It has always struck me how the idea of `self' is fuelled and
sustained by language. We use a word, `I', that refers to something
that is always changing, yet the word itself remains the same. This
use of a constant term to refer to an inconstant process subtly
engenders the idea of permanence. And this linguistic phenomenon
becomes highly emotive: we identify with this constant `I' and
fiercely resist any attempt to point out its emptiness, its origin
in our own thoughts and concepts.
The same process happens on a world scale. We use a word,
say, `Theravada'. This simple term has remained unchanged for 2500
years. Yet the historical phenomenon that the tem refers to is
complex, many faceted, and constantly changing. If we use this term
unreflectively to refer to different people of different beliefs in
different places and different times, we run the serious risk of
imposing a false `identity', and getting attached to that.
This issue has been referred to in passing a few times on this
discussion, but I feel it is time to confront it more directly. May
I suggest that we try to develop a terminology to talk about these
events of the far past that is:
Let's start with the Second council, at Vesali. Of the two sides
here, the `lax' (i.e. pro-money) side is called in the Culavagga the
Vajjiputtakas, and this usage seems to be acceptable in this
discussion so far. Similarly, the `strict' (anti-money) side is
called the `Paaveyyakas' (those from Paavaa). So let's use this
term. This corresponds nicely to the geographical distribution of
the Sangha at the time, reminding us that different ideas frequently
grow up due to the isolation of distance. The Paveyyakas hail from
the west, the Vajjiputtakas from the East.
Now for the Third Council at Pataliputra. The side that
upheld `Mahadeva's' five theses are universally known as the
Mahasanghika. This would seem to pose no problem. They were the
majority of the Sangha, and the name reflects this. The other camp
is often called the `Sthaviras' (Skt for `Theras') or Theriyas. This
is problematic, for it assumes a relationship between these and the
later Theravadins. I don't know where this usage comes from. Nor do
I know of any other convenient ancient term. So how about we invent
a new name: the `Culasanghikas'. This contrasts this group, as
everyone agrees they were the `Minority of the Sangha', with the
Mahasanghikas. Thus the term is clearly relevant to the actual event.
The Culasanghikas then split into the Sarvastivadins and another
group. The main Sarvastivadin doctrine is that all dhammas, past,
future and present, exist. The others maintained that we
must `distinguish' between the three times, so they are
appropriately called the `Vibhajjavadins', the `distinctionists'.
(For simplicity, I just trace some main lines, ignoring others such
as the Puggalavadins, etc.)
Later still, some Vibhajjavadins went as missionaries to the North-
west, where it seems they were named after their leader `Yonaka
Dhammarakkhita' and became known as the `Dharmaguptakas'
(rakkhita=gupta, guarded). Others, under the leadership of Mahinda,
went to the South-east where they became popular in Sri Lanka. This
Sri Lankan group is known by many names: the Tamrasatiyas (copper-
clad, after the colour of their robes); Tambapanniyas (those of the
Isle of Tambapanni, Lanka this name is misleading since, as we
have seen, there were at least three Sri Lankan sects);
Vibhajjavadins (but we have already used this term in a slightly
different context); Theravadins (but we have decided to avoid this
term for now); and Mahaviharavasins. This last name seems good: it
is very specific and exact, and Buddhaghosa frequently reminds us
that his commentaries record the opinions of the `Dwellers at the
Great Monastery'.
So now we have some clear terminology. The two parties at the Second
Council were the Paveyyakas and the Vajjiputtakas; at the Third
Council it was the Mahasanghikas and Culasanghikas; the
Culasanghikas split into Sarvastivadins and Vibhajjavadins; the
Vibhajjavadins split into Dharmaguptakas and Mahaviharavasins.
Now we can begin to ask some meaningful questions. What connection
is there between the Vajjiputtakas and the Mahasanghikas? Is there a
line of continuity between the Paveyyakas and the Culasanghikas? To
what extent do to the codified teachings of the Mahaviharavasins
reflect the doctrinal differences with the Dharmaguptakas? And
another interesting question: to what extent do the doctrines as
understood and practiced by contemporary Theravadins reflect the
teachings of the Mahaviharavasins?
We may well continue to evaluate the evidence differently and come
to different conclusions about these matters, but at least we can
talk about them coherently, without constantly tripping up on
terminology.