Mar Ngok Summer Teaching 2022: Day 14.
In today’s shorter teaching, the Gyalwang Karmapa concluded his discussion of the First Council and the compilation of the baskets of the Sūtra and the Vinaya. He focused particularly on what various scholars have said about its structure, its time and location, the participants, the schedule, and questions raised about its authenticity.
The order of events at the Council
According to the Indian scholar, Professor S.R. Goyal, Mahākāśyapa presided over the council, whereas Upāli and Ananda led the group recitation or compilation of the Dharma and the Vinaya. Goyal maintains that there were essentially no disputes over the content. It was Ananda who recited when the Dharma was being compiled and Upāli when the Vinaya was being compiled. This is the usually accepted presentation of the First Council.
The Japanese scholar, Professor Umada Gyokei, holds that during the compilation of the Vinaya, Upāli, as the foremost upholder of the vinaya, was first asked to recite the precepts of the vinaya and then to give an account of the context —the time, place, circumstances, questions and answers, and the rule that was consequently established. Then Ananda, the foremost of those in listening to the Buddha’s teaching, recited the Buddha’s sermons with their various background stories. He clearly explained the context, the intended audience, the time and the place for each of the Buddha’s sūtras.
The British Indologist, Professor A.K.Warder, states that Ananda had heard more Dharma than anyone else because of his position. Before he became the Buddha’s attendant, he set a condition that the Buddha should teach him what had been taught during the previous twenty years. Consequently, among all those who had heard the Dharma, Ananda had heard the most. Mahākāśyapa would question him on each of the sūtras, and Ananda would answer according to how he remembered them. Then the sangha would decide whether there were any mistakes, and finally, they would settle the content of the sūtra.
Ananda reported to the bhikshus that before his parinirvana, the Buddha had said that it would be permissible to discard the minor precepts or those that were not so important. (Skt. kṣudrānukṣudra śikṣapāda). Unfortunately, Ananda had failed to ask the Buddha to clarify which precepts were minor. So, the bhikshus gathered at the Council could not reach a consensus on this issue. In the end, Mahākāśyapa suggested that all the rules the Buddha made should be left as they were and no exceptions made, and everyone agreed.
The duration of the Council and related events
The Karmapa explained that the term ‘compilation’ could also be translated as ‘group recitation’. Usually, the Council is presumed to have taken place over three months. However, Professor Gyokei maintains that after the bhikshus gathered for the compilation or recitation, it took seven months to complete. Another detail is that after Mahākāśyapa held the Council, he went to meet King Ajataśatru of Magadha. The king suggested that the date of Lord Buddha’s parinirvana should be commemorated, and, from that time on, the calendar in the kingdom of Magadha was calculated with the year of the parinirvana being considered as Year 1. That was the origin of the Buddhist calendar.
According to Goyal, during the First Council, one of the most important topics discussed was the decision to impose the Brahma penalty (Skt. brahmadaṇḍa; ‘Brahma’s rod’) on the Buddha’s charioteer Channa. The reason was that, although he was a bhikshu, he was very rude to everyone in the sangha and was incredibly arrogant. The Brahma penalty meant he was ostracized and prohibited from participating in any sangha activity. This led Channa to experience heartfelt regret. He confessed his faults, was readmitted to the sangha and eventually became an arhat.
Doubts about the historicity of the Council
It was a Russian scholar, Professor D.P. Minayeff, who first raised doubts about the authenticity of the First Council. In 1887, he published a monograph arguing that because there was no account of the First Council in the Pali version of the “Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra” in the “Long Discourses” section, the council was an account made up by later generations in order for each school to prove that it had authentic origins. Later, the German Sanskritist and Buddhologist Professor Hermann Oldenberg also asserted that there was no historical evidence for the council. However, he contested that the absence of an account of the First Council in the “Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra” was not reliable evidence for its non-existence.
In 1996, “A Study of the History of Early Buddhist Orders” by the Japanese scholar Tsukamoto Keisho was published. Previous research had been based mainly on Pali texts, but he examined the evidence to be found in Chinese translations of texts. He concluded that though there was new evidence from these texts, the evidence was inconclusive, and the debate on this issue was still not settled.
Other Buddhist researchers have proposed a different origin for the Tripiṭaka (the three baskets of the Buddha’s teachings). Some Japanese scholars and the Chinese master Yin Shun hold that the Tripiṭaka was compiled not at the First Council but over an extended period of time, over several hundred years. During this time, they were subject to a process of editing and revision. As the present form or extent of the scriptures came into being through that process of compilation, it is impossible to authenticate the accounts of the First Council based on the texts we have.
In the traditional view, all three baskets of the Tripiṭaka were compiled during the First Council, and through the centuries, as the different schools passed down these texts, nothing was changed, nothing was added and nothing was omitted. Also, the Karmapa commented, each school claims that theirs is the authentic text compiled at Rājagṛha. He suggested that this was a rather naïve view which creates many difficulties. Why, for example, are there differences between the texts in different schools? If instead, we accept that differences have arisen because the scriptures have been passed down for centuries with additions, changes, omissions, and mistakes, those difficulties disappear.
The Oxford University professor Richard Gombrich cited the “Sūtra of the Thirty-Two Marks” (found in the “Long Discourses” from the “Four Agamas”) as evidence that there were councils to maintain the transmission of the true dharma even during the Buddha’s lifetime because it says that Shariputra compiled this sūtra.
The Karmapa explained how in the 19th century, Western scholars began their research into Buddhism. Research also began in Japan. These researchers were mainly laypeople and included non-Buddhists, but they were interested in Buddhism and Buddhist history. He advised:
We Tibetans need to have a broader way of thinking that fits better with contemporary methods and a more relaxed attitude. It is very important for us to engage in such research because the questions that contemporary researchers raise are not without foundation. They are things we need to consider. Actually, these questions should first have been raised by us Buddhists, but instead, they are coming from outside, so it’s rather embarrassing and a little discomforting.
His Holiness explained that his purpose in researching the Mar Ngok teachings was to bring the Buddhadharma into the 21st century in order to uphold, preserve and propagate the teachings.
The teaching concluded, and the Karmapa gave instructions on preparations for the Shakyamuni puja.
He also announced that he thought it would be better not to hold a Kagyu Monlam Chenmo in Bodhgaya for the time being, as it involved the mixing together of people who had travelled from all parts of the world. There would, however, be a Kagyu Gunchoe and an Arya Kshema. The Kagyu Gunchoe would be held at Mirik Shedra. It’s a large building near Siliguri, and it’s easy to get to from Nepal. The Arya Kshema would be held at Vajra Vidya Shedra in Varanasi.
Finally, the Karmapa led prayers for people who had passed away in the recent Sichuan earthquake and other individuals whom he mentioned.
This year’s Mar Ngok teachings concluded with the recitation of the “Mahamudra Aspiration Prayer” by the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje. Two activities remain: a teaching on the life of Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje and a specially compiled puja.
