Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s1: Modern writers on the Councils
Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s1
- Language
- English
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.