V ol. X X XIII, No.

2 J ournal of A sian S tudies F ebruary 1974

A Review of Scholarship on the

Buddhist Councils

C H A R L E S S. P R E B IS H

T
H E problem of Buddhist councils has haunted western Buddhological research
through almost all of its last one hundred years. A t once, we see that a two­
pronged approach is necessary if we are to ever have any hope of arriving at a reso­
lution. Th e first of these involves a consideration of the relationship between the
V inaya council accounts and the M ahaparinirvana Sutra, this latter text preserved
in the Sutra Pitakas of the various schools and providing a detailed account of f i ] the
Buddha’s travels immediately prior to his death, [2] the actual passing into parinir-
vana, and [3] the funeral arrangements. H ere the M ahaparinirvana Sutra account
concludes, but the details which are associated with the next allegedly historical events,
namely, the council narratives, are found in the Skandhakas of the various Vinayas.
Scholars began to question why the council proceedings, logically follow ing the B ud­
dha’s death and funeral, are preserved in a separate text. Oldenberg felt there was no
relation between the two texts, prim arily because “ the author of the M ahaparinibbana
Sutta did not know anything of the first Council.” 1 Louis Finot, in “ M ahapari-
nibbanasutta and C ullavagga,” took the opposite pose, proposing that the M ahapari­
nibbana Sutta and the council accounts originally constituted a continuous narrative
which was somewhat indiscriminately split in two before insertion into the canon.2
Frauw allner, in confirming F in o t’s suspicions, provides the follow ing bits of infor­
mation concerning the V inayas3

1. Tw o Vinayas (Mulasarvastivadin and Mahasamghika) place the entire Maha­

parinirvana Sutra before the council accounts.
2. Three Vinayas (Sarvastivadin, Dharmaguptaka, and Haimavata) retain large
portions of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra before the council accounts.
3. Two Vinayas (Pali and Mahlsasaka) preserve only the bare council accounts.

Th e above leads Frauw allner to the conclusion that:

As we have already seen, this narrative (i.e. the Mahaparinirvana Sutra) is found,
whole or in parts, in all the Vinaya extant. This is in favor of an old established
connection. We can even give it a fixed place within the Vinaya. It has been noticed
that as a rule it stands at the end of the Vinaya, and at the utmost it is followed
by some addenda.4

Charles S. Prebish is Assistant Professor in the avagga,” Indian Historical Quarterly, VIII, 2 [June,
Department of Religious Studies at The Penn­ 19 3 2 ], pp. 241-246.
sylvania State University. 3 Erich Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the
1 Hermann Oldenberg [ed.], The Vinaya Pitakam Beginnings of Buddhist Literature [Rome: Instituto
[5 vols., reprint; London: Luzac & Company, Ltd. per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Serie Orientale
(for P.T.S.), 1964], I, p. xxviii. Roma), 1956 ], pp. 44-45.
2 Louis Finot, “ Mahaparinibbana-sutta and Cull­ Ibid., p. 45. The parentheses are mine.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 CHARLES S. PREBISH
Although F rau w allner’s conclusion is not thoroughly convincing, or for that matter,
totally correct* he does go about as far as current scholarship allows. A ll of the
above is a virtually verbatim statement from my review article on The Earliest
Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature .5 Nevertheless, I have included it
here simply because it represents the most concise summary of the first approach
mentioned at the outset of this paper. T h e second approach, much more fruitful
than the first, revolves around an investigation of the contents of these council ac­
counts in the various sources. W hile the secondary council literature is less imposing
than one m ight expect, considering the topic’s importance for Buddhological study,
it is considerable. Therefore, in discussing this second approach, I have restricted the
source material so as to include only those books and articles which are absolutely
essential for a thorough presentation. T h e works include (chronologically) : [ i] Louis
de L a Vallee Poussin, “ T h e Buddhist Councils” [ Indian Antiquary, X X X V I I (1908),
pp. 1- 18 and 8 1-10 6 ],6 [2] R . O. Franke, “ T h e Buddhist Councils at Rajagaha and
V esall as Alleged in C ullavagga X I., X I I ,” [Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1908, pp.
1-80], [3] Jean Przyluski, L e Concile de Rajagrha [Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1926-1928],
14] M . Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisalt [Lo u vain : Bureaux de Museon,
1946], [5] Paul Dem ieville, “ A propos du concile de V a isall” [T o u n g Pao, X L
( 19 5 1), pp. 239-296], [6] A ndre Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques [Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 1955], and [7] N alinaksha Dutt, “ T h e Second
Buddhist Council” [ Indian Historical Quarterly, X X X V , 1 (M arch, 1959), pp. 45­
56]. F or obvious reasons, we shall discuss only the councils up to, but not including,
that held under the renowned king Kaniska.

The First Council: Rajagrha

T h e first requirement in a consideration of the Rajagrh a council is to present a
a brief summary, from the V inaya accounts, of the events.7
1. K asyapa appears and relates the details of his journey. W hen informed of B u d ­
dha’s death, the arhants understand that all is indeed impermanent, but the non-
released grieve. Subhadra alone is overjoyed with the Buddha’s death, for he be­
lieves that the bhi\sus w ill no longer be bound to G autam a’s rigid discipline. K asyapa
sets forth the notion to chant the D harm a and V inaya.
2. Kasyapa is selected to elect the attending monks and 499 arhant bhiksus are
chosen. T h e bhiksus plea for A nanda, who had not yet attained arhantship, to be
admitted. Kasyapa reconsiders and A nanda is to be included, bringing the total num ­
ber to 500.
3. A place for the council is sought and R ajagrha is decided upon. K asyapa puts
the motion to the samgha and it is agreed that the 500 bhiksus are to spend the rainy
season at Rajagrha. N o other bhiksu is to enter the varsa at Rajagrha.
4. A fter entering the rain retreat at R ajagrha, the first month is spent repairing
the buildings, etc.

r> See Charles S. Prebish, “ Theories Concerning the 7 This summary is condensed from Jean Przyluski,
Skandhaka: An Appraisal,” Journal of Asian Stud­ Le Concile de Rajagrha [Paris: Paul Geuthner,
ies, X X X II, 4 [August, 197 3 ], p. 674. . 19 2 6 -19 2 8 ], pp. 13 3 -2 3 5 , and also Louis de La
GThis article was also published in Le Museon, Vallee Poussin, “ The Buddhist Councils,” Indian
VI [1905], PP- 2 1 3 -3 2 3 . Antiquary, X XXV II [19 08], pp. 1-6 .

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 241
5. D u rin g the night previous to the convocation of the council, A nanda be­
comes an arhant.
6. T h e council begins with K asyapa questioning U pali on the V inaya and A nanda
on the D harm a. A nanda relates that the Buddha assented to abolishing the lesser
and m inor precepts, but Kasyapa, in fear of the samgha fallin g into disrepute, de­
cides to accept all the Buddhavacana unconditionally.
7. A nanda is reproached for several faults.8 Only reluctantly, he confesses his
transgressions.
8. Purana, a bhiksu who had been travelling, arrives at R ajagrha as the council
is concluding its business. H e is bidden to become one with the samgiti, but refuses,
stating that he chooses to retain the doctrine and discipline as he remembers it to
have been spoken by Buddha.9
9. A nanda relates that Buddha declared that after his death, the Brahmadanda
penalty was to be imposed on Channa. W hen A nanda finds this bhiksu and im ­
poses the penalty on him, Channa becomes an arhant, at which time the penalty is
suppressed.
10. T h e account of the council concludes and is referred to as the Vinayasmglti
(“ chanting of the V in a y a ” ) or also as the council of 500.
N o w we are prepared to examine what scholars have concluded from this scanty
record. Virtually all the researchers have concluded that the council was not an his­
torical event. Nevertheless, the vehemence with which they state their respective
cases varies considerably. A t the outset, reliance on the Pali texts was predominant,
a flaw which even L a Vallee Poussin became enmeshed in. Representing perhaps
the most temperate critic, L a Vallee Poussin has stated,

It seems evident that the account of the Culla, in that which concerns the Council
and its (properly speaking) scriptural deliberations, is not historic . . . On the
other hand, the episodes of Channa, and of Purana, the failings of Ananda, the
discussion about the \sudra\as, bear the mark of a high antiquity, and without
fear of being too credulous we may admit as possible, indeed probable, not only
that after the disappearance of Buddha assemblies did take place in which the
ecclesiastical power was affirmed by the settling of questions of discipline,—of
that we consider ourselves almost certain—but also that the cause of the existence
of these assemblies was the discussion of our “ episodes.” 10

O f course the motive behind such a council narration is obviously clear, and L a
Vallee Poussin summarizes it w ell:

The Master is no longer living: it was necessary that some authority should be
organised or affirmed to formally contradict Subhadra, who believed himself freed
from all rule by the disappearance of Buddha, to attaint Channa, whose sentence
the Master did not have time to pronounce, to reprimand Ananda himself, who

8 According to La Vallee Poussin, “ The Buddhist 9 This account is most thoroughly preserved in
Councils,” pp. 4-5, the number of these faults the Chinese translations. See, for example, Przylu-
varies with the different schools. He records: Thera- ski, Le Concile dc Rajagrha, pp. 19 5 -19 8 [Dharma-
vadins— 5, Mahlsasakas— 6, Dharmaguptakas— 7, guptaka Vinaya].
and Mahasamghikas— 7. 10 La Vallee Poussin, “ The Buddhist Councils,”
pp. 1 7 - 18 . The italics are mine.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 CHARLES S. PREBISH
is no longer protected by the affection of Buddha against the jealousies it had
aroused . . . His omniscience allowed him to seize the essential part in everything
and to accomodate his precepts, like his doctrine, to the needs of each. But he is
no longer there to soothe the conflicts (vivada), and the community, widowed of
its infallible chief, must have rules.11
Unfortunately, not all voices, as well as criticisms, have been so temperate as that
of the great Belgian scholar. W riting in 1908, R . O. Fran ke concluded, “ In the first
place, to inquire into date, object, and procedure of the first two Councils as some­
thing historical is a question falsely put.” 12
Franke goes on,

To seek a historical background is to make something merely literary into some­

thing actually real, and indicates a logical fallacy. T o inquire into the date of the
first Council is to inquire into a point of time later than the compilation of D. xvi
(Dlgha Nikaya, Sutta X V I). This Suttanta is a text of about 100 printed pages in
length. And this text, quite apart from the probability of its being a secondary
conglomerate, cannot have been compiled in less than one or two weeks after the
Buddha’s death, even if the inconceivable be held possible—namely, that the com­
piler set to work immediately. Hence to ask about the date of this Council is im­
possible, or at least irrational.13
It was not until P rzylu ski’s L e Concile de Rdjagrha that we were to be graced
with full use of sources. Regarding the Pali sources the author succinctly states,
“ T h e Pali texts, however important they may be, cannot claim to exclusively retain
(our) attention.” 14 Przylu ski’s work is divided into three parts:
I. T h e Council According to the Sutras and Commentaries
II. T h e Councils A ccording to the Vinayas
III. T h e Seasonal Festivals and the Council.
Parts I and II are, for the most part, self explanatory and need no further elaboration
here, but it is in Part III that Przyluski begins to develop his ideas about the council.
Clearly, cultic aspects were of prime importance to him. Between 1918 and 1920 he
published “ L e Parinirvana et les Funerailles du Buddha,” 15 and it is not unreason­
able to suspect that his council study simply represents the logical conclusion of the
earlier w ork. Em phasizing the cultic notion, Przyluski comments:
A growing religion is always organized around a cult and, in the cult, the festivals
are probably the essential. These are ritual masses intended to maintain or to re­
establish the cosmic and social order. They assume collective representations of the
times, the world, the society. A mythic or legendary recitation corresponds to each
of these which explain the origins of the festival by the act of a god or hero. To
use an Indian term, the essential in Buddhism is the Dharma, that is to say, that
which maintains the cosmic and social order. In claiming primacy for the cult, we
cancan only proclaim the priority of Dharma, that is to say, of the religious law not
yet distinct from the moral law.16

1 1 Ibid., pp. 1 5 - 1 6 . 15 Journal Asiatique, Serie XI, Tome XI [Mai-

12 R. O. Franke, “ The Buddhist Councils at Juin, 19 18 ] , pp. 485-526; Serie XI, Tome XII
Rajagaha and Vesall as Alleged in Cullavagga XI., [Novembre-Decembre, 19 18 ], pp. 40 1-456; Serie
X II.,” Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1908, p. 68. XI, Tome XIII [Mai-Juin, 19 19 ], pp. 36 5 -4 3 °;
13 Ibid. The parentheses are mine. Serie XI, Tome X V [Janvier-Mars, 19 20 ], pp.
14 Przyluski, Le Concile de Rdjagrha, Avant- 5- 54- _
Propos, p. I. 16 Przyluski, Le Concile de Rdjagrha, p. 372.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 243
Consequently, it is possible to isolate the ancient themes around which the accounts
of the first council are constituted. One recounts at first how, after the death of
Buddha, his disciples spent the first rainy season at Rajagrha: (the) convocation
of all the faithful at Rajagrha, comprising there those who lived in the supra-
terrestrial region; the death of Gavampati, in likelihood caused by the announce­
ment of the death of the Master, but which is in reality the mythic equivalent of
an ancient rite destined to bring on the first rains. During the rainy season, the
monks preach the law to the devotees who provided offerings to them. Finally,
the closing of the varsa is marked by a ceremony of purification. Ananda, the
Gautamid, devotes himself to the salvation of all; an act of accusation is set up by
which one charges him with diverse faults; he yields, is dismissed, and the entire
community is thus purified of its defilements. At this stage, the account of the first
varsa is a sort of avadana or legendary recitation. Destined to explain the two
great festivals of the beginning and end of the rains by this which was formerly
undertaken in the early epochs of the Church,-this recitation rests, in the last
analysis, on a pre-Buddhist myth: the death of the god of aridity, and on a cere­
mony equally anterior to Sakyamuni: the festival of collective purification by ex-
communication.17

T w o problems rem ain: [ i] the relationship of all this to the Vinayas, and [2] the
relationship of the various council accounts to the H inayana sects. Przyluski offers
opinions on both of these points. Concerning the first:

The necessities of the monastic life and the development of the casuistic give rise
to the Vinaya. On the one hand, the Pratimoksa is amplified by the introduction
of new decisions and the incorporation of a commentary; on the other hand, the
numerous derogations of the regulations of the dhutagunas are classified in a series
of short treatises on vestment, nourishment, etc. . . . The Pratimoksa, moral code,
and the series of dhutagunas, disciplinary regulations, are the two poles around
which the Vinaya is organized. Its elaboration is restricted by remembrance of
the last recommendations of the Buddha, not very favorable to the multiplication
of the “ minor and lesser prohibitions.” This obstacle is dispelled by common con­
sent and the Vinaya concludes by constituting itself into a distinct basket (pitaka).
To this movement the name Upali is attached, who was probably one of the first
specialists of the discipline. After the division of the scriptures into Dharma and
Vinaya, one modifies the account of the first council accordingly, and the recitation
of the Vinaya is attributed to Upali.18

On the second poin t:

Consequently, one (can) explain the diversity of the accounts of the council. There
are as many different recitations as there are sects having a distinct canon. Each
school tries to prove that its canon dates back to the origins of the Church and
that it was codified by the assembly of Rajagrha. Evidently, these contradictory
accounts could not pass for the authentic, official proceedings. They are no less
precious since they contain two categories of documents: legendary themes which
date back to the origins of the Church and an inventory of the canons particular
to each sect.19

It should be quite obvious by this point that these early investigators infused much
of their personality and many of their predispositions into their studies, and conse­
17 Ibid., pp. 373-374* The italics are mine. 19 Ibid., p. 377.
18 Ibid., pp. 375-376.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 CHARLES S. PREBISH
quently, the results obtained must be regarded as thoroughly provisional. H ow ever,
in 1955 Andre Bareau made an extremely careful study of the councils,20 relying on
an exhaustive use of the prim ary and secondary sources, and has provided some very
m eaningful conclusions. R egarding the date, the D harm aguptaka, H aim avata, and
M ahasam ghika Vinayas state only that it was a short time after B uddha’s parinirvana,
while the Theravadin, M ahlsasaka, and Sarvastivadin texts place the event during
the varsa follow ing G autam a’s death.21 A ll the V inayas agree that the council was
held at Rajagrha, but any attempts at a more localized definition fail due to the di­
versity of sites mentioned in the records. A s to w hy Rajagrh a was chosen, the answer
is clear enough: “ . . . it was only in the ancient capital of M agadha that the members
of the council could find sufficient shelter and refuge.” 22 T h e number of monks at­
tending the council appears to be 500, a number which is both convenient and
artificial, but the manner of selection is not at all clear. T h e D harm aguptaka V inaya,
for example, states that the monks selected were those assembled at K usinara for
B uddha’s funeral, and they designated themselves as participants23 Bareau places
little historic value on the number of monks and the designation of all of them as
arhants.24 T h e hierarchy of the leaders of the council poses an interesting question:
was leadership designated on the basis of merit or seniority? Traditionally, we have
come to blindly assume that M ahakasyapa was the leading figure of the council
(and I have indicated this in m y sum m ary). Nevertheless, the Sarvastivadin, Mula-
sarvastivadin, and M ahlsasaka texts seem to indicate A jn ata K aundinya as a leading
figure.25 F rom this, Przyluski concluded a developmental pattern, changing gradu­
ally from an emphasis on seniority to the celebration of merit.26 T h e corollary how­
ever, that his assumption makes the Sarvastivadin, M ulasarvastivadin, and M ahisa­
saka texts the most ancient is extremely difficult to maintain and support. In coming
to A n an d a’s role in the council, w e find several problematics. In the first place, was
A nanda supposed to be invited to the council ? There appears to be no question about
this point, as Bareau notes,

. . . Ananda was supposed to participate in the council because, having been the
most intimate companion of the Buddha, he had heard all the teachings and only
he could recite them in their complete form.27

H ow ever, it was precisely because of his faithful service to the Buddha that A nanda
was never able, during B uddha’s lifetime, to put the Teaching to use,28 and this
points up the second question. W as A nanda an arhant? Bareau views the account
of A n an d a’s attainment of enlightenment as pure invention, necessary for two rea­
sons: [ 1] for his own personal prestige, and [2] so as not to include an impure per­
sonage in the council.29 O f course, this only follows m akin g A n an d a’s lack of arhant-
hood a subject of chastisement, thus preserving the piety of the assembly. Also prob-

20 Andre Bareau, Les premiers conciles boud- 24 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,
dhiques [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, p. 5.
1955b 2R Ibid., p. 7.
21 Ibid., p. 1. 26 Przyluski, Le Concile de Rajagrha, pp. 298-
22 Ibid., p. 2. 3° 5’ . . .
23 Przyluski, Le Concile de Rajagrha, p. 1 7 1 . I 27 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,
have previously noted Mahakasyapa as the selector P- 13.
simply because he fulfills this role in the majority of 28 Ibid.
the Vinayas. 29 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 245
lematic is the account of the canon supposedly compiled at the council. Analysis of
the texts reveals the folow in g:30

Canon Description Schools

1. Theravadin
2. M ahasam ghika
I. D vipitaka: Vinaya and Sutra Pitakas
3. M ahlsasaka
1. D harm aguptaka
II. T rip itaka: V inaya, Sutra, and Abhid- 2. Sarvastivadin
harma Pitakas 3. H aim avata

Interestingly enough, from materials presented in another article,31 the schools in

Category I have been provisionally surmised to be relatively early, while the schools
in Category II appear to be late. Com ing now to the Channa episode, we find Bareau,
once again, providing a very reasonable explanation:

It is easy, here, to reconstruct the primitive version, which could only have been
inserted, besides, in the common recitation of the Mahlsasaka-Theravadin before
they split into two distinct schools. At KausambI there was a monk named Canda
or Channa, whose violent and irritable nature troubled the community. At the
end of the council, Ananda was sent to notify him, in the name of the assembly,
(that) the punishment of brahmadanda (was imposed on him). When Ananda
had explained to him what the above consisted of, the guilty one was so moved
that he rapidly became an arhant. This recitation was probably invented by the
Mahlsasaka-Theravadin community of KausambI with the goal of giving a canoni­
cal base to the procedure of brahmadanda. The Sanskrit name of the monk,
Canda, which signifies violent, cruel, was without doubt, in the primitive recita­
tion, only an epithet, or at the most, a nickname.32

W e come now to perhaps the most important point: the historicity of the council.
Bareau succinctly states his case, from which I have chosen three quotations, ex­
emplary of his (and also m y) position.

1. One single point remains strange in this primitive version: why does it not give
the least description of the canon whose authenticity it is trying to establish. In fact,
all the descriptions of the canon figuring in the recitations of the first council are
late, as their multiple divergencies clearly prove.
2. If some questionable elements would profit from the disappearance of the
founder of the doctrine in order to liberate themselves, as the tradition relative
to the council of Rajagrha relates it, it appears doubtful that they could have consti­
tuted a serious menace to the community. It was therefore not necessary, as it ap­
pears to us, to call together a council, shortly after the parinirvana, to reunite the
doctrinal elements and thus assure their preservation.
3. Sometimes one even has the impression that the recitation of the council of
Rajagrha has been inspired by the history of the second council and that its author
wished to justify the authenticity of the canon, on the one hand, in order to sup­
port the condemnation of the monks of Vaisall, sanction (of) which was founded
precisely on canonical texts, and on the other hand, in order to prevent all possible

30 Taken from Przyluski, Le Concile de Rajagrha, Puzzle: Fact Versus Fantasy,” in Journal of the
pp. 333—365, but also see Bareau, Les premiers American Oriental Society.
conciles bouddhiques, p. 24. 32 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,
31 See my forthcoming article, “ The Pratimoksa p. 26.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 CHARLES S. PREBISH
future dissidence in giving the community a body of scriptures which held author­
ity.33

The Second Council: I. Vaisali

A s with the first council, we had best begin with a brief, general summary of the
events of the V aisali council.34
x. About a century after the B uddha’s parinirvana, the vrjiputra\a bhiksus at
V aisali allowed the practice of ten points.
2 . Yasas, son of K alandaka, arriving in Vaisali, observes indulgence in the ten
points. Believing these points to be unlawful, Yasas protests, whereupon he has the
pratisamharamya~\arma brought against him.
3. In compliance with this penalty, Yasas goes to the village to ask pardon from
the laymen. H ow ever, in clinging to what he understands as correct, Yasas convinces
the laymen that the vrjiputraka bhiksus are at fault.
4. W hen the monks learn of Y asas’ actions, they confer the ut\sepaniya\arm a on
him .35
5. Yasas goes to K ausam bl to seek support, eventually m eeting Sambhuta
Sanavasin. Yasas relates the ten points to Sam bhuta who decides to side with him.
6. Further supporters are sought, and it is decided to try to win Revata to their
side. A fter locating Revata and explaining the ten points to him, he also sides with
Yasas. Sala also sides with Y asas’ group.
7. W hile all this is transpiring, the vrjiputraka bhiksus also seek to gain adher­
ents. T h ey go to R evata’s dw elling to seduce him over to their side. Revata refuses,
but one of his disciples accepts. There is question as to where the problem of the
legality of the ten points should be settled and V aisali is decided upon.
8. A new episode is recounted with Revata carrying on a dialogue with Sarva­
gamin, an elder monk of V aisali who has A nanda as his upadhyaya.
9. Sanavasin arrives to question Sarvagam in on the ten points. T h e outcome is
the convocation of the council.
10. T h e council begins with Revata as its president. Sarvagam in is questioned on
each of the ten points, rejecting them in turn on the basis of various scriptures. W hen
the ten points have been sufficiently explained, and condemned, the council is con­
cluded, having been referred to as the recital of V inaya (V inayasam glti) or as the
recital of the 700.
A s the ten points were important enough to appear as the pretext for convo­
cation of a council, we had best enumerate them.36

1. Singilona\appa —preserving salt in a horn.

2. Dvangulakappa —taking food when the shadow is beyond two fingers wide.

33 These three statements are taken from Bareau, 36 For these rules, as well as their interpretation
Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, pp. 27, 29, and in the various Hlnayana schools, see Bareau, Les
28, respectively. The last statement is very remi­ premiers conciles bouddhiques, pp. 67-78, W. Pa-
niscent of Frauwallner’s position. chow, A Comparative Study of the Prdtimo\sa, in
34 This summary is taken from M. Hofinger, Sino-Indian Studies [Volumes IV, 1- 4 and V, 1
Etude stir le concile de Vaisali [Louvain: Bureaux ( 19 5 1- 19 5 5 ) ] , IV, 1, pp. 40-43, and Nalinaksha
du Museon, 1946], pp. 2 2 -14 8 , and also La Vallee Dutt, “ The Second Buddhist Council,” Indian His­
Poussin, “ The Buddhist Councils,” pp. 8 1-8 5 . torical Quarterly, X X X V , 1 [March, 19 59 ], pp.
35 He is specifically charged with unauthorized 54-56. I am following the Pali terminology, used
preaching, a pdyanti\a offense. by all the above authors as a base.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 247
3. Gdmantara\appa —after finishing a meal, one may go to another village for
another meal.
4. Avdsa\appa —holding several Uposathas within the same slmd.
5. Anum ati\appa —to confirm an act in an incomplete assembly, only later having
it confirmed by monks who are not present.
6. Acinna\appa —to carry out an act improperly, citing as authority its habitual
performance in this way.
7. Amathita\appa — after eating, to drink unchurned m ilk which is somewhere be­
tween the states of m ilk and curd.
8. Jalogim —to drink unfermented wine.
9. Adasa\am nisldanam —to use a mat without a border.
10. fataruparajatam —to accept gold and silver.

There is unquestionable cleavage among scholars in the interpretation of these points

in terms of their relation to the V inaya. H ofinger notes, “ F ar from demonstrating
the antiquity of the Vinaya, the fact that the code does not explicitly cite the 10
form ulas of V aisall explains only too well that they had been composed long after the
quarrel.” 37 On the other hand, Pachow remarks, “ If the date of the Second Council
can be trusted . . . it is obvious that the V inaya literature, by that time, had made
rather rapid progress.” 38
H avin g laid out the necessary preliminaries, we may now try to determine what
conclusions the various scholars have drawn from the information. T h at R . O.
Franke was hostile to the notion of a second council should not surprise anyone,
especially considering his remarks concerning the R ajagrh a council. Regarding the
V aisall council he states,

We may confront the chronicle of the ‘Second Council’ with even greater in­
difference. This is not only a merely literary construction; it does not even possess
any relevant subject matter. Whether such monkish steam as those ten puerilities
was ever let off has little or no importance for the history of Buddhist literature.
We do not hear whether, on that occasion, anything was done by way of settling
the Canon, except from secondary sources. That the prior existence of the Vinaya
is attested is a fact that did not need the help of C.V. xii (Cullavagga X II).39

L a Vallee Poussin’s article, “ T h e Buddhist Councils,” aside from a presentation of

the events and a discussion of the relation between the V inaya and the ten points
(with which I do not concur), presents only little interpretive material.
Th rough the research of H ofinger, D em ieville, and Bareau, whose studies are
cited at the outset of this article, we begin to fit the pieces together. T h e date of the
council already sets us on unsure ground. T h e V inayas of the Theravadins, Mahisa-
sakas, Dharm aguptakas, and H aim avatas state the date to be 100 years after Buddha’s
parinirvana, w hile the Sarvastivadin and M ulasarvastivadin V inayas record n o
years.40 T h e M ahasam ghika text offers no date. A ll this prompts Bareau to conclude:

37 Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisall, p. Rajagaha and Vesall as Alleged in Cullavagga XI.,
218. XII.,” Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1908, p. 70.
88 Pachow, A Comparative Study of the Prdti- The parentheses are mine.
mo\sa, IV, 1, p. 43. 40 See: Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisall,
39 R. O. Franke, “ The Buddhist Councils at p. 169, and also Bareau, Les premiers conciles
bouddhiques, p. 3 1.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
248 CHARLES S. PREBISH
Now do we have any means to determine this date? All that we can say with
certitude is that the council of Vaisall, if it was a historic event, took place between
the nirvana of the Buddha and the first schism. That it is posterior to the
nirvana is what we clearly learn from the mass of sources. Further, the
Mahasamghikas, in giving a relation obviously similar to that of the Sthaviras,
(illustrate that) the council is necessarily anterior to the schism which separated the
first from the second.41

W hat of the site of the council? A s to the general location, all V in aya sources are
uniform : V aisall. H ow ever, the M ahasam ghikas indicate valu\arama as the resi­
dence of the guilty monks, and the Sarvastivadins, Theravadins, and Dharm agup-
takas confirm this monastery as the spot of the council.42 T h e absence of any men­
tion of a place name in the M ahlsasaka, M ulasarvastivadin, and H aim avata Vinayas
leads Bareau to conclude that valukaram a, while being a famous ancient monastery
in V aisall, was affixed to some of the V inaya accounts at a later date.43 Traditionally,
Buddhologists have assigned the origin of the V aisall conflict to the ten points m en­
tioned previously, and some scholars have even gone as far as to surmise that the
ten points were responsible for the first great schism of the sects: “ It is historically
confirmed, I think, that the first schism in the Church proceeded from V esali
and that the dasa vatthuni (i.e. the ten points) of the V ajji-m onks brought it
about.” 44 Bareau and H ofinger proceed from another line of attack. In the first
place, Bareau states,

As we have seen, the passages relative to the 10 customs of the monks of Vaisall,
and which figure only in the recitations of the Sthaviras, are inserted in the above
in an artificial manner. The council of Vaisall was instigated by the mere quest
for gold and money.45

Let us see how he substantiates this bold statement. T h e first order of business is
to examine the ten points in the various Vinayas. Although the numbering schema
differs in each school, and there is a minor difference in wording each point, the
ten points do, in fact, appear homogeneous.46 Further, H ofinger has traced the
ten points in the Pali Patim okkha,47 a task which Bareau believes could be easily
carried out with respect to the other schools.48 N o w for the key: in the
M ahasam ghika account only the point concerning the possession of gold and silver
is mentioned.49 D ue to the omission of the other nine points in the M ahasam ghika
council account, several scholars have tended to consider this school lax, thus
holding them culpable with regard to the schism. F o r example, D em ieville writes,
“ Consequently, even on the single point of discipline which the M ahasam ghikas
mention of in their recitation of the council of V aisall, their V in aya turns out

41 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, 45 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,
P- 32- , __ p. 67.
42 See: Hofinger, TZtude sur le concile de Vaisall, 46 Ibid., pp. 6 8-71 and 74-77, where the points
pp. 1 0 9 - m and 145, and also Bareau, Les pre­ are arranged in two charts.
miers conciles bouddhiques, pp. 3 2 -33. 47 Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisall, pp.
43 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, 216 [and nn. 1 - 3 ] and 2 17 [and nn. 1- 6 ] .
P- 33­ 48 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,
44 Wilhelm Geiger [tr.], The Mahavamsa, of P- 73- ^
the Great Chronicle of Ceylon [reprint; London: 49 See the account in Hofinger, Etude sur le con­
Luzac & Company, Ltd. (for P.T .S.), 1964], p. lix. cile de Vaisall, pp. 14 5 -14 8 .
The parentheses are mine.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 249
to be infinitely more lax than the Pali V in aya.” 50 H o w do the M ahasam ghikas stand
in regard to the nine other points? Even a cursory study of their V in aya reveals that
all ten points are included therein, and Bareau documents this carefully, using the
available Chinese texts .5 1 1 m ight add that a study of the Sanskrit texts available tends
toward the same result. A ll of the above led Bareau to three conclusions about the
M ahasam ghikas, and necessarily, the V aisall council:52

1. If the Mahasamghikas only speak of a single one of the 10 evil practices per­
tinent to the council of Vaisall, this is because it was the only case in the primitive
version, as we have shown with the aid of other arguments.
2. If they do not speak of the 9 other customs, this is not because they approved
of them, since they implicitly condemn them elsewhere. Consequently, the Maha­
samghikas cannot, in any fashion, be identified with the evil monks who practice
them, and who the recitations of the Sthaviras compare to the Vrjiputrakas, guilty
of having begged gold and precious objects. The 9 customs of the monks of Vaisall,
therefore, could not have been one of the causes of the schism which separated the
Mahasamghikas from the Sthaviras, as the Sinhalese chronicles affirm and, fol­
lowing them, certain historians of Buddhism. In fact, the two sects were in accord
on this point, as M. Hofinger has well shown.
3. The Mahasamghikas could not be considered exclusively as easterners, the
Praclnaka, the same title as the Vrjiputrakas, since, in condemning all the guilty
practices attributed to the latter, they gained distinction as far as the Sthaviras
themselves.

T o present a detailed account of the events, characters, and procedure of the V aisall
council, because of the disparity in the texts, would be a laborious task. Conse­
quently, I refer the reader to H ofinger or Bareau, reserving space here to discuss
their (as w ell as other) conclusions about the council. Both Bareau and H ofinger
see real history in the council of V aisall. H ofinger states it directly: “ T h e council
of V aisall is not a fiction,” 53 and Bareau indirectly: “ W e see, therefore, that the
hypothesis of the historicity of the council of V aisall appears as much more defens­
ible than the contrary hypothesis.” 54 D em ieville, on the other hand is doubtful:

In the absence of all epigraphical or archeological confirmation, the historicity of

the Buddhist councils, and above all, that of the council of Vaisall, does not offer
more guarantee, I fear, than these anecdotes which, in the Vinaya, claim to histori­
cally explain the origin of the disciplinary regulations: that the original foundation
of the recitation of the councils may be historic or that it may be pure legend, this
is a question whose solution could only be arbitrary in the current state of our
knowledge.55

In the council, H ofinger sees a strong tension between the western schools, i.e. the
Sthavira, M ahisasaka, D harm aguptaka, and Sarvastivadin, and the eastern school,
the M ah asam ghika56 T h e geographical tension theory was not particularly new,

50 Paul Demieville, “ A propos du concile de 54 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,

Vaisall,” T o u n g Pao, X L [ 1 9 5 1 ] , p. 275. p. 87. ^ ^
51 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, 55 Demieville, “ A propos du concile de Vaisall, p.
pp. 75-78. 258. ,
52 Ibid., p. 78. 56 Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisall, pp.
53 Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisall, p. 18 3 -19 5 .
249.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 250 CHARLES S. PREBISH
having been outlined by Przyluski.57 H ofinger simply adjusted it to his needs.
Bareau vigorously opposed Hofinger on this point. H e writes,58

It is without doubt imprudent to draw conclusions on the primitive geographi­

cal redress of the sects from indications as fragmentary as those furnished by our
recitations. At the most, one can note certain preferences of this or that one among
them for a certain city or region.
Further,
In conclusion, in place of an opposition between the eastern and western com­
munities, we find rather, at the origin, a conflict between the rigorist tendencies
of the missionaries occupied with conquering new territories for Buddhism (as the
northwest of the Gangetic basin, Avanti, and the Dekkhan) and the laxist tenden­
cies of the monks leading an easy life in the great monasteries of the holy cities of
Buddhism where the pilgrims flocked (as Vaisali). This geographic opposition has
no relation with the doctrinal opposition between the Mahasamghikas which ap­
pears nowhere in our recitations.

F or both scholars (Bareau and H ofinger), the M ahasam ghika and M ulasarvastivadin
V inaya texts appear to be the most ancient.59 Although this view seems to support
Frau w alln er’s findings, presented in the first two chapters of The Earliest Vinaya
and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature, it has not remained altogether free
from criticism. N alinaksha D utt has recently raised an objection regarding the
antiquity of the M ahasam ghika and M ulasarvastivadin V inayas. On the first text,
D utt makes three rem arks:60

1. To assign antiquity to the Mahasanghika Vinaya just for its brief account of
the Council does not appear to us very sound.
2. If the Mahavastu be a sample of the Vinaya of the Mahasanghika group, by no
stretch of the imagination can the Vinaya of this sect be regarded as anterior to
the Pali version.
3. Its lateness is further established by its contents, e.g., the composition of the
Sangha, so unorthodox as stated above, and the names of patriarchs, as pointed out
by Mons. Hofinger as more recent than those of the other Vinayas.

A s to the first point, I think D utt is somewhat harsh. Bareau’s argument is really
not quite so simple. Nevertheless, all the evidence that I have gathered, both in­
ternal and developmental, leads to exactly the same conclusion as Bareau. T he
second point can be dismissed at once, for almost all scholars on Buddhism agree
that the M ahavastu is, in fact, an avadana rather than a canonical V in aya text of
the Lokottaravadin sect. T h e third point seems to reduce itself to a question of
opinion, and for my part, Frau w alln er’s argument favoring the antiquity of the
M ahasam ghika patriarch (or much more accurately, teacher) list is more convincing
than either H ofinger or D utt.61 D u tt’s refutation of the supposed antiquity of the
M ulasarvastivadin V inaya is, almost entirely, based on what he calls the “ good
gram m atical language” 62 of the text (which he edited). D r. Dutt, of course, is

57 Przyluski, Le Concile de Rajagrha, pp. 309­ p. 256, and also Bareau, Les premiers conciles boud­
3 M. dhiques, p. 86.
58 These statements can be found in Bareau, Les 60 Dutt, “ The Second Buddhist Council,” pp. 52­
premiers conciles bouddhiques, pp. 82-83 and 83­ 53 - . .
84, respectively. 61 Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya, pp. 59-65.
59 See: Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vmsali, 62 Dutt, “ The Second Buddhist Council,” p. 54.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 251
speaking only of the vastus. It may be that D r. D u tt’s notions about good gram m ar
differ considerably from my own, but even a superficial examination of the
Pratimoksa Sutra of this school (also found at Gilgit, and edited not by D utt but
rather by A n ku l Candra Banerjee), yields quite the opposite result. I also contend
that even in the vastus we are not dealing with careful Sanskrit gram m ar. W hile
I concur w ith D r. D u tt’s conclusion about the lateness of the M ulasarvastivadin
V inaya (as w ill be demonstrated in my forthcoming article: “ T h e Pratimonksa
P u zzle: Fact Versus Fantasy” ), I cannot accept his method.
Professor D em ieville takes a totally opposite position, and although not being
totally unfavorably disposed to H ofinger’s argument on geographical cleavage,63
he asserts,
For my part, I cannot refrain from seeing in the tradition relative to the council
of Vaisali, above all, a reflection of this conflict between rigorism and laxism, be­
tween monasticism and laicism, between “ sacred” and “ profane,” which traverses
all the history of Buddhism and which, after having provoked the schism be­
tween the Sthaviras and Mahasamghikas, is expressed later by the opposition be­
tween Hlnayana and Mahayana.64
D em ieville seems to be pointing to those events which resulted in the celebrated
schism, rem inding us of a very important detail: we have come to the end of our
consideration of the council of V aisali and still there has been no mention of any
separation of schools. W h y? T h e answer is clear: nowhere, in any of the Vinayas,
is there any mention of a schism. From the point of view of the V inaya, the council
proceedings satisfied both groups involved, and with the strict monastic discipline
reestablished and reinforced, a schism was avoided. Bareau has said as m uch:
“ T h e prim itive version is, as M . H ofinger has well shown, anterior to the first schism,
that which separated the M ahasam ghikas from the Sthaviras.” 65 N o w we all know
that a schism did take place around this time. In order to explain it we m ight take
one of two postures, assuming of course that we accept that no schism actually
occurred at V aisali:
1. T h at the schism took place abruptly or gradually, leaving no evidence,
historical or otherwise.
2. T h at the schism was the subject of yet another council.
T he records seem to dictate the favorability of the second approach, and this
must now be illustrated.

The Second Council: II. Pataliputra

Th e information we possess on this “ second” Second Council is derived en­
tirely from non-Vinaya sources. Consequently, I shall try to keep my presentation
as brief as possible so as not to stray far beyond the scope of this paper.
In dating the council, Bareau relies on three sources:
1. M ahaprajnaparam ita(upadesa)sastra ( Taishd 1509, p. 70a)
2. Samayabhedoparacanacakra of Vasum itra (Taishd 2031-2033; Tanjur-Mdo,
X C , N o. 1 1 )
3. N ikayabhedavibhangavyakhyana of Bhavya, 2 lists ( Tanjur-M do, X C , N o. 12 ).

63 Demieville, “ A propos du concile de Vaisali,” 65 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,

pp. 283-284. P- 86.
e i Ibtd., pp. 259-260.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252 CHARLES S. PREBISH
T h e later sources, such as Paramartha, Ki-tsang, Bu-ston, Hsiian-tsang, and
Taranatha are omitted because Bareau feels that these authors simply criticize
the earlier theorized dates.66 Thus, the follow ing four dates are possible:67
1. ioo A .N . (i.e. after nirvana)—M ahaprajnaparam ita(upadesa)sastra
2. i i 6 A .N .—Samayabhedoparacanacakra
3. 137 A .N .—N ikayabhedavibhangavyakhyana, list 2
4. 160 A .N .—N ikayabhedavibhangavyakhyana, list 1.
Dism issing the extreme dates as manifestly aberrant (on the basis of his article
in the 1953 Journal Asiatique: “ L a date du N irvan a ” ), Bareau leaves us with two
choices. Bareau favors the date 137 A .N ., stating,

On the contrary, if one compares the rigorist attitude taken by the future Maha-
samghikas at the time of the second council with their attitude at the moment of
the schism, one sees that their austerity has singularly diminished between times,
and an interval of thirty-seven years between the two events does not appear at all
exaggerated.686
9

A s to the place where the council was held, the sources are completely in accord:
Pataliputra.60 T h e ruling king is less easy to determine. W ithout digressing into
a lengthy discourse, we have two choices:70
1. Kalasoka (if we accept the date 116 A .N .)
2. M ahapadm a the N andin (if we accept the date 137 A .N .).
T he issue or issues which appear to have instigated the schism is also somewhat
difficult to determine. On the one hand, all the traditions excepting the Maha-
sam ghika indicate the five theses of M ahadeva as the origin of the schism.71* On
the other hand, the M ahasam ghikas objected to the developments and additions
introduced into the V inaya Pitaka by the Sthavira. W hile the Sthavira tradition
regarding M ahadeva’s five theses bears the support of such eminent persons as
Vasum itra, Bhavya, Paramartha, Taranatha, and others, the M ahasam ghika V inaya
argument also has a strong basis, as their Pratimoksa Sutras, both for monks and
nuns, possess fewer rules than any other H lnayana sect. A provisional explanation
is offered by Bareau:
In fact, although the five theses above are never mentioned or discussed in the
works of Vinaya, they are nevertheless intimately connected to the monastic dis­
cipline. The first, relative to the presence of nocturnal seminal emissions in the
arhant, is only a corollary of the first samghava'sesa which, in all the Pratimoksas
or monastic codes, condemns the monk who, except for the case of a dream, emits
his semen. The Sthaviras vigorously enforce this regulation in suppressing, for the
arhant, the excuse of a dream, allowed for the ordinary monk, whereas the Maha­
samghikas hold to the letter of this article of the disciplinary code. As for the four
other theses, these could be born from speculations on the spiritual and intellectual
qualities required of the acarya and upadhyaya masters such as they are enumerated
in the chapters relative to ordination {upasampada) , 12

66 Ibid., p. 88. 70 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,

97 ibid. pp. 89-92. ^
68 Ibid., p. 89. 71 Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisalt, p.
69 See: Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisalt, W3- _
p. 17 3 , which presents a convenient chart, as well 72 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques,
as Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, p. pp. 95-96. The italics are mine.
92.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUDDHIST COUNCILS 253
A s to the council itself, it appears that the k in g was asked to serve as mediator,
but being unqualified to make religious judgm ents on the issues, had only one
choice open to him : to asemble the two parties and count the number of partisans
in each, as well as noting their particular positions.73 Certainly this would at least
explain the names M ahasam ghika and Sthavira. On this point, Bareau notes,
The condemnation of the Sthaviras by the king at the end of the council could only
be a rationalist reconstitution founded on the results of a vote and the intentions
attributed to the king in arranging to count the two opposing groups, the sovereign
having taken the decision to condemn the minority party, and this was revealed to
be that of the Sthavira. The two other traditions, that of the Theravadins and
that of the Sammatlyas, in no way speak of a similar royal judgement, but one
could admit that they have sought to suppress the condemnation of their spiritual
ancestors.74
W hen the council concluded, only one task remained for each group: to reorganize,
tightening and strengthening their respective positions through the appropriate
modifications in their canons. N o doubt this was carried out, leading to further
internal divisions in each of the two groups. In review, Bareau sees the following
points as certain:75
1. A ll the ancient traditions consider this event the first true schism in the
samgha, separating it into two groups.
2. T h e M ahasam ghikas had certain laxist tendencies while the Sthaviras re­
mained rigorist.
3. A ll the ancient sources are, within a given limit, agreed on the date of the
schism.
4. T h e procedure of this schism followed that set forth in the adhi\arana -
samatha section of the Vinaya, an attempt to appease the disagreement having
been made.
5. T h e common version represents an historic event.
Further, there is also good reason to accept the fo llo w in g:76
1. T h e schism took place at Pataliputra.
2. T h e subject of the schism was M ahadeva’s five theses.
3. T h e king, probably one of the first rulers in the N anda D ynasty, tried in
vain to arbitrate the affair.
4. A fter the schism, each group reorganized and also revised their respective
canon.

The Third Council: Pataliputra

T h e sources from which we draw our information on the third council are
non-canonical, and with one exception, non-Vinaya. Further, they are fourfold:
1. D ipavam sa (Chapter V I I )
2. M ahavam sa (Chapter V )
3. M ahabodhivamsa (pp. 1 0 3 - i n ) 77
4. Sam antapasadika (V olum e I, pp. 5 2 -6 1).78
73 Ibid., p. 104. 77 Edited by S. A. Strong in 18 9 1, and pub­
74: Ibid., pp. 10 5 -10 6 . lished by The Pali Text Society.
75 Ibid., p. 109. 78 Edited by Junjiro Takakusu and Makoto
76 Ibid. Nagai in 7 volumes between 1924 and 1947, and
published by The Pali Text Society.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 54 CHARLES S. PREBISH
It should also be pointed out that only the Pali sources mention this council. T h e
date and place of the council seem certain: the M ahavam sa (V.280) cites the close
of the council to be the seventeenth year of A so k a’s reign and the D ipavam sa
(V II.37 an d 44) cites 236 A .N . (i.e. 247 B .C .) as the date. T h e place was
Pltaliputra, A soka’s capital. T he cause too is clear enough on the surface: heretics
were entering the samgha and degrading the D harm a (M ahavam sa V .228-230).
Bareau tends to see the council as the one which separated the Sarvastivadins and
V ibhajyavadins from the Sthavira proper.79 Although the various events of the
council are subject to dispute, and I do not wish to discuss them here, it does appear
that M oggaliputta Tissa presided over an assembly of 1000 monks, ultimately
concluding that Buddha was a Vibhajyavadin.80 Concerning the historicity of this
council, Bareau concludes,

As we have seen, it is certain that a council following a serious menace of

schism took place under the reign of the great Asoka. That which we have de­
duced from the three edicts of SancI, Sarnath, and Kosambl informs us of: ( 1)
the severe menace to the community; (2) the gravity of this menace, attested to
by the fact that the edict is reproduced in three specimens situated in distant
places which were, moreover, great centers of pilgrimage; (3) the royal inter­
vention, attested to by the origin of the edict as (also) by its contents; (4) the sanc­
tion incurred by the schismatics, which necessarily presupposed a judgement, (and)
therefore a judicial assembly. On the other hand, the minute regulation relative
to acts (karman) of the Buddhist community is such that we are supposed to
necessarily infer from the menace of the schism, and still more from the sanctions
applied to the guilty, to the meeting of a synodal assembly. Consequently, the
recitations of the Sinhalese chronicles relate well to a concise historic fact.81

In closing our discussion of Buddhist councils, we might point out that, in addition
to the problematics discussed, several topics which are general but complementary
equally deserve study. These are pointed out in Chapter V of Les premiers conciles
bouddhiques (pp. 1 3 4 -14 4 ) :
1. T h e essential function of the council
2. T h e convocation of the council
3. T h e degree of universality of the council
4. The ceremonial (aspects) of the council
5. T h e functions and authority of the members of the council
6. T h e judiciary power of the council
7. T h e relation of the king and the council.
If and when we are able to relate the seven issues just listed to the specific details
of the individual councils, and make valid judgements based thereon, perhaps the
resolution of the mystery of the Buddhist councils w ill be at hand.

79 Bareau, Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, 80 Ibid., pp. 1 1 9 - 1 3 1 .

pp. 1 1 5 - 1 1 8 . 81 Ibid., pp. 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 .

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:39:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions