The Spread of Buddhism

the first turning of the wheel of the doctrine 37

a  rst sermon there.^91 It is this concept that the Mahsghikas are

reproached for in the following passage of the *Mahvibh:

The Mahsghikas say that all words of the Buddha are the wheel of

the doctrine. [They say that] when the noble path is the wheel of the

doctrine, the wheel of the doctrine has been set in motion under the bodhi

tree, and that there is no need for Vras to claim that this is the [ rst]

turning of the wheel of the doctrine. In order to refute this idea, and

to establish that the wheel of the doctrine is nothing else than the noble

path, and does not have the words (vc) of the Buddha as speci c nature

(bhva), [there is this discussion]. If [the wheel of the doctrine] had the

words of the Buddha [as speci c nature], then it would be so that the

wheel of the doctrine was already set in motion when the doctrine was

proclaimed to the merchants under the bodhi tree. [In that case,] there

would be no more need [for the Buddha] to go to the land of Vras,

to say that the wheel of the doctrine has been set in motion. Therefore

it is known that when, at that moment, the noble path was brought up

in someone else’s person, this is said to be the turning of the wheel of

the doctrine.^92

We also  nd this argument in the *[Abhidharma]vibh[stra] «Apitan pipo-

sha lun» (T.1546).^93 Given the fact that, according to the Sarvstivdins,

one can only claim that the wheel of the doctrine is turning when

someone else awakens to the truth, the argument in this passage is

that the proclamation of the doctrine under the bodhi tree cannot be

considered as the turning of the wheel of the doctrine. Although the

Buddha did speak, there was no conversion. It is in this sense that set-

ting the wheel in motion under the bodhi tree is equal to the vehicle of

the rvakas and the pratyekabuddhas, because no one was converted. It is

also in this sense that one cannot claim, as the Mahsghikas do, that

“speech” is the nature of the wheel of the doctrine. It is only in Vras

that the wheel of the doctrine was truly set in motion. Vras, as

we have seen, is mentioned in all accounts of the  rst turning of the

wheel of the doctrine included in the vinaya and s tra literature. Taking

into account that the  ve monks are likely to have been introduced in

these accounts at a later date, it appears that Kau inya was selected

among the  ve as the  rst to have awakened for the truth. This may

(^91) See on this: Pli Vinaya, Mahvagga I.4 (Oldenberg 1964, pp. 3–4; Rhys Davids &
Oldenberg 1881, pp. 81–84); T.1421.22.103a10–b7; T.1428.22.781c11–785c27. See
also Bareau 1963, pp. 106–123. 92
T.1545.27.912b7–13.
(^93) T.1546.28.158b25–c3.
Heirman_f3a_15-48.indd 37 3/13/2007 11:21:18 AM