A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s1.19

v2.c19.s1.19

It has been much disputed whether or not there is any historical foundation for the tradition about the councils.¹ In the nature of things it is likely that, in the course of time, the orthodox Buddhists would feel the need of compiling a canon of doctrines, monastic rules and authentic texts as a defence against the schismatics; and this could only be done by one or several meetings of monks. This would be an argument in favour of there being at least a nucleus of historical truth in these reports, even though they are not attested in all their details. It has been rightly remarked² that the tradition about the councils would not have arisen, had not at least one council been a historical fact. As a matter of fact, it is probable that even more than three councils were held. Singhalese and North Indian records of a "great council" (mahāsaṅgīti) which is said to have led to the schism of the Mahāsaṅgītikas or Mahāsaṅghikas, would seem to indicate that the council of the orthodox Buddhists at Pāṭaliputra was preceded by a great assembly of the schismatics. It is true, nevertheless, that these reports contradict one another very considerably. It is possible that the canon was not compiled all at once, but at several meetings of the monks, the most important of which was the Pāṭaliputra session.