The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c28.108

c28.108

¹ Hiuen Tsang, the leading authority (Beal, i, 117, 151; Watters, i, pp. 270–8; Takakusu's review of Watters, *J. R. A. S.*, 1905, p. 414), states that the council was convened in Kashmīr under the presidency of Vasumitra, by Kanishka, king of Gandhāra, acting on the advice of Pārśva or Pārśvika. Paramārtha (A. D. 499–569), in his biography of Vasubandhu (see App. N. of this edition) gives an independent account of the council as having been held in Kashmīr at some time in the fifth century ('in the five hundreds') after the Nirvāna. He does not name king Kanishka, and ascribes the summoning of the assembly to Kātyāyanīputra. According to him, Aśvaghosha was invited from Sāketa in the Śrāvastī province for the purpose of applying his well-known literary skill to the redaction of the commentaries drafted by the council (Takakusu, *J. R. A. S.*, 1905, p. 52). Vasumitra's work, *Mahāvibhāshā Śāstra* (No. 1263 of Nanjio's *Catal.*), ascribed to the time of Kanishka, was an elaborate commentary on the *Jñānaprasthāna Śāstra*, the fundamental work of the Sarvāstivādin school (Takakusu; I-tsing, *Buddhist Practices*, p. xxi). The Mongolians represent the council as engaged in the collection of the sayings of Buddha. It met at Jālandhar, which was in Kashmīr, according to the *Śāstra Chingola kereglecḥi*, and in the kingdom of Gatchiin Kunasana, according to the history of Sanang Setsen (Klaproth, in Laidlay's *Fa-hian*, p. 249). The Tibetan *Kah-gyur* represents the work of the council as being the third compilation of the doctrine of Buddha (Csoma Körösi, *As Res.*, vol. xx, quoted in *Eastern Monachism*, p. 188). Wassiljew (*Schiefner*, p. 298) observes that the *Bu-ston* refuses to acknowledge Kanishka's council; that the *Tangyur* describes the council in 400 *anno Buddhae* (one of the traditional dates of Kanishka), as having been led by Vatsiputra, and devoted to the doctrines of his school; while a Chinese account locates the assembly at Kandahār (? Gandhāra). Tāranāth notes that some authors aver that the council met in the Kundalavana Vihāra in Kashmīr, while others locate it in the Kuvana monastery at Jālandhar; observing that the balance of authority favours the latter view. But the evidence, as it now stands, proves clearly that the council met in Kashmīr. Hiuen Tsang, when describing his visit to Jālandhar (Beal, i, 175; Watters, i, 296), makes no allusion to the council. The fact that in some books Kanishka is called the king of Jālandhar may have given rise to the belief that the council met at that city. The council, according to Tāranāth, settled the strife between the eighteen schools, which were all recognized as orthodox; and the three *piṭakas* were now either for the first time reduced to writing, or, so far as previously written, were purified from error. All kinds of Mahāyāna texts appeared about this time (Schiefner, p. 58). For criticism of the legends of the earlier councils see the author’s paper, ‘The Identity of Piyadasi with Asoka Maurya, and some connected Problems’ (*J. R. A. S.*, Oct., 1901). For the meaning of *Kundala* in Kashmirī local names, see Stein, transl. *Rājatar.*, Bk. v, v. 106.