Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c23.s7.2

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.