Buddhist councils


Since the death of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhist monastic communities, the "sangha", have periodically convened for doctrinal and disciplinary reasons and to revise and correct the contents of the Buddhist canons. Referred to as Buddhist "councils", the famous First Buddhist Council is recorded in Buddhist texts as being held one year after the Buddha's passing, when Ananda recited all of the spoken sutras, which were recorded in Rajagriha. The two next major Councils were held more than 100 years later.
The details of the later councils are debated by modern Buddhist studies. Various sources belonging to different Buddhist schools may contain different accounts of these events. For this reason, modern scholars have questioned the historicity of some of these councils or at least their preserved descriptions in literature.

First Buddhist council

All six of the surviving Vinaya sources of various early Buddhist schools contain accounts, in whole or in part, of the first and second councils. The story of the First Council seems to be a continuation of the story of the Buddha's final days and death told in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta and its equivalents in the Agamas. Based on correlations and continuity between these two texts, Louis Finot concluded that they had originated from a single narrative that was later split between the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka. In most schools, the account of the First Council is located at the end of the Skandhaka section of the Vinaya but before any appendices.
The first Buddhist council is traditionally said to have been held just after Buddha's final nirvana, and presided over by Mahākāśyapa, one of his most senior disciples, at a cave near Rājagṛha with the support of king Ajatashatru. Its objective was to preserve the Buddha's sayings and the monastic discipline or rules. The Suttas were recited by Ananda, and the Vinaya was recited by Upali. Even though the Buddha had said that the Sangha could abolish the minor rules after his passing, the council made the unanimous decision to keep all the rules intact. The traditional notion that the whole of the Suttas and Vinayas as we know them today were recited during this council is likely to be an exaggeration.
Numerous Vinayas also depict various disagreements in the first council. Various monks disagreed on whether to keep or get rid of some of the minor rules. Some monks even argued all the minor rules should be abolished. Also, numerous early sources state that Mahakasyapa criticized Ananda in various ways. Analayo quotes one passage from a Chinese parallel to the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta, in which Mahākassapa says: "Ānanda is a lay person. I am afraid that, being with covetousness in his mind, he will not recite the discourses completely." Analayo writes there may have been "actual conflict between two contending factions in the monastic community after the Buddha's decease, with the more ascetically inclined faction emerging as the winning party in the accounts of the first saṅgīti".
According to some traditional accounts, following the Buddha's death, 499 of the Buddha's top arhats were chosen to attend the council. Ananda, then a sotapanna, trained himself until the dawn of day of the council, at which point he attained arahatship and was allowed to join the council.
Regarding the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the third major division of the Tipitaka, modern academic scholarship holds that it was likely composed at a later date because of its contents and differences in language and style. According to Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, and the ancient Atthakathā were also included at the first Buddhist council in the Sutta category, but its literature is different from Sutta because the Abhidhamma Pitaka was authored by Sāriputta.

Alternative groups

The various Vinayas also recount another curious event during this time. The Cullavagga mentions there was an arhat named Purāṇa who stated that he and his followers preferred to remember the Buddha's teachings in the manner he had heard it and so did not rely on the textual collections of the council. This figure is also found in the Aśokāvadāna and the Tibetan Dulvā Vinaya, which depict Purāṇa and another monk, Gavampati which were not present at the council and who worry about what will happen to the Dharma after the death of the Buddha. This account is described in the Chinese versions of the Dharmagupta and Mahīsāsaka Vinayas and in the Vinayamātrika Sūtra. Gavampati is said to have also maintained a set of eight rules regarding food which are retained by the Mahīsāsaka Vinaya.
A similar event is described by Chinese sources like the writings of the Indian scholar Paramartha, Jizang, and the pilgrim Xuanzang. According to these sources, an alternative canon named the Mahasamghikanikaya was compiled by an Arhat named Baspa and his followers. Xuanzang reports visiting a stupa near Rajgir which marked the site of this alternate council.

Historicity

Several modern scholars doubt whether the entire canon was really recited during the First Council, because the early texts contain different accounts on important subjects such as meditation. It may be, though, that early versions were recited of what is now known as the Vinaya-piṭaka and Sutta-piṭaka. Nevertheless, many scholars, from the late 19th century onward, have considered the historicity of the First Council improbable. Some scholars, such as orientalists Louis de La Vallée-Poussin and D.P. Minayeff, thought there must have been assemblies after the Buddha's death, but considered only the main characters and some events before or after the First Council historical. Other scholars, such as Buddhologist André Bareau and Indologist Hermann Oldenberg, considered it likely that the account of the First Council was written after the Second Council, and based on that of the second, since there were not any major problems to solve after the Buddha's death, or any other need to organize the First Council.
On the other hand, archaeologist Louis Finot, Indologist E. E. Obermiller and to some extent Indologist Nalinaksha Dutt thought the account of the First Council was authentic, because of the correspondences between the Pāli texts and the Sanskrit traditions. Indologist Richard Gombrich meanwhile holds that "large parts of the Pali Canon" do date back to the first council.

Second council and first schism

Second council

The historical records for the Second Buddhist Council derive primarily from the canonical Vinayas of various schools. It was held 100 years after the parinirvana of Buddha in the Valukarama of Vaiśālī and was patronised by the king Kalashoka. While inevitably disagreeing on points of details, these schools nevertheless agree that the bhikkhus at Vaisali were accepting monetary donations and following other lax practices. The lax practices are often described as "ten points". The main issue though was accepting money from laypersons. These practices were first noticed by a monk named Yasa Kākandakaputta, who alerted other elders and called out the monks. In response, both the monks of Vaiśālī and Yasa gathered senior members of the Sangha from the region to consult in order to fully settle the issue. This dispute about vinaya, according to traditional sources, resulted in the first schism in the Sangha. But some scholars think that a schism did not occur at this time and instead happened at a later date.

First Schism

Vinaya dispute

The Cullavagga of the Pali Canon of Theravāda Buddhism holds that the Vaiśālī monks practiced ten points which were against the Vinaya rules.
  1. Storing salt in a horn.
  2. Eating food when the shadow of the sun had passed two fingers' breadth beyond noon.
  3. Eat once and then go again to the village for alms.
  4. Holding of the uposatha separately by monks dwelling in the same district.
  5. Carrying out an official act when the assembly is incomplete.
  6. Following a practice because it is so done by one's tutor or teacher.
  7. Eating of sour milk by one who has already had his midday meal.
  8. Use of the strong drink before it has fermented.
  9. Use of blankets which have unstitched hem.
  10. Accepting of gold and silver.
The orthodox monks refused to agree to these points, and one of their leaders, Yasa Kākandakaputta, publicly condemned the action of the Vajjiputtakas. Yasa then left Kosambī, and, having summoned monks from Pāvā in the west and Avanti in the south, sought Sambhūta Sānavāsi in Ahoganga. On his advice they sought Soreyya-Revata, and together they consulted Sabbakāmi at Vālikārāma. In the Council that followed the Ten Points were declared invalid, and this decision was conveyed to the monks. Soon after was held a recital of the Doctrine in which seven hundred monks took part under the leadership of Soreyya-Revata. The recital lasted eight months. The Vajjiputtakas refused to accept the finding of Revata's Council and formed a separate sect, the Mahāsāṃghikas, numbering ten thousand monks, who held a recital of their own. Accordingly, Theravāda Buddhism suggests that Mahāsāṃghikas tried to change the traditional Vinaya by adding the above ten points to it.
However, Mahāsāṃghikas hold that the Sthaviras wanted to 'add' more rules to the Vinaya. Vinaya texts associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. The Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, while the Theravāda version has 75 rules. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya discusses how the Mahāsāṃghika disagree with the Sthavira 'additions' to the Vinaya.
The Mahāsāṃghika Śāriputraparipṛcchā contains an account in which an old monk rearranges and augments the traditional Vinaya. As stated in the Śāriputraparipṛcchā:
Due to the conflicting claims from both sects, a clear conclusion cannot be reached on whether the Sthaviras' or the Mahāsāṃghikas' Vinaya was the original Vinaya.