Mahkyapa's Aasprecedence To

Mahkyapa'saasPrecedence to Ananda in the Rajagrha Council

Keisho Tsukamoto

The historicity of the Rajagrha Council was supported by Minayeff, Geiger, Poussin, Finot, Obermiller, Dutt, etc., and denied by Oldenberg, Przyluski, Frauwallner, Bareau, etc. The historicity of the event was inve- stigated in the following three points: 1. The historicity of the account of the event. 2. The historicity of a previous event which was regarded as the source of the account of the Council. 3. The historicity of a later event which was regarded as the source of the account of the Council. From these different fields of study, we see that the historicity of the account of the event and the background of the formation of the account of the council are different subjects of study.

1. The Accounts of the Rajagrha Council

The accounts of the Rajagrha Council are: A: Cullavagga (Vibhajyavada-vinaya), XI. 1-5.

B: Mi-sha-pu-ho-hsi-eu-lu 疏彌沙塞部和酪五分律 (T.1421) 〔Mahisasaka-vina-

ya〕tr. Buddhajiva & Chu Tao-sheng 竺道生 in 423-424A. D., T. Vo1. 22, P.

190, b13-p. 192, a25.

C: sus-fen-lu 四分律 (T.1428) 〔Dharmagupataka-vinaya) tr. Buddhayaas & Chu

Fo-nien 竺佛念 in 408A.D., T. Vo1. 22, p. 966, a15-p. 968, c17.

D:pi-ni-nj-china 毘尼母経 (T.1463)〔Hainavata-vinaya-matrka) tr. anonymous

in 350-431 A.D., T. Vo1. 24, P. 817, b26-P. 819, b1.

E: mo-ho-deng-chi-lu 摩詞僧祇律 (T.1425)〔Mahasamghila-vinaya〕tr. Buddha-

bhadra & Fa-hsien 法顯 in 416A.D., T. Vo1. 22, P. 489, c26-P. 492, c.17.

F.shih-dung-lu 十調律 (T.1435)〔sarvastvada-vinayya〕tr. Pupyataa & Kuma-

-824- (54) Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto)

rajiva in 404 A.D., T. Vol. 23, p. 445, c10-p. 450, a26.

G: Ken-pen-shou-i-chieh-yu-pu-pi-nai-yeh-tsa-shih 根本説一切有部毘奈耶雑事 (T.

1451)〔mulasarvastivada-viaya ksudrakavasru〕tr. 1-ching義浄 in 710 A.D.,

T. Vol. 24, p.382, b29-p. 408, b25.

H:a-y-wahg-dhi 阿育王傳 (T.2042)〔Asokavadana, the history of the Sar-

vastivadins of Mathura〕tr. AnFan-chin 安法欽 in 306A.D., T. Vo1.50, P.

111, b27-p. 114, a25.

1:A-yu-wang-ching 阿育王経 (T.2043), tr. Salpghabhadr in 512A.D.,T. VoL

50, p.149, b22-p. 152, c8.

J: cia-she-chieh-shing 迦葉結経 (T.2027), tr. An Shih-kao 安世高 after 147A.

D., T. Vol. 49, p. 4b-p. 7a.

K: shuan-chi-san-sang-xi-tsa-tsang-chuan 撰集三藏及雑藏傳 (T.2026), tr. anony-

nous in 317-420 A.D., T. Vol. 49, p. 1a-p. 4a.

L:fo-pa-ni-yuan-shing 佛般泥漉経 (T.5)〔mahaparinva〕tr. Pai Fa-tsu

白法祖 in 290-306A. D., T. Vo1. 1, 175, a25-c14.

M: par-ni-yuan-ching 般泥涯輕(T.6), tr. anonyrnous in 317-420 A.D., T. Vol.

1, p. 170, c9-p. 191, a27.

N: fen-pie-kung-te-lun 分別功徳論 (T.1507)〔said to be written by the Maha- samghikas or Mahayana), tr. anonymous before 220 A. D. (?), T. Vol. 25, p. 40, c 21-p. 41, a 5 ; p. 31, c 27-p. 32, b 12; p. 34, b 12-22.

O: pu-sa-tsung-tot-shu-ten-ciang-shen-eu-tai-shuo-kuat-pu-ching 菩薩從兜術

天降紳母胎説廣普経 (T.385), tr. Chu Fo-nien in 350-417 A.D., T. Vo1. 12,P.

1058, a18-b24.

P: ta-shish-tu-lun 大智度論 (T.1509)〔mahaprajnaparanivsastra〕by Nagarjuna

〔attributed to Mahayana〕, tr. Kumaraliva in402-405A.D., T. Vo1. 25, p. 67, b8-p. 70, b12.

Q: ta-pei-ching 大悲経 (T.380), tr. Narendrayaaas in 558A. D., T. Vo1. 12, p.

971, b11-c11. R: Dipavamsa (written by the Vibhajyavadins), IV. S: Mahavamsa (written by the Vibhajyavadins), III. T: Samantapasadika, by Buddhaghosa (attributed to the Vibhajyavadins), III. The arrangements of the elements of the story are different among those accounts. See Fig. 1. The elements of the accounts of the Rajagrha Council can be classified in the, following four groups:

-823- Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto) (55)

(Fig. 1)

Note: k. s.-kgudranulcgudraii sikgapadani; p=partly nil, x=nil; *=The Hirnalaya Council; O=Kasyapa chose 999 Arhats.

-822- (56) Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto) I. The elements given in the Appendix to the Mahaparinirvanasutra. II. The holding of the Rajagrha Council and the recitation of the Dha- rma and the Vinaya. III. The blame of Ananda for his violating the ksudranuksudrani siksapadani. IV. The episode of Purana and Channa. The second group is found in all the documents, but the other groups are not. Therefore, the second group may be the original form of the account of the Rajagrha Council. It is not certain whether four groups were made at the same time, or whether the groups I, III & IV were inserted into the second in later times. Frauwallner pointed out that the position of Ananda and Mahakasyapa in the Agama was given differently in the account of the Rajagrha Council (especially, in the Skandhaka of the Vinayapitaka). He says: "The author of the account of the council, i. e. the author of the Skandhaka, has pro- needed to a deep reaching modification and revaluation of the tradition (1) concerning the position of Ananda and Mahakasyapa." His opinion is worth noting, because it verifies Oldenberg's theory that the original account of the Rajagrha Council was written after the event of the Vaisali Council. But Frauwallner's proof is not always sufficient. Therefore,' we must in- vestigate it further. What role Ananda played on in the Rajagrha Council, and from what standpoint the authors of the account described Ananda, are described very (2) differently by the different schools. The Sarvastivadins and the Mahasam- ghikas do not blame Anada so bitter as the other schools. In order to understand this difference, we must research for what purpose the accounts of the Council were compiled. First we must examine the faults of Ananda.

(1) E. Frauwallner: The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature, Serie Orientale Roma VIII, Roma 1956, pp. 161 f. {2) A. Bareau: Les premiers. conciles bouddhiques, Annales du Musee Guimet LXe, Paris 1955, pp. 7-15.

-821- Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto) (57)

2. The Faults of Ananda

According to the above-mentioned elements of the accounts III, after recitingthe Dharma,Ananda told Mahakasyapa:"Buddha said to me at his death-bed that ksudranuksudrani siksapadani may be *given up if the samg ha wants to." Ananda did not know what it was. The elders discussed it, but it was not solved. Mahakasyapa said to the monks : "No clause of the rules is to be given up, or the samgha shall be blamed by others who are not Buddhists." Then Ananda was blamed for his carelessness and his faults were enumerated as follows: (Fig. 2)

Note: (1) The faults are not described, except the first which is explained in ten points. (2) The other faults are not described. (3) The total of faults is not given: only the word 'great faults' is given. (3) For k. A., see Fig. 1, note.

(3) According to the Ssu-ffen-lu and the Tsa-shih, before reciting the Dharma, Ananda told it to Mahakasyapa.

-820- (58) Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto)

The arrangements of Ananda's faults are classified into four groups. The group a (1-7) begins with the fault 1, the group b (8-12) with the fault 6, the group c (13-15) with the fault 2 and the group d (16) with the fault 9. The authors of the group c of documents refer to Ananda's faults, but do not describe them. The authors of the documents Q, R, S & T (in Fig. 1) do not refer to Ananda's faults. Therefore, it seems that the documents in which Ananda's faults are described belong to the Skan- dhaka of the Vinayapitaka except the historical records such as the Chia-she- chieh-chink and the Asokavadana.

3. The Precedence between Ananda and Mahakasyapa

The documents referring to Ananda and Mahakasyapa in Malalasek- era's Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (London 1937) are as fllows: (Fig. 3)

It is an established fact that there are more pieces of literature referring to Ananda than those referring to Mahakasyapa. Nevertheless, only in the account of the Rajagrha Council Ananda is blamed with the descri- ption of his faults. In the Chia-she-chieh-china (in the group a in Fig. 2) translated into Chinese in the second century A. D., Ananda's faults are arranged systematically. It says that Mahakasyapa, acting as the chairman

-819- Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto) (59) of five hundred monks, compiled the Sutrapitaka and the Vinayapitaka in Rajagrha. The recitation of the Dharma by Ananda is described, but not the recitation of the Vinaya by Upali. It may be that, when the author described the event, he intended: 1. To give Mahakasyapa the leadership of the 500 monks, by making him the chairman of the Rajagrha Council, and thus giving him the precedence to Ananda, and 2. To show that the dharmadharas have more faults than the vinayadharas, by pointing out Ananda's faults. The authors of the group a (in Fig.2) follow the account of the Cia- she-chieh-ching and are conscious of the close connection with the Mahapa- rinirvansutra. The authors of the group c describe only the fault that Ananda, did not ask for Buddha's eternal existence, and not speak paricularly of the other faults. In connection with the element of the accounts III (in Fig. 1), the group a except the Vinayapitaka, i. e., Nos. 6 & 7, and the group c (in Fig. 2) refer only Anand's, offending of the faults, and do not describe that he asked for giving up ksudranuksudrani siksapadani. On the contrary, in the other documents (Nos. 1-5, 8-12 in Fig. 2) the account is inserted into the account of the Rajagrha Council. Moreover, in the group b Ananda's request of giving up ksudranuksudrani siksapadani makes Mahakasyapa begin to blame Ananda's faults. Judging from the above- mentioned facts, it seems that the author of the Skandhaka of the Vinaya- pitaka put more stress on the element of the accounts III than on II (in Fig. 1), as the account of the Rajagrha Council. It means that they were against the abolition of ksudranuksudrani siksapadani.

4. The Background of the formation of the account of the Rajagrha Council

If the account of the Rajagrha Council was formed after the event of the Vaisali Council as Oldenberg says, we shall find the motive of the formation of the account in the historical background of the samgha in the same way as the account of the Vaisali Council, in which the unlau-

-818- (60) Mahakasyapa's Precedence to Ananda (K. Tsukamoto) fulness of ten propositions (in other word, kalpa or ksundranuksudrani siksapadani) is found therein. Consequently, we can settle the dispute between two groups of monks: those who stick to the clause of the Vinaya and those who do not, the conservative party and the progressive party, or the vinayadharas and the dharmadharas. Moreover, this tendency of the samgha is found in the account of the dispute between two parties of monks which originated in five propositions, of Mahadeva. (Bibliography) For the historicity of the Ra jagrha Council, see: I. P. Minayeff: Rechesches sur le Bouddhisme, tr. into French, Paris 1894, p. 8; W. Geiger: The Maha- varnsa, or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon, 2 nd ed., PTS. 1934, introd. p. lvii; L. de la Vallee Poussin: Le Museon VI, pp. 213-325, tr. into Eng. in IA. 1908; ERE. 4, p. 183a (s. v. Councils); L. Finot: Textes historiques dans le canon pali, JA. 1932, p. 158; Obermiller: IHQ. VIII, pp. 781-4; N. Dutt: Early Mo- nastic Buddhism, Calcutta 1941, I. pp. 324-340. For the absence of historicity of it, see: H. Oldenberg: The Vinaya Pitaka, PTS. I (1879), introd. P. xxvi; Buddhistische Studien, ZDMG. 1896, pp. 613-694; J. Przyluski: Le concile de Rajagrha, Paris 1926-28; E. Frauwaller: Die buddhistische Konzile, ZDWG. 1952, pp. 240-261; A. Bareau: Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, Paris 1955, pp. 1-30. For the other comments of the Buddhist Councils, see: H. Kern: Histoire du Bouddhisme dans l'Inde, tr. into French, Paris 1903, II. p. 265; F. O. Franke: The Buddhist Councils at Rajagaha and Vesali, JPTS. 1908, pp. If.; Bunsaburo Matsumoto: Butten-ketsuju (The Buddhist Councils for Compilation of the Bud- dhist Conon), Tokyo 1914; Taiken Kimura & Ryusho Hikata: Ketsuju-shi Bum- pashi Ko (A Study on the History of the Buddhist Councils and the Early Bud- dhism), Appendix to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra tr. into Japanese, Kokuya- ku-daizo-kyo, Ron-bu 13, Tokyo 1921; R. C. Majumdar: Buddhist Councils in B. C. Law's Buddhistic Studies, Calcutta 1931, pp. 26-72; M. Hofinger: Etude sur le concile de Vaisali, Louvain 1946; Demieville: T'oung Pao XL (1951), pp. 241 ff.; L. Renou & J. Filliozat: L'Inde classique, Paris 1953, II. pp. 493-499; E. Lamotte: Histoire du Bouddhisme indien, Louvain 1958, pp. 136-154. For the comprehensive study of, the Buddhist Councils, see: Yensho Kana- kura: Indo-chusei-seishin-shi (A History of Medieval Indian Thought), Tokyo 1962, II. pp. 196-264. (昭和37年度・文部省科學研究費による綜合研究の成果の一部)

-817-