Legends and Transcendence: Sectarian Affiliations of the Ekottarika Āgama in Chinese Translation

Tse-fu Kuan

Of the four complete Āgama collections, the Ekottarika Āgama (EĀ) has generated the most controversy about whether it can be attributed to any early Buddhist school and, if so, which school it could belong to. This paper examines the various hypotheses about the sectarian affiliation(s) of the EĀ. It shows that a considerable part of this corpus is likely to be of Mahāsāṃghika derivation, and that the EĀ contains numerous salient features of Mahāsāṃghika doctrine, particularly the transcendence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This study also argues that the seeming affinity between several legends in the EĀ and those in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is likely to have resulted from Mahāsāṃghika influence on the Mūlasarvāstivādins. The Mahāsāṃghika hypothesis for the school affiliation of the EĀ is substantially strengthened in this inquiry while the others are shown to be probably untenable.

introduction

Various early Buddhist schools or sects were once thriving in India and its neighborhood. Among them, only the Theravāda 1 school survives until today whereas all the others have died out. The Pali texts are well preserved by the Theravādins still prevalent in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. By contrast, the scriptures of the other early schools are largely lost. Many of the extant early texts remain unclear in terms of their sectarian identities. It usually takes much effort for scholars to identify the school affiliation of these surviving texts, especially sūtras. The four Āgamas preserved in Chinese translation are counterparts to the four main Nikāyas in the Pali canon. General agreement has been reached about the sectarian affiliations of the three Āgamas other than the Ekottarika Āgama (Zengyi ahanjing 增壹阿含經 T 125), which corresponds roughly to the Aṅguttara Nikāya in the Pali tradition.

The Ekottarika Āgama (T 125) is associated by a number of scholars with the Dharmaguptakas, a connection that will be discussed near the end of this paper. It is ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas by Bareau (1955: 55–56, 57), Ui (1965: 137–38), Akanuma (1981: 38–39),

Bronkhorst (1985: 312–14), Schmithausen (1987: 318–21), Yinshun (1994: 755–56), and

Pāsādika (2008: 147–48 and 2010: 88–90). I have also identified a sūtra of the Ekottarika Āgama as affiliated with the Mahāsāṃghikas (Kuan 2013: 52–58). The Mahāsāṃghika

This paper has greatly benefitted from the immense knowledge and kindness of Ven. Anālayo, Mr. L. S. Cousins, and Dr. Roderick S. Bucknell, who provided me with lots of invaluable advice, for which I am very grateful. Dr. Bucknell also helped me improve the English. My thanks are due to Professor Charles Willemen, Professor Peter Skilling, Professor Paul Harrison, Dr. Yun-kai Chang, Dr. Elsa Legittimo, Dr. Giuliana Martini, and Professor Peter Harvey for references or suggestions, and to Ms. Natalie Koehle for translating part of a German article into English. I am also indebted to the two anonymous readers and Professor Stephanie Jamison for helpful suggestions and the National Science Council of Taiwan for the funding (NSC 98-2410-H-155-060-).

1. The use of this term is reexamined by Skilling 2009.

hypothesis seems to prevail, but the arguments for this attribution, many of which are mentioned only en passant, are by no means conclusive and are based only on fragmentary evidence or insufficient conjecture. This paper aims to conduct a more extensive investigation founded on more substantial evidence. Some peculiarities and anomalies in the Ekottarika Āgama (hereafter EĀ) will be picked out for discussion. These are mostly legends of Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas and passages relating to the transcendence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This research of a voluminous corpus of sūtras is not intended to be exhaustive, an impossibility in a journal article. Considering the complex problems regarding how this corpus was translated and redacted (see below), it is almost impossible to ascertain the school affiliation of the entire EĀ.

This extant complete version of the EĀ presents considerable historical problems, 2 but a plausible reconstruction of its history has been made by Lin (2009) as follows: During 384 and 385 ce (twentieth and twenty-first years of Jianyuan 建元) Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 completed a Chinese translation of the EĀ recited by Dharmanandin 曇摩難提, a monk from Tukhāra. This first translation, in forty-one fascicles, was later revised and expanded by Zhu Fonian into the EĀ in fifty-one fascicles that has come down to us. Zhu Fonian probably added new material to his first translation and even replaced some passages of his first translation with new material. The now-lost first translation still existed in 516 ce 3 when the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 (T 2121) was composed and quoted over twenty passages from it. 4 These quotations are recognized as belonging to the first translation on the grounds that none of the EĀ passages quoted by the Jing lü yi xian has the same fascicle number as the fascicle in which its parallel in the EĀ (T 125) appears, 5 and that more than half of the quotations are inconsistent with their parallels in T 125 or have no parallels there at all.

Nattier (2010) demonstrates that the Shizhu duanjie jing (T 309), purportedly a sūtra translated by Zhu Fonian, contains substantial material that Fonian drew from existing Chinese scriptures, including texts translated by Mokṣala, Zhi Yao, Dharmarakṣa, and Zhi Qian. She calls attention to the possibility of “apocryphal interpolations” in Fonian’s earlier translations, including the EĀ (2010: 257). Accordingly, I will be cautious about quoting passages from the EĀ when examining its school affiliation.

validity of attributing the āgamas to specific schools

By convention, Buddhist tradition counts eighteen early schools (excluding the Mahāyāna schools), while many more school names have come down to us and some of these schools were recognized to have arisen later. 7 The whole picture of the extant early Buddhist texts in relation to those early schools is not yet clear. As Lamotte (1988: 518) says, in Indian Buddhist history the term nikāya ‘group’ is usually translated as “sect” and designates a “school” that professes particular opinions on certain points of the doctrine and discipline (vinaya). 8 Skilton (1997: 59–63) sketches three types of Buddhist schools: (1) the nikāyas, based on

2. Zhu Fonian was the translator despite the wrong attributions to Gautama Saṃghadeva. See Legittimo (2005:

3 n. 7), Anālayo (2006: 145f.), Lin (2009), and Nattier (2010: 233 n. 8).

3. The fifteenth year of Tianjian 天監. See T 2121 LIII 1a.

4. Su (2007: 115ff.) and Lin (2009: 32ff.) respectively identify twenty-four and sixteen passages.

5. See Lin (2009: 33) and Su (2007: 145–47, Table 8).

6. See Lin (2009: 108f.) and Su (2007: 115).

7. See Warder (2000: 277), Skilton (1997: 59), and Hirakawa (1990: 114f.).

8. See Skilling (2010: 2 n. 3): “A nikāya was primarily a vinaya or monastic ordination lineage, and hence is best rendered as ‘order.’ But the orders also transmitted ideas, tenets, and practices, and thus they were also ‘schools.’ They were not ‘sects’ in the usual senses of the word in English.” variations in Vinaya; (2) the different -vādas, based on variations in doctrine; (3) the four “philosophical schools,” which are essentially a development of the doctrinal schools, i.e., the second type. Basically, therefore, school affiliation is a concept that refers to the adherence to a certain Vinaya tradition; apart from that it is also used to refer to the adherence to certain doctrinal ideas within Buddhist scholastic literature. In view of the material available to us, it seems that the redactors of Āgama texts and collections never found it necessary to add school names to their texts, and in this regard they notably differed from those who dealt with Vinaya texts. 9 A possible explanation is that the Āgamas were presented purely as the Buddha’s teaching, unaffected by any sectarian dogma. By contrast, the Buddhists were aware that they belonged to different nikāyas because they disagreed on the monastic code (Vinaya), which prescribed rules about behavior, etiquette, routine, and discipline. Therefore, in order to distinguish between nikāya lineages and maintain one’s own identity, some Buddhists found it necessary to label the various schools’ Vinayas with nikāya names. Here arises a question: apart from the Vinaya, did the various schools also disagree on sūtras or Āgama collections?

Scholars suggest that the formation of the sects or schools was due mainly to the geographical extension of the Saṅgha (Buddhist Order) over the vast Indian territory, 10 and that the geographical spread also led to different recensions of the Buddha’s discourses (i.e., sūtras) and Vinaya. 11 With regard to this issue, Salomon (2008: 14) makes a point:

We do not know with any confidence that the distribution of recensions of Buddhist texts in early times strictly followed sectarian, as opposed to, for example, geographical, patterns. . . . The assumption that one school had one and only one version of a given text, and conversely that no two schools shared the same or very similar versions of it, is a dubious one. Although such situations do seem to have developed in later times, after formal closed canons were developed by (at least some of) the schools, there is no good reason to read this situation back into earlier periods, in which this process seems not yet to have taken place or at least not to have been fully elaborated.

This is a plausible view on the situations concerning different recensions of Buddhist texts in relation to schools and geography. In early times regional diversity might have been a key factor in causing the divergences. 12 Two schools in a region could have shared the same or very similar versions of a text. In a similar vein, I once suggested two mutually compatible possibilities—that the EĀ (T 125) could be affiliated to the Mahāsāṃghikas in Magadha and that it could belong to the Mūlasarvāstivādins also in Magadha (Kuan 2012). Although none of the surviving Āgamas bears a school name, there is evidence that at some point in history a certain Āgama collection was attributed to a certain school. As will be discussed below, in the fourth century ce 13 the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha by Asaṅga explicitly refers to the “Mahāsāṃghika” EĀ. This period may be considered the “later times, after formal closed canons were developed by (at least some of) the schools.” Skilling (2010: 19) points out:

9. The above two sentences are modified quotations from Reader I’s report.

10. E.g., Lamotte (1988: 518); Sujato (2012: 8).

11. See Skilton 1997: 61.

12. One of the anonymous readers commented: “After many years of studying Āgama literature and dealing with questions of school affiliation I have come to the conclusion that certain differences between versions we formerly used to interpret as school-related are in fact rather editorial differences due to regional diversity, and that they tell us little or nothing about schools.”

13. For the dating of Asaṅga, see Warder 2000: 414.

In the fourth century ce, Vasubandhu assessed the condition of the literature of the schools and found it problematic. The “original recitation” (mūlasaṃgīti) was no longer intact; different schools arranged their canons differently and included or excluded sūtras differently. In the Vyākhyāyukti and the Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa, Vasubandhu notes that at his time not all the sūtras were preserved.

In his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Vasubandhu also mentions an interpolation into a sūtra by an unnamed school (nikāya), as discussed in Kuan 2005: 298f.: Thus the Sautrāntikas identify the sukha faculty with sukha as a factor of the first three dhyānas, and regard it as only bodily, not mental. Then they rebut the authenticity of a sūtra that defines the sukha faculty as pleasant bodily and mental feeling: 14 This reading [i.e., “mental”] is interpolated. Why? (1) Because in all other schools (nikāya) the reading is only “bodily.” (2) And because the [[[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]]] statement in its own words is “And he feels sukha with the body.” 15

Similarly, the Dīpavaṃsa, composed in the fourth century ce, 16 alleges that the Mahāsāṃghikas, following the first schism, rejected some part of the sūtras and of the Vinaya [of the Sthavira/Theravāda orthodoxy], and made up other sūtras and another Vinaya.

In sum, during the fourth century Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and the author of the Dīpavaṃsa witnessed or recorded retrospectively the discrepancies among the texts of the various schools or nikāyas. They ascribed either a certain Āgama or a certain sūtra or sūtras to a certain school (named or unnamed). Each of the various nikāyas transmitted its own scriptures; what was authentic to one lineage might not have been so for another. 18 Such situations coincided with the transmission of our EĀ from India (in a broad sense) to China in the late fourth century. Accordingly, it can be justified to explore the identity of the EĀ in terms of school affiliation. Considering the complexities discussed above, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the school affiliation of our EĀ. Nonetheless, in this paper I venture to examine the various hypotheses about the sectarian affiliation(s) of the EĀ in the hope of shedding some light on the issue that concerned many Buddhists in the fourth century.

sarvāstivāda

Mizuno (1996: 415–16) suggests that the first translation of the EĀ recited by Dharmanandin belongs to the “ancient Sarvāstivāda school” because according to the scriptural catalog, Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (T 2145), Dharmanandin came from Tukhāra, which is considered to have been located in a region where the Sarvāstivāda prevailed at that time. It is possible, however, that some other schools were also present in that area, and Dharmanandin may have learned the EĀ elsewhere. Hirakawa (1989: 33) considers it impossible to deduce the EĀ’s school affiliation from Dharmanandin’s homeland.

Contrary to the above argument for attributing the first EĀ translation to the Sarvāstivāda, Hiraoka (2008: 314–313 sic) points out that two passages in the first EĀ translation cited by the Jing lü yi xiang disagree with their counterparts in several Sarvāstivādin texts. The 14. Ak 439: sūtra uktaṃ “sukhendriyaṃ katamat? yat . . . kāyikaṃ caitasikaṃ sātaṃ veditam . . .” iti.

15. Ak 439: adhyāropita eṣa pāṭhaḥ. kenāpi? sarvanikāyāntareṣu kāyikam ity eve pāṭhāt. “sukhaṃ ca kāyena pratisaṃvedayata” iti svaśabdena vacanāc ca. I have slightly revised my translation found in Kuan 2005: 299.

16. See von Hinüber 1997: 89.

17. Dīp V 36 (p. 36): chaḍḍetvā ekadesañ ca suttaṃ vinayañ ca gambhīraṃ, paṭirūpaṃ suttavinayaṃ tañ ca aññaṃ kariṃsu te.

18. I cite from Skilling (2010: 2) referring to a point drawn by Vasubandhu in his Vyākhyāyukti.

Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 (T 1507), a partial commentary on T 125, 19 says that the Sarvāstivādin EĀ has neither a prologue nor a section on Elevens. 20 This is to deny that T 125 is affiliated to the Sarvāstivādins since this EĀ does have a prologue and a section on Elevens. Harrison (1997) identifies forty-four sūtras in the Foshuo qichu sanguan jing 佛說七處三觀經 (T 150a) and six individual sūtras as belonging to the incomplete EĀ translated by An Shigao 安世高. He says (1997: 280): “The relatively large number of parallel texts in the Aṅguttara-nikāya certainly suggests a nikāya on the Sthaviravādin side of the divide.” Following a discussion based on four reasons he concludes (p. 280): It is therefore highly probable that among An Shigao’s works we have a sizable set of early translations of the Sarvāstivādin Ekottarikāgama. Of course, if we accept this identification, then in view of the substantial differences between the An Shigao corpus and the Zengyi ahan jing (of the possible total of 50 individual Ekottarikāgama sūtras translated by An Shigao, only 8 have parallels in T 125, and there are, what is more, quite significant differences in wording in most of these cases), it is clear that T 125 cannot be Sarvāstivādin, or Mūlasarvāstivādin for that matter. According to the above discussion, our EĀ is unlikely to be of Sarvāstivādin provenance.

mūlasarvāstivāda or mahāsāṂghika?

Hiraoka (2007, 2008) demonstrates affinity at different levels (very close, close, and slightly close) between some passages of the EĀ and certain schools, particularly the Mūlasarvāstivāda. The following three legends in the EĀ do seem to be closer to their parallels in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (MSV) than to the parallels in other texts (see Hiraoka 2007: 304–2 sic):

1. When the Buddha prophesies life after death, the light that he sends forth disappears to different parts of his body to signify the various destinies. (Sūtra 2 in Chapter 43 of the EĀ, abbreviated to “EĀ 43.2”: T II 758b; MSV: Gnoli 1978: 162) 21

2. Devadatta, having smeared his fingers with poison, visits the Buddha and then goes to hell. The Buddha foretells that Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha in the distant future. (EĀ 49.9: T II 804a-c; MSV: Gnoli 1978: 261–62)

3. The Buddha was King Mahāsudarśana in a previous life. The king had a son who became a Pratyekabuddha. After the Pratyekabuddha had attained final Nirvana and been cremated, a stūpa was erected for him. One day the king visited the stūpa and covered it with his own parasol. By virtue of this merit he was able to become a Buddha in his last birth and enjoyed the honor of being offered 2500 parasols on one occasion. (EĀ 38.11: T II 726c–727b; MSV: T XXIV 22c–23b) Accordingly, the EĀ may be linked to the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition. Incidentally, the various texts of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya were translated into Chinese from 702 to 710 ce, 22 long after Zhu Fonian translated the EĀ, so there can be no suspicion of appropriation by him.

19. Mori (1970: 457) and Mizuno (1996: 461) note that this text usually explains the EĀ (T 125) word for word and in the same order. Mizuno (p. 462) even contends that this text was not “translated” but was composed according to the translation of T 125.

20. T XXV 34b: 薩婆多家無序及後十一事。

21. This correspondence between the two texts is pointed out by Shizutani (1973: 58).

22. From the second year of Chang’an 長安 to the fourth year of Jinglong 景龍 according to the catalog 貞元新定釋教目錄 (T 2157 LV 868b).

I would like to add another case that indicates a seemingly close relation between the EĀ and MSV. This is a legend about the birth of Śaivala, one of the Buddha’s disciples. It is found in both EĀ 33.2 (T II 683a) and the last three fascicles of the Bhaiṣajya-vastu of the MSV (T 1448 XXIV 82b), which form a section on the Buddha’s and his disciples’ accounts of their past lives delivered at Lake Anavatapta. The legend goes as follows in brief: When Śaivala was just born, he said: “My family is very rich. I would like to help the poor.” People in the house were scared and ran away, but his mother stayed there and asked: “Are you a god, ghost, or demon?” He replied: “I am a human being, not a god, ghost, or demon.” To my knowledge, this legend is not found in the Pali texts. 23 Apart from the EĀ and the above-mentioned section of the MSV, the legend is found only in two texts corresponding to this section of the MSV. One of them is the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing 佛五百弟子自說本起經 (T 199), 24 translated into Chinese by Dharmarakṣa (Zhu Fahu 竺法護), and the other is a Sanskrit recension consisting of four manuscripts considered to be part of the MSV. 25 These texts, along with some Gāndhārī fragments, are generally referred to as the Anavatapta-gāthā, a title given by Bechert (1961).

A comparative study of the different versions of the Anavatapta-gāthā in Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Gāndhārī leads Salomon (2008: 45–46) to conclude: [T]he Indic archetype of Dhr was an authentic and relatively early form of the AG comprising only thirty recitations by the disciples instead of thirty-six as in the canonical text of the MSV.

In other words, Dharmarakṣa’s Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing (Dhr) could be very close to the original form of the Anavatapta-gāthā (AG), while the version in the Bhaiṣajya-vastu of the MSV is a later addition to this Vinaya and has been expanded to its present form. Salomon (2008: 15) says: Although the AG was definitely incorporated into the canon of the Mūlasarvāstivāda school in the form of an insertion into the Bhaiṣajya-vastu of their vinaya, it is not clear whether it ever attained fully canonical status as an independent text in any of the other schools, despite its evident popularity in antiquity.

On the other hand, Salomon (2008: 17) suggests that the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing (Dhr) is likely to be canonical since it “opens with an introductory nidāna formula characteristic of a sūtra, explaining the place and circumstances in which the text was first spoken: ‘The Buddha . . . staying at Śrāvastī . . . himself said to his bhikṣus.’” Regarding this issue, I would like to show that the Anavatapta-gāthā indeed “attained fully canonical status as an independent text” in one school, namely the Mahāsāṃghika, and that the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing could be the Mahāsāṃghika version of the Anavatapta-gāthā.

According to the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 摩訶僧祇律 (T 1425), when the Buddha instructs the monks how to teach their disciples to recite texts, the following five texts are mentioned as examples: *Aṣṭakavarga-sūtra (equivalent to Aṭṭhakavagga in Pali), *Pārāyaṇasūtra (equivalent to Pārāyanavagga in Pali), Lun nan sūtra, *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra, *Pratyekabuddha-sūtra. 26 The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, after describing the four Āgamas, states: “the Kṣudraka-piṭaka 雜藏 refers to the stanzas such as [those recited by] Pratyeka-

23. Salomon (2008: 28–31) enumerates the Pali parallels to some parts of the Anavatapta-gāthā. They do not include the legend in question.

24. For the legend about Śaivala, see T IV 194a-b.

25. See Salomon 2008: 24. For the story about Śaivala, see Bechert 1961: 141–43.

26. T XXII 337a: 八群經、波羅耶那經、論難經、阿耨達池經、緣覺經。

buddhas and Arhats telling of their own previous lives with causes and conditions.” 27 Yinshun (1994: 865) considers the above five texts listed in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya to be collections of archaic verses, and convincingly identifies the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra with “the stanzas recited by Arhats telling of their own previous lives with causes and conditions” as part of the Kṣudraka-piṭaka, as stated in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. Likewise, the socalled Anavatapta-gāthā was originally composed entirely in verse according to Salomon’s finding (2008: 56), based on the combined evidence of the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing and the Gāndhārī versions.

In this connection, two points should be noted. First, the title Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing actually means “the sūtra on the Buddha’s five hundred disciples telling of their own previous lives,” although this text comprises verses recited by only thirty Arhats, namely the Buddha and twenty-nine of his disciples. Thus the content of this text corresponds to that of the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra discussed above. 28 Second, the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing is a bare collection of verses grouped into thirty chapters, and the short prologue located before the first chapter is apparently a preface added at a later time to the collection of verses. The genre of this text is identical to that of the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra discussed above. In view of these two points, the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing could be the Mahāsāṃghikas’ *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra.

As mentioned above, Salomon asserts that the Anavatapta-gāthā was incorporated into the canon of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, namely the Bhaiṣajya-vastu of their Vinaya. In other words, the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra of the Mahāsāṃghikas (i.e., Dhr, which Salomon regards as an authentic and relatively early form of the AG) may have crept into the MSV at some point. If this happened after the EĀ had been introduced to China, we may safely conclude that the Śaivala legend in the EĀ originated from the Mahāsāṃghikas rather than from the Mūlasarvāstivādins. Alternatively, either the Mahāsāṃghika or the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition could be the source of this legend in the EĀ. Unfortunately, there is no way to find out whether this insertion happened after or before 384 ce, when the translation of the EĀ had just begun.

If it is the case that the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra had already been assimilated into the MSV before the EĀ was brought to China, then we may admit the possibility that the legend of Śaivala in the EĀ was drawn directly from the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition. This possibility is supported by the following fact. In EĀ 4.6 (T II 558a) and EĀ 33.2 (T II 683) the name of this disciple of the Buddha is rendered as Shipoluo 尸婆羅, whose Early Middle Chinese pronunciation is reconstructed as ɕi-ba-la by Pulleyblank (1991: 282, 241, 203). Shipoluo /ɕi-ba-la is most likely to be transcribed from an Indic word equivalent to Śaivala in Sanskrit because of the similarity in pronunciation, and because Śaivala is exactly the disciple’s name given in the Sanskrit version of the MSV (Bechert 1961: 141). The word śaivala could be the name of a serpent-demon in Buddhist literature according to MW (p. 1090, col. 3, s.v. śaivala). This agrees with the account in EĀ 33.2 that the Buddha named him Shipoluo because when he was born, people ran away, calling him a shipoluo demon. 29 In contrast, the transcription “Shililuo” as the disciple’s name in the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, presumably the Mahāsāṃghikas’ *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra, points to an Indic name other than Śaivala. Such lexical divergence is common in Buddhist literature, as Nor-

27. T XXII 491c: 雜藏者，所謂辟支佛、阿羅漢自說本行因緣，如是等比諸偈誦。

28. Cf. Yinshun 1994: 468.

29. T II 683c: 世尊告曰：「此兒生時，人皆馳走東西，云是尸婆羅鬼，今即立字尸婆羅。」

man points out. 30 Shililuo 尸利羅, 31 probably pronounced ɕi-lih-la in Early Middle Chinese (Pulleyblank 1991: 282, 188, 203), may be transcribed from an Indic word equivalent to Śrīlābha in Sanskrit, a name of various men in Buddhist literature according to MW (p. 1100, col. 1, s.v. śrī). Furthermore, Śrīlābha could literally mean ‘prosperity-gain’, which tallies with the account in this Mahāsāṃghika text: “When I was newly born, my family immediately became prosperous. Therefore, the ascetics named me Shililuo.” 32 The disciple’s name in the EĀ conforms to that in the MSV rather than to that in the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, hence the legend in the EĀ seems more likely to come from the Mūlasarvāstivādins than from the Mahāsāṃghikas. Incidentally, considering the different etymologies of the disciple’s name, we can exclude the possibility that the legend in the EĀ was borrowed by Zhu Fonian from Dharmarakṣa’s Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, a possibility we should be alert to, as mentioned above.

Although the legend in the EĀ looks more likely to come from the Mūlasarvāstivādins than from the Mahāsāṃghikas, the EĀ still cannot be identified with the Mūlasarvāstivāda if we take the following into account. Some Sanskrit EĀ fragments from Gilgit, attributed to the Mūlasarvāstivādins by several scholars, 33 contain many more sūtras in common with the Aṅguttara Nikāya than they do with the EĀ (T 125). 34 Therefore, it is unlikely that our EĀ is affiliated with the Mūlasarvāstivāda and perhaps even unlikely that it belongs to a sect on the Sthavira side of the divide as opposed to the Mahāsāṃghika side. 35 This case is analogous to the above-mentioned research by Harrison (1997) and in line with his conclusion.

Thus, we now face a paradox. It seems that the Mūlasarvāstivādins rather than the Mahāsāṃghikas provided the legend for the EĀ, but the EĀ appears more likely to be Mahāsāṃghika than Mūlasarvāstivādin (on the Sthavira side). A tentative solution is proposed as follows. The EĀ in general is closely linked to the Mahāsāṃghikas. This sect had developed into several subsects (see below) before the EĀ was brought to China. A certain subsect called the legendary disciple “Śaivala” in their *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra and introduced this text into the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition, and it was this subsect that transmitted the EĀ that was translated into Chinese. Another subsect called him “Śrīlābha” and transmitted the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra that was translated into Chinese as the Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing. This tentative reconstruction of the textual history explains why the EĀ seems fairly close to the Mahāsāṃghikas (as further elaborated below), though the Śaivala

30. Norman (2006: 123) notes that the Buddha’s teachings had been transmitted in the dialects of Middle IndoAryan for some hundreds of years before Sanskritization of Buddhist literature began. It is conceivable that during this period an “original” word in a certain Buddhist text could have developed into different forms or even different words in the various dialects covering extensive regions. An example is the divergence of pracaga, prace’a, pacceka, and patteya as shown by Norman (1999: 240f.). On the other hand, Sanskritization also caused problems when backformations were made. For example, as a parallel to the Middle Indo-Aryan word dīpa in the Dhammapada, “the Sanskrit Udānavarga has dvīpa ‘island’, but the Chinese version has ‘lamp’, showing that it is based upon a Sanskrit version which had dīpa ‘lamp’” (quoted from Norman 2006: 131).

31. Another of the anonymous readers suggests that this may be a corruption of Shiheluo 尸和羅, and that Śrīla is also a plausible candidate. The reading “尸和羅” is not given in the Taishō edition, which is a recension based on the Korean edition collated with the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. The Jin edition (金藏) and Qisha edition (磧砂藏), which are the earliest editions available to me, also read 尸利羅 like the Taishō.

32. T IV194b: 我爾時適生，其家即興熾，緣是諸寂志，名我尸利羅。

33. S. Dietz, etc. See Tripāṭhī (1995: 28).

34. See Ōkubo (1982: 2–7) and Tripāṭhī (1995: 48–55). Cf. also Waldschmidt (1980: 173f.).

and the Mahāsāṃghika. See, e.g., Dīp V 16–47 (pp. 35–37) of the Theravāda tradition; Bu zhiyi lun 部執異論 35. It is generally agreed that the Buddhist Order was first split into two sects: the Sthavira (Sthaviravāda)

(T 2033 XLIX 20a–21b) of the Sarvāstivāda tradition; Shelifu wen jing 舍利弗問經 (T 1465 XXIV 900b–c) of the Mahāsāṃghika tradition. legend in the EĀ is closer to the Mūlasarvāstivāda version than the Mahāsāṃghika version. A clarification of the relationship between these two schools will cast valuable light on relevant issues.

mūlasarvāstivāda and mahāsāṂghika

As argued above, the Śaivala legend in the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra of the Mahāsāṃghikas was incorporated into the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Scholars have noticed a close relationship between the Mūlasarvāstivādins and the Mahāsāṃghikas. Several instances indicate that the Mūlasarvāstivādins were profoundly influenced by the Mahāsāṃghikas.

As Clarke (2004: 77) sums it up, we have today six seemingly complete Vinayas available to us, one in Pali and the other five in Chinese translation. 36 Hirakawa (1999: 299– 424) conducted a comparative study of these six Vinayas in light of the Sutta-vibhaṅga, the core of the Vinaya literature. He suggests that of these six the MSV is the newest in many respects (pp. 389, 415), and holds that the MSV is newer than the Ten Recitations Vinaya 十誦律 of the Sarvāstivāda school (pp. 389, 416). Similarly, Lamotte (1988: 178) contends that the Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsāṃghika Vinayas are the closest to the ancient Vinaya of Upāli, whereas the MSV originated from an immense compendium of discipline that was closed much later. Prebish (1994: 84) says: “Of the Vinaya collections encountered so far, that of the Mūlasarvāstivāda nikāya is undoubtedly the most voluminous.” It can therefore be inferred that many of its contents were originally not part of the Vinaya. Even though some components of the MSV can be dated back to very early times, Frauwallner (1956: 24) remarks “that the legends inserted in the text [MSV] are here much more elaborate, and that above all a great quantity of tales is added.” According to the above discussion, there is hardly any doubt that the extant MSV by and large represents a rather late stage of composition in comparison with the other schools’ Vinayas. It is noteworthy that the name “Mūlasarvāstivāda” seems not to appear until the seventh century ce. 37 Lamotte (1988: 657) argues that we cannot attribute to the MSV a date earlier than the fourth to fifth centuries.

Willemen (2008: 45–50) presents the following theory about how the Sarvāstivādins evolved. From the end of the second century the Sarvāstivādins were divided into two groups: on the one hand the Kāśmīra Vaibhāṣika “orthodoxy” and on the other the majority of Sarvāstivādins, including the Sautrāntikas. A characteristic of these non-Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins is that they were eclectic in their meditative practices and used Mahāsāṃghika “emptiness.” At the end of the seventh century the Kāśmīra Vaibhāṣika “orthodoxy” disappeared through being absorbed into the non-Vaibhāṣikas, and thus all were called Mūlasarvāstivādins.

According to Willemen’s theory, the name “Mūlasarvāstivāda” may have appeared quite late, but before this name appeared, their predecessors, the non-Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins or Sautrāntikas, had been active for a long time. If we use the term “Mūlasarvāstivāda” in a broader sense, it may cover all the non-Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins before the term existed. A characteristic of the “Mūlasarvāstivādins” is that they adopted some Mahāsāṃghika ideas, as Willemen points out in the work cited above and elsewhere (2003: 18–20; 2012: 3–14). This is corroborated by a biography of Harivarman 訶梨跋摩 included in the Chu sanzang ji ji

36. The MSV is also extant in Tibetan translation.

37. See Frauwallner (1956: 25), Willemen et al. (1998: 85), and Enomoto (2000: 242).

38. According to Schopen (2008: 626): “there is now a general consensus that the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya was very likely to have been redacted in the early centuries of the Common Era.”

(T 2145) by Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518). 39 According to this biography, Harivarman (ca. 300) 40 was ordained in the Sarvāstivāda school and became a disciple of *Kumāralabdha, who was a master of the Sautrāntikas, 41 the Mūlasarvāstivādins-to-be according to Willemen. Later on, with the help of the Mahāsāṃghika monks in Pāṭaliputra, he composed the *Jñānakāyaprodbhūtopadeśa, 42 which soon swept Magadha. 43 This is a notable example of how a (Mūla-)Sarvāstivādin monk was influenced by the Mahāsāṃghika school. Yinshun (1985: 132f.) affirms that the concept of “emptiness of dharmas” expounded in the *Jñānakāyaprodbhūtopadeśa is drawn from the Mahāsāṃghikas.

Let us now move on to the geographical and historical backgrounds of these two schools in relation to the EĀ. An earlier study of mine (Kuan 2012) compares the EĀ sūtras with their parallels and finds that the EĀ has a statistically significant preference for Magadha when selecting place names as the settings of sūtras. According to historical sources, the Mahāsāṃghikas prevailed in Magadha from the time when this sect came into being as a result of the original schism until at least the fifth century, when Faxian 法顯 acquired this school’s Vinaya in Magadha. From this viewpoint, along with some textual indications, I argue that the EĀ may belong to the Mahāsāṃghika. Meanwhile the statistics of my comparative study shows that the two Chinese versions of the Saṃyukta ĀᾹgama (SĀ and SĀ2) also have a strong inclination to choose Magadha for sūtra settings. Since the SĀ and SĀ2 are widely ascribed to the Mūlasarvāstivāda, 44 the EĀ may also belong to this school. According to Yijing 義淨, the Mūlasarvāstivāda was the predominant Buddhist school in Magadha when he visited India in the seventh century. From this I infer that the Mūlasarvāstivāda could have already taken root in Magadha by the first half of the fifth century, when the Mūlasarvāstivādin SĀ and SĀ2 were introduced into China (Kuan 2012: 201). I continue:

It is also very likely that the Mūlasarvāstivādins as latecomers were under the long-standing influence of the Mahāsāṃghikas in Magadha, and thus could have borrowed some materials from the Mahāsāṃghika tradition and incorporated them into their own texts.

This may explain the following two paradoxes confronting us:

1. The EĀ contains several passages that have led scholars to ascribe it to the Mahāsāṃghikas, but it is in fact affiliated with the Mūlasarvāstivādins.

2. The EĀ contains several passages which are closer to the parallels in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya than to those in other texts while the EĀ is actually derived from the Mahāsāṃghikas.

This earlier study (Kuan 2012: 201) accepts the first paradox as possible, but this may be ruled out because, as mentioned above, the extant Mūlasarvāstivādin EĀ in Sanskrit is very different from our EĀ (T 125). By contrast, the second paradox makes sense in view of the foregoing discussions. As illustrated above, the Mūlasarvāstivādins and their predecessors were influenced by the Mahāsāṃghika for several centuries, so while developing their texts,

39. See FDC 1552.

40. See Willemen 2008: 54, Yinshun 1985: 132.

41. Xuanzang’s Datang xiyu ji 大唐西域記 (T 2087 LI 884c) says: 經部拘摩羅邏多論師.

42. The Sanskrit title of the Chengshi lun 成實論 (T 1646) has usually been conjectured to be Tattvasiddhi or Satyasiddhi[[[śāstra]]]. Willemen (2006) demonstrates that the correct form of its title could be Jñānakāyaprodbhūtopadeśa.

43. T LV 78c–79a: 訶梨跋摩 . . . 抽簪革服為薩婆多部達摩沙門究摩羅陀弟子。 . . . 時有僧祇部僧住巴連弗邑 . . . 久聞跋摩才超群彥 . . . 相與慨然 . . . 造述明論，厥號成實 . . . 旬日之間傾震摩竭。

44. For details, see Kuan 2012: 179 n. 3, 180 n. 4.

including their Vinaya, they may have adopted some Mahāsāṃghika concepts, legends, and even an entire text, the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra. As argued above, both the Śaivala legend in the EĀ and that in the MSV may have been drawn from the *Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra transmitted by a certain subsect of the Mahāsāṃghikas. Two more instances of Mūlasarvāstivādin texts being affected by the Mahāsāṃghikas will be discussed below.

As stated above, Hiraoka shows that some legends in the EĀ are very close to their parallels in the MSV. Considering the scarcity of Mahāsāṃghika sources that still survive today, there exists the possibility that these legends also appeared in some Mahāsāṃghika texts that are lost now, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya had borrowed them from such Mahāsāṃghika material. Therefore, despite the apparent affinity between some legends in the EĀ and those in the MSV, it is still highly probable that the EĀ is closely linked to the Mahāsāṃghikas rather than to the Mūlasarvāstivādins, especially in view of the following elucidations of distinctive Mahāsāṃghika features in the EĀ.

mahāsāṂghika

Very few texts of the Mahāsāṃghika tradition have survived. Most of them belong to the Vinaya literature, 45 including the Mahāvastu, 46 a text of the Lokottaravādin subsect of the Mahāsāṃghikas. Some doctrines peculiar to the Mahāsāṃghika tradition can be discerned in its own literature. Besides, several Buddhist texts of other early schools and even a Mahāyāna text attribute some particular ideas to the Mahāsāṃghikas. As shown below, these sources provide us with materials that correspond to several unique concepts in the EĀ.

1. Transcendence of Buddhas

Williams (2000: 128) states: “The best known Mahāsāṃghika doctrine is that of the ‘supramundane nature of the Buddha,’ and the Mahāsāṃghika ‘supramundane doctrine’ (lokottaravāda) appears to be characteristic of the school.” Harrison (1982: 227) makes the following apt remark concerning “the nature of the Buddha which we regard as characteristically ‘Lokottaravādin’”: . . . as Bareau has pointed out, ideas of this kind were by no means exclusive to that particular subsect of the Mahāsāṃghikas known as the Lokottaravādins, but were the common property of the Mahāsāṃghikas in general.

This opinion may be corroborated by the fact that the Kathāvatthu, a Theravādin Abhidharma work, refutes the following thesis: “The Buddha, the Blessed One’s common use is supra-mundane (lokuttara),” 47 which the commentary on the Kathāvatthu (Kv-a 59–60) attributes to the Andhakas, a collective term covering four subsects of the Mahāsāṃghikas. 48 We should remember, however, that the Kathāvatthu itself does not ascribe the theories that it raises to any school, and that the identification of schools is only made in its commentary, which was written four or five centuries later, 49 so there is no way of knowing whether this held true already for the author(s) of the Kathāvatthu itself.

45. For a survey of Mahāsāṃghika literature, see Oberlies 2003: 71–77.

46. For its Vinaya nature, see Tournier 2012.

47. Kv II.10, p. 221: Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro.

48. Kv-a 52: Andhakā nāma Pubbaseliyā Aparaseliyā Rājagiriyā Siddhatthikā.

49. See Skilling 2010: 3.

Transcending the world

The idea that all Buddhas are supra-mundane or transcending the world (lokottara) in all aspects is ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghika school and its three offshoots in the Bu zhiyi lun 部執異論 (T 2033) by Vasumitra of the Sarvāstivāda: “All Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, transcend the world. Nothing pertaining to Tathāgatas is possessed of taints (āsrava).” 50 More specifically, the Mahāsāṃghikas even regard the Buddha’s physical body as supramundane. This concept is recorded in the *Abhidharma-vibhāṣā 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 (T 1546), a Sarvāstivāda text:

The Mahāsāṃghikas hold that the Buddha’s body is absolutely free from taints. Question: Why do they hold this opinion? Answer: They invoke a Buddhist sūtra, which says that the Tathāgata was born in the world and grew up in the world, yet he transcends the world and is undefiled by the world. [Therefore,] they hold this opinion: Since the Buddha is transcendental and is undefiled by the world, it should be known that the Buddha’s body is absolutely free from taints. 51 As Guang Xing (2005: 19–20) points out, the Sarvāstivādins differed from the Mahāsāṃghikas in using the two-body theory to interpret the same quotation: the rūpakāya (physical body) is impure while the dharmakāya is not. Now let us refer to the Mahāsāṃghika’s own text, the Mahāvastu: “The Sugata’s body, which brings about the destruction of the fetters of existence, is also transcendental . . . The pre-eminent men display the four postures of the body, though no fatigue comes over these men of shining deeds . . . the wind does not harm their bodies . . . the sun’s heat does not torment them . . . hunger never distresses them.” 52 (Translation based on Jones 1949: 132–33.) The same notion that Buddhas are transcendental even in regard to their bodies is expressed in EĀ 29.6:

Are Tathāgatas’ bodies produced by their parents? This is also unthinkable. The reason is that Tathāgatas’ bodies are pure and undefiled, endowed with divine dispositions. . . . They transcend human activities. Are Tathāgatas’ bodies divine bodies? This is also unthinkable. The reason is that Tathāgatas’ bodies cannot be produced and transcend all deities. 53 Such a peculiar description of Buddhas tallies with the above concept of Buddhas unique to the Mahāsāṃghikas. From this we can deduce that this EĀ passage originated from the Mahāsāṃghikas.

Conforming to the world

While emphasizing Buddhas’ supra-mundane nature in such a way that even their bodies are considered transcendental, the Mahāsāṃghikas also recognize that the historical Buddha lived in the manner of a normal human being. They try to reconcile this paradox by postulating that the Buddha, despite being supra-mundane, behaved like an ordinary man in order to conform to the world. Such an idea is articulated in the Mahāvastu as follows: 50. T XLIX 20b: 一切佛世尊出世。無有如來一法而是有漏。

51. T XXVIII 293b: 如摩訶僧祇部說，佛身一向無漏。問曰：彼何故作此說？答曰：彼依佛經，佛經說如來於世間生、世間長，而出世間，不為世間所染。彼作是說：佛若出世間，不為世間所染，則知佛身一向無漏。

52. Mvu I 167–69: yat tat sugataśarīraṃ bhavate bhavasya bandhanakṣayakaraṇaṃ / lokottaraṃ tad api . . . īryāpathāṃ darśayanti catvāraḥ puruṣottamāḥ / no ca pariśramas teṣāṃ jāyate śubhakarmiṇāṃ // . . . vātāni . . . vikopenti na dehakaṃ . . . ātapaś ca na bādhati . . . na caiṣāṃ bādhate kṣudhā.

53. T II 657b: 如來身者，為是父母所造耶？此亦不可思議。所以然者，如來身者，清淨無穢，受諸天氣。 . . . 以過人行。如來身者，為是天身耶？此亦不可思議。所以然者，如來身者，不可造作，非諸天所及。

The Buddhas conform to the world’s conditions, but in such a way that they also conform to the traits of transcendentalism. . . . They are in the habit of taking medicine, but there is no disease in them. . . . This is mere conformity with the world. . . . They take on the semblance of being old, but for them there is no old age. . . . This is mere conformity with the world. 54 (Translation based on Jones 1949: 132–33.)

Similarly, EĀ 26.9 has the following account (T II 639b–c). The Buddha’s two chief disciples, Śāriputra and Mahāmaudgalyāyana, intend to attain final Nirvana before the Buddha attains final Nirvana. Śāriputra visits the Buddha and requests permission to attain final Nirvana, but the Buddha remains silent. On being so requested three times, the Buddha asks Śāriputra: “Why do you not live for a kalpa (eon) or even more than a kalpa?” Śāriputra replies: I have heard from the Blessed One in person . . . that sentient beings have very short life-spans, and that the longest life-span is but one hundred years. It is because sentient beings have short life-spans that the Tathāgata also has a short life-span. Should the Tathāgata live for a kalpa, I too will live for a kalpa.

It is stated in the Buddhist canons that the Buddha, since he had cultivated the four bases of supernatural power (ṛddhipāda), could have lived for a kalpa or even longer if he had wished. 56 But the idea that “it is because sentient beings have short life-spans that the Tathāgata also has a short life-span” is unique to the EĀ, and is characteristic of the Mahāsāṃghika concept of Buddhas. The above EĀ passage expresses the same notion that even though Buddhas are transcendental, they still conform to the world’s conditions, and thus it was merely for conformity with the world that Śākyamuni Buddha lived for eighty years like an ordinary man instead of living for a kalpa or even longer. Besides, the Kathāvatthu in the light of its commentary criticizes the Mahāsāṃghikas for taking the above-mentioned canonical passage too literally as meaning that one can actually prolong one’s lifespan up to a kalpa by means of the four bases of supernatural power. 57 The same literalism develops so much further in EĀ 26.9 as to imply that the Buddha and even Śāriputra could live for a kalpa if they wished, presumably because they both possess the four bases of supernatural power. This reinforces the possibility that EĀ 26.9 is linked to the Mahāsāṃghikas. Moreover, according to the Mahāsāṃghikas, the Buddha lives like an ordinary man and may take medication so that he can benefit sentient beings, as stated in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: “Even though the Blessed One does not need medicine, he is willing to take it for the sake of sentient beings.” 58 This idea is suggested in EĀ 35.7 as follows (abridged):

54. Mvu I 168–69: lokānuvartanāṃ buddhā anuvartanti laukikīṃ / prajñaptim anuvartanti yathā lokottarām api // . . . auṣadhaṃ pratisevanti vyādhi caiṣāṃ na vidyate . . . eṣā lokānuvartanā // jarāṃ ca upadeśenti na caiṣāṃ vidyate jarā . . . eṣā lokānuvartanā //

55. T II 639c: 舍利弗白世尊言：「我躬從世尊聞 . . . 眾生之類壽命極短，極壽不過百歲。以眾生命短故如來壽亦短。若當如來住壽一劫者，我當亦住壽一劫。」 56. For the Theravāda, see DN II 103: Tathāgatassa kho pana Ānanda cattāro iddhipādā bhāvitā . . . susamāraddhā. So ākaṅkhamāno Ānanda tathāgato kappaṃ vā tiṭṭheyya kappāvasesaṃ vā. For the Dharmaguptaka, see the Dīrgha Āgama at T I 15b: 諸有修四神足 . . . 可得不死一劫有餘。阿難，佛四神足已多修行 . . . 在意所欲，如來可止一劫有餘。

57. Kv XI.5 (p. 456) begins with the thesis being refuted: iddhibalena samannāgato kappaṃ tiṭṭheyyā ti, and (p. 457) refers to the passage at DN II 103 mentioned in the previous footnote as a canonical source cited by the opponents to support their thesis. The commentary identifies the opponents as the Mahāsāṃghikas (Kv-a 131: Tattha iddhipādabhāvanānisaṃsassa atthaṃ ayoniso gahetvā iddhibalena samannāgato kappaṃ tiṭṭheyyā ti yesaṃ laddhi, seyyathāpi Mahāsaṅghikānaṃ).

58. T XXII 481a: 世尊雖不須，為眾生故願受此藥。

The Blessed One told Upavāna: “You should enter the city of Rājagṛha to find some hot water. The reason is that my spine is afflicted by winds today.” Upavāna followed his instruction and entered the city. He thought: “. . . the Tathāgata has destroyed all fetters and accumulated all wholesome states. Yet, the Tathāgata said: ‘I am afflicted by winds,’ and did not designate [the giver by] name. Which household should I approach?” Then with his divine eye he saw a householder without any wholesome roots, and thought: “The Tathāgata must intend to save this householder. The reason is that he will be reborn in the Wailing Hell after his death.” . . . the householder gave him hot water. The Blessed One bathed with the hot water and his winds [[[affliction]]] soon disappeared. Five days later, the householder died and was reborn in a certain heaven. 59

This sūtra has three parallels in the Buddhist canons of different traditions, namely SN 7.2.3 (Sutta 3 in Chapter 2 of the 7th Saṃyutta in the Saṃyutta Nikāya), SĀ 1181 (T II 319b–c), and SĀ2 95 (T II 407b–c). The Pali version has the following in brief: The Blessed One was afflicted by winds. He told Upavāna: “You should find some hot water for me.” Then Upavāna went to the residence of the Brahmin Devahita. The Brahmin, being begged, provided hot water, owing to which the Blessed One’s ailment subsided. Then the Brahmin visited the Blessed One and they had a conversation in verse. 60

The SĀ and SĀ2 versions have a story line roughly identical to the above except for a few discrepancies. 61 These three versions depict the Buddha as being sick and really in need of hot water, whereas in EĀ 35.7 the Buddha tells Upavāna that he is ill as a pretext for asking Upavāna to find hot water in the city. In this version Upavāna is said to have the thought: “The Tathāgata has destroyed all fetters and accumulated all wholesome states. Yet, the Tathāgata said: ‘I am afflicted by winds.’” This echoes the foregoing Mahāvastu passage: “The Sugata’s body, which brings about the destruction of the fetters of existence, is also transcendental.” Upavāna doubts the Buddha’s claim to be ill on the presumption that the Buddha is absolutely transcendental so that even his body is free from illness—an idea unique to the Mahāsāṃghikas. Later on Upavāna understands the Buddha’s intention in the feigning of an ailment: the Buddha wants him to save a householder from going to hell; then he accomplishes the mission and helps the householder go to heaven. The episode of the householder being saved from hell is not found in SN, SĀ, or SĀ2. It was probably interpolated in EĀ 35.7 in order to highlight the point that the Buddha claims to be ill and receives treatment simply for the benefit of others, as just quoted from the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: “Even though the Blessed One does not need medicine, he is willing to take it for the sake of sentient beings.”

59. T II 699c–670b: 世尊告優頭槃：「汝今入羅閱城求少溫湯。所以然者，如我今日脊患風痛。」 . . . 優頭槃受佛教已 . . . 入羅閱城求湯。尊者優頭槃便作是念：「. . .如來諸結已盡，諸善普會。然如來復作是語：『我今患風。』又復世尊不授姓名，當至誰家？」 . . . 優頭槃以天眼 . . . 見羅閱城中有長者 . . . 不種善根 . . . 優頭槃便作是念：「如來必欲度此長者。所以然者，此長者命終之後，當生啼哭地獄中。」 . . . 長者 . . . 以香湯授與道人。 . . . 世尊以此香湯，沐浴身體，風尋時差。 . . . 長者後五日便取命終，生四天王中。

60. SN I 174–75: Bhagavā vātehi ābādhiko hoti. . . . Bhagavā āyasmantaṃ Upavānaṃ āmantesi: iṅgha me tvaṃ Upavāna uṇhodakaṃ jānāhī ti. . . . yena Devahitassa brāhmaṇassa nivesanaṃ ten’ upasaṅkami. . . . atha kho Devahito brāhmaṇo uṇhodakassa kājam purisena gāhāpetvā phāṇitassa ca puṭaṃ āyasmato Upavānassa pādāsi. . . . Bhagavantaṃ uṇhodakena nahāpetvā . . . Bhagavato so ābādho paṭippassambhi. . . . Devahito brāhmaṇo yena Bhagavā ten’ upasaṅkami. . . . kattha dajjā deyyadhammaṃ kattha dinnaṃ mahapphalaṃ, kathaṃ hi yajamānassa kattham ijjhati dakkhiṇā ti. pubbenivāsaṃ yo vedī saggāpāyañ ca passati, atho jātikkhayaṃ patto abhiññāvosito muni. . . .

61. In SĀ the Buddha suffers from back pain and asks Upavāna to visit a certain Brahmin called Devahita without asking for hot water, but the Brahmin provides hot water. In SĀ2 the Buddha does not ask anyone to do anything, but Upavāna volunteers to visit the Brahmin and begs for hot medical water. 2. Five Obligations of a Buddha

According to EĀ 24.5, the Buddha says:

A Tathāgata should perform five deeds in the world. What five?

1) He should set rolling the wheel of Dharma.

2) He should preach Dharma to his father.

3) He should preach Dharma to his mother.

4) He should establish the practice of a Bodhisattva in ordinary people.

5) He should confer on a Bodhisattva the guarantee of Buddhahood. 62

Similar lists appear in the Mahāsāṃghika and Mūlasarvāstivādin texts as indicated by Skilling (1997: 305) and Lamotte (1988: 659). In the Mahāvastu, as one of the former Buddhas, Samitāvin Buddha says:

The five obligations of a Buddha should certainly be fulfilled. What five?

1) The wheel of Dharma should be set rolling. 2) [My] mother should be instructed.

3) [My] father should be instructed.

4) Those who are to be instructed by a Buddha should be instructed.

5) The heir to the throne should be anointed. After my death, he will become a Buddha in the world. 63

The Kṣudraka-vastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (MSV, T 1451) reads: A Buddha must definitely perform five deeds. What five?

1) to arouse the unsurpassed great bodhi-mind in those whose [[[bodhi]]-]mind has not arisen;

2) to anoint the Dharma Crown Prince whose wholesome roots have long been planted;

3) to make his parents see the truth;

4) to display a great miracle in Śrāvastī;

5) to liberate all those who are instructed by the Buddha.

A comparison of the above two passages with EĀ 24.5 shows that the Mahāvastu version is much closer to EĀ 24.5 than is the MSV version. All the obligations in the EĀ list have counterparts in the Mahāvastu list, and in both lists the five items are in almost the same order. Although obligation 4 in EĀ 24.5 seems different from obligation 4 in the Mahāvastu, both obligations are about instructing untaught ordinary people. By contrast, the EĀ list of obligations is arranged in a sequence different from that of the MSV list. Moreover, “to set rolling the wheel of Dharma” listed as the first obligation in both the EĀ and Mahāvastu is missing from the MSV list, whereas the MSV list includes the obligation “to display a great miracle in Śrāvastī,” which is absent from the EĀ and Mahāvastu.

Accordingly, the EĀ list of the Buddha’s obligations probably originated from a tradition fairly close to that of the Mahāvastu, i.e., the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins, and is more

62. T II 622c: 世尊告曰：如來在世間應行五事。云何為五？一者當轉法輪，二者當與父說法，三者當與母說法，四者當與凡夫人立菩薩行，五者當授菩薩記別。See also EĀ 35.2 (T II 699a).

63. Mvu I 51: paṃca ca buddhakāryāṇi avaśyaṃ kartavyāni // katamāni paṃca // dharmacakraṃ pravartayitavyaṃ, mātā vinetavyā, pitā vinetavyo, bauddhavaineyakā satvā vinetavyā, yuvarājā abhiṣiṃcitavyo // eṣo mamātyayena buddho loke bhaviṣyati. 64. T XXIV 329c–330a: 佛有五事必定須作。云何為五？一者未曾發心有情，令彼發起無上大菩提心。二者久植善根法王太子灌頂授記。三者於父母所令見真諦。四者於室羅伐現大神通。五者但是因佛受化眾生悉皆度脫。

distant from the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition. The Bhaiṣajya-vastu of the MSV (Hofinger 1954: 175–77) and the Divyāvadāna (Divy 150), which draws heavily on the MSV, 65 even enumerate ten obligations of a Buddha, among which only three are common to the Mahāvastu and EĀ. The Mūlasarvāstivādins apparently borrowed the list from the Mahāsāṃghikas and then revised and expanded it.

3. Superiority of Bodhisattvas (Buddhas-to-be)

Since the Mahāsāṃghikas regard Buddhas as absolutely supra-mundane, a natural corollary for this school is that such transcendence must be inherent in the preparatory stage for Buddhahood. In other words, a Bodhisattva in the sense of a “Buddha-to-be” or “heir to the throne” (just quoted from the Mahāvastu) is no ordinary person, but is already transcendental in some way. The Bu zhiyi lun (T 2033) by Vasumitra attributes the following doctrine to the Mahāsāṃghikas and their subsects: “All Bodhisattvas are without thought of craving, without thought of anger, without thought of harming others.” 66 Similarly, EĀ 27.5 describes Bodhisattvas as “without having thought of attachment” and “without giving rise to anger.”

This EĀ sūtra emphasizes the superiority of Bodhisattvas in an unusual tone: “Among all kinds of living beings, Bodhisattvas are supreme.” 68 This statement is in accordance with the following feature of the Mahāsāṃghikas. The Tarkajvālā, ascribed to Bhāviveka in the sixth century, states: “It also is generally accepted in the texts of most of the eighteen schools (nikāya) that [[[monks]]] should pay homage to Bodhisattvas” (Eckel 2008: 166). Then it goes on to cite examples from the scriptures of these schools, namely six schools of the Mahāsāṃghika lineage and eleven schools of the Sthavira lineage. It is noteworthy that according to these seventeen quotations, four out of the six Mahāsāṃghika schools mention the superiority of Bodhisattvas over Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, whereas no such mention is found in any passages quoted from the eleven schools of the Sthavira lineage (Eckel 2008: 169–73). Therefore, the supremacy of Bodhisattvas over Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas is apparently not recognized by the non-Mahāsāṃghika schools. 69 The Theravādins criticize this notion as a heresy held by the Mahāsāṃghikas. The Kathāvatthu (IV.8) refutes this thesis: “During the dispensation of Kassapa Buddha, the Bodhisattva had entered an assured state . . .” 70 The Kathāvatthu commentary (Kv-a 78) attributes it to the Andhakas, i.e., the four Mahāsāṃghika subsects (see above), and indicates that this thesis is based on the reference to an account in the Ghaṭīkāra Sutta (MN II 46ff.), where Jotipāla, a previous life of Śākyamuni Buddha, joins the Order under Kassapa (Skt. Kāśyapa) Buddha. The Kathāvatthu refutes this thesis by questioning the presumably Mahāsāṃghikas: “If the Bodhisattva had entered an

65. See Hiraoka 1998.

66. T XLIX 20c: 一切菩薩無貪欲想，無瞋恚想，無逼惱他想。

67. T II 645b10: 不生著想。T II 645b18: 不興瞋恚。 68. T II 645b: 諸有眾生之類，菩薩最為上首。

69. As Anālayo (2010: 38f.) notes, the following canonical discourse of the Theravāda seems to regard the Bodhisattva Gautama as superior to anyone else right at his birth. According to MN 123 (III 123), as soon as this Bodhisattva was born, he took seven steps and then proclaimed: “I am supreme in the world.” Anālayo (2010: 41) indicates that the Chinese version, MĀ 32 (T I 470b), records only the seven steps without any proclamation made at all. He continues: “Nakamura (1980/1999: 18) is probably right when he concludes that ‘the verse claimed to have been proclaimed by the Buddha at his birth was composed very late.’” Furthermore, even the Theravāda commentary on this discourse explains each aspect of the event at his birth, including the proclamation, as a foretoken of the Buddha’s later attainments (Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 2001: 1336 n. 1165). Therefore, the canonical passage is not taken literally to mean that the Bodhisattva was, at his birth, already superior to anyone else.

70. Kv 286: Bodhisatto Kassapassa Bhagavato pāvacane okkantaniyāmo . . .

assured state, would the Bodhisattva have practiced severe asceticism? Would the Bodhisattva have looked to someone else as his teacher?” 71 This means to say that Śākyamuni, even during his earlier lifetime as a Bodhisattva, undertook futile ascetic practices and followed two heretical teachers. How, then, could the Bodhisattva be seen as having entered an assured state and as being superior to Śrāvakas? From the foregoing discussion, we can infer that the Mahāsāṃghikas could easily explain it away by saying that the Bodhisattva had done all this simply in conformity with the world. 72 The Theravādins, however, would not subscribe to it, and their Kathāvatthu further argues that if the Bodhisattva had entered an assured state, he must have become a Śrāvaka under Kassapa Buddha, just as Ānanda, Citta, and Hatthaka had entered an assured state after having become the Buddha’s disciples, i.e., Śrāvakas (Pali sāvaka); the Mahāsāṃghikas deny the identification of the Bodhisattva as a Śrāvaka. 73 Instead, they contend that the Bodhisattva under Kassapa Buddha had aspired to attain Buddhahood in the future and thus had begun a career different from that of a Śrāvaka, whose aim is Arhatship. They do this by invoking a sūtra passage: “Is there not a sutta in which the Buddha said: ‘Ānanda, under Kassapa Buddha I lived the holy life for perfect enlightenment in the future’?” 74 As Dutt (2003: 16) points out, the Theravādins do not recognize Bodhisattvas as superior in attainment to Śrāvakas; neither do they want to make any distinction between a Śrāvaka and a Bodhisattva in terms of their practice of the noble path. This is a significant difference from the Mahāsāṃghika view of Bodhisattvas.

4. Clearing away Pratyekabuddhas

The term pratyekabuddha (paccekabuddha in Pali) is customarily rendered as “one enlightened by himself” or “one awakened for himself.” 75 An interesting account of such enlightened people is found in EĀ 38.7 and its only parallel text, the Pali MN 116. In both versions the Buddha says that, while four of the five mountains near Rājagṛha had different names in ancient times, the fifth mountain was already called Mount of Seers (仙人山, Isigili

71. Kv 287: Bodhisatto dukkarakārikaṃ akāsī ti? . . . Bodhisatto aparantapaṃ akāsi, aññaṃ satthāraṃ uddisī (BJT; PTS addisī) ti?

72. This matches the following in the Mahāvastu (Mvu I 170): “Having attained perfection in wisdom for incalculable koṭis of kalpas, they yet make a show of (foolish) childhood; this is conformity with the world” (trans. Harrison 1982: 218).

73. Kv 287–88: 4. Āyasmā Ānando bhagavato pāvacane okkantaniyāmo caritabrahmacariyo, āyasmā Ānando bhagavato sāvako ti? Āmantā.

Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato pāvacane okkantaniyāmo caritabrahmacariyo, Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato sāvako ti? Na h’evaṃ vattabbe—pe—Citto gahapati, Hatthako āḷavako bhagavato pāvacane okkantaniyāmo caritabrahmacariyo, Citto gahapati Hatthako āḷavako bhagavato sāvako ti?

Āmantā.

Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato pāvacane okkantaniyāmo caritabrahmacariyo, Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato sāvako ti. Na h’evaṃ vattabbe—pe—

5. Bodhisatto Kassapassa bhagavato pāvacane okkantaniyāmo caritabrahmacariyo, na ca Kassapassa bhagavato sāvako ti. Āmantā.

74. Kv 288: Nanu vuttaṃ bhagavatā—“Kassape ahaṃ Ānanda bhagavati brahmacariyaṃ acariṃ āyatiṃ sambodhāyā” ti. Atth’eva suttanto ti. 75. See Harvey (2007: 601) and Kloppenborg (1983: 1). Different meanings can be attached to this term and its other Indic counterp arts based on several possible etymologies. See Norman (1999: 237–48) and von Hinüber (2001: 193). in Pali) in former times. The Pali version continues by giving a popular etymology for the name Isigili. This etymology could be rather late 76 and is absent from EĀ 38.7, which instead reports the following episode (abridged):

When the Tathāgata was in the Tuṣita Heaven, wishing to come down and be reborn, the deities of the Pure Abodes came here and said among themselves: “[Let us] give instructions throughout the world that the Buddha-field be cleared. In two years a Tathāgata will appear in the world.” These Pratyekabuddhas, having heard the words of the deities, all rose up into the air . . . Then the Pratyekabuddhas cremated their bodies in the air and attained final Nirvana. 77 This episode is absent from the Pali version, but is found in the Mahāvastu:

“In twelve years the Bodhisattva will leave his abode in Tuṣita.” So did the deities of the Pure Abodes proclaim to the Pratyekabuddhas in Jambudvīpa, “The Bodhisattva is about to descend.

Quit the Buddha-field!” . . . Now the Pratyekabuddhas passed away into final Nirvana . . . There dwelt five hundred Pratyekabuddhas. They too . . .passed away into final Nirvana. . . . They rose up into the air, attained absorption in the element of fire without clinging, and passed away into final Nirvana. 78 (Translation partly follows Jones 1949: 302–3.)

The Mahāvastu explicitly states that the deities tell the Pratyekabuddhas to clear themselves off the world for the Bodhisattva to arrive. This point is also implicit in EĀ 38.7. A similar episode appears in the Saṅghabheda-vastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as follows (abridged): When the mother of ten sons who had become Pratyekabuddhas was about to give them robes, they told their mother to give the robes to a future prince who would be called Śākyamuni and be destined to attain perfect enlightenment. Then, having performed miracles of flaming, burning, raining, and lightning, they passed away into final Nirvana. 79

An episode even closer to those in the Mahāvastu and EĀ is found in the Lalitavistara; it states that 501 Pratyekabuddhas cremate themselves after the deities come to Jambudvīpa and tell them to leave the Buddha-field. 80 Ruegg (2004: 38) comments: “The Lalitavistara, a biography of the Buddha, is also described in its title as a Mahāyānasūtra; but very much of the work is far from being specifically Mahāyānist.” Yinshun (1981: 580–81) observes that the two Chinese translations of the Lalitavistara, the Puyao jing 普曜經 (T 186) and the Fangguang da zhuangyan jing 方廣大莊嚴經 (T 187), present a biography of the Bud- 76. See Anālayo 2011: 655 n. 83.

77. T II 723a–b: 如來在兜術天上欲來生時，淨居天子自來在此，相告：「普勅世間，當淨佛土。却後二歲，如來當出現於世。」是諸辟支佛聞天人語已，皆騰在虛空 . . . 是時諸辟支佛即於空中燒身取般涅槃。

78. Mvu I 357: dvādaśehi varṣehi bodhisatvo tuṣitabhavanāto cyaviṣyati // śuddhāvāsā devā jambudvīpe pratyekabuddhānām ārocayanti bodhisatvo cyaviṣyati riṃcatha buddhakṣetraṃ // . . . te dāni pratyekabuddhā . . . parinirvṛtāḥ // . . . tatra paṃca pratyekabuddhaśatāni prativasensu // te pi . . . parinirvṛtā // . . . vaihāyasam abhyudgamya tejodhātuṃ samāpadyitvā anupādāya parinirvṛtā //

79. Gnoli 1977: 92: evaṃ yāvad daśaputrā jātāh; sarvaiś ca pravrajya pratyekā bodhiḥ sākṣātkṛtā; teṣāṃ mātā vṛddhā; sā tebhyaḥ śāṇakāni cīvarāṇy anuprayacchati; tair abhihitā: “. . . kin tu rājñaḥ śuddhodanasya śākyamunir nāma putraḥ kumāro ’nuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbhotsyate . . .” ity uktvā jvalana-tapana-varṣaṇavidyotana-prātihāryāṇi kṛtvā nirupadhiśeṣe nirvāṇadhātau parinirvṛtāḥ.

80. Vaidya 1958: 13: tathā anye ’pi devaputrā jambudvīpam āgatya pratyekabuddhebhya ārocayanti sma- riñcata mārṣā buddhakṣetram / ito dvādaśavatsare bodhisattvo mātuḥ kukṣim avakramiṣyati // tena khalu punar bhikṣavaḥ samayena rājagṛhe mahānagare golāṅgulaparivartane parvate mātaṅgo nāma pratyekabuddho viharati sma / sa taṃ śabdaṃ śrutvā kardama iva śilāyāṃ prasthāya vihāyasā saptatālamātram atyudgamya ca tejodhātuṃ samāpadyolkeva parinirvāṇo ’yam / . . . [p. 14] tena khalu punar bhikṣavaḥ samayena vārāṇasyāṃ ṛṣipatane mṛgadāve pañca pratyekabuddhaśatāni viharanti sma / te ’pi taṃ śabdaṃ śrutvā vihāyasā saptatālamātram atyudgamya tejodhātuṃ samāpadyolkeva parinirvānti sma /

dha that is consistent with the Mūlasarvāstivādins’ biography, i.e., their Saṅghabheda-vastu. Mizuno (1996: 63) and Thomas (1940: 241) also ascribe the Lalitavistara to the Sarvāstivāda lineage. Okano (1989, 1990), however, following extensive research, sees the Lalita vistara as closely connected with the Mahāsāṃghikas, on the grounds that it contains several passages and vocabulary items that are characteristic of this school. This may be another instance of a (Mūla-)Sarvāstivādin text influenced by the Mahāsāṃghikas. The probability of this is strengthened by the following discussion.

The episode of Pratyekabuddhas’ self-cremation is not found in the earlier translation of the Lalitavistara (T 186) by Dharmarakṣa in 308 ce, 81 but appears only in the later translation (T 187) 82 by Divākara 地婆訶羅 in 685. 83 T 187 (in twelve fascicles), which agrees generally with the extant Sanskrit text, 84 is larger than T 186 (in eight fascicles). Moreover, T 187 and the Sanskrit version differ from T 186 in the arrangement of chapters. The earlier versions of the Lalitavistara, including T 186, apparently underwent a process of revision and expansion, which resulted in the extant Sanskrit text and an Indic text from which T 187 was translated. The episode of self-immolation was interpolated into the text at some point during this process between the early fourth century when T 186 was translated and the late seventh century when T 187 was translated.

Jones (1949: xi) says: “the Mahāvastu . . . is a compilation which may have been begun in the second century bc, but which was not completed until the third or fourth century ad.” 85 According to the above chronology of the texts, the episode in question probably already appeared in the Mahāvastu when Dharmarakṣa translated T 186, which does not include the episode. In other words, this episode had already existed in the Mahāvastu before it was inserted into the Lalitavistara, a work probably derived from the (Mūla-)Sarvāstivādins and considerably influenced by the Mahāsāṃghikas. A similar episode (cited above) also appears in the Saṅghabheda-vastu of the MSV. As mentioned above, the voluminous MSV represents a rather late stage of composition and contains a great quantity of tales as late additions. In all likelihood, therefore, the Mahāsāṃghikas adopted this episode earlier than the (Mūla-) sarvāstivādins. This episode may well have originated among the Mahāsāṃghikas to emphasize the impossibility of the coexistence of a Buddha and Pratyekabuddhas; they went so far as to say that any Pratyekabuddhas have to self-immolate before a Buddha, more precisely a last-life Bodhisattva, is born. This peculiar and eccentric idea arose in line with the Mahāsāṃghikas’ emphasis on the transcendence and supremacy of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In their view the Buddha, as well as his last birth as a Bodhisattva, is superior to all other beings, including other enlightened people, to such an extent that his manifestation presupposes the disappearance of all Pratyekabuddhas, who became enlightened by themselves rather than by a Buddha’s teaching. In contrast, there is no problem with the coexistence of a Buddha and his Arhat disciples because they are enlightened by a Buddha’s instruction so are necessarily his contemporaries. In sum, this conception of Pratyekabuddhas, along with the

81. The second year of Yongjia 永嘉, according to the Chu sanzang ji ji (T LV 48b).

82. T III 541c: 復有天子下閻浮提，告辟支佛作如是言：『仁者！應捨此土。何以故？十二年後當有菩薩降神入胎。』是時王舍城尾盤山中，有辟支佛名曰摩燈。聞是語已. . .踊在虛空高七多羅樹，化火焚身入於涅槃. . .是時波羅奈國五百辟支聞天語已，亦復如是，化火焚身入於涅槃。

83. The first year of Chuigong 垂拱, according to the catalog 大周刊定眾經目錄 (T 2153 LV 379c).

84. See Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?q=方廣大莊嚴經.

85. Edgerton (1953: 10) describes the Mahāvastu as “probably the oldest” of all Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit works.

episode of their self-cremation common to the Mahāvastu and EĀ, may be traced back to the Mahāsāṃghikas.

5. Consciousness as the Root

In the fourth century ce Asaṅga states in his *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (She dasheng lun 攝大乘論, T 1592):

The Hīnayāna sūtras mention that consciousness (vijñāna). For example, the Ekottarika Āgama states: “Delighting in ālaya 阿犁耶, [[[sentient beings]] of] the world cling to ālaya, are produced by ālaya, and seek ālaya. When the Dharma is taught for the abolition of ālaya, they listen closely . . . When the Tathāgata appears in the world, he preaches this precious Dharma in the world.” Thus is it stated in the Sūtra on the Benefits from the Manifestation of the Tathāgata 如來出思益經. For this reason, even a Hīnayāna sūtra mentions the ālaya-vijñāna (substratum consciousness) using a different designation. The Mahāsāṃghika Ekottarika Āgama even refers to it as the “root” 根本 (*mūla), for it is just like the root on which a tree depends.

The Sūtra on the Benefits from the Manifestation of the Tathāgata cited above has parallels in the extant Chinese Ekottarika Āgama (EĀ 25.3) and the Pali Aṅguttara Nikāya (AN 4.128), being two versions of a Hīnayāna sūtra on the four benefits or wonderful things that appear on the manifestation of the Tathāgata. The passage quoted from this sūtra is attested by the following in AN 4.128:

People for the most part delight in attachment (ālaya), take delight in attachment, rejoice in attachment. But when the Dhamma of non-attachment is taught by the Tathāgata, people wish to listen to it . . . This is the first wonderful and marvelous thing that appears on the manifestation of the Tathāgata . . . 87 (tr. Bodhi 2005: 191) Its counterpart in EĀ 25.3 reads: Sentient beings for the most part have attachment (ālaya). 88 W hen the Dharma of non-attachment is preached, they still accept it . . . When the Tathāgata appears in the world, four marvelous things appear in the world, and this is the first marvelous thing that appears in the world. 89 The word ālaya (ā-√lī) in Pali and in Buddhist Sanskrit has two shades of meaning: 1. settling-place, fundamental base; 2. clinging, attachment (DOP I 335, Edgerton 1953: 106). Ālaya in the above AN and EĀ versions of the sūtra conveys the second shade of meaning; in the EĀ version it is rendered as 著 ‘attachment’ by Zhu Fonian, and in his English translation of the AN version Bhikkhu Bodhi also renders it as ‘attachment’. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, however, interprets ālaya in this sūtra as implying ālaya-vijñāna ‘substratum consciousness’ a concept formulated by the Yogācāra school to designate “an ever-changing stream which underlies saṃsāric existence” (Williams 1989: 91). The above quotations from EĀ 25.3 and AN 4.128 confirm the first part of the foregoing

Mahāyāna-saṃgraha passage, which invokes the EĀ to argue that even the Hīnayāna hints at

86. T XXXI 98a: 小乘經說彼識，如增一阿含中說：「喜樂阿犁耶，世間，及著阿犁耶，阿犁耶所成，并求阿犁耶。滅阿犁耶故說法時，親近正聽 . . . 如來出世間時，世間說此希有法。」故如來出思益經中說。以此義故，小乘經亦異名說此阿犁耶識。大僧祇增一阿含經中亦說彼為根本，如樹依根住故。

87. AN II 131: Ālayārāmā bhikkhave pajā ālayaratā ālayasammuditā, sā Tathāgatena anālaye dhamme desiyamāne sussūsati . . . Tathāgatassa . . . pātubhāvā ayaṃ paṭhamo acchariyo abbhuto dhammo pātubhavati.

88. While the word ālaya appears only once in EĀ 25.3, it occurs three times in AN 4.128 and four times in the sūtra cited by the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha.

89. T II 631b: 此眾生類多有所著，若說不染著法時，亦復承受 . . . 若如來出現於世時，有此四未曾有法出現於世，是謂初未曾有法出現於世。 ālaya-consciousness. The second part of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha passage indicates that it is the “Mahāsāṃghika” EĀ which regards t his consciousness as the ‘root’ (*mūla), but it does not cite any specific passage from this school’s EĀ. A clue is found in our EĀ 38.4, where the Buddha says the following in retrospect about his enlightenment:

Then, again, I had this thought: “This consciousness (vijñāna) is the very source that makes people subject to birth, aging, illness, and death, but [[[people]]] cannot understand the root 原本 (*mūla) of birth, aging, illness and death. . . . With the arising of ignorance (avidyā), volitional formations (saṃskāra) arise. That which is produced by volitional formations results from consciousness. Now I have understood consciousness. Let me now expound this ‘root’ 本 (*mūla) to the four assemblies. [They] should all understand what arises from this root.”

This asserts again and again that consciousness (vijñāna) is the root or basis underlying the round of rebirths (saṃsāra), i.e., the repeated cycle of birth, aging, illness, and death. Such an expression is not, however, found in any of the available texts equivalent to EĀ 38.4. 91 This EĀ passage appears to be what the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha is alluding to since this passage highlights the conception that consciousness is the “root” underlying the round of rebirths, which the Yogācāra school utilized to support the idea of “substratum consciousness” that they posited. Therefore, EĀ 38.4 is very likely to belong to the Mahāsāṃghikas. The above are arguments in favor of attributing the EĀ to the Mahāsāṃghikas. Hirakawa (1989: 33–34) disagrees with such an attribution on the grounds that the EĀ differs from the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya regarding the listing of the aṅgas, the number of prātimokṣa rules, the content of the Kṣudraka-piṭaka, and the sequence of listing the four Āgamas. However, Anālayo (2009: 823) has demonstrated that all of these four objections are inconclusive.

dharmaguptaka

The EĀ is ascribed to the Dharmaguptakas by Matsumoto (1914: 349) and Warder (2000: 6). Their arguments for this affiliation are refuted in my earlier study (Kuan 2012: 180). While Shizutani (1973: 57–58) suspects that the EĀ may be affiliated to the Mahāsāṃghikas or the Sarvāstivādins of non-Kāśmīra-orthodoxy, he regards the Dharmaguptaka as a strong candidate for the EĀ’s affiliation for the following reason (Shizutani 1973: 55, 57, 59 n. 2) in addition to two other reasons suggested by Hirakawa (see below). 92 When the cult of Maitreya was popular in the Kuṣāṇa Empire, a statue of a Bodhisattva regarded as Maitreya was donated by Kuṣāṇa people to the Dharmaguptakas in Mathurā. Shizutani seems to suggest that the promotion of the Maitreya cult among the Dharmaguptakas resulted in the frequent mention of Maitreya in the EĀ, 93 which is affiliated to this school. If this were the case, it would be difficult to explain why Maitreya appears only once in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya 四分律 T 1428) and also only once in the Dīrgha Āgama (長阿含經

90. T II 718b–c: 時我復生此念：「此識最為原首，令人致此生、老、病、死；然不能知此生、老、病、死之原本。 . . . [718c] 無明起則行起，行所造者復由於識。我今已明於識，今與四部之眾而說此本。皆當知此原本所起。」

91. See SN 12.65 (II 104–7) in Pali; Sanskrit fragments/versions in Lévi (1910: 438–40), translated into English by Cooper 1980: 55–58), Tripāṭhī (1962:

94–106), Fukita (1982: 32–40), and Bongard-Levin et al. (1996: 38–89); four versions in Chinese translation, viz., SĀ 287 (T II 80b–81a), T 713, T 714, and T 715. These references are found in Online Sutta Correspondence Project (http://suttacentral.net/). Fukita (1988) is referred to in this source but is not included in my inquiry because it deals with the appendix (protective charm) rather than the canonical text.

92. Shizutani refers to an earlier edition of Hirakawa (1989) without specifying the date.

93. Legittimo (2008: 263) counts thirty-five occurrences of Maitreya.

T 1) 94 of the Dharmaguptakas. 95 Therefore, this argument for Dharmaguptaka affiliation is weak.

Hirakawa (1989: 40–43) adduces two cases as evidence of close correspondence between the EĀ and the Dharmaguptakas.

First, according to the EĀ, Ambapāli gives her grove to “the Tathāgata and the Order of monks (bhikṣu)”; 96 likewise, a cowherd gives cheese to “the Buddha and the Order of monks.” 97 Hirakawa (p. 40) contends that different Vinayas use different stock phrases to describe an act of donation. In the Pali Vinaya, a donation is said to be made to “the Order of monks (bhikkhu, Skt. bhikṣu) with the Buddha at its head.” 98 In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (T 1428), the stock phrase contains the expression “the Buddha and the Order of the four directions.” 99 The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya (Five-Part Vinaya 五分律 T 1421) instead has only “the Order of the four directions.” 100 Hirakawa regards the Dīrgha Āgama as largely agreeing with the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya in saying: “Give to ‘the Buddha as head and the Order of the four directions.’”

He concludes that as regards these stock phrases, the EĀ wording agrees with the Dharmaguptaka. In my opinion, however, the stock phrases in the EĀ are closer to the Pali version than to the Dharmaguptaka versions. The Dīrgha Āgama in Chinese translation is widely attributed to the Dharmaguptakas, 102 and it is therefore no wonder that the stock phrase in the Dīrgha Āgama tallies with that in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya as Hirakawa remarks. It is noteworthy that according to the Dharmaguptakas, donations should be made to “the Buddha [as head] and the Order of the four directions” without making a distinction between monks (bhikṣu) and nuns (bhikṣuṇī). In a striking contrast, both the EĀ and the Pali Vinaya specify “the Buddha and the Order of monks [with the Buddha at its head],” thereby mentioning only the monks. Moreover, unlike the Dharmaguptaka versions, the EĀ and the Pali Vinaya make no mention of “the four directions” in the stock phrases. Consequently, the EĀ cannot be attributed to the Dharmaguptakas.

Second, EĀ 48.2 contains a legend about the recitation of precept-stanzas by the six former Buddhas and Śākyamuni Buddha. Regarding the last, it is stated: Now I, a Tathāgata, have appeared in the world. The noble Order of 1250 people was without blemish for twelve years. I also used one stanza as precept: “Keep your speech and mind pure, and also your bodily action pure. Purify these three kinds of action. Practice the path of seers.” During the twelve years I preached just this single stanza as precept. [It is] because people began to infringe the Vinaya that 250 prātimokṣa rules have been laid down gradually. 103 The Bhikṣu-prātimokṣa-sūtra of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (四分律比丘戒本 T 1429) in its legend of the seven Buddhas has the following:

94. By searching CBETA.

95. For the Dīrgha Āgama’s school affiliation, see below.

96. T II 596c: 如來及比丘僧.

97. T II 686a: 佛及比丘眾. 眾 is a literal translation of saṃgha, which is elsewhere transcribed as seng 僧.

98. Buddhapamukho bhikkhusaṃgho, e.g., Vin I 233.

99. 佛及四方僧.

100. 四方僧, cātur-diśa-saṃgha, SJD 465.

101. T I 14b: 施佛為首及招提僧. Zhao ti seng 招提僧 is transcribed from an Indic word equivalent to cāturdiśa-saṃgha in Sanskrit.

102. See Lü (1963: 242), Kumoi (1963: 248), Ui (1965: 135), Waldschmidt (1980: 136), Akanuma (1981: 34f.), Mayeda (1985: 97), and Salomon (1999: 173f.).

103. T II 787b: 我今如來出現於世，一會聖眾千二百五十人，十二年中無有瑕穢，亦以一偈為禁戒：

「護口意清淨，身行亦清淨，淨此三行跡，修行仙人道。」十二年中說此一偈以為禁戒。以生犯律之人，轉有二百五十戒。

“Carefully guard your speech. Purify your own mind. Let not your body do evil. These three courses of action are purified. Such practice is the path of great seers.” This is the precept-sūtra preached to the blameless Order for twelve years by Śākyamuni Tathāgata . . . 104

This conforms to the foregoing EĀ passage. Hirakawa (1989: 41–43) points out that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, while recording the stanzas recited by the seven Buddhas, does not mention that the Order was without blemish for twelve years. The Sarvāstivādin and Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinayas suggest that the Order was without blemish for twelve years, but this appears only in contexts where no mention is made of the seven Buddhas. The Samantapāsādikā in Pali says that the first prātimokṣa rule was not prescribed until twenty years after the Buddha’s enlightenment. Based on the above, Hirakawa concludes that the EĀ is closer to the Dharmaguptakas than to the other schools. This seems a strong indication that the EĀ is affiliated with the Dharmaguptakas, but it is not beyond doubt. In EĀ 48.2 the episode of the Buddha refusing to recite the prātimokṣa rules in an impure assembly is followed by the legend of the seven Buddhas. Unlike the EĀ version, however, in all the parallels to EĀ 48.2, including those of the Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, and Mahīśāsaka, 105 this episode is followed by an exposition of the eight marvels of DharmaVinaya compared to the eight qualities of the ocean. Therefore the occurrence of the legend of the seven Buddhas in EĀ 48.2 looks suspect as noted by Mizuno (1996: 444). Could this be an “apocryphal interpolation” drawn from an existing Chinese text, as Nattier warns us? It is possible in this case. According to Sengzhao’s 僧肇 (384–414) 106 preface to the Dīrgha Āgama, Zhu Fonian translated (譯) the Dīrgha Āgama and the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 107 recited (出) by Buddhayaśas. 108 The Bhikṣu-prātimokṣa-sūtra of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya is ascribed only to Buddhayaśas in the Taishō edition. It seems doubtful that Buddhayaśas could have translated it alone without any Chinese collaborator. It would not be far-fetched to speculate that Zhu Fonian was at least aware of, if he did not participate in, the translation of this text, which is supposed to be attached to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya that he translated. If this is the case, then the possibility cannot be ruled out that he borrowed the legend of the seven Buddhas from this text and inserted it into EĀ 48.2. conclusion

It is very difficult to identify the sectarian affiliation of the Ekottarika Āgama (T 125) in Chinese translation due to the complexities involved. This research cannot prove that the entire collection is affiliated to a certain school, but it has demonstrated that a considerable part of this corpus is likely to be of Mahāsāṃghika derivation, and that the EĀ contains numerous salient features of Mahāsāṃghika doctrine, particularly the transcendence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. On the other hand, it is possible that Zhu Fonian had access to a considerable amount of Mahāsāṃghika material and drew on it when revising his first translation of the EĀ. This study also illustrates that the seeming affinity between several legends in the EĀ and those in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is likely to have resulted from Mahāsāṃghika

104. T XXII 1022c: 「善護於口言，自淨其志意，身莫作諸惡，此三業道淨，能得如是行，是大仙人道。」此是釋迦牟尼如來 . . . 於十二年中為無事僧說是戒經。 105. AN 8.20 (IV 204–208), Udāna 51–56, Vin II 236–240, MĀ 37 (T 26 I 478b–479c), T 33, T 34, T 35, Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (T 1435 XXIII 239b–240a), Mahīśāsaka Vinaya (T 1421 XXII 180c–181b). The above references are found in Mizuno (1996: 442) and Online Sutta Correspondence Project (http://www.suttacentral.net/). 106. FDC 5748.

107. Vinaya-piṭaka of Four Parts 律藏四分.

108. T I 1a ; T LV 20c: 佛陀耶舍出律藏四分 . . . 出長阿含。涼州沙門佛念為譯。

influence on the Mūlasarvāstivādins. Some of the points made in this paper are admittedly hypothetical in nature owing to the paucity of Mahāsāṃghika sources. Nevertheless, the Mahāsāṃghika hypothesis for the school affiliation of the EĀ has been substantially strengthened while the others are shown to be probably untenable.

ABBREVIATIONS

References to Pali texts are to the Pali Text Society editions, unless otherwise noted.

AK Abhidharma-kośabhāṣya, ed. P. Pradhan. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
AN Aṅguttara Nikāya
BJT Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka Series. Government of Ceylon, 1968.
CBETA CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripiṭaka Collection, Version 2010. Taipei: Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association.
Dīp The Dīpavaṃsa: An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record, ed. and tr. Hermann Oldenberg. London: Williams and Norgate, 1879.
Divy Divyāvadāna, ed. E. B. Cowell and R. A. Neil. Cambridge: The University Press, 1886.
DN Dīgha Nikāya
DOP I A Dictionary of Pāli, part I, ed. Margaret Cone. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 2001.
EĀ Ekottarika Āgama
FDC Foguang Da Cidian 佛光大辭典, ed. Ciyi 慈怡. Kaohsiung: 佛光出版社, 1988.
Kv Kathāvatthu
Kv-a Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā MĀ Madhyama Āgama 中阿含經 Zhong ahanjing MN Majjhima Nikāya
MSV Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (Chinese and Sanskrit)
Mvu Mahāvastu, electronic version of the Mahāvastu-Avadāna based on the ed. by Émile Senart, 3 vols., Paris 1882–97, input by Emmanuel Fauré, under the supervision of Prof. Boris Oguibénine. Data conversion in cooperation with Stefan Baums, Seattle (http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ gretil/1_sanskr/4_rellit/buddh/mhvastuu.htm)
MW A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, ed. Monier Monier-Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899. PTS Pali Text Society edition
SᾹ Saṃyukta ᾹĀgama 雜阿含經 Za ahanjing
SĀ2 Other Translation of the Saṃyukta Āgama (別譯雜阿含經 Bieyi Za ahanjing)
SJD 漢訳対照梵和大辞典 (A Sanskrit-Japanese Dictionary with Equivalents in Chinese Translation), ed. Unrai Wogihara 荻原雲来, revised ed. Tokyo: 講談社, 1986. SN Saṃyutta Nikāya
T Taishō Shinshu Daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經 (cited from CBETA)
Vin The Vinaya Piṭakaṃ, 5 vols., ed. Hermann Oldenberg. Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1879–83.

REFERENCES

English titles in parentheses are my translations.
Akanuma, Chizen. 赤沼智善 1981. 佛教経典史論 (On the History of the Buddhist Scriptures). Kyoto: 法藏館.
Anālayo. 2006. The Ekottarika-āgama Parallel to the Saccavibhaṅga-sutta and the Four (Noble) Truths. Buddhist Studies Review 23(2): 145–53.
. 2009. Zeng-yi A-han. In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 8 fasc. 3, ed. W. G. Weeraratne.
Pp. 822–27. Sri Lanka: De partm ent of Buddhist Affairs.

. 2010. The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal. Hamburg: Hamburg Univ. Press.

. 2011. A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya, 2 vols. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation.
Bareau, André. 1955. Les sectes bouddhiques du petit véhicule. Paris: École Française d’ExtrêmeOrient.
Bechert, Heinz. 1961. Bruchstücke buddhistischer Verssammlungen aus zentralasiatischen Sanskrithandschriften: 1 Die Anavataptagāthā und die Sthaviragāthā. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, tr. 2000. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Oxford: Pali Text Society.

. 2005. In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pāli Canon. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Bongard-Levin, Gregory; Daniel Boucher; Takamichi Fukita; and Klaus Wille. 1996. The Nagaropamasūtra: An Apotropaic Text from the Saṃyuktāgama. In Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen III, ed. Gregory Bongard-Levin et al. Pp. 7–131. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 1985. Dharma and Abhidharma. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48(2): 305–20.
Clarke, Shayne. 2004. Vinaya Mātṛkā—Mother of the Monastic Codes, or Just Another Set of Lists?
A Response to Frauwallner’s Handling of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 77–120.
Cooper, John M. 1980. A Fragment of the Nidānasūtra. Pali Buddhist Review 5(3): 53–58.
Dutt, Nalinaksha. 2003. Doctrines of the Mahāsaṅghika School of Buddhism. In Buddhist Sects and Philosophies, ed. Dr. Mahendra and P. Mittal. Pp. 9–32. Delhi: Originals.
Eckel, Malcolm David. 2008. Bhāviveka and His Buddhist Opponents. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. II: Dictionary. Rpt. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993.
Enomoto, Fumio. 榎本文雄 2000. ‘Mūlasarvāstivādin’ and ‘Sarvāstivādin’. In Vividharatnakaraṇḍaka: Festgabe für Adelheid Mette, ed. Christine Chojnacki et al. Pp. 239–50. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.
Frauwallner, E. 1956. The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature. Rome: Is. M. E. O.
Fukita, Takamichi. 吹田隆道 1982. 梵文『大本経』緣起說の復元 (Restoration of the Pratītyasamutpāda in the Sanskrit Mahāvadānasūtra). 佛教史學研究 Bukkyō Shigaku Kenkyū 24(2): 26–43.

. 1988. 東トルキスタン有部の読誦経典—Nagaropamavyākaraṇa (= Nagarasūtra) と魔
除け—(A Text Recited by the Sarvāstivādins in Eastern Turkestan: The Nagaropamavyākaraṇa (= Nagarasūtra) and a Charm). 三康文化研究所年報 Sankō Bunka Kenkyūsho Nenpō 20: 27–49.
Gnoli, Raniero, ed. 1977. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Saṅghabhedavastu: Being the 17th and Last Section of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādin, part I. Rome: Is. M. E. O.

. 1978. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Saṅghabhedavastu: Being the 17th and Last Section of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādin, part II. Rome: Is. M. E. O.
Guang Xing. 2005. The Concept of the Buddha. London: Routledge.
Harrison, Paul. 1982. Sanskrit Fragments of a Lokottāravādin Tradition. In Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. L. A. Hercus et al. Pp. 211–34. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University.

. 1997. The Ekottarikāgama Translations of An Shigao. In Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Petra Kieffer-Pülz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Pp. 261–84. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.
Harvey, Peter. 2007. Pratyeka-buddhas. In Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Damien Keown and Charles S. Prebish. Pp. 600–602. London: Routledge. von Hinüber, Oskar. 1997. A Handbook of Pāli Literature, 1st Indian ed. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (First published 1996. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.)

. 2001. Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hirakawa, Akira. 平川彰 1989. 初期大乗仏教の研究 I (A Study of Early Mahāyāna Buddhism, vol. I). Tokyo: 春秋社.

. 1990. A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, tr. and ed. Paul Groner. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii Press.

. 1999. 律蔵の研究 I (A Study of the Vinaya-piṭaka, vol. I). Tokyo: 春秋社.
Hiraoka, Satoshi. 平岡聡 1998. The Relation between the Divyāvadāna and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Journal of Indian Philosophy 26: 419–34.

. 2007. 『增一阿含経』の成立解明に向けて (1) The Sectarian Affiliation of the Zengyi ahan-jing (1). 印度學佛教學研究 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 56(1): 305–298.

. 2008. 『增一阿含経』の成立解明に向けて (2) The Sectarian Affiliation of the Zengyi ahan-jing (2). 印度學佛教學研究 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 57(1): 319–12.
Hofinger, Marcel. 1954. Le congrès du lac Anavatapta (vies de saints bouddhiques), Extrait du Vinaya des Mūlasarvāstivādin Bhaiṣajyavastu I: Légendes des anciens (Sthavirāvadāna). Louvain: Publications universitaires.
Jones, J. J. 1949. The Mahāvastu, vol. I. Lancaster: Pali Text Society (rpt. 2007).
Kloppenborg, Ria 1983. The Paccekabuddha: A Buddhist Ascetic. Kandy: Buddhist Publication S ociety.
Kuan, Tse-fu. 2005. Clarification on Feelings in Buddhist Dhyāna/Jhāna Meditation. Journal of Indian Philosophy 33(3): 285–319.

. 2012. A Geographical Perspective on Sectarian Affiliations of the Ekottarika Āgama in Chinese Translation (T 125). Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 2: 179–208.

. 2013. The Pavāraṇā Sutta and “liberation in both ways” as against “liberation by wisdom.”
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76(1): 49–73.
Kumoi, Shōzen. 1963. Āgama (2). In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. I, fasc. 2, ed. G. P. Malalasekera. Pp. 244–48. Government of Ceylon.
Lamotte, Étienne. 1988. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, tr. Sara WebbBoin. Louvain: Peeters. (Original French ed. 1958.)
Legittimo, Elsa I. 2005. Synoptic Presentation of the Pusa chu tai jing (PCJ) 菩薩處胎經 the Bodhisattva Womb Sūtra, pt. I (Chapters 1–14), 仙石山論集 Sengokuyama Journal of Buddhist Studies 2:
1–111.

. 2008. Reopening the Maitreya-files: Two Almost Identical Early Maitreya sūtra Translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong Attributions and Text-historical Entanglements. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31(1–2): 251–93.
Lévi, Sylvain. 1910. Textes sanscrits de Touen-Houang. Journal asiatique, Novembre-Décembre 1910: 433–56.
Lin, Jia’an. 林家安 2009. 現存漢譯《增一阿含經》之譯者考 (An Investigation into the Translator of the Extant Chinese Translation of the Ekottarika Āgama). MA thesis. Chungli, Taiwan: Yuan Kuang Buddhist Institute, http://old.ykbi.edu.tw/htm/thesis/94_19/94_19_03.pdf
Lü, Cheng. 1963. Āgama (1). In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. I, fasc. 2, ed. G. P. Malalasekera. Pp. 241–44. Government of Ceylon.
Matsumoto, Bunzaburō. 松本文三郎 1914. 佛典の研究 (A Study of Buddhist Texts). Tokyo: 丙午出版社.
Mayeda, Egaku. 1985. Japanese Studies on the Schools of the Chinese Āgamas. Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der Hīnayāna-Literatur, pt. 1, ed. Heinz Bechert. Pp. 94–103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Mizuno, Kōgen. 水野弘元 1996. 仏教文献研究 (A Study of Buddhist Literature). Tokyo: 春秋社.
Mori, Sodō. 1970. On the Fēn-bié-gōng-dé-lùn (分別功德論). 印度學佛教學研究 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 19(1): 458–52.
Nakamura, Hajime. 1980. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Hirakata City: KUFS Publication.
Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, tr. 2001. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, revised ed. Oxford: Pali Text Society.
Nattier, Jan. 2010. Re-Evaluating Zhu Fonian’s Shizhu duanjie jing (T309): Translation or Forgery? Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13: 231–58.
Norman, K. R. 1999. Collected Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

. 2006. A Philological Approach to Buddhism, 2nd ed. Lancaster: Pali Text Society.
Oberlies, Thomas. 2003. Ein bibliographischer Überblick über die kanonischen Texte der ŚrāvakayānaSchulen des Buddhismus. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 47: 37–84.
Okano, Kiyoshi. 岡野潔 1989. ラリタヴィスタラの部派 (The Sect of the Lalitavistara). 宗教研究 Shūkyō kenkyū 279: 181–82.

. 1990. 普曜経の研究(下) (A Study of the Puyao jing, pt. 2). 文化 Bunka 53(3–4): 55–74.
Ōkubo, Yusen. 1982. The Ekottara-āgama Fragments of the Gilgit Manuscript. 佛教學セミナー Buddhist Seminar 35: 1–30.
Pāsādika, Bhikkhu. 2008. The Ekottarāgama Parallel to the Mūlapariyāyasutta. The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9: 141–49.

. 2010. Gleanings from the Chinese Ekottarāgama regarding School Affiliation and Other Topics. In Translating Buddhist Chinese: Problems and Prospects, ed. Konrad Meisig. Pp. 87–96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Prebish, Charles. 1994. A Survey of Vinaya Literature, vol. I. London: Routledge.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Ruegg, D. Seyfort. 2004. Aspects of the Study of the (Earlier) Indian Mahāyāna. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27(1): 3–62.
Salomon, Richard. 1999. Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhāra: The British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.

. 2008. Two Gāndhārī Manuscripts of the Songs of Lake Anavatapta (Anavatapta-gāthā). Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.
Schmithausen, Lambert. 1987. Beiträge zur Schulzugehörigkeit und Textgeschichte kanonischer und postkanonischer buddhistischer Materialien. In Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der HīnayānaLiteratur, ed. Heinz Bechert. Pp. 304–406. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schopen, Gregory. 2008. Separate but Equal: Property Rights and the Legal Independence of Buddhist Nuns and Monks in Early North India. JAOS 128(4): 625–40.
Shizutani, Masao. 静谷正雄 1973. 漢訳『增一阿含経』の所属部派 (Sectarian Affiliations of the Ekottarika Āgama in Chinese Translation). 印度學佛教學研究 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 22(1): 54–59.
Skilling, Peter. 1997. Mahāsūtras: Great Discourses of the Buddha, vol. II. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

. 2009. Theravāda in History. Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies 3rd series, no. 11: 61–93.

. 2010. Scriptural Authenticity and the Śrāvaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective. The Eastern Buddhist 41(2): 1–47.
Skilton, Andrew 1997. A Concise History of Buddhism, 2nd ed. Surrey: Biddles Ltd. (1st ed. 1994)
Su, Ken. 蘇錦坤 2007. 寶唱《經律異相》所引之阿含經——試論水野弘元教授的〈增一阿含經解
說〉Texts Quoted from Āgamas in Shi-baochang’s Jing-lü-yi-xiāng: An Investigation into Mizuno
Kogen’s “A General Introduction on Chinese Ekottara-āgama.” 福嚴佛學研究 Fuyan Buddhist Studies 2: 91–160.
Sujato, Bhikkhu. 2012. Sects and Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools, revised ed. Australia: Santipada. (1st ed. 2007)
Thomas, E. J. 1940. The Lalitavistara and Sarvāstivāda. Indian Historical Quarterly 16(2): 239–45.
Tournier, Vincent. 2012. The Mahāvastu and the Vinayapiṭaka of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin. Annual Report of the International Re search Institute for Ad vanced Buddhology at Soka University 15: 87–104.
Tripāṭhī, Chandrabhāl. 1962. Fünfundzwanzig Sūtras des Nidānasaṃyukta. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

. 1995. Ekottarāgama-Fragmente der Gilgit-Handschrift. Reinbek: Verlag für Orientalistische Fachpublikationen.
Ui, Hakuju. 宇井伯壽 1965. 印度哲學研究第二 (A Study of Indian Philosophy, vol. II). Tokyo: 岩波書店.
Vaidya, P. L., ed. 1958. Lalita-Vistara. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute.
Waldschmidt, Ernst. 1980. Central Asian Sūtra Fragments and Their Relation to the Chinese Āgamas. The Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition, ed. Heinz Bechert. Pp. 136–74. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Warder, A. K. 2000. Indian Buddhism, 3rd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (1st ed. 1970)
Willemen, Charles. 2003. From Where Did Zen Come? Dhyāna in the Early Buddhist Tradition. The Numata Yehan Lecture in Buddhism. Calgary: Univ. of Calgary.

. 2006. The Sanskrit Title of Harivarman’s Chengshi Lun 成實論 (T. 1646). Journal of Buddhist Studies 4: 244–50.

. 2008. Kumārajīva’s “Explanatory Discourse” about Abhidharmic Literature. Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 12: 37–83.

. 2012. Outlining the Way to Reflect (T.XV 617). Mumbai: Somaiya Publications.
Willemen, Charles; Bart Dessein; and Collett Cox. 1998. Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism. Leiden: Brill.
Williams, Paul. 1989. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge.

. 2000. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. London: Routledge.
Yinshun. 印順 1981. 初期大乘佛教之起源與開展 (The Origin and Development of Early Mahāyāna Buddhism). Taipei: 正聞出版社.

. 1985. 空之探究 (Exploration of Emptiness). Taipei: 正聞出版社.

. 1994. 原始佛教聖典之集成 (Compilation of the Original Buddhist Scriptures), 3rd ed.
Taipei: 正聞出版社.

Source

Legends and Transcendence: Sectarian Affiliations of the Ekottarika Āgama in Chinese Translation

Source

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Categories

Tools