Archaeological records (evidence) of First and Second Buddhist Councils?

Early Buddhism History

From the handouts we find the sources of First and Second Buddhist Council.

Sources of First Buddhist Councils are:
(1) Cullavagga of Vinaya Pitaka
It does not mention where the venue took place.
(2) Buddhaghosa's Samantapasadika. The location was Sattapanni Cave of Vebhara mountain at Rajagaha.
(3) Sumangalavilasani (Dighanikaya commentary)
(4) Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa (the chronicles of Sri Lanka)
(5) Tibetan Dulva. The venue took place at Nyagrodha cave.
(6) Mahavastu (the Vinaya of Lokottaravadins). Elder Katyayana presided over the council, and Dasabhumi had been discussed.

Sources of Second Buddhist Council are:
(1) Sattasatikkhandaka, the last chapter of Cullavagga. Its location was Valikarama of Vesali.
(2) Samantapasadika and Dipavamsa. King Kalasoka, son of Susunagam reigned when second council took place.
(3) Mahavastu, the Vinaya of Mahisasaka.

Most of the sources came from Pali traditions. I want to know whether we have other archaeological records (physical evidence, not-written) such as temples, statues, inscriptions (on stone), edicts, or other forms that proved the existence of First and Second Buddhist Councils?

Mahendra

Email this page

#1Submitted by Suan Bee on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 21:44.

Archaeological evidence of the Buddhist Councils

This is regarding the archaeological evidence regarding the venue for First and Second Buddhist Councils. The cave found in Bihar by the name Saptaparni is the historical evidence archaeologically but some people who visited there say that it seems impossible to hold such a great event there. This does not match with the record in the scriptures.

#2Submitted by Mahendradatta Jayadi on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 16:56.

Article on First and Second Buddhist Councils

I have found one journal article on this matter.

Prebish, C. S. (1974). A Review of Scholarship on the Buddhist Councils. The Journal of Asian Studies, 33(2), 239-254.

The first council at Rajagrha was recorded in Vinaya accounts. However, researchers have concluded that council was not an historical event.

The second council at Vaisali. The scholars agreed that the ten points (dasa vattthuni)of the Vajji-monks were responsible for the first great schism.

I think the first council as a reminder for buddhists, that Dhamma and Vinaya should be preserved and handed down in pure and clear formats. The Sangha should exist for long to disseminate the Buddha's teaching. That's why the event was recorded in Vinaya accounts.

#3Submitted by Gregory Hamilto... on Sat, 12/05/2015 - 00:30.