A critical evaluation of ethical aspect of Buddhist Sanskrit literature
A critical evaluation of ethical aspect of Buddhist Sanskrit literature
Ven. Padalangala Rewatha (Royal Pandith, B.A. Hons, M.A.)
Monastic TeacherBodhiraja Bhikkhu Training Centre, Embilipitiya, Sri Lanka.
E-mail:- rewathapada@yahoo.com E-mail:- rewathapada@yahoo.com T.P. +94 711834021
Origin and diffusion of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature
1.1 Introduction
The Pāli language developed within Theravādins as their literary Language in vast range. But Pāli was not the only area which contributed to the flowering of the Buddhist tradition. The vast amount of Pāli texts, canonical and non-canonical, is the contribution of only one major branch, doubtless one of the most ancient and orthodox branches of Buddhism. Apart from the
Theravādins several sects who pertain to Nikāya Buddhism and later developed Buddhist
Schools until Mahāyāna included with it, have produced their own literary works, whose language is mixed Sanskrit. First time the language of the scriptures of the Northern Buddhistssuch as the Mahāvastu, the Lalitavistara, and the Divyāvadāna etc., was known as Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit by Franklin Edgerton in his Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (1953). Before Edgerton the language was known as Buddhist Sanskrit.
According to scholars the Sanskrit language which found in Buddhist literature wholly not same and there can be seen varieties in usage. It has corroborated by L.M. Joshi,
“The Buddhist intellectuals of ancient India contributed not only to what are now called Buddhist Sanskrit and its varieties but also to what is called Pāṇinian or Classical Sanskrit. Thus while we have the Avadānas and Mahāyāna sūtra
in a Sanskrit peculiar to the Buddhist tradition, we also have such texts as the Madhyamakaṣāstra, the Jātakamālā and the Tattvasaṃgraha, to mention only three out of numerous texts, in classical Sanskrit. The Sanskrit of the Buddhist tantras and sādhanas presents yet another category of language.”
As a literary language the Sanskrit usage in Buddhist literature not poor, according to its varieties in usage the Sanskrit language has run vast role in Buddhist literature.
The Sanskrit language usage in Buddhist literature later became very popular and within
Sanskrit language Buddhist literature developed in vast range, especially in Mahāyāna.
“In the North and North-West of India there were great centers of learning, such as the universities of Nālandā and Takkasilā (Taxila) where for hundreds of years not only all branches of secular knowledge, especially
medicine, but also the philosophical and theological literature of the Buddhist were cultivated with great zeal. Indian Pandits went thence to Tibet and China, learned Tibetan and Chinese, and translated
Sanskrit works into these languages. Chinese pilgrims like Hsuan-Tsang learnt Sanskrit at Nālanda, and translated Buddhist texts into Chinese.”
According to above discussion to develop Buddhist literature in Sanskrit most influenced by
Mahāyāna Buddhism.
1.2 Origin Background of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature
When we attempt to fine the origin background of Buddhist Sanskrit literature we have to probe the first schism among the disciples of the Buddha because particular schism in line with influenced to above matter. This background has
introduced by J.K. Nariman, according to him, several sects have developed their own literary productions, the language of which is partly Sanskrit and partly a dialect which we may call the mid-Indian and which is given the
designation of mixed Sanskrit by Senart. Of this Sanskrit literature there have remained to us many voluminous books and fragments of several others while many are known to us only through Tibetan and Chinese translations. The
major portion of this literature, in pure and mixed Sanskrit, which we for brevity's sake call Buddhist Sanskrit literature, belongs either to the school known as that of the Mahāyāna or has been more or less influenced by
the latter. For an appreciation, therefore, of this literature it is necessary in the first place to make a few observations on the schism in Buddhism which divided it early into two schools, the Mahāyāna and the Srāvakayāna.
According to scholars the schism first time appeared among the disciples after Second Buddhist council which performed at Vaiśāli and before Third Buddhist council was convened by the Mauryan king Aśoka at
Pātaliputra. There are various historical records with regard to the schism belong to various schools. One history which preserves some ancient and authentic records, the Dīpavamsa of the Sthaviravāda school, states
that after the Vaiśāli affair the monks of Vrji were not reconciled to the decision of the assembly and held a new
„rehearsal‟ which they called the „Great Rehearsal‟ (Mahāsaṅgīti), at which they altered the Tripiṭaka to suit their own views and added new texts. Thus a schismatic school arose.
1.2.1 Second Buddhist Council
According to the sources, the Second Council was held a hundred years after the Buddha's death during the reign of King Kalaśoka. According to the Chapter on the Council of Seven Hundred of the Pāli
Vinaya , seven hundred elders discussed the ten items in accordance with the vinaya. Thus, their meeting is called a council on vinaya (vinayasaṃgīti). No mention is made in the Pāli Vinaya of the compilation of the Sūtra-piṭaka or Vinaya-piṭaka after the investigation of the ten points was concluded. In contrast, according to the Sri Lankan chronicles, the Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa , after the dispute over the ten items was concluded, the seven hundred elders with Revata as their leader held a council on doctrine that required eight months to complete. This is called the Second Council in the Theravada tradition.
According to Pāli sources the ten disputed practices and the rules violated by Vrji monks which caused to council as follows:
1. Carrying salt in an animal horn-violated a rule against the storing of food
2. Taking food when the shadow on the sundial is two fingers past noon-violated a rule against eating after noon
3. After eating, traveling to another village to eat another meal the same day-violating the rule against overeating
4. Holding several fortnightly assemblies within the same boundaries (sīmā)-violated procedures requiring all monks within the sima to attend the same fortnightly assembly 5. Confirming an ecclesiastical act in an incomplete assembly and obtaining approval from absent monks afterward-violated the rules of procedure at monastic meetings
6. Citing habitual practice as the authority for violations of monastic procedures-violated the rules of procedure
7. Drinking milk whey after meals-violated the rule against eating special food when one was not sick
8. Drinking unfermented wine-violated the rule against drinking intoxicating beverages
9. Using a mat with fringes-violated the rule concerning the measurements of rugs
10. Accepting gold and silver-violated the rule prohibiting monks from receiving gold and silver
Although another account of Sarvāstivādin has presented different matter which caused to the schism the five points of doctrine advanced by Mahādeva may have added to the controversy surrounding the first schism. Mahādeva taught that
(1) arhats may be sexually tempted,
(2) arhats have a residue of ignorance,
(4) arhats may attain enlightenment through the help of others, and
(5) the path is attained with an exclamatory remark.
The five points indicate that Mahādeva had a low opinion of the enlightenment of arhats. These five points are included in Samayabhedoparacanacakra of Vasumitra and Mahāvibhāśā; these accounts pertain to Sarvāstivāda School, as well as the Kathāvatthu of the Theravāda School.
In discussing the basic schism, the extent of Buddhism's spread in India and the difficulties in communication between areas of India must be taken into account. The schism probably did not occur over a period of days or months. Consequently,
scholars cannot determine exactly when it occurred or at what point it was completed. However, the schism clearly did occur a little more than a century after the Buddha's death.11 However the most probable date is thus sometime after Vaiśāli and
sometime before the period of Aśoka Maurya, and there is in fact an account of the first schism which gives just such a date, namely the tradition of the Sammitīya School recorded by Bhavya (Bhāvaviveka). This account places the even in 349
B.C., during the reigns of Nanda and Mahāpadma.
1.2.2 The Development of the Buddhist Order
After schism the major community of Buddhist Saṅgha first time divided into two groups. According to Akira Hirakava for this schism and wide separating of community, the second Buddhist council was directly affected.
“The controversy over the ten points of vinaya arose, and the elders met in Vaiśāli to deliberate over the disputes and resolve them. Many monks did not submit to the council's decision, however, and the dispute later became a cause for the schism that resulted in the Sthavira and Mahāsaṅghika schools.”
Nalinaksha Dutt demonstrates this ground as,
“Some of the Vaiśālian monks separated themselves from the Saṅgha of the Elders or the Orthodox, the Theras or
Sthaviras, and organized a new one of their own, calling it a Mahāsaṅgha, from which they came to be known as Mahāsaṅghikas.”
In this ground of separating of Saṅgha has further explained by Akira Hirakava as,
“The schism, often called the basic schism (Ch. ken-pen fen-lieh), resulted in the formation of two schools: the
Mahāsaṅghika, whose monks refused to accept the conservative ruling of the committee of eight monks, and the Sthaviravāda (P. Theravada), whose monks agreed with the conservative ruling. The name Mahāsaṅghika means "great assembly" and suggests that many monks belonged to the liberal faction.”
After second Buddhist council until third Buddhist council during that period the major community of Buddhist Saṅgha divided to eighteen sub-groups. First time major community divided into two groups and later these two groups separated to eighteen groups. Nalinaksha Dutt further explains it as,
“From this time the cleavage in the Saṅgha became wider and wider, ultimately giving rise to as many as eighteen or more sub-sects. The Thera or Sthaviravādins were split up into eleven sects and remained as Hīnayānic throughout their existence while
the Mahāsaṅghikas became divided into seven sub-sects, gradually gave up their Hīnayānic doctrines and paved the way for the appearance of Mahāyānism.”
In the Pāli chronicle sources such as Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa and other sources pertain to other various traditions in Buddhist have been given different account and names of Buddhist sects. Here we try to get a clear seeing of Buddhist schools by following all these sources and modern opinions which are given by modern scholars with regard to this matter.
According to them the development of Buddhist schools can be arrange in briefly following way.
After Mahāsaṅghikas separated from the major community from them there arose two other schools such as the Gokulikas
and the Ekabbhohārikas. Gokulikas also were subjected to be divided into two more schools namely, the Paññattivādins and the Bahulikas or Bahussutikas. The Cetiyavādins were also reckoned as another branch off from the school of the Mahāsaṅghikas, thus there appeared six schools or sects together with the Mahāsaṅghikas, quite against the Theravādins or Sthaviravādins. ¨
Sthaviravādins who are considered as the descendants from the original Saṅgha were subjected to more divisions than the Mahāsaṅghikas. On the course of time, Sthaviravāda gave rise to eleven sub-schools. Mahinsāsakas and the Vajjiputtakas are
said to be first two divisions arose from the Sthaviravādins. Dhammuttariyas, Bhadrayānikas, Channāgārikas and Sammitiyas are the four other schools categorized as sub-schools of the Vajjiputtakas. Mahinsāsakas, later split up into two school namely, the
Sabbatthivādins and the Dhammaguttikas. After from Sabbatthivādins, kassapikas came into existence, and again Sankāntikas from the Kassapikas came into existence. Suttavādins is also another branch separated from Sankāntikas. Thus, falling off from the
Sthaviravādins, there arose eleven schools. In this way at the time of third Buddhist council there were twelve sects together with sthaviravāda as against the Mahāsaṅghika and its sub-schools.
Above classification within a limit under eighteen Buddhist schools but some scholars do not accept above classification, Edward Conze in his book of Buddhism – A Short History mention as,
“The Buddhist community did not remain united for long and soon fell apart into a number of sects. Indian Buddhist tradition generally speaks of “eighteen” such sects, but that is a mere traditional number and in fact more than thirty are known to us, at least by name.”
After third Buddhist Council there appeared more Buddhist sects and they existed some period of time finally they disappeared. Among those sects only four Buddhist sects developed with their viewpoints as philosophical schools, among those four philosophical schools two schools disappeared, two schools exist they recognize as Mahayana Buddhism.
1.2.3 The Role of Sanskrit in the Buddhist Schools
After found Buddhist manuscripts and documents which written by Sanskrit from Central Asia the scholars have present various opinions with regard particular matter. This background has discussed by B.N. Puri,
“The role of Sanskrit in the propagation and preservation of Buddhism and its canonical works can well be ascertained from the finds of Central Asia Buddhist manuscripts and documents in this language in different parts of that region. It is not connected with any particular Buddhist school, like the association of Pāli with the
Theravādins and their canonical works, but it is patronized by the Sarvāstivādins, Mahāsaṅghikas as well as the Dharmaguptikas.”
According to above explanation some Buddhist school has used Sanskrit as their literary language, but it is not clear to understand how usage Sanskrit by all schools which mentioned.
But it was no doubt the Sarvāstivādin school of the Srāvakayāna who usage Sanskrit because according to more confidential evidence this school had a Sanskrit cannon of its own.
1.2.4 Mahāsaṅghikas and their Literature Background
According to scholars the Mahāsaṅghikas had complete cannon of their own in its three divisions like the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins.20 In the Dīpavaṃsa it is stated that the Mahāsaṅghikas propounded new doctrines contrary to the
established ones. At the Mahāsaṅgīti held by them at Pātaliputra they made alterations in the Sūtra and Vinaya Piṭakas, as also in their arrangement and interpretation. References to the cannon of the Mahāsaṅghikas are found in the inscriptions discovered at Amarāvatī and Nāgarjunakonda.
Among the eight Buddhist school The Sthaviravāda, Mahāsaṅghika, Sammitīya and Sarvāstivāda are very important because when they written down their scriptures they were used four different languages, Paisācī (of which Pāli is evidently
a dialect) by the Sthaviravāda School, Prākrit by the Mahāsaṅghikas, Apabhramsa by the Sammitīyas and Sanskrit by the Sarvāstivādins. In fact this certainly represents only a later situation because the currency of written
manuscripts seems to have encouraged whatever trends existed towards the study of texts as opposed to the practice of their teaching. Some records are confirmed for the Sthaviravāda at least by their histories written in Ceylon, which state
that their Tripiṭaka was written down in the 1st century B.C. According to above citation the language of Mahāsaṅghika‟s Piṭaka was Prākrit. But the language of Mahāvastu is mixed Sanskrit, what belong to Lokottaravādins which sub-school of Mahāsaṅghikas.
The Mahāsaṅghika School first time sub-divided into two groups. The earlier group comprised the original Mahāsaṅghikas, Ekavyavahārikas and Caityakas or Lokottarvādins. Here very important school is Lokottaravādins, that is, those according to
whose doctrine the Buddhas are supra-mundane or Lokottara and are only externally connected with worldly existence.25 The Lokottaravādin group centered in the North (Mathura), preferred Sanskrit as their
canonical language. The Lokottaravādins developed leanings towards Mahāyānism, and in fact prepared the ground for the advent of the Mahāyāna School.
1.2.5 Buddhist Sanskrit Canon First Time Appeared
The Mahāvastu is the first volume of the Vinaya Piṭaka of the Lokottaravādins, a branch of the Mahāsaṅghikas. In this book has given an account of the Buddha‟s life and his formation of the first Saṅgha. According to Dutt apart from a few
rules relating to ordination, Mahāvastu has nothing to do with the disciplinary matters.27 Winternitz thinks that its date of composition should be placed between the 2nd century B.C and the 4th century A.D. Here the important of the Mahāvastu
is the language which has written it. The language of the Mahāvastu, especially of its poetry portion, is mixed Sanskrit and which may well be called Prākrit or quasi-Sanskrit and pure Sanskrit.
When we attempt to find what are the earlier Buddhist Sanskrit texts in literature it is not easy like searching Pāli cannon. Some scholars said, first time Sanskrit language used by
Mūlasarvāstivādins, who later converted to Mahāyāna, to establish their doctrine in the society. J.k. Nariman adduce name of books as Sanskrit Buddhist cannon which belong to origin period of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature.
“Of these Sanskrit cannon no complete copy is to be found. We know it only from larger or smaller fragments of its Udāna-varga, Dharmapada, Ekottarāgama and Madhyamāgama which have been discovered from the xylographs and manuscripts recovered from Eastern Turkistan by Stein, Grunwedel and Le Coq”
Further discussion, Buddhist Sūtras in Sanskrit inscribed on bricks have been found by V.A.
Smith and W. Hoey in the ruins of Gopalpur along with inscriptions ranging between 250 and 400 A.D. To the Vinayapiṭaka of the same canon belongs probably also the fragment of a ritual for the initiation of monks written in
Sanskrit which was found in Nepal by Bendall as well as the Prātimokshasūtra which is inferred from one Tibetan and four Chinese translations.32 All these cannon which founded pertain to Mūlasarvāstivādins, but before the mixed Sanskrit as
a language used by Lokottaravādins which sub-group of Mahāsaṅghikas to explain their teaching. Unfortunately we don‟t have the cannon of Lokottaravādins which wrote in mixed Sanskrit only
we have Chinese translations and re-translated to Sanskrit from Chinese.
All above discussion with regard to origin background of Buddhist Sanskrit literature here it tried to get a clear knowledge about particular matter but there are various opinions given by modern scholars. Some scholars
accept the origin point of Buddhist Sanskrit literature can see in origin period of development of Buddhist sectarianism, some scholars accept it pertain to later period. Unfortunately we don‟t have clear evidences to prove who and when used first time Buddhist Sanskrit as their literary Language.
1.3 Diffusion of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature
Development of Buddhist sectarianism among the Saṅgha how much influenced to origin of Buddhist Sanskrit literature same way particular matter influenced to diffusion of Buddhist Sanskrit literature. Several
sects have developed their own literary productions, the language of which is partly Sanskrit and partly a dialect which we may call the mid-Indian and which is given the designation of mixed Sanskrit by Senart. Of this
Sanskrit literature there have remained to us many voluminous books and fragments of several others while many are known to us only through Tibetan and Chinese translations. The major portion of this literature, in pure and
mixed Sanskrit, which we for brevity's sake call Buddhist Sanskrit literature, belongs either to the school known as that of the Mahāyāna or has been more or less influenced by the latter.
The developments of Buddhist Sanskrit literature more influenced by Mahāyāna Buddhism but with regard to this matter we cannot say that influence only pertain to Mahāyāna. With regard to this circumstance some Sthaviravāda branch which later developed in own
doctrines also influenced. This matter has been mentioned by J.K. Nariman as following,
“The Sanskrit Literature in Buddhism, however, is by no means exclusively Mahāyānist. Before all the widely spread sect of the Sarvāstivādins, which belonged to the Hīnayāna and which is indicated by its designation of positivists, possessed a cannon of its own and a rich literature in Sanskrit”.34
Winternitz also has been mention above matter as,
“Buddhist Sanskrit literature by no means exclusively Mahāyānic. There are also a number of important Hīnayāna texts, which are exclusively written in pure and mixed Sanskrit.”
Therefore under this title further we have to discuss in two ways how developed Buddhist Sanskrit literature with influence of Srāvakayāna and How developed Buddhist Sanskrit literature with influence of Mahāyāna.
1.3.1 Development of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature with Influence of Srāvakayāna
Development of Nikāya Buddhism under eighteen Buddhist school, according to sources that development pertain to some kind of period, that period has mentioned as one hundred years, during second Buddhist council and third Buddhist council. With
regard to development of Buddhist order later schism among the Buddhist Saṅgha which pertained to Buddhist groups in Sthaviravāda lineage is very important. According to source divisions in the Sthavira lineage began occurring during
the third century after the Buddha's death. The later schisms in the schools of the Theravāda (Sthavira) lineage begin with the formation of the Mahinsāsaka (Mahīsāsaka) and Vajjiputtaka (Vātsīputrīya) schools out of the
Theravada School. Next, four schools-the Dhammuttarīya (Dharmottarīya), Bhadrayānika (Bhadrayanīya), Chandāgārika (Sannāgārika), and Sammitīya (Sammatiya) -arose out of the Vajjiputtaka School. The Sabbatthivāda (Sarvāstivāda) and Dhammaguttika (Dharmaguptaka) schools were then formed out of the Mahinsāsaka (Mahīsāsaka) School.
During King Aśoka's reign, Buddhism had spread through India and it continued to develop. Some Buddhist school became to very strong more than other school. Therefore during this time some school gradually disappeared and some school developed and they
became more powerful with patronage of king. In general, however, the Mahāsaṅghika tradition was weaker than the Sthavira tradition. The names of many schools belonging to the Sthavira tradition, such as the Sarvāstivādin, Theravāda, and Sammatīya, are well known. According to some sources, the dispute over the five issues that Mahādeva raised
occurred during Asoka's reign. After the Sthavira monks were defeated in the debate by the greater number of Mahāsaṅghika monks and expelled from the Kukkutarāma monastery (established in Pataliputra by Aśoka), they went to
Kashmir. Upagupta established Buddhism in Mathura, and Madhyantika established it in Kashmir. These traditions agree with the fact that Kashmir later became a stronghold of the Sarvāstivādin School. The
great wealth the Sarvāstivādins accumulated in Kashmir enabled the school to develop a detailed abhidharma philosophy.
1.3.2 The Sarvāstivāda School
According to Pāli tradition The Mahīsāsakas were the earliest to secede from the Theravāda among its sub-sects. The Dharmaguptikas, Sabbatthivādins. Kassapikas, Sankāntikas, and Suttavādins appeared as sub-sects from Mahīsāsakas. According to above
mention out of the Mahīsāsakas developed the Sabbatthivādins (Sarvāstivādins) and gradually the other schools. But Vasumitra argue Sarvāstivāda branched off first from the Sthaviravāda, and from the later appeared the Mahīsāsaka, Kāsyapiyās and Sankrāntivādins.
“In the history of the secession of school, it has been shown that the Sarvāstivādins belonged to the orthodox group, which is why there are many points of agreement between the Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda doctrines.”
During the reign of Asoka, the Sarvāstivādins had two centers; one at Mathurā and the other at Kāśmīr. With the patronage of king Kaniṣka (1st century A.D.) the Sarvāstivāda School developed in India
remained as the most powerful and influential school in North-Western India from around the beginning of the Christian era to about the 7th century A.D., initially established in Mathura and expanding in the north where Kāśmīra became their center of orthodoxy.
1.3.3 Forth Buddhist Council
The Kusāna emperor Kaniṣka I (78-102 A.D.) became a patron of Buddhism and of the Sarvāstivāda School in particular and the forth Buddhist council held at Kāśmīr under patronage of this emperor. Vasumitra,
the great Buddhist philosopher, was the president of the council. Aśvaghosha, another great Buddhist philosopher acted as the Vice-president of the council and at this council, [[Buddhist
texts]] of Sūtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma were ordered to be engraved on sheet of Copper and deposited inside stūpa which let to emergent of later Tantrayāna.
Sarvāstivādins took active parts in this council and did a splendid job for the reconciliation of the conflicting opinions of the different sects and for the settlement of the texts of the canonical
literature.44
1.3.4 The Language of Sarvāstivādins
According to scholars the language of Sarvāstivādins is grammatical Sanskrit, not mixed Sanskrit. It has showed by Dutt,
“The Tibetan traditions corroborated by the recent finds of manuscripts in Eastern Turkestan and Gilgit leave no room for doubt about the fact that the Sarvāstivādins adopted grammatical Sanskrit (and not mixed Sanskrit)
as the medium of their literature and that they possessed a complete canon of their own in three divisions Sūtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma.”
According to Dutt, Sarvāstivādins used grammatical Sanskrit as their literary language and they established Tripiṭaka in this language.
1.3.5 Development of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature within Sarvāstivādins
Buddhist Sanskrit literature is developed within Sarvāstivādins and with their work in
Buddhist literature. According to Winternitz Sarvāstivādins take first place among the Buddhist sects of Srāvakayāna with regard to the particular subject which development of Buddhist Sanskrit literature. Winternitz emphasize that Sarvāstivādins which especially in Kāśmīr and
Gandhāra and spread thence to Central Asia, Tibet and China, had a Sanskrit Cannon of its own. Further explain by him,
“Though no complete copy of this canon has come down to us, we know it firstly, from many fragments, large and small, which have been discovered among the manuscripts and block-prints brought from Eastern Turkestan by M.A. (Sir Aurel) Stein, A. Grunwedel, A. von. Le Coq, P. Pelliot, and other; further from quotations in other
Buddhist Sanskrit texts (like Mahāvastu, Divyāvadāna and Lalitavistara) and finally from Chinese and Tibetan Translations.”
The Sarvāstivādins had own completed Tripiṭaka (Sūtra, Vinaya, Abhidharma) which written in Sanskrit Language, and same to Sthaviravāda Tripiṭaka. The Sūtra-piṭaka of the
Sarvāstivāda was divided into Āgamas corresponding to Nikāyas of the Pāli school. There were four Āgamas called Dīrgha, Madhyama, Samyukta and Ekottara. In the Kośa there is reference to the Ksudraka, which implies by the existence of a Ksudrakāgama too. But in the Divyāvadāna
(pp. 17, 331, 333) and elsewhere the Āgamas are referred to as Āgamacatustayam. In the Nāgarjunakonda inscription also, four Āgamas are mentioned and not five.
In the Vinaya Piṭaka of Sarvāstivādins the principal text was the Daśādhyāya-vinaya. The other texts in Vinaya Piṭaka of Sarvāstivādins can be found in the catalogues of Chinese canonical literature. Dutt
quotes following titles of Vinaya texts from Nanjio‟s Catalogue, (i) Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-mātṛka, (ii) Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā, (iii) Sarvāstivāda-vinayasangraha, (iv) Daśādyāya-vinaya-nidāna, (v) Daśādyāya-vinaya-bhikṣu-prātimokṣa, (vi)
Daśādyāya-vinaya-bhikṣunī-prātimokṣa, (vii) Daśādyāya-vinaya or Sarvāstivāda-vinaya.
Sarvāstivādins are also called Vaibhāṣikas. In their Abhidharma there are seven texts. For the each text the author has been given, they are ascribed to the disciples of the Buddha. Although the number is similar to Theravada Abhidhamma, the contents of those seven texts differ from that of Theravāda teachings. The 7 texts are:
(i) Jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra of Ārya Kātyāyanī-putra,
(ii) Prakaranapāda-śāstra of Sthavira Vasumitra,
(iii) Vijñānakāya of Sthavira Devaśarma,
(iv) Dharmaskandha-śāstra of Ārya Sāriputra,
(v) Prajñapti-śāstra of Ārya Maudgalyāyana,
(vii) Sangīti-paryāya of Mahākausthila.
All literature of the Sarvāstivādins is fairly comprehensive. At the fourth Buddhist council Sarvāstivādins wrote Vibhāṣā as commentaries for their primary books. “During the session of the council, they composed 1, 00,000 stanzas
of Upadeśa-śāstra explanatory of the canonical sūtras, 1, 00,000 stanzas of Vinaya-vibhāṣā-śāstras explanatory of the Vinaya and 1, 00,000 stanzas of Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstras explanatory of the Abhidharma.
As a one Buddhist School, the Sarvāstivādins has done vast role for development of Buddhist Sanskrit literature and their role pertain in the major ground of particular literature which developed under Srāvakayāna. Not only
Sarvāstivāda but also number of another Buddhist Schools which pertain to Srāvakayāna branch and further development of Nikāya Buddhism also caused to development of Buddhist Sanskrit literature. Mahīśāsakas, Kāśyapīyās,
Mūlasarvāstivādins, and Sautrāntikās are can be categorize in particular matter. Among those Buddhist sects Mūlasarvāstivādins which later separated from Sarvāstivādins and who later caused to appear Tantrayāna, are very prominent.
1.3.6 Aśvaghoṣa and His Works
Aśvaghoṣa is regarded as one of the most prominent poets in Sanskrit literature. Modern scholars have acquainted that Aśvaghoṣa was the most prominent predecessor of Kālidāsa, and he was the creator of epic, dramatic
and lyrical compositions. The traditions embodied in the Chinese and Tibetan sources agree in asserting that Aśvaghoṣa was a contemporary of king Kaniṣka (2nd century A.D.) Aśvaghoṣa was one of Brāhmin
family, and had enjoyed a thorough Brāhmanical education before he went over to Buddhism. As a Buddhist he probably associated himself first with the Sarvāstivāda School, but laid great stress on the Buddha-Bhakti and thus prepared Mahāyāna.
Aśvaghoṣa‟s works, which have been found in the Buddhist Sanskrit literature, his best known work is his epic poem Buddhacarita (“Life of the Buddha”). This is the first known complete biography of the Buddha, from his birth
to the parinirvāṇa. His other works are Saundarānanda describes how the extremely worldly Nanda was induced to become a monk by the Buddha, and Sūtrālankāra which was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva in about 405 A.D., was ascribed by Chinese authors to Aśvaghoṣa. Śāriputra-prakaraṇa – This drama treats the conversion of
Śāriputra and his friend Maudgalyāyana. Gandistotra-gāthā – This poem is
well known for its beauty of style and contents. The Rāstrapāla-nāṭaka, the
Gurusevādharmapañcāśadgāthā or the Gurupañcāśikā, the Vajrayānamūlāpattisamgraha, the Vajrasūci, the Stūlāpatti, the
Daśakiuśalakarmapathah, the Sadgatikārikā, the Nairātmyapariprcchā, the Tridandamālā, were also, maybe spuriously, ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa.
1.3.7 Development of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature with Influence of Mahāyāna
First time major community divided in to two groups as a result of schism and step by step they developed as many groups finally all these groups divided into two major groups as
Srāvakayāna and Mahāyāna. After schism first time appeared Mahāsaṅghikas and regularly they sub divided to seven groups finally Lokottaravādins which sub-group of Mahāsaṅghikas returned to Mahāyāna. Same way Sthaviravādins also sub-divided
to eleven groups among those eleven groups Sarvāstivādins later turned to Mahāyāna. This point is further discussed by Akira Hirakava in his book of A History of Indian Buddhism as following,
“Many modern scholars have maintained the view that Mahāyāna Buddhism developed out of the Mahāsaṅghika School. But since the Mahāsaṅghika School continued to exist long after Mahāyāna Buddhism arose, the rise of Mahāyāna cannot be
explained simply as the transformation of the Mahāsaṅghikas into Mahāyānists. While it is true that the many similarities between Mahāsaṅghika and Mahāyāna doctrines prove that the Mahāsaṅghika School did influence Mahāyāna Buddhism,
teachings from the Sarvāstivādin, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda schools were also incorporated into Mahāyāna Buddhism. The doctrines of the Sarvāstivāda School in particular were often mentioned in Mahāyāna texts, and
Sammatīya teachings also were influential. The relation between Nikāya Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism clearly is not a simple one”.
1.3.8 Influence of Srāvakayāna to Development of Mahāyāna Literature
When we attempt to find literary development of Mahāyāna Buddhism in Sanskrit, we can see how influence of Srāvakayāna works in Sanskrit regarding their literature, with regard to particular object. Before discussed the
Mahāvastu which pertain to Srāvakayāna and the Vinaya text of Lokottaravādins, who sub-group of Mahāsaṅghikas, Winternitz further discuss with regard to particular matter as,
“And although the Mahāvastu belongs to the Srāvakayāna and contains much that could likewise occur – or even actually occurs- in the Pāli texts of the Theravādins, still it also contains something that makes it come closer to the Mahāyāna. The reason
for many such traits is probably that the conception of Buddha prevalent among the Mahāsaṅghikas and the Lokottaravādins does actually represent a transition to the Mahāyāna.”
Otherwise Sarvāstivādins and their literature also influenced to developed Buddhist Sanskrit literature of Mahāyāna. “The Mahāsaṅghikas may have been the forerunners of Mahāyāna but it is clear that the Sarvāstivādins contributed much to the growth of Mahāyāna in one way or the other."60 According to scholars the Sarvāstivādins texts can be found in not only
India but also Tibet and China. The main texts of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, who later translated to Mahāyāna, were translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing in the years 700- 712 A.D. In this
way Buddhist Sanskrit canon which belong to Srāvakayāna later belong to Mahāyāna. Some Mahāyāna ideas which included in Srāvakayāna texts later developed and this development caused to particular matter.
1.3.9 The Lalitavistara
According to details which discussed above while the Mahāvastu belonging to
Srāvakayāna although it has assimilated some of the Mahāyāna features, the Lalitavistara is considered as one of the holiest
text of the Mahāyāna. Although the work originally contained the description of Buddha‟s life for the Sarvāstivādins belonging to the Srāvakayāna. But the Lalitavistara describes itself as a Vaipulyasūtra (“elaborate teaching text”) - a common term for
Mahāyāna Sūtras- and exhibition all features of a Mahāyāna Sūtra.64 According to scholars the Lalitavistara is a redaction of an older Srāvakayāna text expanded and embellished in the sense of the Mahāyāna. The Lalitavistara according
to nature of the text, it is not a single work of one author but is an anonymous compilation in which very old and very young fragment stand in juxtaposition. The book moreover consist, according to its form, of unequal sections, a continuous narrative in Sanskrit prose and numerous, often extensive, metrical pieces in “Mixed Sanskrit”.
1.3.10 The Avadāna Literature
With regard to development of Sanskrit Buddhist literature the Avadāna literature takes very important place. According to scholars the Avadāna texts like both books of Buddhist story literature which Avadāna and
Jātaka, the Avadāna texts also stand, so to say, with one foot in the Srāvakayāna and the other in the Mahāyāna literature. The earlier works belong entirely to the Srāvakayāna literature, and the others in the Mahāyāna are completely Mahāyānistic, although
they expound Buddha worship.68 This point has discussed by J.K. Nariman,
“The Jātakamālā is also called Bodhisattva-avadānamālā, for Bodhisattva Avadāna is synonymous with Jātaka. The
Jātakās are consequently nothing but Avadānas having the Bodhisattva for their hero. Consequently works like the Sūtrālankāra and the Jātakamāla have much in common with the texts of the Avadāna literature. On the other hand numerous Jātakas are to be found in the collection of Avadānas.”
In the Avadāna literature of Mahāyāna there are can be found many text. All texts are going to mention in briefly as following.
The Avadāna-śaṭaka is a work of the first variety which is most probably the most ancient of its kind. It is a collection of a hundred avadāna legends. The Divyāvadāna is a later collection than the Avadāna-Śaṭaka, but it also includes some very old texts.
The Kalpadṛumāvadānamālā, the Rattnāvadānamālā and the Aśokāvadānamālā are poetical versions of Avadānas, partly selected systematically from the Avadāna-Śataka, partly taken from other sources. The Dvāviṃśatyavadāna, the Bhadrakalpāvadāna, the Vratāvadānamālā and the
Vicitrakarnikāvadāna, all these works are belong to Avadāna literature and so far accessible only in a few manuscript. Others are known only through the Tibetan and Chinese translation.
1.3.11 The Mahāyāna Sūtras
In the Mahāyāna literature the Mahāyāna sūtras are belonged in vast range and it has been developed within long period of time. The basic material for the critical studies of the sūtras of Mahāyāna Buddhism is their Sanskrit originals. Up to
the present a fairly large number of these have been discovered. According to scholars many of these can be compared with Chinese translations. Among Chinese translation, Kumārajīva, Paramārtha and Hsuan-tsang were probably most important.
In the beginning, various Buddhist sūtras appeared in Prākrit or in the language of Central Asia. Modern scholars have been discussed the background of translation of Mahāyāna sūtras from Prākrit to Sanskrit. According to
scholars with regarding this matter the Nālanda University is very important. “About the time when Buddhism was studied at Nālanda University, in the sixth century, they had been rewritten in Sanskrit, though there remain in these Sanskrit versions traces of Prākrit colloquialism.”
According to Hajime Nakamura, this change to Sanskrit from Prākrit was caused before or during the Gupta Dynasty in 320 A.D., which adopted Sanskrit as the official language.
1.3.11.1 Main Mahāyāna Sūtras
The Buddhist Sanskrit literature which mentioned so far belongs to the borderland which forms the transition between Srāvakayāna and Mahāyāna Buddhism. According to scholars the
Mahāyāna Sūtras which going to mention here can be categorize as the works which belong entirely to the Mahāyāna. In the Mahāyāna Sūtra literature the basic, oldest, most famous and most representative text is the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, of
which there are several versions, large (the biggest is said to be in one hundred thousand ślokas), medium and small (the smallest being of one śloka only). In the Mahāyāna Sūtra literature there can be seen the main nine texts have been categorized under title of Nava-Darmas. The titles of these nine books are:
(i) Aṣtasāhasrikā Prajñā-Pāramita,
(ii) Saddharma-Puṇḍdarika,
(iii) Lalita-Vistara,
(iv) Lankāvatāra or Saddharma-Lankāvatāra,
(v) Suvarna-Prabhāsa,
(vi) Gaṇḍavyūha, (vii)
Tathāgataguhyaka or Tathāgataguna-jñāna, (viii) Samādhirāja and (ix) Daśabhūmiśvara.
At the present day also all these books are held in great honor in Nepal, and all these works are also called “Vaipulya-Sūtras.” There is evidence of that fact that the Prajñā-Pāramitās belong to the earliest Mahāyāna-Sūtras. In the
Prajñā-Pāramitā literature the following have come down to us in Sanskrit: Śatasāhasrikā-Prajñā-Pāramitā (100,000 Ślokas), Pañcavimśati-sāhasrikā-Prajñā-Pāramitā (25,000 Ślokas), Aṣtasāhasrikā-Prajñā-Pāramitā
(8.000 Ślokas), Sārdhadvai-sāhasrikā-Prajñā-Pāramitā (2,500 Ślokas), Saptaśatikā-PrajñāPāramitā (700 Ślokas), the Vajracchedikā-Prajñā-Pāramitā, Alpākṣarā-Prajñā-Pāramitā and Prajñā-Pāramitā-Hṛdaya-Sūtra. The Prajñā-Pāramitā was already
translated into Chinese as early as 179 A.D. The Prajñā-Pāramitās appear to have originated in the South, and afterwards spread to the East and the North.
1.3.11.2 Other Mahāyāna Sūtras
Mahāyāna sūtras began their steady growth in the first century B.C. and they reached their fullest splendor by the seventh or eighth century A.D. By influence of the Philosophical traditions of the Mahāyāna later developed the Mahāyāna sūtras in vast
range. The main Mahāyāna sūtras have been categorize under the title of Nava-Dharmas, which mentioned above, and other Mahāyāna sūtras have been categorized under few titles according to teachings which included in the sūtras of Mahāyāna.
(i) The Sūtras which introduce meditation-
Especially in the Yogācāra School has been discussed meditation, the Meditation sūtras of Mahāyāna seen to have
originated from among them. Following sūtras can categorize under particular matter.
The Yogācārabhūmi-sūtra, the Dharmatara-dhyāna-sūtra, the Pratyutpanna-buddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra, the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra, the Samādhirāja or the
Samādhirāja-candrapradīpa-sūtra, The Śūrangama-samādhi-sūtra, the Atyāya-jñāna-sūtra, the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra,
(ii) The Sūtrās which introduce transmigration-
In the Mahāyāna there are some sūtras describing the process of transmigration of living beings. Following sūtras can categorize under above matter.
The Kṣudraka-sūtra, the Saddharma-smrty-upasthāna-sūtra, the Dharma-śarīra-sūtra, the
Śālistamba-sūtra, the Pratītyasamutpādādivibhanganirdeśanāma-sūtra,
(iii) The Sūtras which introduce Buddhas and Bodhisattvas –
In Mahāyāna, Buddhas came to be regarded as more superhuman and more divine than in Conservative Buddhism, although physical and spiritual features of Buddhas were retained.
Following sūtras are introduced particular matter. the Kusuma-sañcaya-sūtra, the Ratnajātiparipṛcchā-sūtra, the Ratnacandra-paripṛcchā-sūtra, the Badrakalpa-samādhi-sūtra, the
Akṣobhya-vyuha-sūtra, the Karunā-pundarika-sūtra, the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, the Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, the Aparimitāyurjñāna-sūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra the Buddhāvatamsaka-sūtra, the Daśabhūmika-sūtra, the Ratnakūtasūtra, the Mahāsannipāta sūtra.
(iv) The Sūtras which introduce discipline.
In some Mahāyāna sūtras Buddhist ethical practices to be observed by monks and nuns, laymen and lay women were described. Following sūtras are prominent particular matter.
The Dharmavinayasamādhi-sūtra, the Kuśala-mūlasangraha-sūtra, the Tathāgata-guhyakośasūtra, the Bodhisattvaprātimokśa-sūtra, the Śrimālādevi-sūtra, the Brahmajāla-sūtra,
1.3.12 The Other Texts which have Written by Great Philosophers of Mahāyāna
Another way the Mahāyāna works that immediately follow are those of Nāgarjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, etc. The Nāgarjuna, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu wrote bulky commentaries on the Prajñā-Pāramitās, which have, however, only come down
to us in the Chinese Tripiṭaka and in the Tibetan Tanjur.84 The Nāgarjuna (c.150-250 A.D ) is the elaborator of one of the most important school of the Mahāyāna, namely the Mādhyamika School and he is the author of the Mādyamika-Kārikās which
present in a systematic manner the Sūnyatāvāda which is taught in the Mahāyāna Sūtras. The other works probably his are: the Yuktiśataka, the Śūnyatā-Saptati, the Pratītya-Samutpādahrdaya, the Mahāyāna Vimśaka, the Vigraha- vyāvartanī, the
Dharma-Sangraha, the Ratnāvalī and the Suhrllekha. Among these the Ratnāvalī and the Suhrllekha, Letter to a Friend, are and epistle to the Sātavāhana emperor, expounding traditional Buddhist morality in no way different from that we have found in the Tripiṭaka.
Āryadeva (170-270 A.D.) who was the most famous disciple of Nāgarjuna and his works are as follows; the Śata-śāstra, the Catuhśataka, the Akṣara-śataka, the Mahāpuruṣa-śataka, the Cittaviśuddhiprakarana, and the following four books, existing in Tibetan alone, are traditionally ascribed to Āryadeva, are the Jñānāsārasamuccaya, the Skalitapramathanayuktihetusiddhi, the
Madhyamakabhramaghāta, the Āryaprajñāpāramitāmahāparipṛccha.
Maitreya or Maitreya-nātha (c.270-350 A.D.) who was the elaborator of Yogācāra School and he also later identified with Maitreya-Bodhisattva, the future Buddha. Asaṅga heartily venerated his teacher Maitreya who was respectfully called Maitreya-Bodhisattva. As for
Maitreya‟s works, the Chinese tradition enumerates the Yogācārabhūmi, the Yogavibhāga, the
Mahāyāna-sūtrālankāra, the Madhyāntavibhāga, and the Vajracchedikāvyākhyā, while the Tibetan tradition has the Mahāyāna-sūtrālankāra,
the Madhyāntavibhāga, the Abhisamayālankāra, the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga and the Uttaratantra. These five are well known among the Tibetan scholars.
Asaṅga or Āryasaṅga expounded the Vijñānavāda systematically, and he was born about or after the year 290 A.D. in Puruṣapura and died about 360 A.D. The following books are ascribed to him. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Vajracchedikāvyākhyā (a
commentary on the Vajracchedikāsūtra), the Abhidharmasamuccaya. Vasubandhu (320-400 A.D.) who was the younger brother of Asaṅga and he was one of the most prominent philosopher in the history of Buddhist literature. His chief work, the
Abhidharmakośa has not come down in the Sanskrit and its auto commentary is available in Sanskrit now. The Abhidharmakośa-kārika, the GāthāSamgraha, the Paramārtha-Saptati, the Pañcaskandha-Prakarana, the Vyākyāyukti, the Karma-Siddhi-Prakarana, and the Pratītya-Samutpāda-Sūtra these are the other works of Vasubandhu.
Furthermore in the Buddhist Sanskrit literature it can see many authors belong to philosophical school such as Mādyamika and Yogācāra have been written many books to explain their views. Buddhapālita and Bhāvaviveka
(Bhavya) who belong to Mādyamika School and wrote commentaries on their works lived and worked at the beginning of the 5th century A.D. In the 5th century A.D. there lived Sthiramatī was a disciple of Dignāga (Diṅnāga) who belongs to
Yogācāra School. Sthiramatī wrote a commentary on the Kāśyapa-Parivarta, and on Vasubandhu‟s Trimśikā these are available in Sanskrit. Also he wrote a commentary on Abhidharmakoṣa of Vasubandhu available only Tibetan translation. Another author
Dharmapāla wrote a commentary on the Vijñaptimātratā-Siddhi. The greatest and most independent thinker among the successors of Vasubandhu is Dignāga, the founder of Buddhist logic, only a single one of Dignāga‟s works, the Nyāyapraveśa has come
down in Sanskrit. The principal works of his successor Dharmakīrti, the Nyāyabiṅdu, has come down to us in Sanskrit. Dharmakīrti wrote seven books on Buddhist logic including Nyāyabiṅdu. The other books are the Pramāṇavartikā, the
Pramāṇasamuccaya, the Hetubiṅdu, the Vādanyāya, the Sambandhāparikṣā, the Santāntarasiddhi. Among these books the Vādanyāya and
Santāntarasiddhi are available in Tibetan translation.
Candragomi who as a grammarian, philosopher and poet and belongs to Yogācāra School enjoyed high renown in the Buddhist Literary. Of his poetical works we have only a religious poem in the form of a letter to his pupil, the Siśyalekhā-
Dharma-Kāvya. The most prominent among the later teachers of Mahāyāna Buddhism, who also distinguished himself as a poet, is
Śāntideva, who probably lived in the 7th century A.D. Tāranātha ascribes to him the works Śikṣā-Samuccaya, Sūtra-Samuccaya and Bodhicaryāvatāra.
Śāntarakṣita was one of the most important and pivotal thinkers in the history of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and the Professor of Nālandā University. He was born during the reign of Gopāla (660-705 A.D) the founder of the famous
Pāla dynasty of Bengal and died at the time of Dharmapāla who ascended the throne in 765 A.D. Śāntarakṣita was the author of several philosophical and logical works. In the Tibetan Tanjur a number of works are attributed to him
among which the Vādanyāyavṛttivipaṅcitārtha and Tattvasaṃgraha deserve special mention. The first work is a commentary on the Vādanyāna of Dharmakīrti the Sanskrit original of this work is lost Tibetan translation still exist. The most famous
book of Śāntarakṣita’s is Tattvasaṃgraha compendium Indian philosophy systems, non-Buddhists and Buddhists. His disciple Kamalasīla (740-795 A.D) wrote commentaries on both books are available in Sanskrit, and Tibetan translation.
Both went to Tibet, Kamalasīla wrote two books at Tibet, Bhāvanākrama and Madhyamāloka, all these are available in Sanskrit and Tibetan translation.
