The Riddle of the First Buddhist Council- A Retrospection

佛教第一結集的記載，在小品 ( Cuffamgga ) XI，以及其他律藏譯本的相對應部分都有提及。這篇論文將討論與此吹結集有關的一些問題，特別是,第一結集到底是傳說，抑或是歷史事實的問題。oldenberg 指出「小品」( Cullauagga ) XI.1 的某些部分，在討論佛陀涅槃的消息，及比丘對此消息的不同反應時，與〈大般涅槃經〉( 以下簡稱 MPS ) 的某些章節是宇句不差的；但是，MPS 對於「小品」中所記載的，為了合誦「法」與「律」而舉行結集的提議，以及有關此次結集的其他事件，卻隻宇未提。由於 MPS 對此部分隻宇未提，使 Oldenberg 下結論說，合誦以及所有與此合誦有緊密關係的事件，都應被視為虛構的故事；且「小小戒」及闡那比丘的事件，只不過是採取 MPS 中已有資料，而添加的想像罷了。很明顯的，Oldenberg 認為 MPS 的這部分是較早的作品，「小品J 則是於稍後加以仿製或發揮而成。而且，在較晚的「小品」中，無論發現任何其他資料，他總是毫不猶豫地將之歸為想像的領域如：Poussin 指出整個「小品」XI，根據Oldenberg 的說法，是一個偽造的案例。Poussin 拒絕追隨 Oldenberg 的線索；他指出，一個學說的形成，若僅基於經典沒有記載的話，最多只不過是假設罷了，決不能以此來證明任何事情；因此，Poussin 嘗試由不間的觀點來研究這個問題；他同意 Minayeff 的說法，相信「小品」XI 是由較早及較晚的兩種傳統，複雜地骰饒而成，且這兩種傳統彼此互相矛盾。合誦是屬於較晚傳統，與「小小戒」及向阿難舉罪等較早傳統的事件矛盾，因此，被認為是一種傳說。Poussin 對於不同事件之矛盾，給予了不同的理由；例如，向阿難舉罪，顯示阿羅漢概念在當時的佛教，尚未發展為被接受的觀念；而「小小戒」的事件，使我們暸解到當時正式的律文仍然處於尚未固定的狀態。另一方面，由五百阿羅漢合誦「法」與「律」的情形，顯示當時僧團完全接受的律文，已經是一般的常識；已成形的阿羅漢概念，是一種被大家所接受的觀念；闡那、阿難及「小小戒」的事件，其有很古老的特性，且可能被認為是淵源較早的真正傳統。Minayeff 以「小小戒」的事件為律的傳統的核心，然而 Poussin 認為向阿難舉過的故事是古代核心，據此而發展為律的記載。Poussin 主張聞那、阿難等事件屬於較早的傳統，且與合誦的較晚傳統相矛盾的論點僅是一種假設，投有任何已知的傳統能支持此種假設。此外事實上較小品( Cuffamgga ) 還晚成立的 MPS，未提及第一結集，亦不構成任何問題；因為在最早期，有關「法」與「羯磨」的資料，形成了兩種相互不相容的分類，這可解釋為何屬於「羯磨」分類的合誦的記載，在 MPS 這屬於「法」的文獻中，找不到任何陳述。因此，支持合誦「法」與「律」是傳說的論點，是站不住腳的；另一方面，我們有非常正面的理由，來證實「小品」XI 的大部分記載，包括合誦的敘述,是歷史的事實。在現有六種律藏中，一致記載的所有傳統諸如合誦及本文所討論的一些事件，是屬於佛教教團未分裂的最早期傳統，這種傳統十分接近合誦及其他事件發生的時間；像這樣的一種傳統，具有讓人相信其為歷史的理由，除非有同樣強的證據來反駁它；而且，合誦的傳統也其有很古老的特性；由這個傳統的研習而興起的律的定義，很可能溯回到佛陀在世時。由於對某些資料，或多或少的主觀反應而反對此傳統，是十分不合理的。和羯磨有關的「法」與「律」的合誦、「小小戒」、闡那、向阿難舉罪等，都應該被認為是歷史的事實。

關鍵字

無資料

並列摘要

An account of the First Buddhist Council has been given in the Cullavagga XI as well as in the corresponding sections of the other Vinaya versions. The present paper deals with certain problems related to this Council, especially the problems of this account being legendary or historical. Oldenberg pointed out that some parts of the Cullavagga XLI agrees verbatim with certain section of the Mahaparinibbanasutta that deals with the news of the death of the Buddha and the diverse reactions of the monks to -this news. But the MPS is silent about the Cullavagga account of the proposal to hold a Council in order to chant the dharma and vinaya, and other episodes related to this Council. This silence on the part of the MPS led Oldenberg to conclude that the chanting together with all the incidents inseparably connected with it are to be regarded as myth. Moreover the episodes of the 'khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani' and the monk Channa are nothing but imaginary continuation of the data already given in the MPs. It is obvious that Oldenberg thinks that portions of the MPS which is an earlier work, were either copied or elaborated later by the Cullavagga. And whatever extra material is found in the later work of the Cullavagga, is unhesitatingly assigned to the realm of fantasy. As Poussin puts it, the whole of the Cullavagga XI, according to Oldenberg, is a case of forgery. Poussin refuses to follow the lead of Oldenberg. He points out that a theory based on the silence of a text can never be anything more than a mere hypothesis, and so can never lead to anything tangible. Consequently Poussin tries to approach the problem from a different standpoint. He, following Minayeff, came to believe that the Cullavagga XI is an intricate mosaic of earlier and later traditions, and these two types of traditions contradict each other. The chanting, a tradition of later origin, is not in harmony with the earlier traditions of the episodes of the 'khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani' and the charges against Ananda, and, therefore, is to be regarded as a legend. Poussin gives different reasons for contradiction in different cases. The charges against Ananda show that the orthodoxy has not yet developed the concept of arhat, where; ls the episode of the 'khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani' takes us to a time when the official version of the 'vinaya' is still in a fluid state. On the other hand the chanting of the 'dharma' and 'vinaya' by five hundred arhats reveals a state of things where a complete canonical version of the 'vinaya' is already a matter of common knowledge, and the developed concept of arhat is an accepted dogma. The episodes of 'Channa, Ananda and the 'khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani' bear marks of great antiquity and may be accepted as genuine traditions of an earlier origin. Minayeff took the episode of 'khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani' as the core of the vinaya tradition while Po us sin regards the narration of the faults of Ananda as the ancient nucleus around which the vinaya account grew. The contention of Po us sin that the episodes of Channa, Ananda etc. belong to an earlier tradition and they contradict the later tradition of chanting has been shown to be mere assumption which cannot be supported by any known tradition. Moreover the non-mention of the First Council in the MPS which was actually composed later than the Cullavagga XI, also does not pose any problem. In the earliest period the materials concerning ‘dharma’ and 'krtya' formed two mutually exclusive categories. This would explain why the account of chanting which belong to the category of krtya finds no mention in the MPS which is a part of the 'dharma' literature. Thus the arguments in favour of the chanting of the dharma and vmaya being a legend are not tenable. On the other hand we have very positive grounds to accept the account of the Cullavagga XI including the narration of the chanting as history. All unanimous traditions mentioned in all the 6 Vinayas-vesions such as the chanting and the episodes discussed in this article belongs to the earliest strata of traditon known to the undivided Buddhist community and as such are quite near to the time when the chanting and other episodes occured. Such an early tradition has every right to be trusted as history unless there are equally strong evidences against it. Moreover the tradition of chanting also bears the mark of great antiquity. The definition of 'vinaya' which emerges from the study of this tradition most probably goes back to the time when the Buddha was alive. Its rejection which is more or less the result of subjective reaction to certain informations, would be quite contrary to reason. The krtyas regarding the chanting of 'dharma' and 'vinaya', the khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani, Channa and the charges against Ananda are all to be accepted as history. The problem of the First Council was first raised and discussed in detail by Minayeff in 1887. He thought that the chapter XI of the Cullavagga which contains an account of the First Council is riddled with contradictions, and rejected the episode of chanting of the dharma and vinaya as legend, for it was contradicted by traditions of earlier origin. His view as summarised by Poussin may be stated as follows: Minayeff puts aside as apocryphal or tendencious the history of the council in its official convocation and in its literary labours. But he retains as history or semi-historic the episodes of Subhadra, the Khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani, faults of Ananda, etc. Minayeff comes to this conclusion for he thinks that the account of the chanting of dharma and vinaya suffers from both incoherence and contradiction. He finds it incoherent when the CV speaks of the suggestion of Kassapa to the monks to chant together and next records that the monks request Kassapa to choose competent monks for chanting the dharma and vinaya; or when the CV first puts the decision of the monks to hold the council at Rajagṛha and then proceeds to record the same as an official resolution proposed by Kassapa and accepted by the Samgha. On the other hand, Minayeff sees contradiction between the drawing up of a complete canon and the episodes of Khudda nukhuddakani sikkhapadani, faults of Ananda, etc. It is also clear that the legendary account of the chanting of dharma and vinaya is of much later origin while the different episodes which are of historical nature, belong to an earlier tradition.