The Early Development of the Schools of Hinayana

Shakyamuni Buddha was born into a royal family as Prince Gautama near the present-day border between India and Nepal. As a youth, he was sheltered from all sufferings. But upon see­ing a sick person, an old man and a corpse, he renounced his pri­vileged life, his wife and son, and went off to seek the solu­tion to all suffering. After six years of intensive asce­tic practices, the prince realized that the path to liber­ation lie not in punishing the body, but in following a middle path. He meditated further under the bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya and demonstrated his en­lightenment at the age of thirty-five. He then traveled and taught for the next forty-five years, until he passed away at the age of eighty-one.

Many of Buddha’s first male disciples became celibate monks. They formed several mendicant communities, at first without any fixed abode. In accor­dance with situations that arose, Buddha made various rules of dis­cipline for these in­tent com­munities (saṅgha). Soon, he began the custom of the members of the community gathering four times a month to recite the rules and individually confess any infractions. This was later re­duced to twice a month. 

Within twenty years of his enlighten­ment, Buddha began the custom of the monks residing in one fixed place during the three-month rainy season so as to avoid dama­ging crops while wandering about when the roads were im­pass­able. This custom led to the construction of buildings and the beginning of the establishment of permanent monasteries. It is unclear how far this trend went during the lifetime of the Buddha.

Several years before passing away, Buddha admitted women to his order. The first nun was his aunt, Mahaprajapati. At first the Buddha was hesitant to ordain women. To do so would be a revolutionary step for his times. He felt that society might disapprove and consequently that his order would come to a premature end. Overcoming his hesitancy, Buddha promulgated addi­tional rules of discipline for the nuns so as to avoid critic­ism and suspicion as much as possible.

[See: Conference Report on Bhikshuni Ordination Lineages]

Buddha taught extensively while he was present on this earth. No­thing, however, was written down during his lifetime. A few months after Buddha passed away, five hundred of his disciples gathered to confirm orally what the Buddha had taught. This became know as the First Bud­dhist Council. At this occasion, dis­ciples recited from memory the scr­ip­tural expo­sitions they had heard. 

Al­though this first group of texts, known as the Tripiṭaka or Three Baskets, was reci­ted and au­thoritative­ly settled upon at this early time, it was not written down until much later. The Pali Theravada canon, for instance, of was only put into writing in the early first century BCE in Sri Lanka. The oldest written Gandharan versions of the teachings were likewise made in present-day northern Pakistan only in the first century BCE, and these included Mahayana texts such as the 8000-Verse Prajnaparamita Sutra. This delay oc­curred because at that time the written lan­guage was used only for commercial or adminis­trative purposes, and never for study or teach­ing. The texts were preserved by memo­riza­tion, with dif­ferent groups within the mona­steries responsible for recit­ing speci­fic texts.

Not all the teachings Buddha gave were transmitted orally in an open fashion like this. Some were considered more suited for later times and were passed down orally through genera­tions of teachers and disciples in a more private manner. Cri­ti­cism has sometimes been directed at these teachings of the Buddha that appeared publicly only much later in history. They are accu­sed of being inauthentic, and some peo­ple claim that only early Buddhism is the actual words of the Buddha. They say the later traditions are inauthen­tic because their teach­ings are based on an oral tradition. This is not a valid ground for objection, however, since it equally applies to the early teachings. They too were not put in writing by the Bud­dha and were likewise passed on by an oral tradition.

Furthermore, the fact that the different texts of the Bud­dha have been writ­ten down in various languages and sty­les also does not negate their authen­ticity. Firstly, Buddha taught in a collo­quial Prakrit tongue, not in the Pali or Gandharan lan­guages. Therefore, any objec­tions levelled against the later Sanskrit and hybrid Sanskrit texts could also be made against the Pali and Gandharan. Sec­ondly, Buddha himself said his teachings should be pre­served in the language and style that are cur­rent and fitting with soci­ety. The em­pha­sis should always be on the mean­ing and not the word­s.

The set of teachings, transmitted orally in public and eventually written down in Pali, forms the basis for the Hinayana system. Through various minor doctrinal dif­ferences, it split into eigh­teen schools, many of which transmitted slightly variant ver­sions of the texts in different Indian languages. The Thera­vada school, for in­stance, which passed to Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, trans­mitted its teach­ings in Pali, whereas the Sarvastivada, which spread throughout Cen­tral Asia, used San­skrit.

Hinayana, as a general term for all eighteen of these tra­ditions, means a “Modest Vehicl­e.” It has usually been trans­lated as “Lesser Vehicle,” but there is no need for a word with a deroga­tory connotation. “Vehicle” means a vehic­le of mind – a way of thinking, feeling, communicating and acting that brings one to a goal – and also the teachings that dis­cuss this. It is “modest” since it presents techniques for those aiming for a mo­dest goal, not the high­est one. It is for those who work to overcome their own problems. Al­though these people have love and compassion for others, yet if they were pushed to work to help solve everyone’s prob­lems, they would find it overwhelming and would become dis­couraged. There­fore, ra­ther than aim to become a Buddha, they strive to become a liberated being, an arhat.

Buddha taught there would be a thousand Buddhas­ during the current world age. Those who will become one of these Buddhas must follow the path of a bodhi­sat­tva, name­ly the path of those total­ly dedicated to help­ing others and to becoming a Buddha in order to be able to do this most effec­tively. From a Hina­yana point of view, Buddha explained that since all thou­sand places are al­ready taken, it is not practi­cal to work to become a Bud­dha in this current world age. Instead, it is recommended to work for what is actual­ly feasi­ble, name­ly to become a liberated being.

Furthermore, in the Hinayana system Buddha taught that when one achieves nirvaṇa, or liberation from one’s external and internal problems, then when one dies, the con­tinuity of one’s mental continuum comes to an end like a candle going out. This des­crip­tion helps those who are modest in their goals not to be overwhelmed at the prospect of their mental continuum continuing forever, but to feel that there can be a final end to their suffering. With this reassurance, they would enthusiastically follow this Hina­yana path.

The Hinayana description of liberation is parallel, though different from the other traditional Indian views. In both Brahmanism and Jainism, after attaining libera­tion, one be­comes a “living freed soul.” At death, such a person merges with Brahma, ac­cording to Brahmanism, and so ceases to be an individual. Ac­cording to Jainism, he or she separates from all connection with the world and rises in omniscience to the top of the cosmic woman. The Hinayana view that the continuity of the per­son simply ceases after death fits into this Indian con­text. All three Indian systems assert a total break from form­er, individual existence in the world.

In the Mahayana or “Vast Vehicle” system trans­mitted orally in a more hidden fashion and then written down later, Buddha also asser­ted that there would be a thousand Buddhas during this world age. But these are only the ones who will start univer­sal Buddhist reli­gions. In addition to these thousand, there will be many other Buddhas who will not foun­d such reli­gions, and it is possible to become one of them. So, for those who are more vast-minded, Buddha taught the way to become a Buddha, an enlightened being. This involves not only overcom­ing all one’s own prob­lems, but surmounting all one’s limita­tions as well and rea­lizing all one’s potentials in order to be able to help others most effectively.

Buddha also explained that previously, when he had said the mental continuum of liberated beings ends when they die, what he actually meant was that after achieving nirvana, the quality of the continuity of their mental continuum changes. Its previ­ous manner comes to an end. In fact, the mental continuum goes on for­ever, and one can continue help­ing oth­ers without end. Al­though after death, the mental continuum of liberated beings might conti­nue in a peaceful pure realm, such persons must not suc­cumb to the extreme of isolated apathy. Eventually they must rouse themselves and reengage in the world. They must work on to become a Buddha for the benefit of all. Buddha’s message seems to have been aimed as well at those who would seek the isola­ted state of liberation of the Brahmanists or Jains.

In these Hinayana teachings are found the fundamental aspects accepted in the Mahayana as well. These teachings shared in com­mon concern karma, the laws of cause and effect, and the rules of ethical self-discipline, in­cluding the monas­tic rules of discipline for monks and nuns. They also include the analy­sis of the workings of the mind and emotions, imper­manence, interdependence and the methods to deve­lop concen­tration and the dis­criminating awareness to cut through confu­sion and see reality.

The teachings of Hinayana also cover methods for developing love and com­passion. All teachings of the Buddha include love and compassion. Love is the wish for others to be happy, while compas­sion is the wish for others to be free from their prob­lems. Mahayana develops these two attitudes further and adds taking responsibility to help others, not just wishing them well. But with all one’s present limita­tions, one is not able now to help others the fullest. Therefore, Maha­yana stresses the impor­tance of expanding one’s heart with bodhichit­ta. Bodhi­chitta is a heartfelt attitude that is set on becoming a Buddha, in other words a heart set on overcoming all one’s limitations and realizing all one’s potentials in order to be of best help to everyone.

When one hears that Hinayana is a “Lower Vehicle” and Maha­yana an “Upper,” one must understand this, then, according to the analogy of a two-storied building. Although the ground floor may be called the lower storey, this is not a denigra­tion of it in any way. Just as a lower storey is the support upon which an upper storey rests, likewise the Hinayana teach­ings are the essential foundation for the Mahayana.

The eighteen lineages of Hinayana emerged, mostly in India, over a period of several centu­ries. A number of them can be seen historically as forming a gradual transition to Mahayana. As the times change­d, different aspects of Bud­dha’s teac­hings became more ap­propriate for different groups of dis­ciples. At first, the attainment of arhatship was empha­sized, and this state was exalted. However, as people became more receptive to vaster goals, Buddha’s inten­tion gradually surfaced that ar­hats still have shortcom­ings and that the at­tainment of Bud­dhahood far sur­passes that of arhatship. Over time, the en­lightened state of a Buddha was described as being more transc­endent and yet more accessible. The monas­tic com­munity split several time­s, and the individu­als could fol­low whichev­er aspect of the teach­ings suited them. The early his­tory of Indian Buddhism entails several councils at which these alter­native views were crys­tallized.

The First Buddhist Council, held at Rajagriha a few months after the Buddha passed away, con­firmed Buddha’s teachings. It organized them into an oral Tripiṭaka or Three Baskets. These three groupings are (1) vina­ya, the rules of monastic and lay disci­pline, (2) sutra, them­es of practice, and (3) abhidharma, special topics of knowle­dge, such as of the struc­ture of the universe.

A Second Buddhist Council was convened at Vaisha­li. The Vaishali monks were receiv­ing of­fer­ings of gold, silver and money from the lay com­munity, and this was chal­lenged as being against the monastic rules. After much debate, it was settled against the custom of ac­cepting gold. The seven hundred monks of the assembly then recited the Vinaya Piṭaka for recon­firmation of the purity of the texts. Accord­ing to some ver­sions, they also recited the rest of the scrip­tures.

The first division in the monastic community occurred after that. Accor­ding to some Theravada texts, the offending monks at Vaisha­li were not ap­peased by the Se­cond Council’s deci­sion. They held their own recitation of the texts in which they altered some of the monastic rules so as to have more liberal ethics. The Theravadins claim that this be­came the basis for the Mahasan­ghika school of Hinayana­. This seems quite unlikely, however, because the Mahasanghika vinaya itself agrees with the deci­sion that monks should not accept gold. The split arose, instead, at a meet­ing in Patal­iputra over a doctrinal dispute concerning the nature of an arhat.

The points for debate were whether a liberated being can (1) be sedu­ced in an erotic dream and have nocturnal emission, (2) be ignorant of some matters, (3) have doubts, (4) receive infor­mation and instruction from someone else, and (5) enter one of the spirit­ual paths as a result of merely spoken words. The majority agreed that an arhat could have all these limita­tions, while the elders dis­agreed. The elders con­ceded that an arhat might not know such tri­vial things as directions while traveling and everyone’s name, could receive infor­mation on such matters from others, could possi­bly have doubts about his own attainment and could achieve certain spiritual paths through right speech. But they would not com­pro­mise about the issue of an arhat’s possibly being seduced in a dream. 

The elders main­tained a very lofty ideal of the arhat, who was all-know­ing on points relat­ing to the Buddhist teach­ings. They asser­ted that a liberated being cannot relapse and was defi­nitely rid of all dis­turbing at­titudes such as erotic desire that could cause sedu­ction in a dream. The ma­jority, on the other hand, felt that an arhat’s knowled­ge and attain­ment were much more limited. 

This majority faction split off and became the Mahasanghika school of Hinayana. The elders became known as the Sthavira­vada (Pali: Theravāda) School. Mahasanghika makes a clear di­stinction, then, be­tween the attainment of an arhat and that of a Buddha, with Buddha­hood being much loftier and more dif­ficult to attain. In so doing, it was the first group to bring to the surface one of Buddha’s Mahayana inten­tions. Western scholars therefore consi­der it the foreru­nner of the Maha­yana schools that emerged much later. 

The fully developed Mahayana position on arhatship is seen with the Madhyamaka-Prasa­ngika scho­ol. It explains that an arhat has rid himself of all dis­turbing at­titudes and their tenden­cies. Yet be­cause he is still not free from the in­stincts built up by his previous destruc­tive ac­tions, he could still be subject to noc­turnal emission.

Al­though followers of Theravada and Mahasanghika were found in various re­gions, the Maha­sanghikas tend­ed to be concen­trated more in the eastern part of North India and furt­her south in Andhra. They also had a considerable following in modern-day cen­tral Af­ghanistan. The Theravadins were con­centra­ted more in the west­ern part of North In­dia, later movi­ng south and final­ly to Sri Lanka.

King Ashoka, who ruled the Maurya Empire of northern India from 268 to 232 BCE, was one of the great­est patr­ons of Bud­dhism of all times. Early in his career, his armies conquered Kalinga, a kingdom in the modern-day eastern Indian region of Orissa. It was a brutal campaign, with hun­dreds of thousands of people slain and taken as slaves. Having become a Buddhist prior to this event, Ashoka repented the violence of this conquest and set about promoting Buddhist principles in his empire. 

King Ashoka issued many edicts carved on stone pillars instruct­ing his subjects to honor their parents, respect spi­ri­tual teachers, be compassionate towards all living be­ings and speak the truth. He declared throughout his conquered lands a rule of peace and jus­tice, rather than of violence and force. He disavowed war and granted amnesty to many prisoners. He for­bade animal sacrifice and restricted the slaugh­ter of anim­als for food. He established free medical dis­pensa­ries, had public wells dug and improved the road system. He recom­mended kind­ness towards servants, genero­sity to the poor and simplic­ity of lifestyle. He advocated tolerance of all religi­ous tradi­tions and patron­ized the mona­stic institu­tions of various faiths. Al­though he founded no schools, he encour­aged religio­us teach­ers to spread their word. 

Through his missions, the Theravada School was propagated throu­gh­out the Maurya Empire and beyond, to Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Bur­ma), Nepal, Kashmir, Gandhara in pre­sent-day central Paki­stan, and Oddiyana (Tibetan: o-rgyan) in modern-day northwestern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan. In fact, in 255 BCE, Asho­ka sent Buddhist emis­sar­ies to the Greek rulers of Syria, Egypt and Mace­donia, as well as to the Tamils of South India.

During Ashoka’s rule, then, the principles of good govern­ment taught by the Buddha were put to the test. Buddhism never devel­oped a systematic code of laws as in the Biblical religi­ons. But its humanitarian guidelines of non-violence and hon­esty were meant to be applied to individual circumstances with skillful means. These guidelines were found in both the Hinaya­na and Mahayana teachings.

Near the end of Ashoka’s rule, around 237 BCE, the Sar­vas­tivada school broke away from the Theravada. The Therava­dins do not record this as a schism, but just men­tion that a group of non-Buddhists were expelled from the community for holding distorted, antagonistic views. They say this occurred at a third great con­vening of monks held at Patalipu­tra to recite the Tripiṭaka and recon­firm the ortho­doxy of Thera­vada. They predate this twenty years earlier to just be­fore their tradi­tion was brought to Sri Lanka and call it the Third Buddhist Coun­cil. The occurrence of such a council is not confirmed in the re­cords of any of the other Hinayana traditions.

The Sarvastivada position is that everything exists, namely all phenomenon of the past, present and future. Forms change, being dependent arisings, but the atoms they are made of are eternal. Not only the Theravada, but also the Maha­sanghika school disagrees. Both assert that only pre­sent phe­nom­ena exist as well as those past events that have not yet prod­uced their results, since they are still phenomena capable of per­forming a function. Con­cerning the attainment of arhats, how­ever, the Sarvastivada agrees with the Mahasanghika posi­tion that they have limitations. 

The Sarvastivada monastic community left the western part of North India and settled in Kashmir and Gandhara, which then became its stronghold. During this period, the Mahasanghika community in the east, south­east and far northwest under­went various splits. In Sri Lanka, Theravada even­tu­ally also divi­ded into several schools. In later times, Sarvastivada spread mostly to Cen­tral Asia and China.

In approximately 190 BCE, the Dharmaguptaka school also emerged from the Theravada of western India. Although Dharmaguptaka agrees with the basic Ther­avada position that an arhat can­not relapse and cannot be seduced in dreams, it tends slightly towards the Mahasanghika eleva­ted view of the Buddha. Dharmaguptaka says it is more im­portant to make offerings to the Buddha than to the monastic community, and it emphasizes hon­oring stupa monuments and temples. It adds to the Tri­piṭa­ka a fourth basic category of scriptures, the Dhāraṇī Piṭaka or Basket of Vital Formulae. It also was the first school to propagate sutras concerning the extensive deeds of the Buddha. The emergence of Dharmaguptaka coincides with a change in the times. The Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gītā, was first ap­pear­ing as people were receptive to a devo­tional path directed towards a heroic spiritual figure. The chanting of dhāraṇīs skillfully fit in with a society that was now open to chanting formula praises to Krishna. For these reasons, Dharmaguptaka can be con­sidered a pre­cursor of the more devo­tional as­pects of Maha­yana.

The Dharmaguptaka school first established itself in the area of modern-day western India and south­ern Paki­stan. From there it spread to Oddiyana in present northwest­ern Paki­stan and northeast­ern Afghanistan. But espe­cially it went to the east­ern areas of the Par­thian Em­pire, in modern-day Baluc­hi­stan, east­ern Iran and Turk­menia. The Dharmaguptaka lineage of monks’ and nuns’ vows observed in China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam derives from Par­thia.

In approximately 100 CE, towards the end of the reign of another great patron of Buddhism, King Ka­nishka of the Kushan Dynasty, a Four­th Buddhist Council was held. Some scholars say this was at Purushapura, modern-day Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan. Some say it was near Srinagar in Kashmir.

Two systems of philosophi­cal explanations had been develop­ing within the Sar­vastivada school: Vaibhashika and Sautranti­ka. The proto-Sau­tran­tika trend, under the name Drstantaka, developed in Gandhara, especially at Takshashila (Taxila) University. The Fourth Buddhist Council, held in Kashmir in the mid-second century CE, rejected the Drstantaka version of the abhidharma teachings of special topics of knowledge. Instead, they systemized the Sarvastivadin abhidharma and compiled them in the Mahāvibhāṣā, which they wrote down in Sanskrit to counter the growing trend of texts written in Gandharan. As a result of this council, the Sar­vastivada Tripi­ṭaka was writ­ten down, to­tally in San­skrit, with the lan­guage and ter­minol­ogy stan­dar­dized. The Vaibhashikas are those who follow the Mahāvibhāṣā. Vaibhashika was codified in the texts by Vasubandhu in the late fourth century CE. Sautrantika was codified in the texts of Kumaralata in the third century CE. 

It should be noted that the Vaib­hashika and Sautr­antika systems of philosophical tenets, studied centuries later at the Indian and Tibetan mona­stic universities, developed sole­ly within the con­text of the Hina­ya­na Sar­vas­tivada school. These two systems do not appear in the Thera­vada tra­di­tion of Sri Lanka and Sout­heast Asia. 

Vaibhashika and Sautrantika differ on several philoso­phical issues. Vaibhashika asserts that since all existent pheno­m­ena can be known, they substantially exist and can per­form at least the minimal function of causing the perception of them. Sautrantika differentiates between objective entities, such as a vase one sees, and metaphysical ones, such as the semblance of a vase appearing to a mind thinking about one. Both objec­tive and metaphysical objects truly exist, but the latter are not substantial. They can only be objects of mind consciousness.

This differentiation made in Sautrantika is a forerunner of the Mahayana presentations of voidness. The Hinayana schoo­ls only discuss how persons lack a permanent, substantially exis­tent identity. The Mahayana schools, on the other hand, assert that all phenomena lack true, independent identities. As the times changed in India, people became more interested in is­sues concerning the reality of not only themselves, but of all existence around them. The Samkhya system of Brahmanic thought was emerging, with its elaborate analysis of the fac­tors of reality. The emergence of philosophical schools within Sarvas­tivada fit in skillfully with the concerns of the times. 

Between the fourth and fifth centuries CE, Mulasarvasti­vada also branched off from the Sarvastivada school. Its tra­di­tion of vinaya rules of monastic discipline were trans­mitted from Kash­mir to Tibet, and from there throughout the Tibetan cul­tural areas of Central Asia.

During the first thousand years after Buddha Shakyamuni, the cultural milieu in India developed and changed. Buddhism did not remain a monolithic religion. It responded to the times and met the needs of the people. The emergence of the eighteen schools of Hinayana must be understood in this con­text.

Buddha taught many systems of thought, both Hinayana and Mahayana. The Mahayana was transmitted more privately and did not surface all at once. As society became more receptive, certain precursor ideas to Mahayana appeared in a spec­trum of Hinayana schools. First, with Mahasanghika, arhats were seen as still having faults. This opened the way to a more exalted view of Bud­dhas. With King Ashoka, the social aspects of Bud­dhism became prominent and were put to a practical test with his policies of state. Sarvastivada led the way for more ex­tensive philosophi­cal analysis. Its offshoots of Vaibhashika and Sau­trantika provided steppingstones for reaching the Mahayana teachings on the voidness of all phenomena. Dharmaguptaka opened the way for devotional practices aimed at Buddhas who performed extensive deeds. In the next chapter, we shall examine the stages through which Mahayana itself appeared in India.