2. The Buddhist Councils
Next the most complicated phases of the evolution of Buddhism are the history of the Buddhist
councils. They are very complicated issues regarding the emergence of the Mahāyāna. Actually
we do not know with a degree of certainty how many councils were held. There were at least
three councils and six being the maximum. We normally talk about four councils. The fourth one
is not recognized by the Ceylonese tradition. At the minimum we can talk about three councils.
We are not going to treat the councils in extensively although I will deal here certain aspects of
the councils, which are relevant with this course.
§ 1. The First Council
The first council (saṃgīti) was held just after the passing away of the Buddha. In the first council
Mahākāśyapa presided over the council, in which Sutta and Vinaya were established through the
efforts of Ānanda and Upāli respectively. I want to say with regard to the first council that a
number of events that may appear to be minor in comparison with the account of the whole
proceeding of the council, but which were significant with the origin of the Mahāyāna and
particularly I am referring to two events.
1.1. The lesser precepts
The first has to do with the precepts, with the disciplinary question - the question about the rules
of discipline. At the first council the question rose whether the community should proceed to
abolish the lesser precepts. You might remember that the Buddha told Ānanda in the last days of
his life that the community might be free to abolish the minor precepts if they saw fit. This
question was raised at the first council. Ānanda came under a series of criticism at the first
council. For example he was criticized for advocating the admission of the women in the Saṅgha.
He was criticized for refusing to give Buddha water and there are other points for which he was
criticized. But the two points which are most significant regarding the origin of Mahāyāna, the
whole question of evolution of Buddhist community.
The first point I want to make is the question regarding the lesser precepts. As the Buddha said
to Ānanda that the Saṅgha might abolish the lesser precept if they saw fit, the question of
abolishing the minor precepts arose. But the difficulty was Ānanda did not ask Buddha which
were the minor precepts. On that basis all the precepts were retained because Ānanda was failed
to ask the Buddha which were the minor precepts. Now let’s just think about that. The Buddha
told everyone to work out their deliverance with diligent. They should be refuges and lamps unto
themselves. The Buddha had put the responsibility for liberation upon the individual followers.
Surely, it would not be so difficult for intelligent and learned monks (in the first council the
participants were all believed to be Arhats) to decide for themselves, which were the lesser
precepts or at least identify some precepts, which were obviously lesser.
Since Ānanda failed to ask the Buddha which were the lesser precepts (and even if Ānanda
asked the Buddha which were the lesser precepts, the Buddha more likely would say, ‘work it
out for yourself’). Mahākāśyapa recommended that all the precepts be retained as they did
not know which were the lesser ones. This is interesting, because, to my knowledge from any Vinaya – Sarvāstivāda or Theravāda, no precepts that ever been dropped by any councils. All the precepts were sustained as they were at the first council. We all know that in practice many of the precepts are not followed today and not have been followed for centuries. But all the precepts were left there written in stone. (Correct me if I am wrong) No precept has ever been abolished even in the Tibetan and Chinese traditions where the monks and nuns follow the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, which is not very different from the Theravāda Vinaya. There, in the cold countries monks eat at night but the precept is still there. Monks wear heavy clothing and shoes but the precept is still there.
There is even a precept that prohibits urinating standing up. How one can follow that in the
Airport lavatory in present time? But the precept is there. No body has said that this precept is
outdated and should be eliminated. So this kind of conservatism regarding most of the
precepts still persists. It is interesting because the question arose already at the first council.
There was another reason, why Ānanda was criticized. It is rather an important point. The Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an entire eon if he so wished and again Ānanda neglected to request the Buddha to live for an entire eon. The Buddha mentioned this for three times but Ānanda who was upset about the fact that the Buddha was dying failed to ask the Buddha to live for an entire eon.
So Ānanda came under the criticism for this also as why did he fail to ask the Buddha to live on for an eon? But that is not the point. What is interesting is that the Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an eon- this is according to the Theravāda source not from the Mahāyāna material. Even in the Theravāda tradition the Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an entire eon. So what happened to the idea that the Buddha can only live a normal life? There seems to be a loophole here. There seems at least a possibility that the Buddha could live for an entire eon if only Ānanda had happened to ask him to do so. This also, one should admit, appears to be little bit artificial, that the whole future of the world, the length of the Buddha’s life span depended on whether Ānanda asked the Buddha to live for an eon or not? In any case, these things occurred. These are some hints or some glimpses of alternative readings and interpretations.
1.2. Teachings heard by others rather Ānanda
Then there is another interesting thing happened during the first council. Again this is also
recorded in the Theravāda Pali account, not according to the Mahāyāna sources. Towards the
end of the first council when the Arhats were preparing to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya, there
turned up a certain monk named Purana with a large followers. The members of the council said
to Purana, “We just compiled the Sutta and the Vinaya, come and join the assembly to recite with us.” Purana said, “Thank you very much, I deeply appreciate your invitation but I would prefer to remember the teaching of the Buddha as I heard by myself from the Buddha himself.” (Astonishing, no?) This is very interesting. Purana must have had great courage and great
conviction; he turned up towards the end of the council, five hundred Arhats and disciples were
about to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya, they invited him to join, but he said, “no, thank you, I
prefer to remember the teaching of the Buddha as I have heard from the Buddha.”
Now what conclusion you can draw from Purana’s attitude that he refused to join the assembly to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya. The only conclusion one can draw from this that there were other traditions. There were other memories. The memories that were recorded in the first council were not totally inclusive. That was not the only memory, the only version of the
teaching of the Buddha that was existed. There were other versions as you can see with Purana. And if Purana had his version then who is to say there weren’t five, ten, twenty or hundred other
disciples of the Buddha who had their own versions and their own memories.I am not trying to discredit the version of the Dhamma and the Vinaya that we have in the first council. What I am trying to say, there is good reason to believe and there is sufficient reason to believe that this is something only version that existed. And that is just after the lifetime of the Buddha, it is not five years later or hundred years later.
So just after the lifetime of the Buddha there was already people like Purana said, “No, thank you, I have my own version, I have my own memory what the Buddha taught. I prefer to retain that.” It indicates clearly that there were alternative memories and interpretations of what the Buddha taught already in the early phase of Buddhism. You need to remember that we are told that Ānanda had a fantastic memory. He recorded all the teachings of the Buddha. Is this entirely credible? The Buddhists have given the permission by the Buddha to think for themselves. Is it credible that Ānanda heard all the teachings of the Buddha? For example, Ānanda was only the Buddha’s attendant for 20-25 years and the Buddha taught for 45 years. Ānanda wasn’t there for 20 years. So what about those teachings for 20 years when Ānanda wasn’t there? What about the teachings that the Buddha gave to the Gods? We know that the Buddha dedicated the middle part of every night to teach the Gods.
Did Ānanda hear all those teachings? It is not plausible to believe that Ānanda heard every single discourse that the Buddha ever gave. It is for that reason, it is possible that Purana heard something, which Ānanda did not hear. There were other discourses heard by the other
disciples that Ānanda did not hear. And it is more likely that the discourses given to the Gods,
those Ānanda did not hear. So there were other traditions, other memories of the teachings of the Buddha already just after the passing away of the Buddha. These are the two points I wanted to make about the first council.
Next the most complicated phases of the evolution of Buddhism are the history of the Buddhist
councils. They are very complicated issues regarding the emergence of the Mahāyāna. Actually
we do not know with a degree of certainty how many councils were held. There were at least
three councils and six being the maximum. We normally talk about four councils. The fourth one
is not recognized by the Ceylonese tradition. At the minimum we can talk about three councils.
We are not going to treat the councils in extensively although I will deal here certain aspects of
the councils, which are relevant with this course.
§ 1. The First Council
The first council (saṃgīti) was held just after the passing away of the Buddha. In the first council
Mahākāśyapa presided over the council, in which Sutta and Vinaya were established through the
efforts of Ānanda and Upāli respectively. I want to say with regard to the first council that a
number of events that may appear to be minor in comparison with the account of the whole
proceeding of the council, but which were significant with the origin of the Mahāyāna and
particularly I am referring to two events.
1.1. The lesser precepts
The first has to do with the precepts, with the disciplinary question - the question about the rules
of discipline. At the first council the question rose whether the community should proceed to
abolish the lesser precepts. You might remember that the Buddha told Ānanda in the last days of
his life that the community might be free to abolish the minor precepts if they saw fit. This
question was raised at the first council. Ānanda came under a series of criticism at the first
council. For example he was criticized for advocating the admission of the women in the Saṅgha.
He was criticized for refusing to give Buddha water and there are other points for which he was
criticized. But the two points which are most significant regarding the origin of Mahāyāna, the
whole question of evolution of Buddhist community.
The first point I want to make is the question regarding the lesser precepts. As the Buddha said
to Ānanda that the Saṅgha might abolish the lesser precept if they saw fit, the question of
abolishing the minor precepts arose. But the difficulty was Ānanda did not ask Buddha which
were the minor precepts. On that basis all the precepts were retained because Ānanda was failed
to ask the Buddha which were the minor precepts. Now let’s just think about that. The Buddha
told everyone to work out their deliverance with diligent. They should be refuges and lamps unto
themselves. The Buddha had put the responsibility for liberation upon the individual followers.
Surely, it would not be so difficult for intelligent and learned monks (in the first council the
participants were all believed to be Arhats) to decide for themselves, which were the lesser
precepts or at least identify some precepts, which were obviously lesser.
Since Ānanda failed to ask the Buddha which were the lesser precepts (and even if Ānanda
asked the Buddha which were the lesser precepts, the Buddha more likely would say, ‘work it
out for yourself’). Mahākāśyapa recommended that all the precepts be retained as they did
not know which were the lesser ones. This is interesting, because, to my knowledge from any Vinaya – Sarvāstivāda or Theravāda, no precepts that ever been dropped by any councils. All the precepts were sustained as they were at the first council. We all know that in practice many of the precepts are not followed today and not have been followed for centuries. But all the precepts were left there written in stone. (Correct me if I am wrong) No precept has ever been abolished even in the Tibetan and Chinese traditions where the monks and nuns follow the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, which is not very different from the Theravāda Vinaya. There, in the cold countries monks eat at night but the precept is still there. Monks wear heavy clothing and shoes but the precept is still there.
There is even a precept that prohibits urinating standing up. How one can follow that in the
Airport lavatory in present time? But the precept is there. No body has said that this precept is
outdated and should be eliminated. So this kind of conservatism regarding most of the
precepts still persists. It is interesting because the question arose already at the first council.
There was another reason, why Ānanda was criticized. It is rather an important point. The Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an entire eon if he so wished and again Ānanda neglected to request the Buddha to live for an entire eon. The Buddha mentioned this for three times but Ānanda who was upset about the fact that the Buddha was dying failed to ask the Buddha to live for an entire eon.
So Ānanda came under the criticism for this also as why did he fail to ask the Buddha to live on for an eon? But that is not the point. What is interesting is that the Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an eon- this is according to the Theravāda source not from the Mahāyāna material. Even in the Theravāda tradition the Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an entire eon. So what happened to the idea that the Buddha can only live a normal life? There seems to be a loophole here. There seems at least a possibility that the Buddha could live for an entire eon if only Ānanda had happened to ask him to do so. This also, one should admit, appears to be little bit artificial, that the whole future of the world, the length of the Buddha’s life span depended on whether Ānanda asked the Buddha to live for an eon or not? In any case, these things occurred. These are some hints or some glimpses of alternative readings and interpretations.
1.2. Teachings heard by others rather Ānanda
Then there is another interesting thing happened during the first council. Again this is also
recorded in the Theravāda Pali account, not according to the Mahāyāna sources. Towards the
end of the first council when the Arhats were preparing to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya, there
turned up a certain monk named Purana with a large followers. The members of the council said
to Purana, “We just compiled the Sutta and the Vinaya, come and join the assembly to recite with us.” Purana said, “Thank you very much, I deeply appreciate your invitation but I would prefer to remember the teaching of the Buddha as I heard by myself from the Buddha himself.” (Astonishing, no?) This is very interesting. Purana must have had great courage and great
conviction; he turned up towards the end of the council, five hundred Arhats and disciples were
about to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya, they invited him to join, but he said, “no, thank you, I
prefer to remember the teaching of the Buddha as I have heard from the Buddha.”
Now what conclusion you can draw from Purana’s attitude that he refused to join the assembly to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya. The only conclusion one can draw from this that there were other traditions. There were other memories. The memories that were recorded in the first council were not totally inclusive. That was not the only memory, the only version of the
teaching of the Buddha that was existed. There were other versions as you can see with Purana. And if Purana had his version then who is to say there weren’t five, ten, twenty or hundred other
disciples of the Buddha who had their own versions and their own memories.I am not trying to discredit the version of the Dhamma and the Vinaya that we have in the first council. What I am trying to say, there is good reason to believe and there is sufficient reason to believe that this is something only version that existed. And that is just after the lifetime of the Buddha, it is not five years later or hundred years later.
So just after the lifetime of the Buddha there was already people like Purana said, “No, thank you, I have my own version, I have my own memory what the Buddha taught. I prefer to retain that.” It indicates clearly that there were alternative memories and interpretations of what the Buddha taught already in the early phase of Buddhism. You need to remember that we are told that Ānanda had a fantastic memory. He recorded all the teachings of the Buddha. Is this entirely credible? The Buddhists have given the permission by the Buddha to think for themselves. Is it credible that Ānanda heard all the teachings of the Buddha? For example, Ānanda was only the Buddha’s attendant for 20-25 years and the Buddha taught for 45 years. Ānanda wasn’t there for 20 years. So what about those teachings for 20 years when Ānanda wasn’t there? What about the teachings that the Buddha gave to the Gods? We know that the Buddha dedicated the middle part of every night to teach the Gods.
Did Ānanda hear all those teachings? It is not plausible to believe that Ānanda heard every single discourse that the Buddha ever gave. It is for that reason, it is possible that Purana heard something, which Ānanda did not hear. There were other discourses heard by the other
disciples that Ānanda did not hear. And it is more likely that the discourses given to the Gods,
those Ānanda did not hear. So there were other traditions, other memories of the teachings of the Buddha already just after the passing away of the Buddha. These are the two points I wanted to make about the first council.
Comments