 Early Buddhism |
| Scriptures |
| Councils |
| Schools |
First Sangha
└ Mahāsāṃghika ├ Ekavyāvahārika ├ Lokottaravāda ├ Bahuśrutīya ├ Prajñaptivāda └ Caitika └ Sthaviras ├ Mahīśāsaka ├ Dharmaguptaka ├ Kāśyapīya ├ Sarvāstivāda └ Vibhajyavāda └ Theravāda |
The term pre-sectarian Buddhism is used by some scholars[1] to refer to the Buddhism that existed before the various subsects of Buddhism came into being.[2] Other terms that have been used to refer to this first period of Buddhism are: the earliest Buddhism,[3][4] original Buddhism[5] and the Buddhism of the Buddha himself.[6] Some Japanese scholars (such as Nakamura[7]and Hirakawa[8]) use the term Early Buddhism to refer to this first period of Buddhism, and refer to the subsequent period of theEarly Buddhist Schools as sectarian Buddhism.[8] Buddha's own teaching on establishing validity of anybody's teachings can be found in the Kalama Sutta.
Pre-sectarian Buddhism refers to Buddhism in the period between the first discourse of Gautama Buddha until the first enduring split in the Sangha, which occurred (according to most scholars) between the second Buddhist council and the third Buddhist council.[9] The late Professor Hirakawa however, places the first schism after the death of King Asoka.[10] Professor Schopen questions whether there ever was a unified Buddhism which split into sects.[11]
Pre-sectarian Buddhism is the Buddhism presupposed by the early Buddhist schools as existing about one hundred years after theParinirvana of the Buddha. Most scholars do agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature that a relatively early community maintained and transmitted.[12] This may be substantially the Buddhism of the Buddha himself, although this cannot be proved. According to Professor A.K. Warder, there is no evidence to suggest that it was formulated by anyone other than the Buddha and his immediate followers.[13] Prof. Ronald Davidson however has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.[14]
Sources on Pre-sectarian Buddhism[edit]
The information on Buddhism in the period before the rise of the early Buddhist schools is based on accounts of Buddha's life and teachings in the scriptures of the Theravadin Pali Canon, and the surviving portions of the scriptures of Sarvastivada,Mulasarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka and other schools, most of which are only available in a Chinese translation. Some individual scriptures found in Nepal, however, are composed in Sanskrit. Recently the Gandhāran Buddhist Texts were recovered from Afghanistan. The central body of sutras in these texts is so similar that they are considered to be different recensions of the same text.[15] The accounts in these individual scriptures might be tainted by the particular philosophies of those schools or by translation issues. However, since various recensions of these texts (from various schools) are available, comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn, to filter out the most obvious of these taints.[16]
Comparing the various scriptures, it is even possible to uncover certain features of early Buddhism (and its environment) that the traditions themselves have forgotten about.[17]
Opinions of scholars
The idea of a "pre-sectarian Buddhism" was not studied before Western scholarship on Buddhism began in the 1890s. Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists accepted the reliability of their respective canons.
The earliest phase of scriptures, recognized by nearly all scholars (the main exception is Dr Gregory Schopen), is based on a comparison of the Pali Canon with the Chinese Agamas and other surviving portions of other early canons. Some scholars consider that this rough common core of the scriptures of the different schools gives a substantially correct picture of the original teachings of the Buddha. This core is identified as the four main nikayas of theSutta Pitaka (the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya), together with the main body of monastic rules,[18] the Vinaya Pitaka. Scholars have also claimed that there is a core within this core, referring to some poems and phrases which seem to be the oldest parts of the Sutta Pitaka.[19] Another body of scholars consider that the question has not been settled one way or another.[20] This last group includes those scholars who claim it is impossible to ever know the teachings of the Buddha, an attitude which has been criticized by Warder to be one of 'extreme caution'.[21]
Buddhism during the lifetime of Gautama Buddha[edit]
Pre-sectarian Buddhism was a changing form of Buddhism, with Gautama Buddha defining and refining the proper behavior for monks[22] (vinaya), with the help of monks like Upali.[23] The rules were frequently amended to allow for certain (harmless) kinds of behavior which was forbidden in a previous version of the rule.
The Pre-sectarian Buddhist monks' order grew from a small unknown order of highly dedicated monks (in the year after the attainment of Nirvana) to a large, well-established and well-known order, which needed more formalities and more rules to uphold the correct teachings and discipline.[24] It was relatively sober[25] and the monks were not supposed to go to public festivals (number 7 of the ten precepts), and were expected to refrain from activities such as playing[26] and dancing.[27] They were also not allowed to use or receive money,[28] in order to lead a simple life of contentment.
In the beginning the order of monks (Sangha) did not have any monasteries, but already in its first year the Buddha allowed these to be given, after being asked to do so by King Bimbisara.[29] Many of the these monasteries were based in parks or forests, for example Veluvana, Jetavana and Nigrodharama. One of the buildings given was a very well-furnished building, comparable to a palace, called the Migaramatupasada.[30]
The Buddha, as the leader and main teacher, was the one who decided on the rules to be followed,[31] but the executive power lay with the monastic community as a whole.[32] Buddha forbade the monastic community to make their own rules[33] and gave instructions for the monks to still follow his teaching (doctrine and discipline) after his death.[34] Thus, He did not appoint a successor [35][36][37][38] to have legislative power over the Sangha and the monks. He gave limited powers to the Sangha to unanimously agree to not follow the 'lesser and minor' rules.[39]
After the Buddha's parinirvana[edit]
At the first Buddhist council the Sangha unanimously agreed to continue following all the rules laid down by Buddha, to prevent any major rules (pacittiya or higher) to be classified as a minor rule and thus be put aside.[40]
The second Buddhist council took place about 100 years after the Parinibbana of the Buddha. It was convened to decide on the subject of discipline orVinaya, and dealt with whether it was allowed to follow adapted rules, thus disregarding the instructions of Gautama Buddha. The adapted rules were integrated within the larger framework of correct procedures, and the offending monks refused to acknowledge their fault. For this reason a council was convened, in which the issue was satisfactorily dealt with, in that the offending monks abandoned their old habits.[41]
Shortly after the second Buddhist council the first long-lasting schisms occurred in the Sangha. The second Buddhist council is sometimes considered to be the origin of these schisms,[42] but no direct evidence for this is apparent.[43] The first post-schismatic groups are often stated to be the Sthaviravadaand the Mahasanghika.[9]
Later elaborations on the original teachings[edit]
After the Sangha split into the various early Buddhist schools and the Mahayana, various new doctrines, scriptures and practices arose, composed and developed by monks, concerning issues deemed important at the time.[44] During the time of Pre-sectarian Buddhism, these later elaborations on the teachings had not yet come into existence, and were not part of the established teaching and practice of Buddhism.
In later times, the arguments between the various schools were based in these newly introduced teachings, practices and beliefs, and monks sought to validate these newly introduced teachings and concepts by referring to the older texts (Sutta-pitaka and Vinaya-pitaka). Most often, the various new Abhidhamma and Mahayana teachings were bases for arguments between sects.
Newly composed scriptures[edit]
Some scholars[who?] state that unintentional literalism was a major force for change in the early doctrinal history of Buddhism. This means that texts were interpreted paying too much attention to the precise words used and not enough to the speaker's intention, the spirit of the text. Some later doctrinal developments in the early Buddhist schools show scholastic literalism, which is a tendency to take the words and phrases of earlier texts (maybe the Buddha's own words) in such a way as to read in distinctions which it was never intended to make.[45]
The following (later) Buddhist scriptures were not existent, or in a very early (insignificant[clarification needed]) stage of development:
Abhidhamma[edit]
As the last major division of the canon, the Abhidhamma Pitaka has had a checkered history. It was not accepted as canonical by the Mahasanghikaschool[46][47] and several other schools.[48] Another school included most of the Khuddaka Nikaya within the Abhidhamma Pitaka.[46] Also, the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly Theravada collection, and has little in common with the Abhidhamma works recognized by other Buddhist schools.[49] The various Abhidhamma philosophies of the various early schools have no agreement on doctrine[50] and belong to the period of 'Divided Buddhism'[50] (as opposed to Undivided Buddhism). The earliest texts of the Pali Canon (the Sutta Nipata and parts of the Jataka), together with the first four (and early)Nikayas of the Suttapitaka, have no mention of (the texts of) the Abhidhamma Pitaka.[51] The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned at the report of the First Buddhist Council, directly after the death of the Buddha. This report of the first council does mention the existence of the Vinaya and the five Nikayas (of the Suttapitaka).[52][53]
Although the literature of the various Abhidhamma Pitakas began as a kind of commentarial supplement upon the earlier teachings in the Suttapitaka, it soon led to new doctrinal and textual developments and became the focus of a new form of scholarly monastic life.[54] The various Abhidhamma works were starting to be composed from about 200 years after the passing away of the Buddha.[55]
Traditionally, it is believed (in Theravadin culture) that the Abhidhamma was taught by Buddha to his late mother who was living in Tavatimsa heaven. However, this is rejected by scholars, who believe that only small parts of the Abhidhamma literature may have been existent in a very early form.[56] Some schools of Buddhism had important disagreements on subjects of Abhidhamma, while having a largely similar Sutta-pitaka and Vinaya-pitaka. The arguments and conflicts between them were thus often on matters of philosophical Abhidhammic origin, not on matters concerning the actual words and teachings of Buddha.
One impetus for composing new scriptures like the Adhidhammas of the various schools, according to some scholars[who?], was that Buddha left no clear statement about the ontological status of the world - about what really exists.[57] Subsequently, later Buddhists have themselves defined what exists and what not (in the Abhidhammic scriptures), leading to disagreements.
Parts of the Khuddaka Nikaya[edit]
Oliver Abeynayake has the following to say on the dating of the various books in the Khuddaka Nikaya:
The texts in the early stratum date from before the second council (earlier than 100 years after Buddha’s parinibbana), while the later stratum is from after the second council, which means they are definitely later additions to the Sutta Pitaka, and that they might not have been the original teachings by the Buddha, but later compositions by disciples.
The following books of the Khuddaka Nikaya can thus be regarded as later additions:
- the Khuddakapatha
- the Vimanavatthu
- the Petavatthu
- the Niddesa
- the Patisambhidamagga
- the Apadana
- the Buddhavamsa
- the Cariyapitaka
and the following three which are included in the Burmese Canon
- the Milindapanha
- the Nettippakarana
- the Petakopadesa
The original verses of the Jatakas are recognized as being amongst the earliest part of the Canon,[51] but the accompanying (and more famous) Jataka Stories are purely commentarial, an obvious later addition.
Parivara[edit]
Other later writings[edit]
- all literature of the Mahayana (the Mahayana Sutras).[60]
- all commentarial works (atthakatha) of Theravada and other early Buddhist schools.
Newly introduced concepts[edit]
Some Buddhist concepts that were not existent in the time of pre-sectarian Buddhism are:
- the concept of 'building paramis' or paramitas. The ten paramis are described in Theravadin texts of late origin,[61][62] while the (Mahayana) paramitas are found in the Mahayana Sutras such as the Dasabhumika Sutra and the Surangama Sutra, also of late origin.
- the concept of the Bodhisattva vows, which is only found in the Mahayana Sutras.
The First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's Parinibbana,[2] which is 543–542 BCE according to Theravada tradition, at various earlier dates according to certain Mahayana traditions, and various later dates according to certain Western estimates.[3] According to late commentarial accounts, King Ajatashatru (Sanskrit अजातशत्रु) sponsored the council. Tradition holds that on the full moon day of Shravan lunar month the Council was held in a hall erected by Ajatasattu outside the Sattaparnaguha (Pali: Sattapanniguha) or Saptaparni Cave in Rajgir, three months after the Buddha had attained "Parinibbhana" (i.e. died). Detailed accounts of the council can be found in the Khandhaka sections of the canonical Vinayas.
However other sources reveal that Buddha's parinirvana happened 218 years before the coronation of Emperor Ashoka. Emperor Ashoka was coronated in 269BC. So it can also be stated that Lord Buddha died in 487BC. The time matches the reign of King Ajathashatru. Hence it can also be argued that the First Buddhist Council was held in the year 486BC.
According to this record the incident which prompted the Elder Mahakassapa to call this meeting was his hearing a disparaging remark about the strict rule of life for monks. The monk Subhadda, who had ordained late in life, upon hearing that the Buddha had expired, voiced his resentment at having to abide by all the rules for monks laid down by the Buddha. Many monks lamented the passing of the Buddha and were deeply grieved but Subhadda spoke up to show happiness and relief that Buddha was gone.
Mahakassapa was alarmed by his remark and feared that the Dhamma and the Vinaya might be corrupted and not survive intact if other monks were to behave like Subhadda and interpret the Dhamma and the Vinaya rules as they pleased. To avoid this he decided that the Dhamma must be preserved and protected. To this end after gaining the Sangha's approval he called to council five hundred Arahants.[4] Ananda was to be included in this provided he attained Arahanthood by the time the council convened.[5]
With the Elder Mahakassapa presiding, the five hundred Arahant monks met in council during the rainy season. The first thing Mahakassapa did was to question the foremost expert on the Vinaya of the day, Venerable Upali on particulars of the monastic rule. This monk was well qualified for the task as the Buddha had taught him the whole of the Vinaya himself. The Elder Mahakassapa asked him specifically about the ruling on the first offense parajika, with regard to the subject, the occasion, the individual introduced, the proclamation, the repetition of the proclamation, the offense and the case of non-offense. Upali gave knowledgeable and adequate answers and his remarks met with the unanimous approval of the presiding Sangha. Thus, the Vinaya was formally approved.
The Elder Mahakassapa then turned his attention to Ananda in virtue of his reputable expertise in all matters connected with the Dhamma. Happily, the night before the Council was to meet, Ananda had attained Arahantship and joined the Council.[5][2] The Elder Mahakassapa, therefore, was able to question him at length with complete confidence about the Dhamma with specific reference to the Buddha's sermons. This interrogation on the Dhamma sought to verify the place where all the discourses were first preached and the person to whom they had been addressed.
Ananda aided by his word-perfect memory was able to answer accurately and so the Discourses met with the unanimous approval of the Sangha. The First Council also gave its official seal of approval for the closure of the chapter on the minor and lesser rules, and approval for their observance. It took the monks seven months to recite the whole of the Vinaya and the Dhamma and those monks sufficiently endowed with good memories retained all that had been recited. This historic first council came to be known as the Pancasatika because five hundred fully enlightened Arahants had taken part in it.
The Second Buddhist council took place approximately one hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa. Virtually all scholars agree that the second council was a historical event.[1] Traditions regarding the Second Council are confusing and ambiguous, but it is agreed that the overall result was the first schism in theSaṃgha, between the Sthaviras and the Mahāsāṃghikas, although it is not agreed upon by all what the cause of this split was.[2]
Contents
[hide]Modern scholarship[edit]
Mahādeva legend[edit]
According to the Theravadin account, the Second Council occurred in Vaiśālī. Its purpose was to adjudicate on ten points which amounted to minor infringements of the Vinaya, such as handling money and eating after midday.[3] The council was convened, and an elder rendered a verdict condemning the ten points, after which the council was closed.[4] According to this account, some 35 years later at Pāṭaliputra, there was another meeting over five points held by a figure named Mahādeva.[5] These five points were essentially regarding doctrines of the fallibility and imperfection of arhats, which were opposed by some.[6] In this account, the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) sided with Mahādeva, and the minority (Sthaviras) were opposed to it, thus causing a split in the Saṃgha.[7] However, the Samayabhedoparacanacakra records that Mahādeva was a completely different figure who was the founder of the Caitika sect over 200 years later.[8][9] Some scholars have concluded that an association of "Mahādeva" with the first schism was a later sectarian interpolation.[10] Jan Nattier and Charles Prebish write:[11]
Addition of Vinaya rules[edit]
Under the influence of materials from the Theravāda school, some western historians have tended to see the Mahāsāṃghikas as a lax, breakaway group. However, the account by the Mahāsāṃghika school itself saw the Sthaviras as being the breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya.[12] Skilton has suggested that the problems of contradictory accounts are solved by the Mahāsāṃghika Śāriputraparipṛcchā, which is the earliest surviving account of the schism.[13] In this account, the council was convened at Pāṭaliputra over matters of vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by the minority (Sthaviras).[14] Regarding this matter, L.S. Cousins writes, "The Mahāsāṃghikas were essentially a conservative party resisting a reformist attempt to tighten discipline. The likelihood is that they were initially a larger body, representing the mass of the community, the mahāsaṃga."[15]
The Śāriputraparipṛcchā contains an account in which an old monk rearranges and augments the traditional Vinaya, consequently causing dissention among the monks that required the king's arbitration and eventually precipitating the first schism.[16] As stated in the Śāriputraparipṛcchā:
Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.[17] For example, the Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, while the Theravāda version has 75 rules.[18]
Vinaya antiquity[edit]
Modern scholarship is generally in agreement that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest.[19][20] This agrees well with the views of the Chinese monk Faxian, who travelled to India in order to procure the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, which was regarded as the original.[21] According to Andrew Skilton, future scholars may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravāda school.[22]
Theravadin account[edit]
According to the traditional Theravadin account, the dispute arose over the 'Ten Points.' This is a reference to claims of some monks breaking ten rules, some of which were considered major. The specific ten points were:
- Storing salt in a horn.
- Eating after midday.
- Eating once and then going again to a village for alms.
- Holding the Uposatha Ceremony with monks dwelling in the same locality.
- Carrying out official acts when the assembly was incomplete.
- Following a certain practice because it was done by one's tutor or teacher.
- Eating sour milk after one had his midday meal.
- Consuming strong drink before it had been fermented.
- Using a rug which was not the proper size.
- Using gold and silver.
The key issue was the use of 'gold and silver', which is an Indic idiom that includes any kind of money. The monks of Vesali had taken to wandering for alms with the specific goal of collecting money, to which the visiting monk Yasa objected. Some of the other points are also important, for example point 6, which would allow monks to not follow the Vinaya on any point which their teacher did not follow or practice.
This behaviour was noted, became an issue and caused a major controversy. The monastic Sangha is structured so that all actions and decisions must be unanimously agreed upon through consensus. Since the monks accused of breaking these ten rules refused to be reprimanded or acknowledge fault, the Sangha was unable to resolve this dispute in any other way than by convening the Second Buddhist Council.
Some of the Ten Points were against minor (dukkata or sekhiya) rules. Before the Buddha's Parinibbāna he told Ven. Ananda that the community may (unanimously) relinquish the minor rules of the Vinaya but at the First Buddhist Council there was uncertainty about which rules he was referring to and it was unanimously decided to keep the Vinaya as it was during the Buddha's lifetime. However, 100 years later some monks felt that certain rules could be relaxed.
The Second Buddhist Council made the unanimous decision not to relax any of the rules, and censured the behaviour of the monks who were accused of violating the ten points.
The Third Buddhist council was convened in about 250 BCE at Asokarama in Pataliputra, supposedly under the patronage of Emperor Asoka, a grave question mark hangs over this though as Asoka never mentioned it in his edicts, which one might have expected if he had called the council.
The traditional reason for convening the Third Buddhist Council is reported to have been to rid the Sangha of corruption and bogus monks who held heretical views. It was presided over by the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa and one thousand monks participated in the Council. The council is recognized and known to both the Theravada and Mahayana schools, though its importance is central only to the Theravada school.[1] Tradition has it that Asoka had won his throne through shedding the blood of all his father's sons except his own brother, Tissa Kumara, who eventually got ordained and achieved Arahantship.
Contents
[hide]Historical background[edit]
The account of the background to the Third Council is as follows: Emperor Asoka was crowned in the two hundred and eighteenth year after the Buddha'sMahaparinibbāna. At first he paid only token homage to the Dhamma and the Sangha and also supported members of other religious sects as his father had done before him. However, all this changed when he met the pious novice-monk Nigrodha who preached him the Appamada-vagga. Thereafter he ceased supporting other religious groups and his interest in and devotion to the Dhamma deepened. He used his enormous wealth to build, it is said, eighty-four thousand pagodas and viharas and to lavishly support the bhikkhus with the four requisites. His son Mahinda and his daughter Sanghamitta were ordained and admitted to the Sangha.
Eventually, his generosity was to cause serious problems within the Sangha. In time the order was infiltrated by many unworthy men, holding heretical views and who were attracted to the order because of the Emperor's generous support and costly offerings of food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Large numbers of faithless, greedy men espousing wrong views tried to join the order but were deemed unfit for ordination.
Despite this they seized the chance to exploit the Emperor's generosity for their own ends and donned robes and joined the order without having been ordained properly. Consequently, respect for the Sangha diminished. When this came to light some of the genuine monks refused to hold the prescribed purification orUposatha ceremony in the company of the corrupt, heretical monks.
When the Emperor heard about this he sought to rectify the situation and dispatched one of his ministers to the monks with the command that they perform the ceremony. However, the Emperor had given the minister no specific orders as to what means were to be used to carry out his command. The monks refused to obey and hold the ceremony in the company of their false and 'thieving' companions (Pali: theyya-sinivāsaka).
In desperation the angry minister advanced down the line of seated monks and drawing his sword, beheaded all of them one after the other until he came to the King's brother, Tissa who had been ordained. The horrified minister stopped the slaughter and fled the hall and reported back to the Emperor. Asoka was deeply grieved and upset by what had happened and blamed himself for the killings. He sought Thera Moggaliputta Tissa's counsel. He proposed that the heretical monks be expelled from the order and a third Council be convened immediately.
Council[edit]
So it was that in the seventeenth year of the Emperor's reign the Third Council was called. Thera Moggaliputta Tissa headed the proceedings and chose one thousand monks from the sixty thousand participants for the traditional recitation of the Dhamma and the Vinaya, which went on for nine months. The Emperor, himself questioned monks from a number of monasteries about the teachings of the Buddha. Those who held wrong views were exposed and expelled from the Sangha immediately. In this way the Bhikkhu Sangha was purged of heretics and bogus bhikkhus.
According to the Pali and Chinese accounts, the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, in order to refute a number of heresies and ensure the Dhamma was kept pure, compiled a book during the council called the Kathavatthu. This book consists of twenty-three chapters, and is a collection of discussions on the points of controversy. It gives refutations of the 'heretical' views held by various Buddhist sects on matters philosophical. The Kathavatthu is the fifth of the seven books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. However, the historicity of this has been questioned, as the account preserved in the San Jian Lu Pi Po Sho (Sudassanavinayavibhasha), although otherwise almost identical, does not mention the Kathavatthu.
Moggaliputtatissa told Ashoka that the doctrine taught by the Buddha was the Vibhajjavada, the Doctrine of Analysis. This term is used in various senses, and it is not clear exactly what it meant in this context. Traditionally, however, the Sri Lankan Theravadins and other mainland schools of Early Buddhism identified themselves as Vibhajjavada.
Emissaries[edit]
see also Greco-Buddhist monasticism
One of the most significant achievements ascribed by Theravada tradition to this Dhamma assembly and one which was to bear fruit for centuries to come, was the Emperor's sending forth of monks, well versed in the Buddha's Dhamma and Vinaya who could recite all of it by heart, to teach it in nine different countries.
| Country name | Missionary name |
|---|---|
| (1) Kasmira-Gandhara | Majjhantika/Mahyantika Thera |
| (2) Mahisamandala (Mysore) | Mahadeva Thera |
| (3) Vanavasi | Rakkhita Thera |
| (4) Aparantaka (Northern Gujarat, Kathiawar, Kachch and Sindh) | Yona-Dhammarakkhita Thera |
| (5) Maharattha (Maharastra) | Mahadhammarakkhita Thera |
| (6) Yona (Greece) | Maharakkhita Thera |
| (7) Himavanta (area in Himalayas) | Majjhima Thera |
| (8) Suvannabhumi (Myanmar / Mon) / Thailand) | Sona Thera and Uttara Thera |
| (9) Lankadipa (Sri Lanka) | Mahamahinda Thera |
Results of missions[edit]
| Part of a series on |
| Theravāda Buddhism |
|---|
 |
The Dhamma missions to Sri Lanka and Kashmir and Gandhara were very successful, leading to a long-term presence and dominance of Buddhism in those areas.
It is not clear exactly how influential the interactions to Egypt and Greece may have been, but some authors have commented that some level of syncretism between Hellenist thought and Buddhism may have started in Hellenic lands at that time. They have pointed to the presence of Buddhist communities in the Hellenistic world around that period, in particular in Alexandria (mentioned by Clement of Alexandria), and to the pre-Christian monastic order of the Therapeutae (possibly a deformation of the Pali word "Theravada"), who may have "almost entirely drawn (its) inspiration from the teaching and practices of Buddhist asceticism" (Robert Linssen).
Possibly Buddhist gravestones from the Ptolemaic period have also been found in Alexandria, decorated with what may be depictions of the Dharma wheel (Tarn, "The Greeks in Bactria and India"). Commenting on the presence of Buddhists in Alexandria, some scholars have even pointed out that “It was later in this very place that some of the most active centers of Christianity were established” (Robert Linssen "Zen living").
In the 2nd century CE, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria recognized Bactrian Buddhists (Sramanas) and IndianGymnosophists for their influence on Greek thought:
- "Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanasamong the Bactrians ("Σαρμαναίοι Βάκτρων"); and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judaeaguided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas("Σαρμάναι"), and others Brahmins ("Βραφμαναι")." Clement of Alexandria "The Stromata, or Miscellanies" Book I, Chapter XV.
- Fourth Buddhist Council is the name of two separate Buddhist council meetings. The first one was held in the 1st century BC, in Sri Lanka. In this fourth Buddhist council the Theravadin Pali Canon was for the first time committed to writing, on palm leaves. The second one was held by the Sarvastivada school, in Kashmir around the 1st century AD.
First Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka[edit]
The 1st Fourth Buddhist Council (Theravada tradition) was held in response to a year in which the harvests in Sri Lanka were particularly poor, and many monks subsequently died of starvation. Because the Pali Canon was in that time solely remembered by heart, the surviving monks recognized the danger of not writing the teachings of the Tipitaka down, so that even if some of the monks (whose duty it was to study and remember parts of the Tipitaka for later generations) died, the teachings would not be lost. This Fourth Buddhist Council took three years.The Fourth Buddhist Council was held in Tambapanni (Sri Lanka) under the patronage of King Vattagamani (r. 103-77 BCE). The main reason for its convening was the realization that it was now not possible for the majority of monks to retain the entire Tipitaka in their memories as had been the case formerly for the Venerable Mahinda and those who followed him soon after. Therefore, as the art of writing had, by this time developed substantially it was thought expedient and necessary to have the entire body of the Buddha's teaching written down.King Vattagamani supported the monk's idea and a council was held specifically to commit the entire Tipitaka to writing, so that the genuine Dhamma might be lastingly preserved. To this purpose, the Venerable Maharakkhita and five hundred monks recited the words of the Buddha and then wrote them down on palm leaves. This remarkable project took place in a cave called, the Aloka lena, situated in the cleft of an ancient landslip near what is now Matale. Thus the aim of the Council was achieved and the preservation in writing of the authentic Dhamma was ensured. In the 18th century, King Vijayarajasiha had images of theBuddha created in this cave.After the Council, palm leaves books appeared, and were taken to other countries, such as Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. The Tipitaka and its commentaries were originally brought to Sri Lanka by the missionary monk Mahinda of the Third Buddhist Council.Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir[edit]
The 2nd Fourth Buddhist Council (Sarvastivada tradition) is said to have been convened by the Kushan emperor Kanishka (r. 127-151 CE), perhaps in 78 CE atJalandhar or in Kashmir. The Fourth Council of Kashmir is not recognized as authoritative in Theravada; reports of this council can be found in scriptures which were kept in the Mahayana tradition. The Mahayana tradition based some of its scriptures on (refutations of) the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma texts, which were systematized at this council.[citation needed]It is said that for the Fourth Council of Kashmir, Kanishka gathered 500 monks headed by Vasumitra, partly, it seems, to compile extensive commentaries on the (Sarvastivadin) Abhidharma, although it is possible that some editorial work was carried out upon the existing canon itself. The main fruit of this Council was the vast commentary known as the Mahā-Vibhāshā ("Great Exegesis"), an extensive compendium and reference work on a portion of the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma.Scholars[who?] believe that it was also around this time that a significant change was made in the language of the Sarvāstivādin canon, by converting an earlier Prakrit version intoSanskrit. Although this change was probably effected without significant loss of integrity to the canon, this event was of particular significance since Sanskrit was the official holy language of Brahmanism in India, and was also being used by other thinkers (regardless of their specific religious or philosophical allegiance), thus enabling a far wider audience to gain access to Buddhist ideas and practices. For this reason, all major (Sarvastivad and Mahayana) Buddhist scholars in India thereafter wrote their commentaries and treatises in Sanskrit.