Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c41: Chapter XV: Third Buddhist Council

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c41

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XV: Third Buddhist Council

v2.c41.2

It is only in the *Aṭṭhakathās*¹ and the Ceylonese chronicles that we get an acccount of the third Buddhist Council held during the reign of Aśoka. The omission of this Council in the Chinese and Tibetan accounts, in other words, in the texts of the non-Theravāda sects, signifies that it was a sectarian affair, for which it was ignored by all sects except the Theravādins, to be more precise, Theravāda-Vibhajjavāda sect of Ceylon.² It is rather remarkable that Hiuen Tsiang or Itsing also has not referred to it though both have mentioned the names of different sects and the spheres of their influence.³ V. A. Smith (*Early History of India*, 3rd ed., p. 161) dismisses the account of the Ceylonese chronicles as fictitious on account of the fact that it is not mentioned in the Aśokan Pillar edicts. Prof. Kern has doubts about the actual session of the Council, and he thinks that if the Council was at all held, it was only a party meeting. Mrs. Rhys Davids regards the traditional account of the Council as something quite different from what actually took place. In her opinion the Piṭaka was revised by eight monks and not by a thousand, and the expulsion of monks was carried out after the session of the Council. Dr. Thomas is also inclined to take the account of the Council as an invention of the Ceylonese writers.¹ The traditional account of the Council may not be pure history but the circumstances which led to the Council appear to have a historical basis. The breach between the Theravādins and the Mahāsanghikas took place in the Second Buddhist Council,² and it grew wider and wider till it became almost impossible for the two sects to live together in the same Āvāsa. The controversies recorded in the Kathāvatthu have been corroborated by Vasumitra, Bhavya and others,³ hence their authenticity cannot be denied. The main business of the Council was the refutation of the doctrines of the more important non-Theravāda schools from the standpoint of the Theravādins. In the Second Buddhist Council the disciplinary rules only were taken exception by the orthodox party, and in this Council interpretation of the doctrines was challenged. From the Nikāya-saṅgraha we learn that the Mahāsanghikas did not pay heed to the refutations and that they met together at Kosambī to confirm their own views. The refusal of the orthodox monks to hold Uposatha with the unorthodox monks appears to be authentic and was very likely the main cause for the session of the Council. After expelling the unorthodox monks, the Theravādins met together to establish the contentions of the Theravādins, and the result was the compilation of the Kathāvatthu, which might have been slightly smaller in extent than the present text.

v2.c41.3

¹ *Samantapāsādikā*, I, p. 53 f.; *Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā*, p. 5-6. In the *Cullavagga*, there is no reference to this council. It may be argued by some that the *Cullavagga* was composed before the third council.

v2.c41.4

² Cf. *Cullavagga*, p. 72: Ācariyānaṃ Vibhajjapadānaṃ Tambapaṇṇidīpapasādakānaṃ Mahāvihāravāsinam vācanā saddhammatthitiyāti.

v2.c41.5

³ Dr. R. C. Mazumdar thinks that Hiuen Tsiang's account of the rivalry between the heretics and the Buddhists in connection with the Institution of the Gong-Call Tope may have some connection with this Council. See B. C. Law, *Buddhistic Studies*, p. 68-69.

v2.c41.6

¹ E. J. Thomas, History of Buddhist Thought, p. 35.

v2.c41.7

² See above, Ch. V.

v2.c41.8

³ See above, Chs. VIII-XI.

The Traditional Account

v2.c41.s1.1

The story of the Council as given in the Chronicles runs as follows: About 200 years after Buddha's death, a large number of non-Buddhists joined the order for the sake of gain. They held unorthodox views in matters of both doctrine and discipline. The orthodox monks refused to perform in their company, the *uposatha* ceremony, one of the primary conditions of which was that the members present must declare at the outset of the assembly that they were pure, and had not committed any breach of the disciplinary rules, or if they had, confessed the same and taken formal absolution. For full seven years, as the Pāli tradition goes, no *uposatha* could be held at Pāṭaliputra. Aśoka deputed one of his ministers to persuade the monks at Aśokārāma to hold the *uposatha*. On the monks' refusal to comply with the king's wishes, the minister had them seated in a row and began to behead them one after another. At this, Aśoka's brother Tissa, who was also a monk, residing in the same monastery, intervened by taking a seat in the row. The minister got puzzled, and approached the king for direction. Aśoka was stunned at the news, for he never thought that his orders would be carried out in the manner his minister did. He approached the monks to ascertain whether he or his minister or both were guilty for the heinous act of his minister. He did not get satisfaction at the different answers given by the monks, and so at their advice he decided to invite the oldest and the most learned of the monks of the time, Moggaliputta Tissa, who was then staying in a forest, to the Aśokārāma in order to get his doubts solved by him. Moggaliputta Tissa arrived in due course of time and convinced him of his innocence on the ground of the absence of his intention to have the monks beheaded. At his advice, Aśoka decided to weed out the unorthodox monks from the Saṅgha. He and Tissa called the monks one by one and asked each of them whether Buddha was a Vibhajjavādin or not? Those who answered in the affirmative were allowed to remain within the Saṅgha while the rest were compelled to give up their yellow robes. After thus purging the Saṅgha of unorthodox elements, a Council was held by the orthodox monks, and in that Council the three Piṭakas were recited as was done in the 1st and 2nd Councils. On this occasion Moggaliputta Tissa composed the Kathāvatthu, one of the seven texts of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, with a view to refute the various doctrinal views held by the non-Theravādins.¹

v2.c41.s1.2

¹ Mahāvaṃsa, Ch. V.

v2.c41.s1.3

In the Nikāya-saṅgraha, a late Sinhalese work, there is the additional information that the monks who were compelled to leave the Saṅgha of the Theriya Nikāya (= Theravādins) became members of the non-Theravāda sects, particularly the Mahāsaṅghikas. In course of time they became subdivided into nine sub sects, viz., Hemavata, Rāj<bos>-giriya, Siddhatthaka (see above, p. 109), Pūrvaśaila, Aparaśaila (see above, p. 74 f.), Vājiriya, Vetullaka, Andhaka and Anya-Mahāsaṅghika. In the Mahāvaṃsa the first six sects are mentioned as some of the later schools which came into being after the first eighteen. The Śaila schools on account of their location in the Andhra country were also known as the Andhakas (see above, p. 49). The Vetullakas or the Vaitulyas (see above, p. 110) and the Anya-Mahāsaṅghikas referred to in the Kathāvatthu as ekacce Mahāsaṅghikā (see above, p. 74) were also later offshoots of the Mahāsaṅghikas with stronger pro-Mahāyānic views.

v2.c41.s1.4

By scrutinising the above two traditions, we may draw the following conclusions:—

v2.c41.s1.5

(i) The heretics (*titthiyas*) are none other than those Buddhists who were Ācariyavādins, i.e., the Mahāsanghikas and their offshoots.

v2.c41.s1.6

(ii) The Ācariyavādins differed from the Theravādins not only in disciplinary rules but also in doctrinal principles.

v2.c41.s1.7

(iii) Monks holding different views about the Pātimokkha rules could not reasonably agree to perform the Uposatha in one Āvāsa. According to the Pātimokkha code of every sect all the members present and the absentees by proxy must declare that they had not, during the preceding fortnight, committed any breach of the rules embodied in the Vinaya Code accepted by them. If this condition be strictly enforced, a Theravādin would be impure according to the Mahāsanghika Code and *vice versa*. Hence no two sects could hold the Uposatha at the same sitting.

v2.c41.s1.8

(iv) Aśoka not conversant with the Vinaya rules wanted to see that the *uposathas* were held in his Ārāma. He also did not approve of the existence of different sects and probably wanted that they should make up their differences which were in many cases of a minor character.

v2.c41.s1.9

(v) The main cause of the Council was the disagreement between the Mahāsanghikas and the Theravādins about the Vinaya rules. The members of the Mahāsanghika sect were considered impure by the members of the Theravāda sect, and so the latter wanted to expel the former from the Sangha.

v2.c41.s1.10

(vi) The Mahāsanghikas were already a powerful body with a large following. They probably left Magadha to make their seat in the Andhra country.

v2.c41.s1.11

(vii) Aśoka's anxiety for averting schism in the Buddhist church was very probably created by the differences that existed between the Theravādins and the Mahāsanghikas.

v2.c41.s1.12

(viii) It is unlikely that Aśoka sided with the Theravādins as against the Mahāsanghikas. Hence Aśoka's part in the Council as recorded in the Ceylonese traditions may be dismissed as imaginary.

v2.c41.s1.13

(ix) The Kathāvatthu was definitely the outcome of the deliberations of the Council.

v2.c41.s1.14

(x) Moggaliputta Tissa was the Sanghatthera of the Theravāda vibhajjavāda sect¹ at the time while Upagupta was the Sanghatthera of the Sarvāstivādins.²

v2.c41.s1.15

¹ On the basis of the inscription Sapurisasa Mogaliputasa in a relic casket found in the Tope no. 2 of the Sanchi group, Dr. Geiger concludes that the tradition about Moggaliputta Tissa is authentic. See his Translation of the Mahāvaṃsa, p. xx.

v2.c41.s1.16

² It is rather remarkable that in the Papañcasudanī (II, p. 139) Majjhantikatthera is described as the Sanghatthera on the day on which the festivity on the completion of Aśoka's monasteries took place.

v2.c41.s1.17

(xi) The Theravāda-vibhajjavādins³ only, to the exclusion of the adherents of other sects, met together and reaffirmed their acceptance of the Theravāda-Piṭakan collection.

v2.c41.s1.18

³ See above, p. 199.

Propagation of the religion

v2.c41.s2.1

The second part of the Ceylonese tradition about the third council deals with the propagation of Buddhism⁴ in different countries. It is said that Moggaliputta Tissa after the termination of the Council despatched nine missionaries to nine different places for the propagation of the religion. The names of the monks and the countries to which they were deputed are given as follows:—

v2.c41.s2.2

⁴ Mahāvaṃsa, Ch. XII.

v2.c41.s2.3

(i) Majjhantika (=Madhyāndina) to Kāśmira-Gandhāra (=Mod. Peshwar and Rawalpindi Districts).¹

v2.c41.s2.4

¹ For identification, see B. C. Law, *Geographical Essays*, p. 69.

v2.c41.s2.5

(ii) Mahādeva to Mahiṣamaṇḍala (=Māhiṣmati, a district south of the Vindhyas).

v2.c41.s2.6

(iii) Rakkhita to Vanavāsi (=North Canara).

v2.c41.s2.7

(iv) Dhammarakkhita (a Yonaka) to Aparānta (Western Countries like Alor, Broach, and Sopara).

v2.c41.s2.8

(v) Mahādhammarakkhita to Mahāraṭṭha (=Mod. Mahārāṣṭra).

v2.c41.s2.9

(vi) Mahārakkhita to Yona countries (=the foreign settlements of the N.-W. Frontier Province).

v2.c41.s2.10

(vii) Majjhima to Himavanta.

v2.c41.s2.11

(viii) Soṇa with Uttara to Suvaṇṇabhūmi.²

v2.c41.s2.12

(ix) Mahinda to Tambapaṇṇi (=Ceylon).

v2.c41.s2.13

In the *Mahākarmavibhaṅga* (p. 61-62) there is a similar tradition about the conversion of different countries. It is as follows:—

v2.c41.s2.14

(i) Mahākātyāyana Avanti (with capital Ujjayini) and other Western countries.

v2.c41.s2.15

(ii) Madhyāndina Kāśmīra.

v2.c41.s2.16

(iii) Gavāmpati Suvaṇṇabhūmi.² (iv) Piṇḍola Bharadvāja Pūrva Videha.

v2.c41.s2.17

² The identification of Suvaṇṇabhūmi (mentioned in the two traditions) with Burma cannot be accepted. We must identify it with a country within India. The association of the name of Gavāmpati with Suvaṇṇabhūmi indicates that the place is not far from Magadha. In the *Milindapañha*, p. 359, Suvaṇṇabhūmi is mentioned after Kolapaṭṭana as a seaport.

v2.c41.s2.18

(v) Mahendra Siṃhala.

v2.c41.s2.19

(vi) Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇiputra Surpāraka (=Mod. Sopara).

v2.c41.s2.20

The author of the *Mahākarmavibhaṅga* has evidently mixed up the earlier tradition with the later. To the earlier tradition belong Mahākātyāyana (Avantī), Gavāmpati (Suvarṇabhūmi) and Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇiputra (Surpāraka) while to the later belong Madhyāndina (Kāśmīra) and Mahendra (Siṃhala). Though the date of composition of the *Mahākarmavibhaṅga* is a matter of uncertainty, the tradition preserved by it is authentic.

v2.c41.s2.21

The question is how far the Ceylonese tradition about the despatch of missionaries to different countries can be relied on. The find of the relic-urn, on the inner and outer lid of which appear the following two inscriptions respectively: *Sapurisa [sa] Majhimasa* and *Sapurisa[sa] Kāsapagotasa Hemavatācariyasa* is a definite proof of the fact that Majjhima with Kassapagotta Thera propagated the religion in the Himalayan countries. In view of the fact that Mahāvihāra became the repository of the Pāli Piṭaka and a centure of the Theravāda sect, we may accept the traditional accounts about the missionary activities of Mahinda in Ceylon as fairly authentic. That the members of the Theravāda sect or the Theriya Nikāya as they are called in the *Nikāya Saṅgraha* (see above, p. 268) were imbued with a missionary spirit is amply corroborated by one of the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions (3rd or 4th century A.D.); It runs as follows:—

v2.c41.s2.22

*Sidham. Namo Bhagavato......Ramño M[āṭha]riputasa......ācariyānaṃ Kaṣmira - Gaṃdhāra - Cīna - Cilāta - Tosali - Avaramta - Vaṃga - Vanavāsi - Yava [na]. Da [mila - Pa] lura - Taṃbapaṇṇi - dīpa - pasādakānaṃ theriyānaṃ Taṃbapa (m)*

v2.c41.s2.23

ṇakānaṃ suparigabe Siripavate Vijayapuriya - puva - disā -bhāge vihāre Cula - Dhammagirīyaṃ cetiyagharam sapaṭa - saṃtharaṃ sacetīyaṃ sava - niyutaṃ kāritaṃ uvāsikāya Bodhisiriya”.......

v2.c41.s2.24

Translation: “Success. Adoration to the Lord Buddha. In the 14th year of King Māṭhariputa . . . . . For the benefit of the masters and of the fraternities (of monks), of Tambapaṇṇa (Ceylon) who have converted Kashmir, Gandhāra, Cīna, Cilāta (= Skt. Kirāta), Tosali, Avaraṃta (= Skt. Aparānta), Vaṅga, Vanavāsī, Yavana (?), Damila (?), Palura (?) and the Isle of Tambapaṇṇi (Ceylon). At Siripavata (= Śrīparvata) on the east side of Vijayapurī at the Convent on the Lesser Dharmagiri a Caitya hall with a flooring of slabs, with a Caitya and provided with all the necessaries, was caused to be made by the female lay-member Bodhisiri (= Skt. Bodhiśrī) .........” (Dr. Hirananda Sastri in *Epigraphia Indica*, XX, pp. 22, 23). This inscription not only corroborates the Ceylonese tradition that the members of the Theriya Nikāya or the Theravāda sect, who later settled in Ceylon, propagated Buddhism in many countries but also proves that their missionary activity went on unabated and they were able to introduce Buddhism into a few other places like Cīna(?), Tosali (in Kaliṅga), Vaṅga (Bengal), Palura (Dantapura?) and the Tamil countries. In the other inscriptions discovered at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa the names of a few other Buddhist sects are mentioned but they are not given the credit of taking up actively the task of propagation of the religion. In view of the above quoted inscription of Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and the inscriptions on the lid of the relic-urns, we think the Ceylonese tradition about the despatch of missionaries has a historical basis.

v2.c41.s2.25

Apart from the propagation made by the Theriya Nikāya we know that several sects which came into being after the Second Buddhist Council migrated to different countries from Magadha and each sect selected a centre for itself. The Mahāsanghikas and their offshoots, for instance, migrated southwards and came to be known as the Andhakas, whch fact indicates that they propagated Buddhism in the Andhra countries. The Mahīśāsakas and the Theravādins moved together for some time till the former settled in Mahiṣamaṇḍala and Vanavāsi, and the latter in Avantī, and ultimately in Ceylon. The Sammitīyas or the Vātsiputrīyas bore the local name of the Avantakas, and so it seems that this sect selected the northern part of Avantī and Vatsa country as their fields of activities. The Sarvāstivādins proceeded northwards to Mathurā and thence to Gandhāra. Those of the Sarvāstivādins, who proceeded further north to Kāśmīra, were probably the Haimavatas or the Mūlasarvāstivādins, who had the other local name, the Uttarāpathakas.

v2.c41.s2.26

Thus we see that by the time of Aśoka, Buddhism had spread eastwards and southwards up to the Andhra countries, North Canara and Māhiṣmatī, westwards up to Broach and Sopara, and northwards to the N.-W. Frontier Provinces and Kāśmīra. It was on account of the peaceful state brought about by Aśoka’s rule that it was possible for Buddhism to reach all the parts of India and to become a dominant force in the history of religions in India.

Linked texts (7)