Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Lecture 01

A Brief History of the Theravada Tradition

From the Buddha till the Establishment of the Mahāvihāra

As for all Buddhist Traditions, the Buddha Gotama (Skt: Gautama), the founder of the
religion or, as some interpret, the philosophical thought known as Buddhism, discerned the verity
of conditioned and unconditioned phenomenon in a full moon day of Vesāka (in present day in the
month May) under the Bodhi tree at Gaya, India. With this understanding, he attained the
deliverance (Pali: Nibbāna) from the suffering of repeatedly being born and dying. Driven by great
compassion, he then after, eagerly expounded his new findings to a society which was seeing a
gradual rising in the number of its spiritual-seekers. Literature (of all Buddhist sects) states that
his mission was at success. His discourses made a potent but benign influence to the lives of many
who gave ear to them. As a result, numerous males and females, swayed by his speeches,
representing all social hierarchies joined around him as devoted followers. Some even abandoned
the household life in favour of the ideal of a mendicant’s life and fully dedicated themselves to the
noble course of realising the verity discovered by their Master (Buddha). These disciples, both lay
(gahaṭṭha) and ascetic (pabbajita) alike, were referred as sāvakas (literary meaning ‘listeners’).
The Buddha’s main objective was to enlighten his sāvakas into the knowledge he realised under
the Bodhi tree at Gaya. Preaching was the mode of instrument he adopted in doing so, which was
the only effective mean of education still known to that society. In addition to listening the master’s
regular teachings, disciples had to spiritually train themselves in order to attain the knowledge
their guru discovered. Even their highest levels of understanding were always considered lower to
that of their Master, but adequate for their personal deliverance from suffering. By listening and
individual spiritual cultivation sāvakas reached partial understanding of the knowledge
comprehended by the Buddha.
2

Sāvakas’ knowledge greatly depended upon the teachings of their Master, Tathāgata
(another synonym for the Buddha). His diverse teachings made the major contribution for the
growth and expansion of their knowledge. Suttas preserved in the texts suggest that the Buddha
delivered his Dhamma talks using various methodologies considering the occasion in which they
were expounded and the audience to whom they were preached. Besides, as the Tathāgata himself
had claimed that he possessed a nonpareil ability to look into the temperament of living beings,1
his teachings greatly differed depending upon the intellectual capacities of the listeners. Somehow,
with the time, encountering new audiences, Buddha was prolific in rendering more information
about the conditioned and unconditioned realties. He propounded discourses enriched with new
explanatory methodologies and altered tutelage for the implementation of theory into practice. For
the sāvakas who were mastering his teachings academically and practically these discourses with
new approaches were apposite fields to utilize their skills. In such manner, disciples’ knowledge
got elevated and extended with the Master’s new teachings.

All disciples of a teacher would never attain same levels of understanding apropos his
teachings, since intellectual and mental capacities of each human are not equal, and this was not
an exception with the sāvakas of the Tathāgata. For instance, the Buddha claimed venerable
Sāriputta to be foremost among his disciples in terms of having obtained higher stages of wisdom,
venerable Ānanda was entitled with greatest learnedness while venerable Koṭṭhita was bestowed
as the best in analytical skills.2 Nevertheless, despite these inequalities in understanding, all the
disciples were expected to adhere to the same rudimentary philosophical tenets described in
various miscellaneous teachings. The Buddha soundly emphasised the magnitude of having an
unanimously agreed religious or philosophical thought within the community of his disciples. As
he considered, disagreements regarding doctrinal facts were more harmful than disputes in
disciplinary related issues.3

Albeit, Tathāgata’s intents, “after the passing away of the master, centrifugal forces soon
appeared and threatened the unity of the Saṅgha”). 4 Buddha’s disciples began to divide into
different schools based on either disciplinary or doctrinal facts. The first major schism is stated to
have taken place 100 years after the passing away of the Buddha into the Nirvāṇa.5 However, it is
assumable that the seeds of dispute would have been prevailing within the community from an
earlier period. By the reign of the emperor Aśoka, the order of Saṅgha, which remained as a single
 3

unite at the passing away of the Tathāgata had split into 18 sects.6 In respect of the Master’s
intention the damage of unity was significant as the number of schools has proven to be, but all
the sects maintained unity in fundamental tenets of the teachings. “They all professed the reality
of saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa, and as one man adhered to the law of dependent origination of
phenomenon. They only differed over secondary points of the Canon and discipline”.7 However,
when considering effects of these secondary issues of disagreement, the magnitude of the gulf
between each school was significant. Their explanations over the major fundamentals never found
concord in relation to methods of interpreting certain realities and practices. Yet, incidentally, it is
worth mentioning that members of these sects maintained peaceful relationships between each
other amidst philosophical debates which never saw appeasement. 8 In due course, these
differences have turned into divisive issues, as it is evident in Kathāvatthu. When the chasms were
widening, these sects seemed to have disowned each other.9 When the unity of the Saṅgha was
damaged with the main body of the community thus disintegrated, each group started to maintain
teachings that they considered authentic and exegetical Commentaries for those teachings made
based on their own ‘discourse community facts’ and ‘fundamental philosophical tenets’ they held
upon to.10

Theravādins (Skt: Staviravādins) were one of such sects who conserved the teachings of
the Buddha and their explanations, known today as Commentaries (Pali: Aṭṭhakathā and Ṭīkā),
based on their fundamental Buddhist tenets. As Ceylonese annals record, they were a separate
unite among the 18 schools prevailed when Aśoka ascended to the Magadhan throne. After the
initial major division within the Saṅgha community, happened approximately 100 years after the
Buddha, monks were divided into two groups as Sthaviravādins and Mahāsaṅghikas. The split was
triggered by a disagreement in ten disciplinary matters.11 Subsequently, while the two groups were
disowning each other, 12 disunity rampant within each sect. Theravādins got divided within
themselves and ended up being separate 12 schools by the third century BC, while Mahāsaṅgikas
were split into six sub-groups. Those mentioned Theravādins, who were to be remained by the
reign of Aśoka, were the remnant group of the main body of Theravādins after the internal
divisions. The following chart would give a clearer illustration upon the distribution of the sects
and the position of the Staviravādins in the tree of Buddhist schools.13
4

Distribution of Buddhist Schools by the 3rd Century

The Buddhist Saṅgha

1). Sthaviravādins / Theravādins

1). Mahāsaṅghikas

2). 3).
3). Vajjiputtaka

4). Dhammuttariya

5). Bhadrayānika 5). Bāhulika

2). Mahiṃsāsaka
4).
6). Channāgarika

6). Cetiyavāda
7). Sammitiya
9). Sarvastivādins

8). Dhammaguttiya
12). Sūtravādins
10). Kassapiya 11). Saṅkantiya
 5

The Mahāvihāra Fraternity

Its Establishment and Expansion

At this point, it is also essential to know the position of the Mahāvihāra Tradition within
the group of Theravādins. The third Buddhist synod, according to the Literature akin to the
Mahāvihāra Tradition, was held in Pāṭalīputra, present day Patna of the Indian sub-continent, under
the patronage of the emperor Aśoka.*14 In the council, as mentioned in the Commentary for Vinaya,
one thousand15 elders rehearsed the Buddha’s teachings and decided its authenticity. Before the
synod, the Saṅgha order was reorganized under the headship of venerable Moggalīputtatissa.
Afterwards, in a great gathering of monks, the Kathāvatthu, the fifth book of the Theravada
Abhidhamma Piṭaka was composed to clarify some of the different views held by then existing
Buddhist schools.16 The work is also attributed to the well-celebrated elder Moggalīputtatissa.17
The council was held after the great gathering. In it, in addition to the Tipiṭaka, so far developed
Commentaries were also discussed.18

As the stories goes, Moggalīputtatissa convinced the Emperor the authenticity of the Canon
preserved by the Theravādins and made him a pious adherent of the sect. However, it is very likely
that the just Emperor rendered his support to all the Buddhist sects, since as engraved in some of
his rock edicts, he had spoken in acclamation of offerings to sages without specifying any religious
faith. 19 Then the benevolent ruler extended his patronage to the territorial expansion and the
prolongation of the school of Theravadins.20 As a result, in the 18th regnal year, elders adherent to

*
Norman states that he sees no information to support the fact that the third Buddhist council was
held under the full patronage of the Emperor as the Pali Commentaries narrate. As for him, it would have
been the mahāmātras (ministers) who had arranged whatever needed to ensure the third council could be
held. Since, the Buddhists recognised that they did so on behalf of the King, they were able to claim that
Aśoka was the patronage of the council (Norman K R, A Philological Approach to Buddhism, Pali Text
Society, Oxford, 2008, 167-8).
6

the Theravada-Canon were sent beyond the borders of his great Mauryan Empire under royal the
patronage.†

1. Mission to Kasmīra-Gandhāra was led by Elder Majjhantika

2. Mission to Mahiṃsakamaṇḍala was led by Elder Mahādeva

3. Mission to Vanavāsī was led by Elder Rakkhita

4. Mission to Aparantaka was led by Elder Yonakadhammarakkhita

5. Mission to Mahāraṭṭha was led by Elder Mahādhammarakkhita

6. Mission to Yonakaloka was led by Elder Mahārakkhita

7. Mission to Himavantadesa was led by Elder Majjhima

8. Mission to Suvaṇṇabhūmī was led by Elders Soṇa and Uttara

9. Mission to Tambapaṇṇīdīpa was led by Elder Mahinda21

Among the nine expeditions, the mission led to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) became the most
fruitful. Having arrived at the island, the royal priest Mahinda, one of the sons of the Emperor,22
managed to turn the King Devānampiyatissa in to a pious believer of Buddhism. Obtaining strong
confidence upon the newly arrived faith and the missionaries, the King facilitated them with
necessary assistance to bring his subjects under the same belief.23 However, no compulsion nor

†
Rock Edict XIII, Kālsī Version mentions Taṃbapaṃni as a region in which Aśokas’s message of
Dhamma was followed. However, this inscription is dated to be inscribed in the Emperor’s 13th regnal year.

Nevertheless, Geiger, in his introduction to the translation of Mahāvaṃsa, prefers to accept

reliability of the gist of the story mentioned in the Ceylonese chronicles about the aforesaid religious
mission (Geiger Wilhelm, Mahāvaṃsa: The Great Chronicle of Ceylon, Buddhist Cultural Centre,
Dehiwala, Sri Lanka, 2007, XV-XX).

However, Norman holds a different idea to that what has been propounded by the Tradition. As for
him propagation of Buddhism during the reign of Aśoka was not a deliberate act done under the patronage
of the King himself, but rather an outcome owing to the prosperity and success in trade of the era (Norman
K R, A Philological Approach to Buddhism, Pali Text Society, Oxford, 2008, 168).
 7

coercion were used in this grand conversion, even not to the level of extra taxation to those who
refused to embrace the foreign faith. The religion was spread only by means of preaching to the
people who wished to listen. Ones who willed to come under full submission of the teachings were
allowed to enter the Buddhist monkhood, the Saṅgha order. Women too were considered to be
with equal mental capacity that of men in achieving the liberation recommended by the teachings.
Even the King’s nephew, minister Ariṭṭha, and one of the wives, queen Anulā, with her retinue,
gave up household affairs and entered the Saṅgha order.24 In a very short time, the missionaries
managed to bring the majority of the people living in the island under their faith. Thus, the
Theravada Canon gained a strong foothold within the shores of Ceylon.

The Indian missionaries longed for the prolongation of their Master’s teachings in the
island. The task was only possible through establishing a strong linage of Buddhist monks, upon
whom the duty of safe guarding the teachings was vested.25 Envisaging the timely need, the King
offered the Saṅgha a grove that was dedicated for his amusement. The park was known as
Meghavana and also as Nandanavana,26 later it was called Jotivana as well27. There, in this park,
got established the well-celebrated monastery of Mahāvihāra, which later became the institute
from which the famous Mahāvihāra-Tradition sprung forth.

Establishment of Mahāvihāra, literary ‘the great monastery’, is attributed to the efforts of

Venerable Mahinda and the patronage and foresight of the Ceylonese king Devānampiyatissa. The
incident is mentioned to have taken place in the middle of the third century BC. The elder Mahinda,
after converting the King to a Buddhist, took measures to enlighten him about the requirements to
establish a lasting Buddhist culture. He emphasized upon the importance of learned Buddhist
priests.28 Understanding the timely need, the King offered his generous patronage to the elder’s
initiative to develop the already offered park into a complete monastery. While implementing the
elder’s scheme, the King also built the renowned Thūpārāma pagoda, enshrining the collar bone
of the Buddha, and planted the right branch of the Great Bodhi tree – both within the boundaries
of the Meghavan park.29. The two sacred objects were brought from India under the supervision
of the Emperor Aśoka the Beloved of Gods (Aśoka had an epithet of ‘Beloved of Gods’ as
inscribed in his rock edicts). Later on, elder Mahinda pointed the King the suitable places for
edifies that would be built by forthcoming sovereigns.30 It is mentioned that the King Tissa even
left a pillar, depicting the proper location for the great pagoda Ratnamālī, for his yet-unborn
8

grandson Abhaya (Duṭṭhagāmiṇī Abhaya).31 With the time, pious Ceylonese Buddhist kings built
numerous edifices in the Meghavana park, and the monastery got expanded. Soon it glittered with
the colour of the saffron robe, becoming a monastery of exalted spirituality and great scholarship,
of which the reputation saw no limits within the shores of Ceylon.

Over time, the Tradition enjoyed great success. Hundreds of monasteries affiliated to it
were built in various regions of the island. Abodes of Buddhist monks in Cetiyagiri, Cittalapabbata,
Māgama and Riṭigala, are a few among the many such-monasteries which earned high reputation
among the Buddhists for their scholarship and spiritual practice. In general, priests in all these
residences owed allegiance to the Mahāvihāra Tradition despite some differences maintained by
certain individual teachers and their disciples regarding certain religious matters.

Fidelity to the Mahāvihāra Tradition was seen not only in Buddhist monks of Ceylon but
also in their brethren beyond her ocean boarders. They were the priests residing in monasteries
where the teachings revised in the third synod were taught and practised. Since all these
monasteries followed teachings in a single philosophical framework, monks there were correlated
to each other. According to the Ceylonese annals, even the great commentator Venerable
Buddhaghosa visited Sri Lanka due to the encouragement of his tutor Venerable Revata, who was
living in a monastery near Gaya. As the latter encouraged the prior, all the teachings, especially
the Commentaries, which got spread over different directions after the third synod were not under
full preservation except those which reached Ceylon.32 Ceylonese monks managed to protect them.
Hence, Mahāvihāra was considered the place where the Buddhist teachings, recognized in the third
council, were preserved in their best form. There is also evidence of number of South Indian monks
visiting the Mahāvihāra to study the scriptures, and monks in Ceylon and monks in Coḷa
maintaining strong relationships between each other relating religious matters.33

However, within these fraternities loyal to the third Buddhist synod, there were some sub-
Traditions which did not fully collaborate with the Mahāvihāra. Different commentarial Traditions
for the Vinaya, such as Kurundi Aṭṭhakathā, Andhaka Aṭṭhakathā and Saṃkhepa Aṭṭhakathā,
referred by Venerable Buddhaghosa in the fifth century AD, is a major evidence for the existence
of such diverse Traditions. Albeit these commentarial Traditions were based on the same Vinaya
Piṭaka revised in the third synod, they contained dissimilarities in interpretations. Moreover, in the
 9

12th century, Venerable Vācissara compiled a book named Sīmālaṅkārasaṅgaha, to refute an idea
on Sīmas (binderies for formal disciplinary acts for Buddhist monks), held by monks in Coḷa.34

The Canon and Commentaries taken to Ceylon were well preserved there, whereas, the
Theravada Literature taken to other eight regions got almost disappeared.35 At Mahāvihāra, in the
first century BC, teachings which were transmitted orally throughout generations were reduced to
writing. Political unrest and a great famine that simultaneously tormented the island over
approximate periods of 15 and 12 antecedent years were the adjacent stimuli that encouraged the
monks to inscribe the teachings on palm leaves. As for the historical annals, writing was the last
resort for the leading elders to ensure the preservation and perpetual transmission of the Buddhist
Literature even at the confrontation of similar contingencies. Then in the fifth century AD,
Venerable Buddhaghosa, a native of India, translated the Commentaries into Pali which were in
the language of the islanders. With this ambitious enterprise, initiated by him and carried ahead by
his successors, to put the Commentaries of the Mahāvihāra Tradition into a lingua franca of the
era, the commentarial Literature of the sect became accessible to the entire Southern Buddhist
Tradition. Afterwards in due course, these Commentaries were expatiated by various illustrious
elders. These exegeses of Commentaries were known as Ṭīkā (Sub-Commentaries). Hence,
Mahāvihārins maintained a Canon together with its explanatory exegeses.

With time, the Literature got spread into regions of South and South-East Asia. Then
separate sub-Traditions emerged in countries like Burma, Siam, and countries in South India. Yet
all these Traditions were affiliated to that of the Mahāvihāra in Ceylon, in terms of Doctrinal
matters, and the Mahāvihāra was considered the pivotal of the Theravada Tradition. Today, what
remains as the Canon and the Commentaries of the Theravadains or as the Southern Buddhism is
that which was maintained and spread by the Saṅgha of the Mahāvihāra in Ceylon. Hence, it is
more accurate to address the southern Buddhist Tradition as the Tradition of Mahāvihāra of the
Theravādins.
10

Recommended Books for Further Reading

1. History of Indian Buddhism, From the Origin to the Śaka Era by Etienne Lamotte.

2. Buddhist Sects in India by Nalinaksha Dutt

3. A Philological Approach to Buddhism by K R Norman

4. 2500 Years of Buddhism, Prof P V Bapat

5. A Text Book of the History of Theravada Buddhism, Edit K T S Sarao

6. History of Buddhism in Ceylon, The Anuradhapura Period 3rd Century BC – 10th Century

AD
 11

Notes

1 M I, 97: Mahāsīhanāda Sutta

2 A I, 23: Etadaggavagga

3M III, 33: Appamattako so, ānanda, vivādo yadidaṃ – ajjhājīve vā adhipātimokkhe vā. Magge vā
hi, ānanda, paṭipadāya vā saṅghe vivādo uppajjamāno uppajjeyya; svāyaṃ vivādo bahujanāhitāya
bahujanāsukhāya bahuno janassa anatthāya ahitāya dukkhāya devamanussānaṃ.

4Lamotte Etienne, History of Indian Buddhism, from the origin to the Śaka era, Université
Catholique De Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, Louvain-La-Neure, 1988, 571
5 Some of the modern scholars such as Norman holds a different view point with regard to the exact
time of the major schism.

6 Mahāvaṃsa § 5

Different sources belonging to various schools render different numbers about the sects by the era
of Aśoka. See the Appendix for a detailed description.

7 Lammotte, History of Indian Buddhism, from the origin to the Śaka era, 519

8 Notes by Hiutsan

9 Since the major split, the main two bodies of the Saṅgha seemed to have maintained distance with
each other with regard to formal acts. It is not irrational to assume that even the relationship between sub-
branches of the main body of Theravadins were deteriorating from the period antecedent to the third council
held at Pāṭalīputra, and the disputes got intensified after the council, especially with the compiling of the
treatise so-called Kathāvatthu, in which different philosophical ideologies and discourse community facts
of others school were discussed under the criterions of Thaviravadins – the Thaviravadins to whom the
foremost patronage was rendered by the Emperor Aśoka.

10 Dutt Nalinaksha, Buddhist Sects in India, Motilala Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited,
Delhi, 1998, 59: … it is apparent that like the Theravādins and the Sarvastivādins, the Mahāsṅgikas had a
complete Canon of their own in its three divisions. Reference to the Canon of the Mahāsaṅgikas are found
in the inscriptions discovered at Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunikoṇḍa. … and the language of their Piṭaka was
Pakrit

11 Vin IV, 396: Sattasatikakkhandhaka.

However, the … Tradition suggests a different reason which begot the initial split. According to it,
the division happened due to the 5 opinions held by an elder called Mahādeva. Modern scholars lay more
weight of authenticity upon the story preserved in the Literature of the Mahāvihara Tradition.

12 As for the Commentaries of the Mahāvihāra Tradition and Ceylonese annals, the latter group

defied the decision made by the prior sect. Then both the sects eschewed from inter communal relationships.
It seems as if, since the split, Mahāsaṅghikas had been living mostly in the Northern and North-West parts
of India.
12

13 It should be noted that historical sources of other Buddhist schools render different descriptions
about this Tree of Buddhist Schools.

14 Mahāvaṃsa § 5 & VinA I, 29-48

Literature akin to the Northern Traditions do not maintain the story of the Third Buddhist Council
held in Pāṭalīputra. As Late Professor Senerath Paranavithana suggests it is not essential for those Northern
Traditions to preserve information of a council which was exclusively related to the Theravada Canon and
philosophy.

Norman states that he sees no information to support the fact that the third Buddhist council was
held under the full patronage of the Emperor as the Pali Commentaries narrate. As for him, it would have
been the mahāmātras (ministers) who had arranged whatever needed to ensure the third council could be
held. Since, the Buddhists recognised that they did so on behalf of the King, they were able to claim that
Aśoka was the patronage of the council (Norman K R, A Philological Approach to Buddhism, Pali Text
Society, Oxford, 2008, 167-8)

15 V-a I 46: Katā bhikkhusahassena, tasmā sahassikā’ti ca; purimā dve upādāya, tatiyā’ti ca vuccati.

16Actually, here Theravada standpoint means the perspective of the school which held the third
council. This is the school from which Mahāvihāra Tradition sprung forth. Today it is generally referred to
as the Theravada school. Otherwise, according to Mahāvaṃsa, by the time of the monarchy of emperor
Aśoka, there were 12 schools pertaining to the main stream of the Theravada Tradition.
17 AbhiA III (Pañcappakaraṇa Aṭṭhakathā), 110; PārāA I, 45-46

It is mentioned in Samantapāsādikā, the Commentary for Vinaya, that commentarial Tradition

18

was firmly established or recognized at the first Buddhist council (PārāA I, 196). Then, both
Samantapāsādikā (PārāA I, 46) and Commentary for Kathāvatthu (AbhiA III, 110) mentions that the third
synod was done in a similar way to that of the preceding two councils. Therefore, according to the Tradition,
Commentaries, too, were discussed about and revised in all the three initial councils.

19 Rock Edict III, Girnār Version: bāhmaṇa-samaṇānaṃ sadhu dānaṃ …

20 J N Banerji, Trans by the Research Department of the University of Vidyālaṅkāra, Laṅkā

Itihāsaya (History of Sri Lanka), 1964, 189

21 Mahāvaṃsa § 12 & VinA I, 29-48

22 The renowned Chinese pilgrim Hiuenthsang calls Mahendra (Mahinda) a younger brother of the
Emperor.
23 V-a I 57-60.

24 V-a I 74.

25 Nevertheless, it should be mentioned here that the task of a Buddhist monks is not only to protect
their Master’s Canon, but also to follow it and attain spiritual goals of their own. Teachings were safe
guarded with the compassionate objective of leaving the guidance from which they gained benefits to the
future posterity.
 13

26 V-a I 61.

27 V-a I 62.

28 V-a I 75.

A pagoda and a Bodhi tree are essential elements for a complete monastery, since they stand as
29

sacred monuments (dhātu) and give the sense of the presence of the Master, the Buddha.

30 V-a I74-75.

31 V-a I 75.

32 Mahāvaṃsa § 37.

33 A P Buddhadatta, Theravādī Bauddhācāryo, S. Godage and Brothers, Colombo 10, 2008, 55.

34 A P Buddhadatta, Theravādī Bauddhācāryo, S. Godage and Brothers, Colombo 10, 2008, 93.

35 But it seems that the missionary done in Suvaṇṇabhūmi was also successful to a certain extent.
By the time, when King Anavaratha invaded the region of Mon in the 11th Century, Buddhism was
flourishing in Southern parts of present Myanmar.