Móhēsēngqí lǜ 摩訶僧祇律
The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya (commonly Sēngqí lǜ 僧祇律) by 佛陀跋陀羅 (Buddhabhadra, 譯) and 法顯 (Fǎxiǎn, 譯)
About the work
The Móhēsēngqí lǜ 摩訶僧祇律 is the complete Vinaya-piṭaka of the Mahāsāṃghika school (Mahāsāṃghika, “Great-Saṃgha-followers” — the Indian school identified by tradition as the heir of the original saṅgha-bheda of the Second Council). 摩訶僧祇 Móhēsēngqí transliterates Mahāsāṃghika. Translated at Jiànkāng’s Dàochǎngsì 道場寺 in 416–418 CE by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 (佛陀跋陀羅) and the Chinese pilgrim Faxian 法顯 (法顯), from a Sanskrit manuscript Faxian himself had brought back from Pāṭaliputra in 411. The text is in forty fascicles.
Prefaces
The text is preceded in the canon by Faxian’s own brief postscript — preserved within the Chū sānzàng jìjí (T55n2145) j. 3 — recording the source-manuscript (the original copy preserved in the Mahāsāṃghika Saṃghārāma at Pāṭaliputra) and the date (Eastern Jìn Yìxī 14, 義熙十四年, = 418). The fascicle-1 colophon reads: 東晉天竺三藏佛陀跋陀羅共法顯譯. According to the Gāosēng zhuàn (T50n2059) biographies of Faxian and Buddhabhadra, the translation took two years and was completed at the Dàochǎngsì.
Abstract
The Móhēsēngqí lǜ is uniquely important among the four Chinese Vinayas for two reasons. First, it is the only Vinaya of the Mahāsāṃghika lineage in any language preserved in Chinese; the closely related Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravāda Vinaya survives in part in Sanskrit (the Patna manuscripts; cf. Roth 1970). Second, it represents the Mahāsāṃghika nikāya, traditionally identified as the doctrinal-organisational antecedent of the Mahāyāna through the historical sequence Mahāsāṃghika → Lokottaravāda → Mahāyāna. The text is therefore a key witness for both pre-Mahāyāna sectarian Buddhism and for the institutional setting in which Mahāyāna emerged.
The structure follows the standard Vinaya pattern but with several distinctive Mahāsāṃghika features: (i) the rule-counts differ slightly from the Sthavira lines (Pāli 227, Mahāsāṃghika 218 bhikṣu rules); (ii) the skandhaka organization treats Mahāvagga- and Cullavagga-equivalent material in a different sequence; (iii) the bhikṣuṇī-vibhaṅga is an integrated section; (iv) the appended Pari-vāra-equivalent (the Lǚyí xiángpín 律儀詳品) presents distinctive Mahāsāṃghika synthetic material on monastic practice. The work was used as the principal practical Vinaya in southern China during the 5th century before the rise of the Sìfēn lǜ of the Dharmaguptakas.
The bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa was extracted as a separate text (KR6k0008, 摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本) by Faxian, and the bhikṣu-prātimokṣa as KR6k0007 (摩訶僧祇律大比丘戒本) by Buddhabhadra. Together these three texts constitute the complete Mahāsāṃghika practical Vinaya in Chinese.
Translations and research
- Hirakawa Akira 平川彰. Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns: An English Translation of the Chinese Text of the Mahāsāṃghika-Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1982. — Major partial translation.
- Roth, Gustav. Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya: Manual of Discipline for Buddhist Nuns (Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin recension). Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1970. — Sanskrit edition with comparison to the Chinese.
- Tilakaratne, Asanga. “The Mahāsāṃghikas and the Pātimokkha.” In Buddhism and the Modern Age, ed. K. Dhammapada (Colombo, 1995). — Comparative analysis of the prātimokṣa.
- Pachow, W. A Comparative Study of the Prātimokṣa. Santiniketan, 1955; reprint Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000.
- Bareau, André. Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule. Saigon: EFEO, 1955. — Classic discussion of Mahāsāṃghika doctrines.
- Lamotte, Étienne. Histoire du bouddhisme indien. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, 1958. — Substantial discussion of the Mahāsāṃghika.
- Sasaki Shizuka 佐々木閑. “Buddhist Sects in the Aśoka Period.” Bukkyō kenkyū 18 (1989) and subsequent articles. — Re-evaluation of the schism narratives drawing on the Móhēsēngqí lǜ.
Other points of interest
The Mahāsāṃghika schism-narrative in this text differs significantly from the Theravāda Cullavagga account: it does not identify the “ten points” of Vaiśālī as the cause of the Sthavira-Mahāsāṃghika split, and it emphasises a doctrinal rather than disciplinary disagreement. This narrative has been extensively analysed (Bareau, Lamotte, Sasaki) for its bearing on the historical-textual reconstruction of the early schisms. The text also includes (j. 32) the famous narrative of Mahādeva’s five points — the doctrinal positions traditionally identified with the Mahāsāṃghika — making it one of the principal primary sources for the doctrinal divergence between Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika lineages.
Links
- CBETA T22n1425
- Wikipedia (English)
- 佛陀跋陀羅 DILA
- 法顯 DILA
- Dazangthings date evidence (415): [ Chen 2014 ] Chen, Jinhua. “From Central Asia to Southern China: The Formation of Identity and Network in the Meditative Traditions of the Fifth—Sixth Century Southern China (420—589).” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 7, no. 2 (2014): 171–202. 173 n. 2 (source)
- Kanseki DB