A comparative study in Jainism and Buddhism

Buddhist Era 2550 Binara Full Moon - Thursday September 07, 2006

by Rohan Jayetilleke

In the Vedic Society in which Buddha was born in India, there were four stages of the life of the individual, namely, Brahmacharya (stu-dent period), Gruhasta (Householder), Vanapravastha (Renunciation of household life) and Sannasi (Wandering ascetic). The last two

stages, which were the norms of society was in search of Moksha or liberation from the recurring birth and death and reunion with Brahma, the Creator God. The Vedic scripture that dealt with the entire life cycle were the Four Vedas Rig, Yajur, Sama and Tharva.

These Vedic codes of discipline were rooted in various forms of rituals, tantric rites, black magic, use and display of psychic powers, divination, occult and esoteric practices of all kinds, which are included in the list of the forbidden practices in the Brahmajala Sutta discoursed by the Buddha.

These various concepts and faiths in India at the time approximated to around 300 and were based on scriptural authoritarianism (Vedapramanayam), belief in a Creator-god (Katruvada), Soul Theory (Atmavada), Holy did (Snane-dharmeccha and self mortification to overcome evil (Santaparambha papahanaya). Jainism, which was 20 years senior to contemporary Buddhism, during the time of the Buddha in India in the sixth century B.C., hinged on soul-theory and self mortification and extreme Ahimsa (non-violence). Buddharejected the soul-theory and self mortification and his doctrine of ahimsa was primarily based on mental states than on bodily action, through developing the sublime states of mind (Brahma Vihara) of metta (loving kindness), Karuna (compassion), muditha (blissful joy) and upekkha (equanimity). These mental states and the intellectual comprehension of the Four Noble Truths and following the Noble Eight fold path, the devotee is able to erase from his mind the three main taints of lobha (attachment to animate and inanimate things), dosa (anger or enmity) and moha (ignorance). These too lead one to gain Sila (morality) panna (insight) and samadhi (meditative concentration of the mind without allowing the mind to proceed on a wanderlust.

It is imperative for a comparative study of the ultimate truth (parama sacca) expounded by the Buddha as against the conventional truths (sammutu sacca) of other contemporary Indian faiths, to delve into the concepts of Jainism. As regards the concept of God, Buddha elaborated gods are beings belonging to different divine planes of existence. Having acquired great spiritual merit (punna) they are born in these celestial planes and live enjoying an immense span of life.

Unless they keep on replenishing the merits, upon death they are reborn in lower planes, like that of human beings. Buddhism does not advocate beseeching for divine favours. However, Buddhists offer merit (anumodana) born of their good deeds, and wish for their protection against evil forces that affect their spiritual and worldly wellbeing. This is an offering based on mutual benefit.

Universal flux

The Vedic concept as well as Jainism, is inextricably bound up with the metaphysical first cause or a creator god, which constitute the Atman or soul. Buddha reject this soul-theory and in its place expostulated in the context of continuous creation and universal flux, everything phenomenal is a process. Everything arises, continues and passes away, based upon the synchronocity of a set of conditions. This impersonal function of the stream of psycho-physical phenomena, otherwise called the personality, is without a substratum or an underlying changeless substance. The Anatta (self or soul) doctrine of the Buddha is dynamic, impersonal and unsubstantial process. It is not mere absence of a self. Since self is only and assumption and not a reality, there is no question of its presence or absence according to Buddhism.

Jainism

Jainism is essentially an Indian religion and it is still a living force in some parts of India with just over two million followers of whom the greatest majority are the richest sections of the country. It enjoyed royal patronage and its contribution to Indian art and architect are, to the preservation and promotion of Indian literature and to the cultivation of languages both Aryan and Dravidian are praiseworthy. The teachings of Jainism are antagonistic to Vedic religions. According to Jainism there have flourished 24 Thrianksras (for-crossers) or leaders of their faith. The first was Rishabha, the twenty-second Nemi or Neminatha, the twenty third Parusava and the last Mahavira (Niganthanatha Putra) who was a twenty-year senior contemporary of the Buddha.

Mahavira was born at Kundagram near Vaisali to the north of Patna in Bihar. He hailed from the Naya (Jnata) clan and thus he is called also Nattaputta in the Pali Canon of Buddhism. His father was Siddhartha, a ruler of the areas. His mother Trisala (Priyakarini) was of the royal family of the clan of Licchavis of the Vajjian confederacy of Vaisali. Mahavira is renounced worldly life at the age of 30 years and engaged in penances in search of knowledge. He had no teacher as such, for he had his immediate predecessor Parsavanatha as the guide through his teachings although he had passed away many centuries ago. Mahavira wandered around for 12 years engaging in rigorous penances and attained his goal, enlightenment, as recorded in Jainism.

His career was one of supreme detachment and was called Nirgrantha, one without ties, both internal and external. Mahavira advocated all living beings had a right to live and this sanctity of life became the fulcrum of his teachings. The followers included monks, nuns, householders and their women folk and built up a well-knit Sangha, or socio-religious organization. The nuns with the passage of time deviated from spirituality and misconduct was rampant. This was the main reason, like the Devadasis of Vedic shrines too degenerating similarly in behaviour Buddha was not readily inclined to set up a Bhikkhuni Sasana, which he did later on three entreaties of Ananda under certain conditions to govern the bhikkhuni conduct. He travelled around India Ganges Valley for 30 years and died at the age of 72 in 527 B.C. at Pava in Bihar. The death was celebrated with a lamp-festival by the two ruling families of the region, the Mallakis and the Licchavis. The present most popular annual festival of Hindus the world over Dipavali (Festival of Lights) is a continuation of this Jain Mahavira’s death celebrating lamp-festival.

Eminent teachers

In the wake of the death of Mahavihara, eminent teachers of Jainism such as Gautama, Jambu et al emerged, receiving royal patronage from kings such as Srenika Bimbisara of Magadha, Chandragupta Maurya, India’s first great emperor, Kharvel, the Kalinga (Orissa) conqueror and many others. Under the leadership of Bhadrabahu, Jainism spread to western and southern parts of India.

Subsequently difference in ascetic practices split the organization to two main section, the Digambara and Svetambara. However, basic dogmas remained constant. The ruling classes and more specially the mercantile sector were impressed by the ascetism of Jain monks, they adopted Jainism as a way of life. The Jain followers of the mercantile sector were so financially stable that even during the East India Company days they were the noted bankers. Jainism does not invest in any particular language and treat language only as a means to an end. Unlike Pali in Theravada Buddhism and Sanskrit in Mahayana Buddhism Jainism has no doctrinal language as such.

Mahavira preached in Ardhamagadhi, a mix of contemporary of Prakrit. Jain authors used Sanskrit for polemic and literary works according to the needs of the occasion. They contributed to the growth of languages such as Apabhramsa, Old Hindi, Old Gujarati etc. Jain authors were the pioneers in cultivating Tamil and Kannada languages. Jain literature is not entirely religious and has a wide spectrum of secular branches learning including mathematics and astronomy.

Jainism commences with two principles, the living (jiva) and non-living (ajiva). The living is already in contact with the non-living from beginningless times. This contact results in living beings on account of thoughts, words and acts to the influx (asrava) of fresh energies known as karmas, which are conceived a subtle matter. This influx is to be counteracted (samvara) by rigorous penances. The salvation (Moksha) is thus attained.

The Soul and Non-soul (jiva and ajiva) are the basic principles which comprise all that exists in the universe. The soul is characterised according to Jainism, by sentiency or consciousness, but in its embodied state has sense organs, acts of mind, speech, body, respiration and period of life. Further, Jainism advocates souls are infinite in not retaining their individuality and cannot be destroyed or merged into any other supreme being, thus denying a creator god. Living can exist in two states librated siddha or mukta and worldly (samsara).

The latter is classified as mobile (trasa) and immobile (sthavara) and still a third state of nigoda beings. The nigoda are host-souls and present all over the world. They form the lowest stratum as against the higher state of the liberated ones.

Transmigration

Jainism asserts that the soul is in a process of transmigration and led by kammas. In contrast, Buddha says positively, “Without cognizable beginning is this samsara cycle of births, deaths and rebirths.

The earliest point of beings, who are obstructed by ignorance (Moha) and fettered by craving (tanha) wander and fare on, is not to be perceived. Samsara, literally, means recurrent wandering; Atthasalini describes Samsaras thus; “Khandhanam patpati datuayatanam ca abbhochinam vattamana samsara, ti pavuccat.” Samsara is the unbroken succession of aggregates, elements, and the sensebases. This life stream continues ad infinitum, as long as it is fed by muddy waters of ignorance and raving. When these too are completely served, rebirth ends, as in the case of Buddhas and Arahants.

As regards kamma, Buddha says, ‘All living beings have kamma as their own’ (Majjhima Nikaya). Kamma is the law of moral causation.

Rebirth its corollary. Both kamma and rebirth are inter-related. Buddha asserts emphatically that kamma is not the main and only cause. According to Buddhism there are five processes or norms (niyamas) which operate in the physical and mental realism.

They are utu niyama, physical organic order e.g. seasonal phenomena or winds and rains, in the unerring order of seasons. Bija niyama the order of germs and seeds (physical organic order) The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins and even

the traits of persons of the same parentage could be attributed to this. If a person’s father, is alcoholic, ill-manner, non-socialised, repugnant to others, refers to others in disparaging language, always irritant, non-listening to others, ever quarrelsome and never show any symptoms even of kindness and benevolence to others, even if the children are professionally trained in any field, genetically these malevolent traits will be ever in them and such persons after death, will never have the chance to be reborn as human beings, even if they do they would be targets of vilification and physical debilities. Kamma niyama the order of act and result e.g. desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good or bad results. The inherent kamma is also the continuity principle. Infant prodigies and wonderful children, who speak different languages without ever receiving any instructions, are noteworthy examples of the continuity principle. Dhammaniyama, the order of the norm, e.g. the natural phenomena occurring at the birth of a Bodhisatta in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature, the reason for being good etc., come under this group. Citta niyama, the order of the mind of psychic law e.g. processes of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind including telepathy, telaesthesia, recognition, premonition, clairvoyance, calsi-audience, thought - reading and similar psychic phenomena come under this group and are inexplicable by science, other than by a Buddha. Thus kamma is only one factor and not the pivotal role of birth, death ad rebirth as explained in Jainism.

The followers of Jainism, Niganthas were at Anuradhapura in the 6th century BC, during the reign of Pandukabhaya, namely Jothiya, Giri and Kumbhanda. Pandukabhaya built a house for Nigantha Jotiya eastward of the Lower Cemetery at Anuradhapura (nica susana). The Nigantha named Giri also lived in the same locality.

Pandukabhaya is reported to have erected a devakula (chapel) for Kumbhandha Nigantha, and it was known after the name of this Nigantha (Mahavamsa). The Nigantha monasteries (assamapadani) of these three niganthas were in existence even during the time of king Devanmpiya Tissa and they were included within the boundaries of Mahasima, when Arahant Mahinda decided on the boundaries of the holy city of Buddhism Anuradhapura. (Mahabodhivamsa p.84).

Thus it could be asserted that king Devanmpiya Tissa, prior to being a Buddhist was a follower of Jainism.

The Mahavamsa - Tika says king Khallatana (50-43 BC) had three nephews named Tissa, Abhaya and Uttara who plotted against the king, jumped into the fire at this monastery and committed suicide Mahavamsa Tika says that the pyre was made at the spot where Abhayagiri Vihara stands today. The next king Vattagamani – Abhaya (43 BC) demolished this monastery and built Abhayagiri on the spot.

We hear no more of Jain monasteries thereafter and no archaeological remains too have been discovered. The Jain monasteries with the advent of Buddhism would have been converted to Buddhist Viharas, as was the case with Giri Monastery at Anuradhapura Vide Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Colombo Branch) Vol XXII, No. 82 and Lewis Rice, Mysore and Coorgy p.3 ff).

Emperor Asoka’s Pillar Edict VII (of 44 lines) Delhi Topra Pillar in line 25 says, “Some Mahamatras were ordered by me to busy themselves with the affairs of the Sangha; likewise others were ordered by me to busy themselves also with the brahamanas and Ajivakas, others to busy themselves also with Nirgranthas.”

The writer is a member of the Bharathiya Kala Kendra of India.

Further Reading:
Future of Buddhism in India

Emperor Ashok and Jainism

Future of Jainism in India

Was Buddha Murdered for His Progressive Teachings?

By Grant Lawrence
In his new book, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, to be out in the US early March, this author of eight other books on Buddhism claims the Buddha was a man whose teachings were regarded by his contemporaries as not only radical, but "queer" enough for him to be denounced by one of his own former disciples as a "fake", who not only managed to win the patronage of the three most powerful political figures of his time, but was worldly enough to survive in the midst of court intrigues, murders and betrayals, effectively quelling a rebellion within his own flock before he was done in by the ambitions of his own family.

But it is Batchelor's findings on the Buddha's last days that are the most startling: in the last 10 months of his life, Batchelor says, the Buddha, old and ailing, saw his two main disciples die, one of them brutally murdered, and was forced to flee with a handful of loyalists from all the three political bases he had spent a lifetime building up, until he was possibly poisoned to death by one of his many rivals, leaving a pretender to take over the community after an intense power struggle..

The story of the Buddha's death always seemed a bit odd to me and a bit convenient.
The story goes that an aged Buddha sat down to eat a meal that included spoiled pork. The Buddha ate it and shortly after died.

But is there something more to the story?


Here we have a man that has ordained woman monks, spoken out against the caste system and any other form of slavery, and called humanity to use their heads as well as their hearts.
If you consider that woman were often expected to practice Sati, in which they would kill themselves at their husbands funeral pyre. Also consider that there was an entrenched and brutal caste system and that the Buddha allowed untouchables to become Monks. Then you might come to some understanding how progressive and transformational the Buddha's teachings were to the society of his time.


So it is only reasonable that there would be attempts on the Buddha's life.

And there were.

The texts talk about a few attempts on the Buddha's life. The Buddha skillfully avoided being killed.

But in his old age, was the last attempt successful?

It is possible, and maybe even likely, that the Buddha was poisoned on purpose. Perhaps the Buddha understood that it was his time to go and took the poisoned meat knowing that the Dharma would flourish without him.

The Buddha's death would certainly be viewed as convenient to those warring Kingdoms that wanted to continue to War. They certainly would have welcomed the end to the Progressive ideas and the Progressive visionary.

The Buddha may have been assassinated just like other great Progressives throughout history that act to make a real change in society. It is often the fate of those that have the wisdom and the ability to make a real change in society to water the seeds of their Progressive work with their own blood.

Also Read:
http://jainology.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-killed-gautam-buddha.html

2. Buddhist Councils

Appendix2

Buddhist Councils

The Buddha's parinibbana was a critical moment for the Dhamma and its followers. How the Buddha's teaching could be preserved for the future, was a problem for his prominent disciples. Some disciples, like Subhadda, ¹ felt that, with the death of the Buddha, they could interpret the Dhamma according to their own wishes. This attitude was viewed with alarm by the more loyal and erudite disciples who immediately thought of summoning a council where the word of the buddha could be established and where steps could be taken for its preservation and propagation. The task assigned to this Council was to decide the Dhamma and Vinaya of the Buddha. ²

Arrangements were made for this to be held at Rajagaha, near the Saptaparni cave under the presidency of Mahakassapa commencing from the second month of the Vassava season, i.e. in the fourth month after the Buddha's death. ³ Five hundred Arhat bhikkhus participated in it. Ananda, ⁴ who was yet a saiksa, attained arhathood (asaiksa) just on the eve of the Council, and he palyed a prominent part in the establishment of the texts of the Sutta Pitaka.

The decisions at the Council were not altogether unanimous. For instance, Gavampati, a senior arhat of the time, abstained from approving or disapproving the decisions of the Council, while Purana denounced the Council's decisions and urged the incorporation of the seven Vinaya rules. ⁵ Whatever that may be, the accounts of Gavampati and Purana indicate the germs of schism in the order even at that early date-R. C. Majumdar says "This was a danger signal for the Church." ⁶

The sources of the First Council are (1) The Cullavagga, XI, of the Pali Vinaya, (2) The Dipavamsa, (3) The Mahavamsa, (4) Buddhaghosa's introduction to the Sumanga-lavilasini, (5) Mahabodhivamsa, (6) Mahavastu, (5) Manjusrimulakalpa, (6) The Tibetan sources:--Bu-ston's Chos. Bbyung (History of Buddhism), translated into English by Obermiller, and Taranatha's History of Buddhism, (7) Chinese sources but derived from the Sanskrit sources: The Vinaya of Mahisasakas, Dharmaguptas, Mahasanghikas, Sarvastivadins, Kasyapa samgitisutra (Kai-ye-kie-king), Asokavadana (A-yu-wang-king), Mahaprajnaparamitasastra, Parinirvana-sutra, and Hiuen Tsang's Record of western countries.

As regards the authenticity of the First Council, the Russian savant I. P. Minayeff ⁷ appears to be the first to investigate and establish the historicity of the event in 1887. Oldenberg refuted his opinion in 1898 and said that the First Council was nothing but pure fiction. His argument is that Subhadda's account is referred to in the Cullavagga and Mahaparinibbanasutta, (Digha. 2. 3) but the latter is silent about the Council. This silence, according to him, "is as valuable as the most direct testimony: it shows that the author of the Mahaparinibbanasutta did not know anything of the First Council. "He then concludes that it is not a fact, "but pure invention, and moreover an invention of no very ancient date." ⁸

Rockhill reviewed Oldenberge's view in 1884 on the basis of Tibetan sources and remarked that "the authenticity of the council of Rajagaha has been doubted on insufficient grounds. ⁹ But T. W. Rhys Davids seems to have uphelp Oldenberg's view. He says "The conclusion drawn by oldenberg is atleast the easiest and readiest way of explaining the very real discrepancy that he has pointed out. ¹⁰ R. O. Franke declares emphatically against the First Council that "the two accounts in the Cullavagga xi, xii, are but air-bubbles." ¹¹ Among later scholars, Sukumar Dutta expresses his view thus--"The account of the First Council is only a legend of this invented character, seizing, as a peg to hang on, the Subhadda story in the Mahaparinibbana narrative. ¹²

But all these views are one-sided and baed on merely the absence of any reference to it in the Mahaparinibbanasutta. As a matter of fact, the Mahaparinibbanasutta is concerned with the account of the Buddha's parinibbana and not the history of the Order. The Vinaya, of course, is related to the history of the Buddhistic order and therefore an account of the First Council has a legitimate place in it. Likwise the Dipavamsa mentions the First Council, but not Subhadda's account. Tibetan Dulva also does the same.

Finot ¹³ pointed out that chapters XI and XII of the Cullavagga, which contain an account of the two councils, have such an abrupt beginning unlike the other chapters of the Cullavagga that they could not have been originally a part of this work. He further points out that the Mahaparinibbanasutta also differs from the other Suttas of the Dighanikaya in the nature of its contents, being more historical in character,and that the Mahaparinibbanasutta and the two chapters (XI, XII) of Cullavagga are so similar in nature that they must have been originally parts of one and the same work. In support of this contention of his, he refers to a work entitled Samyuktavastu (Nanjio 1121), the Vinaya of the Mula-Sarvastivadins, which contains the account of both parinibbana and the Councils, and concludes therefrom that the There-vadins too had a work corresponding to the Samyukta-vastu, and that it was disembered at a later date by the ancient editors of Nikayas and Vinaya. ¹⁴

Obermiller, ¹⁵ Poussin, ¹⁶ Prazyluski ¹⁷ also support the authenticity of the First Council Jacobi urged that it was not essential for the Mahaparinibbanasutta to go out of its way to describe the Council. He then remarked that mere argu-mentum es silentio cannot be accepted against the historicity of the First council. ¹⁸

Assessing the different viows of scholars regarding the authenticity of the First Buddhist Council of Rajagaha, we find that no reliable evidence is available to reject its validity. The Gavampati and Purana accounts contain the parts of the Buddha's teaching which they accepted. We cannot therefore think of it as a pure invention. Thus all accounts favour the acceptance of the First Council as a historical event.

As regards its cotribution to the evolution of the Pali Canon, it is, however, difficult to accept the traditional conception, which asserts that the whole Dhamma and Vinaya were recited in the First Council. The Sumaganlavilasini ¹⁹ further adds that not only Dhamma and Vinaya, but also the Abhidhamma was finalised in this very Council. How was it possible to compile the whole of the Sutta and Vinaya along with the Abhidhamma within about two months?

Poussin is inclined to think that the Council could not but be regarded as an enlarged Patimokkha assembly. ²⁰

Minayeff asserts that the accounts of the Council contain two clearly distinguishable parts, of which the one that speaks of the compilation of the Canon must belong to a period posterior to the rise of the sects. ²¹ Nalinaksa Dutt is of opinion that the Council was summoned to decide the less important rules of discipline (khuddakanukhuddakani sikkhapadani) which were sanctioned by the Buddha himself. ²²

The Dipavamsa presents a more probable account: "The Bhikkhus composed the collection of Dhamma and Vinaya, by asking the Thera called Ananda regarding the Dhamma. There Mahakassapa and the great teacher Anurudha, Thera Upali of powerful memory, and learned Anauda, as well as many other distinguished disciples who had been praised by the Buddha....made this council." Here the Dhamma and Vinaya mean selected groups of the original Suttas and doctrines, not the whole present Pali Tipitaka.

(b) The Second Council

Hundred years after the death of the Buddha (vassasata-parinibbute Bhagavati), the Second Council was held in Vesali to recite again the Dhama and the Vinaya. Seven hundred monks participated in this council. It is also therefore called Saptasatika.

The accounts of the Second Council

The accounts of this council state that Yasa Thera was shocked when he came to know about the relaxing of monastic rules and the acceptance by some monks of the ten heretical practices (dasa vatthuni). ²³ But as Yasa Therea opposed them, he was excommunicated (patisaraniyakamma). Yasa then went in search of monks who would agree with his views. He further tried to bring the dispute to a peaceful end. For this purpose a Council was summoned at Vesali in Valikarama under the presidency of Thera Revata. All these ten points were considered unlawful according to tradition. This council lasted eight months during which the Dhamma and Vinaya were discussed. The heretical monks then arranged a separate council called Mahasamgiti making a different redaction of the Canonical literature. ²⁴

Main Sources

The main sources of the seconf council are: (1) the cullavagga of the Vinayapitaka, (2) Dipavamsa, (3) Mahavamsa, (4) Samantapasadika, (5) Hiuen Tsang's Record of Western countries (6) Tibetan Dulva, Taranatha's Geschichted's Buddhismus in Indien, ubersetz von Schifener, and other Chinese sources differ in some respects, but the Cullavagga's record is the oldest one and the others appear to be based on it.

Historicity of the Council.

The historicity of this council is now accepted unanimously by the scholars. Kern raised an objection saying "We could not discover in these accounts anything but dogmatic fictions for which didactic mythical stories of older times have furnisbed the materials. ²⁵ But in another work he altered his conception stating "The council on Vinaya in Vaisali has historical base." ²⁶ Oldenberg, who denied the First Council, accepted the Second Council. He says: "It is an account, which with all its pedantic snatching after trifles, bears the stamp of being in the highest degree trustworthy. ²⁷

It should be noted here that the debatable points were settled after discussions, most probably on the basis of some authoritative works. But Majumdar is of the view that the present Vinaya could not have been compiled before the Second Council was held, or otherwise the dispute over the monastic rules could not have arisen among the monks at that stage.

We are inclined to accept the traditional view that both the Dhamma and the Vinaya were recited at the Vesali Council. The Dhamma comprises the Nikayas which are the earliest and most reliable sources of the Buddhist doctrines. Whether any finality was reached regarding the structure and contents of the Pitakas ar not, we may not be able to decide due to the lack of necessary evidence available to us. But it is most unlikely that a Council summoned to settle a dispute in monastic Order, which was threatening the unity of the Buddhist Order, was concluded without a review of the body of doctrines preserved by the monks.

The Third Council

Up to the time of Asoka Buddhism became very popular and easier to follow than the original teachings of Buddha. It is said that the heretics in monk's robes used to live in Buddhist monasteries and preach their own dhamma in the name of Buddhism. Under such circumstances the monastic rules were slackened and the Uposatha and the Pavarana could not be held for about seven years. The Great king Asoka somehow came to know of this corruption among the Buddhist monks and then sent a religious officer to conduct Uposatha and Pavarana ceremony. He then out throats of several monks. Asoka was much disturbed by this Moggali-putta, Tissa, however, came into contact with Asoka and a solution was found.

This was the background for the third council held in Pataliputra under the presidency of Moggaliputta Tissa. It is referred to in the Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa and Samantapasadika. It is recorded in the Tibetan Dulva and some Chinese sources too. But the Cullavagga does not give an account of the third Council. Asoka's inscriptions also make no reference to it.

Historicity of the Council

Some scholars like Minayeff, Keith, Franke, etc. deny it historicity. Their main argument is that it is not mentioned in the Cullavagga, one of the earliest scriputures and in the Asoka's inscriptions. Keith, for example, says: "It is incredible that it ever took place without receiving some mention in the numerous records of Asoka." ²⁸ In the buddhist Philosophy he says: "the only verdict of scientific history must be that the council was a figment of the pious or fraudulent imaginings of a sect, which desired to secure for its texts, and espcially for the new Abhidhamma, a connection with the greatest Buddhist sovereigns, and that the northern tradition does well to ignore the Council entirely." ²⁹ He even thinks of Tissa in a "Suspicious aspect." ³⁰

As regards the absence of any record in Asoka's inscriptions, it can be said that Asoka would have preferred to attach the name of Moggaliputta Tissa to this council since it was the result of his invaluable efforts. Asoka was only the supporter and provider of the purpose.

Actually some of his edicts indicate that this Council did take place. In one of his edicts, for example, King Asoka decrees that heretical monks and nuns shall be excommunicated. ³¹ G. C. Pande rightly suggests that Asoka might not have been "as intimately connected with the Council as the Pali tradition would have us believe." ³²

It was only the Vibhajjavadins or the Theravadins who attended this Council. A rift in the Buddhist order took place after the Second Council and by the time of Asoka it was divided into eighteen sects, ³³ which were refuted by Vibhajjavadins in this great Council.

Thus on the basis of above literary as well as inscriptional evidences, we cannot deny the historicity of the Third Council held in Pataliputra under the presidency of Moggaliputta Tiss.

Other Councils

Other Councils also were summoned for various purposes at different times. The Fourth Council was held under the auspices of Kaniska in about 100 A. D. According to the Mahavamsa and Other Ceylones traditions, three Councils were held in Ceylon. The First was held during the reign of kind Devanampiya Tissa (247 - 207 B. C.) under the presidency of the Venerable Arittha Thera. The Second Council was held during the time of King Vattagamini Abhaya (about 101-77 B. C.) under the presidency of Mahathera Rakkhita and the Canon was reduced to writing. It was held at the Alu-Vihara in the village of Matale in Ceylon. The Third Council was conducted in 1865 at Ratnapura in Ceylon under the presidency of the Venerable Hikkaduve siri Sumangala. Two Councils have been held in Thailand (Siam). Some Councils were summoned in Burma too. The so-called Fifth Council held in Mandelay is very important, as the text of the Canon fixed at this Council was engraved on marble slabs which for the last so many years had proved to be the most reliable record of the buddhist Canon. The Sixth Buddhist Council was inaugurated in May 1954 in Rangoon with the collaboration of the various countries of the Buddhist world.