38 bart desseinexplain why, in the argument in the Sarvstivda abhidharma texts, that
Kau inya should be regarded as the rst to have awakened for the
truth, and not the other four monks, contains elements that are related
to the developed Sarvstivda path to salvation.
As mentioned above, the account of the rst turning of the wheel
of the doctrine in the Mahsghika Ekottargama (T.125) does not
mention the ve monks, nor the concept of the four truths with their
three cycles and twelve constituent parts. It is thus possible that the
Mahsghika interpretation of the wheel of the doctrine as “speech”
predates the linking of these abhidharmic concepts with Kau inya as
the rst of the ve monks to have awakened for the doctrine. It may be
added here that also the Pli Vinaya contains the record of the fruitless
attempt of the Buddha to convert Upaka of the jvaka sect.^94 Based on
the linguistic peculiarities of this passage, Heinz Bechert (1973, p. 8)
concluded that it should be dated back to the time of the Buddha.- The Relation of “Speech” as the Nature of the Wheel of
the Doctrine to Other Mahsghika Doctrinal Standpoints
As the *Abhidharmamahvibhstra is characterised by sectarian argu-
mentation,^95 it is not unlikely that the Vaibh
ika arguments were
in uenced by a later perception of a given problem under scrutiny.
Thus, when the K
mri Vaibh
ikas claim that, according to the
Mahsghikas, “all words of the Buddha are the wheel of the doc-
trine,” it is not impossible that this is a Vaibh
ika perception of a
Mahsghika standpoint.^96 This claim is supported by the fact that
the Ekottargama does mention the Deer Park in Vr as as location of
the rst sermon, while not mentioning the ve bhikus. The Vaibh
aka(^94) Pli Vinaya, Mahvagga I.6.9 (Oldenberg 1964, p. 8; Rhys Davids & Oldenberg
1881, p. 91). This event is also recorded in the Mahsakavinaya (T.1421.22.104a21–
b8) and the Dharmaguptakavinaya (T.1428.22.787b25–c13). For further parallels, see
Waldschmidt 1951b, pp. 94–95.
(^95) See Cox 1995, p. 35.
(^96) T.1545.27.912b8–9. In the Pli Vinaya, Cullavagga IX.1–4 (Oldenberg 1964, p.
239) we read: “Seyyathpi bhikkhave mahsamuddo ekaraso loaraso, evam eva kho bhikkhave
aya dhammavinayo ekaraso vimuttiraso,” i.e., the claim that the doctrine (dhamma) and the
discipline (vinaya) have a single avour, the avour of deliverance. See also Rhys Davids
& Oldenberg 1885, p. 304. Parallel claims can be read also in AN IV.203 (Mahvagga),
Udna 56 (Sonatherassavagga V.5), T.26.1.476c10–15 and T.125.2.753a29–b1. See also
Bareau 1955b, pp. 58, 145; Lamotte 1958, p. 156.
Heirman_f3a_15-48.indd 38 3/13/2007 11:21:18 AM