The Third Buddhist Council: Pataliputra I
Different Buddhist traditions speak of two Third Buddhist Councils, both taking place at Pataliputra, an ancient city in north central India. The other Third Buddhist Council, which some scholars call Pataliputra II, occurred about 250 BCE and was called by the Emperor Ashoka the Great. This article is about Pataliputra I, thought to have occurred earlier.
According to historian Damien Keown, Pataliputra I is more of a hypothesis than a fact.
He believes stories about the Council were created to explain the "Great Schism" between two major schools, the Schavira or Sthavira ("elders") and Mahasanghika ("great assembly"). Sthavira was a forerunner of Theravada Buddhism, and Mahasanghika was a now-extinct school that developed some of the doctrines associated with Mahayana Buddhism, which emerged later.
Read More:Origins of Theravada Buddhism; See also The First Buddhist Council
Read More:Origins of Mahayana Buddhism
Damien Keown dates this hypothetical council to 350 BCE, but other sources I have consulted place it during the reign of Ashoka, which was from about 273 to 232 BCE. Whether the Council itself happened or not, the Great Schism is a significant part of early Buddhist history.
Note also that you might find articles on the Web that conflate the Pataliputra I council with the Second Buddhist Council, held at Vaisali, probably a few years before Pataliputra I, assuming it happened.
There are competing stories about why the Council was convened.
Let's look at the least plausible story first.
Mahadeva was a controversial monk who turns up in many stories. He was sometimes accused of evil deeds and of the persecution of other monks. However, today it is widely believed by historians that Mahadeva was a literary character or legend, not a real historical figure, and the negative stories about him grew out of old sectarian rivalries.
Real or not, in one story of Pataliputra I, he convened a meeting of monks to discuss the proposition that buddhas are wiser and more compassionate than arhats. As part of his argument he presented.five points of doctrine:
In this version of the story, this reasonably innocuous list was accepted by a majority of Mahasanghika monks but rejected by a majority of Sthavira monks, and this caused the Great Schism. The weakness in this story is that there is no evidence these five points were something the Mahasanghika of that time necessarily would have approved. Also, the earliest sources for this story date to about four centuries after the Council was said to have taken place.
A more plausible reason for the hypothetical Third Buddhist Council Pataliputra I was a conflict over the Vinaya, the rules for the monastic orders. The Mahasanghika accused the Sthavira of adding rules that hadn't been there before, and the Mahasanghika refused to accept and obey them. The Sthavira would not budge, so the two groups split apart.
It is a fact that the Mahasanghika Vinaya has fewer rules than the Sthavira Vinaya. Further, it is generally believed by historians that the Mahasanghika Vinaya is the older version. So something like this conflict over the Vinaya may well have taken place.
Although you can point to many episodes of early Buddhist history and call them a "schism," there is no question the doctrinal split between Theravada and Mahayana happened, and is a big deal. Today, Buddhists in the West tend to respect one another and downplay the differences, but that was not always so.
Mahayana didn't emerge as a distinctive movement of Buddhism until about the 2nd century CE however, So, while events of the 2nd or 3rd century BCE may well have made the Mahayana-Theravada split inevitable, I suspect there isn't any one moment or one event that one can point to and say, this is what caused the Great Schism. The Schism seems to have been an evolution rather than a revolution.
Also, the significant doctrinal differences we see today really are not so much about the Vinaya or even about the imperfect nature of arhats. The single biggest issue appears to be how anatta is understood, and that difference didn't crystallize until much later.
According to historian Damien Keown, Pataliputra I is more of a hypothesis than a fact.
He believes stories about the Council were created to explain the "Great Schism" between two major schools, the Schavira or Sthavira ("elders") and Mahasanghika ("great assembly"). Sthavira was a forerunner of Theravada Buddhism, and Mahasanghika was a now-extinct school that developed some of the doctrines associated with Mahayana Buddhism, which emerged later.
Read More:Origins of Theravada Buddhism; See also The First Buddhist Council
Read More:Origins of Mahayana Buddhism
Damien Keown dates this hypothetical council to 350 BCE, but other sources I have consulted place it during the reign of Ashoka, which was from about 273 to 232 BCE. Whether the Council itself happened or not, the Great Schism is a significant part of early Buddhist history.
Note also that you might find articles on the Web that conflate the Pataliputra I council with the Second Buddhist Council, held at Vaisali, probably a few years before Pataliputra I, assuming it happened.
There are competing stories about why the Council was convened.
Let's look at the least plausible story first.
Version I: Mahadeva's Five Points
Mahadeva was a controversial monk who turns up in many stories. He was sometimes accused of evil deeds and of the persecution of other monks. However, today it is widely believed by historians that Mahadeva was a literary character or legend, not a real historical figure, and the negative stories about him grew out of old sectarian rivalries.
Real or not, in one story of Pataliputra I, he convened a meeting of monks to discuss the proposition that buddhas are wiser and more compassionate than arhats. As part of his argument he presented.five points of doctrine:
- An arhat may have nocturnal emissions.
- An arhat may have doubts.
- An arhat may be taught by others.
- An arhat may retain some ignorance or lack knowledge.
- An arhat may become an arhat by exclaiming, "What suffering!"
In this version of the story, this reasonably innocuous list was accepted by a majority of Mahasanghika monks but rejected by a majority of Sthavira monks, and this caused the Great Schism. The weakness in this story is that there is no evidence these five points were something the Mahasanghika of that time necessarily would have approved. Also, the earliest sources for this story date to about four centuries after the Council was said to have taken place.
Version II: Too Many Rules in the Vinaya
A more plausible reason for the hypothetical Third Buddhist Council Pataliputra I was a conflict over the Vinaya, the rules for the monastic orders. The Mahasanghika accused the Sthavira of adding rules that hadn't been there before, and the Mahasanghika refused to accept and obey them. The Sthavira would not budge, so the two groups split apart.
It is a fact that the Mahasanghika Vinaya has fewer rules than the Sthavira Vinaya. Further, it is generally believed by historians that the Mahasanghika Vinaya is the older version. So something like this conflict over the Vinaya may well have taken place.
The Great Schism
Although you can point to many episodes of early Buddhist history and call them a "schism," there is no question the doctrinal split between Theravada and Mahayana happened, and is a big deal. Today, Buddhists in the West tend to respect one another and downplay the differences, but that was not always so.
Mahayana didn't emerge as a distinctive movement of Buddhism until about the 2nd century CE however, So, while events of the 2nd or 3rd century BCE may well have made the Mahayana-Theravada split inevitable, I suspect there isn't any one moment or one event that one can point to and say, this is what caused the Great Schism. The Schism seems to have been an evolution rather than a revolution.
Also, the significant doctrinal differences we see today really are not so much about the Vinaya or even about the imperfect nature of arhats. The single biggest issue appears to be how anatta is understood, and that difference didn't crystallize until much later.
Source...