THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM 57business together-were so strongly worded that the monks never contem-
plated such a drastic break. If any one group felt that its differences from its
fellows were so strong that they could not live together, it would retire to an-
other area of the subcontinent and establish itself there.3.2.1 The Second Council and the Mahasanghikas
(Strong EB, sec. 3.6.1)
Although many of the differences between the various schools seem minor,
they show that the early Buddhist monks were grappling with a major issue
common to all religions after the death of the founder: how to extract the spirit
of the founder's message from his recorded teachings in such a way as to con-
vey it meaningfully to new generations. The first controversy is traditionally
dated to one hundred years after the Parinirval).a, when Sthaviras (elders) in the
western part of India learned that monks in the eastern city of Vaisali had begun
making changes in the monastic code-some relatively minor (for example,
making it permissible to store salt to add flavor to bland alms meals) and others
more significant (allowing the use of gold and silver). A council was convened
in Vaisali to address nine points of discipline and the one point of principle that
underlay all of the Vaisalian practices: that it was permissible to take one's per-
sonal teacher's practices as a guide. Denouncing all the changes that had been
made in the rules, the council decided that the practice of following one's
teacher was 1 sometimes permissible and sometimes not. The formal pronounce-
ment on this last point, however, did not go into detail on how to determine
when it was and was not right to follow one's teacher. The manner in which
the western elders conducted the council indicated that the texts should be
taken as one's final guide, but apparently the majority of eastern monks did not
concur. Shortly thereafter, they held a separate council of their own at which
they formed a separate school, the Mahasanghika (Great Assembly).
Historical records differ as to exactly what issues precipitated this move,
but a survey of the later doctrines of the Mahasanghikas and their offshoots
indicates that the general thrust was against accepting the Sutras and Vinaya as
the final authority regarding the Buddha's teachings. Some Mahasanghika off-
shoots argued that arhants were fallible and thus could not be fully trusted to
have remembered the Buddha's teachings correctly. One subgroup, the
Katukkutikas, argued that the Buddha's ultimate teachings could be arrived at
only through logic; that study and meditation were thus unnecessary activi-
ties; and that the only trustworthy source was their own Abhidharma. Others,
especially the Lokuttaravadins, began an elaborate Buddhology, or theory of
Buddhahood, arguing that even if the texts were accurate records, they were
all expressed in the conventional language of the world. The Buddha's ulti-
mate message, they said, was transcendent and thus not of this world. This line
of reasoning developed further into the belief that the Buddha, in an ultimate
sense, continues to exist as long as there are sentient beings and that he has the
power to inspire insights in the minds of others (Strong EB, sec. 3.6.3). This
belief provided a mechanism for justifying insights about the Buddha's