Origins of Secret Mantra • Day Five
September 1st, 2025.
The Karmapa continued to analyse and question the multi-layered story of the mysterious figure Mahādeva whose Five Views were said to be the cause of the original split in the Buddhist saṅgha.
Kuījī, also known as Ci’en Dashi or Great Master of the Cien Monastery and a student of Tang Xuanzang, offered a somewhat contrasting account of Mahādeva in his summary of the Yogācāra Levels. According to him, Mahādeva was not as wicked as he is portrayed in the classic story shared in the previous teaching session. He taught the Five Points, for which he was heavily criticized by some elders though it seems they did not listen to him properly. That is why it is important for us to analyse the validity of those points.
Mahādeva’s verse:
Seduced by others, ignorance,
Doubt, being led by another,
And the paths arising from words
These are teachings of the Buddha.
1. Seduced by others
Mahādeva’s explanation:
Arhats have exhausted the afflictions and defilements, but the māra of the “child of the gods” [the māra of deceptive appearances] can create obstacles or they might soil their robes with the impure [interfere and stage an ejaculation], so it may appear as if they have defilements.
The elders accused him, saying he was just a deluded ordinary being. Afflictions arise because of the presence of the object, and due to inappropriate thoughts at night, he soiled his clothes with the impure [he had a nocturnal emission], but then he blamed it on the interference of the māra of the child of the gods, so he was maintaining that arhats can be deceived by the child of the māras. This caused the dispute.
However, there are lines in the The Treasury of Abhidharma (Skt. Abhidharmakośa) and in Vasubandu’s auto-commentary (Skt. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) that challenge the elders’ position. The Treasury of Abhidharma states: “Deceit and pretense are in Desire / And on the first dhyāna, as Brahmā deludes” and the auto-commentary says: “By misrepresenting himself as a great being, Great Brahmā deluded Aśvajit.” The Karmapa narrated the entire story of Aśvajit which Vasubhandu refers to, as it is preserved in the Sūtra of the Aggregate of Discipline:
When the bhikshu Ashvajit, who was already an arhat, sat in solitude, resting in samadhi, he began to wander: “Where do the four great elements cease? Where do they disappear?” As soon as this doubt arose, he vanished from this world and ascended into higher realms. He first entered the Realm of the Four Great Kings [Skt. Caturmahārājakāyika, the lowest of the god realms] and then he crossed over into the Heaven of the Thirty-Three (Skt. Trāyastriṃśa) in search for the answer among gods. He continued upward, traversing other Desire Realms and all of the Realms of Form asking the gods of each realm his question. But everywhere the answer was the same: “We don’t know.” Finally, he reached Brahma’s Abode and put his question to the gods there. They, too, did not know but advised him to ask the all-knowing Brahma himself. Brahma appeared as a young boy with five faces and Ashvajit shared his doubt with him.
He replied: “I am Brahma, Great Brahma, the Lord, the Creator…” and so on. He didn’t answer the question directly but acted high and mighty. Though he appeared all-powerful, he was, in fact, being evasive.
Ashvajit did not waver and said: “Whether you are Great Brahma, the Creator and the Lord or not – that is not what I asked you. I asked you: ‘Where do the four elements cease?”
Brahma gave the same answer for the second time. Ashvajit persisted and asked a third time, but Brahma had no answer, so he took Ashvajit by the hand to a private place and said: “The gods in my retinue believe that there is nothing that I, Brahma, do not know or do not see. But what I cannot say in front of them is that I do not know where the four elements cease,” he conceded. “If the Buddha is alive, why are you asking me when you can ask him? You’re asking the wrong person.”
Then Ashvajit disappeared from Brahma’s realm and came to the Buddha. He posed the same question to him: “Where do the four elements cease?” The Buddha replied: “First they cease in the Formless Realm. In the end, they cease when you achieve parinirvana without remainder.”
This story shows that Brahma pretended to know when he didn’t and was stringing Aśvajit along for some time trying to mislead him. At the same time, Brahmā attempted to conceal his own ignorance by establishing dominance.
The conclusion is that even arhats can lack knowledge in some instances and can be deceived to some extent because they don’t have the direct knowledge of certain things. Therefore, we cannot say that Mahādeva’s assertion was categorically false, since the Abhidharma is a text of the Foundation Vehicles.
2. Unknowing.
Mahādeva’s reasoning:
There are two types of ignorance, afflicted and unafflicted ignorance. Arhats are completely free of afflicted ignorance, but they still have unafflicted ignorance [the unknowing].
The elders slandered him: “The deluded ordinary being Mahādeva does not recite the sūtras or their meaning properly and he even claims that noble beings have unafflicted ignorance.” They argued because of this.
Once again, we may be able to gain a different perspective from Vasubandhu’s writings. On the line “It is he who has conquered entirely the darkness toward all” from The Treasury of Abhidharma, the auto-commentary explains:
Pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas are free of afflicted delusion, we assert that they have conquered darkness toward all, but not entirely. It is thus: they have unafflicted ignorance of the qualities of a buddha, utterly inaccessible times and places and the infinite kinds of things.
In other words, arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not know the qualities of a buddha, they do not know things inaccessible because of time, things utterly inaccessible because of place and the infinite kinds of things—they have four causes of ignorance.
Regarding unafflicted ignorance, the question is whether we can call it a ‘cognitive obscuration’ or not. In the commentary by Kyim Jhanang it is called unafflicted ignorance but, in fact, the term ‘unafflicted ignorance’ already appears in the Treasury of Abhidharma. Mahādeva’s stance that arhats retain certain kinds of cognitive obscuration together with the ‘unafflicted ignorance’ in Abhidharma, bring to light the seeds of Mahāyāna philosophy.
Nowadays, some scholars who have studied Buddhist texts maintain that the Mahāyāna is completely false and that only the texts of the Foundation Vehicle reflect true Buddhism. Yet, if we search for the Mahāyāna philosophy, it can be found in numerous instances in these ancient texts. The point about the ‘unafflicted ignorance’ itself is an underlying concept of Mahāyāna thought. It cannot be dismissed lightly as a later invention if the evidence is there to be found in the texts of the Foundation Vehicle. It is worthwhile considering that many such points corresponding to Mahāyāna exist.
3. Doubt
Mahādeva’s elaboration:
From the time they achieve stream-entry [the first of the four stages of awakening: stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner and arhat], nobles have completely abandoned afflicted doubt. [Doubt, in particular the doubt of truth, is an obstacle to the Path of Seeing and it is discarded upon the entry to the Path of Seeing [the first of the Boddhisattva levels] but they still have unafflicted doubt, such as mistaking a scarecrow for a person and feeling doubt.
The elders accused him, saying: “Mahādeva is a deluded ordinary being who does not recite the sūtras or their meaning properly. He says that even the noble ones have doubt.” They argued because of this.
The Karmapa cautioned:
We need to listen to both sides —both Mahādeva and the elders—and examine their positions carefully. Too often, we only hear the elders’ accusations and explanations of Mahādeva without really investigating his stance.
On this point, the Vinaya Vastu (The Chapters on Monastic Discipline) records:
The Bhagavat taught that the bhikṣu so-and-so had already abandoned the three fetters [imaginary personality view, over-esteeming discipline and austerity and doubt about the path to liberation] and entered the stream, entering the state of never falling away from perfect enlightenment.
Likewise, both the Treasury of Abhidharma and its auto-commentary state that stream-enterers have abandoned afflicted doubt but not unafflicted doubt. The story of the arhat Aśvajit, mentioned earlier, says that even after attaining arhatship, he sat in samādhi, in doubt over the state of the elements. In general, noble beings may still experience doubt, so Mahādeva’s explanation should not surprise us.
4. Being led by another
Mahādeva’s words:
Śāriputra and others who have sharp faculties must follow a spiritual friend to enter the path, and other students absolutely need someone to bring them onto the path.
The elders accused him, saying: “Mahādeva is a deluded ordinary individual who recites the sūtra and meaning improperly. He says that Śāriputra and others with sharp faculties need someone else to bring them onto the path, and do not know themselves that they have achieved the level of arhatship!” They faulted Mahādeva with deceiving his students in order to win their favour saying things like: “You are a stream-enterer. You are an arhat…”. The students, however, were taken aback and admitted they did not know this about themselves. To the elders, it seemed as if Mahādeva was calling arhats ignorant.
The Foundation Vehicle scriptures speak of Buddha’s eight supreme disciples. Among them, the Buddha identified Śāriputra the “supreme in prajñā”, Upāli the “supreme upholder of the Vinaya”, Mahāmaudgalyāyana “the supreme in miraculous powers” and so forth. Had the Buddha not designated them in that manner, the arhats would not have known it for themselves.
A second rationale comes from a well-known assertion of the Foundation Vehicle schools that pratyekabuddhas can manifest enlightenment in their last lifetime without following a spiritual friend, but śrāvakas must follow a spiritual friend in their last lifetime to become an arhat.
5. Paths arising from words
Mahādeva’s elucidation:
Those who have trained in the past have come through many lifetimes, so when they are close to achieving a noble state and hear the Buddha teach on dharmas such as “suffering”, “emptiness”, and so forth, many of them achieve a result merely upon hearing. Some, because of their great revulsion for samsāra, call out words of lament and rouse the noble paths.
The elders accused him, saying: “Mahādeva committed not one, but three heinous acts. Because he had not completely severed the roots of virtue, he feared rebirth in the lower realms and cried out “Suffering!” in the middle of the night.”
His students, thinking he was ill, asked him the next morning:
“Were you sick?”
“I was not sick.”
“Then why,” they asked, “did you cry out ‘Suffering!’ in the middle of the night?”
Mahādeva replied: “I entered the path when I was young and did as I wished, but now I am old and can no longer do as I wish. If I had not cried out ‘Suffering!’ and felt revulsion, I would not have roused the noble path.”
The elders accused him of panicking over the consequences of his heinous deeds and lying that the noble path could arise simply from crying out the words.
But if we reflect on Mahādeva’s statement—that words can invoke the noble path—we cannot say his claim is categorically wrong. There is, for example, the case where Aśvajit recited a verse to Śāriputra:
All dharmas arise from causes and conditions.
The Tathāgata has taught their cause.
The great Śramaṇa has taught that this
Is the cessation of the causes:
Merely by hearing this verse, Śāriputra attained the noble path, as recorded in the Vinaya Vastu.
Thus, simply hearing the words aroused the latent imprints and Śāriputra immediately attained the fruit of the noble path. This kind of thing does happen.
Likewise, when practicing the true Dharma, you may feel from the bottom of your heart that saṃsāra is by nature truly suffering—and you just cannot bear it! An overwhelming feeling may arise and, naturally, you may want to cry out or lament. This is actually a sign of genuine dharma practice, coming from the depths of your being. It is difficult to claim that anyone who cries out in such a way does so only because of having committed heinous acts in their life.
Besides, there was a tradition in the olden days in ancient India where bhikṣus, at dawn, would pace back and forth reciting: “Everything is suffering, impermanence…” and so forth. Some elderly bhikṣus were even known to cry out about suffering in the middle of the night. People say this happens. It is hard to conclude that such an act was necessarily a bad thing.
The crux of the matter is that Mahādeva’s Five Points—or Five Views—are deeply connected with many concepts in the Treasury of Abhidharma. There is no basis for saying categorically that everything Mahādeva said was impure or wrong. In fact, when we examine his views from the perspective of Mahāyāna, quite a number of them turn out to be strikingly accurate.
Traditionally, we tend to dismiss the Five Views as wrong and Mahādeva himself as a bad person. But now, we have to seriously question that assumption and carefully examine the views of both sides.
Moreover, when we look closely, we find numerous Mahāyāna concepts inherent in the doctrines—even before the split into the eighteen schools. Then, the schools emerged and spread bearing many paradigms related to Mahāyāna. This counters the notion of Mahāyāna as separate from the substance of original Buddhism.
The Comparative Study by the Japanese Scholar Keisho Tsukamoto on the Authenticity of Mahādeva’s Five Points
The Japanese scholar Keisho Tsukamoto (born 1929) published a paper in 1965 titled Mahādeva’s Lineage and the Controversy of the Original Split into Schools where he cites eighteen different sources. He compiled almost all of the sources available to him at that time. His analysis of whether Bhikṣu Mahādeva’s Five Points are true or false is highly academic and rigorous, drawing on a wide range of sources and even reconstructing fragments of lost material. A detailed study of this work would take considerable time, but the Karmapa was able to highlight some of its conclusions.
Tsukamoto’s paper also includes a table comparing events across eighteen texts from both the Southern tradition (texts preserved in Pāli) and the Northern tradition (Chinese and Tibetan sources). However, because of the printing limitations of the time, the table was incomplete. The Karmapa remarked that although he had searched for a complete version, he could not find one. For this reason, and due to time constraints, His Holiness presented the table only in part—enough to demonstrate the scholarship and methodology so the students could learn to grasp the patterns.
Eighteen Texts Keisho Tsukamoto Used in His Comparative Study:
A. The Great Exposition（Skt. Mahāvibhāṣā; Ch. 大毘婆沙论). (150 CE). Translated into Chinese by Tang Xuanzang (656-59).
B. Vasumitra (ca. 2nd CE). The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions (Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakra). Chinese translation titled The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools. Translator unknown (later Qin dynasty, early 5th c.; disputed by some).
C. Vasumitra (ca. 2nd CE). The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions (Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakra). Chinese translation titled The Treatise on the Differences Between the Schools (Ch. 部执异论). Translated by Master Paramārtha (mid-6th c.).
D. Vasumitra (ca. 2nd CE). The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions (Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakra). Chinese translation titled The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools (Ch. 异部宗轮论). Translated by Tang Xuanzang (662).
E. Vasumitra (ca. 2nd CE). The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions（Skt. Samayabhedoparacanacakra; Tib. གཞུང་ལུགས་གི་བྱེ་བྲག་བཀོད་པའི་འཁོར་ལོ།). Tibetan translation by Bande Sangkyong and the Indian master Dharmākara (8th c.).
F. Tang Xuanzang’s student Kuiji. (662). Notes on Treatise on the Scriptures of Different Schools. (Ch. 异部宗轮论述记). A commentary on the The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions.
G. Master Jizang (549–623 CE, Sui and Tang dynasties). The Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises（Ch. 三论玄义).
H. Master Paramārtha (mid-6th c.). An explanation of the Treatise on the Differences Between the Schools (Ch. 部执异论疏). A commentary on The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions.
I. Tang Xuanzang (646). Great Records of Travel to the Western Regions (Ch. 大唐西域记). J. Unknown
K.Unknown
L. Ācārya Bhavya (possibly Bhāvaviveka, ca. 6th c.). Explaining the Differences Between the Schools (Skt. Nikāyabhedavibhaṅgavyākhyāna).
M. The Story of King Ashoka (Skt. Aśokāvadāna, Ch. 阿育王传). Translated by Western Jin An Faqin (ca. 281–306 CE).
N. The Sūtra of King Aśoka（Ch. 阿育王经). Translated by Liang Saṅghavarman (512).
O. The Treatise Distinguishing Qualities (Ch. 分别功德论) (ca. 3rd-4th c.).
P. The Chronicle of the Island (Pāli: Dīpavaṃsa). History of Sri Lanka (ca. 4th-5th c.).
Q. The Great Chronicle (Pāli: Mahāvaṃsa). History of Sri Lanka (ca. 5th-6th c.).
R. Buddhaghosa (5th c.). The All-Pleasing (Pāli: Samantapāsādikā). Vinaya commentary.
Tsukamoto’s table shows which of the eighteen texts (A, B, C…) record (○) particular events (1.,2.,3…), and how those events vary (①, ②, ③…).
- 1.Year of birth could be ① 116 years after the Mahāparinirvāṇa (mentioned in texts B, G), ② 116 or 160 after (text C), ③ Over 100 after (D, E), ④ 100 after (I, J), ⑤ ca. two centuries after (K) ⑥ 137 after (L).
- 2.A dynasty of his birth could be of ⑦ a king (unnamed) (A, K), ⑧ King Aśoka (B, C, D, E, F, H, I), ⑨Mahāpadma/Nanda (L).
- 3.As for the place of birth, he could be ⑩ a son of a merchant from Mathurā (A, F, H), ⑪ son of a captain of Mathurā (G), or ⑫ born in southern India (M, N).
- 4.No agreement about the heinous acts among the sources: six texts (B, C, D, E, K, L) do not teach this at all, while (A, F, G, H, I, J) mention (○) all three heinous acts, but (M, N) mention only that he ⑬ killed his mother after having an inappropriate relation with her (do not mention other heinous acts).
- 5.One text (H) mentions him having an affair with the queen.
- 6.Place of ordination ⑭ Pāṭaliputra, ⑮ Mathurā
- 7.The controversy happened because he wrote the Five Points (○ ) in (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J), ⑯ because of wrong views (no mention of Five Points) (I), ⑰ he objected to expanding the Vinaya discipline (no mention of Five Points) (K), ⑱ his name was given as Bhadra instead (L), ⑲ attributed to “some bhikṣu” (not Mahādeva) (M, N),
- 8.The controversy occurred because he wrote a treatise (G, H) and so forth…
|
Manuscript |
|||||||||||||||
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
— |
||
|
I |
1.Date of birth |
① |
② |
③ |
③ |
① |
④ |
④ |
⑤ |
⑥ |
|||||
|
2.Dynasty |
⑦ |
⑧ |
⑧ |
⑧ |
⑧ |
⑧ |
⑧ |
⑧ |
⑦ |
⑨ |
|||||
|
3.Place of Birth |
⑩ |
⑩ |
⑪ |
⑩ |
⑫ |
⑫ |
|||||||||
|
II |
4.Wicked deeds |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
⑬ |
⑬ |
||||||
|
5.Innapropriate connection with the queen |
○ |
||||||||||||||
|
6.Location & manner of ordination |
⑭ |
⑭ |
⑭ |
⑭ |
⑮ |
⑮ |
|||||||||
|
III |
7.Explaining the Five Points |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
⑯ |
○ |
⑰ |
⑱ |
⑲ |
⑲ |
|
8.Mahādeva wrote a treatise |
○ |
○ |
|||||||||||||
|
IV |
9.Controversy in the saṅgha |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
⑳ |
⑳ |
|
10.Saṅgha members being exiled |
○ |
○ |
○ |
||||||||||||
|
11.Split into Sthaviravāda and Mahāsaṃghika |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
㉑ |
㉑ |
||
|
V |
12.Crossing the Ganges by boat |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
||||||||||
|
13.The person who summons |
㉒ |
㉓ |
㉔ |
㉒ |
|||||||||||
|
14.Displaying miracles |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
|||||||||||
|
15.Flying to Kashmir |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
|||||||||||
|
16.Inviting them to return |
○ |
○ |
○ |
○ |
|||||||||||
|
17.Whether they accept or not |
㉕ |
㉕ |
㉖ |
㉕ |
|||||||||||
|
18.Founding monasteries in Kashmir |
○ |
○ |
○ |
||||||||||||
|
19.The death of Mahādeva |
○ |
○ |
○ |
||||||||||||
|
20.Cremation |
○ |
○ |
|||||||||||||
|
21.Elders holding a council |
○ |
||||||||||||||
- Is There a Connection Between Mahādeva and the Five Points at All?
Overview: The tradition that criticizes Mahādeva stems from the Kāśmīra [Kashmir] Sarvāstivāda. In contrast, Mahāsāṃghika and Mahāyāna sources revise this account—or draw on sources of different lineages—to protect Mahādeva. Moreover, texts from the Vibhajyavāda, Mahāsāṃghika and Mahāyāna traditions even describe Mahādeva as a great teacher.
Here, our concern is specifically with the Mahādeva associated with the Five Points—or Five Views— though, Tsukamoto notes at least twelve versions of Mahādeva across the sources related to Mahādeva.
In forming conclusions, Tsukamoto particularly relies on the chronology of the sources.
Evidence from Chinese and Tibetan Translations:
- The Treatise on the Eight Chapters (Skt. Aṣṭhaskandha-śāstra). Also called Aṣṭagrantha, it is an earlier version of the below mentioned The Establishment of Wisdom (Skt. Jñānaprasthāna). Attributed to Kātyāyanīputra. Translated into Chinese (383 CE).
A very important Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma text. It discusses the wrong views of the Five Points—but makes no association to Mahādeva, the three heinous acts or the original split controversy as we learn them in the Great Exposition (trans. 656–59). - The Establishment of Wisdom (Skt. Jñānaprasthāna). Attributed to Kātyāyanīputra. Translated into Chinese (657–60).
Like its earlier translation titled Treatise on the Eight Chapters, mentioned above, it critiques the Five Points—but does not associate them with Mahādeva, the three heinous acts or the original split. - The Great Exposition. Tibetan translation (from Chinese) by the Chinese master Fa Zong (Chupak). A relatively recent translation.
- The Great Exposition. Chinese translation by the Indian master Saṅghabhūti (389).
This version lacks the chapter on prajñā. Since later translations locate the discussion of the Five Points within that chapter, naturally, this text does not address the Five Points at all. - The Great Exposition, Chinese translation by the Indian master Buddhavarmin (425–27 CE). Also called the Treatise Compiled by Vasumitra.
This translation includes the chapter on prajñā but does not discuss the Five Points. - The Great Exposition, Chinese translation by Tang Xuanzang (656–59).
This version contains the prajñā chapter, which explicitly mentions Mahādeva’s Five Views, the three heinous acts and original the split of the Buddhist saṅgha.
This chronology suggests that when the Great Exposition was first compiled, the original version did not include the accounts of the Five Views or Mahādeva. The discussion of Mahādeva and the Five Views—as found in the 7th century translation—is therefore quite likely a later insertion, added only after the compilation of the original text had been completed.
Evidence from Pāli Texts:
- The Chapters on Sayings (Kathāvatthu, extant in Pāli) by Moggaliputta Tissa (3rd c. BCE) is an important text of the Vibhajyavāda school. It addresses the Five Points in its second chapter, “Discussion of Degenerate Views”, deeming them wrong views of other schools – but does not mention Mahādeva.
- The Commentry on Kathāvatthu (Pāli: Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā) by the very influential 5th c. master Buddhaghoṣa discusses the Five Points as views of two schools, branches of the Mahāsāṃghika: Eastern Mountain (Skt. Pūrvaśaila) and Western Mountain (Skt. Aparaśaila) scools. He refers to them collectively as the Andhaka school. Here too, Mahādeva is not mentioned.
Upon examination of the above texts, we can hypothesize that only the account of the Five Points circulated prior to the later version of the Great Exposition. It was only at that stage that the story of Mahādeva, the Five Points and the original split of the saṅgha were woven together into a single narrative.
The Mahāsāṃghika References:
- Vasumitra’s Wheel Distinguishing the Different Schools, perhaps the most important ancient source on the differentiation of the schools, describes the Five Points as the positions of the Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Kukkuṭika, Bahuśrutīya, Haimavata, and other schools of the Mahāsāṃghika.
- The Explanation of the Differences Among the Schools by Bhavya (possibly the 6th c. master Bhāvaviveka) identifies the Five Points as the position of the Ekavyāvahārika school (Mahāsāṃghika sub-school) which the Sarvāstivāda rejected as wrong.
- Vinītadeva’s Concise Teaching on the Separate Schools (Tib. trans. སྡེ་པ་ཐ་དད་པ་བསྟན་པ་བསྡུས་པ།) states that the Five Points represent the position of the Lokottaravāda, another Mahāsāṃghika sub-school.
In general, it is reasonable to assert that Mahāsāṃghika sub-schools upheld the Five Points or Views, while the Sthaviravāda schools regarded them as wrong views and rejected them.
Even though the classic account linking Mahādeva, the Five Points, the heinous acts and the split of the saṅgha appears to be a later construction—inserted into the expanded 7th c. version of the Great Exposition—we still cannot assume the Five Points themselves were unrelated to disputes among the schools. As we turn to the second question, additional nuances emerge that need to be considered.
2. Is there a relation between Mahādeva, the Five Points, and the original split into schools?
When examining how the original split of the Buddhist saṅgha occurred, it is important to note that the sources refer to two different Mahādevas—one earlier and one later. The earlier Mahādeva, said to have lived around 100 years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, is described as teaching the Five Points, which allegedly caused the first split of the previously unified Buddhist community into two schools: the Sthaviravāda and the Mahāsāṃghika. Then there is mention of another, later Mahādeva, placed about 200 years after the parinirvāṇa, who is also associated with teaching the Five Points, but in his case, the controversy is said to have caused the Mahāsāṃghika to fragment into sub-schools.
Evidence from Chinese and Tibetan translations and sources:
Translations of Vasumitra’s (2nd c. CE) Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions:
- Chinese translation titled The Treatise on the Eighteen Schools (translator unknown, later Qin dynasty, early 5th c., though disputed)
- On Mahādeva: no mention of the earlier Mahādeva but the later Mahādeva is mentioned
- On the split: explains how the later Mahādeva caused the Mahāsāṃghika to split into sub-schools but does not mention the Five Points.
- Chinese translation titled The Treatise on the Differences Between the Schools by Master Paramārtha (mid-6th c.).
- On Mahādeva: Again, no mention of the earlier Mahādeva, but does mention the later one.
- On the split: Links the later Mahādeva with the Five Points and describes how this controversy led to the Mahāsāṃghika splitting into sub-schools.
- 3.Chinese translation titled The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools by Xuanzang (662) – the newest translation.
- On Mahādeva: talks about two Mahādevas—the earlier and the later.
- On the split: The earlier Mahādeva (ca. 100 years after the parinirvāṇa) is said to have taught the Five Points, causing the original split of the saṅgha into two schools. The later Mahādeva (ca. 200 years after the parinirvāṇa) is then described as teaching the Five Points— once again—which caused the Mahāsāṃghika to divide further into sub-schools.
This is the only translation of this text which explicitly connects Mahādeva and the Five Points to the original split of the Buddhist saṅgha, and it matches Xuanzang’s own translation of the Great Exposition (656–59)
- 4.Tibetan translation by Bande Sangkyong and the Indian master Dharmākara (8th c.).
- On Mahādeva: there is no mention of the earlier Mahādeva but mentions the later Mahādeva.
The Karmapa suggested that missing parts of the text or translation faults might explain the absence of the earlier Mahādeva, since in most other respects this Tibetan version aligns with Xuanzang’s Chinese translation. (which mentions two Mahādevas).
- On the split: it talks about the connection between the Five Points and the split of the Mahāsāṃghika into sub-schools.
Notes on The Treatise on the Scriptures of Different Schools (662) written by Tang Kuījī (commentary on the The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions).
- Tang Xuanzang was Tang Kuījī’s teacher, so he probably taught him about The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions and Kuījī took notes which became the basis for writing his own text. Since Xuanzang translated the Great Exposition as well as The Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions, Kuījī was using the Great Exposition to explain The Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools.
Therefore, since the Treatise on the Scriptures of the Different Schools mentions the king who reigned at the time of Mahādeva but does not mention his name, Kuījī uses the available Great Exposition and adds Aśoka’s name into his Notes on The Treatise on the Scriptures of Different Schools. So, according to his text, the king who reigned during the time of Mahādeva was the King Aśoka.
In sum, out of four different translations of the Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions there is only one (Xuanzang, 7th c.) that connects Mahādeva to the original split. The other versions do not make this connection, though most do mention the later Mahādeva in relation to the Mahāsāṃghika’s fragmentation into sub-schools.
Evidence from the Southern transmission sources:
As mentioned earlier, the Five Points were associated with the Mahāsāṃghika schools in general and not exclusively with Mahādeva. The Southern transmission in particular maintains that the Five Points were positions held by the Eastern Mountain (Skt. Pūrvaśaila) and Western Mountain (Skt. Aparaśaila) schools, both branches of Mahāsāṃghika.
The Sūtra of Śāriputra’s Questions (Skt. Śāriputraparipṛcchā-sūtra, translated into Chinese) contains a prophecy:
Two hundred years after my parinirvāṇa, the Mahāsāṃghika school will arise because of different treatises. Three hundred years after, because of different scriptures, there will once again be Mahādeva’s school, the Caitya school and the Uttaraśaila school.
Identifying the Pūrvaśaila school as “Mahādeva’s school” suggests a connection between Mahādeva and the Andhaka schools. They were the regional schools from Andhaka/Andhra in southern India, namely, Pūrvaśaila (Eastern Mountain), Caityaśaila (Stūpa Mountain) and Uttaraśaila (Northern Mountain).
How Did the Connection Between Mahādeva, the Five Points, and the Original Split Develop?
As explained above, it is primarily the Sarvāstivāda and, especially the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda school, which claims that Mahādeva was responsible for the original split of the Buddhist saṅgha. This needs to be examined from two angles:
- Can the account of the dispute between the Sthaviravāda and the Mahāsāṃghika be replaced with a dispute between the Sarvāstivāda and the Mahāsāṃghika?
- Why was Mahādeva inserted into the sequence of events of the original split into schools?
Was It Sthaviravāda or Sarvāstivāda Vs. Mahāsāṃghika? The Implications of the Timeline.
Who taught the Five Views? —It was Mahāsāṃghika. And who said those views were wrong? It was the Sarvāstivāda.
According to Sarvāstivāda accounts, particularly the Minor Topics of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, it was the arhat Madhyāntika who spread the teachings to Kashmir. Moreover, Sinhalese (Sri Lankan) histories record that Moggaliputta-Tissa sent out many great masters from Pāṭaliputra to spread the teachings in different regions. Among them was Madhyāntika (Pāli: Majjhantika) whom he sent to Kasmīra-Gandhāra (Kashmir and Gandhāra).
(Northern and Southern traditions, however, do not fully align here, the Karmapa noted. Tibetan history describes Madhyāntika as a direct student of Ānanda, ordained at the same time as Śāṇakavāsin.)
Further, the Sinhalese accounts say that Madhyāntika’s contemporary, the “great arhat Mahādeva” was sent at the same time to Mahisamaṇḍala (present-day Mysore) in southern India. This suggests there was indeed a strong link between the Mahāsāṃghikas of Pāṭaliputra and the Andhaka schools in southern India where Mahādeva is said to have founded a Mahāsāṃghika community. According to these Sri Lankan histories, the Dharma was spread to both Kashmir and Mahisamaṇḍala during the Maurya dynasty.
[King Kālāśoka (Śiśunāga dynasty), or the subsequent Nanda dynasty or King Mahāpadma-Nanda in particular—all preceded the Maurya dynasty.]
If the original split of the saṅgha truly occurred during the reign of Kālāśoka, or later during the reign of Mahāpadma-Nanda, in particular, the account in the Great Exposition about the Sthaviravādins settling in Kashmir at that time—becomes dubious. It is indeed doubtful whether Mahādeva was even alive then. It is most reasonable to say that the controversy over the Five Points occurred during the Maurya dynasty, not earlier.
The Sarvāstivādin Agenda and the Insertion of Mahādeva into the Events of the Original Split
For these reasons, it is quite reasonable to assume that the account in the Great Exposition of the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda was put together with a particular agenda: to establish a link between themselves and the Sthaviravāda from the time of the original split into two schools, thereby presenting themselves as the authentic lineage, closest to the source.
This is especially plausible because, when the Great Exposition was compiled, the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda was extremely powerful, stronger than the Mathurā Sarvāstivāda. Because the Kashmiri Sarvāstivādins were so dominant, their interpretations and positions came to be inserted more frequently into the scriptures. Modern scholars have uncovered substantial evidence that many views of the Kashmir Exposition (Vaibhāṣika) Sarvāstivādins have been inserted into the wider Sarvāstivāda corpus.
The Old Vinaya versus the Expanded Vinaya?
Interestingly, the Sūtra of Śāriputra’s Questions (translated during the Later Qin dynasty, 317–420) introduces an element we have not encountered before:
At that time, an elder bhikṣu who sought fame and was argumentative will alter my vinaya, adding more and lengthening it. He will call the basket of vinaya compiled by Kāśyapa the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya. Later someone else will search for and compile it, adding many new precepts that were not there before, and deceiving many new monks. They will start their own separate school and there will be a dispute.
At that time, a bhikṣu will ask the king to decide the matter. The king will convene both schools and spread out white and black counting sticks. He will announce: “If you prefer the old vinaya, take a black counting stick. If you prefer the new vinaya, take a white counting stick.” At that time, a few tens of thousands took black counting sticks, but no more than one hundred to white sticks. The king will think: “These are all teachings of the Buddha, but it is not right for them to stay together because of their different convictions.” There were more adherents of the old vinaya, so they were called the Mahāsāṃghika. The new vinaya had fewer students, but they were elders, so they were called Sthaviravāda.
This sūtra does not mention the Five Points or Views. Instead, it prophesies that an elder (a senior monk) will arise who seeks fame and delights in debate. He will expand the Vinaya—not only adding new rules but also establishing a separate school with his supporters, thereby creating disharmony. Once the king gets involved, he will call for a vote, thus the two factions will be formed: the proponents of the Old Vinaya—Mahāsāṃghikas—and the proponents of the New Vinaya—Sthaviravādins.
This point of view is something novel to us, and it gives a rather interesting perspective: according to the Mahāsāṃghikas, it was this expansion of the Vinaya that led to the split.
It is also worth mentioning that, according to the Saṃmitīya master Bhavya’s (6th c.) Explaining the Differences Between the Schools (Skt. Nikāyabhedavibhaṅgavyākhyāna), it was a figure named Bhadra who taught the Five Points. This gives us at least one account where the original split occurred because of the Five Points—and a bhikṣu other than Mahādeva. [However, previously, the Karmapa had questioned the accuracy of this translation and suggested it might not refer to a monk called Bhadra (Tib. Sangpo) but could mean ‘turning good into bad’.]
Summary
The earliest manuscripts of the Great Exposition did not mention Mahādeva at all, but it was later masters who may have added him. These later redactors could have borrowed from the earlier accounts of the Mahāsāṃghika splitting into sub-schools (such as Vasumitra’s Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions, which ties Mahādeva’s Five Points to the division of the Mahāsāṃghika) —and retroactively inserted it into the account of the original split in the Great Exposition.
It is also possible that this insertion happened not only in the Great Exposition but in a later recension of Vasumitra’s Wheel Distinguishing the Scriptural Traditions which was translated by Xuanzang in the 7th c. (who also translated the Great Exposition).
In brief, Keisho Tsukamoto concludes that the histories of Buddhism’s original split into schools—especially the accounts concerning Mahādeva—cannot be taken as a single, reliable narrative. Rather, they are sectarian accounts, heavily influenced and shaped by each school’s perspective. The Sarvāstivādins rejected the Five Points and portrayed Mahādeva as corrupt, while the Mahāsāṃghikas revered him as a great and venerable bhikṣu. Each tradition elaborated its own version, gradually reshaping their histories across centuries.
