In view of these evidences Prof. N. Dutt (12)takes Finot's contention as sound, viz., that the Mahapaninibbanasutta and at least the chapter XI (and not the chapter XII) of the Cullavagga originally formed one treatise, and in the analogy of the Vinayaksudraka it may further be stated that the Mahaparini bbanasutta formed originally the first portion of the chapter XI of the Cullavagga. This takes away the force of Oldenberg's arguments and we may now brush them

　　   ───────────

　　   (10) Nalinaksha Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism  vol.I

　　　　   (Calcutta,  1941),  p.337,   Indian  Historical

　　　　   Quarterly (Calcutta), VIII, pp. 241～6.

　　   (11) N.Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism vol.I, pp.337～38;

　　　　   Indian Historical Quarterly (Calcutta), vol.VIII,

　　　　   pp.781～84.

　　   (12) N.Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism vol. I, p.338.

P 457
aside. Poussin(13) also is inclined to support the conclusions of Finot drawn on the basis of his finding of the text of Samyukta-vastu.

Rejection of Finot's View

It is difficult to support the views of Finot and others.Both the Samyukta-vastu and the Vinaya-ksudraka belong to the Mulasarvastivadins. And it is only the Mulasarvastivadins who have joined the MPS and the account of the two Councils into one single text.

This arrangement has not been followed by any other school which arose out of the Sthaviras. The tradition followed by these schools definitely shows that the MPS was regarded as a sutta which was held separate from the account of the First Council. Though the Mahasamghika version of the MPS has not come down to us, it is certain that the Mahasamghikas possessed this sutta. The Mahasamghika Vinaya(13a) refers to this sutta by name and reproduces certain informations mentioned in the available MPS versions belonging to schools which developed out of the Sthaviras. Thus the compilation of the MPS must have been completed before the Sthavira-Mahasamghika split. It is clear that even in this early period the MPS was known as sutta to the Mahasamghikas, and that, according to the Mahasamghika tradition also, it existed separately from the account of the First Council. So it is obvious that the arrangement discusssed by Finot and other scholars is to be taken as a later development peculiar to the Mulasarvastivadins, and can be of no use in determining the arrangement of the Buddhist traditions in the earliest period. This cannot solve the problem raised by Oldenberg due to the silence of the MPS. As for the abrupt beginning of the Cullavagga account it has been shown later that this perception of the abruptness is only due to the misunderstanding of the real nature of this part of the Cullavagga account. There are, however, some objective grounds for rejecting the view of Oldenberg which may now be discussed.

Refutation of Oldenberg's theory

　　   ───────────

　　   (13) Poussin, Councils, p.13, note 39, p.11, note 36.

　　   (13a) T. 22, p.489 C27ff (T. for Taisho ed. of

　　　　　　 Tripitaka).

P 458

The grand edifice of Oldenberg's theory rests on a number of facts and assupmtions. The observations that certain parts of the Cullavagga agrees verbatim with the MPS, and that the MPS does not mention anything about the First Council refer to facts. As for the assumptions which contribute greatly to giving the final shape to the theory of Oldenberg we may note the following:

1)The MPS is earlier in origin than the Cullavagga XI.

2)The compilers of the Cullavagga XI were quite familiar with the MPS and under the influence of the second Buddhist Council copied some portions of the MPS (e. g. the report of Kassapa about Subhadda) as well as elaborated and brought to reasonable completion some episodes mentioned in the MPS (e. g. the episode of Channa etc. ). This suggests a long gap between the completion of the MPS and the compilation of the Cullavagga XI.

3)The MPS would have recorded the traditions connected with the chanting of dharma and vinaya mentioned in the Cullavagga provided these were known to the compiler of the MPS.

4)Such Cullavagga episodes which should have been mentioned by the MPS but find no mention there are to be taken as legends. Accordingly the chanting of the dhanma and vinaya in a council passed over in utter silence by the MPS but given a prominent place in the Cullavagga XI was taken to be a legend by Oldenberg. Similarly all the other events exclusively mentioned in the Cullavagga and inseperably bound up with the chanting also came to regarded as legends by Oldenberg.