Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31.s6: Effect on the Church
Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c31.s6
- Language
- English
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 (1)
- Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli