Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31: Chapter V: Second Buddhist Council

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V: Second Buddhist Council

v2.c31.2

*Sources (Earlier):* (i) Our main sources of information for the history of the Second Council are the *Cullavagga* of the Vinaya Piṭaka and the *Vinayakṣudrakavastu*, the Tibetan translation of the *Mūla-sarvāstivāda Vinaya*,¹ which forms also the basis of Buston’s and Tāranātha’s accounts of the Council, as also of Rockhill. The Ceylonese chronicles and Pāli commentaries derive their information mainly from the *Cullavagga* and so have no independent value of their own. The account of Yuan Chwang is useful inasmuch as his information is derived from the Chinese versions of the Vinaya texts of the Mahāsaṅghika and other schools.

v2.c31.3

¹ Dul-va, xi, 323-330; Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 171-180. The account also appears in the Vinaya texts of the Mahīśāsakas and the Dharmaguptas. Tāranātha, p. 41; Bu-ston, p. 91f.

v2.c31.4

*Sources (Later):* (ii) Besides the above accounts derived from the Vinaya texts, there are three other texts written by Bhavya, Vasumitra and Vinītadeva on the history of the Buddhist schools. In introducing the history of the schools of thought, Vasumitra refers to the Council. He writes that it was held one hundred and odd years after Buddha’s death while Aśoka was ruling at Kusumapura² in Magadha kingdom. Evidently, by Aśoka, he meant Kālāśoka of the Pāli tradition. All these three writers have not a word to say about the ten un-Vinayic acts of the Mahāsaṅghikas. They attribute the division of the Saṅgha to the five propositions of Mahādeva.¹ The works of these writers, therefore, are not of much value for the events that led to the session of the Second Council.

v2.c31.5

² See Masuda in *Asia Major*, I, p. 14. According to some authorities the name of the kings is given as Nanda and Mahāpadma and the time elapsed after Buddha’s death is 137 years. See Bu-ston, II, p. 96.

v2.c31.6

¹ *Infra*, p. 41.

v2.c31.7

(iii) Apart from the two kinds of sources mentioned above, there are references to the session of the Council in the *Mahāvastu*, *Samādhirāja*, *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* and other later texts, hence the session of the Council was taken generally as an accepted fact by the early writers on Buddhism.

The Story

v2.c31.s1.1

Some of the Vajjian monks of Vesālī allowed as lawful ten rules which were not in strict conformity with the *Pātimokkha*. Yasa of Kosambi, while at Vesālī, happened to notice this and strongly protested against the same. The Vajjian monks resented this attitude of Yasa and expelled him (*ukkhepana*) from the Saṅgha. Yasa made an appeal to the laity of Vesālī, and it is said, that he had to flee to his native land. From there he tried to form a party of monks who adhered to his views. He sent messengers to the monks at Pātheyya and Avantī, and he himself went to Ahogaṅga, the residence of Sambhūta Sāṇavāsī. There he was joined by sixty theras of Pātheyya and eighty theras of Avantī, and gradually by several others. They all decided to approach Revata of Soreyya, who was then the chief of the Saṅgha. Before they could reach Soreyya, Revata started for Vesālī, and the meeting of Revata with other monks took place at Sahajāti. The Vajjian monks, in order to forestall Yasa’s plans, approached Revata at Sahajāti with robes and such other presents but failed to win him over to their side. Sāḷha of Sahajāti was at first wavering between the two parties, but ultimately he sided with Yasa. The Vajjian monks, being unsuccessful in this attempt of theirs, approached king Kālāsoka at Pupphapura, and persuaded him to believe that the monks of the western countries were making a sinister move to get possession of the Teacher’s Gandhakūṭi in the Mahāvanavihāra at Vesālī. The king at first took up their cause but later on changed his mind, it is said, at the intervention of his sister who was a *bhikkhuṇī*. The session of the Council was held at Vesālī with 700 members but as there was great uproar during the deliberations of the Council, it was decided to refer the matters to a body of referees consisting of eight members, four from the orthodox party of the west and four from the unorthodox party of the east. The Council followed the *Ubbāhikā* process as described in the *Pātimokkha*.¹ The findings of the referees, which were all against the Vesālian monks, were placed before the larger body constituting the Council and were confirmed.

v2.c31.s1.2

¹ See *Early Monastic Buddhism*, vol. I. p. 319.

v2.c31.s1.3

The Ceylonese chronicles continue the story and write that the findings were not accepted by all the Vesālian monks, some of whom held another Council and included in it all the monks whether arhats and non-arhats, and decided matters according to their own light. This assembly was called Mahāsaṅgha or Mahāsaṅgīti.

Time & site of the Council

v2.c31.s2.1

All the traditions state that a Council was held about a century after Buddha’s death to suppress certain un-Vinayic acts practised by a group of monks of Vesālī. The Council was held at Vesālī, but the traditions differ about the name of the monastery where the scene of the session was laid. In Pāli the name of the monastery is given as Vālukārāma, and this is corroborated by the Mahāsanghika Vinaya.¹ According to Buston, the name of the monastery was Kusumapura,² but it is not corroborated by any other text. Buston probably confused the capital of the province with that of the seat of the Council, or it may be that the Mahāsanghikas after their defeat in the Vesālian Council held another Council at the capital.

v2.c31.s2.2

¹ Watters, *op. cit.*, II, p. 73.

v2.c31.s2.3

² Buston. II, p. 96.

No President

v2.c31.s3.1

A remarkable feature of the Council is that it did not elect any President. By the *ubbāhikā* process a body of referees consisting of eight monks was formed to go into the questions of dispute, and each tradition gave prominence to its favoured monk. Thus, we see that though Sabbakāmī is recognised as the Sanghatthera, the Pāli tradition accords to Revata, a Westerner, the leadership of the Council, while the Chinese version of the Mahāsanghika Vinaya attributes to Sambhūta Sāṇavāsī the leading part in the Council. Buston gives prominence to Sabbakāmī and Khujjasobhita (Kubjita). In view of these differences regarding the leading monk, we have to conclude that there was no elected President and the business was carried on by a Committee.

The ten un-Vinayic acts

v2.c31.s4.1

All the earlier sources agree in stating that the main business of the Council was to examine the validity of the ten un- Vinayic acts performed by a section of the Vesālian monks,¹ but there exists a wide divergence of opinion in their interpretations. It is difficult to decide which of the interpretations, accessible to us, should be accepted and so we should prefer that which appears more plausible.

v2.c31.s4.2

The ten un-Vinayic acts with their interpretations, as given in the Pāli texts, are as follows:—

v2.c31.s4.3

(i) *Singiloṇa kappa*—or the practice of carrying salt in a horn for use when needed, which contravened according to one view the rule against the storing of articles of food (cf. *Pācittiya* 38).

v2.c31.s4.4

(ii) *Dvaṅgula kappa*—or the practice of taking food after midday, lit. when the shadow (on the dial) is two digits wide (vide *Pāc.* 37).

v2.c31.s4.5

(iii) *Gāmantara kappa*—or the practice of going to a neighbouring village and taking a second meal there the same day, committing thereby the offence of over-eating (cf. *Pāc.* 35).

v2.c31.s4.6

(iv) *Āvāsa kappa*—or the observance of *uposathas* in different places within the same parish (*sīmā*) (prohibited in the *Mahāvagga*, II, 8, 3).

v2.c31.s4.7

(v) *Anumati kappa*—or doing an act and obtaining its sanction afterwards (contrast *Mahāvagga*, IX, 3. 5).

v2.c31.s4.8

(vi) *Āciṇṇa kappa*—or the use of precedents as authority.

v2.c31.s4.9

(vii) *Amathita kappa*—or the drinking of milk-whey after meal (against *Pāc.* 35).

v2.c31.s4.10

(viii) *Jalogimpātum*—or the drinking of fermenting palm-juice which is not yet toddy (against *Pāc.* 51).¹ (ix) *Adasakaṃ nisīdanaṃ*—or the use of a borderless sheet to sit on (contrary to *Pāc.* 89).

v2.c31.s4.11

¹ Cf. *Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya* (Gilgit ms.), *Civaravastu*, p. 142: मद्यं मद्यपानं प्रक्षिप्य भूमौ निखातव्यम् । युक्तत्वे परिभ्रतं परिभोक्तव्यम् । युक्तत्वानुर- योन्यं तु कोरयितव्यम् । मां भिक्षवः शास्तारमुद्दिश्यैतदमेयमपेयमनन्तः कुशाये वापि ।

v2.c31.s4.12

(x) *Jātarūparajataṃ*—or the acceptance of gold and silver (prohibited in *Nissagg.* 18).¹

v2.c31.s4.13

¹ For a discussion on the interpretations of the terms, see Minayeff, *Recherches*, I, pp. 44-50. The first three rules are relaxations of the more stringent rules, made by Buddha regarding the storage of food and eating to suit the conditions created by famine in Vesālī. The people of Vesālī continued to observe the relaxed rules though they were abrogated later on by the Theravādins in their *Vinaya*.

v2.c31.s4.14

Buston, on the basis of the tradition preserved in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, enumerates the undermentioned ten acts.² Prof. La Vallée Poussin translated the same Tibetan passage from the *Dulva*. We reproduce below both the translations of Obermiller and de La Vallée Poussin.

v2.c31.s4.15

² The order of enumeration has been changed for the convenience of comparison with the Pāli list.

v2.c31.s4.16

(i) *Using the sacred salt:* (Obermiller) Mixing the salt that is to be kept for life-time with that which is used in general, to eat it and make it thus an object of use.³

v2.c31.s4.17

³ Cf. Gilgit Ms. leaf 93b: अस्ति आयुष्मां शृङ्गपुटं लवणं यावज्जीवमधि-ष्ठितम् । *cf. Mv.* vi. 3. 1.

v2.c31.s4.18

(Poussin) Mixing salt consecrated for life-time with food appropriate at the moment.⁴

v2.c31.s4.19

⁴ *Indian Antiquary*, 1908, pp. 91, 104.

v2.c31.s4.20

The Dharmaguptas and the Mahīśāsakas offer quite a different interpretation. According to them, the word *singi* is *śṛṅga (vera)* = ginger and *loṇa* = salt. Their interpretation is to "mix the food with salt and ginger."⁵ (ii) *Taking food with two fingers*: (Obermiller) The food that has not been left (from a previous meal) they eat, taking it with two fingers.

v2.c31.s4.21

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 91.

v2.c31.s4.22

(L. V. P.) Eating food of both kinds, not being remainder, while using two fingers.¹

v2.c31.s4.23

¹ Dharmaguptas: "derogation from sobriety, as if, for example, a monk after an ample repast, forgetting the rule of good conduct, began to take with two fingers and to eat the food remaining."

v2.c31.s4.24

(iii) *Eating on the way*: (Obermiller) The monks, having gone a yojana or a half, assemble and eat on the pretext that they are travelling.

v2.c31.s4.25

(L. V. P.) Having gone a yojana or a half-yojana, and having eaten food in troop, rendered the meal in troop legal by reason of the journey.²

v2.c31.s4.26

² The Mahīśāsakas say "to eat a second time after having risen before taking a sufficient meal."

v2.c31.s4.27

(iv) *Admission of a mixture*: (Obermiller) The monks mix a *droṇa* measure of milk with as much sour milk and drink it at undue time.

v2.c31.s4.28

(L. V. P.) After agitating a full measure (*droṇa*) of milk with a full measure of curd, and then eating the preparation out of time.³

v2.c31.s4.29

³ The Dharmaguptas and Mahīśāsakas say: "to drink, beyond the time allowed, a mixture of cream, butter, honey and sugar."

v2.c31.s4.30

(v) *Taking intoxicating drink*: (Obermiller) The monks take wine in the manner of a leech that sucks blood and having drunk, excuse it with illness.

v2.c31.s4.31

(L. V. P.) Drinking fermented liquor with a sucking action like leeches, rendering it legal by reason of illness.⁴ (vi) *Making a new rug:* (Obermiller) Taking a new rug without stitching it by a patch of the so-called Sugata span taken from the old one.

v2.c31.s4.32

⁴ According to the Mahīśāsakas, it is a question of an intoxicating liquor which had become fermented.

v2.c31.s4.33

(L. V. P.) Not having patched their new mats with a border, a Sugata’s cubit broad, from the old mat.¹

v2.c31.s4.34

¹ According to the Mahīśāsakas, to make for oneself a mat of undetermined dimensions; there is no question of fringe.

v2.c31.s4.35

(vii) *Begging gold and silver:* (Obermiller) The monks anoint an alms-bowl with fragrant spices, put it on the head of a Śramaṇa, on a table or a seat, or in a narrow passage at the four cross-roads and proclaim: This is a sublime vessel, if you deposit your gifts in it and fill it, you are to reap great merit.

v2.c31.s4.36

(L. V. P.) Taking alms-bowls such as were round, pure and suitable for ritual, anointing them with perfumes, fumigating them with incense, adorning them with various fragrant flowers, placed on the head of a monk over a cushion went about the highways, streets and cross-roads, crying as follows. “Here, ye people, who have come from various towns and countries, and ye wise people of Vaiśālī! This *pātra* is a lucky one, to give in it is to give much, or whoever shall fill it will obtain a great fruit, a great advantage, a great activity, a great development.”

v2.c31.s4.37

[As far as the seven un-Vinayic acts, mentioned above, are concerned, all the Vinaya texts, including those of the Mahīśāsakas and the Dharmaguptas agree, though they have differed in interpretations, which have all been pointed out.]

v2.c31.s4.38

(viii) *Digging ground:* (Obermiller) It is considered admissible for monks to live by agriculture. (L. V. P.) Turning up the soil with their own hands.²

v2.c31.s4.39

² According to the Dharmaguptas, the Vajjiputtakas think their conduct may be justified by alleging that “this has been done from time immemorial.”

v2.c31.s4.40

On this un-Vinayic act, the comment of the Sarvāstivādins stands alone, and this seems to be due to careless Sanskritization of āciṇṇa by āciṇna, unconsciously changing the root (car to chid). Hence the interpretation offered by the Sarvāstivādins should be left out of account.

v2.c31.s4.41

(ix) Approving: (Obermiller) They perform religious observances, and at the same time incite the monks in attendance to approve.¹ (L.V.P.) The Venerable Ones (absent brothers) having approved, do ye count it as approved, caused the resolutions of the incomplete Saṅgha to be approved by the monks of the parish.²

v2.c31.s4.42

¹ "Rejoicing" of Obermiller is changed by me to "Approving."

v2.c31.s4.43

² The Dharmaguptas support the Pāli interpretation while the Mahīśāsakas say "in the accomplishment of an ecclesiastical act to call others one by one afterwards to hear."

v2.c31.s4.44

Buston or Obermiller has no doubt been misled by the Tibetan rendering of the Sanskrit word anumodanā, which, though derived from the root mud, does not carry the meaning of "rejoice". Anumodanā in Pāli means "acquiescence of an act done by the Saṅgha in one's absence". This is also an instance of anomaly of converting a Prakrit word into Sanskrit. We are not aware what was the original Prakrit word, but evidently the Pālists made it anumati. In any case, the interpretations offered by the different Vinaya texts are similar, i.e., getting an ecclesiastical act performed in an incomplete assembly approved by the absentee members.

v2.c31.s4.45

The Mahīśāsakas and the Sarvāstivādins have both omitted āvāsakappa of the Pāli list. It seems that these schools included

v2.c31.s4.46

According to the Mahīśāsakas: "To continue to occupy themselves with what they had been in the habit of doing before becoming ascetics; certain occupations were declared lawful, others were forbidden."

v2.c31.s4.47

all the irregularities committed by the Vajjian monks relating to the performance of ecclesiastical acts in a regular or irregular assembly within *anumodanā-kappa*, while the Theravādins (Pāli) and the Dharmaguptas have split it up into two: *anumati* and *āvāsa*. The Dharmaguptas, it will be noted, put a slightly different interpretation on *āvāsakappa*. They say that “in the *āvāsa*, besides the regular acts, the innovators accomplished others.

v2.c31.s4.48

Perhaps in order to keep up the number of deviations as ten the Mahīśāsakas and the Sarvāstivādins borrowed one point from Mahādeva’s five and made it the first of their list, viz., “Exclamation of *aho*”.

v2.c31.s4.49

(x) *Exclamation of astonishment*: (Obermiller) The monks of Vaiśālī perform religious observances and at the same time they admit such exclamations as *aho*.

v2.c31.s4.50

(L. V. P.) The monks of Vaiśālī having rendered legal the exclamation *aho* performed an ecclesiastical act illegally in an incomplete or complete Saṅgha or legally in an incomplete Saṅgha.

v2.c31.s4.51

The interpretation given in the Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins is a laboured one and appears more or less a repetition of the previous un-Vinayic act of the Vajjiputtakas.

v2.c31.s4.52

The exclamation of *aho* reminds us of the fifth point of Mahādeva, viz., the path is attained by an exclamation. This has been discussed in the *Kathāvatthu* (xi. 4) under the heading: ‘*Idam dukkhan ti* vācam bhāsato ‘*idam dukkhan ti* ñāṇam pavattatī ti.’¹

v2.c31.s4.53

¹ See Infra. p. 41.

v2.c31.s4.54

A comparison of the two lists (Pāli and Sanskrit) shows that both the traditions have worked on a common original list, which was probably in a Prakrit, and definitely neither in Sanskrit nor in Pāli. This we state on the basis of the change noticed in the words: *singiloṇa*, *āciṇṇa* and *anumati*. The anomaly of *āvāsa* can hardly be explained. As regards the remaining six items, the interpretations of both the schools are allowable and either exposition may be accepted.

v2.c31.s4.55

*Five propositions of Mahādeva*

v2.c31.s4.56

Vasumitra, followed by Bhavya and Vinītadeva, writes that on account of the five propositions propounded by Mahādeva, the Saṅgha became divided into two schools: the Mahāsaṅghika and the Sthaviravāda. The five points are:—

v2.c31.s4.57

The Arhats
1. are subject to temptation (cf. *Kvu.* II. 1. *Atthi arahato rāgo ti?*)
2. may have residue of ignorance (cf. *Kvu.* II. 2: *Atthi arahato aññāṇan ti?*)
3. may have doubts regarding certain matters (cf. *Kvu.* II. 3: *Atthi arahato kaṅkhā ti?*)
4. gain knowledge through others' help (cf. *Kvu.* II. 4: *Atthi arahato paravitāraṇā ti?*).
5. The Path is attained by an exclamation (as "aho") (cf. *Kvu.* II. 3 & 4 & XI. 4).

v2.c31.s4.58

Watters has collected some information regarding the life of Mahādeva from the *Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-lun* (ch. 99).¹ According to this work, Mahādeva was the son of a brāhmin merchant of Mathurā. He had his ordination at Kukkuṭārāma in Pāṭaliputra. By his zeal and abilities, he soon became the head of the Buddhist establishment there. The ruling king was a friend and patron of Mahādeva. With his help, he was able to oust the senior orthodox monks and establish his five dogmas, as enumerated above. Yuan Chwang writes that at the instance of the reigning king, an assembly of monks was summoned, in which the senior brethren, who were arhats, voted against the five dogmas, which however, were supported by a large majority of ordinary ordained members, i.e., non-arhats.

v2.c31.s4.59

¹ Watters, *op. cit.*, I, pp. 267-8.

v2.c31.s4.60

The Chinese pilgrim, it will be observed, mentioned both the five dogmas of Mahādeva (Watters, I, p. 267) and the few un-Vinayic acts of the Vesālian monks (Watters, II, p. 73) as the cause of the session of the Council and the cleavage in the Sangha. The writer of the Kathāvatthu was aware of the five dogmas. Buddhaghosa attributed them to the Mahāsanghikas, so there can be no doubt that the statement of Vasumitra and others is authentic. The Dīpavaṃsa also states that the seceders introduced alterations in the doctrines as well.

Conclusion

v2.c31.s5.1

Now the questions that can be raised are: To which of the two causes is due the schism? Or is the schism due to both the causes? We prefer the second alternative and may account for the two traditions thus: The division of monks began with the differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the ten Vinaya rules some time before the appearance of Mahādeva (or Nāga)¹ i.e., during the reign of Kālāsoka. It was about half a century after this event that Mahādeva or Nāga propounded his five dogmas during the reign of king Nanda and his disciple Sthiramati propagated it further. As regards the fact that the tradition of the breach of ten Vinaya rules appears in the Vinaya texts and the Ceylonese chronicles while the tradition about Mahādeva’s five dogmas appears in the Tibetan and Chinese versions of Vasumitra’s and other writers’ text on the doctrine of the schools, we may state that the Vinaya texts being concerned with the disciplinary aspect of the religion passed over the doctrinal differences while Vasumitra and other writers being more concerned with doctrinal differences than with disciplinary rules, considered it unnecessary to repeat the ten un-Vinayic acts of the Vesālian monks. The sources of information of the Ceylonese chronicles being the Vinaya texts, these also passed over the doctrinal differences, Yuan Chwang, being an annalist, was interested in both doctrines and disciplines and so he recorded the divergences in regard to both. It is quite probable that the schism began with disciplinary rules and in course of time, incorporated matters of doctrine.

v2.c31.s5.2

¹ See above, p. 24, where Nāga is described as a disciple of Mahādeva, and Sthiramati as a disciple of Nāga.

v2.c31.s5.3

It is apparent from the subject-matter of the ten un-Vinayic acts and the five points of Mahādeva, that the Vesālians wanted a certain amount of latitude and freedom in the interpretation and observance of the rules,¹ and to carry into their organizations and general governance a democratic spirit which was gradually disappearing from the Buddhist Saṅgha. The exclusive powers and privileges which the arhats claimed for themselves were looked upon with disfavour by the Vesālians. The claim of the arhats to become members of important Councils and make their decisions binding on the non-arhats did not appeal to the Vajjians—a clan imbued with a thorough democratic spirit. The five propositions of Mahādeva also indicated that the arhats were not ‘perfect’ men as was claimed by the orthodox and that the arhats also had a few limitations. The Vesālians refused to be bound down by the decision of the arhats, and instead they convened a Council of all arhats and non-arhats, calling it a Mahāsangīti and agreed to abide by the decisions of the enlarged Council. This new body believed sincerely that the decisions taken by them were in conformity with what they had learnt from Buddha.

v2.c31.s5.4

¹ The Vesālian monks are called Vajjiputtakas in the Pali tradition. In the Aṅguttara (I, p. 230) we notice that a Vajjiputtaka monk approached Buddha saying that it would be difficult for him to observe the 250 rules of the Pātimokkha.

Effect on the Church

v2.c31.s6.1

Some of the Vesālian monks separated themselves from the Sangha of the Elders or the Orthodox, called the Thera- or Sthaviravādins, and organised a new one of their own, calling it Mahā-sangha, from which they came to be known as the Mahā-sanghikas. From now on, the cleavage in the Sangha began to widen and widen, ultimately giving rise to as many as eighteen to twenty-five sects. The Thera- or Sthavira-vādins were split up into eleven sects but remained Hīnayāna throughout their existence, while the Mahā-sanghikas became divided into seven sects, gradually gave up their Hīnayāna doctrines, and became the fore-runners of Mahāyānism. Once the disruptive forces were set in motion the Sangha could no longer remain a single whole. Sect after sect came into existence on slight differences of opinion concerning doctrines, disciplinary rules, and even cutting, colouring and wearing of robes.

v2.c31.s6.2

In view of the general agreement of the different traditions, the session of the Second Council is taken as historical by the present-day writers. There can be no question about the fact that the Council marked the beginning of divisions in the Buddhist church, and that the disruption hinged on the ten un-Vinayic rules. The different traditions agree about nine of the ten rules though they may have differed in their interpretations. The only point which requires further evidences is the date of the Council and the name of the king under whose auspices the Council was held. The Ceylonese chronicles gives Kālāsoka as the name of the king. Kālāsoka succeeded Susunāga and is identified now with Kākavarṇin of the Purāṇas (see above, p. 22). In view of the fact that Susunāga transferred his capital to Vesālī, it is not unlikely that his son should continue to make Vesālī his royal seat and take interest in the affairs of the monks who were residents of the capital. If Kālāsoka be accepted as the royal patron of the Council,¹ the date of its session will have to be put about a century after Buddha’s death. Kern has questioned the statement of the Ceylonese chronicles about the age of the monks who took leading parts in the deliberations of the Council and pointed out that the names do not include any of the list of teachers given in the fifth chapter of the *Mahāvaṃsa*.² Kern’s apprehensions are not baseless and so we should take the statement of the *Mahāvaṃsa* that some of the monks lived at the time of Buddha³ with a certain amount of caution. As far as the line of teachers is concerned, Kern overlooks the fact that it is a list of succession of the spiritual teachers of Moggaliputta Tissa and not a list of succession of the Saṅghatheras. Kern’s conclusion that the Second Council “preceded but had no connection with the schism of the Mahāsaṅghikas”

v2.c31.s6.3

¹ Kern thinks that Kāla Asoka is none other than Dharma-Asoka in his early days.

v2.c31.s6.4

² *Manual of Indian Buddhism*, p. 108-9.

v2.c31.s6.5

³ *Mahāvaṃsa*, IV, 59.

v2.c31.s6.6

seems to be his personal conviction and not based on any evidence and so is his remark that Kālā-Asoka was Dharma-Asoka in his early days. Vasumitra places the session of the Council during the reign of Mahāpadma Nanda. This statement is probably due to the confusion made by Vasumitra that Mahādeva’s five propositions were the original causes of the schism.

Linked texts (19)