967a20ff etc.

P 471
attained the spiritual height of arhatva. We also know from this chapter of the Cullavagga that the arhats made mistake about the definition of minor rules. Similarly the mistakes Ananda made had nothing to do with the ‘arhatva'. From the confession of Ananda it appears that the actions of Ananda were not even mistakes according to the current monastic rules, though the Samgha had the legal authority to interpret them as mistakes. These actions of Ananda came to be regarded as offences of which Ananda was absolved by confession. It should be also noted in this connection that there is no doctrine belonging to this early period explicitly stating that an arhat can never act in a culpable manner, or that he cannot be charged for any violation of the discipline done by him. Thus there is no reason to conclude that the episode of the charges against Ananda contradicts the tradition that he had attained arhatva before he was subjected to disciplinary action.(38) The incidence of charges aginst Ananda does not reveal the vagueness of the arhat concept, but it shows that the spiritual perfection of an arhat does not automatically exempt him form his past mistakes in disciplinary matters. This legal standpoint is in conformity with the Buddhist doctrine of karma. Even a Buddha has to suffer the effects of his past actions.

Likewise Poussin's observations on the account of the Khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani cannot be accepted. Poussin first emphasises the antiquity of the tradition regarding the minor rules, and then proceeds to point out that this tradition is irreconcilable with the episode of chanting the entire Vinaya, thereby implying that the tradition of chanting cannot be trusted as an authentic piece of history.(39) The view that the tradition of the minor rules goes back to remote antiquity can be fully supported. We have seen that the promulgation of the Pacittiya LXXII was caused by the discussion of minor rules in the First Council.

　　   ───────────

　　   (38) Poussin, (Councils, p.17) points out that A nanda

　　　　   was judged after he became an arhat.  Thus this

　　　　   tradition appears not only in the account of the

　　　　   two Sthavira stereams but also in the Mahasamghika

　　　　   Vinaya.  So this tradition might have belonged to

　　　　   the earliest strata (for 3 streams of tradition,

　　　　   see, Mukherjee, ibid, pp.81～83.).

　　   (39) Both Poussin and Oldenberg think the tradition

　　　　   about the minor rules also is not historical,

　　　　   see Poussin, Councils, p. 26, note 64.

P 472

This indirectly proves the antiquity of the tradition about its discussion in the First Council. The fact that this tradition finds mention in all the Vinayas including that of the Mahasamghikas, proves that it originated before the Sthavire- Mahasamghika schism, and should be taken to be as old as the First Council. However the other part of Poussin's theory viz. The tradition of the minor rules are earlier than the tradition of chanting and contradicts it, cannot be supported. Poussin based his conclusion on the assumption that at the time of the discussion of the minor rules no fixed code of discipline existed. It appears that this surmise of Poussin is too far fetched and does not take into consideration other relevant traditions. The discussions on the minor rules show that the Buddhists were already certain about the definition of Vinaya, and they also knew that the minor rules consisted of a part of this Vinaya, though they had no precise knowledge as to which part it was. The definition of Vinaya that emerges from the discussions on the minor rules is in conformity with the concept of Vinaya(40) that emerges from our discussion of the schismatic matters. And the discussions on the minor rules and the chanting of the Vinaya were done by the same group of monks. So it is obvious that the Vinaya was already a fixed code at the time of the First Council, and the tradition about the chanting cannot be later than that of the discussion on the minor rules. Both these traditions belong to the same period and find mention in all the Vinayas. Moreover, that the Buddhists were discussing the minor rules in order to abrogate a part of the Vinaya does not in any way prove that the Vinaya, as understood by them in that early period, was not already compiled and fixed. The monks connot be expected to abrogate a part of the Vinaya, unless they know what is exactly meant by Vinaya. This opinion is also supported by the tradition that the Buddha told Ananda that the dhamma and vinaya would be the teacher of the monks after his death.(41) Moreover the fact that the Vinaya consists of the rules promulgated by the Buddha did not form a bar to the abolition of a part of it. For it was the