Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Manual of Indian Buddhism c7.s2: 2. Second General Council

Manual of Indian Buddhism c7.s2

Language
English

2. Second General Council

c7.s2.1

According to the universal Buddhist tradition the second general Council was held at Vaiśālī. The records of it look like copies of a genuine historical document which have been falsified as to the date and in some other particulars.

c7.s2.2

The most circumstantial account is preserved in the P. Vinaya⁴. It is in substance as follows. A century after the Lord's Parinirvāṇa the monks of Vṛji (Vajjī) lineage at Vaiśālī declared as permissible the Ten Points (*dasa vatthūni*), to wit: 1. storing salt in a horn; 2. the taking of the midday meal when the sun's shadow shows two finger-breadths after noon; 3. the going to some village (or: to another village) and there eating fresh food⁵; 4. residing (in the same parish and yet holding the Uposatha separately); 5. sanction (of a solemn act in an incomplete chapter); 6. the (unconditional) following of a precedent; 7. the partaking of unchurned milk; 8. of unfermented toddy; 9. the use of a mat without fringes (not conform with the model prescribed); 10. to accept gold and silver.

c7.s2.3

⁴ CV. XII. Cp. Buddhaghoṣa in S. Vibh. I, 293 ff. Saddh. S. II; Dīpav. V, 16 ff. Mahāv. IV.

c7.s2.4

⁵ The explanation of the elliptical terms in CV. XII, 1, 10; 2, 8, and in MINAYEF'S Prātim. XXXIX, is of dubious value. Both the Points and the interpretation differ more or less in the Tibetan Vinayakṣudraka, Tar. 41; cp. ROCKHILL op. c. 171, f. The terms were obscure even to the Thera Revata, one of the chiefs of the Council. — A discussion on the interpretation of the terms in MINAYEF Recherches I, 44-50.

c7.s2.5

At that time the Sthavira Yaśas, Kākaṇḍaka's son, came to Vaiśālī, and whilst staying in the Mahāvana, witnessed the unlawful practices of the Vṛjian monks. By addressing the laity he endeavoured to stop the iniquity of the brethren, who instead of desisting from their wrong practices, carried out against him the act of making excuses to the offended laity. Yaśas protested and demanded that a companion should be appointed to go with himself as a messenger, so that he might have the occasion of asking redress for the wrong done to him. His demand being wouchsafed, he entered with his companion into the city of Vaiśālī, where he laid his case before the believing laymen. He was deservedly successful in his eloquent pleading, for the laymen after hearing him declared that he alone was a worthy Śramaṇa and son of Śākya. The Vrjian monks, being informed by their deputy of the decision, continued obstinate, and carried out against Yaśas the act of excommunication. But Yaśas rose up into the sky, and descended at Kauśāmbī. From that place he sent messengers to the brethren in the W. country, in Avanti, and in the S. country, summoning them to an assembly¹. He himself went to Sambhūta Sāṇavāsin on the Ahogaṅga Hill, told him what had happened, and persuaded him that a lawful decision in the case was absolutely necessary. In the meantime many brethren, all Arhats, flocked together from the regions afore-named. After some deliberation they arrived at the conclusion that it would be of the utmost importance to persuade Revata, then dwelling at Soreyya, he being a man who knew the Āgamas, the Dharma, the Vinaya, and the Mātṛkās². Now Revata on perceiving by his divine ear what the Sthaviras intended to do, and wishing to keep out of the quarrel, left Soreyya for Sāṅkāśya. When the brethren arrived at Soreyya and heard that Revata had left for Sāṅkāśya, they travelled to that place. On arriving they heard that he had gone to Kanauj. After many fruitless endeavours they at last overtook him in Sahajāti. There Yaśas had an interview with Revata, and submitted to him the question whether the Ten Points were allowable. The decision of Revata — as might be expected — was that they were not, whereupon Yaśas persuaded him to take the legal question in hand before the unlawful practices could become general.

c7.s2.6

¹ The Western monks are designed as "Pātheyyaka bhikkhus". For Pātheyya and Pātheyyaka see ED. MÜLLER JPTS. of 1888, p. 54.

c7.s2.7

² This points to a previous collection of the Abhidharma.

c7.s2.8

Meanwhile the Vrjian monks of Vaiśālī had heard rumours about the doings of Yaśas, and being convinced that the opinion of Revata would carry great weight, they decided upon trying to gain him over to their party. So they went to Sahajāti. Before they had had occasion to meet Revata, it happened that the Thera Sāḷha felt some doubt whether the monks of the West or those of the East were in accordance with the Law. His doubts were happily soon dissipated by a heavenly being, to whom he promised to make manifest his opinion when needed.

c7.s2.9

The Vaiśālī monks had no success in their endeavours to gain over Revata, in spite of the presents they offered to him and of their machinations to bribe Uttara, a disciple of his.

c7.s2.10

When the legal assembly had met to decide the question, Revata proposed a resolution that the Saṅgha should settle the question at that place where it arose, i. e. at Vaiśālī. The resolution being adopted, the brethren went to Vaiśālī. Now at that time there lived in that city an old Thera, Sabbakāmin by name, who 120 years ago had received Upasampadā. This venerable monk of the East was asked by Sambhūta and Revata his opinion, and he made to them the same promise as Sāḷha had done to the heavenly being.

c7.s2.11

In the subsequent meeting of the Saṅgha the proceedings did not succeed, which circumstance moved Revata to lay a proposal before the assembly that the question should be submitted to a committee. So he selected a committee of eight persons, four monks of the East, viz. Sabbakāmin, Sāḷha, Khujjasobhita, and Vāsabhagāmika; and four of the West: Revata, Sambhūta, Yaśas, and Sumana. The younger monk Ajita was appointed as regulator of seats.

c7.s2.12

As the place of meeting of the committee was chosen the Valikārāma, a quiet and undisturbed spot.

c7.s2.13

The proceedings of the committee¹ were conducted in this manner that Revata put the questions, and Sabbakāmin delivered his authoritative replies. All the Ten Points were declared to be against the rules, and therewith the Vrjian monks were put in the wrong². The assembly in pleno, in which the Vinaya was rehearsed, is said to have consisted of 700 monks. No mention whatever is made of the Suttas and the Abhidamma.

c7.s2.14

¹ Mahāv. p. 26.

c7.s2.15

² Points 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 were in conflict with Art. 38, 37, 35, 35, 51, and 89 of Title Pācittiya; Point 10 with Art. 10 Nissaggiya; Point 4 and 5 with MV. II, 8, 3, and IX, 3, 5; the decision of Point 6 depends upon circumstances.

c7.s2.16

Before adducing other testimonies, we cannot help observing that the date assigned to the second Council is impossible, unless the heroes of the tale are purely fictitious. A century after the Parinirvāna, Sarvakāmin would have been at least 140 years of age; Yaśas, Kākaṇḍaka's son, if he be identical with Yaśas, one of the first converts of the Buddha, would have been 20 + 45 + 100 = 165 years; if he be another, then he must have been more than 120 years, and so, too, the other Theras³. A chronology leading to such monstrous results condemns itself. The names of the acting Theras may be historical, and the account of their doings, apart from some incongruities and absurdities, may be founded upon a genuine tradition.

c7.s2.17

³ Satha died before the Lord; MPS. II, 6. This fact is ignored in CV., or perhaps he had been resuscitated. Why not? We have in so serious a work as the Mil. P. a striking instance of revival in the case of the six Tirthikas.

c7.s2.18

The later Simhalese documents pretend to know much more of the Council of Vaiśālī than the canonical Vinaya. They give in substance what is found in the sacred text, but with additions which partly are not warranted by, and partly positively conflicting, with the canonical record. Thus the Dipav. one time fixes the number of those who attended the second Council at 700, another time at 1 200 000⁴. It further adds that at the time of the second Council "Aśoka, the son of Siśunāga, was king; that prince ruled in the town of Pāṭaliputra". Elsewhere⁵ Siśunāga is called the immediate predecessor of the Nandas, so that Siśunāga is confounded with Kāla (v. l. Kāla) Aśoka. Such incongruities have nothing to surprise us in a work which is not a well-digested composition, but an uncritical collection of various older sources, chiefly memorial verses. Hence the same event is told twice with variations. The most important addition is the statement that after the second Council had been closed, another Council was held by the losing party. "The wicked Bhikkhus, the Vajjiputtakas who had been excommunicated by the Theras, gained another party; and many people, holding the wrong doctrine, ten thousand, assembled and held a council. Therefore this Dhamma-council is called the Great Council (Mahāsangiti)." Herewith compare the statement in another work⁶ that the ten thousand wicked Bhikkhus established the wrong doctrine termed the Ācariya-vāda, i. e. the doctrine of the Ācariyas, in contradistinction to the orthodox doctrine of the Sthaviras, the Theravāda. The wrong doctrine is also called that of the Mahāsangha (Mahāsanghika). Hence follows, if the tradition is to be trusted, that instead of one Council, two Councils were held, the second by the condemned party⁷, a short time after the former. Further it would appear that the majority of the Buddhists clung to the so-called schismatics. How else to explain such terms as Mahāsangīti and Mahāsanghika? The denomination of Ācāryavāda given by the orthodox to the Mahāsānghika or Mahāsangītika doctrine, suggests the fact that the latter cause was upheld by the more learned elements of the Order.

c7.s2.19

⁴ Dipav. IV, 52; V, 20; 25.

c7.s2.20

⁵ Dipav. V, 99.

c7.s2.21

⁶ Bodhiv. p. 96.

c7.s2.22

⁷ Mark that the party had not at all been condemned in matters of doctrine, but exclusively in points of discipline.

c7.s2.23

Now the question arises "where did the Mahāsai gīti assemble?" We have not been able to find a distinct statement in the Simhalese sources. According to a N. tradition the council of the Mahāsānghikas was held not far from the place where the first Council had assembled¹. We are informed that the party of the Great Assembly, the Mahāsānghikas, derived that name from both monks and laics attending the Council, and that on that occasion a new collection of the Scriptures was made. There is no question of the Ten Points or the orthodox Council at Vaiśālī².

c7.s2.24

¹ Voy. I, 158; III, 37.

c7.s2.25

² No more than in the account found in a Chinese commentary on the Vinaya; WASSILLEF H. 225. As to the heretical theories of the Mahāsānghikas in matter of doctrine, see Kathav. P. A. X; XI; XII; XIV; XV; XVI; XVIII; XXI.

c7.s2.26

In the Simhalese sources the leaders of the Mahāsānghikas are identified with the Vrjian monks of Vaiśālī. Now we know that these were in possession of the Kūṭāgāra Hall of the Mahāvana, as the chronicles affirm³. In order to obviate this difficulty, the Simhalese have invented a tale. The King Kāla Aśoka at first favoured the heretics — exactly as the historical Aśoka did —, but afterwards he changed his mind, thanks to the interference of the gods and to a dream of his sister. By his protection the orthodox could assemble in the Mahāvana monastery, whereas the committee had its sittings in the Vālīkārāma. The canonical account knows nothing of an assembly in the Mahāvana, nor is any mention made of it in the Bodhivamsa nor by Buddhaghoṣa⁴, though the latter, after saying that the second Council is called that of the 700, adds that it was attended by 1 200 000 monks, precisely as in the Dipav. All available Sin halese accounts agree in asserting that the whole collection of the Dhamma and Vinaya was revised, against the authority of the canon, which only speaks of a Vinaya Sangīti. In the N. tradition just alluded to there is, indeed, likewise question of a revision of the complete sacred texts, but by the Mahāsānghikas.

c7.s2.27

³ Dipav. V, 29, but Bodhiv. and Buddhaghoṣa have Valukārāma.

c7.s2.28

⁴ Dipav. l. c. again does not mention the Valukārāma.

c7.s2.29

The contradictions between the canon and the Simhalese narratives are apt to move grave doubts anent the connection between the condemning of the Ten Points and the schismatic Great Council. Let us now turn to the N. traditions⁵ about the question of the Ten Points.

c7.s2.30

⁵ ROCKHILL op. c. 171 ff. Voy. II, 397; Tār. 290.

c7.s2.31

When one hundred and ten years had elapsed after the Nirvāṇa some monks at Vaiśālī deviated from the Law and transgressed the rules of discipline in Ten Points⁶. In those days there lived an old Sthavira, Yaśas, in Kosala; another, Sambhūta, in Mathurā, Revata in Sahaja, Kubjaśobhita in Pāṭaliputra — all of them pupils of Ānanda⁷. Yaśas despatched messengers to summon the brethren to a gathering in Vaiśālī. When 699 monks had come together, Kubjaśobhita, perceiving by his divine eye what was going on, appeared by Ṛddhi in the midst of the assembly to complete the number. Sambhūta proposed in due form a resolution that the monks of Vaiśālī, who in the Ten Points had deviated from the regulations of the Master, should be censured. The resolution being adopted, "the great assembly" proceeded to severely censure the delinquents, who repented and left their bad practices.

c7.s2.32

⁶ The expressions in Voy. l. s. remind one of *apagatasathusāsana*, *ubbinaya*, CV. XII, 2, 8.

c7.s2.33

⁷ To whom may be added from Bu-ston (Tār. 290): Salha and Ajita; uncertain is Vṛshabhagāmin, or rather impossible, for *Nor-can* means "wealthy".

c7.s2.34

It does not appear to which of the various sects this version of the story belongs. This much is clear that it more or less differs from the tradition of the Mahīśāsakas and from another in the Bu-ston¹. On comparing the version preserved to us by the Chinese pilgrim with the narrative in the Pāli canon, the former makes the impression of being older, but on the whole they are much on a par. Both versions agree — and that is an important point — therein that they indirectly deny any connection between the condemnation of the Ten Points and the Council of the Mahāsānghikas. The expression "the great assembly", i. e. the meeting in pleno, positively shows that there is no question of a Mahāsangīti apart from the Council on Vaiśālī². Such an agreement between the traditions of two totally different sects goes far to prove that the story of the Mahāsangīti or Mahāsānghika schism as connected with the Council at Vaiśālī is an invention, perhaps suggested by such an expression as "the great assembly".

c7.s2.35

¹ Tar. 290 f.; ROCKHILL op. c. 173. In the version of the Mahīśāsakas the date is 100 years, the name of the president being Sarvakāma. This agreement with the Pali version is natural enough, because the Mahīśāsakas have branched off from the Orthodox sect after the schism of the Mahāsānghikas.

c7.s2.36

² We have seen above that Huen Thsang gives elsewhere a separate account of the Mahāsānghika Council.

c7.s2.37

In one Tibetan source³ we read that 110 years after the Nirvāṇa Yaśas and the pupils of Ānanda, to the number of 700, assembled in Vaiśālī, and there perfected a second collection. No such collection is spoken of in the other sources⁴. The rambling and confused narrative of Tāranātha⁵ teaches us nothing.

c7.s2.38

³ Tib. L. 309.

c7.s2.39

⁴ Cp. ROCKHILL op. c. 180.

c7.s2.40

⁵ Tar. 41 f.

c7.s2.41

If we wish to weigh against each other the value of the S. and that of the N. sources, we must begin with leaving out of the reckoning all unwarranted additions, either by the Simhalese or by others. By so doing and by waiving points of secondary importance, we perceive that the difference turns about ten years, the P. canon fixing the Council at Vaiśālī at 100 years after Nirvāṇa, whereas most N. traditions give 110 years. Both dates are inadmissible, and for the same reason: the impossible age of the actors. Both the P. canon and the Vinayakṣudraka, as well as Huen Thsang leave us in the dark about the king in whose reign the second Council took place. That silence has given rise to interminable controversies on the date of Buddha's death⁶. According to the chronology adopted by the Simhalese, the king reigning 100 years after Buddha's death was a certain Kāla Aśoka, whereas the N. Buddhists almost universally represent Aśoka the Maurya as having ascended the throne a century or thereabouts after Buddha's Nirvāṇa⁷. It would be very convenient if we could eliminate the difficulty by asserting — as has been done — that the N. Buddhists confounded two kings of the same name. Such an assertion is easy enough, but to make it good would be more difficult. In the first place, we should not speak of an involuntary confusion, for the all but general view of the N. Buddhists is intimately connected with the whole system of chronology. The Sthavira Yaśas is most decidedly and deliberately represented as a contemporary of Dharma Aśoka¹. There can be no doubt about his identity with the Yaśas of the Vaiśālī Council. For he declares to Aśoka the Maurya that he is the oldest remaining of the Disciples of the Buddha, Piṇḍola Bhāradvāja alone excepted. The untrustworthiness of the tale remains the same, whether Yaśas showed his activity 100 years after Buddha's Nirvāṇa in the reign of a King Kāla Aśoka, or of another King Dharma Aśoka. Where two accounts are equally absurd, there is no reason to give a marked preference to either². Under such circumstances any decisive choice is more a matter of taste or fancy, than of science, specially as we find no support in independent, Brahmanic sources³.

c7.s2.42

⁶ The chief papers bearing on the chronological question are TURNOUR, Pref. to his ed. of Mahāv., and in JASB. VI, 505; LASSEN Ind. Alt. II, 53; MAX MÜLLER Anc. S. L. 263; SBE. X, pp. XXIX ff.; WESTERGAARD, Über Buddha's Todesjahr; BÜHLER in Ind. Ant. VI, 149; VII, 141; XX, 299; SENART in JA. of 1879, p. 524; of 1892, p. 482; OLDENBERG in DMG. XXXV, 474; RHYS DAVIDS Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon p. 57; PISCHEL in Acad. of 1877, p. 145. Cp. BARTH, Rel. of India p. 107, and Bulletin des Rel. de l'Inde of 1894.

c7.s2.43

⁷ It is in the Avadāna-Śataka (BURNOUF Intr. 432) that Aśoka is said to have reigned at Pāṭaliputra 200 years after Buddha's death. We may add that according to a notice in

c7.s2.44

¹ Divy. 381; 385; 399; 404; 406; 423.

c7.s2.45

² The preference to the Simhalese account is, from a critical standpoint, the less intelligible, because ever since TURNOUR advocated the claims of the Simhalese chronology, it has been admitted on all hands that it contains an error of more than 60 years. That error has been palliated by the guess that such an error has sprung up after the period of Aśoka. But a system which contains such a blunder or wilful misstatement at a later period is a fortiori suspicious for more ancient times.

c7.s2.46

³ For a comparative treatment of the Simhalese and the Jaina chronology we refer to JACOBI, DMG. XXXIV, 185; XXXV, 667; cp. OLDENBERG XXXIV, 751.

c7.s2.47

The only indisputable fact resulting from a comparison of the different accounts is the existence of conflicting traditions, and that in comparatively ancient times. Traces of unsettled questions are found in the Simhalese documents. We have seen that in one of them Śiśunāga appears instead of Kālāśoka. Elsewhere we come across the following prophecy by the Buddha: "I shall reach complete Parinibbāna, like the setting sun. Four months after my Parinibbāna the first convocation will be held. A hundred and eighteen years later the third convocation will take place, for the sake of the propagation of the Faith. Then there will be a ruler over this Jambudīpa, a highly virtuous, glorious monarch known as Dhammāsoka⁴". This is not the only instance. In another works the date of the beginning of Duṭṭha-Gāmaṇi's reign is, in the prose text, 376 after the Nirvāṇa, but in the older and much more authoritative memorial verse following, it is 276.

c7.s2.48

⁴ Dīpav. I, 24-26. The translator adds in a note: "A mention of the second convocation, which was held a hundred years after Buddha's death, is wanting in the MSS.; the third is said to have been held 118 years after the second." The first statement is true, but fails to explain the reason why the mention is wanting. The second statement is not true, from Dīpav. VII, 37 it appears that the Council took place 236 years after Nirvāṇa. The date 218 is that of Aśoka's Abhiṣeka; Dīpav. VI, 1; Bodhiv. p. 100; S. Vibh. I, 321, where the reckoning yields 228, but evidently owing to some error in the figures.

c7.s2.49

If, in our helpless endeavours to find a firm support, we resort to the list of chief teachers succeeding the Master, we soon become aware of having caught hold of a feeble reed. The succession of teachers, Ācariyaparamparā, of the Theravāda down to the third Council, consists of the following names: Upāli, Dāsaka, Sonaka, Siggava, and Tissa Moggaliputta; some couple with Siggava

c7.s2.50

Tib. L. 309 Aśoka was born eight generations after Udayibhadra. This gives more than 200 years, and in so far corroborates the Sir halese tradition.

c7.s2.51

⁵ Saddh-S. p. 47.

c7.s2.52

the name of Caṇḍavajji¹. It is well-known that Kāśyapa the Great, and not Upāli, was the head of the Order after Buddha's death, but it is admitted that Upāli was the chief of the Vinaya. Dāsaka and Sonaka are likewise designated as chiefs of the Vinaya. Therefore it is exceedingly strange that in the Council of Vaiśālī, where such important questions of discipline were treated, the chief Sonaka is conspicuous by his absence. If such a chief did exist, the great men of the committee completely ignored him. Another suspicious fact is the notice that Tissa Moggaliputta received the Upasampadā ordination in the 3d year of Candragupta's reign, i. e. 314 B. C. or somewhat earlier. He died 86 years after his ordination², i. e. at the age of 106 years. If, contrary to the expressed view of the Sinhalese chroniclers, the numbers are taken as representing the years of life of the five teachers, then the sum total will yield 5 × 20 = 100 less, because the Upasampadā is fixed at 20 years. The interval between the Nirvāṇa and the death of Tissa M. will then be reduced with a whole century. It is by no means impossible that a similar ambiguity in the traditional numbers lies at the bottom of the difference between the Sinhalese and the N. dates of the Nirvāṇa. The otherwise inexplicable want of agreement in regard of that date, may be accounted for on the assumption that the Buddhists of various sects were in the habit of calculating an initial date by summing up the traditional number of years allotted to the first five successive chiefs or reputed chiefs of the Vinaya³. The considerations which may have moved each sect to adopt their own date for the Nirvāṇa are concealed to us, but it would seem that in addition to dogmatical reasons the synchronism of ecclesiastical dates with events of local or national interest have influenced. Thus the Chinese have managed to throw back the initial date to ± 1000 B. C. It is possible, nay probable that the Sinhalese⁴ have acted upon the same principle. This would explain how they got their date of 543 B. C., which is proved to be false.

c7.s2.53

¹ S. Vibh. I, 292; Dīpav. IV; V, 57.

c7.s2.54

² Dīpav. V, 94; but immediately after it we find 80 years; another instance of two conflicting statements in juxtaposition.

c7.s2.55

³ Another list of five teachers (not of Vinaya) is: Kāśyapa, Ananda, Madhyantika, Śaṇavāsa, and Upagupta; WASSILIEF B. 225; Tar. 14. Again another has: Ananda, Yaśas, Śaṇavāsa, wrongly identified with Yaśas, Upagupta, and Dhitika; Tib. L. 308. Cp. WASSILIEF on Tār. 290. The great man in the time of Aśoka is Upagupta, of whom the Master predicts that he will fulfil the Buddha task (Buddhakāryam) 100 years after the Parinirvāṇa; Divy. 350; he takes Orders under Śaṇakavāsin; 349; his feats are described 352; 359; 363; 395; he speaks like the Buddha 428. Cp. BURNOUF Intr. 377 ff.; ROCKHILL op. c. 170.

c7.s2.56

⁴ Properly we should say: the date adopted by the monks of the Mahāvihāra. We are not acquainted with the chronological system of the monks of Abhayagiri.

c7.s2.57

The conclusions we arrive at after comparing the various traditions or what is given as such, are extremely vague, and may be summarized in the following propositions. The Council on Vinaya in Vaiśālī has an historical base; it was held x years after the death of the founder of the Order, and a considerable time before the composition and first collection of the great bulk of the Scriptures. It preceded, but had no connection with the schism of the Mahāsāṅghikas. We leave undecided whether Kāḷaśoka be an ingenious invention of the Sthavira sect or not. For our part, we have a lurking suspicion that the name originally denoted the Maurya king in his black and sinful days, and is almost synonymous with Caṇḍaśoka and Kāmāśoka, as the monarch is called before his conversion, after which he became Dharmāśoka⁵.

c7.s2.58

⁵ Divy. 374; 381 f.; Tār. 29; cp. 39.

Cites (14)