{"collection":"journals","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/journals/mon/1stbudcn.htm","path":"journals/mon/1stbudcn.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/journals/mon/1stbudcn.htm","text":"A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE\nPREFATORY NOTE.\nTEITARO SUZUKI has made, in the present translations, the most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the First Buddhist Council, which has appeared in Western nations since Samuel Beal's translation from the Chinese Dharmagupta document presented by that scholar to the Oriental Congress at Berlin in 1881, and reprinted in his Abstract of Four Lectures (1882). It is well known to students of the Sacred Books of the East that there is, in the twentieth volume of that series, an account of the first two Councils of the Buddhist Order, translated from the P\u00e2li. The account is a later addition to the Minor Section on Discipline, and we may call it the Council Appendix. It proceeds from the orthodox and aristocratic School of the Elders, the great rival of whom was the School of the Great Council (Mah\u00e2samghika) who, says the pilgrim Hs\u00fcan-Tsang, admitted to their deliberations the common people, the foolish and the wise.[1] This being so, it is important for us to know both sides of the story, indeed as many sides as possible; and this we can do, to some extent, by reading the different sectarian statements translated by Suzuki. It is very satisfactory to me, on comparing the one document which he has in common with Beal (viz., the Dharmagupta) to find that the two Sinologues substantially agree in their list of the Canonical books.[2]\n[1. The Ceylon Chronicles do not admit this sect's existence until the Second Council.\n2. The only real disagreement is Suzuki's Itivrittaka and Nid\u00e2na in place of Beal's \"good Nid\u00e2na S\u00fbtra.\" I sincerely hope Suzuki is right, for the P\u00e2li Itivuttaka is one of the jewels of the Canon.]\nHermann Oldenberg, in his pioneer essay on the Canon (1879) threw grave doubts upon the historicity of the First Council, as Suzuki now reminds us. Rhys Davids, while admitting the doubt, subtracted from its cogency. (S. B. E., XI., Introd., 1881.) For that doubt is based upon the argument from silence, viz: the silence of the Decease Book upon any convocation, while yet reporting the very speech of Subhadra which, according to the Council Appendix, gave rise to the Council. But there is another speech in the Decease Book which really requires a Council, or at least a discussion which would inevitably be decided by authority. It is the speech of Buddha to \u00c2nanda: \"If the Order should so desire, \u00c2nanda, after my demise, let them abrogate the lesser and minor precepts.\"\nNow, according to the Council document of the Great Council School, here translated by Suzuki, this speech did raise a vehement debate, as indeed how could it fail to? The document agrees with the P\u00e2li account of the rival sect, that the objectors were overruled by Kassapa the Great.\nAgain, the Decease Book also tells us that not only monks and nuns, but laymen and laywomen, were, at the time of the Master's death, bahussut\u00e2, dhammadhar\u00e2, full of learning and repositories of the Dhamma. In the Numerical Collection we find the names of the chief ones who were thus expert. This ancient list of disciples holds a place in the P\u00e2li Canon like that of the Christian list in the Third of Mark. Now the list in the Numerical Collection tells us that Kacc\u00e2na was the foremost among those who could accurately expand an utterance of the Master's which had been spoken concisely. (Anguttara I., 14). The Middling Collection adds that Buddha complimented Kacc\u00e2na upon his ability to do this. (Majjhima, No. 18.) The same Nik\u00e2ya (No. 84) tells us that Kacc\u00e2na converted the King of Avanti after Buddha's decease, and the monarch was ready to take him for his master. Besides this learned Kacc\u00e2na, there was \u00c2nanda learned in the Suttas, Up\u00e2li in the Vinaya; while others, both clerical and lay, were preachers of the Dhamma, or otherwise expert in points of the great religion.\nSo obviously does this great list of disciples bear upon the First Council, that the oldest Chronicler of Ceylon gives a poetic p. 255 abridgment thereof in his two accounts;[1] for, like the Hebrew compilers of the Old Testament, the Ceylon Chronicler is not content with a composition of his own, but transmits two separate documents concerning each of the three Councils. These documents probably emanate from the Great Minster and some other monastery in the ancient capital of Ceylon.\nThere is, in the P\u00e2li Canon, an archaic work, the Itivuttaka, which I venture to call the Buddhist Logia-Book. Each paragraph in this venerable Gospel-source is attested by the solemn words: \"Exactly this is the meaning of what the Blessed One said, and thus it was heard by me.\"[2]\nThough no names are given, this formula implies that earwitnesses made depositions as to what they had heard from the Master.\nAnother ancient document, the Great Section on Discipline, exhibits a charming picture of the monks reciting the Master's words even during his lifetime: on the last night of the yearly residence during the rains, the reciters sat up late comparing notes and fixing in their minds the discourses they had chanted together. Another document of the Discipline, the Minor Section, tells us how the famous disciple Dabba the Mallian (who could light the monks to bed by emitting magnetic flames from his fingers) allotted apartments to the different reciters: the Sutta-reciters and the Vinaya-reciters were housed together. Another ancient Discipline document, the P\u00e2r\u00e2jika, enumerates Nine Divisions into which the sacred lore was divided. Three of these divisions, J\u00e2taka, Ud\u00e2na, Itivuttaka, are names of leading books of the Canon to this day; a fourth one, Sutta, is the name of the great fivefold collection; while three other names enter into the titles of books or discourses.\nThus we have reason to believe, from the Canon itself, even in its oldest documents, that a Council to fix it after Buddha's decease was inevitable. The monks had been used to hold just such a council every year through the long decades of his life-work, and\n[1. D\u00eepavamsa 4 and 5.\n2. Cf. \"Gospel Parallels from P\u00e2li Texts,\" in The Open Court for January, 1901.]\np. 256 they could not have done without one when he was no more. Again does the Decease Book come to our aid: \"\u00c2nanda, the Doctrine and Discipline set forth and laid down by me must, after my departure, be your Master.\" And again: \"These four great References, O monks, will I set forth,\" viz.: that when a monk maintains a given doctrine to be that of the Buddha, of the Order, of the reciters, or of some Elder learned in the \u00c2gamas, the Dhamma, the Vinaya and the Summaries (M\u00e2tik\u00e2), it must be compared with the established Doctrine and Discipline, line by line and letter by letter (padavya\u00f1jan\u00e2ni), This implies, according to Western ideas, a written standard whereto appeal could be made; but many facts brought forward by Max M\u00fcller and Rhys Davids prevent our believing this. The appeal could only be, therefore, to some established form of the Sacred Lore as held by the reciters in their collective capacity: for, says the text of the Great References, a monk may be misled by a numerous company of Elders who are learned in the \u00c2gamas (and so forth, as above). There must therefore have been a standing Council on Doctrine and Discipline during Buddha's lifetime.\nThe later testimony of the Council Appendix affirms that the Elders of the First Council revised corruptions of the text,[1] because Buddha had commended it. It had therefore been done before, doubtless at the yearly meetings aforesaid. The Council Appendix also gives a hint that more than one recension was compiled. For, just as Papias, when Peter and John were no more, said that he preferred the living voice of those who remained who had heard the Apostles, rather than written records; so, when the monk Pur\u00e2.na was informed that the Elders had recited and fixed the Canon, whereto he was asked to bow, he politely replied: \"Gentlemen, the Doctrine and Discipline have been beautifully chanted in chorus by the Elders; but, all the same, I shall maintain what I heard and received from the mouth of the Blessed One exactly as I heard it.\"\nNow Pur\u00e2.na was the leader of a party of five hundred--a symbolical\n[1. Thus do I translate khandaphullam patisamkarimsu, rendered in S. B. E., XX., p. 373, \"they repaired dilapidation.\"]\np. 257 number, meaning a large body; and the same number is attached to the orthodox party. Therefore, from the moment of Buddha's death, there were at least two recensions of the Canon maintained by parties of equal strength. The documents here set before us by Suzuki plainly proclaim the existence of rival recensions, agreeing in fundamentals, but differing in arrangement and extent. We may gather from the Island Chronicle that a favorite bone of contention was the question: What is text and what is commentary? Accordingly we find that sharp divergences prevail in those portions of the Canon which embody commentary: the Short Collection and the Higher Doctrine (Khuddaka Nik\u00e2ya and Abhidhamma).\nOf course, the Canons here given as fixed at the Master's death are taken by each school from its own recension as it existed when the account was written; but this does not upset the fact that at least two such recensions existed from the first, viz., an aristocratic and a democratic. The first is the School of the Elders and the second the Great Council. It is true that the latter (the Mah\u00e2samghika) did not formally secede until the second council, at the end of the first Buddhist century; but it has long been clear to me that its germ is to be found in the words of Pur\u00e2.no.\nSuzuki's documents are valuable, if nothing else, as lists of the contents of the different sectarian Canons. It is just such fundamental documents as these that are in crying need of translation, from Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan. We want to compare the statements of the conservative school, transmitted to us through the P\u00e2li, with those of other sects who had other and rival recensions. (Unless we are very orthodox Therav\u00e2dins, we may even call them Canons, in the plural, just as we should speak of the Greek, Armenian, and Abyssinian Canons of the Old and New Testaments, which accept or reject the Apocalypses of Enoch and John.) According to the Tibetans (teste Csoma) the Confessional (and presumably the Scriptures generally) were recited in four different dialects: Sanskrit, P\u00e2li,[1] and two more.\n[1. The name P\u00e2li is not used, but from the names of the Ceylon sects who used the dialect called \"the vernacular,\" we know that P\u00e2li is meant.]\nLet us hope that Teitaro Suzuki will go on adding to our knowledge in the same useful way.\nALBERT J. EDMUNDS.\nHistorical Society of Pennsylvania, August, 1901.\nTHE FIRST CONVOCATION OF BUDDHISM.\nThe purpose of the present article is not to enter into an historical or critical examination of the First Convocation of the Buddhist Order, which is generaily admitted by all the schools of Buddhism to have taken place immediately after the death of the Master. Though, some critics, for instance, Oldenberg, doubts its historical reality, it is apparently natural that the pious disciples of Buddha wished to rescue all his teachings from oblivion as soon as an opportunity presented itself. It may not, of course, have taken place in all its details as told by different sects, but even then those records possess an important historical significance on account of the light which they throw on the later development of Buddhism. Having this in view, I have collected and compared as many materials as available from the Chinese sources, but have refrained from giving an entire translation of them, which, however interesting to the specialist, cannot be presented in a limited space. The following summarised notes may serve in giving some insight into the nature of the First Convocation as well as into the attitude assumed towards it by different schools of Buddhism.\nSOURCES.\nThe Chinese sources relating to the First Convocation of Buddhism are as follow:\n1. The Sudar\u00e7ana-vinaya-vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 (right-comprehension-vinaya-analysis): Case Han,[1] fas. VIII., pp. 1-4. (Translated by Samghabhadra, A.D. 489. 18 fasciculi.)\n2. The Mah\u00ee\u00e7\u00e2saka-nik\u00e2ya-pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya (the Vinaya-text of the Mah\u00ee\u00e7\u00e2saka school in five divisions): Case Chang, fas. II.,\n[1. This refers to the Japanese edition of the Chinese Tripitaka. 1883. commonly known as the K\u00f4ky\u00f4 Shoin Edition.]\np. 259 pp. 68-69. (Translated by Buddhaj\u00eeva with the assistance of some native Chinese Buddhists, A.D. 423-424. 30 fasciculi.)\n3. The Caturvarga-vinaya (the Vinaya-text of the Dharmagupta school in four divisions): Case Lieh, fas. VI. , pp. 49-51. (Translated by Buddhaya\u00e7as and Chu Fo-nien, A.D. 405. 60 fasciculi.)\n4. The Mah\u00e2sanghika-vinaya (the Vinaya-text of the Mah\u00e2sanghika school): Case Lieh, fas. X., 32-35. (Translated by Buddhabhadra and F\u00e2-hsien, A.D. 416. 46 fasciculi.)\n5. The M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-nik\u00e2ya-vinaya-samyuktavastu (the miscellaneous part of the Vinaya-text of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da school): Case Han, fas. II., pp. 87-93. (Translated by I-tsing, A.D. 710. 40 fasciculi.)\n6. The Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2 S\u00fbtra (the S\u00fbtra of the Vinaya-summaries): Case Han, fas. IX., pp. 15-16. (The translator's name is lost, but the work is considered to have been done under the Chin dynasty, A.D. 350-431. 8 fasciculi.)\n7. The Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7astra (a treatise on the great wisdom-perfection): Case Wang, fas. I., pp. 15-17. (The work is ascribed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. A commentary on the Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 S\u00fbtra. Translated by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva, A.D. 402-405. 100 fasciculi. The original is said to have been thrice as large as the present translation.)\n8. The Life of King A\u00e7oka: Case Tsang, fas. X., pp. 13-14. (Translated by An Fa-chin, between A.D. 281-306. 5 or 6 fasciculi.)\n9. The Record of the Compilation of the Three Pitakas and the Miscellaneous Pitaka: Case Tsang, fas. VIII., pp. 32-35. (The translator's name is lost, but the work is said to be a production of the Eastern Chin dynasty, A.D. 317-420.)\n10. The S\u00fbtra on Ka\u00e7yapa's Compilation: Case Tsang, fas. VIII., pp. 35-37. (Translated by \u00c2n Shih-kao, a monk from Parthia, A.D. 148-170. The above two works are very short and consist of a few pages only.)\n11. The Accounts of the Transmission of the Dharmapitaka: Case Tsang, fas. IX., p. 92. (Translated by Chi-chia-yeh [Ki.mk\u00e2ra?], A.D. 472. 6 fasciculi.)\nBesides the above works we may consult F\u00e2-hsien and Hs\u00fcan-tsang as well, but I have refrained from making extracts from these works, because good English and French translations are accessible to the students of Buddhism.\nCIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED K\u00c2\u00c7AYAPA TO SUMMON THE FIRST CONVOCATION.\nThat Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, the first Buddhist patriarch, was the originator of the first assembly for compiling the Pitakas, is a matter of general acceptance by all schools of Buddhism. His motive, according to the Ceylon tradition, is ascribed to the imprudent utterance of a certain Bhikshu Subhadra[1] who, hearing of Buddh'a's entrance into Nirv\u00e2na, unreservedly gave vent to his feeling of relief, for he thought the religious discipline demanded by his Master was too rigorous. This tradition agrees with the records in the Vinaya texts of the Mah\u00ee\u00e7\u00e2saka, the Mah\u00e2sa.nghika, and the Dharmagupta schools, and also with those in the Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2-S\u00fbtra and the Sudar\u00e7ana-Vinaya-vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2,[2] whereas in the Vinaya text of the Dharmagupta an additional reason why the Pitaka should be rehearsed immediately after Buddha's death is given by K\u00e2\u00e7yapa thus: \"We should now compile[3] the Dharma and the Vinaya, in order that heretics (t\u00eerthakas) shall not make us [the subject of] superfluous comments and censures, saying that the discipline of the \u00c7r\u00e2ma.na Gautama is like smoke; that when the World-honored One was living, all [his disciples] observed the precepts, but now, after his disappearance, there are none who observe them.\"\nBut the Vinaya text of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da, Transmission of the Dharmapitaka and the Mah\u00e2praj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra do not make any allusion to the unwise Bhikshu. The Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya, the Mah\u00e2praj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra, and the Life of A\u00e7oka, on the other\n[1. This monk Subhadra should not be confounded with Buddha's last convert, who happens to bear the same name.\n2 The name of the imprudent Bhikshu is Bh\u00e2nanda in the Mah\u00ee\u00e7\u00e2saka, the Dharmagupta, and the Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2; Mahallaka in the Mah\u00e2sanghika; Subhadra-Mahallaka in the Sudar\u00e7ana-vibh\u00e2sb\u00e2-Vinaya.\n3. Chieh chi. Literally, chieh means to tie, to join, or to unite, and chi to gather, to collect, to compile, and the like. The term is apparently an equivalent of samg\u00eeti, but I have retained its Chinese sense by translating it \"compilation.\"]\np. 261 hand, state that Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa was requested or instigated by devas who deeply lamented the possibility of the future loss of the Pitakas, if not compiled in due time. The Transmission of the Dharmapitaka, however, says nothing about the superhuman suggestion. To quote the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya: \"Those devas whose long life extends over many kalpas were greatly afflicted at witnessing the Nirv\u00e2na of Buddha. But when they came to observe that many a sage had also entered into Nirv\u00e2na, they at last began to blame [the disciples], saying: 'The S\u00fbtra, Vinaya, and M\u00e2trik\u00e2 [which constitute] the genuine Dharmapitaka taught by the World-honored One are left uncompiled; but surely [the disciples] are not going to have the right doctrine turned into ashes?'\"\nSurmising the wish of those devas, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa said to all Bhikshus: \"You know that the venerable \u00c7\u00e2riputra and the venerable Mah\u00e2maudgaly\u00e2yana, each with a large number of great Bhikshus who could not bear witnessing Buddha's entrance into Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na, had already reverted to a state of perfect tranquillity; and now the World-honored One himself, in turn with 18,000 Bhikshus, has also entered into Parinirv\u00e2na. All those devas who are living innumerable kalpas, however, come forth to express their deep grief, and blame us, saying: 'Why do you not have the holy teachings of the Tripitaka compiled? Are you going to have the deepest spiritual doctrine of the Tath\u00e2gata turned into ashes?' So I declare to you all that the greatest thing we can do now is the compilation of the Pitaka. All then responded: 'Well, let us do the work.'\"\nIn the Transmission of the Dharmapitaka, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa is stated to have told all Bhikshus, as follows: \"Buddha is now cremated, but we have no concern with the relics (\u00e7\u00e2r\u00eera) of the World-honored One, for kings, the rich, ministers of state, and lay-believers who desire the most excellent bliss will, of their own accord, make offerings [to them]. What we have to do is the collection of the Dharmacakshu [literally, the eye of the law], whereby to prevent an untimely extinction of the torch of the law. ln order that it may illuminate the future generation, let a prosperous perpetuation of the Triratna be not interrupted.\"\nThe Record of the Collection of the Tripitaka and the Samyuktapitaka, which was translated during the Eastern Tsin dynasty, A.D. 317-420, agrees with the above-mentioned work in referring neither to the imprudent Bhikshu nor to the suggestion of devas.\nTHE EXCLUSION OF \u00c2NANDA.\nIt is almost[1] unanimously recorded in all the Chinese books that \u00c2nanda was not admitted to membership in the Convocation, until he attained to the state of mastery, through the reprimand of Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, which successfully awakened in his heart the feelings of deep remorse and shame. There is, however, no agreement of statements as to how \u00c2nanda was instigated by him in obtaining final emancipation.\nAccording to The Sudar\u00e7ana-vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2-vinaya, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa insisted on the exclusion of \u00c2nanda from the Convocation in order to protect it against all the reprehension that might arise from admitting one who was still in the stage of training; but the rest of the congregation thought it impossible to compile the S\u00fbtras without \u00c2nanda, so they admonished him to exert all his spiritual powers for the attainment of Arhatship.\nThe Life of A\u00e7oka, the Caturvarga-vinaya of the Dharmagupta school, and the Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya of the Mah\u00ee\u00e7\u00e2saka school, these three works generally agree in this connection. \u00c2nanda was preaching the Law to a large crowd of people, not knowing anything about Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa's determination to exclude him from the meeting. A certain Bhikshu named Po-she,[2] who perceived through his supernatural insight that \u00c2nanda was not yet free from attachment, felt pity for him, and told him the following in verse:\n| \"Calmly sitting under a tree, contemplate Nirv\u00e2na. Be not indolent, but exercise Dhy\u00e2na. For what good would there be in chattering?\" | \n[1. Except the Transmission of the Dharmapitaka, where no mention is made of this incident.\n2. So in the Caturvarga-vinaya, but Po-ch'i in the Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya, and Po-sh\u00ea-fu-to, as a disciple of \u00c2nanda, in the Life of A\u00e7oka. It is very difficult to find the Sanskrit equivalents of those names when their meanings are not given, for there is a tendency among the so-called \"old translators\" to simplify long Sanskrit terms in such a manner as to make them appear like native Chinese names.]\nThereupon \u00c2nanda made up his mind to obtain final emancipation, etc., etc.\nIn the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya, a verse slightly different in meaning from the above is also mentioned, but it was given by a mysterious boy who served him as an attendant, instead of by a Bhikshu. This incident occurred after a severe censure by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa of eight misdemeanors committed by \u00c2nanda. The Vinaya text states that Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa at first considered what would be the proper way of treating \u00c2nanda, whether with a severe reprehension or with a gentle encouragement. When he had determined to take the first course, \u00c2nanda was brought before the congregation. Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa said: \"You must leave this place. [It is not proper for] this congregation of worthy [Bhikshus] to be associated with you in their work.\" Hearing this, \u00c2nanda felt as if his heart were being pierced with arrows, and, trembling all over his body, he pleaded with Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa not to exclude him from the congregation, as he was not conscious of any faults [which would justify this severe punishment] Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa now enumerated his eight misdemeanors, which caused \u00c2nanda at last to retire from the assembly and to train himself for the attainment of Arhatship.\nIn the Mah\u00e2sanghika-vinaya, \u00c2nanda is stated to have received a very humiliating treatment from Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa. When Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa was requested by Bhikshus to admit the former to their assembly, he said: \"No, if such a one [who is still in the stage] of training should be admitted into a congregation of those who are above training and are perfect in their meritorious powers, he would appear like a leprous fox (?) in an assemblage of lions.\" When this ignominious comparison was communicated by a deva to \u00c2nanda, who was travelling towards R\u00e2jagriha, it did not please him at all. But he thought that Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa who well knew to what family he belonged, would not have referred to him in such a way, if he were free from prejudices. But in the meantime having attained final deliverance, \u00c2nanda hastened through the air to the Convocation. Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, it is stated, then explained to him that he used such a vigorous expression, only as he wished to encourage him to reach the stage of Arhatship.\nIn the Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2-\u00c7\u00e2stra, the episode is described somewhat in a similar way to that in the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya. \u00c2nanda is brought before the congregation by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, and is reproached first for his not being yet qualified to rejoin it, and then for his six (not eight) misdemeanors. When \u00c2nanda is expelled from the assembly, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa closes the gate behind him, and begins to compile the Vinaya with the remaining Bhikshus. Exceedingly mortified, \u00c2nanda during the night exercised all his spiritual powers to reach the Path, and when at last he attained to the state of freedom from all prejudices, he rushed at midnight to Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa's gates. Being told there to come inside through the keyhole, he did so by his supernatural power. Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa consoled him, saying that the severe reproach had been inflicted upon him simply because he wished to see him enter into the state of Arhatship.\nIn the S\u00fbtra on K\u00e2\u00e7yapa's Compilation [of the Tripitaka] \u00c2nanda is said to have been expelled from the congregation after he was censured by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa for his nine misdemeanors in the presence of the Samgha.\n\u00c2NANDA'S MISDEMEANORS.\nWhen \u00c2nanda said to Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa that he was not conscious of any faults, and that therefore there was no reason to exclude him from the assembly, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa enumerated several of his (duskrita), which were considered by him to be the proof that \u00c2nanda was still in the stage of training. This incident is said to have occurred, according to some, before the compilation, but according to others, after it. To the former belong the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya, the S\u00fbtra on K\u00e2\u00e7yapa's compilation, the Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2-\u00c7\u00e2stra, and the Caturvarga-vinaya of the Dharmagupta school; to the latter belong the Vinayam\u00e2trik\u00e2 S\u00fbtra, the Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya of the Mah\u00ee\u00e7\u00e2saka, the Life of A\u00e7oka, and the Mah\u00e2-samghika-vinaya. But in the Caturvarga-vinaya, the Mah\u00e2samghika-vinaya,[1] the Life of A\u00e7oka, the Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya, the faults\n[1. Here the accuser is not Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, but Up\u00e2li.]\np. 265 of \u00c2nanda are simply enumerated without any reference to his qualification as a member of the Convocation.\nThe number of his faults as censured by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa or Up\u00e2li is variously estimated at six, seven, eight, and nine. The following sums up all that was charged against him:\n1. \u00c2nanda asked Buddha for the admittance of women into the Samgha, in spite of Buddha's prediction that if women were admitted, the Law of the Tath\u00e2gata would not long abide on earth.[1]\n2. \u00c2nanda did not ask Buddha for the prolongation of his life, when the latter expressly suggested this to him, by saying that those who were trained in the four supernatural powers could either prolong or shorten their life for the period of one kalpa.\n3. When Buddha preached in parables, \u00c2nanda made, in spite of his presence, some superfluous remark on them.\n4. \u00c2nanda trod on Buddha's golden-colored robe while trying to wash it (a), or while trying to sew it (b).\n5. Being asked by Buddha to give him some water when he was going to enter into Nirv\u00e2na, \u00c2nanda gave him muddy water (a), or he did not give him any, even when thrice asked (b).\n6. When Buddha told \u00c2nanda that Bhikshus might dispense with minor precepts, he did not make any inquiry as to what precepts should be regarded minor.[2]\n7. \u00c2nanda exposed the secret parts of Buddha in the presence of women, thinking that the act would tend to the cessation of their passions, but how could he know this when he had not yet attained to the stage of Arhatship?\n8. \u00c2nanda showed the gold-colored body of Buddha to a multitude of women, allowing them to defile it with their tears.\n9. \u00c2nanda first allowed women to worship the remains of Buddha.\n10. When \u00c2nanda was one time reproached by Buddha, he secretly cherished ill-will, and was mischievous to others.\n[1. Most of the Chinese books here referred to give all the reasons by which \u00c2nanda justified himself for having committed those alleged misdemeanors, but from want of space, no mention here is made of them.\n2. This naturally caused a vehement demonstration among the Samgha later.]\n11. \u00c2nanda was not yet free from the three evil passions: lust, malice, and ignorance, while all the other Bhikshus assembled in the Convocation were free therefrom.\n12. Buddha asked \u00c2nanda three times to serve him as one who offers things (?) to Buddha, but he declined it.[1]\nThe number and the order of these faults committed by \u00c2nanda are different in different works.\nIn the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya eight faults are counted in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 4a, 5a, 6, 7, 8.\nThe Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya counts six in this order: 6, 4b, 1, 2, 5b, 9.\nThe Life of A\u00e7oka, six: 6, 5b, 4 (simply stepping on Buddha's robe), 2, 7 (the reason given by \u00c2nanda is that he wished to awake in the minds of women the desire to be born as men in their future life), 1.\nThe S\u00fbtra on K\u00e2\u00e7yapa's Compilation has nine: 1, 2, 10, 4 (simply stepping over the golden robe of Buddha), 5b, 6, 7, 8, 11.\nThe Caturvarga-vinaya states seven: 1, 12, 4b, 2, 5b, 6, 8.\nThe Mah\u00e2samghika-vinaya describes seven, thus: 1, 2, 4b, 5b, 6, 7, 8.\nThe Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra has six: 1, 5b,[2] 2, 4 (when folding), 7.\nThe Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2 S\u00fbtra merely states that Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa accused \u00c2nanda for his seven faults, but does not particularise any of them: on the other hand it relates nine disadvantages arising from the admittance of women into the Samgha.\nIt is significant that the Sudar\u00e7ana-vinaya does not make any reference to \u00c2nanda's misdemeanors.\nTHE INCIDENT OF GAV\u00c2MPATI.\nThe incident of Gav\u00e2mpati in connection with the First Convocation is stated in all the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na literature and also in some[3]\n[1. Note how trifling all these accusations are.\n2. The fault is viewed here from two points: (1) not giving any water, (2) not knowing the fact that Buddha is able to cleanse any kind of water .\n3. That is, the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya and the Mah\u00e2samghika-vinaya.]\np. 267 of the H\u00eenay\u00e2na. In the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na literature we have the following works: The Life of A\u00e7oka, the Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra, the S\u00fbtra concerning K\u00e2\u00e7yapa's Compilation, the Record of the Transmission of the Dharmapitaka, and the Record of the Compilation of the Tripitaka and the Samyuktapitaka. On the other hand, the Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2 S\u00fbtra, the Caturvarga-vinaya, the Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya, and the Sudar\u00e7ana-vinaya, all of which belong to documents of the H\u00eenay\u00e2na class, make no statement about the Gav\u00e2mpati incident.\nThe incident of Gav\u00e2mpati, though it is more or less differently recorded as to its details in different works, is briefly this. Hearing the great bell rung by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, the five hundred Bhikshus[1] hastened to the place of meeting, but when Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa found that one of them[2] called Gav\u00e2mpati[3] had not yet joined them, he asked Anuruddha of the whereabouts of the missing Bhikshu. Being told that he was enjoying a peaceful life in one of the Heavens,[4] he sent a message thither to invite him to the convocation presided over by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa. Gav\u00e2mpati, who knew nothing about the late events relating to Buddha and his disciples, scrutinisingly asked the messenger why Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, instead of the Blessed One himself, stood at the head of the congregation: what was the object of such a grand religious convention, and some other questions.[5] When he was informed of all that had been going on below, he was so greatly afflicted that he said he had now no inclination to descend to the earth, which was made entirely desolate by the eternal departure of Buddha. So saying, Gav\u00e2mpati entered into a state of deep meditation, suddenly rose in the air\n[1. The number of the Bhikshus who took part in the First Convocation is generally estimated at five hundred, but according to the Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra, the Convocation consisted of one thousand Bhikshus.\n2. According to the Mah\u00e2samghika, two Bhikshus were missing when the members were counted by K\u00e2\u00e7yapa, but one of them, Anuruddha, soon joined them.\n3. The Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra makes him a disciple of \u00c7\u00e2riputra.\n4. According to some, the \u00c7r\u00eevriksha (?) palace, but according to others the \u00c7r\u00eedeva palace.\n5. So in the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya.]\np. 268 shining with supernatural brilliancy, and then consumed himself in a heavenly fire.[1]\nThe Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra says that Gav\u00e2mpati having been fully familiar with the Vinaya and the S\u00fbtra, his presence was necessary to the assembly.\nAccording to the Mah\u00e2samghika-vinaya, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa sent several messages to Heaven to summon those Bhikshus who were abiding there, but all of them, having learned that Buddha had already entered into Parinirv\u00e2na, were so exceedingly mortified that they disappeared one after another in the same manner. Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa then declared that no more messages would be despatched to Heaven, nor should those Bhikshus who were living on earth enter into Nirv\u00e2na until their work of great importance had been completed.\nTHE PROCEEDINGS.\nWhat was done by the Convocation? Were the Vinayapitaka and the S\u00fbtrapitaka alone compiled? Did a compilation of the Abhidharmapitaka also take place? Did any dissension occur in the assembly? These questions constitute the most important part of the First Convocation, and the following abstracts from various Chinese translations are calculated to throw some light on them.\nA. The Vinaya in Four Divisions (Caturvarga-vinaya).--When the cremation ceremony of Buddha was over, all the five hundred Bhikshus went from Vai\u00e7\u00e2li to R\u00e2jagriha, where Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa intended to summon the assembly. First, \u00c2nanda was blamed for his seven faults, as already mentioned; then Up\u00e2li was requested to recite the Vinaya, beginning with the first of the Principal Sins (P\u00e2r\u00e2jika), as to the individual, the circumstance, and the nature of the crime. Rules concerning the Bhikshu and the Bhikshuni, the Pr\u00e2.timoksha, the Poshadha, the Residing Season, the Wandering Season, the use of leather, the robes, medicaments, the Ka.thina ceremonies,--all these regulations were incorporated in the Vinaya.\n[1. The Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya, the Mah\u00e2praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra, and the S\u00fbtra on K\u00e2\u00e7yapa's Compilation relate, in addition, that four streams ran out of his transfigured body, each murmuring a g\u00e2th\u00e2 which proclaimed the transiency of life and the lamentable departure of the Lord.]\n\u00c2nanda was next asked to compile the S\u00fbtrapitaka. Such S\u00fbtras as the Brahma-j\u00e2la (translated Brahma-moving), the Ekottara (increasing by one), the Da\u00e7ottara (increasing by ten), the Formation and Destruction of the World, the Sa.ng\u00eeti (chorus), the Mah\u00e2nid\u00e2na (great cause), the Questions of the \u00c7akradeva (Indra), were included in the Longer \u00c2gama (P\u00e2li, D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2yo); those S\u00fbtras of middle length were called the Middling \u00c2gama (P\u00e2li, Majjhima Nik\u00e2yo); those in which the subjects were arranged numerically from one to eleven were called the \u00c2gama Increasing by One (A.nguttara Nik\u00e2yo); those which were miscellaneously preached for (?) the Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Up\u00e2sakas, Up\u00e2sik\u00e2s, Devas, \u00c7akra, M\u00e2ras, and Br\u00e2hmar\u00e2jas, were called the Miscellaneous \u00c2gama (Samyutta Nik\u00e2yo); and lastly such S\u00fbtras as the J\u00e2taka, Itivrittika,[1] Nid\u00e2na, Vaipulya, Adbh\u00fbta, Avad\u00e2na, Upade\u00e7a, the Explanation of Aphorisms (Nirde\u00e7a?), Dharmapada, P\u00e2r\u00e2yana,[2] Miscellaneous Discussions and several G\u00e2th\u00e2s, were comprised in the Miscellaneous Pitaka, (P\u00e2li, Khuddaka Nik\u00e2yo, with other matter). The Discursive [Book] (Kath\u00e2 Vatthu),[3] the Non-discursive [Book] (Vibha.nga or Puggala pa\u00f1\u00f1ati?), the Yoking (Dhamma Sanga.ni?), the Correlating (Yamaka?), and the Place of Birth (Pa.t.th\u00e2na?) made up the Abhidharmapitaka.[4]\nB. The Vinaya in Five Divisions (Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya).--When the five hundred Bhikshus were assembled in R\u00e2jagriha, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa inquired of Up\u00e2li in due formulary of the four Principal Precepts (P\u00e2r\u00e2jika) as to the place where they were occasioned, as to the individual with whom they were concerned, and as to the matter with which they dealt. All the Vinaya, for the Bhikshus as well as for the Bhikshunis, was compiled in this way.\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa then asked \u00c2nanda where Buddha taught the Ek\u00f4ttara S\u00fbtra, the Da\u00e7\u00f4ttara S\u00fbtra, the Mah\u00e2nid\u00e2na S\u00fbtra, the\n[1. Not given by Beal.\n2. Beal gives the An\u00e2gata-Bhay\u00e2ni and Munig\u00e2th\u00e2.\n3. This and following four titles are so concisely given in the text that it is very difficult to make out what they are, and the translation and the reference to the P\u00e2li Abhidharma works here presented are merely tentative.\n4. The text is reticent about the author of the compilation of this Pitaka.]\np. 270 Samgiti S\u00fbtra, the \u00c7r\u00e2ma\u00f1aphala S\u00fbtra, the Brahmaj\u00e2la (translated Brahm\u00e2-moving), as well as those S\u00fbtras which were preached to Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Up\u00e2sakas, Up\u00e2sik\u00e2s, Devap\u00fbtras, and Devis. When all the S\u00fbtras were thus recited, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa declared to the Samgha: \"Those longer S\u00fbtras which are now compiled in one group shall be called the Longer \u00c2gama; those S\u00fbtras which are neither long nor short, and are now compiled in one group, shall be called the Middling \u00c2gama; those which are miscellaneously preached to Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Up\u00e2sakas, Up\u00e2sik\u00e2s, Devap\u00fbtras, and Devis, and are now compiled in one group, shall be called the Miscellaneous \u00c2gama; those S\u00fbtras which start with one dharma and increase by one, up to eleven dharmas, and are now compiled in one group, shall be called the \u00c2gama Increasing by One; while the remainder, all consisting of miscellaneous teaching, and now compiled in one group, shall be called the Miscellaneous Pitaka. And to them all shall be given a collective name, S\u00fbtrapitaka. We have now finished compiling the Law, and henceforth let us not put any unnecessary restraint on what was not restrained by Buddha; let us not violate what has already been restrained by Buddha; let us sincerely train ourselves according to the teachings of Buddha.\"\nC. The Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2 S\u00fbtra.--\u00c2nanda being admitted to join the assembly, and the five hundred Arhats having taken their seats, they began to compile the Tripitaka out of the materials which consisted of S\u00fbtras in five or five hundred[1] divisions. Rules for the Bhikshu and Bhikshuni, and the Skandhas (divisions) relating to the Ka.thina and other things composed the Vinayapitaka. The four \u00c2gamas, (1) Long, (2) Middling, (3) Increasing by One, and (4) Miscellaneous--the last one consisting of those S\u00fbtras which relate to Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, the \u00c7akrendra, devas, and Br\u00e2hmar\u00e2j\u00e2s, as well as (5) the sundry collection which comprised the Dharmapada, the Exposition, the P\u00e2r\u00e2yana, the Upade\u00e7a and others,--these five groups of the S\u00fbtras were classified under the S\u00fbtrapitaka. The Discursive (or Dialogical) Treatise (Kath\u00e2 vatthu?),\n[1. According to other editions.]\np. 271 the Non-discursive (or Non-dialogical) Treatise (Vibhanga?), the Mutual Enclosing (Dharma Sanga.ni?), the Correlating (Yamaka?), and the Regions (Dh\u00e2tu Kath\u00e2 or Patth\u00e2na?)[1] made up the Abhidharmapitaka. And the general name Tripitaka was given to them all.\nD. The Vinaya Text of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da School.--Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa and the five hundred Bhikshus kept the assembly in the Pipp\u00e2la Cave. He announced that as Bhikshus in coming generations would be inferior in their natural endowment (literally, root, m\u00fbla?) and lacking in the power of concentration, the assembly would first compile, for the sake of such, the G\u00e2th\u00e2s (verses)[2] in which the S\u00fbtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma[3] were treated in comprehensive brevity. This was done before the meal. They then proceeded to compile the S\u00fbtras. \u00c2nanda was requested by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa as well as by the Samgha to select and compile them. Having gone through due formality and having reflected on the impermanence of things, he thought: \"Among those S\u00fbtras which I heard personally from Buddha, some are traditional,[4] some are preachings in the N\u00e2ga (Serpent) Palace,[5] others are preachings in the heavens.\n[1. Those five titles of the books contained in the Abhidharmapitaka closely agree, though the translation is a little different, with those above referred to in the Vinaya in Five Divisions, but the terms being too concise, we cannot give anything more than a mere conjecture as to their correspondence to the P\u00e2li works.\n2. Was the G\u00e2th\u00e2 already existing side by side with the prose at the time of the First Convocation? Did Buddha himself put some most important tenets of his doctrine into a rhythmical form, that his disciples might learn them by heart? (Yes: See S. B. E., XIII., p. 151.--Edmunds.)\n3. Were some parts of the Abhidharma also versified?\n4. Does this mean that Buddha preached on some traditional subjects, or that some S\u00fbtras deal with traditions, or that the first sermons of Buddha, such as were delivered for the five Bhikshus in V\u00e2r\u00e2nas\u00ee before the conversion of \u00c2nanda, were heard by him afterwards from Buddha's own mouth, or from those who were then present, in which case the term tradition would be used in the sense of hearsay? Judging from similar passages in some other works, the last sense seems to be most preferable.\n5 This statement is most significant, for many Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts are said to have been taken from the N\u00e2ga Palace where they were long preserved in secret. The Vinaya text of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da is generally considered to belong to the H\u00eenay\u00e2na work, and this fact makes the above statement much more mysterious. Is the N\u00e2ga Palace an ideal creation of later Buddhists? or is it some yet unknown region in the Him\u00e2laya? [Buddha converted several yakkhas, n\u00e2gas, etc.--Edmunds.]]\np. 272 As I keep them all in memory and do not forget any of them, I shall now recite them.\" All Devas expressed their willingness to listen, and Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa praised the words of Buddha as the foremost of all doctrines.\n\u00c2nanda then recited the first S\u00fbtra, the Dharma\u00e7akrapravartana (Revolution of the Law-wheel), which was taught in Ben\u00e2res for the five Bhikshus, one of whom, Aj\u00f1\u00e2ta Kau.n.di.nya, being present in the assembly, told Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa how at that time he gained the eye of the Law. Hearing this, devas as well as those Bhikshus who were not yet freed from attachment,[1] uttered a pitiful cry as if their hearts were being pierced with thousands of arrows, and lamented that they could not hear those words of Buddha any more from his own mouth. In this lamentation the Bhikshus of the assembly also joined. When they recovered from the shock of deep feeling, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa declared that this first S\u00fbtra, taught by the Blessed One, having been accepted by all, should be recognised as the genuine doctrine of Buddha.\nThe second S\u00fbtra, \u00c2nanda now went on, which was also preached in Ben\u00e2res for the sake of the five Bhikshus, consisted in the elucidation of the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Right Paths. Kau.n.di.nya's confirmation and Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa's conclusion were declared as before.\nThe occasion which induced Buddha to preach the third S\u00fbtra was also in Ben\u00e2res for the sake of the five Bhikshus. He taught that the five Skandhas (aggregates) have no \u00c2tman, that they are subject to transformation, that they cause misery, that one can save oneself from misery through a right comprehension of the nature of things. The conclusion of Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa was the same as before.\n[1. This is very strange, considering that those who were admitted to the assembly were all free from attachment, that is, they were all Arhats; but in spite of this were many other Bhikshus also admitted as the audience, though not actually partaking in the work of the compilation of the Tripitaka? In the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na work a statement is sometimes made to the effect that the followers of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism had their own convocation somewhere in the neighborhood. Does the present text refer to this, or to the council of the Mah\u00e2sanghika school as it is mentioned in Hs\u00fcan-Tsang?]\nIn this way all the other S\u00fbtras taught by Buddha in several places were recited by \u00c2nanda and confirmed by the Arhats of the assembly. They were all classified in proper forms according to the subject: for example, S\u00fbtras which treated the five Skandhas were grouped under the heading of Skandha, those which treated the six \u00c2yatanas or the eighteen Dh\u00e2tus were classified under the \u00c2yatana or Dh\u00e2tu; and so on with the (twelve) Chains of Causation, the (four) Noble Truths, the speeches of \u00c7r\u00e2vakas, the speeches of Buddha, the (four) subjects of Recollection, the (four kinds of) Right Effort, the (four) Supernatural Powers, the (five) Indriyas, the (five) Balas, and the (eight) Bodhyangas.[1]\nThose S\u00fbtras which are in coincidence with the G\u00e2th\u00e2s (verse parts), were called the Coincidence[2] \u00c2gama; those which consist of lengthy teachings, the Longer \u00c2gama; those which are of medium length, the Middling \u00c2gama; those in which the subjects are numerically arranged, the \u00c2gama Increasing by One. \"There are,\" says Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, \"no other \u00c2gamas than these\" now compiled.\nNext, the Convocation proceeded to compile the Vinaya, led by Up\u00e2li, who was considered by Buddha to be the first of the Vinaya-dhar\u00e2.[3] Being asked by Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa where, to whom, and on what the first rule of propriety, (\u00c7iksh\u00e2)[4] was announced by Buddha, Up\u00e2li said that it was in V\u00e2r\u00e2.nasi (Ben\u00e2res) and for the five Bhikshus, and that the matter related to the arrangement of\n[1. These subjects also appear in the Abhidharmapitaka, as we see below. Do the statements mean that those subjects as taught by Buddha were classified with the S\u00fbtrapitaka, while a further exposition of the same by his disciples was included in the Abhidharma?\n2. Samyukta in Sanskrit. Coincidence is a literal translation of it, which is commonly rendered miscellaneous, according to its derived meaning--so says the text.\n3. Literally, those who carry the Vinaya, i.e. , know it by heart.\n4. It is very strange that Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa did not first ask Up\u00e2li about the four Principal Sins (P\u00e2r\u00e2jika), instead of about such insignificant regulations as the \u00c7iksh\u00e2 rules. Why does the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da school attach such importance to the latter, while other schools invariably give the first place to the P\u00e2r\u00e2jika, as is naturally expected? Noticing, however, the in consistent statement which is made immediately below, I am inclined to think that some spurious elements have crept later into the body of the original text.]\np. 274 the undergarment. The second \u00c7iksh\u00e2 was recited by him in the same way.\nAs for the third \u00c7iksh\u00e2, the text continues as follows:[1] \"Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa again said to Up\u00e2li: Where did the World-Honored One announce the \u00c7iksh\u00e2? Up\u00e2li replied with a clear, penetrating voice: In Kala.n.daka Village.--For whom?--For Bhikshu Sudinna, son of Kala.n.daka.--What was the matter? If a Bhikshu training himself in the disciplinary rules, commits an adulterous act with another Bhikshu or with an animal, he performs a P\u00e2r\u00e2jika fault; nor is he allowed to cohabit.\"[2]\nIn this way all the parts of the Vinaya were compiled, which consist of the P\u00e2r\u00e2jika rules, Samgh\u00e2va\u00e7esa rules, two Aniyata rules, thirty Naissargika rules, ninety Pr\u00e2ya\u00e7cittika rules, four Pratide\u00e7an\u00eeya rules, a number of \u00c7iksh\u00e2 rules, seven Adhikara.na\u00e7amatha, as well as the principal rules, obligatory rules, voluntary rules, rules for the Bhikshu, rules for the Up\u00e2saka, regulations of the Karmav\u00e2ca, conditions for conversion, the Poshadha, the season of residence, the wandering season, general and miscellaneous regulations, and the circumstances which brought forth all these rules and regulations.\nThe compilation of the Vinaya being thus finished, it now occurred to Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa that, as the people in coming generations would be so lacking in intelligence and so poor in natural endowment that they could not comprehend the deep significance of the Doctrine by studying the text only, he himself would recite the M\u00e2trik\u00e2,[3] that is, Abhidharma, whereby to prevent the spirit of the S\u00fbtra and the Vinaya from being obliterated by arbitrary interpretations. Having obtained the sanction of the Convocation, he comprised under the M\u00e2trik\u00e2 the following subjects: the four Objects of Smriti (recollections), the four Right Efforts, the four Supernatural\n[1. The following quotation clearly shows how confusing the text is: \"Up\u00e2li was asked to recite the third \u00c7iksh\u00e2, and is stated to have told them about the first P\u00e2r\u00e2jika instead.\" As I remarked just above, the text must be considered to contain some later additions.\n2. Literally, to live together.\n3. Originally tables of contents, as may be seen in the P\u00e2li texts.--A.J.E.]\np. 275 Powers (Riddhi), the five Indriyas (lit. root), the five Powers (Bala), the seven Bodhyangas (constituent parts of enlightenment), the Eightfold Noble Path, the four Abhayas (fearlessness), the four Pratisamvids (unimpeded knowledge), the four \u00c7r\u00e2manaphala (obtainment of \u00c7rama.naship), the four Dharmapadas, the \u00c2ra\u00f1ya (solitude), Wish, Knowledge, the Dhy\u00e2na of Boundary (the fourth Dhy\u00e2na?), Emptiness (\u00c7\u00fbnyat\u00e2), Unconditionality (Animitta), Freedom from Desire (Apra.nihita), miscellaneous Disciplines, various Meditations, the Right Entering, Presentation (or perception), Knowledge of Phenomena, \u00c7amatha (tranquilisation), Vipa\u00e7yana (insight), the Dharmasamgraha, and the Dharmaskandha.[1]\nWhen the compilation of the S\u00fbtra, the Vinaya, and the Abhidharma was thus done, the heaven and the earth resounded with the praise of the devas.\nE. The Vinaya text of the Mah\u00e2sanghika school.--Having reached at last the state of Arhatship, \u00c2nanda was permitted to join the assembly, which unanimously acknowledged him as the disciple of best memory. They requested him to compile the Dharmapitaka.[2] When \u00c2nanda began to recite, \"Thus have I heard: 'Buddha was at one time in the Bodhima.n.dara by the river Naira\u00f1jan\u00e2,'\" the five hundred Bhikshus showed their deep feeling, which, however, soon passed to the calm reflection that all things which originate from a combination of causes are necessarily subject to ruin and transformation.\nThe Dharmapitaka thus compiled by \u00c2nanda consisted of the Longer \u00c2gama; the Middling \u00c2gama; the Miscellaneous \u00c2gama,\n[1. Observe that some of those subjects also appear in the S\u00fbtrapitaka, while the identity of others cannot be determined, owing to the brevity of the statement.\n2. According to some the Dharmapitaka is identified with the S\u00fbtrapitaka, as in the present text; while, according to others, it is a general name given to the entire collection of the sacred writings. This disagreement among the records of different Buddhist schools apparently shows that at the earlier stage of development of Buddhist literature there was no definite name for the Pitaka compiled by the First Convocation, which had probably been known by the simple designation, Buddhav\u00e2c\u00e2 (Words of Buddha). Therefore we shall not run much risk in considering those terms which are now currently used by Buddhists themselves, as well as by Buddhist scholars, (to-wit, Vinayapitaka, S\u00fbtrapitaka, Abhidharma, Tripitaka or Dvipitaka), as the elaboration of later Buddhists.]\np. 276 which was so called because of its dealing with miscellaneous subjects concerning predisposition (lit. root, m\u00fbla), power (bala), enlightenment (bodhi), and the path (m\u00e2rga); and the \u00c2gama Increasing by one, which was so called because of a numerical arrangement of subjects from one up to one hundred:[1] while the Miscellaneous Pitaka comprised the Ud\u00e2na (narratives), Itivrittika (incidents), and Nid\u00e2na (circumstantial notes), relating to Pratyekabuddhas and Arhats, which are written in verses (G\u00e2th\u00e2).[2]\nUp\u00e2li, who was announced by Buddha as well as by the Sa.ngha as the first of the Vinaya-dhar\u00e2, was asked next to compile the Vinaya text. He first told the Convocation that there were five sorts of purity, and then proceeded to censure \u00c2nanda for having committed the seven faults as stated elsewhere, two of which, however, \u00c2nanda refused to acknowledge.[3]\nUp\u00e2li is said to have then recited the nine divisions of the Vinaya, to wit, (1) P\u00e2r\u00e2jika, (2) Samgh\u00e2va\u00e7esa, (3) two Aniyatas, (4) thirty Naissargika, (5) ninety-two Pr\u00e2ya\u00e7cittika, (6) four Pratide\u00e7an\u00eeya, (7) \u00c7iksh\u00e2, (8) seven Adhikara.na\u00e7amathas, and (9) rules conforming to the Doctrine. He also explained in addition various meanings of the Vinaya: for example, as to the distinction between the dreadful sins (p\u00e2r\u00e2jika) and serious offences (sth\u00fbl\u00e2tyaya), or as to a different classification of the Vinaya-text. When thus they had finished compiling the Pitaka, the ten hundred Bhikshus staying outside[4] were called in and informed of the work of the Convocation.\n[1. The reader will observe that the number of the subjects contained in the \"\u00c2gama increasing by one\" differs in different texts.\n2. This statement is very valuable. The Mah\u00e2sa.nghika quarreled with the Therav\u00e2da about the contents of the Khuddaka Nik\u00e2ya, where these books belong, and the very treatises which the D\u00eepavamsa says they omitted, are wanting here.--Edmunds.\n3. It is noteworthy that according to the Mah\u00e2samghika school the man who blamed \u00c2nanda before the assembly was not Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, but Up\u00e2li, the first of the Vinaya-dhar\u00e2.\n4. What does the statement here refer to, which says one thousand Bhikshus staying outside were summoned in? Hs\u00fcan-tsang mentions that the Mah\u00e2sanghika school, being excluded from the assembly of the Sthavira school, had their own compilation, meeting to the west of Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa's convocation. Does the present text refer to that?]\nA vehement discussion now arose in the assembly as to what was meant by Buddha when he said to \u00c2nanda that the precepts of minor importance could be dispensed with. A certain group of six Bhikshus went so far to the extreme as to say that \"if the World-Honored One were still living, he would have everything at once abolished.\" Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa, whose majestic dignity and authority were equal to those of Buddha, then sternly ordered them to keep silence, and made a declaration that all which had ever been forbidden should be forbidden, and what had not been forbidden should not be forbidden, and that they should not give any chance to the heretics who were willing to blame the congregation at all costs.\nThe text concludes with a list of the venerable masters through whom this knowledge of the First Convocation was lineally transmitted down to the venerable Tao-lih (Bodhibala?).[1]\nF. The Sudar\u00e7ana-vinaya.--When the five hundred Bhikshus were seated, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa asked them what they would first compile, the Dharmapitaka or the Vinayapitaka, and to this they answered: \"Venerable Sir, the Vinayapitaka is the life of Buddhism, and so long as the Vinayapitaka exists, Buddhism will also exist. Therefore, let us first produce the Vinayapitaka.\"\nThe next question was who should be the principal compiler of it: Up\u00e2li suggested that \u00c2nanda could be chosen for the position, but it was not accepted by the assembly. Being recognised by Buddha as the first of the Vinaya-dhar\u00e2, Up\u00e2li himself was prevailed upon to recite the Vinaya by a general vote. After due formulary he produced all parts of the Vinaya which consisted of the Pr\u00e2timoksha of Bhikshu and Bhikshuni, and Skandhaka, and the Pariv\u00e2ra.\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa then nominated \u00c2nanda, according to a general wish of the Sangha, to compile the Dharmapitaka. The Br\u00e2hmaj\u00e2la and the \u00c7r\u00e2ma\u00f1a-phala were first recited, and then all the five divisions of the S\u00fbtra, which consist of the Longer Agama S\u00fbtra, the Middling Agama S\u00fbtra, the Samyukta S\u00fbtra, the Anguttara\n[1. Why not give names, so as to compare with Therav\u00e2da list in Mah\u00e2vamsa?--Edmunds.]\np. 278 S\u00fbtra, and the Khuddhaka S\u00fbtra, the last one containing all the words of Buddha (Buddha-v\u00e2c\u00e2) not included in the first four \u00c2gamas.[1]\nThe speeches of Buddha, the text goes on to say, are of one taste, have two functions, and are divisible into three periods: that is, they all teach the means of deliverance (moksha) which consist in morality, meditation, and understanding; they are composed of the Dharmapitaka and the Vinayapitaka; they are divisible into the first speech, the last speech, and those speeches which were delivered between them. The text then raises the question: What is the Tripitaka? to which is given the answer that it consists of Vinayapitaka, S\u00fbtrapitaka, and Abhidharmapitaka, together with their analytic explanation.[2] The contents of the Tripitaka given in this way agree with those of the P\u00e2li collection.[3]\nG. Mahdpraj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u00c7\u00e2stra.[4]--Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa in a friendly way requests \u00c2nanda to compile the Dharmapitaka, saying: \"Though there were many great disciples of the Buddha to whom the guarding of Dharmapitaka was entrusted, they are now all gone except you. Therefore, out of the compassion for all beings and in accordance with the spirit of Buddha, you shall compile the Buddhadharmapitaka.\" Thus requested, \u00c2nanda ascends the lion-seat, and reverentially turning towards the place where Buddha's Nirv\u00e2na took place, says: \"Though I did not personally hear the first preaching of Buddha, I have learned it by hearsay. When Buddha was in V\u00e2r\u00e2.nas\u00ee, he first opened the gate of nectar for the five Bhikshus and preached the Four Noble Truths of Suffering,\n[1. The P\u00e2li commentaries say the same.--A. J. E.\n2. This is very strange, because the text bas before said that the First Convocation compiled the Vinaya and S\u00fbtra only. I am inclined to think that these additional statements, as well as the succeeding detailed explanation of such terms as S\u00fbtra, Abhidharma, Pitaka, and \u00c2gama, are later interpolations put down here by way of commentary, but which in the course of time have been mixed up with the text.\n3. The Chinese characters for transliteration in the present text, so far as they have come under my notice, strongly suggest that the text is a translation of the P\u00e2li original, though I have retained the Sanskrit terms for the sake of uniformity.\n4. The present text belongs to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na literature, and it will be very interesting to contrast its accounts of the First Convocation with those of the preceding ones, which all belong to the H\u00eenay\u00e2na Buddhism.]\np. 279 Amassing, Cessation, and the Path. Aj\u00f1\u00e2ta Kau.n.dinya was the first to perceive the Path, and 80,000 devas also all entered upon the Path.\"\nWhen the one thousand Arhats assembled in the Convocation heard the words of Buddha as recited by \u00c2nanda, they were greatly afflicted with the thought that they could no more hear Buddha's personal address. The Sthaviras Anuruddha and Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa expressed in verses their deep feelings about the impermanence of things.\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa told \u00c2nanda that all the teachings of Buddha, from the Dharma-cakra-pravartana S\u00fbtra down to the Mah\u00e2parinirv\u00e2na S\u00fbtra, should be classified in four divisions, each being called an \u00c2gama, viz.: the \u00c2gama Increasing by One, the Middling \u00c2gama, the Longer \u00c2gama, and the Coincidence \u00c2gama.[1] And to them all was given a general name: S\u00fbtradharmapitaka.\nUp\u00e2li, who was recognised by the Samgha to be the first of the Vinaya-dhar\u00e2 among the five hundred Arhats,[2] was then asked to recite the Vinaya consisting of eighty divisions.[3]\nLastly, \u00c2nanda was again requested to recite the first Abhidharma taught by Buddha, as he was acknowledged among the five hundred Arhats to be most conversant with the exposition of the S\u00fbtra. He addressed the Sangha: \"Thus have I heard: Buddha was at one time in \u00c7r\u00e2vasti, when he told the Bhikshus that those who neither removed nor exterminated the five dreadful [sins], the five misdemeanors, and the five sorts of malice, would suffer in consequence innumerable misfortunes in this life, bodily as well as spiritual, and in the future would fall down into the evil paths; that those, however, who were free from these five dreadful [sins], five misdemeanors, and five sorts of malice, would enjoy in consequence various blessings in this life, bodily as well as spiritual, and in the future be born in a pleasant heavenly abode. What\n[1. A literal translation of Samyukt\u00e2gama.\n2. Here, as well as further on, five hundred Arhats are mentioned. Is this the number of the Arhats assembled in the Convocation? If so, it is in direct contradiction to the above statement that there were a thousand.\n3. One edition reads eight thousand, which is probably a misprint.]\np. 280 are those five dreadful [sins] which are to be kept away? They are: (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) unlawful lust, (4) lying, and (5) drinking spirits.\"\nAll such matters were comprised under the Abhidharmapitaka. Thus ended the compilation of the three Dharmapitakas.\nINCIDENT OF PUR\u00c2NA.\nThree[1] out of the eleven Chinese translations which contain accounts of the First Convocation refer to the episode of Pur\u00e2.na, who was in the south[2] when Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa and five hundred Bhikshus were working on the compilation of the Pitaka. According to the Caturvarga-vinaya, the event occurred in the following manner:\nHaving heard that the Convocation was taking place in R\u00e2jagriha, Sthavira Pur\u00e2.na hastened thither, accompanied by his party, which consisted of five hundred Bhikshus. He went to Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa and asked if he also might be allowed to learn all that had happened. Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa thereupon again summoned the assembly, requested Up\u00e2li to rehearse what he had recited, and had other things repeated as they had been done before. Pur\u00e2.na expressed his satisfaction with the general proceedings of the Convocation, except as to the insertion of the following eight indulgences, which had been plainly approved by Buddha, and unmistakably kept in memory by himself. The eight things were: (1) Keeping food indoors; (2) Cooking indoors; (3) Cooking of one's own accord; (4) Taking food of one's own accord; (5) Receiving food when rising early in the morning; (6) Carrying food home according to the wish of a giver; (7) Having miscellaneous fruits; (8) Eating things grown in (or by?) a pond.\nThese indulgences, said he, were not against the rule that forbids the taking of the remnant of food. Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa told him that he was correct in saying so, but that Buddha permitted them only on account of a scarcity of food, when the Bhikshus could not\n[1. The Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya, the Caturvarga-vinaya, and the Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2.\n2. According to the Pa\u00f1cavarga-vinaya, agreeing with the P\u00e2li.]\np. 281 get a sufficient supply of it by going their rounds, and that therefore when this circumstance was removed, Buddha again bade them to abstain from these eight indulgences. Pur\u00e2.na, however, protested, declaring that Buddha, who was all-wise, would not permit what otherwise was forbidden, nor would he forbid what otherwise was permitted. To this Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa replied: \"The very reason of his being all-wise has enabled him to permit what otherwise was forbidden, and to forbid what otherwise was permitted. Pur\u00e2.na, we will now make this decision: That whatever Buddha did not forbid shall not be forbidden, and whatever Buddha forbade shall not be disregarded. Let us train ourselves in accordance with the disciplinary rules established by Buddha.\"\nThe Pa\u00f1cavarga-Vinaya mentions, instead of the eight above enumerated, seven indulgences which, however, may be taken for eight, according to how we punctuate the passage, though the text apparently states \"these seven things.\" They are slightly different from those in the Caturvarga-vinaya, to-wit: (1) Keeping food indoors; (2) Cooking indoors; (3) Cooking of one's own accord; (4) Receiving food in compliance with the wish of another; (5) Taking fruit of one's own accord; (6) Receiving things coming out of a pond; (7) Eating fruit with its seeds (or stone) removed, when received from one who is not a regular attendant in the Samgha.[1]\nAccording to the Vinaya-m\u00e2trik\u00e2 S\u00fbtra, the first of the eight indulgences is the keeping of food indoors, and the last is the eating of sundry grasses and roots (or roots of grass) growing by a pond, but the six intermediate ones are not mentioned.\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2\u00e7yapa is said to have told Pur\u00e2.na about the eight excellent qualities of Buddha, by virtue of which he could, when deemed fit, establish or abolish the rules for the benefit of the Samgha.\nPLACE AND TIME.\nAll the Chinese works, already referred to, agree in stating that the First Convocation took place in R\u00e2jagriha, though they\n[1. The last passage is not clear, and we may consider it either as forming an independent statement or as an appendix to the sixth.]\np. 282 differ as to the special locality of the city. The Saptapar.na Cave, the Pippala Rock, the Kshatrya Cave, and the Gridhrak\u00fbta are the places thus mentioned in them.\nAs to the time, they unanimously say that the event happened immediately after the demise of Buddha, though they in no wise agree regarding the exact date.\nTEITARO SUZUKI.\nLA SALLE, ILL.","title":"The First Buddhist Council","type":"page"}