Mahāsāṃghika and Mahāyāna: An Analysis of Faxian and the Translation of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya (Chin. Mohe Sengqi Lü )

: Faxian’s purpose in going to India in search of the Dharma was to bring back the material missing from the Vinaya canon. He brought back three Vinaya texts to China in total, namely, the Mohe sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 [ Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya ] (hereafter abbreviated to Sengqi lü ), the Sapoduozhong lü chao 薩婆多眾律抄 [Annota-tion to the Sarvāstivādin Vinaya] and the Mishasai wufen lü 彌沙塞 五分律 [Five-Part Vinaya of the Mahīśāsaka School] (hereafter abbreviated as Wufen lü ), respectively. Why did he choose to translate the Sengqi lü ? Did it have something to do with the features of Sectarian Buddhist thought? Was it related to Buddhist thought of the time? This article raises and attempts tentative answers to these questions.


Introduction
T he beginning of the Faxian zhuan 法顯傳 [Account of Faxian] states, 'In the past, Faxian was in Chang'an and lamented that there was material missing from the Vinaya canon.' 1 This statement reveals his purpose for travelling to India. The scriptures which he translated after returning to China have had a far-reaching impact. Among them, the Buddha nature doctrine in the Da bannihuan jing 大般泥洹經  There have been many studies on Faxian. In terms of scripture translation, he was recognised as an essential middleman in disseminating Sanskrit scriptures to Chinese Buddhism. Jin Shenghe 靳 生禾 indicates in his 1981 article that there are three noteworthy points related to this. First, there were no important Vinaya texts in China at the time. Second, Sanskrit texts were held as authoritative from Faxian's time onwards, as opposed to the Central Asian texts held previously. Third, Faxian made written records of many orally transmitted scriptures. 4 The 1985 work, Zhongguo fojiao shi 中國 佛教史 [A History of Chinese Buddhism], edited by Ren Jiyu 任繼 愈 et al., contains a section discussing the purpose and experience of Faxian's travels to India in search of the Dharma, as well as the scriptures that he translated. 5 In Zhang Fenglei's 張風雷 2005 paper, the author proposes that the translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra brought back by Faxian directly promoted the integration of Mahāyāna Prajñāpāramitā and Parinirvāṇa studies by Zhu Daosheng 竺道生 (355-434) and others. This in turn laid down the foundational theoretical framework for the development of the entirety of subsequent Chinese Buddhist thought. This was of important and epoch-making significance in the history of the development of Chinese Buddhist thought. 6 Jiang Daren 降大任 argues in his 2008 article that Faxian's translations marked the beginning of the in seven thousand verses, the Sapoduozhong lü, which was practiced by the monastic community in this land of Qin. It was also orally transmitted from master to disciple, and not written down as a text. 法顯本求戒律 end of translating scriptures from Central Asian sources for use in Chinese Buddhism. The direct injection of Indian Buddhist culture strengthened Chinese Buddhism in terms of its systematisation and completeness. 7 Dong Yonggang 董永剛 opines in his 2010 paper that the Vinaya texts brought back by Faxian helped to further complete Chinese Vinaya studies and played a vital role in the construction of monastic precepts and discipline in China. 8 Wen Jinyu 溫金玉 presented a paper in the same year, where he examined the purpose and significance of Faxian's travel to India in search of the Dharma, as well as the state of monastic precepts and discipline in China at the time. 9 In his 2013 paper, Wang Bangwei 王邦維 discussed the state of the transmission of monastic precepts and discipline in China before Faxian's journey to India and after he brought the scriptures back, as well as studied details concerning the transmission of the Sengqi lü and Wufen lü in China. 10 Furthermore, being an early translation, the Sengqi lü has been regarded as a valuable philological source, and many in the field have paid due attention to its linguistic value. 11 In addition, there have been studies focusing on features found in the Sengqi lü. Long Yan 龍延 and Chen Kaiyong 陳開勇 published their 2001 paper from a literary perspective, in which they examined the literary value of the Sengqi lü. 12 Long Yan further examined this in his 2003 paper, commenting that the Sengqi lü contains more stories of the Buddha's past lives, and although the accounts found in the various Vinaya texts are essentially the same, descriptions from the Sengqi lü are more concise and vivid. 13 The above-mentioned studies indicate that Faxian's historical contributions and significance have been positively recognised by scholars. These studies also provide a solid basis for the present paper to further study in detail Faxian's translation activities and his reasons for doing these translations.   The Vinaya texts he obtained were translated, but were unable to be completely accurate. Arriving in Jiangnan, he then discussed and edited them with the Indian meditation master Buddhabhadra. It was the Sengqi lü which was the most complete, and which was received and is upheld by śramaṇas of the present day. Buddhabhadra played an important role in the evaluation of monastic precepts and disciple. Looking at accounts of his life, one story in particular stands out that makes his evaluation very interesting. Buddhabhadra was expelled from Kumārajīva's Sangha in Chang'an around 410 or 411 CE, and there are many theories concerning his expulsion. Kohō Chisan 孤峰智璨 thought that there was opposition between the two of them. Lü Cheng 呂澂 proposed that there was conflict between their respective disciples. Tang Yongtong further argued that it was not only due to their disciples but also differences in their theories. 18 Liu Xuejun 劉學軍 suggested that relevant factors include the struggle between imperial and monastic power. 19 Buddhabhadra should have seen the completed translation of the Shisong lü in 409. If it was true that his theories were different to Kumārajīva's, then it would be reasonable to conclude that Buddhabhadra considered the Shisong lü incomplete. The Gaoseng Faxian zhuan states, 'the Sapoduozhong lü was practiced by the monastic community in this land of Qin'. 20 Gaoseng Faxian zhuan was composed after Faxian had returned to China. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 [Biographies of Eminent Monks] records that the bearer of the Shisong lü, Puṇyatara, 'entered the central area in his travels during the middle of the Hongshi period of the pseudo-Qin'. 21  Regardless of which record we accept, it is evident that the Shisong lü, Sifen lü and Wufen lü came from the same line of transmission and that their differences are subtle. The sectarian basis of these three Vinaya texts is the Sarvāstivāda, which held the position that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas really exist. 27 The Mahīśāsaka held the position that 'past and future dharmas are not existent, while present and unconditioned dharmas are existent'. 28 Daoxuan 道宣 (596-667) states in his commentary that, 'Those who do not construct the sign of earth, or the signs of water, fire, wind, or the signs of space or consciousness, are called the Mahīśāsaka. It means non-attachment to contemplation of existents or non-existents.' 29 They focused more on the practice of contemplative methods. Although the Dharmagupta held the position that all dharmas 26  Answer: This matter should be given an analytical answer. In terms of being liberated from afflictions, there is no difference. Because of this liberation they enter into nirvāṇa without any remainder. With respect to this there is also no difference, as there is no characteristic. However, the buddhas are liberated from the profound obstructions to dhyāna, and liberated from the obstructions to all dharmas, which is different from the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. This cannot be fully described, and they are indescribable by any metaphor.   compared the Sengqi lü with other Vinaya texts from the Sthavira tradition by conducting a comprehensive analysis of their compositional structure and content. He concluded that the most prominent feature of the Sengqi lü is that, unlike the Sifen lü, Wufen lü and Shifen lü, it contains a large amount of scriptural quotations and past life stories of the Buddha. Hence, the Sengqi lü is more interesting and engaging to read than the others. Long Yan comments that descriptions of the accounts in the Sengqi lü are more concise and vivid in comparison to the Sifen lü. 34 It is clear that by having more narrative content and less admonishing sermons, the Sengqi lü was more easily accepted by the Chinese monastics. In her article on the Sengqi lü, Longlian 隆蓮 (1909Longlian 隆蓮 ( -2006 mentioned that this Vinaya text was upheld by the Mahāsāṃghika, and its Dharma teachings are the same as that of the Mahāsāṃghika point of view. Its content has the same flavour of the Mahāyāna sūtras and reflects the nascent formation of the Mahāyāna Dharma teachings. 35 In terms of what is permitted and prohibited in the monastic precepts and discipline, the Sengqi lü is clearly more lenient.
From the perspective of examining the features of sectarian Buddhism, in contrast with the other three Vinaya texts, the Sengqi lü has a closer association with the Mahāyāna, is more literary, is more lenient in terms of what is permitted and prohibited in the monastic precepts and discipline, and was more easily accepted by Chinese monastics. These should be the reasons why Faxian regarded the Sengqi lü as the more complete text.

Teaching according to Circumstances: The Transmission and Practice of Chinese Monastic Precepts and Discipline
The above section briefly discussed the sectarian affiliations of each of the In order to explain them, the propagation and transmission of monastic precepts and discipline required mutually compatible scriptural thought. For instance, when Daoxuan was propagating the The Biqiuni dajie, in one fascicle. One text in the right is of one fascicle. Sifen lü, he adopted the 'Consciousness-Only Perfect Teaching' (唯 實圓教) viewpoint to explain the contents in the Vinaya texts, resolving various problems found in the Vinaya texts. What was the trend of Chinese Buddhist thought at the time?
At that time in China, there were two main Buddhist groups in the Later Qin and Eastern Jin. Kumārajīva (344-413) established the Xiaoyao yuan 逍遙園 in the Later Qin for translating scriptures, disseminating Mahāyāna Prajñāpāramitā studies and propagating Nāgārjuna's Madyamaka doctrine. Before Kumārajīva, Prajñāpāramitā studies had already started to flourish in China, forming the 'six houses and seven schools.' Kumārajīva 'brought about new systems of interpretation and arguments for doctrines, such as dharmas being empty of nature'. 41 This established a solid foundation for later Chinese Buddhism. Through society, profound discussions were a popular trend, and Prajñāpāramitā studies developed rapidly and also brought up many questions. These questions can be seen from a series of letters exchanged between Huiyuan 慧 遠 (334-416) and Kumārajīva: Huiyuan consulted Kumārajīva on issues relating to nirvāṇa, such as the dharma body, dharma nature and so on. However, it was clear that Kumārajīva's replies did not satisfy Huiyuan. 42  During the time when the doctrine of emptiness of nature in the Prajñāpāramitā was so prominent, the Shisong lü, a Vinaya that tends towards real existence in the three periods of time, was clearly incompatible with Chinese thought. Meanwhile in the land of Jin, what were Huiyuan and others' viewpoints on the monastic precepts and discipline? Qu Dacheng 屈大成 points out that Huiyuan 'understood the spirit and essence of the monastic precepts and discipline, not only in regulating behaviour and speech, but also benefiting practice. Hence, he responded to disciples' questions by inferring from this principle.' 46 Huiyuan's view on monastic precepts and discipline should have mainly been based on actual practices, rather than being confined by the letter of the precepts alone. What standards did Huiyuan use for his practice of the monastic precepts and discipline?
In the early Eastern Jin, monks specialising in meditation, like Zhu Sengxian 竺僧顯 (222?-321), Zhu Tanyou 竺曇猷 (285?-383), Zhi Tanlan 支曇蘭 (341-423) and others, fled to the south to avoid warfare, and began disseminating meditation teachings in the south. 47  many questions raised by Chinese monastics, and under such circumstances Nirvāṇa Sūtra studies grew rapidly. Huiyuan was the chief among the group of eminent monks who tended towards the practice of meditation. In comparison with other Vinaya texts, the Sengqi lü had already been transmitted to China, and was also more practical. These should be why Faxian said that it was 'upheld by śramaṇas of the present day.'

Conclusion
Faxian chose to translate the Sengqi lü instead of the other two Vinaya texts because, in comparison to the other two, it had distinct Mahāyāna qualities. The Sapoduo lü chao was a Vinaya text belonging to the Sarvāstivāda school, which holds the position of real existence in the three periods of time. This was clearly incompatible with the Prajñāpāramitā studies trend at the time. Furthermore, Kumārajīva and others had already fully translated the Shisong lü. Therefore, Faxian gave up the opportunity of translating the Sapoduo lü chao. Looking at the transmission of monastic precepts and discipline in China, the Sengqi lü was implemented early on, and was more easily accepted by the Chinese than the Wufen lü. Buddhabhadra and Huiyuan's emphasis on practicality was an important factor in Faxian's choice to translate the Sengqi lü. All in all, Faxian's choice of translating the Sengqi lü instead of the Wufen lü was based upon the transmission of Buddhism at the time and the emphasis on practice, therefore he chose a more practical Vinaya, the Sengqi lü. This Vinaya was disseminated widely before the early Tang dynasty. It also reflected the characteristics of Chinese Buddhism at the time, when monastic precepts and discipline were initially transmitted, by not being confined to complex terminology and taking practicality as the primary criterion.