the first turning of the wheel of the doctrine 39criticism that “the Mahsghikas say that all words of the Buddha
are the wheel of the doctrine,”^97 and 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,”^98 is not sustained by the evidence in the
Ekottargama and is likely to be caused by the introduction of the ve
monks and the pre-eminence of Kau inya to the accounts of the
rst sermon.
As mentioned above, the *Abhidharmamahvibhstra and the
*Sa yuktbhidharmahdaya make a distinction between, on the one hand,
the vehicle of the rvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and, on the other hand,
the vehicle of the World-honoured One. The *Sa yuktbhidharmahdaya
further says that Kau inya made the wheel of the doctrine turn for
himself and developed the path himself, but was unable to make the
wheel of the doctrine turn for someone else. As stated, this alludes
to a difference in “quality” of arhat-ship of the Buddha and of a dis-
ciple. In this respect, it is remarkable that in the accounts in the vinaya
literature and in the above mentioned s tras, there is no difference in
the description of the enlightenment of the Buddha and of the rst
disciples, that is, in the description of their arhat-ship.^99 It has been
suggested by André Bareau (1963, pp. 178, 187) that this implies that
the narration of the rst sermon of the Buddha belongs to a period
in which, in the mind of the narrators, the Buddha was considered to
be a human being, so much so that no distinction was made between
his career and the career of his disciples.^100
Judging from the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Mahsghikas
“upgraded” the position of the Buddha, and supramundane character-
istics became ascribed to him.^101 The accentuation of the otherworldly
characteristics of the Buddha became one of the peculiar concepts of
the Mahsghikas. In the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Mahsghika
opinion that all words of the Buddha are equally the turning of the(^97) See note 92.
(^98) See note 92.
(^99) Pli Vinaya, Mahvagga I.6.18 and I.6.29 (Oldenberg 1964, pp. 10 and 11; Rhys
Davids & Oldenberg 1881, pp. 94–95 and 97); T.1421.22.104b25–26 and c18–19;
T.1428.22.788a9–10 and b24–25.
(^100) On the authenticity of arhat-ship as one of the four fruits of ramaa-ship, see
Manné 1995, pp. 91, 117, 122. See also Oldenberg 1903, p. 149; Waldschmidt 1951b,
p. 96. 101
T.2031.49.15b27 ff.; T.2032.49.18b11–12 ff.; T.2033.49.20b27 ff.
Heirman_f3a_15-48.indd 39 3/13/2007 11:21:19 AM