Literature devoted to the place of councils in Buddhism is varied in both content and approach. Consequently, what emerges from the rather imposing corpus of research on this nebulous topic provides a thoroughly incomplete and insufficient delineation of the major issues critical to such an enterprise. It is possible, however, by a careful study of the sources, to capsulize a more complete and authoritative picture of this earliest period of Buddhist history. Utilizing the research of La Vallee Poussin, R. O. Franke, Jean Przyluski, M. Hofinger, Paul Demieville, Andre Bareau, and Nalinaksha Dutt, as well as the primary texts, it becomes apparent that while the first council (at Rajagrha) is almost certainly not a historic event, the second council (at Vaisali) and the third (at Pataliputra) have a firm historical basis. Further, one finds evidence for the supposition that a "second" second council was held (at Pataliputra, under the Nandin ruler Mahapadma) shortly after the Vaisali council. It is likely that the Buddhist sectarian movement begins at this "second" second council with the separation of the Sthaviras and Mahasamghikas, rather than, as traditionally accepted, at the Vaisali council. From this foundation, the obstacles to understanding both the development of Vinaya and the early history of Buddhist thought are considerably diminished.
目次
The First Council: Rajagrha 240 The Second Council: I. Vaisali 246 The Second Council: II. Pataliputra 251 The Third Council: Pataliputra 253
