Sp, the introductory verses of the Chinese version
do not refer to the Mahävihära, nor do they refer to any other group.
3. The nun Mettiyä
Samghabhadra's possible relation to the Abhayagirivihära seems also appar¬
ent in some parts of his Chinese translation. In this respect, Samghabhadra's
position in the famous vinaya discussion between the Mahävihäraväsins and
the Abhayagiriväsins, namely the discussion on the misbehavior of the nun
Mettiyä (Skt. Maitreyl) 79 , is particularly interesting. The Päli Vinaya tells
us that, incited by two monks, Mettiyä falsely accuses the venerable Dabba
Mallaputta (Skt. Dravya Mallaputra 80 ) of having raped her, a violation of the
first päräjika precept. 81 The Buddha, however, does not believe her. After
having listened to Dabba's defense, he starts an investigation against the two
monks. They admit to have incited Mettiyä to falsely accuse Dabba in the
hope to have him removed from the order. The Buddha thereupon lays down a
new precept that stipulates that a monk who falsely accuses another monk of
a päräjika offense, commits a samghävasesa offense. 82 What should happen
to Mettiyä, however, remained a question. Also she accused a monk of an
unfounded päräjika. The introductory story preceding the monks' precept
in the Päli Vinaya states that the Buddha wanted Mettiyä to be expelled 83 :
"tena hi hhikkhave Mettiyam bhikkhunim näsetha'' This statement lead to a
legal discussion. As pointed out by O. von Hinüber 84 and by U. Hüsken 85 ,
this expulsion cannot have been based on any rule of the Vinaya, since a first
offender is never punished, but only induces the Buddha to lay down a new
precept. Moreover, even after the formulation of all Vinaya precepts, a false
78 O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 103.
79 This is the only matter on which we know the viewpoint of the Abhayagirivihära Vinaya (O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 22).
80 On this Sanskrit form, see S. Karashima 2000, p. 233, note 2.
81 A violation of a päräjika precept leads to a definitive exclusion from the Buddhist order.
82 Skt. samghävasesa and variants, Päli samghädisesa: an offense leading to a tempo¬
rary exclusion from the Buddhist order.
83 Vin, vol. Mi 162,38-163,1. For the vinayas that have survived in a Chinese transla¬
tion, see A. Heirman 2000, pp. 31-34.
84 O. von Hinüber 1997, pp. 87-91.
85 U. Hüsken 1997, pp. 96-98.
accusation never constitutes a päräjika offense. This legal problem was also a
point of discussion between the Mahävihäraväsins and the Abhayagiriväsins,
as is clear from a passage in the Sp (582,30-584,9) 86 , where the question is
asked what the actual reason of Mettiyä's expulsion is. Was it because of her
(false) statement (Abhayagiri) or because of another reason (Mahävihära)?
According to the Sp, experts considered the latter view to be the right one.
Consequently confronted with the question what the other reason might
be, the Sp states that she has been expelled because of her bad character,
of which she herself was aware. The latter explanation is considered by U.
Hüsken 87 to be "a provisional solution," while O. von Hinüber 88 indicates
that "at least at the time of the Samantapäsädikä, there was no tangible legal
argument in the Vinaya by which Mettiyä could have been expelled(!)."
When we now turn to the Chinese version of the Samantapäsädikä, it is
striking that it does not refer to the controversy between the Mahävihära
and the Abhayagirivihära. This has also been noted by P.V. Bapat and A.
Hirakawa. 89 However, the text does point to the legal problem concern¬
ing Mettiyä's expulsion. Therefore, it is even more striking that, although
- contrary to the Sp - the ChinSp (T. 1462: 766c29-767a2) does not refer to
the Abhayagirivihära, and although it indicates that Mettiyä only commits a
dukkata (Skt. duskrta) offense, 90 it also states that she was expelled because she
herself acknowledged that she had committed a (päräjika) offense (r'A A f\ ~s <(&
H ££.)• This explanation corresponds to the Abhayagirivihära position. This
does not necessarily imply that Samghabhadra followed the Abhayagiriväsins,
since the same viewpoint is also found in the Sarvästivädavinaya (T. 1435:
22c9: il i&tf' H it), and since also the Mahisdsakavinaya has a similar ex¬
planation and states that Mettiyä is expelled for having said that Dravya had
intercourse with her (T. 1421: 15c25-16a3). Nevertheless, it remains highly
remarkable that a foreign monk, translating a work meant to expose the
Mahävihära positions, clearly does not follow the Mahävihära solution in
this matter, but adheres to the Abhayagirivihära viewpoint.
4. The Parivdra
Another element in the text of the ChinSp that points to the Abhayagirivihära,
is the position of the Parivdra, an appendix to the Vinaya that only exists in
See also U. Hüsken 1997, pp. 102-105.
U. Hüsken 1997, p. 105.
0. von Hinüber 1997, p. 91.
P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. XXX; p. 387, note 17.
1. e. 'wrong doing,' a light offense.
the Theraväda tradition. Just as the Sp, the ChinSp (T. 1462: 797al0-800cll)
comments on the Parivdra. It is hereby remarkable that the ChinSp only re¬
fers to one chapter of this appendix, namely chapter XVII. 91 The other chap¬
ters are not mentioned. 92 As noted by O. von Hinüber 93 , this could point
to an Abhayagirivihära connection, since from the commentary on the Päli
chronicle Mahdvamsa we know that the Vinaya of the Abhayagirivihära
differs from the Mahävihära Vinaya particularly in the Khandhaka and the
Parivdra, although we do not know what differences the Päli commentary
exactly refers to. 94
C. Conclusion
The above shows that Samghabhadra seems to have been at least influenced
by the Abhayagiriväsins. First of all, contrary to the Sp, the ChinSp does not
state that the purpose of the work is to spread Mahävihära viewpoints; sec¬
ondly, in the discussion on the nun Mettiyä, Samghabhadra adheres to the
Abhayagirivihära viewpoint; and, thirdly, the text only briefly comments
on the Parivdra.
This does of course not mean that Samghabhadra's translation is entirely,
or even largely, an Abhayagirivihära version of the Samantapasadika. Up to
now, comparative studies between the Sp and the ChinSp 95 have shown that,
on the one hand, the ChinSp essentially is a summarized translation of the
Sp, 96 but that, on the other hand, it also contains differences, probably due to
the influence of the Dharmaguptakas, of the Chinese language and culture, of a
non-Päli tradition, or of a Päli text different from the Sp. 97 As far as influence
of the Abhayagiriväsins is concerned, it will be very difficult, if not impos¬
sible, to find out what part they exactly played, given the scarce information
on their viewpoints. Even for the part played by the vinayas that survived
in a fifth century Chinese translation (Mahisäsaka-, Mahäsämgbika-, Dhar¬
maguptaka-, and Sarvdstivddavinaya), the task is not easy.
91 I.e. Dutiya-gdthd-samganikd ('second collection of stanzas').
92 It has to be noted here that the text ends without any concluding remark. This might suggest that Samghabhadra had not yet finished his work. Still, since he started with a chapter that in the Mahävihära Vinaya is chapter XVII, it is clear that he had in mind a Parivdra that differs from the Mahävihära one.
93 O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 23.
94 See also V. Stache-Rosen, ed. H. Bechert 1984, p. 13. For Päli references, see O.
von Hinüber 1996, pp. 22-23.
95 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970; P. Kieffer-Pülz 1992, pp. 171-182.
96 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. XLV; P. Kieffer-Pülz 1992, p. 182.
97 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. XLV-LIV.
The Chinese Samantapasadika: a Dharmaguptaka text?
According to P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa, 98 Samghabhadra was clearly
influenced by the Dharmaguptakavinaya. According to these authors, the
latter vinaya was the prevalent one at the time the Chinese translation was
made, as a result of which Samghabhadra "could not possibly escape that
influence." However, more recent studies have shown that, in fifth century
Southern China, the Dharmaguptakavinaya, although studied by some
monks, was not at all prevalent. 99 The Sarvästivädavinaya was far more
popular. Consequently, it will often remain hard to decide whether any influ¬
ence said to be Dharmaguptaka, is really Dharmaguptaka or is of a different
Chinese or Sinhalese origin.
In what follows, we will have a look at the twelve points enumerated by
P. V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa 100 as clear signs of a Dharmaguptaka influence.
We will also consider three less strict attitudes towards vinaya rules that P.V.
Bapat and A. Hirakawa 101 see as a consequence of Samghabhadra's Dhar¬
maguptaka affiliation.
1. While the Sp uses the word nikäya (collection) for the divisions of the
Suttapitaka, the ChinSp (T. 1462: 677al6-19ff.) uses the word M ^- (a-han,
dgama, collection of doctrines). This is of course, as also noted by P.V.
Bapat and A. Hirakawa, not particular to the Dharmaguptakas, but is a
common feature of the schools of northern Buddhism. When the translator
adapted the text to the Chinese environment, he hereby translated all five
nikäyas as dgama, including the Khuddakanikdya (translated as M ft #f ffl
^, Ch'ü-t'o-chia-a-han, Ksudrakdgama, Collection of Small Texts). The
latter nikdyaldgama is unknown to the fifth century Chinese schools, that
always have four dgamas, sometimes completed by a Ksudrakapitaka. 102
2. While the Sp has 92 pdcittiyas m , the ChinSp wavers between 92 and
90. 104 The number 90 105 is shared by the Dharmaguptakas and the Sarvästi-
vädins. The Mahäsämghikas support the number 92, the Mahisäsakas the
number 91. 106 The waver between 90 and 92 thus seems to be influenced
98 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. L-LIV.
99 Z. Tsukamoto 1985 [1979], vol. II, pp. 889-892; A. Heirman 2002b.
100 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, pp. L-LIII.
101 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. LIX.
102 For more details, see E. Lamotte 1958, pp. 165-167.
103 Skt. päcittika and variants, Päli päcittiya: an offense that must be expiated.
104 92: T. 1462, 675a21; 90: T. 1462, 767bl, 779a24-25.
105 Maybe the original number (O. von Hinüber 1999, p. 19).
106 For a detailed comparison of the list of all precepts, see R. Nishimoto 1928: appen¬
dix; W. Pachow 2000 [1955], pp. 67-197.
by the Chinese vinayas, in particular the Dharmaguptaka- and the
Sarvästivädavinaya. We hereby further have to keep in mind that we do
not know how many pacittiyas the Abhayagirivihära Vinaya contained,
so that an influence of the latter school cannot be excluded.
3. In the ChinSp, the order of the.pacittiyas 85-91 of the Sp has been distur¬
bed and now follows the order of the Dharmaguptakavinaya. A similar
change occured for the samghädisesa precepts 107 for nuns. The order of
the precepts is indeed a strong argument in determining the affiliation
of a text. 108 A Dharmaguptaka influence thus seems to be most probable.
Still, two remarks need to be made. First, a disturbance of the above
kind occurs only twice and in a limited number of precepts. The other
precepts show nothing similar, and thus follow the Päli order. Secondly,
as mentioned earlier, we do not know what order the Abhayagirivihära
Vinaya followed, so that, again, an influence of the latter school cannot
be excluded. 109
4. The clearest indication of a Dharmaguptaka influence is undoubtedly
the comment on the saiksa rules 110 (ChinSp, T. 1462: 787a22-bl2). The
order of the rules corresponds to the Dharmaguptakavinaya 111 and, more
significantly, a series of rules on the correct attitude towards a stüpa
(pagoda) or towards an image of the Buddha, only paralleled in the
Dharmaguptakavinaya 112 , has been added to the original Päli text. Mo¬
reover, Samghabhadra clearly states that he has added these rules to the
107 See note 82.
108 Cf., for instance, O. von Hinüber 1985, p. 66.
109 There is no relation between the order of the precepts in the ChinSp and the above mentioned Yu-p'o-li-wen-fo ching (T. 1466). Although the latter text is sometimes consid¬
ered to be a probable Abhayagirivihära text, recent research expressed many doubts as to this attribution. It thus seems impossible to say with any certitude that we know anything about the order of precepts in the Abhayagirivihära Vinaya.
110 Skt. saiksa, Päli sekhiya, a rule of good behavior.
111 This gives the following sequence: the first three rules commented upon in the ChinSp correspond to Sp 3, 56 and 75; Mahis'äsaka- 11, 76 and 82; Mahäsämghika- 3, 47 and 65; Dharmaguptaka- 18, 48 and 50; and Sarvästivädavinaya 17, 88 and 111. They are followed by a series of rules that only appear in the Dharmaguptakavinaya. After that, the ChinSp still comments on one other rule: Sp 69, Mahisäsaka- 88, Mahäsämghika- 50,
Dharmaguptaka- 89, and Sarvästivädavinaya 92.
112 T. 1428: 710b8-712b28: saiksa rules 60-85, omitting rule 64 (one should not walk around a stüpa wearing leather shoes) and rule 69 (one should not bury someone in the stüpa). Most of the rules concern a stüpa of the Buddha. Saiksa rule 77, however, con¬
cerns an image of the Buddha. As for saiksa rule 85, the Dharmaguptakavinaya (T. 1428:
712b21) clearly refers to a small stüpa, while some of the Dharmaguptaka prätimoksa editions refer to an image (T. 1429: 1021c27; T. 1430: 1029b22; T. 1431: 1039c28; see also P.
Demieville 1975 [1951], pp. 293-295).
original text. He explains that the latter text did not have them, because at
the time the Buddha was alive, there were no Buddha stüpas yet (T. 1462:
787a27-bl; 787bll— 12). Although the above thus strongly points to
a Dharmaguptaka influence on Samghabhadra, we may not forget that
the stüpa and image culture is not a characteristic of the Dharmaguptaka
School alone. Already in the first centuries of Indian Buddhism, it was
fully integrated in the monastic life, 113 and except for the Päli vinaya m , all
other vinayas 115 contain many rules concerning stüpas and images. The
Dharmaguptakavinaya, however, is the only vinaya that has integrated a
series of such rules in the bhiksu- and the bhiksunivibhanga. This does not
mean that only the Dharmaguptakas really promoted the stüpa culture.
In the fifth century, stüpas were important for the Sinhalese Theraväda
tradition, 116 as well as for the Chinese Mahisäsaka-, Mahäsämghika-,
Dharmaguptaka-, and Sarvästivädavinaya} 17 It is, in this context, not
surprising that Samghabhadra integrated stüpa rules in a commentary on
monastic rules. Since only the Dharmaguptakas had a condensed list of
such rules in the vibhanga, Samghabhadra was naturally inspired by it.
5. While the Sp mentions ten kinds of male semen, the ChinSp (T. 1462:
759c25-26) says that the vinaya refers to seven kinds, but that the
'commentary' (p'i-p'o-sha) m enumerates ten. As for the extant vinayas,
the number seven indeed only appears in the Dharmaguptakavinaya
(T. 1428: 579c3-4).
6. The fourteenth päcittiya precept says that a monk who leaves behind
sitting material of the samgha, commits a päcittiya. Just as the Sp, the
ChinSp enumerates a few exceptions to this rule. One of these ChinSp
exceptions has no parallel in the Päli text. It says that a monk who
abandons sitting material because he is confronted with one of the
113 See G. Schopen 1997 [1985], pp. 23-55; 1997 [1988-1989], pp. 238-257; 1997 [1989],
pp. 86-98 (see also the reply by O. von Hinüber 1990; R. Gombrich 1990; Ch. Hal-
lisey 1990); 1997 [1991], pp. 99-113; P. Kieffer-Pülz 2000, pp. 351-356.
114 The Päli vinaya contains only a few references to stüpas (in the Päli Vinaya: cetiya), see G. Schopen 1997 [1989], pp. 89-91.
115 See A. Bareau 1962. Most rules concern a stüpa, and only seldom an image of the Buddha (A. Bareau 1962, pp. 247-248).
116 See, for instance, the account of Fa-hsien on the great stüpa of the Abhayagirivihära, and on the stüpa for the relics of a Mahävihära monk (T. 2085: 864c23-24 and 865b25); or a passage in the Sp (vol. VII: 1315; translated by O. von Hinüber 1990, p. 134) that says that one who does not pay respect to a Buddha 'does not venerate a cetiya or a bodhi tree, (and) walks in the courtyard of a cetiya holding an umbrella and wearing shoes'.
117 See notes 113 and 115.
118 To all probability, p'i-p'o-sha is an abbreviation of Shan-chien lü p'i-p'o-sha, and here refers to the original Päli version translated by Samghabhadra.
eight dangerous situations (A$|t), does not commit an offense (T. 1462:
781a28-29). Since a list of eight dangerous situations can be found in the
Dharmaguptakavinaya 119 , P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa attributed the
appearance of the term A. $fi in the ChinSp to a Dharmaguptaka influence.
However, apart from the Dharmaguptakavinaya, the term also appears
in two other fifth century Chinese vinayas: Mahisäsakavinaya, T. 1421:
70a24 et passim; Sarvästivädavinaya, T. 1435: 77b26-27 et passim. Mo¬
reover, while the Dharmaguptakavinaya does not mention the eight
dangerous situations in the context of the fourteenth päcittiya precept,
but only says that a monk who leaves behind sitting material commits
no offense if his life or pure conduct is in danger (T. 1428: 644b5-6) 120 ,
the Sarvästivädavinaya (T. 1435: 77b26-27) explicitly says that a monk
commits no offense in case of one of the eight dangerous situations (A.
!fi). Consequently, if the appearance of the term A !f£ is to be attributed to any of the Chinese vinayas, it should be the Sarvästivädavinaya.
7. In the context of the ordination procedure, the ChinSp (T. 1462: 792al9)
mentions + JL $(t A, 'thirteen difficult people'. This is not found in the
Sp. Since also the Dharmaguptakavinaya has a list of thirteen in the
same context (T. 1428: 814cll-18; + iff 121 , 'thirteen difficulties'),
P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa attribute the appearance of the number
thirteen in the ChinSp to the Dharmaguptakas. However, also the
Sarvästivädavinaya contains a list of thirteen people in the context of
the ordination ceremony (T. 1435: 410b8-12; d - ü K, 'thirteen people').
Consequently, if there is any Chinese influence, the Sarvästivädavinaya is as likely a candidate as the Dharmaguptakavinaya.
8. In the ChinSp, the order of the khandhakas (chapters) does not fully
correspond to the Sp, but it does correspond to the Dharmaguptaka¬
vinaya. This implies that the khandhaka on clothing (civara) precedes
the khandhakas on medicines and on kathina 122 ; that the Kosambak-
khandhaka precedes the Campeyyakkhandkaka; and that the few frag¬
ments of the Cullavagga that have been translated appear in an order
that seems to correspond to the Dharmaguptakavinaya. P.V. Bapat
and A. Hirakawa also underline that the title of the first khandhaka
(Päli: Mahäkhandhaka) has been changed to ('skandhaka
on ordination'; T. 1462: 792cl9), a name also found in the Dharma-
119 T. 1428: 823a2-4 et passim.
120 This corresponds to the Sp (vol. IV: 777), but not to the ChinSp.
121 Kff ^: antaräya (A. Heirman 2002a, Part III, Index Technical Terms, s.v. antaräya).
122 Kathina (raw cotton) refers to the kathina ceremony held after the invitation cer¬
emony (see note 57). It is the beginning of a period during which lay people bring a lot of gifts to the community.
guptakavinaya. The above data indeed point to a Dharmaguptaka
connection. Still, a few remarks can be made. The ChinSp contains
a passage on the parivdsa (living under probation) and mdnatta (Skt.
mdnatva) m penances 124 (T. 1462: 796b3-16) inserted between the
Kathinakkhandhaka and the Kosambakkhandhaka, an order that does
not correspond to any of the extant vinayas 125 . Secondly, the ChinSp
gives the names of eight khandhakas. Seven of these indeed correspond
to the Dharmaguptakavinaya. The eighth name (}& /$.), however, is
not found in any vinaya. To my opinion, since this name appears at the
end of the whole section on khandhakas (T. 1462: 797a9), it does not
refer to one particular khandhaka, but to all the khandhakas, in fifth
century China called >k (Mahisäsaka-, and Sarvdstivddavinaya) Ub or
(chien-tu, skandbaka; Dharmaguptakavinaya): yk tt fL jt> 'the [sec¬
tion] on yk or ifjfc /Jl is finished'. Finally, it may be interesting to note that
the Vinaya of the Abhayagiriväsins is said to be different from the one of
the Mahävihära particularly in the Skandbaka and Parivdra sections, 127
so that any influence of the Abhayagirivihära cannot be excluded.
9. The ChinSp briefly refers to the rich merchant's son Sona (Skt. Srona)
who gave up his belongings when he went forth. According to the Päli
Vinaya (Vin, vol. I: 185), Sona hereby renounces to a herd of seven ele¬
phants, which is explained by the Sp (vol. V: 1083) as a herd of six cow-
elephants and one bull-elephant. The ChinSp (T. 1462: 793cl0-ll) says
that he gave up five such herds. The number five is in accordance with
the Dharmaguptakavinaya (T. 1428: 845al8-20), and is not mentioned
in any other fifth century Chinese vinaya.
10. ChinSp mentions H W M (a-lo-li; Skt./Päli unknown) 128 shoes (T. 1462:
793cl3). This does not seem to correspond to anything in the Sp. The
same term is also found in the Dharmaguptakavinaya (T. 1428: 847a7),
and not in any other Chinese vinaya.
11. Of the fourteen phonetic renderings referring to medicines (ChinSp,
T. 1462: 795al7-28), some seem not to correspond to a Päli term. 129
123 The etymology, and thus the exact meaning of the term, remains unclear.
124 These are two periods of penance that are imposed upon someone guilty of a
samghädisesa (Skt. samghävasesa) offense.
125 For more details on the order of the khandhakas, see E. Frauwallner 1956, p. 3, 68ff.
126 The Mahäsämghikavinaya does not contain a list of various vastus. It only contains two long chapters, both called
127 O. von Hinüber 1996, p. 22.
128 The term a-lo-li is a phonetic rendering of an unknown Indian term. The meaning of this term is unclear.
129 See P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. 525.
Eleven of these, however, can be found on the same two pages (866-867)
of the Dharmaguptakavinaya, eight with exactly the same characters,
three with slightly different ones. 130 The other Chinese vinayas have
a much smaller number of similar terms. 131 The list of medicines thus
indeed points to a Dharmaguptaka connection. Still, a few terms of the
ChinSp are not found in the Dharmaguptakavinaya, while many more
medicines of the Dharmaguptakavinaya are not listed in the ChinSp.
12. The term samghädisesa is rendered by the ChinSp (T. 1462: 760a29
et passim) as ft #p # P :& (seng-chia-p'o-shi-sha), a term that is
equally found in the Mahisäsaka-, Mahäsämghika-, Dharmaguptaka-,
and Sarvästivädavinaya, and that in fact renders the Sanskrit
samghävasesa} 12 The explanation of the term corresponds to the ex¬
planation of the Sp, and is clearly based on the Päli term samghädisesa:
samgha + ädi (beginning) + sesa (rest) (p. 760a29-bl). Consequently,
while on the one hand, Samghabhadra uses a Chinese term that is based
on Sanskrit, he explains the term referring to Päli. Although this puts
him into trouble as to the etymology of the term, as he himself notices
(p. 760b6), he sticks to the Sp explanation saying that this offense needs
to be dealt with by the samgha, from the beginning to the end. We thus
see that Samghabhadra both adapts to his Chinese environment - not
necessarily Dharmaguptaka - and sticks to his Päli background.
The above shows that Samghabhadra several times deviates from the Sp,
and that some of these differences clearly seem to be inspired by the Dhar¬
maguptakas. However, influence of other vinayas or even of a non-extant
text is also possible, and is sometimes even likely. 133
130 Three terms are not found. One of these is i£ #i i& (variant reading %'\ i£- i£), p'o-li-p'o-p'o. The Dharmaguptakavinaya does not contain the latter term, but has 3fi
(T. 1428: 867a27), so-li-so-p'o. The difference between the two terms might be due to a writing error.
131 In the Mahisäsaka-, Mahäsämghika-, and Sarvästivädavinaya, four terms corre¬
spond to those of the ChinSp.
132 When explaining the Sanskrit term samghävasesa, the Chinese vinayas generally emphasize that there is a remainder ($£, ^Ivas) in the community (If , samgha). They thus indicate that although the offender is removed from the samgha, this is only temporary.
He or she can always be re-integrated as a full member. The Sp, on the other hand, divides the Päli term samghädisesa in three parts: samgha (community), ädi (the beginning) and sesa (the rest): in the beginning as well as in the following stages, the samgha carries out a formal act. For more details on the term samghädisesa (Skt. samghävasesa) and its Chi¬
nese renderings, see A. Heirman 2002a, Part I, pp. 128-133.
133 Also P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa (1970, pp. XLV-L; LX) indicate some deviations not attributed to the Dharmaguptakas.
On top of the above mentioned points, three 'lenient attitudes' have been
considered by P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa 134 to be signs of a Dhar¬
maguptaka influence:
1. First of all, the ChinSp is said to have a lenient attitude towards the ac¬
ceptance of gold and silver, an attitude that is not found in the Päli text,
and that is attributed to the Dharmaguptakas. This statement is based on
two passages. The first passage says that gold and silver can be accepted
on condition that these metals, after having been mixed with copper or
tin, do no longer have the color of gold or silver (T. 1462: 762cl). The
Dharmaguptakavinaya does not contain any similar statement. 135 The
second passage indicated by P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa seems to be
based on a wrong interpretation of the ChinSp text. ChinSp (T. 1462:
776a8-12) says that gold and silver cannot be accepted by a monk, but
that lay people still can give gold and silver to a kind of lay manager
(vai(y)ydpatyakara) 13b . If a monk needs a robe later on, he can go to
this manager and ask him to have one made. The text then says: "tjH jit S
#L it T # ± & & f& jib M £ £ & 'if you use this method (i.e. if
you make use of a manager), you can accept gold and silver. Besides that,
there is no other way to accept gold and silver.' This is in accordance
with the content of the Päli text. In their interpretation, P.V. Bapat
and A. Hirakawa did not take into account the first demonstrative jib
('this'), and translated (p. 430): "[But] by the way of a device [even] gold
and silver may be taken. Except in this case, gold and silver are things not
to be taken." In this way, the text is made to say something completely
different. We further have to add that the Dharmaguptakavinaya does
not support any flexibility towards the acceptance of gold and silver in
order to acquire a robe.
2. The ChinSp (T. 1462: 788al3-14) says that a nun who begs for grain,
commits a päcittiya. This is in accordance with the Päli text. The
ChinSp adds that she commits no offense if she begs grain in order to
build a room in the monastery. This more flexible attitude is not found
in the Päli tradition, and is attributed by P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa
to the Dharmaguptakas. The Dharmaguptakavinaya, however, does not
contain this exception to the rule. 137
134 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. LIX.
135 The same is true for the Mahisäsaka-, the Mahäsämghika-, and the Sarvästiväda¬
vinaya.
136 Cf. A. Heirman 2002a, Part III, Index Technical Terms, s.v. vaiyyäpatyakara.
137 The same is true for the Mahisäsaka-, the Mahäsämghika-, and the Sarvästiväda¬
vinaya.
3. A third point concerns a passage on the going forth (pravrajyä) 1™. It
postulates an exception to the rule that parents need to give their per¬
mission before a candidate can be legally accepted by the Buddhist
community. The passage says (T. 1462: 792al4): "£ M 4k 3" & 9 A. ifc
% W M Ü. Wi translated by P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa 139 : "If
there be [some other province in] a different direction, or if there is
another town where he can get converted, then one need not ask about
his parents' [permission]." This translation seems to suggest that a can¬
didate can go forth without the permission of his parents, provided
that he goes to a relatively distant place. This flexibility is attributed to
the Dharmaguptakas. However, a similar exception is not found in the
Dharmaguptakavinaya)* 0
As we can see, none of the above three 'lenient attitudes' can be attributed
to the Dharmaguptakas. It seems that P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa con¬
sidered them to be Dharmaguptaka opinions only because they assumed
Samghabhadra was a Dharmaguptaka monk. In the Dharmaguptakavinaya
itself, there is nothing to confirm this statement.
Conclusion
From the above, it is clear that Samghabhadra was undergoing many differ¬
ent kinds of influence. Confronted with a Mahävihära text, he still shows
an Abhayagirivihära connection. Confronted with the Chinese environ¬
ment he was living in, he 141 adapted the text to the Chinese habits, showing
his familiarity with the Chinese vinayas, and more particularly, with the
Dharmaguptakavinaya.
What Samghabhadra's affiliation was, remains hard to say. On the Sin¬
halese side, he seems to have translated a Mahävihära text, but he is also con¬
nected to the Abhayagirivihära. On the Chinese side, although it is obvious
that he knew the Dharmaguptakavinaya, many elements prevent us from
saying that he was a Dharmaguptaka monk, and even less that his Dhar¬
maguptaka affiliation made him, compared to the Sp, less strict towards
138 Chinese it "%L:one leaves the family in order to become a member of the Buddhist community.
139 P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. 510.
140 We do find a similar kind of exception in the Mahasämghikavinaya (T. 1425:
421 bl4— 15) that says that adoptive children can go forth without the permission of the adoptive parents, provided they go forth in another country.
141 Or maybe even his disciples (see P.V. Bapat/A. Hirakawa 1970, p. LIII).
some vinaya rules, as was stated by P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa. In that
sense, Samghabhadra perfectly fits in the eclectic picture 142 of fifth century
Chinese Buddhism.
Abbreviations
ChinSp T. 1462, Shan-chien lü p'i-p'o-sha -§- A # S. Ic :&, trans. Samgha¬
bhadra
Sp Samantapäsädikä, J. Takakusu, M. Nagai, K. Mizuno (eds.), Lon¬
don, Pali Text Society
T. Taishö Shinshü Daizökyö SL & & J- Takakusu, K. Wata¬
nabe (eds.), Tokyo
Vin The Vinaya Pitakam, H. Oldenberg (ed.), London, Pali Text Society
List of secondary works
Bagchi, P.C.: Le canon bouddhique en Chine, les traducteurs et les traductions. 2
vols. Paris 1927.
Bapat, P.V: Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga. A Comparative Study. Poona 1937.
Bapat, P.V./A. Hirakawa: #£,1$ fy, Shan-Chien-P'i-P'o-Sha, A Chinese
Version hy Sahghahhadra of Samantapäsädikä. Poona 1970.
Bareau, A.: "La construction et le culte des stüpa d'apres vinayapitaka" In:
BEFEO L.2 (1962), pp. 229-274.
Bechert, H.: "Die Lebenszeit des Buddha - das älteste feststehende Datum der
indischen Geschichte?" In: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Göttingen 4 (1986), pp. 127-184.
-: review of K.R. Norman 1983. In: IIJ 30 (1987), pp. 134-139.
—: "The Date of the Buddha - an Open Question of Ancient Indian History." In:
H. Bechert (ed.): The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Göttingen 1991, Part
I, pp. 222-236.
—: "The Nikäyas of Mediaeval Sri Lanka and the Unification of the Sangha by
Paräkramabähu I." In: N. K. Wagle, F. Watanabe (eds.): Studies on Buddhism
in Honour of Professor A. K. Warder. Toronto 1993, pp. 11-21.
Chen, Y.: "Chinesische Studien zum Datum des Buddha." In: H. Bechert (ed.):
The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Göttingen 1992, Part 2, pp. 84-102.
Demieville, P.: "A propos du Concile de Vaisäll." In: TP 40, Kraus reprint (1975 [1951]), pp. 239-296.
Demieville, P./H. Durt/A. Seidel: Repertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japo-
nais, edition de Taishö (Taishö Shinshü Daizökyö). Paris/Tökyö 1978.
See also A. Heirman 2002b.
Devendra, D.T.: "Abhayagiri." In: G.P. Malalasekera (ed.): Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. Colombo 1961, vol. I fasc. 1, pp. 21-25.
Durt, H.: "La Date du Buddha en Coree et au Japon." In: H. Bechert (ed.): The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Göttingen 1991, Part 1, pp. 458-489.
Eggermont, P.H.L.: The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya, A Comparison
of the Data of the Asoka Inscriptions and the Data of the Tradition. Leiden 1956.
Frauwallner. E.: The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature.
Roma 1956.
Geiger, W.: Culture of Ceylon in Mediaeval Times. Ed. by H. Bechert. Wiesbaden
1960.
Gombrich, R.: "Making Mountains Without Molehills: The Case of the Missing
Stüpa." In: Journal of the Pali Text Society XV (1990), pp. 141-143.
Hallisey, Ch.: "Apropos the Päli Vinaya as a Historical Document: A Reply to
Gregory Schopen." In: Journal of the Pali Text Society XV (1990), pp. 197-208.
Heirman, A.: "What Happened to the Nun Maitreyi?" In: Journal of the Interna¬
tional Association of Buddhist Studies 23.1 (2000), pp. 29-41.
—: The Discipline in Four Parts, Rules for Nuns according to the Dharmaguptakavi¬
naya. Delhi 2002, 3 Parts.
-: "Can we trace the early Dharmaguptakas?" In: TP 88 (2002), pp. 396-429.
Hinüber, O. von: "Die Bestimmung der Schulzugehörigkeit buddhistischer Texte
nach sprachlichen Kriterien." In: H. Bechert (ed.): Zur Schulzugehörigkeit
von Werken der Hinayäna-Literatur I. Göttingen 1985, pp. 57-75.
—: "Khandhakavatta, Loss of Text in the Päli Vinayapitaka?" In: Journal of the Pali Text Society XV (1990), pp. 127-138.
—: A Handbook of Päli Literature. Berlin 1996
—: "Buddhist Law According to the Theraväda Vinaya II: Some Additions and
Corrections." In: Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 20.2 (1997), pp. 87-92.
—: Das Pätimokkhasutta der Theravädin. Seine Gestalt und seine Entstehungs¬
geschichte. Studien zur Literatur des Theraväda-Buddhismus II. Mainz/Stutt¬
gart 1999.
Hirakawa, A.: A History of Indian Buddhism From Säkyamuni to Early Mahäyäna.
Translated and edited by P. Groner. Hawai 1990.
—: "An Evaluation of the Sources on the Date of the Buddha." In: H. Bechert (ed.):
The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Göttingen 1991, Part 1, pp. 252-295.
Hüsken, U.: "The Application of the Vinaya term näsanä." In: Journal of the Inter¬
national Association of Buddhist Studies 20.2 (1997), pp. 93-111.
de Jong, J.W.: review of V. Stache-Rosen, ed. H. Bechert 1984. In: BSOAS
XLIX.3 (1986), pp. 591-592.
Karashima, S.: "A Fragment of the Pratimoksa-Vibhanga of the Mahäsämghika- Lokottaravädins*." In: J. Braarvig (ed.): Manuscripts in the Scheyen Collec¬
tion I, Buddhist Manuscripts Volume I. Oslo 2000, pp. 233-241.
Kieffer-Pülz, P.: Die Simä, Vorschriften zur Regelung der buddhistischen Ge¬
meindegrenze in älteren buddhistischen Texten. Berlin 1992.
—: "Die buddhistische Gemeinde." In: H. Bechert et al. (eds.): Der Buddhismus I.
Der indische Buddhismus und seine Verzweigungen. Stuttgart 2000, pp. 281-402.
Lamotte, E.: Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien des origines a l'ere $aka. Louvain 1958.
Matsumura, H.: "Miscellaneous Notes on the Upälipariprcchä and Related Texts."
In: Acta Orientalia LI (1990), pp. 61-113.
Mizuno, K.: Buddhist Sutras, Origin, Development, Transmission. Tokyo 6 1995
[1982].
Nagai, M.: "The Vimutti-magga, The 'Way to Delivrance', The Chinese coun¬
terpart of the Päli Visuddhi-magga." In: Journal of the Pali Text Society (1917-1919), pp. 69-80.
Nakamura, H.: Bukkyögo Daijiten ff&tg-*.Tokyo 5 1985 [1981].
Nishimoto, R.: "Rajü-yaku Jüju Bikuni Haradaimokusha Kaihon no Shutsugen
narabini Shobu Sö-Ni Kaihon no Taishö Kenkyü" (a recently discovered
Bhiksuniprätimoksa of the Sarvästivädins, translated by Kumärajlva, and
a comparative study with the Bhiksu- and Bhiksuniprätimoksas of the other
schools). In: Otani Gakuhö 9.2 (1928), pp. 27 (245)-60 (278).
Norman, K.R.: Pali Literature, Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and
Sanskrit of all the Hinayäna Schools of Buddhism. Wiesbaden 1983.
-: review of V. Stache-Rosen, ed. H. Bechert 1984. In: JRAS (1985), pp. 215-218.
—: "The Literary Works of the Abhayagirivihärins." In: V.N. Jha (ed.): Kalyäna-
mitta: Professor Hajime Nakamura Felicitation Volume. Delhi 1991, pp. 41-50.
Pachow, W.: "A Study of the Dotted Record." In: W. Pachow: Chinese Buddhism:
Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation. Washington 1980, pp. 342-348.
—: A Comparative Study of the Prätimoksa on the Basis of Its Chinese, Tibetan,
Sanskrit and Päli Versions. Delhi 22000 [1955].
Schopen, G.: "Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/
Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit." In: Stil 10 (1985), pp. 9-47 [reprint in: G. Schopen 1997, pp. 23-55].
—: "On Monks, Nuns and 'Vulgar' Practices: The Introduction of the Image Cult
into Indian Buddhism." In: Artibus Asiae 49.1-2 (1988/1989), pp. 153-168 [re¬
print in: G. Schopen 1997, pp. 238-257].
—: "The Stüpa Cult and the Extant Päli Vinaya." In: Journal of the Pali Text Society XIII (1989), pp. 83-100 [reprint in: G. Schopen 1997, pp. 86-98].
—: "Monks and the Relic Cult in the Mahäparinibbäna-Sutta. An Old Misunder¬
standing in Regard to Monastic Buddhism." In: K. Shinohara/G. Schopen
(eds.): From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion.
Oakville 1991, pp. 187-201 [reprint in: G. Schopen 1997, pp. 99-113].
—: Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks, Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epig¬
raphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu 1997.
Shih, R.: Biographies des moines eminents (Kao Seng Tchouan) de Houei-kiao.
Louvain 1968.
Shinohara, K.: "Two Sources of Chinese Buddhist Biographies: Stupa Inscrip¬
tions and Miracle Stories." In: P. Granoff/K. Shinohara (eds.): Monks and
Magiciens: Religious Biographies in Asia. Oakville 1988, pp. 119-228.
