Amituofo.
I read the note related to Development of Buddhist Order. It mentioned about Mahadeva. The 5 points of doctrine advanced by Mahadeva may have added to the controversy surrounding the first schism.
May I know who is Mahadeva? Does Mahadeva an Arhat or a scholar or other?
I have just finished the exam and written an essay on Mahadeva (which could/may land me in a lot of trouble) writing on such controversial subject.After reading the comments, and going through some historical points, I would like to point out that in my personal opinion, most text have really quoted the point out of context. Maybe after the end of the exams, and if I get permission from the lecturer, I would love to share some findings on this subject.
In any case, I would like to thank you for your question that prompted further research into this topic.
Thank you.
Loong Ching.
#2Submitted by Wong Loong Ching on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 23:17.
Back from busy schedule and doing a bit more research. I will answer your question in a bit more detail.If you refer to Hirokawa page 82 (extracted and attached), you will see the mention of the Mahadeva in the first/second schism.
I will continue this discussion quoting T2031 from the Chinese canon.
Firstly, there maybe two Mahadeva. One in the first schism. The source did not state this Mahadeva's position.But he mentioned the five points which became the early basis for schism.
After four hundred years (or six), the T2031 from the Chinese Canon states that Mahadeva is a Brahmin convert (into Buddhism), which probably is a member of the sangha
The Caityavada school originated with the teacher Mahadeva towards the close of the second century after the parinirvana of the Buddha. He is to be distinguished from the Mahadeva who was responsible for the origin of the Mahasanghikas.
from "2500 years of Buddhism" (p 117)(http://korat.ibc.ac.th/files/private/2500%20Years%20of%20Buddhism.pdf):
#4Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 09:15.
Yes, Mahadeva was a Brahmin from Mathura who has a charismatic character and a strong leader of the Mahasamghikas. He was a Mahathera (senior monks) but as an arahant, there was no mention of it. Most likely he was not, as he was the one who lower the status of an arahant by mentioning the five points.
#6Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 18:41.
Sorry as I use Wikipedia a lot as a first and quick reference. The reference for Mahadeva is as follows;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahadeva_(Buddhism)
I do have a bit of doubt on this notoriety, as for a member of the sangha to actually be able to have considerable influence, he would need to be a significant figure (such as a Arhat). Note that during the first council, it is indicated that ALL members are arhats. For Mahadeva to be painted in such negativity, and still be able to persuade the majority of the sangha is highly unlikely.
My guess is he is a senior member of the sangha. Further reading on the schism and historical findings shows that the Mahāsāṃghikas' vinaya to be a more unaltered form than the sthaviras.
Any comments by members of the forum is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Wonh
#8Submitted by Fong Seong Soo on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 23:05.
Mahadeva was mentioned twice in the chapter 6 The Development of the Buddhist Order.
According to Sarvastivadin sources, Mahadeva preached the ‘five points” causing the schism between the Sthavira and Mahasanghika schools.
These “five points” were about the five weaknesses of Arahants accepted by Mahadeva as follows:
a) An Arahant may have temptation
b) An Arahant may have the ignorance
c) An Arahant may have doubt on doctrinal matters
d) An Arahant attain Arahantship with the help of others
e) An Arahant attain the Arahantship with by an exclamation of ‘Aho’.
Thease could ne the additional reasons cause the schism among the monks in the 2nd council, besides the “then points” accepted by Vajjin monks.
It was mentioned in the first council that 500 monks who were the member council were Arahants.
It was also mentioned by Cullavagga that the second council help at Valukarama of Vesali with the participation of thousand Arahants.
The views given by Mahadeva were accepted by majorities of monks that split out as Mahasanghikas after the second council. Mahadeva could be one out of the thousand Arahants.
According to Southern (Sri Lankan) tradition, missionaries from the Buddhist order were sent to various lands during the reign of Asoka at the recommendation of Moggaliputta Tissa, after the post council stage of third council. Mahadeva was one of the distinguished monks sent to Mahisamandala and preached the Devadutasutta.
I think Mahadeva who preached the “five points” and the Mahadeva who was dispatched as a missionary by Monggaliputta Tissa was two different person because the former took place during second council, while the latter was at third council.
with metta,
FS
#9Submitted by Denis Wallez on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 21:38.
FYI, "2500 years of Buddhism" (link in another message below) gives (p99):
a) an Arhat may commit a sin by unconscious temptation.
b) One may be an Arhat and not know it.
d) One cannot attain Arhatship without a teacher.
I believe the nuances are important.
a) "unconscious" suggests the temptation doesn't reach awareness... and so it is quite funny to talk of 'sin' while one could question if there is any kamma attached (kamma supposes volitional act hence awareness, doesn't it?).
b) Ignorance is very connoted term in Buddhism... reducing it to not realising that one is a Arhat is clearly not the usual meaning.
d) this statement obviously meets a difficulty with Gotama himself... unless you take it that he had a Buddha teacher himself many many lives ago, when he resolved to become a Buddha "by himself" for the benefit of all.
Anyway, simply wanted to call your attention on a different formulation of the "5 points" which I found interesting.
#10Submitted by Fong Seong Soo on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 14:12.
Thanks for the link. It is another useful reference sources for History of Indian Buddhism.
I agree with you the nuances are important because it gives different impressions and interpretations. The scholar has added more details for the temptation. The scholar may not a Buddhist.
Anywhere, the key word remained: Arahant may have temptation.
(b) One may be an Arahant and not know it.
I interpret as: One may be an Arhant and do know the temptation.
If so, then it is quite similar to an Arahant may have the ignorance.
I’m very curious about the situations of Arahants (the behaviors) after 100 years of Buddha Parinibbana that led Ven Mahadeva came to these 5 points. Further more, 10000 monks who are looking for more relaxation of stringent Vanay rules supported him. Assuming that the 10000 monks also accepted these 5 points.
The situations of Arahant at that time probably mentioned in the Kathavatthuppakarana compiled by Ven Moggaluputta Tissa rejecting Mahasanghikas’ views.
With my poor knowledge about the Arahant, I think a person has these 5 points characteristics has not yet achieved the Arahantship.
with much metta,
FS
#11Submitted by Denis Wallez on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 00:07.
You interpret this as "One may be an Arhant and do know the temptation. If so, then it is quite similar to an Arahant may have the ignorance." Another interpretation might be very different though (and avoid simply reformulating the point on temptation a second time):
Nibbana is unconditioned. It is in particular not conditioned by a particular path. While the eightfold path gives us the opportunity to realise Nibbana, such realisation is not automatic (simply seeing on these forums how people debate that thousands of monks might have not achieved arahantship only a few decades after Gotama's death should make it clear). Moreover, one needs to free himself/herself from everything including the doctrine (cf. the raft simile) in order to be liberated. Attachment to ideas and doctrines is still attachment. So it is easy to imagine that one may be free without knowing it, simply by coming at it without following the eightfold path. I guess, when one follows the eightfold path, it becomes clear when the last attachment is dropped. But since that path is not a condition for Nibbana, we cannot assume it's the case for all enlightened beings.
One has to remember what Nibbana is and isn't. If you define it by the exit of the cycle of rebirth (thanks to non-attachment, as clinging is a condition for rebirth), then one doesn't need to extinguish ignorance, see the three characteristics as such, etc. One only needs to stop clinging. It is likely that such arahant would have some intuitive understanding of the three characteristics, little doubt about this, but he might not know the particular formulation we use, he might express the Truth with different words, with a different approach...
My understanding is that it is this interpretation which gave birth to Mahayana schools and their multiple, very diverse, approaches. You need then to be extremely careful about your judgement on who is an arahant or not, as you're projecting your particular school on the others. Your school is legitimate, I don't doubt this, but it's very dangerous to assume it's the only legitimate one (that is a pretty strong ideological attachment, not even looking at the "pride" of being from the "right" school...).
Realisation of Nibbana is what counts, not how you came to realise it.
#12Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 19:13.
For me, the Buddha have preached and personally supervised the Sangha, where their aim was to achieve Arahantship.
To think less of the Ven Sariraputra, Ven Mahamoggalana or the other arahant due to technical argument is incorrect. However, the technical/scholarly pursuits and the spiritual path sometimes does clash.
To dwell in this would be incorrect, as it is our duty as Buddhist to strive for enlightenment, and the 5 point of weakness should not hamper us in our quest to the end.
Regards,
Wong
#14Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 13:07.
Yes, Mahadeva who was mentioned as the founder of the Mahasamghikas School and Mahadeva who was the missionary sent to Mahisamandala by Emperor Asoka are two completely different historical figure.
#16Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 13:45.
Amituofo.
Thank you very much for detail sharing by Sis Fong Seong.
I am not sure exactly the time gap between 2nd and 3rd Buddhist Council. However Moggaliputta Tissa was Asoka's teacher. In this case, may be it was the same person of Mahadeva if the time gap between 2nd and 3rd Buddhist Council was not too big.
How long the time different between 2nd and 3rd Buddhist Council?
With metta,
gaik yen
#17Submitted by Suan Bee on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 15:32.
If we take the Buddha's birth date to be 563 to 483 B.C., the Second Buddhist Council was held 100 years after the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana which is calculated as 383 B.C.
The Third Buddhist Council was convened in Asokarama at Pataliputra in 205 B.C.
#18Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 17:08.
Dear Sis Suan Bee,
Thank you very much for providing the date on Buddhist council.
Look like the date of the council meeting was different, different text / reference book may slightly has different date.
According to the note from IBC elearning, it states following:
268-232 B.C.E. --- Reign of King Asoka of India, who converted to Buddhism and become an important patron of the religion. Asoka is said to have sent out missionaries to various lands after holding a Buddhist Conucil at Pataliputra.
With metta,
gaik yen
#19Submitted by Sergio Zenere on Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:57.
different dates are given in research for Gautama Buddha's death. 949 BCE, 881 BCE, 486 BCE, 368 BCE, are all dates different authentic Buddhist traditions present as the 'historical' date of Gautama Buddha's death. A cursory exam of popular Google Books reveals countless possible dates for Buddha's death proposed in research: 544 BCE, 487 BCE, 483 BCE, 477 BCE, 468 BCE, 384 BCE. The same issue persists regarding other great founders of world religions such as Jesus (according to astronomical alignment, he might have been born around 8 BCE; or some say 6 CE), whom some see as an (Hebrew) sage, possibly linked to the rabbinical tradition as Yehoshua Ben Pandira, a disciple of noted Rabbi Ben Perachia who started his ministry in 154 BCE.According to some sources, Ben Pandira's life shares some high points with that of the conventional Jesus, notably ministry, a violent death at the hands of a Jewish mob under Queen Alexandra in 70 BCE, and an earlier flight to Egypt; other sources may criticize and/or discard any or all the above. Or such as Zoroaster.It is highly interesting to note how ancient historiographers such as Diogenes Laertius (III century CE) and Pliny the Elder (I century) situated Zoroaster between the year 6.200 and 6.400 BCE. Scholarly dates differ between XVIII and VI century BCE.
Regards
#20Submitted by Suan Bee on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:59.
The Indian historians are not very precise with dates. Different texts gave different dates. One examples is the birth date of the Buddha as we have read a few versions of Buddha's birth date.
King Asoka (304 to 232 B.C.) He lived for 72 years. The above date mentioned in the lecture notes is his Coronation date (268 - 232 B.C.) so he ruled for 36 years as an emperor.
#21Submitted by Denis Wallez on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 21:23.
"2500 years of Buddhism" ( http://korat.ibc.ac.th/files/private/2500%20Years%20of%20Buddhism.pdf ) provides
(p41) "The Second Council was held at Vaisali a century after the passing of the Master. The time recorded should be taken as a round number." (...)
(p44) "The Third Council was held at Pataliputra under the aegis of the celebrated Buddhist monarch, Priyadarsi Asoka." (...) [so far, so good] "According to Kern, the Third Council was not a general Council but a party meeting of the Sthaviravadins or Vibhajyavadins." [now, that becomes tricky because the Mahasangikhas also had their third Council... but that is not necessarily the same one!]
A key point I wanted to react to is that, although this was blessed by Asoka, it would seem that the missionary dispatch was launched by the elder Tissa, rather than Asoka. This is coherent with the Notes prepared by Prof. Dr. Kapila Abhayawansa (unit 3 "Post council stage" of BH6103: History of Indian Buddhism).
#22Submitted by Suan Bee on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:59.
It is correct that the Mahasamghikas also convened their own Council attended only by Mahasamghikas who were not happy that the Council could not reach an agreement. This Council is a totally different Council from the Third Buddhist Council.
The Mahasanghikas were a group of younger monks, liberal in their attitude and looking for new changes or development. They insisted that there were too many rules and later underwent new development. The Mahasamghikas is said to be the precursor of Mahayana movement through which Buddhism came to attract more people than it would have done otherwise.
The Stharviravadins were mostly the older group of monks, conservative with a respect for the elders. They refuse to change, stick to the main teachings of the Buddha and did not evolve.
As for the Third Buddhict Council, it was a general meeting of the Theravadins to bring discipline to the Sangha and to purify it by dispelling the heretical monks from the order.
Basically at every Buddhist Council, there is a patron (a king) and a president who works together with the king or under the guidance of the king. So it was Mongaliputta Tissa who launched the missionary work.
First Buddhist Council
Patron - King Ajatasattu. President Mahakassapa
Second Buddhist Council
Patron - King Kalasoka. President Sabbakami
Third Buddhist Council
Patron - King Asoka. President Mongaliputta Tissa
#23Submitted by Sow Gaik Yen on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 16:37.
Mahadeva
Dear Sister Gaik Yen,
I have just finished the exam and written an essay on Mahadeva (which could/may land me in a lot of trouble) writing on such controversial subject.After reading the comments, and going through some historical points, I would like to point out that in my personal opinion, most text have really quoted the point out of context. Maybe after the end of the exams, and if I get permission from the lecturer, I would love to share some findings on this subject.
In any case, I would like to thank you for your question that prompted further research into this topic.
Thank you.
Loong Ching.
Mahadeva
Dear Gaik Yen,
Back from busy schedule and doing a bit more research. I will answer your question in a bit more detail.If you refer to Hirokawa page 82 (extracted and attached), you will see the mention of the Mahadeva in the first/second schism.
I will continue this discussion quoting T2031 from the Chinese canon.
Firstly, there maybe two Mahadeva. One in the first schism. The source did not state this Mahadeva's position.But he mentioned the five points which became the early basis for schism.
如是傳聞。佛薄伽梵般涅槃後。百有餘年去聖時淹。如日久沒。摩竭陀國俱蘇摩城王號無憂。統攝贍部。感一白蓋。化洽人神。是時佛法大眾初破。謂因四眾共議大天五事不同。分為兩部。一大眾部。二上座部。四眾者何。一龍象眾。二邊鄙眾。三多聞眾。四大德眾。其五事者。如彼頌言。......
After four hundred years (or six), the T2031 from the Chinese Canon states that Mahadeva is a Brahmin convert (into Buddhism), which probably is a member of the sangha
後即於此第二百年。大眾部中流出三部。一一說部。二說出世部。三雞胤部。次後於此第二百年。大眾部中復出一部。名多聞部。次後於此第二百年。大眾部中更出一部。名說假部。第二百年滿時。有一出家外道。捨邪歸正。亦名大天。大眾部中出家受具。多聞精進。居制多山。與彼部僧重詳五事。
From this text, there may be more than 1 Mahadeva. Maybe a lecturer/admin can comment on this?
This is link to CBeta.org (online Tipitaka) for T2031
http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T49n2031_001
Regards,
Wong
two Mahadeva...
The Caityavada school originated with the teacher Mahadeva towards the close of the second century after the parinirvana of the Buddha. He is to be distinguished from the Mahadeva who was responsible for the origin of the Mahasanghikas.
from "2500 years of Buddhism" (p 117)(http://korat.ibc.ac.th/files/private/2500%20Years%20of%20Buddhism.pdf):
two Mahadeva
Much appreciated your sharing on the text for "2500 years of Buddhism". Thank you!
With metta,
gaik yen
Mahadeva
Yes, Mahadeva was a Brahmin from Mathura who has a charismatic character and a strong leader of the Mahasamghikas. He was a Mahathera (senior monks) but as an arahant, there was no mention of it. Most likely he was not, as he was the one who lower the status of an arahant by mentioning the five points.
Mahadeva
Dear Wong,
Thanks again for your sharing in both English and Mandarin.
Gan en.
With metta,
gaik yen
Mahadeva
Hi,
Sorry as I use Wikipedia a lot as a first and quick reference. The reference for Mahadeva is as follows;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahadeva_(Buddhism)
I do have a bit of doubt on this notoriety, as for a member of the sangha to actually be able to have considerable influence, he would need to be a significant figure (such as a Arhat). Note that during the first council, it is indicated that ALL members are arhats. For Mahadeva to be painted in such negativity, and still be able to persuade the majority of the sangha is highly unlikely.
My guess is he is a senior member of the sangha. Further reading on the schism and historical findings shows that the Mahāsāṃghikas' vinaya to be a more unaltered form than the sthaviras.
Any comments by members of the forum is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Wonh
Mahadeva
Dear All,
Mahadeva was mentioned twice in the chapter 6 The Development of the Buddhist Order.
According to Sarvastivadin sources, Mahadeva preached the ‘five points” causing the schism between the Sthavira and Mahasanghika schools.
These “five points” were about the five weaknesses of Arahants accepted by Mahadeva as follows:
a) An Arahant may have temptation
b) An Arahant may have the ignorance
c) An Arahant may have doubt on doctrinal matters
d) An Arahant attain Arahantship with the help of others
e) An Arahant attain the Arahantship with by an exclamation of ‘Aho’.
Thease could ne the additional reasons cause the schism among the monks in the 2nd council, besides the “then points” accepted by Vajjin monks.
It was mentioned in the first council that 500 monks who were the member council were Arahants.
It was also mentioned by Cullavagga that the second council help at Valukarama of Vesali with the participation of thousand Arahants.
The views given by Mahadeva were accepted by majorities of monks that split out as Mahasanghikas after the second council. Mahadeva could be one out of the thousand Arahants.
According to Southern (Sri Lankan) tradition, missionaries from the Buddhist order were sent to various lands during the reign of Asoka at the recommendation of Moggaliputta Tissa, after the post council stage of third council. Mahadeva was one of the distinguished monks sent to Mahisamandala and preached the Devadutasutta.
I think Mahadeva who preached the “five points” and the Mahadeva who was dispatched as a missionary by Monggaliputta Tissa was two different person because the former took place during second council, while the latter was at third council.
with metta,
FS
slight differences in translations?
FYI, "2500 years of Buddhism" (link in another message below) gives (p99):
a) an Arhat may commit a sin by unconscious temptation.
b) One may be an Arhat and not know it.
d) One cannot attain Arhatship without a teacher.
I believe the nuances are important.
a) "unconscious" suggests the temptation doesn't reach awareness... and so it is quite funny to talk of 'sin' while one could question if there is any kamma attached (kamma supposes volitional act hence awareness, doesn't it?).
b) Ignorance is very connoted term in Buddhism... reducing it to not realising that one is a Arhat is clearly not the usual meaning.
d) this statement obviously meets a difficulty with Gotama himself... unless you take it that he had a Buddha teacher himself many many lives ago, when he resolved to become a Buddha "by himself" for the benefit of all.
Anyway, simply wanted to call your attention on a different formulation of the "5 points" which I found interesting.
slightly differences in translations
Dear Dwallez,
Thanks for the link. It is another useful reference sources for History of Indian Buddhism.
I agree with you the nuances are important because it gives different impressions and interpretations. The scholar has added more details for the temptation. The scholar may not a Buddhist.
Anywhere, the key word remained: Arahant may have temptation.
(b) One may be an Arahant and not know it.
I interpret as: One may be an Arhant and do know the temptation.
If so, then it is quite similar to an Arahant may have the ignorance.
I’m very curious about the situations of Arahants (the behaviors) after 100 years of Buddha Parinibbana that led Ven Mahadeva came to these 5 points. Further more, 10000 monks who are looking for more relaxation of stringent Vanay rules supported him. Assuming that the 10000 monks also accepted these 5 points.
The situations of Arahant at that time probably mentioned in the Kathavatthuppakarana compiled by Ven Moggaluputta Tissa rejecting Mahasanghikas’ views.
With my poor knowledge about the Arahant, I think a person has these 5 points characteristics has not yet achieved the Arahantship.
with much metta,
FS
One may be an Arahant and not know it
You interpret this as "One may be an Arhant and do know the temptation. If so, then it is quite similar to an Arahant may have the ignorance." Another interpretation might be very different though (and avoid simply reformulating the point on temptation a second time):
Nibbana is unconditioned. It is in particular not conditioned by a particular path. While the eightfold path gives us the opportunity to realise Nibbana, such realisation is not automatic (simply seeing on these forums how people debate that thousands of monks might have not achieved arahantship only a few decades after Gotama's death should make it clear). Moreover, one needs to free himself/herself from everything including the doctrine (cf. the raft simile) in order to be liberated. Attachment to ideas and doctrines is still attachment. So it is easy to imagine that one may be free without knowing it, simply by coming at it without following the eightfold path. I guess, when one follows the eightfold path, it becomes clear when the last attachment is dropped. But since that path is not a condition for Nibbana, we cannot assume it's the case for all enlightened beings.
One has to remember what Nibbana is and isn't. If you define it by the exit of the cycle of rebirth (thanks to non-attachment, as clinging is a condition for rebirth), then one doesn't need to extinguish ignorance, see the three characteristics as such, etc. One only needs to stop clinging. It is likely that such arahant would have some intuitive understanding of the three characteristics, little doubt about this, but he might not know the particular formulation we use, he might express the Truth with different words, with a different approach...
My understanding is that it is this interpretation which gave birth to Mahayana schools and their multiple, very diverse, approaches. You need then to be extremely careful about your judgement on who is an arahant or not, as you're projecting your particular school on the others. Your school is legitimate, I don't doubt this, but it's very dangerous to assume it's the only legitimate one (that is a pretty strong ideological attachment, not even looking at the "pride" of being from the "right" school...).
Realisation of Nibbana is what counts, not how you came to realise it.
Arahant
Dear all,
Just to share my thoughts.
I feel sad after reading the 5 points weaknesses on Arahant provided by Ven. Mahadeva.
To me, Arahant is great achievement respected by me.
Your sister in the dharma,
gaik yen
Arahant
Dear Gaik Yen,
For me, the Buddha have preached and personally supervised the Sangha, where their aim was to achieve Arahantship.
To think less of the Ven Sariraputra, Ven Mahamoggalana or the other arahant due to technical argument is incorrect. However, the technical/scholarly pursuits and the spiritual path sometimes does clash.
To dwell in this would be incorrect, as it is our duty as Buddhist to strive for enlightenment, and the 5 point of weakness should not hamper us in our quest to the end.
Regards,
Wong
Arahant
Dear Wong,
Thanks for your sharing. Amituofo.
May all sentients being achieve Enlightenment.
Your sister in the dharma,
gaik yen
Mahadeva
Yes, Mahadeva who was mentioned as the founder of the Mahasamghikas School and Mahadeva who was the missionary sent to Mahisamandala by Emperor Asoka are two completely different historical figure.
Mahadeva
Dear Sis Fong Seong and dharma friends,
Amituofo.
Thank you very much for detail sharing by Sis Fong Seong.
I am not sure exactly the time gap between 2nd and 3rd Buddhist Council. However Moggaliputta Tissa was Asoka's teacher. In this case, may be it was the same person of Mahadeva if the time gap between 2nd and 3rd Buddhist Council was not too big.
How long the time different between 2nd and 3rd Buddhist Council?
With metta,
gaik yen
Mahadeva
If we take the Buddha's birth date to be 563 to 483 B.C., the Second Buddhist Council was held 100 years after the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana which is calculated as 383 B.C.
The Third Buddhist Council was convened in Asokarama at Pataliputra in 205 B.C.
The date of Buddhist Council
Dear Sis Suan Bee,
Thank you very much for providing the date on Buddhist council.
Look like the date of the council meeting was different, different text / reference book may slightly has different date.
According to the note from IBC elearning, it states following:
268-232 B.C.E. --- Reign of King Asoka of India, who converted to Buddhism and become an important patron of the religion. Asoka is said to have sent out missionaries to various lands after holding a Buddhist Conucil at Pataliputra.
With metta,
gaik yen
different dates
different dates are given in research for Gautama Buddha's death. 949 BCE, 881 BCE, 486 BCE, 368 BCE, are all dates different authentic Buddhist traditions present as the 'historical' date of Gautama Buddha's death. A cursory exam of popular Google Books reveals countless possible dates for Buddha's death proposed in research: 544 BCE, 487 BCE, 483 BCE, 477 BCE, 468 BCE, 384 BCE. The same issue persists regarding other great founders of world religions such as Jesus (according to astronomical alignment, he might have been born around 8 BCE; or some say 6 CE), whom some see as an (Hebrew) sage, possibly linked to the rabbinical tradition as Yehoshua Ben Pandira, a disciple of noted Rabbi Ben Perachia who started his ministry in 154 BCE.According to some sources, Ben Pandira's life shares some high points with that of the conventional Jesus, notably ministry, a violent death at the hands of a Jewish mob under Queen Alexandra in 70 BCE, and an earlier flight to Egypt; other sources may criticize and/or discard any or all the above. Or such as Zoroaster.It is highly interesting to note how ancient historiographers such as Diogenes Laertius (III century CE) and Pliny the Elder (I century) situated Zoroaster between the year 6.200 and 6.400 BCE. Scholarly dates differ between XVIII and VI century BCE.
Regards
Mahadeva
The Indian historians are not very precise with dates. Different texts gave different dates. One examples is the birth date of the Buddha as we have read a few versions of Buddha's birth date.
King Asoka (304 to 232 B.C.) He lived for 72 years. The above date mentioned in the lecture notes is his Coronation date (268 - 232 B.C.) so he ruled for 36 years as an emperor.
king Asoka or elder Tissa?
"2500 years of Buddhism" ( http://korat.ibc.ac.th/files/private/2500%20Years%20of%20Buddhism.pdf ) provides
(p41) "The Second Council was held at Vaisali a century after the passing of the Master. The time recorded should be taken as a round number." (...)
(p44) "The Third Council was held at Pataliputra under the aegis of the celebrated Buddhist monarch, Priyadarsi Asoka." (...) [so far, so good] "According to Kern, the Third Council was not a general Council but a party meeting of the Sthaviravadins or Vibhajyavadins." [now, that becomes tricky because the Mahasangikhas also had their third Council... but that is not necessarily the same one!]
A key point I wanted to react to is that, although this was blessed by Asoka, it would seem that the missionary dispatch was launched by the elder Tissa, rather than Asoka. This is coherent with the Notes prepared by Prof. Dr. Kapila Abhayawansa (unit 3 "Post council stage" of BH6103: History of Indian Buddhism).
King Asoka or Elder Tissa
It is correct that the Mahasamghikas also convened their own Council attended only by Mahasamghikas who were not happy that the Council could not reach an agreement. This Council is a totally different Council from the Third Buddhist Council.
The Mahasanghikas were a group of younger monks, liberal in their attitude and looking for new changes or development. They insisted that there were too many rules and later underwent new development. The Mahasamghikas is said to be the precursor of Mahayana movement through which Buddhism came to attract more people than it would have done otherwise.
The Stharviravadins were mostly the older group of monks, conservative with a respect for the elders. They refuse to change, stick to the main teachings of the Buddha and did not evolve.
As for the Third Buddhict Council, it was a general meeting of the Theravadins to bring discipline to the Sangha and to purify it by dispelling the heretical monks from the order.
Basically at every Buddhist Council, there is a patron (a king) and a president who works together with the king or under the guidance of the king. So it was Mongaliputta Tissa who launched the missionary work.
First Buddhist Council
Patron - King Ajatasattu. President Mahakassapa
Second Buddhist Council
Patron - King Kalasoka. President Sabbakami
Third Buddhist Council
Patron - King Asoka. President Mongaliputta Tissa
Mahadeva
Dear Wong,
Thank you very much for your sharing and response.
With metta,
gaik yen