Mar Ngok Summer Teachings 2024:
The Origins of Secret Mantra Day 6
05 August 2024
His Holiness Karmapa began by expressing warm and loving greetings to the sangha community of monks and nuns, dharma friends around the world, and to all Tibetans. He then stated today’s teaching would move on from a discussion of the points of philosophy in early Buddhism relative to the Vajrayana. Today the discussion would focus on the development of Buddhism in the time period following the Buddha’s parinirvana.
In order to understand the development and spread of Buddhism, His Holiness stated that it is first important to understand the historical background, and in particular to understand the political situation of the region. Drawing upon the work of British historian Anthony Kennedy Warder, the Karmapa explained that during the Buddha’s lifetime, the kingdom of Magahda was only one of many different kingdoms in India. Although Magahda would later become a very powerful kingdom, it was not powerful at that time the Buddha lived.
Although the Buddha met two generations of the kings of Magahda – Bimbisāra and
Ajatashatru – this does not mean there was any special connection. At that time, it was traditional for kings to meet with proponents of different philosophies, so the meetings themselves do not indicate that these monarchs had an exclusive relationship with the Buddha. For example, many Jain texts also mention stories of Jain practitioners’ meetings with these kings.
The Buddha traveled to a minimum of six different kingdoms in ancient India while he was turning the wheel of Dharma, and in fact the time he spent in Magahda was not actually very long. The primary regions where Buddhism initially spread in India were outside of the kingdom of Magahda. However, over the next 150 years following the Buddha’s parinirvana, the borders of Magahda expanded. Then, as the political situation changed and regions where Buddhism had spread fell under the political power of Magahda, a particular connection between the kingdom and the Buddhist religion developed.
The Sixteen Great Kingdoms
Between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE, it is said there were sixteen great kingdoms in India. Some of these kingdoms were more traditional and had kings, while others were republics where the people appointed the kings.
Magahda was one of these great kingdoms, and during this time period it was ruled over by several different dynasties. During the time of the Buddha, the rulers were of the Haryanka dynasty. Bimbisāra was a follower of the Buddha, and he passed away before the Buddha’s parinirvana. His son Ajatashatru then ruled during the last eight years of the Buddha’s life. Although Ajatashatru killed his father to seize power, he was nevertheless a wise and capable king. In particular, he conquered several surrounding kingdoms. This included Kosala, a large country and one of the sixteen great kingdoms, with its capital at Shravasti. The king of Kosala was Prasenajit, and he and Ajatashatru went to war. After the death of Prince Virūḍhaka, Ajatashatru triumphed and gained control of Kosala.
King Ajatashatru also conquered Vatsa, one of the larger countries in northern India and another of the sixteen great kingdoms. The capital of Vatsa was Kauśāmbī, which was in ancient times one of the six largest cities in India. During the time of the Buddha, the King of Vatsa was Udayana, and he also fought wars against Ajatashatru of Magadha and Pradyota the Cruel of the kingdom of Avanti. Through these wars, Ajatashatru gained control over Kosala, Vatsa, and other kingdoms.
According to both Buddhist and Jain histories, after the death of Ajatashatru, his son Udāyin moved the capital of Magahda to Pāṭaliputra (modern day Patna). The Haryanka dynasty continued for several more generations; Udāyin was in turn succeeded by Anuruddha, Munda, and Nāgadāśaka.
The Śiśunāga Dynasty
During the reign of Nāgadāśaka, many of the residents of the cities rebelled against him and were successful in overthrowing the king. A former minister to the king, Śiśunāga, was then chosen and enthroned in his place, starting a new dynasty. Śiśunāga himself seemed to be from a line of Licchayi nobles; his father was a soldier and his mother was an artist. The dynasty was called by many names, including both the Śiśunāga dynasty and the Licchayi dynasty.
Later kings in this line gained control over the western Indian kingdom of Avanti, another of the sixteen great kingdoms, with its capital in Ujjenī. While it is not clear if the Śiśunāga kings conquered the kingdom of Vatsa or if the last Haryanka king, Nāgadāśaka, conquered this land, it is apparent that the Śiśunāga kings took control and brought an end to the disputes between the kingdoms in the region.
According to the Sri Lankan history the Dīpavaṃsa, King Śiśunāga himself was succeeded by Kālāśoka, also known as the Artistic Aśoka. King Kālāśoka is an important figure in Buddhist history, as it was during his reign that the Second Buddhist Council was held in Vaiśālī. It is said that Kālāśoka had nine or ten sons who ruled simultaneously.
The Nanda and Maurya Dynasties
According to the Harshacharita [the biography of King Harshavardhana 590–647 CE] the Śiśunāga dynasty came to an end when an assassin slit the throat of Kālāśoka. The assassin himself then became the founding king of the Nanda dynasty; his name was Mahāpadmā-Nanda.
The chronicle of Sri Lankan history, the Mahāvaṃsa, explains that there were nine kings in the Nanda dynasty who were all brothers. They took turns reigning over the kingdom during the course of twenty-two years. The first of these kings was named Ugrasena, and the last was Dhanānanda. King Dhanānanda was reigning in Magahda at the time of Alexander the Great’s invasion of northwest India in 326 BCE. As Alexander died shortly thereafter in 323 BCE in Babylon, the invasion of his armies into central India was halted.
Although the Nanda dynasty was militarily and economically powerful, the kings were not very good at governing, so the people did not support them. This fact, coupled with the disorder of the Greek invasion, made it easy for the Nanda dynasty to be overthrown. Thus, Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty was able to seize power of the region with the help of his minister Chanakya.
Chanakya himself is an important historical figure, as he was the author of the well-known text Artha-śāstra, or the Treatise on Politics. The main topic of this text is about how to govern and how to best rule a kingdom. The text has both a root text and a commentary, and the root text was translated into Tibetan and is included in the Tengyur in the section on crafts. Many historians say Chanakya composed both the root text and commentary, although there is disagreement on this point.
The advisor Chanakya and King Chandragupta worked together. Starting in northwestern India, they eliminated the Greek influence and gained control over all of India, establishing a powerful empire. Candragupta reigned for twenty-four years, after which time his son Bindusāra reigned for another twenty-eight years. Following Bindusāra, the great dharma king Aśoka ascended to the throne in 268 BCE.
There is some disagreement regarding the dates of these dynasties and the intervening time period between the Buddha’s parinirvana and King Aśoka’s reign. Sri Lankan histories state that two hundred eighteen years passed between these two events, whereas northern Buddhist traditions (primarily scriptures preserved in Chinese translations) state that just over one hundred years passed, but not two hundred years. Although several political histories exist for reference, there are many internal contradictions within them regarding the dates of the different dynasties and the names of the kings, so it is challenging to find reliable evidence. For the purposes of this talk, His Holiness Karmapa stated he will primarily be using the Sri Lankan text as a basis for discussing how the Buddhist sangha developed during this time period.
Buddhism’s Spread Within Central India After the Buddha’s Parinirvana
Some scholars state that after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the Buddhist sangha spread mostly to regions in central India but did not spread to many other regions. Here, the Buddhist sangha is mainly understood as the community of monastics, although it could include the lay community as well. In particular, Buddhism spread to the areas around the four sacred sites of the Buddha’s life. The Karmapa explained that after the Buddha passed away, his followers wanted to go on pilgrimages to these sites where the Buddha had been in order to recall him and to celebrate his life.
The four sacred pilgrimage sites include the birthplace of the Buddha in Lumbini and the site of his parinirvana in Kuśinagarī – both of these are in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. Another important location was the site of the Buddha’s enlightenment at Bodhgaya, which is in the southern part of central India. Finally, the site of Sarnath, where the Buddha first taught the Dharma, is located in the western part of the region. Buddhists would go on pilgrimage to these four sites, and this tradition gradually developed and spread. These locations are thus not only geographically central within India but they are also the central land in terms of the Dharma, as they are the hub of where the Buddha’s teachings initially spread.
It is said that Buddhism also spread further to more western and southwestern regions of India shortly after the Buddha’s parinirvana. The reason why it did not initially spread directly south of central India is because this route is blocked by the Vindhya mountain range, and it did not first spread to the east because this region was remote and very hot. The Buddhist sangha first spread to the southwest and then next to the west; it is possible it took more time to penetrate the western regions because these areas had strong ties to Brahmanical religion.
Expansion to the Southwest During the Buddha’s Lifetime
Some scholars say the Buddhist religion spread into southwestern India even during the life of the Buddha. One of the Buddha’s ten great disciples was Mahā-Kātyāyana, who was from the kingdom of Avanti. Among all the Buddha’s disciples, Mahā-Kātyāyana was especially gifted at explaining dharma teachings. After learning from the Buddha and attaining arhatship, he returned to his homeland and taught the people there.
One of Mahā-Kātyāyana’s students was a man named Śroṇa-Koṭīkarṇa, who was himself born in the region of Aparānta, which is on the west coast of India. Śroṇa-Koṭīkarṇa wanted to see the Buddha in Shravasti, so he made a plan to travel the long distance there from Avanti. As his abbot Mahā-Kātyāyana knew he was traveling to see the Buddha, he sent Śroṇa-Koṭīkarṇa with a message that included five questions to ask the Buddha about the vinaya. For example, one question asked about the material of the clothing that the Buddhist sangha could wear. In central India, the sangha was not permitted to wear clothes made of leather, but Avanti was at a higher elevation so people did often wear skins and leather. Mahā-Kātyāyana wondered if it would be permissible for the sangha to wear leather in this case, and he asked questions like this one.
While the Theravada tradition states that Śroṇa-Koṭīkarṇa was the main disciple of Mahā-Kātyāyana, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says that Śroṇa-Koṭīkarṇa was not Mahā-Kātyāyana’s disciple but was Pūrṇa’s disciple. Pūrṇa was from the region of Śūrpāraka, which is on the west coast of India near the ocean. After he achieved arhatship, Pūrṇa returned to his homeland and taught the dharma and converted many students there. In any case, whether Śroṇa-Koṭīkarṇa was the student of Mahā-Kātyāyana or Pūrṇa, these histories indicate that Buddhism had spread to the west coast of India during the Buddha’s lifetime.
Accounts of Buddhism’s Spread to Southern India
Another account indicates that Buddhism quickly spread to the southern central regions of India despite the difficulty of the Vindhya mountain range blocking the route. In the background story and verses of the Pali Pārāyana Vagga, The Chapter on the Way to the Far Shore, it says that a Brahmin named Bhāvarī lived near the upper regions of the Godavari river near the Dakshina mountains, which is in the southern part of central India. Bhāvarī had heard of the Buddha’s fame, so he sent sixteen students to study dharma with him. They left from the upper regions of the river from a city called Pratiṣṭhāna and traveled a very long way through Ujjenī and many other areas before eventually arriving in Shravasti. The trip was very challenging as travel from the southern regions was difficult.
When the sixteen students arrived, they asked the Buddha many questions and he responded; his answers were compiled in The Chapter on the Way to the Far Shore. This text is written in a very ancient form of Pali, which one can ascertain by reviewing its grammar. It is likely that this work dates from the same time as The Octet Chapter from the same section of sutras. For this reason, this work can be considered among the earliest works in the Four Āgamas.
Nevertheless, some scholars doubt whether the text is this old. They note that although the grammar and language may be very old, when the writing is compared to rock inscriptions on Aśokan pillars, it is difficult to determine which is more ancient. Therefore, they say it is far-fetched to claim the text was composed during the Buddha’s lifetime based merely on the grammar of the work. Instead, they say it is possible that the background story describing the travels of the sixteen students was added to the main part of the text at a later date, and that these introductory verses do not provide strong enough evidence by themselves to determine that the Buddha’s fame had spread that far south during his lifetime. So we must regard this as only a story at this point as it cannot be definitely determined.
In any case, there is no doubt that the sangha soon spread to the southwest after the Buddha’s parinirvana. One proof of this claim is that Aśoka’s son Mahendra was born in Ujjenī. Mahendra is known for spreading the dharma into Sri Lanka, and the dharma that he brought there appeared in the Pali language. When this language is compared to Aśokan inscriptions, it is very close to the language used on the rock edicts in Girnār. So it is clear that by the time of Aśoka, dharma had already spread widely to the southwest.
Disputes and Historical Background for Division in the Sangha
At this point, His Holiness began a discussion of difficulties that occurred in the sangha in the one hundred or two hundred years following the Buddha’s parinirvana. Referencing the work of Japanese scholar Umada Gyokei, the Karmapa explained that during this time period, there were a number of changes in the Indian political environment and to the dynasties ruling the region. His Holiness pointed out that if you think about it carefully, one hundred or two hundred years is in fact a rather long time and many changes can occur in this time frame. For instance, if we look back at the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, it seems to us it was very long ago and that much time has passed. So if we think about it from this point of view, we should not be surprised that many changes occurred in the two hundred years following the Buddha’s parinirvana.
In particular for our interest, it is valuable to note that there were many disputes and disagreements within the Buddhist sangha. These disagreements were not limited to one subject but occurred in many different areas, in terms of both view and conduct. Eventually, this situation led to the Sangha splitting into different schools.
The Karmapa next provided further details of this period leading up to the Second Council, explaining some of the changes and disagreements in the sangha that arose during this time. He started by describing the conditions that a religion needs to survive and flourish – these include a teacher of the religion, the religion itself that is taught, and followers of the religion to practice it. These three conditions are vital to the success of any religion. In Buddhism, these three conditions are fulfilled by the Buddha, his teaching as the true dharma, and the followers of dharma as the sangha – the Three Jewels.
The Three Jewels are all dependent upon one another. The Buddha is the basis, the foundation of the Three Jewels. The Dharma is the character of the Buddha’s wisdom, or prajñā, which is beyond the sphere of ordinary people. Because we have a Buddha such as this, the sangha then can have a real meaning and purpose. Without the Buddha, there is no point in there being a Sangha; but because of Buddha’s wisdom, we have a foundation for Buddhism and an aim for the teachings. We know that by practicing the teachings, we can become like Buddha too; he is someone we can take as an example.
The Buddha himself passed into parinirvana, and after he passed his followers missed him greatly and wanted to commemorate him. They knew he was a great being, and they wanted to remember him. Since they could no longer see him in person, they went to places where his relics were kept, as well as to sacred sites where the Buddha had traveled and stayed. They also relied on his instructions by practicing dharma. In these ways, they remembered the Buddha and his teachings.
In his testament, the Buddha stated that his students should consider the dharma and vinaya as their teacher, so these were the primary focus of his students after his parinirvana; it is where they placed their hope. For this reason, questions about how to practice the dharma became the most important issue in the sangha. For example, some of the subjects the sangha needed to address included the following:
- What is the best way to continue practicing and attain enlightenment?
- Because the Buddha had not always fully explained the philosophical reasoning behind his teachings, how should the sangha determine the best way to fill in the incomplete aspects of the philosophy?
To elaborate, in the Buddha’s teachings, there are some areas of philosophy that are not completely explained. This is because the Buddha emphasized practice during his lifetime; he did not emphasize philosophy. He taught for a particular time and to particular people. Noting the capabilities of his students, he taught in ways that were easy to practice. For this reason, the philosophical presentation of his teachings was not always completely clarified.
His Holiness explained this situation is the same as with the Kagyu forefathers – they often taught in ways that were easy to understand and practice, but they did not necessarily provide a complete presentation of the philosophies behind their instructions. It was the same situation with the Buddha.
- If someone has a doubt or question, how should one answer them?
- If there are disagreements or criticism from non-Buddhists or internal disagreements among Buddhists, how should one respond to these?
After the Buddha’s parinirvana, his followers greatly missed him and longed to see him. Since they could no longer see him in person, their faith and interest in the Buddha’s teachings grew stronger. However, although it led to an increase in the faith of his followers, the Buddha’s parinirvana also created a weakness in the sangha. When the Buddha was alive, he was the supreme leader and everyone relied on him. But once he was no longer present, it fell to his great disciples to lead the sangha. Because of this, the sangha was no longer as unified as before since there was no one leading figure, and therefore the harmony and unity of the sangha lessened.
Furthermore, the sangha was also spreading out geographically at this time, and there were no easy ways to communicate over large distances. As time went by, the sangha in different regions developed different customs and traditions, and eventually they developed different attitudes, philosophies, and understanding of the intent of the Buddha’s teachings. Even the robes they wore were different. Naturally, this situation led to the sangha splitting into different schools and communities.
Changes in the Sangha
Although the sangha was experiencing these tensions, there were successful strides towards unification as well. In particular, shortly after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the elder Mahākāśyapa proposed that they hold a council. This First Buddhist Council went well, and many people supported Mahākāśyapa; this shows that his basic project of unifying the sangha was successful. Because of its success, competing factions quieted down since the project had worked out well.
Contemporary scholars often say that Mahākāśyapa was rather conservative in his views. He was born into a wealthy Brahman family, and for many years he primarily carried out Hindu practices. He became a Buddhist at an older age, and when he became the Buddha’s student, he practiced a more austere form of Buddhism, perhaps due to the imprints or habits of his practicing the Brahmanical religion for years. For this reason it is often said that Mahākāśyapa was the type of person to follow the old tradition exactly as it had been first laid down. However, the situation is more complex than that, which can be observed when considering the views of the other factions present in the early sangha.
There were three other notable factions besides that of Mahākāśyapa:
- The first faction was led by those who were even more conservative, such as Elder Purāṇa. Those in this faction insisted that every single rule the Buddha made must be strictly kept without any relaxation at all.
- Next is the somewhat liberal faction, often represented by Ānanda. Ānanda believed the Buddhist sangha should follow a middle way; he pointed out that the Buddha taught it is best to give up extremes of both austerities and luxuries. Therefore, Ānanda said it would be best for the sangha to relax more minor or subtle rules according to the time and place.
- Finally, the third group included such people as Vāṣpaḥ, who was even more liberal than Ānanda. This group believed it was fine for a person to do whatever they want and that the sangha should relax the disciplines and not be so hard-headed and inflexible. The philosophy of this group could be considered as a precursor to that of the Mahāsāṃghika school.
Including Mahākāśyapa’s faction, there were four different groups in total. In fact, the people in all of these four factions were in actuality doing their best to follow the intent of the Buddha’s teachings and of the vinaya. None of them wanted to go against the Buddha’s instructions. While they had differences in their viewpoints and preferred methods, they were all the same in wanting to follow the vinaya discipline.
Among these factions, two were conservative and two were more liberal. The first two more conservative groups often sided together and became Mahākāśyapa’s faction, whereas the latter two more liberal group often sided together and became Ānanda’s faction. Later, Ānanda’s side gradually began to support Mahākāśyapa’s faction and there was a move toward reconciliation. His Holiness stated that he would speak more about this subject later.
New Questions Arose Relating to the Vinaya
The Buddha taught that when we practice the dharma, we need to follow a middle way and that we should not go too far to either extreme. Likewise, aside from the root precepts that should always be kept, the Buddha said the minor precepts could be relaxed if necessary according to the time, place, and situation. The main point to consider is if a relaxation of the discipline will harm the physical and mental situation of sentient beings, and if not, it is probably fine to relax the discipline. The reason for this is to preserve the stability of the vinaya overall and to allow people to pick and choose from the minor disciplines according to what makes a skillful practice for one’s livelihood.
In fact, shortly before the Buddha passed into parinirvana, he specially told Ānanda:
After my nirvana, the sangha should gather and relax the minor and subtle precepts.
However, Ānanda did not think to ask at that time what constitutes a minor precept. In order for the sangha to apply this instruction skillfully, more information about which precepts are minor precepts is needed. Therefore, because Ānanda did not ask, a difficulty arose in trying to implement this instruction. Mahākāśyapa later criticized Ānanda for not obtaining clarity on this point.
Nevertheless, during the First Council, the sangha discussed this issue and tried to determine which precepts were minor and subtle. Unfortunately, while these precepts could have been relaxed if there had been consensus, the arhats disagreed about what was meant by minor and subtle precepts. Since there was no consensus, Mahākāśyapa decided that it would be best not to relax any of the precepts for two reasons:
- First, he stated that if they relaxed some of the precepts, non-Buddhists would look at them and develop negative views. They would say the Buddha just passed into nirvana, and immediately his followers forgot about the minor and subtle precepts, so all the Dharma of the Buddha would die out.
- Second, Mahākāśyapa questioned if it would be right to call themselves spiritual practitioners if they only kept the four root precepts and abandoned the rest.
Since he was the leader of the sangha and presided over the council, he made the decision that the sangha should not relax any of the precepts, and that instead the sangha should follow what the Buddha taught and celebrate it. They would not make any new rules, but they would continue to follow all of the rules the Buddha had made.
Nonetheless, this alone did not mean that Mahākāśyapa’s faction was the most conservative. From one perspective, this ruling may seem conservative and rigid. Yet Mahākāśyapa did not advocate extreme adherence to the rules in actual practice. We know this because of decisions he made during the compilation of the Vinaya. During this work, Purāṇa the Elder wanted strict rules included, such as the “Eight points regarding eating” that the Buddha had taught. But Mahākāśyapa would not allow these strict rules to be included in the Vinaya.
In terms of thought, Mahākāśyapa does appear to be more conservative, but in practice he was more in accord with the liberal factions. By holding both of these positions, Mahākāśyapa was able to unite the sangha more and make it more harmonious.
Nevertheless, the sangha continued to experience further disagreements about vinaya as time went on. These disputes arose largely due to two reasons:
- First, Buddhism continued to spread into remote lands. At first, the religion was located primarily in cities in central India, but then it spread to more isolated and thus under-developed lands, which led to it encountering new difficulties.
- Second, even in older and more established Buddhist areas, new social situations and political ideas arose.
Due to these changing situations and difficulties, the sangha continued to want further review and revision of the vinaya and more flexibility in the precepts. Thus, the sangha continued to face these issues as time went on.
