The Sangha and the Buddhist Path     MBI 104

                 Lesson 9

                                            The Second Council

About one hundred years after the First Council, we are told, a  Second Council was held to discuss some Vinaya rules that had been questioned. It is possible that what is called the Second Council may actually have been the Third Council, for the true Second may have been held in Vaisali, 60 years after Buddha’s death, and the following, which is most spoken about, may have actually been at Pataliputra, where Mahadeva maintained the five theses on the Arhat, which we will discuss in Unit 105, that led to the start of the Mahayana tradition.

In any case, the division of the Buddhist Sangha into two clear divisions over the details of the Vinaya probably occurred at the Council at Pataliputra, not at Vaisali.

When we say that there was a discussion over some of the rules, that makes it appear as if it was a rather trivial affair, but primitive passions were inflamed and such things being sadly human, there resulted a grave separation of paths.

Lesson 9                       The Second Council

The Second Council was not actually called to debate vinyana points, but to discuss several proposals put forth to the assembly. The discussion of the vinaya rules that caused the breach was only one of the proposals, but it was these, it is claimed, that resulted in the division.

 There were different views with regard to:

1.  Storing salt in a horn.

2.  Eating after mid-day.

3.   Eating once and then going again to a village for alms.

4.   Holding the Uposatha Ceremony with monks dwelling in the same locality.

5.   Carrying out official acts when the assembly was incomplete.

6.   Following a certain practice because it was done by one's tutor or teacher.

7.   Eating sour milk after one had had his mid-day meal.

8.   Drinking strong drink before it had been fermented.

9.   Using a rug which was not the proper size.

10.   Using gold and silver.

Now it is useful to be aware of another point in order to get a clear picture of events that shaped the future of the structure of the Buddhist organization. Even before Buddha’s death, there was, as we have seen, a reduction in the spiritual quality of the sangha and the verbal rules had begun to be accepted as necessary.

Yet although there were rules, there were still differences of opinion with regard to those rules and with regard to many other factors, including perhaps the Dharma itself, although those ideas had never been strong enough to be an issue in the First Council.

Samvasa

There existed after Buddha’s death and after the Second Council, provision for Samvasa, which refers to states of separate communion and common communion. When bhikkhus differed in their views and these differences could be resolved, they could become bhikkhu’s of common communion. But if those differences could not be resolved, then there was a provision for a separate communion, which then avoided an open schism. This clearly required a sense of goodwill and tolerance and the ability to accept a compromise. But what differences were acceptable?

Separate communions could arise from any of the nine bases for disputes mentioned in the Canon: 

what is and is not Dhamma;

what is and is not Vinaya;

what was and was not spoken by the Tathaagata;

what was and was not regularly practiced by the Tathaagata;

what was and was not formulated by the Tathaagata;

what is and is not an offense;

what is a heavy or a light offense;

what is a curable or an incurable offense; and

what is and is not a serious offense.

It is clear that with Buddha present, the differences would have been resolved directly by his intervention and explanation of the Dharma. But with Buddha dead, the compromises might have quite easily produced extreme differences in Dharma and Vinyana.

When the Dharma was not in question, seniority prevailed and respect continued without division, for respect for the Dharma always ruled over any sectarian divisions. But in the case of  separate communions when such separation existed over disagreement about the Dharma, a bhikkhu was actually forbidden to show homage to a senior bhikkhu of a separate communion.

In one way, this rule appears destructive, but respect for Dharma interpretation and presentation was considered so serious, that an artificial harmony was not considered desirable. In other words, it was better to have a recognized difference of opinion within the community than an open split.

During the Second Council, it is possible that the “separate communions” rules were formally added in an attempt to reconcile positions and to avoid further damage. However, after the split of the Second Council, when there was talk of  separate communions, this generally referred to bhikkhus who followed schools other than the Theravada.

Some historians believe that separate communions in early Indian Buddhism even  maintained separate ordination lineages. If this is correct, then there existed an informal stated mechanism, or one very much like it, that allowed a relaxed acceptable division of opinion. It is all the more surprising then that a division occurred over these minor rules.

Let us then return to the points of this division and look at them more analytically.

The ten rules

Five rules appear quite trivial although one could find reasons for their observance, but none could possibly stand as part of a valid reason for division.

1   Storing salt in a horn.

3   Eating once and then going again to a village for alms.

7   Eating sour milk after one had had his mid-day meal.

8  Drinking strong drink before it had been fermented.

9        Using a rug which was not the proper size.

The remaining five rules appear more important, but even they were minor rules and in the light of the internal structure that allowed discussion, resolution and even separate ideas to remain, they do not seem valid as a source for a major schism.

1. Eating after mid-day.

4.   Holding the Uposatha Ceremony with monks dwelling in the same locality.

5.   Carrying out official acts when the assembly was incomplete.

6.   Following a certain practice because it was done by one's tutor or teacher.

11.  Using gold and silver.

2. Eating after mid-day.

Buddha had declared that a bhikku could eat after noon, so long as the shadow cast by the sun was not past the meridian by more than two finger breadths. He could eat more than once in the period from dawn to that time, but he must have finished his food when the shadow cast by the sun is shortest.

The reason for this rule was that since people have strong attachments to food, many bhikkus (the sangha now being without the strong original motivations) would fall under the temptation to develop a greedy attitude towards food in which likes and dislikes could flourish.

For an arahat, this rule would appear to be completely superfluous, therefore, the existence of such a rule is a strong commentary on the debility of determination, resolution and understanding that existed throughout the sangha at that time.

4.   Holding the Uposatha Ceremony with monks dwelling in the same locality.

Buddha had declared that the Uposatha ceremony, held on each Full Moon and Now Moon day, must be attended by all the Bhikkhus in a monastery. It was at this ceremony that admission of offences was made, followed by the recitation of the 227 rules of the Pátimokkha. This rule was challenged by those who declared that in large monasteries it made more sense to allow the ceremonies to be conducted in smaller separate groups at different places.

5.   Carrying out official acts when the assembly was incomplete.

Dissenting Bhikkhus claimed that official acts did not require the full attendance of all the Bhikkhus of the Sangha and that affairs could be decided without the presence of some of the Bhikkhus who resided within the boundary of the monastery, as long as they gave their full agreement. This would allow those who were not in any way interested in administrative matters or the function of the monastery to be absent.

While it is true that this may have been convenient for serious meditators, it would have allowed an easy takeover of the power structure and encourage a greater identity control by those members present.

It would also allow lazy Bhikkhus not to attend these reunions, although whether the presence of a person absent in spirit or mind would help much is uncertain. In any event, there was a prevailing system to allow for absence by the appointment of a proxy at Uposatha and acceptance ceremonies.

6.   Following a certain practice because it was done by one's tutor or teacher.

Buddha had never agreed to the blind acceptance of a master,-- as we can ascertain from many of the sutras, especially the Kalama Sutra,-- so the blind following of a master would certainly not have been logical and could well even further divide the community. This point arose because the traditional Bhikkhus objected to the fact the some of the Bhikkhus had already established this as an acceptable practice.

10.  Using gold and silver.

This last dissention was with regard to the increasing practice of accepting gold and silver coinage. Since money is the medium of exchange and barter for personal gain even today, it is certain that Identity actions and intentions would be generated, so the original rule appears quite a logical one.

However, although this last rule might be considered as the most serious infringement among these ten rules, is it really sufficient to explain a schism? Normally, such divisions are related to great philosophical differences. Perhaps the difference may have been over the flexibility or inflexibility of the rules in general.

Let us begin with a look at the historical setting and consider this as a contributing factor. 

The Historical Setting

We have very little information about the period between Buddha’s death and the council in which the division into two cults took place. Even before Buddha’s death, there were many reasons that may have generated a psychological separation between the main Sangha and internal loyalty to one’s local leading arahat, including geographical distance, weather factors, geological factors, and socio political separation.

Widespread dispersion

The first impediment to a unified state was widespread dispersion, which led to a lack of rapid communication and to the almost de facto isolation of the local authority, led by the senior arahat.

North Central India

The Venerable Mahá-Kaccána was the leading arahat of the Sangha in North Central India in Avanti at the Osprey's Haunt on Precipice Mountain. This Sangha was not as well established as we might imagine.

For example, a lay disciple named Sona Kutikanna came to Mahá-Kaccána and expressed the wish to go forth under him as a monk. He asked to be given the "going forth" ceremony (pabbajja), and the initial ordination as a novice (samanera). At that time, it was customary to grant mature men who were well known and understood to be fitting by the master, both ordinations in immediate succession.

According to the disciplinary regulations that were in effect at the time, the higher ordination had to be performed in the presence of at least ten bhikkhus (dasavagga-bhikkhusangha). However, when the above incident took place, Avanti was short of monks, being a region quite far from Buddha's own missionary rounds and from the other centers of Buddhist activity.

Maha Kaccana could not gather together the sufficient quorum needed. It was only three years later that the elder could, even then with great difficulty, convene an assembly of ten bhikkhus from different places in the region to give Sona the higher ordination.

Eastern India

Eastward too, Buddhism moved slowly, forming isolated conclaves of monastic character rather than generally spreading the Buddhist ideology. 

After his ordination, the venerable Puna was sent on a long journey to Sunaparanta in the East. That it was a difficult missionary act is also shown by Puna’s reply to Buddha’s question about his possible reactions to violence.

Puna’s reply was, “If they stab me with a sharp dagger and deprive me of life … I shall think, ‘There are disciples of the Lord who when tormented by and disgusted with the body (as when severely diseased) look around for a weapon (to take their own lives). I have come upon this dagger without looking round for it’. In this case, Lord, it will be like this for me, like this, Wellfarer“.              I

Buddha replied, “ Good, Punna, it is good! You will be able to live in the Sunaparanta district since you have such calm and tranquillity. Now you should do whatever you think it is proper to do“.

Western India

Buddha himself taught as far west as the country of the Kurus, around today’s New Delhi area. So although the Bhikkus travelled far afield, success was greatest in Buddha’s north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa), so called because it was believed to be, by the people who lived there, the centre of the earth.

The geography and weather

The whole area, even in the central portion of India, consisted of a vast, flat, fertile plain through which flowed two great rivers, the Ganges and the Yamuna, as well as many smaller rivers,-- and these were futher impediments.

The weather too did not provide a happy face. There were three seasons: summer, when the temperature reaches as high as 40°; the rainy season, when the rivers flood and travel becomes exceedingly difficult; and winter, when the days are pleasant but the nights have temperatures below zero.

Furthermore, in Buddha's time, to complicate matters, large areas of northern India were covered by jungle and the people who lived in the many villages that bordered the jungles often encountered dangerous animals,-- lions, elephants and  rhinoceros.

Psychological and cultural impediments

These impediments to communication and the resulting isolation, together with the socio political separations, formed natural and psychological barriers to any real solidarity. Thus an isolated group in one geographical area would find it quite natural to adopt a group identity. The loyalties which are generated strongly within the larger group would then be weakened because the group would not be spiritually nor homogeneously united with the other groups.

This was impoverished by the cultural separation which existed. Locally, the difficulty of developing a single political unit resulted in a collection of independent countries or states, often vying with each other for supremacy.

Magadha

The largest and most powerful of these countries was the kingdom of Magadha, whose capital, Rajagaha (The King's Abode), nestled amongst rugged hills. During most of Buddha's life Magadha was ruled by King Bimbasara, a strong and effective ruler who took a great interest in religion.

Thus there was an inherent sensation of belonging more to one’s state than to Buddha Dharma. Naturally this would not have occurred if all the Bhikkhus and Bhikkunis within an autonomous region had evolved a true state of arahatship, but this was clearly not the case.

Within a hundred and fifty years, the Magadha rulers had conquered nearly all of India, so that by the time of the Second Council, the control by Magadha was mounting. But this was a political union that did not change the local identities or loyalties in or outside the Sangha.

The Vajjian Confederacy

Directly north of Magadha and separated from it by the Ganges River, was the Vajjian Confederacy. It is this Vajjian Confederacy which forms an important part of the story of the Second Council.

The confederacy was made up of several tribes that united to protect themselves from their powerful potential enemy in the south. Two of the confederate tribes were the Licchavies (the most important tribe in the confederacy), and the Videhas. The chief city of the Licchavies, Vesali, was the de facto capital of the Vajjian Confederacy.

Along the western border of the Vajjian Confederacy was Mallaand. North of Malla were the two small semi-independent republics of the Sakyans, Buddha’s ancestral homeland; and the Koliyans with their capitals at Kapilavatthu and Devadaha respectively.

The Licchavi and the Videha, being warrior tribes, were both prosperous and basically secure against invasion. Buddha attributed this success to the fact that they practiced the seven conditions of welfare taught to them by himself in the Sárandada Sutra (Vajji Sutra).

(1) they held frequent public meetings of their tribe, which they all attended;

(2) they met together to make their decisions and carried out their undertakings  with a democratic attitude.

(3) They upheld their cultural traditions and honoured their pledges;

(4) they respected and supported their elders;

(5) no women or girls were allowed to be taken by force or abduction;

(6) they maintained and paid due respect to their places of worship;

(7) they supported and fully protected the holy men (arahants) among them

The Licchavies

Buddha taught and supported these ideas independent of Buddhist belief, and the Licchavis were clearly receptive to ideas and change. It is related (Agutarra Nikaya iii.167) that a great number of Licchavis met at the Sárandada cetiya and their discussion turned on the relative value of the five treasures in the world: elephants, horses, jewels, women, and the state of being a householder.

When this meeting occurred, Buddha was living in the Mahávana in Vesali, their capital city. Guards who spotted him upon the road invited him, as a respected man of wisdom, to join them. After hearing their discussion, he told them of five treasures much rarer in the world: the Tathágata, the Dhamma, one who is able to recognize the Dhamma, one who follows it, and one who is grateful.

Even rough and energetic youths hunting with hounds and bows and arrows would lay aside their arms when they saw the Buddha seated under a tree and would surround him with clasped hands, eager to hear him (Agutarra Nikaya iii.76). Such was the respect with which Buddha, among other holy men, was revered. But although, as we see, they were receptive to Buddhist ideas, Buddhism was not their only fare, for the Jains too were also respected.

The Licchavi’s strength of character lay in their great unity and solidarity. If one Licchavi was ill, all who heard attended and helped. They had precisely the sense of social justice and solidarity which even small villages lack today all over the world. The whole tribe would join in any ceremony performed, and they would normally unite in honouring any distinguished visitors to their city (Sumangala Vilásiní .ii.519).

They were fine archers, excellent warriors and a handsome people who loved color and ornament. They wore brilliantly colored tinted garments and rode in brightly painted carriages (Agutarra Nikaya .iii.219).  But this love of sensory richness did not approach greed, for they did not live in lavish splendour nor, as a group, were they slothful in any way. They were industrious and energetic, sleeping on straw couches and treading a truly middle path without a philosophy directing that path.

However, three years after Buddha's last visit to Vesáli, despite the virtue and force of the Licchavi people, Ajatasattu, with the help of his minister Vassakara, was able to sow dissension among them. Then, once having been divided, they were attacked and their territory conquered. Their power and prosperity had probably also been weakened by the plague and drought that had ravaged Vesáli in the years previous to this event.

Naturally, as occurs with all conquered peoples, for many years they maintained a strong sense of past heritage. However, despite this positive sense of social evolution, degeneration eventually set in and the Licchavi finally started giving up their earlier noble austerity and developing habits of sloth and comfort and the liking of an easy lifestyle,-- soft pillows, long sleep and other luxuries. (Samyutta Nikaya.ii.268)

The Vajjian Monks

Now within this Vajjian Confederacy immediately prior to the Second Council, there was a large group of monks belonging to the Vajjian clan who dwelled in Vesali. It was they who had brought forward the ten points (dasa vatthúni) at the Second Council, asking for a change in the rules that would allow their ideas to be accepted.

Combining all that we know of the conditions of the Sangha at the time,-- the regional dispersion, the strong feeling of autonomy within each group and an ingrained cultural identity,-- we can perhaps see why the Vajjian monks felt sufficiently united to present these points strongly after having already broken the rules within their region.

Kakandakaputta (Yasa)

So strong was the sense of autonomy and identity of the Vajjian monks, that the rejection of all their points may well have been sufficient for an impulse towards full separation. However, there was still another factor at play; that factor was the arahat Kákandakaputta (Yasa).

Yasa was the son of the Brahmin Kákandaka. He had become a pupil of Ananda and was fortunate in being one of the few living Bhikkhus at the time of the apparent crisis to have seen Buddha. (Mahávamsa IV.57).

The initial dispute

When Yasa arrived at the Kútágárasálá in the Mahávana, he discovered that the Vajjian monks had raised the "ten points" (dasavatthu) before the Council, contrary to Buddha's teachings, and that they had been publicly asking for donations from their lay disciples. Yasa protested against such misdemeanours, and the Vajjian monks offered his sangha a share of the money they had collected.

Indignant at this gesture, Yasa rejected the offer with scorn. The Vajjian monks then decreed one him the Patisárattiyakamma (craving of pardon from lay folk), believing that he had insulted the lay people by refusing their offering. This meant that Yasa would have to be sent among the laymen, accompanied by a messenger, presumably to ask their pardon for his rejection.

Instead of this, Yasa rejected Patisárattiyakamma and charged the Vajjian monks publicly before the lay people for acting completely at variance with the rules laid down by  Buddha, quoting Buddha's discourses as references. In addition, he succeeded in persuading them that he was correct.

When the Vajjian monks heard of this, they then pronounced on him the Ukkhepaniya Kamma (Act of Suspension), but when they assembled to carry it out, Yasa failed to attend.

It was thus that the philosophical battle was declared and developed.

Further developments

It is said that Yasa “disappeared through the air” on route to Kosambí. From there he sent messengers to the monks of Avanti, where he found sixty forest dwelling monks to support him. In the west he encountered another eighty of the same mind (Pátheyyaká or Páveyyaká) and in the south (Dakkhinápatha), asked for and obtained further support to check what he and they considered a corruption of the Vinyana.

With them, he then visited Sambhúta Sánavásí at Ahogangapabbata, where they decided to consult Revata, who lived in Soreyya. In Soreyya, Yasa questioned Revata regarding the ten points, and obtained from him his promise of assistance.

Together they returned to Vesáli, the residence of Sabbakámí, the oldest Thera of the day, and after obtaining his opinion on the matter, an assembly of monks was held and a committee was appointed to settle the matter by an Ubbáhiká* What is this?. There were four participants elected from the east: Sabbakámí, Khujjasobhita, Sálha, and Vásabhagámika; and four from the west: Revata, Sambhúta-Sánavásí, Yasa and Sumana.

We will not pursue the political in-fighting that ensued to gain further support. However, the important point to remember here is that, without the presence of any of the Vajjian group, the elected group debated the question at the Válikáráma, with Revata acting as questioner and Sabbakámí answering his questions.

At the end of the inquiry, the decision was given (not surprisingly) against the ten points of the Vajjian monks, and this decision was conveyed to the assembly.

Then they held the recital of the Vinaya (sometimes called the “Sattasatí”, because seven hundred monks took part, or “Yasathera sangiti”, showing the essential part that Yasa had played in the events.) (Mahavamsa IV.9)

The texts also declare that at first the king (Kálásoka) was inclined to support the Vajjians, but his sister, Nandá Therí, warned him against taking this stand Mahavamsa IV 37).

The arising of the Mahasanghikas

The Vajjiputtakas, quite predictably, refused to accept the finding of the Council and formed a separate sangha, the Mahasanghikas, numbering ten thousand monks, who held a recital of their own, called the Mahásangíti (Dipavamsa. V.30.).

According to the conventional texts of the Theravadins, which clearly only show one side of the story, Yasa is ranked among the great benefactors of the Dharma. The Vajjian accounts of the events were understandably different.

In any event, these rules were not the only business of the non-Vajjian assembly, and small books in the Minor Collection, like the Lineage of the Buddhas (Buddhavamsa) and the Collection of Ways of Practice (Cariyapitaka), were also added at this time.

In considering the evidence found in early Mahásanghika texts, scholars are now aware that it is from the party of this Great Assembly (Mahásanghika) that Maháyána, the Great Vehicle, grew up.

This council appears to have been clearly one of specific confrontation and we must suspect that there must have been many Theras and Bhikkus who considered the whole affair tawdry, taking little or no part in these wranglings of which the Buddha would never have approved, as he had frequently condemned the holding of views and opinions.

Unfortunately, it was cognitive reason, disguised subliminally as spiritual correctness, that reigned at the time. This showed only weakness when eventually they were confronted, at a later date, by the resurgence of the Brahmins and the violence of the marauding Muslims.  

Among the laity at the time, these councils and their findings were of no importance, for the division was one only of “Nama and Rupa.” In such cases, correct Masters, preaching correct Dhamma, prevailed among the laity. Without doubt, within the lower echelons of the order, contact and friendship continued, ignoring the folly of the arahats involved in the dispute. 

The Prior Disposition for Division

Even before this division, while Buddha was alive, there were minor disputes, but the gravest also involved the Vajjiputtaka, the Vajjian monks. That time it was five hundred of them who had separated themselves, persuaded not by the ideas of the relaxation of the rules that we saw in the final division, but to the contrary, their agreement to the idea of making the rules more Spartan and asking for a major return to the original ascetic life before the monasteries had developed.

The true story of this earlier division of the sangha, which was quickly aborted, started when the Dharma had  begun to spread ten years before Buddha’s death. The ringleader was Devadatta, Buddha’s notorious cousin, who was the son of Suppabuddha (a maternal uncle).

Devadatta

Legend tells us that as a youth, Devadatta had strong competitive feelings with regard to his cousin, the young Gotama, and that he, also a person of aversion, did all he could to be superior to Gotama, without great success.

Despite all the problems, Devadatta was converted, together with his friends Ananda, Bhagu, Kimbila, Bhaddiya, Anuruddha, and their barber, Upáli when he sought Buddha at Anupiyá and entered the Order (Vin.ii.182).

That he was intelligent as well as strong, there is no doubt, and he actually enjoyed a high reputation as a Bhikkhu. In the Udana i.5. he is mentioned on a list of eleven of the chief Elders, all of whom the Buddha spoke of in praise. In Vin.ii.189, Sáriputta is mentioned as having gone about Rájagaha singing Devadatta's praises. Nevertheless, Devadatta retained the wish to be superior to his cousin.

About eight years before Buddha's death, when Buddha was 72, Devadatta, eager for gain and favour and jealous of the Buddha's fame, attempted to win over Ajátasattu, son of King  Bimbisára, who built for him and the bhikkhus with him a monastery at Gayásísa and sent him daily, five hundred pots of three-year-flavoured rice and the choicest dishes.

Encouraged by his success, he considered that he was capable of taking over Buddha's place as leader of the Sangha in view of Buddha's approaching old age. However, when he put the idea to Buddha, the latter rejected it, saying, "Not even to Sáriputta or Moggallána would I hand over the Order, and would I then to thee, vile one, to be vomited like spittle?" (Vin.ii.188.) (Abhayarájakumára Sutta, M.i.393).

At Buddha's suggestion, a proclamation was then issued to the Sangha to the effect that anything done by Devadatta in the name of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, was to be understood as only being done in Devadatta’s name not that of Buddha or the Sangha.

It is said that after that, Devadatta made several attempts on Buddha’s life and incited Ajatasuttu to assassinate his father.

Another time, Devadatta, together with four Bhikkhus,-- Kokálika, Katamoraka-tissa, Khandadeviyáputta and Samuddadatta,-- went to Buddha and asked for the imposition of the following five rules upon all members of the Sangha:

·         (1) that monks should dwell all their lives in the forest,

·         (2) that they should accept no invitations to meals, but live entirely on alms obtained by begging,

·         (3) that they should wear only robes made of discarded rags and accept no robes from the laity,

·         (4) that they should dwell at the foot of a tree and not under a roof,

·         (5) that they should abstain completely from fish and flesh.

This was a drastic and revolutionary proposal for a return to forest life,-- particularly because the sangha had mainly developed upon monastic lines,-- and Buddha refused, saying that those who felt so inclined could follow these rules (with the exception of sleeping under a tree, which was not adequate during the rainy season), but obligation was not possible.

These rules are completely the antithesis of the rules presented one hundred and ten years later. Of course, this was not the same generation of monks, but it shows that the state of the society at large greatly affected the standards of the sangha, at least in this case. In the first instance, the Vajjian state was spartan, in the second, it was lax and given to luxury. 

Anyway, when Devadatta’s ideas failed, he then informed Amanda of his intention to hold an Uposatha meeting without Buddha, and having persuaded five hundred newly ordained monks from Vesáli (vajjian) to join him, he went out to Gayásísa.

Here, you see, is where the district loyalties and solidarity proved to be a negative factor for the unity of the Sangha, and shows the ease with which divisions can arise.

This is not to say that division is not a way to secure a live Buddha Dharma relevant to the times. The problem is that there are both advantages and clear dangers in this type of progressive mechanism. Indeed it is true that a spiritual Sangha is only as strong as its weakest link, and the nearer that link is to the head of the Sangha the more the danger of Dharma corruption exists.

In any event, Buddha heard about this reunion and sent Sáriputta and Moggallána to Gayásísa to bring back the separated disciples. Devadatta, clearly believing in the strength of his cause, thought that they had come to join him, rejoiced and, in spite of Kokálika's warning, welcomed them.

That night he preached very late to the monks and, wishing for rest, asked Sáriputta to address the assembly. Sáriputta and Moggallána preached to such effect that they persuaded the five hundred monks to return with them. Can we consider the actions of Sariputta and Moggallana free from condemnation?

One thing is clear. The dissident monks were not firm in either stance since they were persuaded by rhetoric and not internal conviction. But we must also note here the oratory ability that Devadatta had to bring monks within the dharma to his side in the first place.

In the morning, Devadatta discovered what had happened, he had a embolism and for nine months he lay grievously ill.

As his end drew near, he wished to see Buddha, though the latter had declared that that would not be possible in this lifetime. Devadatta, however, started the journey on a litter, but on reaching Jetavana, he stopped the litter on the banks of the great pond and stepped out to wash. Legend declares that the earth opened and he was swallowed up. We can assume that he drowned. In any event, he never completed his journey and he died before Buddha. The rebellion was at an end.

Exercise 9

I would like to hear your impressions and conclusions about the final division and the earlier rebellion. Where would you have taken a stance?