Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t5: Buddhist Councils, Debates and Split

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t5

Language
English

Buddhist Councils, Debates and Split

c6.s5.t5.1

Buddha could instill the essence of *vāda* tradition in the dialogues and discussions he engaged in with his followers. After his final departure, his followers continued his legacy. This necessitated *vādas*. Differences with regard to interpretations of *buddha-vacanas* surfaced. This led to calling a number of *saṅgītis* (councils). These councils provided platforms for debates and they also caused split in the *saṁgha*.

c6.s5.t5.2

Raising doubts and questioning must have been a practice in the order founded by Buddha. The repercussions of this practice are reflected in *Kathāvatthu*, a text which has already been referred here. Sometimes such doubts and questions could also cause a split in the order. One Mahādeva, as referred in *Kathāvatthu*, had questioned the very authenticity of the *arhat*, alleging that the *arhat* might be sexually tempted, might have a residue of ignorance, might have doubts himself, or might depend upon others for his own enlightenment.⁹⁷

c6.s5.t5.3

Buddha had a premonition of this situation and had forewarned his disciples of the possibilities of split. The split cannot be caused by reasons external. Monk Nāgasena in *Milindapañho* rightly said:

c6.s5.t5.4

The householders do not break the order, nor a nun, nor a newly initiated nun under probation, nor a novice (*sāmanera*). It is the ordained monk, belonging to the same communion, to the same parish, living within the same boundary, who can break the order.⁹⁸

c6.s5.t5.5

In response to a question by Upāli in *Cullavagga* of *Vinayapiṭaka* (chap. VII) he enumerates eighteen possible causes for the split of the *saṁgha*. There can be a split if the followers of the *saṁgha* start explaining non-*dhamma* as *dhamma*, non-obedience as obedience, attributing things to *tathāgata* which he did not say, attributing practices to him which he did not practise, attributing tenets to him which he did not propound, explaining no offence as offence, slight offence as serious offence, a curable offence as incurable, a bad offence as a good offence; as well as the vice versa of these take the number up to eighteen. These causes are enlisted in the chapter on the split of *saṁgha* (*saṁghabhedasutta*) of *Aṅguttaranikāya* (5.93) in a more compact way, reducing the number to ten.

c6.s5.t5.6

*Saṁghabheda* (split in the organization) as a category is repeatedly discussed in Buddhist canons. Forming a separate circle for any practice to be done collectively in the *saṁgha* causes *cakrabheda*, and *cakrabheda* leads to *saṁghabheda*. The canons differentiate between the division amongst the monks by forming separate circles within the order and the split. The former is called *saṁgharāji*, and the latter is already described as *saṁghabheda*. The *saṁghabheda* will be supposed to have occurred if the total number of the monks raising a dispute exceeds nine. The canons also describe the situations of cakrabheda which were already occurring in the *saṁgha*. The causes of split rested either on doctrinal differences or adoption of different practices.⁹⁹

c6.s5.t5.7

Buddha is reported to have propagated *nairātmya* (the theory of no soul), but even amongst his followers there were reputed philosophers like Sthavira Vatsa who believed in the existence of soul. He was a contemporary of Kālāśoka (395-67 BCE). The followers of Sthavira Vatsa had formed their own school and were known as the Vatsīputrīyas or Sammatīyas during the rule of Nanda, the grandson of Kālāśoka. There are records to prove that this school continued to exist during the third-fourth centuries and became influential during the reign of the King Harṣa (CE 606-47). Harṣa’s sister, Rājyaśrī was a Sāmmatīya.

c6.s5.t5.8

After Buddha, a number of councils were held to systematize his ideas and precepts. These councils fall in two categories — the canonical and the non-canonical. The sole purpose of the former had been to compile and systematize the *buddha-vacanas*. The first council was held in the year of Buddha’s death itself in 483 BCE. King Bimbisāra sponsored it by donating a site. Five hundred monks were selected to participate in the proceedings. Upāli, one of the direct disciples of Buddha, recited the Vinaya texts comprised of the disciplinary rules for monks, and Ānanda recounted Buddha’s discourses which were then called as a *Suttapiṭaka*.

c6.s5.t5.9

One hundred years after Buddha’s *mahāparinirvāṇa* (final departure), the second council was held at Vaiśālī. Seven hundred monks are said to have attended this council to debate on the issues related to indiscipline in the *saṁgha*. A concord was re-established. A non-canonical council after 137 years of Buddha’s *mahāparinirvāṇa* was held in Pāṭaliputra, when King Mahāpadma Nanda was requested to mediate in a dispute between rival groups of monks. This council initiated Buddhism as a sectarian movement.

c6.s5.t5.10

The first division in Buddhist *saṁgha* occurred in this council. The monks of Vaiśālī vehemently disagreed with regard to the status of the *sthaviras* (elders), and alienating from the conservative *sthaviras* (the elders); they formed a liberal group of their own. This group was known as the *mahāsaṁgha* (great community) and its members were called the *mahāsāṁghikas*.

c6.s5.t5.11

The third canonical council was convened by King Aśoka around 250 bce in Pāṭaliputra. Moggaliputta Tissa alias Upagupta supervised over its proceedings. Around one thousand monks are reported to have joined this council. Lively debates between the orthodox Theravādins and orthodox/heterodox sects concerning various doctrinal points were held in this council. These debates have been recorded in *Kathāvatthu* (points of debate) a Pāli text, which forms the fifth book of *Abhidhammapiṭaka* under the Theravāda tradition.

c6.s5.t5.12

One of the earliest councils related to Theravāda was organized in 25 bce when King Vattagmaṇī's rule was restored at the Mahāvihāra of Anurādhapuram, the capital city of Sri Lanka, to resolve religious unrest in Buddhist community. The compilation of Tripiṭakas — the Buddhist scriptures as per the Theravāda tradition — was initiated in this council.

c6.s5.t5.13

Another important council was organized by Kaniṣka in the country of Gāndhāra around ce 100 at the instance of Pārśva, a Sarvāstivādin monk. Vasumitra, one of the foremost philosophers of Buddhism, presided over it. The council was attended by 499 monks and Aśvaghoṣa, a great Sanskrit poet and scholar of Buddhism, actively participated in it. It is also said that under the guidance of Vasumitra commentaries in Sanskrit on all the three Piṭakas — *Suttra*, *Vinaya* and *Abhidhamma* — were prepared in this council. Composition of a commentary *Mahāvibhāṣā* on *Jñānaprasthāna* of *Abhidhamma* was taken up in this council. *Mahāvibhāṣā* was later on accepted as a standard text on *Abhidhamma*. *Abhidharmakośa* of Vasubadhu is one of the most important texts in Buddhist literature. It is based on *Mahāvibhāṣā*.

Linked texts (8)