Mahāsāṃghika
In the years following the Second Buddhist Council, a division tore through the original Sangha. This split created two distinct communities: the Sthavira Nikāya and the Mahāsāghika. The event is traditionally placed during or after the reign of Ashoka Maurya. Scholars like Jan Nattier and Charles S. Prebish date this first schism to 116 years after the Buddha's nirvāna. The cause remains debated among historians. Some sources cite a dispute over Vinaya rules as the primary trigger. Other accounts point to doctrinal disagreements involving a figure named Mahadeva. Mahadeva argued for five divisive points regarding spiritual attainment. These points suggested that arhatship was a lesser form of enlightenment. The majority group refused to accept new rules added by a smaller faction of elders. This refusal led to the formation of the Mahāsāghika community. Andrew Skilton suggests the Mahāsāghika Śāriputrapariprccchā offers the earliest surviving account of these events. In this text, the council convened at Pātaliputra addressed matters of monastic discipline. The story describes how the majority rejected attempts to make the Vinaya more rigorous. Later traditions sometimes blame the Mahāsāghikas for altering original rules instead.
The original center of the Mahāsāghika sects lay in Magadha. They maintained important centers such as Mathura and Karli. The Kukkuītikas were situated in Eastern India around Vārānasi and Pātaliputra. The Bahuśrutīya existed in Kośala, Andhra, and Gandhāra. The Lokottaravāda subschool claimed to be of the Middle Country or Ganges Basin region. The Mahāsāghikas and the Lokottaravāda subschool also had centers in the Gandhāra region. The Caitika branch was based in the Coastal Andhra region. It focused especially on Amarāvati and Nāgārjunakoñdā. This Caitika branch included the Pūrvaśailas, Aparaśailas, Rājagirikas, and the Siddhārthikas. Madhyadeśa was home to the Prajñaptivādins. Ancient Buddhist sites in the lower Krsna Valley include Amarāvati, Nāgārjunakoñdā and Jaggayyapeeta. These sites can be traced to at least the third century BCE if not earlier. The cave temples at the Ajanta Caves, the Ellora Caves, and the Karla Caves are associated with the Mahāsāghikas.
The Mahāsāghikas advocated the transcendental nature of the Buddha and bodhisattvas. They held that the material body of a Buddha is unlimited. The supernatural power and lifespan of a Buddha were also considered infinite. Some texts state that the Buddha's heart never tires of converting living beings. The Buddha does not sleep or dream according to these teachings. He answers questions without thinking or reflecting on things. In a single moment of thought, the Buddha comprehends all dharmas. Buddhas remain in all directions throughout the four directions. Advanced bodhisattvas have severed the bonds of karma. They are born out of their own free will into lower states of existence. This allows them to help liberate other sentient beings. The concept of many contemporaneous buddhas was well established by early Mahāyāna texts. The Lokottaravāda branch viewed the historical Gautama Buddha as merely one transformation body. The essential real Buddha was equated with the Dharmakāya. A doctrine attributed to the Mahāsāghikas states that the power of Tathagatas is unlimited. Their life is also described as unlimited. The Mahāvastu text contains numerous Jātaka tales about past lives of the Buddha.
The Mahāsāghika Vinaya provides insight into the format of this school's textual canon. They appear to have had a Vinaya in five parts. An Abhidharma Piitaka and a Sūtra Piitaka were also part of their collection. Their Vinaya was translated into Chinese by Buddhabhadra and Faxian between 416 and 418 CE. In this text, their Abhidharma is defined as sutranta in nine parts. The Mahāsāghika Vinaya differs most from other recensions in structure. The rules are generally identical in meaning if Vibhangas are compared. Some features suggest it might be an older redaction. The Bhikshuprakirnaka sections follow a matix matrix found embedded in Vinayas of several Sthavira schools. There are fewer stories in general in the Vinaya of the subsidiary school. Many of them give the appearance of badly connected obvious interpolations. The phrasing often appears to represent a clearer but less streamlined version. This suggests it might be older than other versions. The formulation of certain rules seems very confused in other recensions. Yet these formulations reflect what would be expected of a root formulation.
In the sixth century CE, Paramartha wrote about a special affiliation with the Mahayana tradition. He associates the initial composition and acceptance of Mahayana sutras with the Mahasamghika branch. According to his account, much of the Mahasamghika school moved north of Rajagha. They were divided over whether Mahayana teachings should be incorporated formally into their Tripitaka. Three groups formed based on the relative manner and degree to which they accepted authority. The Kukkuika sect did not accept Mahayana sutras as buddhavacana. The Lokottaravada sect and Ekavyavaharika sect did accept them. Scholars like A.K. Warder hold that Mahayana originated in southern India. Anthony Barber and Sree Padma note that historians have been aware for quite some time that pivotally important thinkers formulated theories while living in Buddhist communities in Andhra. Andre Bareau traces the origin of the Mahayana tradition to older Mahasamghika schools. These regions included Odisha, Kosala, Koñkana, and others. The region occupied by the Mahasamghika was then an important center for Mahayana Buddhism.
Xuanzang visited a Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada monastery in the seventh century at Bamyan. This monastery site has since been rediscovered by archaeologists. Birch bark manuscripts and palm-leaf manuscripts from this collection are now located in the Schøyen Collection. Some manuscripts are in Gandhari language and Kharosthi script. Others are in Sanskrit written in forms of Gupta script. Manuscripts surviving from this collection include the Pratikmoksha Vibhanga of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra is also present as a sutra from Agamas. The Canggi Sutra appears as another source text from Agamas. The Diamond Sutra is listed as a Mahayana sutra within these finds. The Bhaijyaguru Sutra and Srimaladevi Simhanada Sutra are also part of the collection. Sarvadharmapravrttinirdeśa Sutra and Ajatasatrukauktyavinodana Sutra complete the list. These texts provide evidence of the school's theological breadth. They show how the community preserved both Hinayana and Mahayana teachings.
Common questions
When did the Mahasamghika school split from the original Sangha?
The first schism creating the Mahasāghika community occurred 116 years after the Buddha's nirvāna during or after the reign of Ashoka Maurya. Scholars Jan Nattier and Charles S. Prebish date this division to that specific period following the Second Buddhist Council.
What were the main doctrinal differences between the Mahasamghika and other early schools?
The Mahāsāghikas advocated for the transcendental nature of the Buddha and taught that his material body is unlimited with infinite supernatural power and lifespan. They held that arhatship was a lesser form of enlightenment compared to the status of advanced bodhisattvas who act out of free will to liberate sentient beings.
Where were the primary centers of the Mahasamghika sect located in ancient India?
The original center of the Mahāsāghika sects lay in Magadha with important sites including Mathura, Karli, Amarāvati, and Nāgārjunakoñdā. The Caitika branch focused on the Coastal Andhra region while other subschools existed in Gandhāra, Kośala, Eastern India around Vārānasi, and the lower Krsna Valley.
How does the Mahasamghika Vinaya differ from other recensions of Buddhist texts?
The Mahāsāghika Vinaya provides insight into the format of this school's textual canon by appearing as an older redaction with fewer stories than other versions. It differs most from other recensions in structure though the rules generally share identical meaning when Vibhangas are compared.
What is the relationship between the Mahasamghika school and the development of Mahayana Buddhism?
Paramartha wrote about a special affiliation where much of the Mahasamghika school moved north of Rajagha to discuss incorporating Mahayana teachings formally into their Tripitaka. Historians like Andre Bareau trace the origin of the Mahayana tradition to these older Mahasamghika schools in regions such as Odisha, Kosala, and Koñkana.