Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s7: Refutation of Oldenberg's theory of fiction

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s7

Language
English

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]

Cites (4)