(31) Poussin, Councils, pp.15～17.

　　   (32) Ibid, p.17.

P 467
so great importance as the redaction of the Scriptures. Orthodoxy is not yet sufficiently sensitive to feel the contradiction of the chronological arrangement; it is not sufficiently rigid to exclude the precise mention of the 'non-sanctity' of Ananda at the time of a gathering the object of which was to punish him. All that the orthodox tendency can obtain is to promote A nanda to sanctify during the night of the Council.

The elaborate speculations of Poussin can be summarised thus: Originally the episode of Ananda who was not an arhat was an independent matter which became in course of time the nucleus to which was added the imginary account of the Council. Due to the importance of the Council its account was related first and then was narrated the episode of Ananda. Up to this stage of development there is no contradiction, for the arhat element has not yet been introduced. The contradiction arises when due to the demand of orthodoxy Ananda is first made an arhat before th Council starts, and then because of the previously arranged sequence of events, is made to face the charges brought against him.

Poussin comes to the same conclusion regarding the discussion on the minor rules (Khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani)(33)during the First Coucil. Poussin draws our attention to the three references to the minor rules in the MP S VI. 3, the CV XI. 9, and the Pacittiya LXXII. In the MPS the Buddha permits the Order to abolish the minor rules if it deems it necessary to do so. In the CV XI we read that Ananda informed the Samgha about this permission of the Buddha. On being asked Ananda admitted that he had not asked the Buddha which these rules were. The monks offered six different suggestions about the identity of the minor rules, but could not come to any decision. On the advice of Kassapa the Samgha adopted the resolution not to change anything which the Buddha had approved. The Pacittiya LXXII states: " If a monk at the time of recitation of the Patimokkha should speak thus: 'What is the good of recitation of the minor rules, except to engender doubt, weariness and perplexity?', this monk is guilty of contemning the rules."

In his discussion on these three references Poussin (34) agrees entirely with

　　   ───────────

　　   (33) Ibid, pp.21ff.

　　   (34) Ibid, p.22.

P 468
Minayeff. He points out that whether these references are considered separately or collectively, it becomes clear that here one is dealing with a datum ‘bearing the mark of great antiquity' and which is irreconcilable with a rigorous constitution already fixed by discipline.

Let us first discuss how old could these references be. The compilation of MPS, as we have already shown, occured at a comparatively later time, after the First Council but before the rise of different Buddhist sects. The Pacittiya rule in question also appears to have been promulgated after the First Council. Poussin(35)thinks that Kassapa, Upali, Ananda etc. missed this rule during the First Council. This view is not tenable. It is really unthinkable that the Vinaya experts among the monks would not recall to mind this rule when they were discussing the problem of the minor rules. It is even most likely that the other monks also would be able to point out this Pacittiya rule, for they listened to the recital of Pratimoksa every month. We have good reasons to hold that this rule was not yet formulated at the time of the First Council, and that this Pacittiya rule came into existence later under the influence of the First Council's discussions on the minor rules. It was only during the First Council that the monks for the first time came to know that the Buddha had designated a part of the Pratimoksa rules as khuddanukhuddakani sikkhapadani, and also became aware of the fact that they did not know which rules the Buddha meant when he talked about the abrogation of some minor rules. It was also shortly before his death that the Buddha for the first time used this particular term for the minor rules. So it is not possible that this Pacittiya rule was promulgated before the First Council.

In the MPS the Buddha permits the Samgha to annul the minor rules, but the arhats during the First Council decided to preserve all the Vinaya rules, for they lacked precise knowledge as to the identity of the minor rules. They virtually put an end to all future deliberations on this problem. It is obvious that the statement of the Pacittiya rule that any discussion unfavourable to the recitation of the minor rules will lead to uncertainity, and therefore it is an ecclesiastical offence to do so reflects faithfully the cautious spirit of the First Council, but runs counter to the generous attitude of the Buddha. This suggests that the Pacittiya