From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 the Saṃgha, between the
Sthaviras and the Mahāsāṃghikas, although it is not agreed upon by all
what the cause of this split was.[2]
Contents
1 Modern scholarship
1.1 Mahādeva legend
1.2 Addition of Vinaya rules
1.3 Vinaya antiquity
2 Theravadin account
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Modern scholarship
Mahādeva legend
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 100
years later.[8][9] Some scholars have concluded that an association of
"Mahādeva" with the first schism was a later sectarian
interpolation.[10] Paul Williams and Jan Nattier write, "Mahādeva has
nothing to do with the primary schism between the Mahāsāṃghikas and
Sthaviras, emerging in a historical period considerably later than
previously supposed, and taking his place in the sectarian movement by
instigating an internal schism within the already existing
Mahāsāṃghika school."[11]
Addition of Vinaya rules
Under the influence of materials from the Theravāda school, some
modern 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 Śariputraparipṛcchā, 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 Śariputraparipṛcchā 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] 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 Sthavira version has 75 rules.[18]
Vinaya antiquity
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
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.
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Buddhist_council
No comments:
Post a Comment