Indologist Erich Frauwallner (1898–1974) noted that in the earliest Buddhist discourses little mention is made of Mahākāśyapa, especially when compared to Ānanda. However, in the accounts about the First Council, Mahākāśyapa appears very prominent, whereas Ānanda is humbled and given far less credit. Frauwallner argued this points at "a deep reaching modification and revaluation of the tradition" concerning the position of these two figures. On a similar note, Buddhist studies scholar Jonathan Silk remarks that the earliest Chinese translations hardly mention Mahākāśyapa. Ray argues there is a difference in this between Pāli texts and texts from other early schools: the Pāli version of Mahākāśyapa is a much more ordinary person, depicted with far less supernatural powers and moral authority than in texts such as those from the Mūlasarvāstivāda discipline and in the "Mahāvastu". Although there are some Pāli texts that do emphasize forest renunciation, these are fragmented elements that stand in stark contrast with Mahākāśyapa's general role in the Pāli history of the monastic establishment.