The problem of the First Council was first raised and discussed in detail by Minayeff in 1887. (1) He thought that the chapter XI of the Cullavagga which contains an account of the First Council is riddled with contradictions, and rejected the episode of chanting of the dharma and vinaya as legend, for it was contradicted by traditions of earlier origin. His view as summarised by Poussin(2) may be stated as follows:
Minayeff puts aside as apocryphal or tendencious the history of the council in its official convocation and in its literary labours. But he retains as history or semi-historic the episodes of Subhadra, the Khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani, faults of Ananda, etc. Minayeff comes to this conclusion for he thinks that the account of the chanting of dharma and vinaya suffers from both incoherence and contradiction. He finds it incoherent when the CV speaks of the suggestion of Kassapa to the monks to chant together and next records that the monks request Kassapa to choose competent monks for chanting the dharma and vinaya; or when the CV first puts the decision of the monks to hold the council at Rajagrha and then proceeds to record the same as an official resolution proposed by Kassapa and accepted by the Samgha. On the other hand, Minayeff sees contradiction between the drawing up of a complete canon and the episodes of Khudda nukhuddakani sikkhapadani, faults of A nanda, etc. It is also clear that the legendary account of the chanting of dharma and vinaya is of much later origin while the different episodes which are of historical nature, belong to an earlier tradition.
───────────
(1) D.P. Minayeff published his work in Russian in
1887. This was translated into French under
the titleRecherch es sur le Bouddhisme in 1894.
Poussin gave a critical account of Minayeffs
thesis in his work (see nex note) which I have
utilised for the article.
(2) Louis De La Vallee Poussin, The Buddhist Councils
(K. P. Bagchi and Co, Calcutta, 1976), p.10,
Henceforth abbreviated as Councils.
This view of Minayeff is totally rejected by Oldenberg. (3) He neither finds any incoherence nor contradiction in the account of the Cullavagga. Moreover Oldenberg rightly points out that so far as the official resolution regarding the chanting is concerned, nothing 'can be more probable nor more conformable to the habits made known to us by the literature'. He further states that the 'point of view of Minayeff who claims to recognise in these episodes (and those of the failings of Ananda) an old kernel of authentic tradition (einen guten alten kern guter uberlieferung) and to separate them from the rest of the account due to a much younger time, is illusory'. In fact "Der Culla, wenn er.... die Geschiste von dem Konzil mit dem in Rede stehenden Episoden ausstattete beging damit nicht in mindesten, wie Minayeff will, einen Selbstwiederspruch. "So Oldenberg neither accepts the view that the episodes of Subhadda etc. are historic and earlier in origin than the legendary account of, nor accepts that there is any contradiction between the chanting and the other episodes. This does not mean that Oldenberg believes in the authenticity of the Council. He has other reasons to discard it as a legend.
Oldenberg points out that much of the Cullavagga XI. 1 agrees almost verbatim with certain portions of the Mahaparinibbanasutta (VI.19-20).(4) In order to understand the relationship between the Cullavagga and the Mahaparinibbanasutta we will give below a synopsis of the Cullavagga XI. 1:(5)
'Now the venerable Mahakassapa said to the monks that one day he was travelling from Pava to Kusinara with about five hundred monks. Along the road there came an Ajivika monk who informed Mahakassapa and other monks about the death of the Buddha. The faithful but imperfect monks abandoned themselves to grief, but those who were
───────────
(3) Ibid, p.10.
(4) The Mahaparinibbanasutta (PTS, London, 1982),
VI. 19 ∼ 20 ( abbreviated as MPS ). Also
see, Dialogues of the Buddha, Part II, pp. 73ff
(PTS, London, 1977).
(5)Cullavagga XI. 1 (abbreviated as CV ).
already perfect told that all things are impermanent. Kassapa also reminded the grieving monks that it was in the nature of things that one had to be separated from the near and dear ones. Among the monks there was an old monk called Subhadda who rejoiced at the news of the death of the Master and told: "Enough Sirs, weep not, neither lament! we are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told: 'This beseems you, this beseems you not'. But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do."
The Cullavagga does not record the reaction of Kassapa to the statement of Subhadda. After narrating this incident Kassapa simply told the monks: "Come, my bretheren, let us chant together the dharma and vinaya before the non-dhamma spread and the dhamma be put aside." Then the Cullavagga goes on to narrate how the formal resolution to chant was adopted, the monks selected and the place for chanting decided upon.
It is to be noted that the account about the formal resolution etc., are not recorded in the MPS. The MPS in fact does not contain the slightest hint as to the chanting of the dhamma and vinaya. Otherwise the two texts agree with each other verbatim, and Oldenberg is of the opinion that the Cullavagga copied this part of the narraration from the MPS. As the MPS does not breath a single word about the chanting, Oldenberg came to the conclusion that all the incidents connected with the Council (viz. Kassapa's proposal to chant, his selection of the monks, selection of the place for chanting, formal proposal for chanting, and its acceptance by the Samgha, the chanting of the dhamma and vinaya etc. ) and mentioned in the Cullavagga but omitted in the MPS are nothing but fiction. And this elaborate fiction, according to Oldenberg, was concocted in immitation of the Second Buddhist Council which is historical. (6)It is, however, not properly explained by Oldenberg why the Cullavagga would have to copy the. MPS or to feel inclined to creat such a fiction in immitation of the Second Council. Oldenberg is equally determined to deny the historical nature of even those
───────────
(6) Poussin, Councils, p.10.
Thus according to Oldenberg the redactors of the Cullavagga were familiar with the account of the MPS regarding the khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani and the punishment of the Channa, but were not aware whether theinstructions of the Buddha had already been carried out or not. So they imagined fitting sequels to the account of the MPS and wrote about the actual execution of the orders of the Buddha. Oldenberg is also sceptical about the historical nature of the episode of the faults of Ananda which is not connected with the chanting directly.
Poussin has excellently summarised the opinion of Oldenberg in the following way:(9) "Wishing to set forth the primitive compilation of scriptures, postulated by orthodoxy, the compiler of Cullavagga has naturally brought forward Kassapa, A nanda and Upali. He added the story of Kassapa's journey and the episode of the lesser precepts, had grouped and developed several other souvenirs relative to this period: almost all were known to him through the MPS. In one word Oldenberg believes that all our chapter of the Culla is a forgery."
───────────
(7) Poussin, Councils, p.22.
(8) Poussin, Councils.
(9) Poussin, Councils, p.12.
As against Oldenberg's contention that the MPS maintains utter silence concerning the First Council, Finot (10) offers the following arguments. He points out that the chapters XI and XII of the Cullavagga which contain the accounts of the two Councils, have such an abrupt beginning unlike the other chapters of the Cullavagga that they could not have been originally a part of this work. He further points out that the Mahapaninibbanasutta also differs from the other suttas of the Digha Nikaya in the nature of its contents, being more historical in character, and that the Mahaparinibbana sutta and the two chapters (XI, XII) of the Cullavagga are so similar in nature that they must have been originally parts of one and the same work. In support of his view he refers to a work entitled Samyukta-vastu (Nanjio 1121), the Vinaya of the Mulasarvastivadins, which contains the account of both parinirvana and the Councils, and concludes therefrom that the Theravadins too had a work corresponding to the Samyukta-vastu and that it was dismembered at a later date by the ancient editors of the Nikayas and Vinaya. Dr. Obermiller (11) corroborates Finot's contention and gives us in detail the contents of the Vinaya-ksudra ka which roughly correponds to the Cullavagga, and shows that it not only contains the account of the two Councils but also the Mahapaninibbanasutta. He further points out that "the story of the Councils begins just on the same line in which the narrative of the burial of the Buddha finishes, without any indication whatsoever".
In view of these evidences Prof. N. Dutt
(12)takes Finot's contention as sound, viz., that
the Mahapaninibbanasutta and at least the
chapter XI (and not the chapter XII) of the Cullavagga
originally formed one treatise, and in the analogy
of the It is difficult to support the views of Finot and
others.Both the Samyukta-vastu and the Vinaya-ksudraka
belong to the Mulasarvastivadins. And it is only the
Mulasarvastivadins who have joined the MPS and the
account of the two Councils into one single text.
This arrangement has not been followed by any other
school which arose out of the Sthaviras. The tradition
followed by these schools definitely shows that the
MPS was regarded as a sutta which was held separate
from the account of the First Council. Though the
Mahasamghika version of the MPS has not come down to
us, it is certain that the Mahasamghikas possessed
this sutta. The Mahasamghika Vinaya(13a) refers
to this sutta by name and reproduces certain
informations mentioned in the available MPS versions
belonging to schools which developed out of the
Sthaviras. Thus the compilation of the MPS must have
been completed before the Sthavira-Mahasamghika split.
It is clear that even in this early period the MPS was
known as sutta to the Mahasamghikas, and that, according
to the Mahasamghika tradition also, it existed
separately from the account of the First Council. So it
is obvious that the arrangement discusssed by Finot and
other scholars is to be taken as a later development
peculiar to the Mulasarvastivadins, and can be of no use
in determining the arrangement of the Buddhist
traditions in the earliest period. This cannot solve
the problem raised by Oldenberg due to the silence of
the MPS. As for the abrupt beginning of the Cullavagga
account it has been shown later that this perception
of the abruptness is only due to the misunderstanding
of the real nature of this part of the Cullavagga
account. There are, however, some objective grounds
for rejecting the view of Oldenberg which may now be
discussed.
The grand edifice of Oldenberg's theory rests on
a number of facts and assupmtions. The observations
that certain parts of the Cullavagga agrees
verbatim with the MPS, and that the MPS does not mention
anything about the First Council refer to facts. As
for the assumptions which contribute greatly to giving
the final shape to the theory of Oldenberg we may note
the following:
1)The MPS is earlier in origin than the Cullavagga XI.
2)The compilers of the Cullavagga XI were
quite familiar with the MPS and under the influence
of the second Buddhist Council copied some portions
of the MPS (e. g. the report of Kassapa about
Subhadda) as well as elaborated and brought to
reasonable completion some episodes mentioned in the
MPS (e. g. the episode of Channa etc. ). This
suggests a long gap between the completion of the MPS
and the compilation of the Cullavagga XI.
3)The MPS would have recorded the traditions
connected with the chanting of dharma and vinaya
mentioned in the Cullavagga provided these
were known to the compiler of the MPS.
4)Such Cullavagga episodes which should have
been mentioned by the MPS but find no mention there are
to be taken as legends. Accordingly the chanting of the
dhanma and vinaya in a council passed over in utter
silence by the MPS but given a prominent place in the
Cullavagga XI was taken to be a legend by
Oldenberg. Similarly all the other events exclusively
mentioned in the Cullavagga and inseperably
bound up with the chanting also came to regarded as
legends by Oldenberg.
5)The compiler of the Cullavagga had to imagine
fitting sequels to the episodes of Channa and the
khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani mentioned in the MPS.
6)Conversely, if an episode is recorded in both the
Culla vagga XI and the MPS it should be regarded as
authentic. For example, the Buddha's instructions about
Channa and the minor rules as well as Kassapa's report
to the monks about the Ajivika monk and Subhadda
mentioned in both the MPS(14) and the Cullavagga
XI (15) have not been marked out as legends by
Oldenberg.
Before we start our examination of the theory
propounded by Oldenberg we would like to enumerate the
following principles which should guide us in our
investigation:
a)Any tradition mentioned not only in the Vinayas of
the Buddhist sects which developed out of the Sthaviras,
but also in the Mahasamghika Vinaya can be reasonably
taken to have originated before the Sthavira-Mahasam
ghika schism. Such an early tradition should be
regarded as authentic unless there is some strong
evidence to the contrary. The rejection of such a
tradition without unassailable arguments cannot be
justified.
b)On the other hand, if a tradition finds mention
only in the canon of the Sthavira sects or of the
Mahasamghika, it can be said to have become a part of
the canon at the hands of the Sthaviras or the
Mahasamghikas, but cannot be taken for granted to have
been known to the undivided Buddhist community before
the Sthavira-Mahasamghika schism. The mention of a
tradition in this stage should not, under normal
condition, affect adversely the authenticity of a
tradition belonging to the earliest period.
c)According to earliest traceable classification
of the Buddhist literature ‘dharma' and 'krtya'
belonged to mutually exclusive categories, the former
referred to the suttas while the latter dealt with the
collection of krtyas or Formal Acts. A tradition
belonging to one category did not form a part of another
category. (16) The MPS was included in the category of
dharma while the Cullavagga is basically a
collection of krtyas.(17) The accounts of the chanting
of the dharma and vinaya, the discussion of the minor
rules etc. are all Formal Acts performed by the Samgha,
though in some cases all the steps in the procedure of a
fully developed Formal Act are not mentioned. There is
no doubt, that if the early Buddhists wanted to group
together such events, they could have done so only under
the category of 'krtya'.
d)According to the ancient Buddhist law each krtya is to
be regarded as
We may start our criticism of Oldinberg's view by
pointing out that there is no decisive reason to hold
that the MPS is earlier than the Cullavagga XI.
It is true that the MPS deals with events that took
place before the holding of the First Council. However
the fact that the MPS records earlier events does not
by itself prove that the MPS was composed at an earlier
date. The possibility that the MPS might have been
composed at a later date cannot be ignored. The MPS
not only describes the last days and the funeral
ceremony of the Buddha but also records the distribution
of the relics and the construction of the stupas over the
relics which certainly took place quite some time after
the death of the Buddha. On the other hand the First
Council, took place, according to the tradition of the
undivided Buddhist community during the first rainy
season after the Buddha's Parinirvana. The time gap
between these two events is quite short, and it is
obvious that the MPS could not have been composed
before the First Council or discussed during the
Council. In short, the MPS or rather the genuine
traditions exclusively recorded in the MPS had not
yet become a part of the official canon fixed during
the First Council. On the other hand, the Culla vagga
XI records different Formal Acts performed during the
First Council and so the core of this account must be
contemporaneous with the Council.
A careful analysis of the Cullavagga XI will
even now reveal to us traces of such traditions which
became part of the Buddhist scripture during the time
of the First Council and therefore, before the
compilation of the MPS. Some of these tradition came
to be included in the MPS at a later date. Let us, for
example, first discuss that part of the Cullavagga
XI where Kassapa is reporting to the monks about the
reaction of Subhadda to the news of the death of the
Buddha. This incidence is also given in the MPS. From
the Cullavagga account it is clear thatthe monks
in general have not yet heard of the Subhadda episode.
This
As already pointed out, the Cullavagga XI
mainly consists of a number of krtyas or Formal Acts
performed by the Samgha. The chanting of the dharma
and the vinaya, the deliberations on the minor rules
etc. are different Formal Acts. The features of a
Formal Act have been carefully preserved in case of
the chanting of the dhamma and the vinaya which is
mentioned in all the vinaya versions including that of
the Mahasamghikas, and thus belongs to the earliest
strata of traditon. This is the most important of
all the Formal Acts discussed in this chapter, and
for the sake of which the First Council was probably
held. Now as the chanting is a Formal Act, it,
according to the ancient legal custom, was performed
with reference to the vatthu, nidana and puggala,
(18) i.e. the subject-matter, the place and the person
or persons concerned. The necessary information about
these three points were generally supplied as a sort of
introduction to the legal act of krtya. The Formal Act
of chanting of the dhamma and the vinaya also has its
introduction which still can be discerned in the first
few sections of the Culavagga XI.(19) This introduction
which contains the story of Subhadda(20) must be as
old as the First Council, and consequently must have
been a part of the Buddhist canon long before the MPS
came to be recognised as a canonical work.
But how this episode came to be later included in the
MPS? The reason would be clear if we once again pay
attention to the contents of the MPS. This work deals
with among other things the parinirvana of the Buddha
and other incidents directly connected with it. So
it is but natural that the compiler of the
The cases of the minor rules (Khuddanukhuddakani
sikkhapadani) and the monk Channa are slightly
different. Each of these episodes consists of two parts:
i) the Buddha's instruction, and ii) the execution of
this instruction. The instructions on these two cases
are mentioned both in the MPS(21)and the Cullavagga
(22) while the account of their execution is only found
in the CullavaggaOldenberg (23) came to the
conclusion that the monks were no longer aware whether
the Buddha's instructions had already been carried out
or not. So they imagined fitting sequels to
those-instructions in the form of suitable actions taken
by the Samgha. This theory of Oldenberg is solely based
on two presuppositions:
i) The MPS is an earlier work which influenced the
composition of the Cullavagga XI at a later date.
ii) The time-gap between the MPS and the Cullavagga
is long enough to make the monks uncertain about the execution
of the Buddha's orders.
But these presuppositions cannot be accepted. The
entire Buddhist canon does not provide us with the
slightest ground to suppose that the devoted disciples
would be so indifferent to the instructions of the
Buddha that they would not only neglect to execute them
but would not even be certain whether the instructions
have been carried out or not. It world be more
reasonable to accept as fact the Cullavagga
account that the monks lost no time to act according
to the orders of the Buddha. The other objections to
the theory of Oldenberg would be the same as what we
have already pointed out regarding the chanting of the
dhamma and vinaya, viz. i) the Cullavagga XI
is as old as the First Council and the M PS is a
comparatively later work; ii) the instructions of the
Buddha being connected with the last days of the Buddha
naturally find mention in the MPS while official actions
taken on the basis of the instructions by the Samgha
should belong to the category of krtya and as such are
justifiably excluded from the MPS and included in the
Cullavagga
Poussin does not subscribe to the view of Oldenberg
and puts it aside as a mere hypothesis. (24) The path
he treads is not entirely different from his
predecessors; he develops a view which is an improved
version of Minayeff's theory. Like Minayeff, he
percieves multiple internal contradictions in the
account of the Cullavagga XI, regards the
chanting of dhamma and vinaya as a later product of
imagination because of such contradiction but ascribes
the other episodes to an authentic, earlier tradition.
Actually the main thrust of his arguments is to prove
the legendary nature of the account of chanting the
dhamma and vinaya. He strongly believes in the
legendary nature of this episode, and this attitude
has influenced his summarisation of the CV XI, the
Kassapa suddenly appears on the scene,
no one knows where and addressing himself to no
one knows whom he relates how during his journey,
he has learned the death of his master.
The expressions given in italics by me were used
by Poussin to emphasise the vaguesess and suddenness
of the rambling Cullavagga account, and thus
to raise doubt about its authenticity. It is to be
noted that this imperfect beginning was made to
gradually lead us to the account of the chanting of
the dhamma and vinaya in the Council.
He proceeds further to show that the account of
the chanting does not fit well with the two other
episodes narrated in the Cullavagga XI, viz.
the account of the charges brought against, Ananda,
and the discussion on the minor rules
(khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani). We may first start
with the episode of Ananda.(26)
The monks reproach Ananda with a number of faults
which he had committed before his attainment of the
status of an arhat. For example, they told Ananda:
"You committed a fault for you had not enquired about
the minor rules. Confess your fault. "Ananda confessed
the faults which he had done either through
forgetfulness or with a good intention. And all his
replies end with the formula: "I do not see any wrong
in that . Nevertheless out of deference to you
(ayusmantanam sddhaya) I confess this sin."
Minayeff (27) questions the propriety of charges
being brought against one who is an arhat.
Ananda has already become an impeccable saint, that
is an arhat, and yet he submits to a trial; the assembly
calls upon him to do penitence for some sins..... at
any rate, it is a fact that the most ancient accounts
It is obvious that Minayeff takes the tradition of
Ananda's trial to be genuine which leads him to conclude
that the ideal of an arhat was still vague. This speaks
in favour of the antiquity of the tradition. On the
other hand, the episode of chanting which could only
be done by Arhats, shows that the Arhats were already
valued as perfect saints. This is, no doubt, a later
tradition, and is contradicted by the earlier
tradition. Hence the episode of chanting is a legend.
Oldenberg (28) objects to this view. He points out
that the Arhat ideal must have been clear from very
ancient time, but he holds that one can naturally make
mistake before becoming an arhat, and he can be judged
for such a mistake even after he has attained the status
of an arhat. Oldenberg points out that anybody who is
familiar with the Vinaya, will agree that every offence
committed must find its disciplinary action without
taking account of the fact as to the guilty person has
in the meantime attained to some degree of spiritual
perfection. Against this view of Oldenberg, Poussin
(29) draws our attention to the episode of Channa and
works out a long and complicated thesis in defense of
Minayeff. Let us take a look at the episode of Channa
(30) so that we would be in a better position to
understand the view of Poussin.
After the chanting of dharma and vinaya, Ananda
informed the monks that the Buddha had instructed
the Samgha to impose the brahmadanda on Channa.
Being asked by the monks Ananda explains the nature
of this punishment: "Let the monk Channa speak whatever
pleases him; the monks will not speak to him, will not
exhort him, neither will they warn him. “Ananda agrees
to go and announce this sentence to Channa, provided a
group of monks accompanies him, "for this monk is fierce
and passionate“. Ananda announces this sentence to
Channa who receives it with great humility. His grief
and remorse is such that
The point which Poussin wants to make is that while
in case of Channa the punishment is lifted due to his
attainment of 'arhatva' , Ananda, on the other hand,
is subjected to disciplinary action even after he
becomes arhat. The samgha is adopting different types
of action against 2 Arhats. Poussin further states
that Channa finds himself absolved from the brahmandand
a when it is no longer harmful to him.
This state of things, according to Poussin, (31)
shows that from very ancient time the Buddhists were
having two very different concepts about the state of
an arhat. It refers to a very early period when the
concept of arhat had not yet been dogmatically
propounded. This is what Minayeff saw here. He is
therefore, justified in pointing out the contradiction
between the Ananda episode and the tradition of
chanting.
In support of this contention Poussin further states
that according to orthodox argument, not only the arhat
cannot fall, but also the counsel, assistance etc. of
others are absolutely useless to him. The story of an
arhat culpable and subject to penance against will is
contrary to the orthodoxy of the non-Mahasamghikas.
The story of Channa reflects the attitude of the
conservative group while episode of Ananda shows the
existence of the non-orthodox group which later
championed the five points of Mahadeva and facilitated
the rise of the Mahasamghikas.
Poussin(32) is further of the opinion that "in the
oldest account there is no question of a Council; they
reprimand Ananda. If one adds to this nucleus the
legend of a Council, the reprimand of Ananda will not
at first change its character: and if orthodoxy, just
about to be formed exacts that all the members of the
Council should be Arhats, there will no difficulty in
assigning to the reprimand the second rank which is
suitable to it after the narration of an event of
The elaborate speculations of Poussin can be
summarised thus: Originally the episode of Ananda who
was not an arhat was an independent matter which became
in course of time the nucleus to which was added the
imginary account of the Council. Due to the importance
of the Council its account was related first and then
was narrated the episode of Ananda. Up to this stage
of development there is no contradiction, for the arhat
element has not yet been introduced. The contradiction
arises when due to the demand of orthodoxy Ananda is
first made an arhat before th Council starts, and then
because of the previously arranged sequence of events,
is made to face the charges brought against him.
Poussin comes to the same conclusion regarding the
discussion on the minor rules (Khuddanukhuddakani
sikkhapadani)(33)during the First Coucil. Poussin
draws our attention to the three references to the
minor rules in the MP S VI. 3, the CV XI. 9, and
the Pacittiya LXXII. In the MPS the Buddha permits
the Order to abolish the minor rules if it deems it
necessary to do so. In the CV XI we read that Ananda
informed the Samgha about this permission of the
Buddha. On being asked Ananda admitted that he had
not asked the Buddha which these rules were. The monks
offered six different suggestions about the identity of
the minor rules, but could not come to any decision.
On the advice of Kassapa the Samgha adopted the
resolution not to change anything which the Buddha
had approved. The Pacittiya LXXII states: " If a monk
at the time of recitation of the Patimokkha should speak
thus: 'What is the good of recitation of the minor
rules, except to engender doubt, weariness and
perplexity?', this monk is guilty of contemning the
rules."
In his discussion on these three references Poussin
(34) agrees entirely with
Let us first discuss how old could these references be.
The compilation of MPS, as we have already shown,
occured at a comparatively later time, after the First
Council but before the rise of different Buddhist sects.
The Pacittiya rule in question also appears to have been
promulgated after the First Council. Poussin(35)thinks
that Kassapa, Upali, Ananda etc. missed this rule
during the First Council. This view is not tenable.
It is really unthinkable that the Vinaya experts
among the monks would not recall to mind this rule when
they were discussing the problem of the minor rules.
It is even most likely that the other monks also would
be able to point out this Pacittiya rule, for they
listened to the recital of Pratimoksa every month. We
have good reasons to hold that this rule was not yet
formulated at the time of the First Council, and that
this Pacittiya rule came into existence later under
the influence of the First Council's discussions on
the minor rules. It was only during the First Council
that the monks for the first time came to know that
the Buddha had designated a part of the Pratimoksa
rules as khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani, and also
became aware of the fact that they did not know which
rules the Buddha meant when he talked about the
abrogation of some minor rules. It was also shortly
before his death that the Buddha for the first time
used this particular term for the minor rules. So it
is not possible that this Pacittiya rule was
promulgated before the First Council.
In the MPS the Buddha permits the Samgha to annul
the minor rules, but the arhats during the First
Council decided to preserve all the Vinaya rules,
for they lacked precise knowledge as to the identity
of the minor rules. They virtually put an end to all
future deliberations on this problem. It is obvious
that the statement of the Pacittiya rule that any
discussion unfavourable to the recitation of the minor
rules will lead to uncertainity, and therefore it is an
ecclesiastical offence to do so reflects faithfully the
cautious spirit of the First Council, but runs counter
to the generous attitude of the Buddha. This suggests
that the Pacittiya
The Cullavagga XI account of the minor rules,
however, really belongs to a very early period. It has
been mentioned in all the Vinaya versions, and therefore
surely goes back to the time of the undivided Buddhist
community. And this genuinely old tradition of the
minor rules according to Poussin cannot be reconciled
with the tradition of chanting the Vinaya, for while
the former shows that the disciplinary rules at the
time of the death of the Buddha were very far from
being fixed, the latter speaks of the rules being
officially fixed during the First Council. This
contradiction shows that the account of the chanting
is a later fabrication. Poussin further thinks that
this episode also shows a clash between the liberal
and orthodox forces.(36)
We have seen that one of the reasons for which
Poussin considers the chanting to be a legend is
that the initial part of the account of the CV XI
leaves out many necessary details and so appears to
be disconnected and abrupt. This objection of Poussin
is not tenable when we comprehend the true nature of
this part of the Cullavagga account. Here we
are actually dealing with an introduction to the Krtya
of chanting the dharma and vinaya. An official act
performed by the Samgha, that is a krtya, must be
accompanied by informations regarding vatthu, nidana
and puggala. The initial portion of the Cullavagga
XI provides us with necessary informations on these
points. It tells us about the business the monks are
to perform (vatthu) , the place where the chanting is
to take place (nidana) and the persons selected for
the chanting (puggala). As all these relevant details
are contained in this portion of the Cullavagga
XI account, it cannot be regarded as disconnected and
abrupt. The introductory part of the Cullavagga
account has even indirectly mentioned the story of
Subhadda as the cause of the chanting. Though this
piece of information was not legally necessary for the
krtya, it was naturally recorded as it was so closely
connected with the proposal of chanting. This also
seems to be an authentic piece of tradition as it not
only finds mention not only in the different Sthavira
accounts
It is also not correct to maintain that the two
episodes of Channa and Ananda prove the imposition
of different punishments where uniformity was expected.
From the MPS and CV accounts it is clear that Channa has
not actually committed any offence. He was known to be
of passionate and violent nature, and the brahmadanda
was imposed on him not as a punishment for some offence
already done, but as a preventive measure. It was
imposed to prevent the arising of a situation that
may provoke Channa to act violently to others. The
narration in the Cullavagga does not show that
due to his attainment of 'arhatva' Channa is getting
absolved from any offence committed by him in the past.
Ananda, on the other hand, has actually done something
which was wrong in the opinion of the Samgha, and must
be met with disciplinary action. Thus the cases of
Channa and Ananda represent two different legal
problems, and the Cullavagga is, therefore,
justified in recording two different types of actions
being taken against them. This account of the
Cullavagga cannot be interpreted as showing
the existence of two different concepts of arhat
followed by the orthodox and non-orthodox monks.
Moreover the contention that an arhat cannot be
subjected to any disciplinary action does not stand
to reason. The term ‘arhat' simply stands for a
spiritual concept. Arhat is an enlightened person
who has attained freedom from ignorance, passions
and rebirth. But he is liable to commit mistake about
anything which is not integral to the enlightened state
of an arhat. In the Cullavagga XI itself we
have passages which confirm our characterisation of
an arhat. Here we read the Ananda(37) became free
from passions (asrava) when he
Likewise Poussin's observations on the account of the
Khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani cannot be accepted.
Poussin first emphasises the antiquity of the tradition
regarding the minor rules, and then proceeds to point
out that this tradition is irreconcilable with the
episode of chanting the entire Vinaya, thereby implying
that the tradition of chanting cannot be trusted as an
authentic piece of history.(39) The view that the
tradition of the minor rules goes back to remote
antiquity can be fully supported. We have seen that
the promulgation of the Pacittiya LXXII was caused by
the discussion of minor rules in the First Council.
This indirectly proves the antiquity of the
tradition about its discussion in the First Council.
The fact that this tradition finds mention in all the
Vinayas including that of the Mahasamghikas, proves
that it originated before the Sthavire- Mahasamghika
schism, and should be taken to be as old as the First
Council. However the other part of Poussin's theory
viz. The tradition of the minor rules are earlier than
the tradition of chanting and contradicts it, cannot be
supported. Poussin based his conclusion on the
assumption that at the time of the discussion of the
minor rules no fixed code of discipline existed. It
appears that this surmise of Poussin is too far fetched
and does not take into consideration other relevant
traditions. The discussions on the minor rules show
that the Buddhists were already certain about the
definition of Vinaya, and they also knew that the minor
rules consisted of a part of this Vinaya, though they
had no precise knowledge as to which part it was. The
definition of Vinaya that emerges from the discussions
on the minor rules is in conformity with the concept of
Vinaya(40) that emerges from our discussion of the
schismatic matters. And the discussions on the minor
rules and the chanting of the Vinaya were done by the
same group of monks. So it is obvious that the Vinaya
was already a fixed code at the time of the First
Council, and the tradition about the chanting cannot
be later than that of the discussion on the minor
rules. Both these traditions belong to the same period
and find mention in all the Vinayas. Moreover, that
the Buddhists were discussing the minor rules in order
to abrogate a part of the Vinaya does not in any way
prove that the Vinaya, as understood by them in that
early period, was not already compiled and fixed.
The monks connot be expected to abrogate a part of the
Vinaya, unless they know what is exactly meant by Vinaya.
This opinion is also supported by the tradition that the
Buddha told Ananda that the dhamma and vinaya would be
the teacher of the monks after his death.(41) Moreover
the fact that the Vinaya consists of the rules
promulgated by the Buddha did not form a bar to the
abolition of a part of it. For it was the
The historic nature of the Cullavagga XI
account, specially the episode of chanting the dhamma
and vinaya, has been denied either because of the
silence of the MPS about the chanting, or due to the
internal contradictions supposed to be existing between
the different episodes narrated in the Cullavagga
XI. But we found that these objections against the
authenticity of the account are not valid, for they
are based on the following wrong assumptions:
1) the MPS is earlier than the Cullavagga XI;
2) the MPS would have recorded the krtyas concerning,
the chanting, the minor rules, charges against Ananda
etc. if these were known to it;
3) the episodes of Ananda and the minor rules represent
earlier tradition and contradict the account of
chanting which is of later origin.
These assumptions are shown to be wrong by our
finding that while the MPS deal with materials connected
with the dhamma, the Cullavagga XI is concerned
with krtya traditions, and as such the MPS will
naturally omit traditions that rightfully belong to the
category of krtya. Moreover we have shown that all
these episodes including that of the chanting belong
to the earliest traceable tradition current before the
Sthavira-Maha samghika schism, and there is no objective
ground whatsoever to hold one episode earlier than the
other.
On the other hand, there is strong internal evidence
to show that the episode of chanting also bears mark of
great antiquity. If we analyse materials bearing upon
the connotation of the term 'vinaya' as given in
accounts of the First Council, and the list of
schismatic matters, we will see that the term 'vinaya'
has been used in an extremely archaic sense, viz. to
mean some of the disciplinary rules at present included
in the Pratimoksa-sutra and the informations regarding
vatthu, nidana and puggala with reference to these rules.
Hence not only the episodes of Ananda, minor rules etc.
but also the account of chanting the dhamma and vinaya
should be regarded as history.
───────────
(10) Nalinaksha Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism vol.I
(Calcutta, 1941), p.337, Indian Historical
Quarterly (Calcutta), VIII, pp. 241∼6.
(11) N.Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism vol.I, pp.337∼38;
Indian Historical Quarterly (Calcutta), vol.VIII,
pp.781∼84.
(12) N.Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism vol. I, p.338.
P 457
Rejection of Finot's View
Refutation of Oldenberg's theory
───────────
(13) Poussin, Councils, p.13, note 39, p.11, note 36.
(13a) T. 22, p.489 C27ff (T. for Taisho ed. of
Tripitaka).
P 458
───────────
(14) MPS VI, 19∼20.
(15) CV XI, 1.
P 459
───────────
(16) Biswadeb Mukherjee, The Schismatic Matt ers and the
Early Buddhist Literature especially, pp.89, 90, 95
( Journal of Research V. B. vol. 1, part I,
Humanities and Social Sciences, 1977).
(17) Ibid, p.94.
P 460
P 461
───────────
(18) I have shown that the invariable association of
"vatthu", nidana, and puggala with the vinaya
was due to ancient legal Custom (see ibid, pp.92ff)
, krtya being a legal act should also be discussed
together with vatthu, etc.
(19) Cullavagga XI.1 (PTS, London, 1977 p.284 ff.)
(20) Cullavagga XI, pp.284ff (Vinaya Pitaka
vol II (PTS, London, 1977) (Mi) T. vol.22, p.190b
(Dh) , T.22, p.966b.
P 462
───────────
(21) MPS (VI.3).
(22) CV XI. 12; XI. 9.
(23) Poussin, Councils p. 22t note 64.
P 463
Poussin's view and its criticism
───────────
(24) Council, p.13.
P 464
───────────
(25) Council, p.2.
(26) CV XI. 10; T.22, p.191 b3ff; T.22, p.967b 2 7ff.
(27) Poussin, Councils, p.15; Minayeff, (Cherches, p.31)
P 465
have, in spite of their late redaction, preservedthe
vagueness of the primitive ideas with regard to the
saint. We can hardly consider even the fact of the
trial an invention of the legend.....
───────────
(28) Poussin, Councils, pp.15 ∼ 16; Oldenberg,
Buddhistiche Studien,pp.620∼21.
(29) Poussin, Councils, p.16.
(30) XI.12, T.22, p.192 a15ff, etc.
P 466
───────────
(31) Poussin, Councils, pp.15∼17.
(32) Ibid, p.17.
P 467
───────────
(33) Ibid, pp.21ff.
(34) Ibid, p.22.
P 468
───────────
(35) Ibid, p.22, note 63.
P 469
Criticism of Poussin's view
───────────
(36) Ibid, p.25.
P 470
───────────
(37) CV XI. 6; T. 22, p. 190c 16ff; (T.22),
967a20ff etc.
P 471
───────────
(38) Poussin, (Councils, p.17) points out that A nanda
was judged after he became an arhat. Thus this
tradition appears not only in the account of the
two Sthavira stereams but also in the Mahasamghika
Vinaya. So this tradition might have belonged to
the earliest strata (for 3 streams of tradition,
see, Mukherjee, ibid, pp.81∼83.).
(39) Both Poussin and Oldenberg think the tradition
about the minor rules also is not historical,
see Poussin, Councils, p. 26, note 64.
P 472
───────────
(40) Mukherjee, ibid, pp.89∼93.
(41) MPS VI.1.
Key words: 1. Mahapaninibbanasutta 2. Krtya
3. Khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani
4. Brahmadanda 5. Arhat
P 473
Conclusion