[Buddha-l] Re: Anomalous doctrines

[zelders.YH]

>
>Stephen Hodge wrote:
>
>Again, I have no real problem with this in principle -- my question is how
>many of these "texts" were later preserved in the Nikayas / Agamas.  You
>know that traditionally the suttas were supposed to be compiled at the first
>council a short time after the Buddha's death by 500 arhats.  What exactly
>was compiled is debatable but do you know the story of the monk who heard
>what they were reciting and rejected their version, saying that he preferred
>to remember the teachings as he had heard them from the Buddha.  He might
>have been a bit dense or mistaken in his recollection, but another
>posibility is that he really did remember what the Buddha taught and it did
>not have the format or possibly the content.  This may be an apocryphal
>story but it does suggest that there was some discontent with the way the
>teachings were compiled.

That story is not apocryphal. It is in the Pali Canon, in 
Vinayapitaka:Cullavagga XI:1:11 (p.401-2 in Horner's translation). It 
contains an interesting detail that I've never seen mentioned.

Quote: "Now at that time the venerable Purana was walking on almstour in 
the Southern Hills together with a large Order of monks, with at least five 
hundred monks. Then the venerable Purana [..], after the monks who were 
elders had chanted dhamma and discipline [during the First Council], 
approached Rajagaha [..] and the monks who were elders [..]. The monks who 
were elders spoke thus to the venerable Purana [..]:
"Reverend Purana, dhamma and discipline have been chanted by monks who are 
elders. Submit yourself to this chanting."
"Your reverences, well chanted by the elders are dhamma and discipline, but 
in that way that I heard it in the Lord's presence, that I received it in 
his presence, in that same way will I bear it in mind."
End of quote.

My question is this : is Purana just a single individual dissident, or is 
he to be regarded as a representative of those "at least five hundred 
monks" that stayed with him in the Southern Hills ? If not the latter, why 
then is that fact mentioned at all ?  And if so, is it then not indicative 
of a major schism immediately following the First Council ?
Could the Pali scholars take a closer look at those few sentences ? Is 
Horner's translation correct ?

Early Buddhism ; mighty interesting discussions. Please continue.

Herman Zelders