VINAYA: from india to china 189
Commentary on the Five Hundred Questions on the Essentials of the
Dharma), a no longer extant text that, according to an additional note
of Daoxuan, is a compilation on vinaya matters ordered by Emperor
Wu (r. 502–550) of the Liang dynasty.
The translator of the Samantapsdik, Saghabradra, is said to be a
foreigner,^149 or a man “of the western regions”.^150 He translated the text
in Guangzhou, in the Zhulin (Veuvana) monastery,^151 together
with the ramaa Sengyi 152 The Pli Samantaps dik is presented
as a Mahvihra text.^153 Its Chinese translation, however, shows a prob-
able Abhayagirivihra connection.^154 This is particularly clear when
with respect to the famous vinaya discussion between the Mahvihrins
and the Abhayagirivihrins, namely the debate on the nun Mettiy^155
Saghabhadra adheres to the Abhayagirivihra viewpoint. Such an
Abhayagirivihra connection is also put forward with respect to the
above mentioned Vimuttimagga, which, according to many buddholo-
gists,^156 might be af liated to the latter monastery. Since, moreover, the
most extensive contact between the Chinese and Sinhalese took place
(^149) Fei Changfang, T.2034.49.95b19; Daoxuan, T.2149.55.262b3.
(^150) Zhisheng, T.2154.55.535c12.
(^151) It is interesting to note that this is the same monastery where, according to T.2153,
a P 152 li vinaya was translated into Chinese, at around the same period (see note 159).
T.2034.49.95c3: instead of
(^153) The introductory verses of the Samantapsdik state that the work intends to be a
Pli version of already existing Sinhalese commentaries in order “to make the orthodox
opinion of the Mah 154 vihra internationally accessible” (von Hinüber 1996, p. 103).
See Heirman, 2004.
(^155) This debate is the only matter on which we know the viewpoint of the
Abhayagirivihra Vinaya (von Hinüber 1996, p. 22). It discusses a statement in the Pli
Vinaya that tells us that the nun Mettiy (Skt. Maitrey) falsely accused the venerable
Dabba Mallaputta (Skt. Dravya Mallaputra, Karashima 2000, p. 233, note 2) of hav-
ing raped her, a violation of the rst prjika precept (leading to a de nitive exclusion
from the Buddhist status of monk or nun). When she later admits to have lied, the Pli
Vinaya (Vin, vol. 3, pp. 162.38–163.1; for the vinayas that have survived in a Chinese
translation, see Heirman 2000a, pp. 31–34) wants her to be expelled. This statement
lead to a legal discussion between the Mahvihravsins and the Abhayagirivsins, as
it is clear from a passage in the Pli Samantapsdik (Sp, vol. 3, pp. 582.30–584.9),
where the question is asked what the actual reason of Mettiy’s expulsion is (see also
von Hinüber, 1997, pp. 87–91; Hüsken 1997a, pp. 96–98, 102–105). The Chinese
version of the Samantapsdik (T.1462.24.766c29–767a2) does not refer to the con-
troversy between the Mahvihra and the Abhayagirivihra, but it does point to the
legal problem concerning Mettiy’s expulsion. The Chinese text states that she had
to be expelled because she herself acknowledged that she had committed a (prjika)
offence. This explanation corresponds to the Abhayagirivih 156 ra position.
For references, see Norman 1991, pp. 43–44; Skilling 1994, pp. 199–202; von
Hinüber 1996, p. 126; Heirman, 2004, pp. 373–376.