Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s5: (d) The Members of the Council

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s5

Language
English

(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.

Cites (6)