Cullavagga of the Vinaya, which give the history of the first and second Councils. 1 This means that our authority for the first Council is more than a century, probably two centuries, after the event. It has been mentioned that when the news of Buddha's death was brought to Kassapa the Great and his monks, one of them, Subhadda, expressed his satisfaction that they were now free from the restraint of Buddha's authority. It is this incident which the Cullavagga says was the occasion of Kassapa proposing that there should be a recital of the Dhamma and Vinaya. But the earlier Digha account makes no mention of a council. Hence, said Oldenberg, it proves that the Digha knew nothing of a council, and the story of the first Council is pure invention. 2 But it proves nothing of the kind. It only proves that the compiler of the Digha shows no trace of connecting Subhadda's outburst with the summoning of a Council. There was no reason why he should do so in the middle of an account of Buddha's death. It may be the case that the incident of Subhadda was not the actual occasion of the Council. This does not prove that the Council was a fiction, but only that the inference of the Cullavagga as to its cause was a mistake. Only to this extent can we speak of proved invention, or rather of mistaken inference, with regard to the historical fact of a Council. Nevertheless, if the assumption that the Council was a real event is the most natural conclusion, it by no means follows that a faithful record of the proceedings has been preserved.