Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

Along with Śnāiputra who was the leading disciple of Buddha, Āanda is the most important figure in early Buddhism. Despite this, in the record related with Āanda’s pravrajyā there are some problems that can be reckoned as Āanda’s own peculiarity. The problems related with Āanda’s pravrajyāare as follows: ①Despite Āanda having left his family with others when there was the group pravrajyāof the Sakya tribe during Buddha’s visit home to Kapila-vastu, Āanda’s upāhyāa was mentioned as peculiarly different. ②There is a possibility that Āanda was not Buddha’s direct disciple but his secondgeneration disciple. ③It is necessary to search who was the most plausible as Āanda’s upāhyāa. The fact that, even though Āanda was one of the most influential persons in early Buddhism, there is confusion in these basic records means that some special factor is working in the Āanda’s pravrajyā In this paper, the cause of this speciality is first reviewed in relation with the bad effect by the negative image of Devadatta, his elder brother and its validity is searched. Then, this paper deals with the aspect that Āanda was relatively young at that time. In this approach, by using the distorted tendency that can be found in the Āanda-related records, it was tried to establish the validity. The special feature related with Āanda’s pravrajyācan be said to have been caused by the fact that Āanda, even if he was a second-generation disciple, achieved a very important position, and exerted a huge influence in the early Buddhist sect. Āanda’s position as a secondary disciple rather than a direct disciple is inferred from the fact that there was a flexible and wide mentor-monk relationship during Buddha’s time and Āanda left his family at a relatively young age. In relation with Āanda’s upāhyāa, 4 persons were recorded in total. Among them, the most probable one is Daśbala-kāśapa, who acquires the plausible persuasion in that Daśbala-kāśapa was one of 5 monks, a noble one from the Sakya tribe, and had respectful characteristics. That is, the special feature in Āanda’s pravrajyācan be said that it was not just a simple confusion of record but a distortion which appeared while the concerned parties who wanted to change the historical aspects had influence on the historical facts.