Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23: Chapter XX: The First Buddhist Council

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XX: The First Buddhist Council

v1.c23.1

The Buddhist tradition speaks of eight Buddhist Councils, in which the Piṭakas are said to have been recited. The first Council held at Rājagṛha and the second at Vaiśālī are referred to in all the traditions whether in Pāli or Sanskrit; the one that was held by the Mahāsaṅghikas as a supplementary council immediately after the session of the second council may be counted as the third, though it is not done so by the porāṇas. The third in the Pāli tradition is the one held during the reign of Aśoka under the presidentship of Moggaliputta Tissa. This is, however, ignored in the Sanskrit works, according to which, the third was held at Jalandhar or Kashmir during the reign of Kanishka under the presidentship of Vasumitra and the vice-presidentship of the famous poet Aśvaghoṣa. This again is ignored in the Pāli books. If we take into account all the councils as handed down by the different traditions, we have in all five councils. The sixth, seventh and eighth were held in Ceylon during the reigns of Devānampiyatisa, Duṭṭhagāmaṇi and Vaṭṭagāmaṇi respectively and it was in the eighth Council that the Pāli Tipiṭaka that we read today was put into writing.

Modern writers on the Councils

v1.c23.s1.1

Of the many problems that awakened the interest of orientalists interested in the history of Buddhism, the question of the authenticity of the traditions about the first council is not an insignificant one. The earliest of the scholars to take up this problem was the Russian savant I. P. Minayeff,¹ to refute whose arguments, Prof. Oldenberg² wrote the long dissertation in the *ZDMG*. in 1898. Materials for the discussion about the Councils were collected by different scholars, from different sources, viz., by Wassilief, Schiefner and Rockhill from Tibetan, by Beal and Suzuki from Chinese, by Turnour, Rhys Davids, Geiger and a few others from Pāli. An examination of the traditions as well as the arguments of Minayeff and Oldenberg was made thoroughly and comprehensively by Prof. Louis de la Vallée Poussin³ in 1905. Prof. Otto Franke⁴ took up this problem and wrote his long dissertation in 1908 in the *JPTS*, his attention, however, was directed solely to a searching examination of the Pāli texts with a view to trace the growth of the tradition as recorded in the *Cullavagga*. After the labours of these scholars there was nothing left for further discussion until the year 1926 when the indefatigable zeal of Prof. Jean Przyluski brought forth the volume *Le Concile de Rājagṛha* covering about 400 pages and dealing with all the traditions about the first council available in Chinese and Tibetan. In 1931 Dr. R. C. Mazumdar,⁵ perhaps unaware of the appearance of the work of Prof. Pryluski, presented us with an excellent summary of Prof. La Vallée Poussin's long paper referred to above. Of the latest scholars who have entered into this arena of discussion, mentionable are the names of Profs. Finot¹ and Obermiller² whose main contention is that the traditions of the first two councils originally formed the last section of the *Mahāparinibbānasutta*, and that in course of time the compilers separated the last section from the *Sutta* and tagged it on to the *Cullavagga*. By this finding they have cut the ground from underneath the feet of Oldenberg whose main stand for establishing the unauthenticity of the *Cullavagga* account of the first Council was that the account of the first council did not form a part of the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta*.³

v1.c23.s1.2

¹ *Recherches sur le Bouddhisme* (1887), tr. from Russian into French by R. H. Assier de Pompignan (1894).

v1.c23.s1.3

² *Buddhistische Studien*, *ZDMG*. (1898), pp. 613-694; Intro. to the *Vinaya Piṭaka*, Vol. I, xxv-xxix.

v1.c23.s1.4

³ *Le Muséon*, VI, pp. 213-323, tr. into English in the *Indian Antiquary*, 1908. See also *Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics*, sv. Councils.

v1.c23.s1.5

⁴ *JPTS*., 1908, pp. 1-80.

v1.c23.s1.6

⁵ *Buddhistic Studies* (edited by Dr. B. C. Law), pp. 26-72.

v1.c23.s1.7

¹ Indian Historical Quarterly, VII (1923), pp. 241-246.

v1.c23.s1.8

² Ibid., pp. 781-784. See also History of Buddhism by Buston, tr. by Obermiller, II, pp. 73-96.

v1.c23.s1.9

³ See Infra, p. 336.

Sources

v1.c23.s2.1

Of the Pāli accounts the most exhaustive and probably the earliest is the one given in the *Cullavagga*, XI, from which are derived the traditions preserved in the Ceylonese chronicles and Buddhaghosa’s commentaries.

v1.c23.s2.2

Of the extant Sanskrit accounts there are left only two short notices, one in the *Mahāvastu* and the other in the *Manjuśrī-mūlakalpa*, and the rest are all in Chinese but derived from the Sanskrit sources. These are:—

v1.c23.s2.3

(a) Vinaya of the Mahīśāsakas;
(b) ,, ,, ,, Dharmaguptas;
(c) ,, ,, ,, Mahāsaṅghikas;
(d) ,, ,, ,, Sarvāstivādins;
(e) *Kāśyapa-saṃgīti-sūtra* (Kai-ye-kie-king) (tr. A.D. 148-170);
(f) *Aśokavadāna* (A-yu-wang-king) (tr. about 300 A.D.);

v1.c23.s2.4

(g) *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* (tr. A.D. 402-405);
(h) *Parinirvāṇa-sūtra* (tr. A.D. 290-306).
(i) Account of the compilation of the Tripiṭaka and of Tsa Tsang by Kāśyapa and Ānanda after the nirvāṇa of Buddha in the kingdom of Magadha, on the north of the town of Saṃkāsya; (this work is in verse of five Chinese characters, dated between 317 and 420);
(j) The commentary on the first chapter of the *Ekottarāgama*.¹

v1.c23.s2.5

*Tibetan sources*

v1.c23.s2.6

(k) Bu-ston’s *Chos. hbyung* (History of Buddhism) translated into English by Obermiller.
(l) Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism.

v1.c23.s2.7

The story of the Council may be split up into seven parts thus:

v1.c23.s2.8

(a) *Reasons adduced for convening the Council*

v1.c23.s2.9

Immediately after Budhda’s death an aged monk called Subhadda or Upānanda, who was ordained towards the end of Buddha’s life, gave out that Buddha, so long he had been alive, was a source of trouble to the monks for he constantly admonished the monks to do a certain act and not to do certain others. Now that he was dead, the monks would be free to do as they liked.

v1.c23.s2.10

This event is related with slight variations in all the Vinaya texts (*a, b, c, d*)¹ but not in any of *Sūtras* (*e, f, g, h, i, j*)

v1.c23.s2.11

¹ Relevant portions of all these texts (*a-j*) are translated into French by Prof. Przyluski.

v1.c23.s2.12

and *k*),² in which it is said that the suggestion for convening the Council came from the devas who were aggrieved at the state of the world being thrown again into evil days at the absence of Buddha or his great disciples. In the *Aśokāvadāna* (*f*), it is said in the fashion of Mahāyānic sūtras that Buddha just before entering into parinirvāṇa requested Mahākāśyapa to make a collection of the Piṭakas after his disappearance; he asked the gods to protect them, and to which request the gods readily acceded. In the *Parinirvāṇa-sūtra* (*b*), the account is realistic—Mahākāśyapa, Anuruddha and Kātyāyana deliberate over the matter of collecting Buddha’s sayings with Ānanda’s help and decide to write them on bamboo pieces and silk-rolls. In the works (*i* & *j*) there are no such prefatory remarks; Mahākāśyapa straightaway strikes the *gaṇḍi* (gong) to collect the monks and then announces that he wishes to compile the Piṭakas.

v1.c23.s2.13

² In the *Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya*, the bhikkhu is not named but is simply pointed out as old (*mahallaka*), the word *Mahallaka* transliterated in Chinese was taken by Mr. Suzuki as a proper name, and strangely enough this mistake of his is repeated by Dr. R. C. Mazumdar (*Buddhistic Studies*, p. 30). In the text *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* also the same mistake has been committed; in it the name of the bhikṣu is given as *Mahallaḥ* as well as *Mahallakaḥ* (see pp. 593, 596).

(b) Question of the inclusion of Ānanda

v1.c23.s3.1

In all the accounts (*a* to *j*), the indispensability of Ānanda for the compilation of the Piṭakas is acknowledged but at the same time, in most of the accounts, it is pointed out by Kāśyapa that Ānanda was yet a *śaikṣa*³ and not an *aśaikṣa* (arhat), and hence he was unfit to take part in the Council which was composed exclusively of Arhats. Some of the sources (e. g. f) make Ānanda attain arhat-hood (aśaikṣa) just on the eve of the Council.

v1.c23.s3.2

¹ The italic letters *a* to *k* refer to the works mentioned above.

v1.c23.s3.3

³ A *śaikṣa* is one who is in any one of three stages of sanctification, viz., sotāpatti, sakadāgāmi and anāgāmi., As some texts attri-

v1.c23.s3.4

*Aśokavadāna*¹ and the *Mahīśāsaka*,² *Mahāsānghika*³ and the *Dharmagupta*⁴ Vinaya locate the place of Ānanda’s exertion at Vaiśālī and credit one Vṛjipatra, a disciple of Ānanda, for encouraging Ānanda to make the exertion. Vaiśālī was one of the stopping places of Mahākassapa and his colleagues on their way from Kuśinagara to Rājagṛha, and it was at Vaiśālī that Ānanda stayed behind to qualify himself for membership of the Council.⁵

v1.c23.s3.5

¹ *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*, pp. 34 ff.

v1.c23.s3.6

² *Ibid.*, p. 138.

v1.c23.s3.7

³ *Ibid.*, p. 138.

v1.c23.s3.8

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 1733-4.

v1.c23.s3.9

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 173-4. The *Cullavagga* (p. 286) is, however, silent about Vaiśālī; its account leads us to infer that the attainment of arhathood by Ānanda happened at Rājagaha.

v1.c23.s3.10

This account appears more plausible than that of *Cullavagga* in which Ānanda is stated to have suddenly attained arhathood on the eve of the session of the Council, but still more plausible is the account of the *Sarvāstivāda* Vinaya, in which it is said that Ānanda though a śaikṣa was admitted into the Council by courtesy with the special permission of the assembly (*Saṅgha*) of monks⁶

v1.c23.s3.11

⁶ *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*, p. 225.

(c) Charges against Ānanda

v1.c23.s4.1

All the sources agree about the fact that the Saṅgha found Ānanda guilty of a few ecclesiastical offences, and that for the expiation of same Ānanda was to make his confessions as required by the rules of the Pātimokkha. Though it sounds discordant

v1.c23.s4.2

bute *rāga*, *dveṣa* and *moha* to Ānanda, we have to infer that Ānanda must have been either in the sotāpatti or sakadāgāmi stage.

v1.c23.s4.3

that an arhat was taken to task for some minor ecclesiastical offences,¹ it was nonetheless necessary to make the chief figure of the Council absolutely pure according to the Pātimokkha laws. After Buddha's demise Ānanda as a repository of Buddha's teachings naturally became the cynosure of all eyes and it became imperative to raise his status to arhathood and to place him above all reproach.

v1.c23.s4.4

¹ Cf. *Infra*, p. 336 fn.

v1.c23.s4.5

There are slight differences in the list of charges as given in the different accounts,² though they agree in the main. The charges were:—

v1.c23.s4.6

² For details, see the *Indian Antiquary*, 1908, pp 4-5.

v1.c23.s4.7

(1) Ānanda did not ascertain the *khuddakānukhuddakāni sikkhāpadāni* (minor precepts), the abrogation of which was permitted by Buddha;

v1.c23.s4.8

(2) he stepped upon Buddha's rainy season robe (*vassika-sāṭika*) when sewing it;

v1.c23.s4.9

(3) he persuaded Buddha to form the order of nuns;

v1.c23.s4.10

(4) he permitted women to have a look at the dead body of Buddha;

v1.c23.s4.11

(5) he did not request Buddha to live longer when a hint to that effect was given to him by Buddha himself.

v1.c23.s4.12

It may be observed that none of these charges are serious from the moral point of view but they loomed large in the eyes of the devotees at a time when their object of adoration had just disappeared, and this disappearance, they believed, could have been delayed had not Ānanda been inadvertent to the matter.

(d) The Members of the Council

v1.c23.s5.1

There is very little disagreement among the different accounts about the fact that Mahākassapa proposed an assembly of arhats preferably endowed with *paṭisambhidā* and *abhiññā*, and this was agreed to by all the monks present. The number of members was limited to five hundred. Upāli was unanimously selected to recite the Vinaya and Ānanda the Dhamma (which according to some sources included Abhidhamma). Mahākassapa took upon himself the task of putting questions both to Upāli and Ānanda. In some of the sources, (*e.g.*, Vinaya texts of the Mahīśāsakas, Dharmaguptas, Mahāsanghikas) a list of monks by seniority is given,¹ the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya adding that whatever was uttered by Upāli and Ānanda was referred to these old monks for approval and confirmation.

v1.c23.s5.2

¹ Mahīśāsaka Vinaya (*Le Concile de Rājagṛha*, p. 168): Ājñāta Kauṇḍinya (1st), Purāṇa (2nd), Dharmika (3rd), Daśabala Kāśyapa (4th), Bhadra Kāśyapa (5th), Mahākāśyapa (6th), Upāli (7th), Anuruddha (8th). For Haimavata list, see *op. cit.*, p. 176 and Sarvāstivāda list, *op. cit.*, pp. 227-229.

v1.c23.s5.3

(e) *Gavāmpati and Purāṇa*

v1.c23.s5.4

Gavāmpati and Purāṇa were distinguished and old arhats of the time, hence an attempt was made by Mahākassapa to have the results of the deliberations of the Council approved by them. Gavāmpati however kept himself aloof, indicating neither his approval nor disapproval of the same while Purāṇa, who lived with a large following at Dakkhiṇāgiri, a place near Rājagṛha (perhaps a forest), preferred not to associate himself with the decisions of the Council but he requested Mahākassapa to incorporate seven rules regarding restrictions about storing and cooking food indoors, taking food of one's own accord, etc.² Prof. La Vallée Poussin has traced some of these rules in the *Mahāvagga* (vi. 17-19, 20). It should be observed that while speaking of Purāṇa, Cullavagga does not refer to his seven rules though they appear in the Mahāvagga, while the Vinayas of the Mahīśāsakas and Dharmaguptas mention them in detail. This shows that the Pāli version of the Vinaya accepted the opinion of Purāṇa. The dissenting voice of Purāṇa¹ and to a certain extent of Gavāmpati indicates that even at that early date the germs for saṅghabheda had already appeared and within the following century they sprouted up, resulting in the appearance of the Dharmaguptas, the Mahīśāsakas, the Haimavatas, and others.

v1.c23.s5.5

² *Indian Antiquary*, 1908, p. 56; *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*, p. 160.

v1.c23.s5.6

¹ Cf. Le Concile de Rājagṛha, p 8.

v1.c23.s5.7

(f) The Site

v1.c23.s5.8

The traditions differ as to the exact site where the Council was held, i.e. whether at Veḷuvana, or Gṛdhrakūṭa or Sattapaṇṇi but there is no question about the place being Rājagṛha. The proposal of holding a Council was made at Kuśinārā, wherefrom the monks travelled through Vaiśālī and other countries and ultimately congregated at Rājagṛha. The members of the Council, it seems, were collected in course of their journey from Kuśinārā to Rājagṛha.

v1.c23.s5.9

(g) Texts recited

v1.c23.s5.10

Though Profs. Minayeff and La Vallée Poussin were convinced about the historicity of the Councils, they expressed their grave doubts about that part of the story which spoke of the recitation of Vinaya and Dharma texts.² Prof. La Vallée Poussin relegated the task of deciding this question to the future scholars who would explore the Chinese documents. Prof. Przyluski took up this task and acquitted himself well in his work *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*.¹

v1.c23.s5.11

² See Winternitz, History of Literature, vol. II, p 4.

v1.c23.s5.12

¹ Sylvain Lévi and Edouard Chavannes collected from the different accounts of the Council the titles of the sacred texts said to have been recited in the first Council vide *Journal Asiatique* 1916.

v1.c23.s5.13

The following information can be elicited from the various Vinaya texts about the rehearsal of the Piṭakas:—

v1.c23.s5.14

Theravāda Vinaya (Cullavagga):—
(a) Vinaya: 4 Pārājikās and the rest—the two Vinayas;
(b) Sūtras: Brahmajāla, Sāmaññaphala, etc.—the five Nikāyas.

v1.c23.s5.15

Mahīśāsaka Vinaya:—
(a) Vinaya: 4 Pārājikās and the rest;
(b) Sūtras: Ekottara, Daśottara, Mahānidāna, Sakra, Saṅgīti, Brahmajāla; Kaśyapa classified the sūtras into Dīrgha, Madhyama, Saṃyukta, Ekottara and Tsa Tsang (= Kṣudraka?).²

v1.c23.s5.16

² *Le Concile de Rājagṛha*, pp. 144-148.

v1.c23.s5.17

Dharmagupta Vinaya:—
(a) Vinaya: 4 Pārājikās, Saṅghāvaśeṣa, Aniyata; Naiḥsargika, Pātideśanīya, Śikṣāpadas, Varṣā, Pavāraṇā up to Ekottara, Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya, Uposatha, Kaṭhina, etc.;
(b) Sūtras: Brahmajāla, Ekottara, Daśottara, Saṅgīti, Mahānidāna, Śakradevendra; these were classified into Dīrgha, Madhyama, Ekottara, Saṃyukta, Jātaka, Vaipulya, Adbhutadharma, Avadāna, Upadeśa, Arthapada, Dharmapada, Pārāyaṇa and Sthaviragāthā and Tsa Tsang (Kṣudraka?), Kathāvatthu and some books of Abhidharma.³

v1.c23.s5.18

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 187-195.

v1.c23.s5.19

Haimavata Vinaya:—
(a) Vinaya: Bhikṣu and Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya, Kaṭhina, Mātṛkā, and Ekottara.
(b) Sūtras: Dīrghāgama, Madhyamāgama, Lkottarāgama, Saṃyuktāgama, Dharmapada, Arthapada, Pārāyaṇa, etc. up to Upadeśa, Tsa Tsang, and some books of Abhidharma.

v1.c23.s5.20

Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya:—
(a) Sūtras: Dīrgha, Madhyama, Saṃyukta, Ekottara and Kṣudraka;
(b) Vinaya:—
(i) La purété de la zone interdite.
(ii) La purété de la loi territoriale.
(iii) La purété de la pratique des defenses.
(iv) La purété de la des vénerables.
(v) La purété du vulgaire.

v1.c23.s5.21

Sarvāstivādin Vinaya:—
(a) Vinaya: 4 Pārājikās, 5 Saṅghāvaśeṣas and the rest;
(b) All sūtras commencing with the words "evam me śrutam,' Dharmacakra-pravartanasūtra; Abhidharma beginning with the 5 precepts (not to kill, not to steal etc.).

v1.c23.s5.22

A comparison of the above lists distinctly show that the traditions differ about the recitation of texts excepting the Pātimokkha rules, hence it seems that these are not derived from a common source. Almost all the accounts, as we have seen, agree more or less in regard to the account of the council dealt with under different sub-headings and hence we have not much hesitation to say that they are the outcome of a common basis.

v1.c23.s5.23

¹ Le Concile de Rājagṛha, p. 230

v1.c23.s5.24

It is with regard to the rehearsals of suttas that we notice some disagreement and this leads to infer that the story of recitaiton of the *Sutta Piṭaka* in the first Council was an afterthought. It, however, cannot be denied that there was some discussion about Dhamma and Vinaya in the Council, though the rehearsal of the complete *Sutta-piṭaka* or all the sections of the *Vinaya-piṭaka* cannot be accepted as true.

The story in brief

v1.c23.s6.1

At Subhadda's (or Upānanda's) words apprehending lack of discipline in the church, Mahākassapa proposed a Council of 500 Arhats for taking a stock of Buddha's teachings. The proposal was made at Kuśinārā and the site selected for the session of the Council was Rājagṛha. Mahākassapa tried to include all the old arhats living at the time among the members of the Council and succeeded in securing the co-operation of arhats like Ājñāta Kauṇḍinya, the two Kāśyapas, and Anuruddha, but failed to persuade Gavāmpati (who was one of the few friends of Yaśa to be converted by Buddha) and Purāṇa (the abbot of Dakkhiṇāgiri) to take part or acquiesce in the proceedings of the Council. The presence of Ānanda as the repository of Buddha's teachings in the Council was felt indispensable but as he was not an Arhat, he could not be included without the special permission of the Saṅgha. Fortunately Ānanda attained arhathood immediately before the session of the Council and was admitted into the Council, as a matter of course. The Council was held at Rājagṛha, all the necessary arrangements for seats and residence of monks having been made by Ajātaśattu. Upāli was selected unanimously to recite the Vinaya rules and Ānanda the Suttas. On the completion of the recitation, Ānanda mentioned about the *khuddakānukhuddakāni sikkhāpadāni*, the abrogation of which was permitted by Buddha but the exact significance of which was not ascertained by him. This failing of Ānanda was brought to the notice of the Council. Ānanda did not regard these failings of his as anything serious but out of reverence to the wishes of the Saṅgha, he made the formal confession for getting absolution.¹

v1.c23.s6.2

¹ In this account the disciplinary action taken against Channa is related thus: Ānanda then announced to the Saṅgha that Buddha had asked him to punish a monk called Channa by *brahmadaṇḍa*, and this he was going to do at Kauśāmbi. Ānanda reached Kauśāmbi. The queen of King Udena approached him with gifts, which were doubled by the King himself after he had been pleased with a talk with Ānanda. Channa on his being so punished made a strong effort for arhathood and attained it soon. He then approached Ānanda to have *brahmadaṇḍa* withdrawn but in reply he was told that the moment he had attained arhathood the *daṇḍa* had ceased. [A monk punished with *brahmadaṇḍa* is not admonished or instructed by any other monk and he is left to do whatever he likes Prof. La Vallée Poussin uses the appropriate synonym "boycotting."]

Refutation of Oldenberg's theory of fiction

v1.c23.s7.1

We have indicated above the number of works that preserve the tradition of the Council. Some of them are no doubt reiteration of the earlier ones but the fact remains as pointed out by Minayeff that these earlier ones on account of their unanimity must have a common tradition as their basis. To dismiss this as fictitious was rather too bold on the part of Prof. Oldenberg and it is strange that a number of scholars accepted Oldenberg's dictum until Prof. La Vallée Poussin challenged it. Prof. Oldenberg's conclusion is based mainly on the fact that in the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta* the motive of the Council is given but not a word about the session of the Council.

v1.c23.s7.2

As against this remark of Oldenberg, I think, the recent writings of Finot and Obermiller¹ are a sufficient answer. Prof. Finot points out that the chapters XI and XII of the *Cullavagga*, which contain the account of the two Councils, have such an abrupt beginning unlike the other chapters of the *Cullavagga* that they could not have been originally a part of this work.² He further points out that the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta* also differs from the other Suttas of the *Dīgha Nikāya* in the nature of its contents, being more historical in character, and that the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta* and the two chapters (XI, XII) of *Cullavagga* are so similar in nature that they must have been originally parts of one and the same work. In support of this contention of his, he refers to a work entitled *Saṃyukta-vastu* (Nanjio 1121), the Vinaya of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins,³ which contains the account of both parinirvāṇa and the Councils, and concludes therefrom that the Theravādins too had a work corresponding to the *Saṃyukta-vastu*, and that it was dismembered at a later date by the ancient editors of the Nikāyas and Vinaya. Dr. Obermiller corroborates Finot's contention and in support gives us in detail the contents of the *Vinaya-kṣudraka* (in Tibetan),¹ and shows that it contains not only the account of the two councils but also the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta*. He further points out that "the story of the Councils begins just on the same line (fol. 301, a, 3) in which the narrative of the burial of the Buddha finishes, without any indication whatsoever."² In view of these evidences, we may safely take Prof. Finot's contention as sound, *viz.*, that the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta* and at least the chapter XI (and not the chapter XII) of the *Cullavagga* originally formed one treatise, and on the analogy of the *Vinaya-kṣudraka* it may further be stated that the *Mahāparinibbānasutta* formed originally the first portion of the chapter XI of the *Cullavagga*. This takes away the force of Oldenberg's arguments and we may now brush them aside.

v1.c23.s7.3

¹ IHQ, VIII, pp. 241-6, 781-4.

v1.c23.s7.4

² According to Prof. Finot, both the chapters XI and XII did not form a part of the original *Cullavagga*. It would have been better if he had distinguished chapter XI only in that way, and not chapter XII, for all the chapters of the *Cullavagga* commence with the words *tena samayena buddho bhagavā* including chapter XII while chapter XI only commence with the words *atha kho āyasmā Mahākassapa*, i.e. in the form in which the chapters of the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta* are commenced.

v1.c23.s7.5

³ Also referred to by Prof. La Vallée Poussin in the *Indian Antiquary*, 1908, p. 704.

v1.c23.s7.6

¹ Corresponding roughly to *Cullavagga*

v1.c23.s7.7

² *IHQ.*, VIII, p 784

v1.c23.s7.8

Oldenberg remarked also that there were many incoherent and contradictory statements in the account of the *Cullavagga*. Prof. La Vallée Poussin has gone into them in detail and shown that Oldenberg's interpretation of internal evidences is based upon some pre-conceived notions and should be taken at their worth. He has discussed at length the pros and cons of the charges brought against Ānanda, and for reconciling them with the then form of Buddhism, he has brought in also the doctrinal deviations found in the *Kathāvatthu* and attributed to the Mahāsanghikas. To me it seems that we need not go so far as to trace in the charges germs of schisms which later on appeared in the Buddhist Church, for the doctrines and rules of discipline were then in an undeveloped state and it must have taken a few decades since then for their development into a clear-cut shape.

v1.c23.s7.9

*Conclusion*

v1.c23.s7.10

Once more we can safely revive the Russian savant’s contention of 1887 “that the Council was originally a tribunal composed of monks to decide the failings of Ānanda and Channa, and speaks of a time when the Vinaya was not yet codified, and that in course of time the story of the recitation of the piṭakas was added to it and the tribunal was given an appearance of a conclave with a theological and literary object.”¹ This was a little modified in 1905 by Prof. La Vallée Poussin who would regard this Council as an enlarged Pātimokkha assembly. In our opinion also it was so but with an object greater than that of a Pātimokkha assembly.

v1.c23.s7.11

¹ *La Concile de Rājagṛha*, Intro., p. ii.

v1.c23.s7.12

The kernel of truth embedded in the various accounts as it appears to me is that the principal motive of the Council, was to ascertain the *khuddakānukhuddakāni sikkhāpadāni*, abrogation of which was sanctioned by Buddha just before his demise. There must have been a good deal of difference of opinion about the interpretation of the lesser and minor precepts, and it was to settle this difference that Mahākassapa took the initiative to collect the seniormost monks, and have their approval of the rules that would be recited by Upāli, who had been praised by Buddha as the foremost of the Vinayadharas. As required by the rules of a Pātimokkha assembly, the preliminaries (*uposathakammassa pubbakaraṇa-pubbakiccāni*) were gone through, *viz.*, the selection of the monk who was to put questions relating to Vinaya² (in this case, it was Mahākassapa) and the monk who would answer them³ (*i.e.* Upāli). After this and other preliminaries, the question of *pārisuddhi* had to be brought up, and so the turn of Ānanda came. As he was not really guilty of any ecclesiastical offence, he had nothing to confess, but the monks resented the heedlessness of Ānanda in certain matters, particularly in regard to non-ascertainment of the minor precepts that could be abrogated. Ānanda in deference to their wishes asked for forgiveness on this account as well as on other accounts and had his *pārisuddhi*. Then the turn came of Upāli to recite the Pātimokkha rules, which in all probability he did, and there is unanimity of the accounts with regard to this. This was probably followed up by the infliction of *brahmadanda* by Ānanda, on Channa. The story of the recitation of the *suttas* by Ānanda, as suggested by Minayeff, was engrafted on to the account later on and that explains the wide divergences in the different traditions regarding the recitation of *suttas*. And it must be due to this interference by later writers that we find the formality of *pārisuddhi* of Ānanda shifted from its proper place, the Dharmagupta Vinaya being the only text which put the *pārisuddhi* in the proper place, i.e., before the recitation of texts.

v1.c23.s7.13

² Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallam, ahaṃ itthan nāmam vinayam puccheyyam.

v1.c23.s7.14

³ Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho yadi saṅghassa pattakallam ahaṃ itthan nāmena vinayam puṭṭho vissajjeyyam.

v1.c23.s7.15

OTHER WORKS OF THE AUTHOR

v1.c23.s7.16

1. EARLY HISTORY OF THE SPREAD OF BUDDHISM AND THE BUDDHIST SCHOOLS. (Out of print)

v1.c23.s7.17

2. ASPECTS OF MAHĀYĀNA BUDDHISM AND ITS RELATION TO HĪNAYĀNA with a foreword by Prof. Louis de la Vallée Poussin. Demy 8vo. pp. xiii + 358. Price Rs. 12/-

v1.c23.s7.18

3. SUMAṄGALA-VILĀSINĪ (Commentary on Dīgha Nikāya), Suttas VIII-XV, Fasc. I. Super Royal 8vo. Price Rs. 2/-

v1.c23.s7.19

4. PAÑCAVIṂŚATISĀHASRIKĀ PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ, Vol. I, edited for the first time from original manuscripts with critical notes and introduction. Demy 8vo. pages xxxvi + 269. Price Rs. 8/-

v1.c23.s7.20

5. BODHISATTVAPRĀTIMOKSA-SŪTRA edited for the first time from an original ms. deposited in the Cambridge University Library with an Introduction. Price Re. 1/-

v1.c23.s7.21

6. THREE PRINCIPAL SCHOOLS OF EARLY BUDDHISM. It contains an exposition of the doctrines of the Sarvāstivādins, Mahāsanghikas and the Sammitīyas on the basis of the Kathāvatthu and Vasumitra's treatise on the eighteen schools. Price Rs. 2/-

v1.c23.s7.22

7. GILGIT MANUSCRIPTS, Vol. I. This volume is critically edited for the first time from the original Buddhist-Sanskrit manuscripts discovered at Gilgit in the territories of H. H. the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir.

v1.c23.s7.23

Calcutta Oriental Book Agency 9, PANCHANAN GHOSE LANE, CALCUTTA

v1.c23.s7.24

This image is blank. There is no text to transcribe.

v1.c23.s7.25

[The page is blank]

Linked texts (17)