Talk:Buddhist councils

untitled
Hmmm ... this page should either be moved to Buddhist councils or the references in the article should be changed to "Buddhist Councils". I'm not sure which. - Nat Krause 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Nat. Yes, I tried to move the page to Buddhist councils once, but it seems it is something only an all-mighty Administrator can do. Regards. PHG 12:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ...or I thought so. Actually I just checked "Buddhist councils" on Google, and it seems it turns up "Buddhist Councils" (with block letters) most of the times. Sounds like the text in the article will have to be modified accordingly...PHG 12:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Completed re-edited this section
The information on the section on 2006-06-01 is very flawed in historical aspect. The original author apparently does not have full knowledge of Buddhist council histories.

The new section as of now (2006-06-01 after the edit) is taken from the exerpt at the beginning of the Sixth Great Buddhist Council. What is more authentic than this?


 * What's wrong ?!  Complete Theravadin POV bias and ignorance of modern scholarship on the nature and historicity of First, Second and Third Councils.--Stephen Hodge 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Buddhist Council
The association of Mahayana with the Fourth (Kanishkan) Council is a canard. The Kanishkan Council was an entirely Sarvastivadin affair. The few Mahayana followers in India at the time would not have got look in. Basically the whole section is rubbish ! Ditto the remarks at the top of this page !


 * please be more specific. greetings, Sacca 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The anonymous remark at the head of this section is perfectly correct. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that there were no Mahayanists at all at that time. Mahayana traditionally tends to treat Nagarjuna as its founder, and it would be very odd for a religious movement to claim to be newer than it really is, the opposite of normal practice. I've had a quick look at the various articles on Buddhist Councils, and they seem to lack any attempt to distinguish between legends and historical facts. They should be drastically rewritten. I may get round to this some time but much the same applies to lots of other articles. Peter jackson 13:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)\\


 * I don't think that Mahayana generally regards Nagarjuna as its founder&mdash;there is the myth in which he received the Mahayana sutras from the nagas, but I don't think that creation story is predominant. Also, I've never heard of any scholars suggesting that Nagarjuna was the first Mahayanist, although it seems that the current view is that Mahayana was quite limited in its level of support before and during his lifetime.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I may get back on this one later. What occurs to me from memory: I certainly heard Geshe Thubten Jimpa describing Nagarjuna in this way; Lance Cousins did not disagree whan I made this point to him; my understanding is that the naga story is predominant in the Tibetan tradition; in the Chinese tradition Mahayana teachings were said to have been handed down secretly from teacher to pupil until Nagarjuna; I understand that some early Chinese translations mentioned in later sources do not survive and it has been suggested that some of them may never have existed; some others may be later than alleged; and one must additionally distinguish between Mahayana and its precursors. However, I'm not claiming this is a generally accepted view among scholars. Back on Councils, I'd point out that, according to the 'Dictionary of Comparative Religion', ed SGF Brandon (following '2500 Years of Buddhism', ed PV Bapat), the different Theravada countries have different lists of Councils, the one followed in this article being the Burmese one. I haven't got too much time for this. There seem to be a very large number of interlinked, overlapping, contradictory articles on Buddhism, so I'm focusing on what I know best, the Pali Canon. Peter jackson 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is true I think, every country of Theravadin tradition has different numbers of Buddhist Councils, some 'councils' were held later in one country, and the other countries were not involved. But I think up until the fourth council here is agreement among the countries of the Theravadin tradition, it's their common source. After that it starts to differ. But practically these different councils came together again in the 'Sixth Council' in Burma in the 1950's, where a common version of the Pali Canon was agreed upon, and it was called the sixth council there. (The question is, where is this common version now?) Greetings, Sacca 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure from memory that according to the sources I mentioned the Thais recognize a Council in Ceylon shortly after the Third so the Fourth is for them the Fifth. As you say, every Theravada country took part in the Sixth Council, though not every nikaya, and it called itself the Sixth. The question you raise is certainly an interesting one. I hadn't come across the Thai allegations in the main article before. I see there they are basing their text on early editions. However, Lance Cousins told me that Ananda Maitreya told him that the early editions themselves differed from the text agreed in the editing committees. He also told me there are at least four different "Sixth Council" editions that have been published in Burma. I've discovered some differences myself, in particular between the VRI transcript and the text followed in the Nalanda edition. It looks like we'll never be sure what the Council said (unless someone took a sound recording, which I've never come across any mention of).

However, we seem to be getting sidetracked. My fault. I have this tendency to throw ideas around. Fascinating though discussion of ideas can be, it's not what we're here for, is it? Our job is to collate what has been said in reputable publications. So, to return to the original issue, I have a citation: Harvey, 'Introduction to Buddhism', Cambridge University Press, 1990, page 86, ascribes Kanishka's Council to the Sarvastivada; no mention of Mahayana. Any other offers? Peter jackson 09:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stephen Hodge pointed this out before already. Maybe it wasn't integrated in the text yet. 10:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. What we're supposed to be doing here (see Wikipedia guidelines) is not just make unsupported assertions but cite reputable sources. In the case of Buddhism that means scholarly works published by reputable academic publishers. Buddhist propaganda, i.e. most of what you come across, is evidence only of its authors' views. Peter jackson 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another citation: Warder, Indian Buddhism, 2nd edn, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1980, pages 345f, says the same. How many more do we need? Peter jackson 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also want to do more about the Buddhist Councils articles, a lot of the info in these articles is just popular misconceptions. We can work together on this. Greetings, Sacca 15:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The first known Mahayana texts are translations made into Chinese by the Kushan monk Lokaksema in the Chinese capital of Luoyang, between 178 and 189 CE. Lokaksema's work includes the translation of the Pratyutpanna Sutra, containing the first known mentions of the Buddha Amitabha and his Pure Land, said to be at the origin of Pure Land practice in China, and the first known translations of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, a founding text of Mahayana Buddhism. The fact that translations of highly evolved Mahayana texts at that time (180 CE) were already made as far away as China is usually considered as one of the main indications that Mahayana had already been existing for quite a while. Its inception is usually dated to the 1st century BCE. PHG 19:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. Peter jackson 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Since giving the above citations, I've found a different one. Lamotte, Teaching of Vimalakirti, page XCIII, says Kanishka's council is entirely fictitious. Peter jackson 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised Sections for 2nd & 3rd Councils
Well done, whoever you are ! These sections are far more balanced and accurate, better reflecting modern scholarship on these two Councils. I have now accordingly removed the "accuracy tags" which I posted previously. All we need to do is to revise the section on the 4th (Kanishkan) Council. Would you also be prepared to similarly revise the main articles for these two Councils ? --Stephen Hodge 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Stephen, we meet again... I have attempted a little on these Councils; this is my first foray into the world of Wiki, so i am a novice at formatting, providing links, citing references, etc. Any help with these is appreciated. I have added a few references at the bottom of the page, but i don't know the proper way to format them. I have made a few changes today, mostly after i read the Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy, so i took out a few of my own ideas. I think any attempt at synthesizing the various accounts is so complex and dubious it is probably best just to summarize the sources. Perhaps there could be a little more information about the various sources, or perhaps this is best done through internal links. I haven't done any research on the fourth (Kanishka) council, though you are obviously correct that there is no connection between this council and the Mahayana. I might, however, do something on the First Council: the account so far is ok, but could do with some improvement and expansion. Sujato.

Fifth Council
In fact the inscriptions were made before the Council, and perhaps corrected there: Bollée, "Some lesser known Burmese Pali texts", in Heesterman, Pratidanam(Kuiper festschrift), 493-9. Peter jackson 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Councils
Here's the list of Theravada-recognized Councils according to 'Dictionary of Comparative Religion', ed SGF Brandon, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1970. The article Councils, Buddhist, is by Trevor Ling and based on one in '2500 Years of Buddhism', ed PV Bapat. (1)-(3) See main article. (4) (Thai list) Anuradhapura, c 220 BC. (4) (Burmese & Sinhalese) = (5) (Thai) See main article. Ling dates this c 90 BC, following the high chronology. (6) (Thai) Ceylon, 27 BC; could this be a doublet: the previous one in the low chronology? (7) (Thai) Ceylon, 1044. (8) (Thai) Chiengmai, 1477. (9) (Thai) Bangkok, 1788. (5) (Sinhalese) Ratnapura, 1865. (5) (Burmese) See main article. (6) (Burmese & Sinhalese) = (10) (Thai) See main article. Peter jackson 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting list, with a new fifth sri lankan council and many thai-recognized councils in Sri Lanka. I think I heard before about the 1788 council in Thailand, which maybe is the 'equivalent' of the fifth Sri Lankan and fifth Burmese councils. I think the 1044 council is probably derived from the Theravada renaissance in Sri Lanka, after a century of warfare after which Theravada Buddhism was re-introduced from southern india. I would also suspect the 27 BC council would be a doublet. We need more info to really make this into an article. Maybe the alternative thai councils could be made into one article, and the fifth Sri Lankan article added to Fifth Buddhist Council?Thanks and Greetings, Sacca 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the Bapat book sometime when I have time and see whether it has much of use to say, whether it can be treated as a reputable authority and whether it cites any further sources. At the moment it's more a matter of amending the existing article; new ones can come later. Peter jackson 10:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked this up. The Thai source cited gives (6) above as the council at which Buddhaghosa compiled the commentaries. If there was such a council, it was centuries later. Peter jackson 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1st council
The section on this is unacceptable: it treats this council as unquestioned historical fact when some (many) scholars regard it as fictitious. Peter jackson 09:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Never heard about the fictitiousness of it, I'd like to hear what they base their argument on. Are these the same scholars that think the Buddha did not exist? Greetings, Sacca 02:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, probably the ones who also argue that Jesus and/or Muhammad did not exist. While we're at it, let's argue Columbus did not exist. Zazaban 22:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's look at it from the other perspective. What evidence is there that the 1st Council is historical.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vinaya Pitaka has a record of it somewhere I believe. Zazaban 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No doubt, but I mean evidence other than that. Particularly, is there any evidence outside of Buddhist scripture?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are accounts of this council in reports from several early schools, I think all (6) existing vinaya recensions (from 6 different schools) have a report on this first council. Let's get back to the scholars that peter jackson mentioned: what do they base their argument on? who are they? Maybe Peter could give an answer to this? Greetings, Sacca 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As Sacca is probably aware (but correct me if I'm wrong here) the various vinayas have a considerable level of overlap, meaning that they were at some point written by the same person or by a group of people working in collaboration with each other. This being the case, six rescensions of the vinaya cannot be considered six different sources of information. They are one source.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So because it's scripture it's automatically invalid? That's an incredibally slanted view isn't it? Zazaban 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

mention in the jain scriptures also, and maybe some mention of the first counc
 * Agreed, Zazaban. I have never heard Nat's reasoning before. Surely, for all purposes, they are different sources of information. AND they most probably were derived from the same 'mother' source. Anway, it becomes a bit like Jesus: how many early (original) non-christian scriptures are there telling about his life? Very little or none, I think. And about Buddha: how many early non-buddhist scriptures are there about Buddha's life? The earliest Buddhist scriptures mentioning about Buddha are the same scriptures as that talk about the first buddhist council: the sutta-pitaka and the vinaya-pitaka. Any mention of Buddha in later scriptures or in the very physical texts of the edicts of Asoka are based on these earliest scriptures. There might be some il could be found with the jains.


 * The first council is actually mentioned not just in the six vinaya-pitakas only, but in the sutta-pitakas also: stories revolving around Ananda and Maha-Kassapa just after the Buddha's passing away. So let's just wait for somebody to really give the names of the 'scholars' and their reasonings before dealing with these speculative theories any further.Greetings, Sacca 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not so much the idea that there was some kind of meeting soon after the Buddha's death that is in question. What is considered dubious is what is supposed to have happened at this so-called Council -- the idea the the whole Tripitaka was compiled then.  If you want a good starting point, try reading Andre Bareau's  Les Premieres Councilles Bouddique.  He mentions other scholars who propose that the First Council is legendary and concurs with them.  As far as I know, no reputable scholar today insists that the Vinaya accounts are accurate.--Stephen Hodge 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this, Stephen Hodge. As for Zazaban's comment, "So because it's scripture it's automatically invalid? That's an incredibally slanted view isn't it?"; I find this rather ironic, because I didn't say that it's invalid, and so it seems kind of slanted to imply that I did. When I asked my initial question, "What evidence is there that the 1st Council is historical?", I figured it was a given that the 1st Council is described in Buddhist scripture, so I was looking for some other evidence in addition to that.

Sacca: if the vinayas do, in fact, all derive from the same mother source, then they are not separate sources of information about the council. They do not independently confirm it; they only confirm that the mother source asserted it. If it is, in fact, the case that the First Council is mentioned at numerous points in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas, then that is somewhat more reliable than a single reference, insofar as it implies that the 1st Council was most likely not inserted into the text at a late stage of the composition of the canon. But this still constitutes only one source.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Stephen, I think you are right, I have read some discussions on this also. Nat, I can remember various instances where the first council is mentioned in the Suttapitaka. You can find some references to the first council in the discriptions of the lives of ananda and maha kassapa, in the BPS-publications by helmut hecker (you can find these on access to insight). Greetings, Sacca 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

''The first, which most modern scholars do not accept as historical, was reputedly held at Rajagrha (modern Rajgir), India, during the first rainy season after the Buddha's death, to compile his remembered words, including the sutras and monastic rules. The second, which is accepted as historical, met more than a century later at Vaisali, India,Buddhist councils'', Britannica Concise --JLCA 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a while since I looked at this page, but the discussion seems to have proceeded well enough without me. I might add that I don't think the council is mentioned in the suttapitaka, the Pali version, that is. The mention of it in all traditions strongly suggests the story goes back before the first schism, though Schopen questions all such arguments. Peter jackson 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)