The Vinaya Pitakam, Vol. 1, edited by Hermann Oldenberg

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

The Vinaya Pitakam, Vol. 1, edited by Hermann Oldenberg

Postby admin » Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:41 am

The Vinaya Pitakam: One of the Principal Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the Pali Language
Vol. I: The Mahavagga
edited by Hermann Oldenberg
Published with the Assistance of the Royal Academy of Berlin and the Secretary of State for India in Council
1879

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.



...

It is possible to construct, in accordance with these facts, a working hypothesis as to the history of the literature.
It is also possible to object that the evidence drawn from the Milinda may be disregarded on the ground that there is nothing to show that that work, excepting only the elaborate and stately introduction and a few of the opening chapters, is not an impudent forgery, and a late one, concocted by some Buddhist in Ceylon. So the evidence drawn from the Katha Vatthu may be disregarded on the ground that there is nothing to show that that work is not an impudent forgery, and a late one, concocted by some Buddhist in Ceylon. The evidence drawn from the inscriptions may be put aside on the ground that they do not explicitly state that the Suttantas and Nikayas to which they refer, and the passages they mention, are the same as those we now have. And the fact that the commentators point out, as peculiar, that certain passages are nearly as late, and one whole book quite as late, as Asoka, is no proof that the rest are older. It may even be maintained that the Pali Pitakas are not therefore Indian books at all: that they are all Ceylon forgeries, and should be rightly called ‘the Southern Recension’ or ‘the Simhalese Canon.'

Each of these propositions, taken by itself, has the appearance of careful scruple. And a healthy and reasonable scepticism is a valuable aid to historical criticism. But can that be said of a scepticism that involves belief in things far more incredible than those it rejects.? In one breath we are reminded of the scholastic dulness, the sectarian narrowness, the literary incapacity, even the senile imbecility of the Ceylon Buddhists. In the next we are asked to accept propositions implying that they were capable of forging extensive documents so well, with such historical accuracy, with so delicate a discrimination between ideas current among themselves and those held centuries before, with so great a literary skill in expressing the ancient views, that not only did they deceive their contemporaries and opponents, but European scholars have not been able to point out a single discrepancy in their work.1 [As is well known, the single instance of such a discrepancy, which Prof. Minayeff made so much of, is a mare's nest. The blunder is on the pert of the European professor, not of the Ceylon pandits. No critical scholar will accept the proposition that because the commentary on the Katha Vatthu mentions the Vetulyaka, therefore the Katha Vatthu itself must be later than the rise of that school.] It is not unreasonable to hesitate in adopting a scepticism which involves belief in so unique, and therefore so incredible, a performance.

The hesitation will seem the more reasonable if we consider that to accept this literature for what it purports to be — that is, as North Indian,2 [North Indian, that is, from the modern European point of view. In the books themselves the reference is to the Middle Country (Magghima Desa). To them the country to the south of the Vindhyas simply did not come into the calculation. How suggestive this is as to the real place of origin of these documents!] and for the most part pre-Asokan — not only involves no such absurdity, but is really just what one would a priori expect, just what the history of similar literatures elsewhere would lead one to suppose likely.

The Buddha, like other Indian teachers of his time, taught by conversation. A highly educated man (according to the education current at the time), speaking constantly to men of similar education, he followed the literary habit of his time by embodying his doctrines in set phrases, sutras, on which he enlarged on different occasions in different ways. In the absence of books — for though writing was widely known, the lack of writing materials made any lengthy written books impossible3 [Very probably memoranda were used. But the earliest records of any extent were the Asoka Edicts, and they had to be written on stone.] — such sutras were the recognised form of preserving and communicating opinion. These particular ones were not in Sanskrit, but in the ordinary conversational idiom of the day, that is to say, in a sort of Pali.

When the Buddha died these sayings were collected together by his disciples into the Four Great Nikayas. They cannot have reached their final form till about fifty years afterwards. Other sayings and verses, most of them ascribed not to the Buddha himself, but to the disciples, were put into a supplementary Nikaya. We know of slight additions made to this Nikaya as late as the time of Asoka. And the developed doctrine found in certain short books in it — notably in the Buddhavamsa and Kariya Pitaka, and in the Peta- and Vimana-Vatthus — show that these are later than the four old Nikayas.

For a generation or two the books as originally put together were handed down by memory. And they were doubtless accompanied from the first, as they were being taught, by a running commentary. About 100 years after the Buddha’s death there was a schism in the community. Each of the two schools kept an arrangement of the canon — still in Pali (or possibly some allied dialect). Sanskrit was not used for any Buddhist works till long afterwards, and never used at all, so far as we know, for the canonical books. Each of these two schools broke up, in the following centuries, into others; and several of them had their different arrangements of the canonical books, differing also no doubt in minor details. Even as late as the first century after the Christian Era, at the Council of Kanishka, these books, among many others then extant, remained the only authorities.1 [On the often repeated error that a Sanskrit canon was established at Kanishka’s Council, see my 'Milinda,' vol. ii, pp. xv, xvi.] But they all, except only our present Pali Nikayas, have been lost in India. Of the stock passages of ethical statement, and of early episodes, used in the composition of them, and of the Suttas now extant, numerous fragments have been preserved in the Hinayana Sanskrit texts. And some of the Suttas, and of the separate books, as used in other schools, are represented in Chinese translations of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. A careful and detailed comparison of these remains with the Pali Nikayas, after the method adopted in Windisch’s 'Mara und Buddha,' cannot fail to throw much light on the history, and on the method of composition, of the canonical books, which in style and method, in language and contents and tone, bear all the marks of so considerable an antiquity.

Hofrath Dr. Buhler, in the last work he published, expressed the opinion that these books, as we have them in the Pali, are good evidence, certainly for the fifth, probably for the sixth, century B.C. Subject to what has been said above, that will probably become, more and more, the accepted opinion. And it is this which gives to all they tell us, either directly or by implication, of the social, political, and religious life of India, so great a value.1 [No reference has been made, in these slight and imperfect remarks, to the history of the Vinaya. There is nothing to add, on that point, to the able and lucid exposition of Prof. Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the text.]

It is necessary, in spite of the limitations of our space, to add a few words on the method followed in this version. We talk of Pali books. They are not books in the modern sense. They are memorial sentences intended to be learnt by heart; and the whole style, and method of arrangement, is entirely subordinated to this primary necessity. The leading ideas in any one of our Suttantas, for instance, are expressed in short phrases not intended to convey to a European reader the argument underlying them. These are often repeated with slight variations. But neither the repetitions nor the variations — introduced, and necessarily introduced, as aids to memory — help the modern reader very much. That of course was not their object. For the object they were intended to serve they are singularly well chosen, and aptly introduced.

Other expedients were adopted with a similar aim. Ideas were formulated, not in logically co-ordinated sentences, but in numbered groups; and lists were drawn up such as those found in the tract called the Silas, and in the passage on the rejected forms of asceticism, both translated below. These groups and lists, again, must have been accompanied from the first by a running verbal commentary, given, in his own words, by the teacher to his pupils. Without such a comment they are often quite unintelligible, and always difficult.

The inclusion of such memoria technica [memory technique] makes the Four Nikayas strikingly different from modern treatises on ethics or psychology. As they stand they were never intended to be read. And a version in English, repeating all the repetitions, rendering each item in the lists and groups as they stand, by a single English word, without commentary, would quite fail to convey the meaning, often intrinsically interesting, always historically valuable, of these curious old documents.

It is no doubt partly the result of the burden of such memoria technica, but partly also owing to the methods of exposition then current in North India, that the leading theses of each Suttanta are not worked out in the way in which we should expect to find similar theses worked out now in Europe. A proposition or two or three, are put forward, re-stated with slight additions or variations, and placed as it were in contrast with the contrary proposition (often at first put forward by the interlocutor). There the matter is usually left. There is no elaborate logical argument. The choice is offered to the hearer; and, of course, he usually accepts the proposition as maintained by the Buddha. The statement of this is often so curt, enigmatic, and even —owing not seldom simply to our ignorance, as yet, of the exact force of the technical terms used — so ambiguous, that a knowledge of the state of opinion on the particular point, in North India, at the time, or a comparison of other Nikaya passages on the subject, is necessary to remove the uncertainty.

It would seem therefore most desirable that a scholar attempting to render these Suttantas into a European language — evolved in the process of expressing a very different, and often contradictory, set of conceptions — should give the reasons of the faith that is in him. He should state why he holds such and such an expression to be the least inappropriate rendering: and quote parallel passages from other Nikaya texts in support of his reasons. He should explain the real significance of the thesis put forward by a statement of what, in his opinion, was the point of view from which it was put forward, the stage of opinion into which it fits, the current views it supports or controverts. In regard to technical terms, for which there can be no exact equivalent, he should give the Pali. And in regard to the mnemonic lists and groups, each word in which is usually a crux, he should give cross-references, and wherever he ventures to differ from the Buddhist explanations, as handed down in the schools, should state the fact, and give his reasons. It is only by such discussions that we can hope to make progress in the interpretation of the history of Buddhist and Indian thought. Bare versions are of no use to scholars, and even to the general reader they can only convey loose, inadequate, and inaccurate ideas. [/b][/size]

These considerations will, I trust, meet with the approval of my fellow workers. Each scholar would of course, in considering the limitations of his space, make a different choice as to the points he regarded most pressing to dwell upon in his commentary, as to the points he would leave to explain themselves. It may, I am afraid, be considered that my choice in these respects has not been happy, and especially that too many words or phrases have been left without comment, where reasons were necessary. But I have endeavoured, in the notes and introductions, to emphasise those points on which further elucidation is desirable; and to raise some of the most important of those historical questions which will have to be settled before these Suttantas can finally be considered as having been rightly understood.

-- Dialogues of the Buddha, translated from the Pali of the Digha Nikaya by T.W. Rhys Davids


The Mahavagga, which the Editor deemed desirable to publish first, is, in India, reckoned as the Third Part of the Whole Pitaka.

And the Blessed One said to the venerable Ānanda: 'Who are they, Ānanda, who are building a town at Pāṭaligāma?'

'Sunīdha and Vassakāra, Lord, the two ministers of Magadha, are building a town at Pāṭaligāma in order to repel the Vajjis.'

'As if they had consulted, Ānanda, with the Tāvatiṃsa gods, so (at the right place), Ānanda, the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra build this town at Pāṭaligāma in order to repel the Vajjis. When I had risen up early in the morning, Ānanda, at dawn's time, I saw with my divine and clear vision (&c., as in § 7, down to:) they bend the hearts of inferior kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there. As far, Ānanda, as Aryan people dwell, as far as merchants travel, this will become the chief town, the city of Pāṭaliputta. But danger of destruction, Ānanda, will hang over Pāṭaliputta in three ways, by fire, or by water, or by internal discords[4] [The event prophesied here, Pāṭaliputta's becoming the capital of the Magadha empire, is placed by the various authorities under different kings. Hwen Thsang and the Burmese writer quoted by Bishop Bigandet ('Legend of the Burmese Buddha,' third edition, vol. ii, p. 183) say that it was Kālāsoka who removed the seat of the empire to Pāṭaliputta. The Gains, on the other hand, state that it was Udāyi, the son of Ajātasattu. Most probably the latter tradition is the correct one, as even king Muṇḍa is mentioned in the Aṅguttara Nikāya as having resided at Pāṭaliputta. Comp. Rh. D.'s 'Buddhist Suttas,' Introd. pp. xv seq.; H. O.'s Introduction to the Mahāvagga, p. xxxvii; and the remarks of Professor Jacobi and of H. O. in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morg. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxiv, pp. 185, 751, 752, note 2.]

-- Mahavagga, Khandaka 6, Chapter 28, Excerpt from Vinaya (2): The Mahavagga, by T.W. Rhys Davids

Presented by Dr. R.C. Majumdar

Contents: [PDF HERE]

• Introduction, pp. ix— lvi.
The Mahavagga.
• I. The Admission to the Order of Bhikkhus. pp. 1-100.
o 1-24. The first events after Gotama’s attaining Buddhahood. (1-4. His sojourn near the Bodhi tree.—5. Brahma Sahampati exhorts him to preach the Doctrine.—6. He addresses the Pancavaggiya Bhikkhus.—7-10. Story of Yasa, his relations and friends.—11. Mara appears unto Buddha.—12. Regulations about the Pabbajja and Upasampada Ordinations. —13. Mara again appears. —14. Story of the Bhaddavaggiya.—15-20. Conversion of the three Kassapas and their Disciples.—21. Buddha propounds the Adittapariyaya.—22. Buddha’s first meeting with King Bimbisara.—23-24. Conversion of Sariputta and Moggallana.)
o 25-27. Different Rules regarding the Duties of Upajjhaya and Saddhiviharika.—28-31. Ceremony of Upasampada. —32-35. The duties of Acariya and Antevasika.—36-37. What Bhikkhus are qualified for being Acariya or Upajjhaya.—38. Admission of those who had previously been attached to another Congregation (annatitthiyapubba).— 39-79. Further Rules regarding the Pabbajja and Upasampada Ordinations. Different classes of those who are not to be admitted to the Fraternity.
• II. The Uposatha Ceremony and the Patimokkha. pp. 101-136
o (6-13. Consecration of the Boundaries for a Bhikkhu Community.)
• III. Residence during the Rainy Season (vassa). pp. 137-156.
• IV. The Pavarana Ceremony at the end of Vassa. pp. 157-178.
• V. Different Rules, especially regarding the Use of Articles made of Skin. pp. 179-198.
o 1-8, 12. Shoes and Slippers.—9-11. Different kinds of Seats, Vehicles. —13. Indulgences for the Countries bordering on Majjhadesa (story of Sona Kutikanna).
• VI. Medicaments, pp. 199-252.
o 1-17. Different kinds of Medicaments. Rules how to prepare, to use, and to keep them. (15. Story of Pilindavacchu.) —17-21. Different kinds of Food. How to prepare and to keep them.—22. Surgical Operations.— 23. Story of Suppiya. Prohibition regarding man’s flesh and the meat of different animals.—24. Sermon about rice gruel (yagu).—25-40. Different Rules about Food; how to prepare, to take, and to keep it.—(28. Buddha’s visit to Pataliputta.—29. Visit to Kotigama.—30. His meeting with Ambapall and the Licchavis.—31. Story of Siha.—34. Story of Mendaka.—35. Story of Keniya.— 36. Story of Roja.)
• VII. The Kathina Ceremonies, pp. 253-267.
• VIII. Dress of Bhikkus. pp. 268-311.
o (1. Story of Jivaka.—15. Story of Visakha.—26-27. Rules regarding the attendants of sick Bhikkhus.)
• IX. Validity and Invalidity of Ecclesiastical Acts. pp. 312-336.
• X. Schisms among the Fraternity. pp. 337-360.
o (2. Story of Dighavu).
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vinaya Pitakam, Vol. 1, edited by Hermann Oldenberg

Postby admin » Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:00 am

Part 1 of 3

INTRODUCTION.

In editing the text of the Mahavagga, as the first instalment of a complete edition of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, it may be well to say something as to the object of the undertaking. It is manifestly important that the entire text of the Buddhist Holy Writings should be made accessible to all who are desirous of acquiring a thorough knowledge of one of the most important historical phenomena of India, namely, Buddhism. There are, however, objections to the publication of the complete Tipitaka. Every one acquainted with the mode of expression employed in the earlier Buddhist works knows with what wearisome diffuseness the religious doctrines and ordinances are there set forth, how constantly the same thoughts and phrases are repeated, and how irritating to European readers is the excessive use of synonymous expressions. It may well be asked, therefore, whether it would not be sufficient to give mere extracts from the text, instead of the text itself, with all its formality and repetition? Those, however, who, being engaged in historical investigations have been obliged to work from mere extracts, will know the advantage of being able to refer to the original works. When even those who made the extracts find in them an imperfect help, it is not surprising that to others they should be still less able to supply the place of the sources themselves. Every reader has his own questions to put to the original text, and will study it from his own particular point of view; hence it is impossible that extracts, however carefully made, can satisfy the requirements of every reader. Such extracts also, while showing but imperfectly what the text contains, show still less what it omits to mention. So, although many points may be cleared up even by so imperfect an acquaintance with the sources as is afforded by extracts, yet to those who wish to be complete masters of the subject, and must therefore study the smallest details, the publication of the complete text will not be unwelcome.

Being compelled to relinquish my original intention of adding a complete translation of the text, I have thought it well to lay before my readers — in the form of an Introduction — my views as to the origin of the works which I have undertaken to edit, and as to their historical position in the literature of which they form part.

Both in the Holy Writings, and also in the earliest Buddhist works that we possess, we find the Vinaya systematically compared and contrasted with the Dhamma; and indeed, where both are mentioned, Dhamma is frequently named first and Vinaya second.1 [Of the numerous examples of this, the citation of a few terms frequently met with, will suffice: yo ... annatitthiyapubbo imasmim dhammavinaye akankhati pabbajjam, -- ayam dhammo ayam vinayo idam satthu sasanam, -- dhammadharo vinayadharo matikadharo. -- Kassapa says when assembling the Bhikkhus in Rajagaha: dhamman ca vinayan ca samgayama. -- A juxtaposition of Dhamma with Vinaya is met with even in the Patimokkha (dhammavadi -- vinayavadi, Minayeff, Prat. p. 5, line 14). -- These passages at the same time prove that Dhammavinaya is a Dvandva-compound, and not a Tatpurusha, as M. Feer (Etudes Boudhiques, p. 203) has assumed.] This regular system of comparison between Dhamma and Vinaya appears throughout the sacred literature, which, in the earlier period, consisted of two large collections of works (Pitaka), of which one comprised the Vinaya and the other the Dhamma; and at a later period, consisted of three collections, of which the first was devoted to the Vinaya and the other two to the Dhamma. Of the earlier of these two systems (which possessed a Dvipitaka, but know nothing of the Tipitaka) we get an admirably clear account from the closing chapter of the CULLAVAGGA, which I propose to edit when I have finished the Mahavagga. This important chapter gives us the earliest known account of the first two great Councils of the Buddhist Church. We learn from it that in the Council of Rajagaha, Kassapa, the President of the Assembly, opened the proceedings for the consecrative settlement of the Holy Texts with these words, "Ye venerable men, let the congregation hear me. If the congregation is ready, I will question Upali respecting the Vinaya." Whereupon Kassapa questioned Upali respecting the Vinaya. This being done, he addressed a second speech to the assembly: "Ye venerable men, let the congregation hear me. If the congregation is ready, I will question Ananda about the Dhamma." Whereupon he questioned Ananda respecting the five collections (panca nikaya), beginning with the Brahmajalasutta. Hereby, according to this account, the whole work of the revision of Dhamma and Vinaya is brought to an end. The five Nikayas are undoubtedly the five well-known collections included in the Suttapitaka. These five collections therefore — according to the idea of the age in which this account of the two Councils originated — contained the whole of the Dhamma as taught by Buddha. The series of works which was subsequently called Suttapitaka was even at that time well known; the collection of the Abhidhammapitaka was either altogether unknown, or was not regarded as canonical or of the same value as the two other Pitakas; and it was generally supposed that, in the council held after Buddha’s death, it had not been admitted by the Theras into the collection of the Dhammavinaya or of the Jinavacana.1 [This term is used in the grammar of Kaccuyana (p. 33, ed. Senart) as denoting the whole of Buddha’s discourses.]

The important difference between the more recent Buddhist literature and that of the more ancient period, viz. the transition from the Dvipitaka to the Tipitaka, becomes more marked if we compare the above account taken from the Cullavagga with an account of the same Council given by Buddhaghosa in his introduction to the commentary on the Dighanikaya.1 [Compare Turnour, in the Journal Asiatic Society, of Bengal, vol. vi. p. 510, et seq.] The two accounts are in most respects similar, but they differ altogether with regard to the extent and division of the sacred texts collected at the first Council. In both we have the report of the revision of the Vinaya, and in both, after this is over, Kassapa addresses the assembly with the words, "If the congregation is ready, I will question Ananda about the Dhamma." But in the latter account, before the revision of the Dhamma is begun, Kassapa puts the following question to the Theras: "Which of the two collections (pitaka) shall we proceed with first?" and they answer, "The collection of the Suttanta." This collection, beginning with the Brahmajala, is then revised: they then pass on to the second part of the Dhamma, namely, the Abhidhamma; and in this manner the revision of the Dhammavinaya is brought to a close.2 [A valuable testimony of the earlier existence of a Dvipitaka is also contained in the Mahaparimbbanasutta (p. 39); tam padavyanjanani sadhukam uggahetva sutte otaretabbani vinaye sandassetabbani. — In opposition to such sure proofs, it is of little importance to bring forward passages in the Vinaya which seem to speak in favour of the existence of the Abbidhammapitaka. It is required of a teacher that he should be able to instruct his pupil: abbidhamme vinctum abbivinayo vinctum (Mahavagga, I. 36, 12). This, of course, is only meant to say that his instruction is to be in that which pertains to the Dhamma and Vinaya. — In the Vibbanga (in explanation of the 72nd Pacittiya) one Bhikkhui says to another: ingha tvam suttante va gathayo va abbidhammam va pariyapunassu, paccha vinayam pariyapunissasiti. It seems that Gatha and Abbidhamma are here meant to represent the different texts comprised in the Khuddakanikaya. Some of these, like the Buddhavamsa, or the Dhammapada, are metrical in form, and may be designated Gatha. Others of these texts, such as the Parisambhida, are similar in character to the Abhidhamma, and have, in fact, as Buddhaghosa asserts, been considered by many as belonging to the Abhidhamma. So far as I know, the only passage in the Vinaya which really presupposes the existence of an Abhidhammapitaka is one in the Bhikkhunivibhanga (95th Pacittiya: suttante okasam karapetva vinayam va abhidhammam va puchhati), which words, after all that has otherwise resulted with regard to the posteriority of the Abhidhamma, we can unhesitatingly assume to be an interpolation [a remark interjected in a conversation.].]

It would be out of place here to enter into a discussion as to the period to which the more recent Dhamma literature, known as the Abhidhamma, belongs; for the purposes of this research it will suffice to state, as indeed we have already seen, that from the very earliest times the whole spiritual teaching of the Master was presented to the Buddhist community in a double form, as the Dhamma and Vinaya; and this dualism, so to speak, is reflected in the literature, in the earliest style of its development, in the two Pitakas.

The difference between the Dhamma and Vinaya cannot be very clearly defined, and it would be difficult to lay down any very broad line of distinction between the two. Many sections of the Vinaya are met with again in the Dhamma, and not unfrequently are repeated word for word.1 [For instance, the passages in Mahavagga, I. 6. 38-46, are also found in the Suttapitaka under the title of Anattalakkhanasutta, and those in Mahavagga, VI. 28-30, are almost identical with parts of the Mahaparinibbanasutta. Compare also M. Feer’s Etudes Bouddhiques, pp. 202-205.] This, however, is not so much owing to the want of a definite idea regarding the different provinces of the two categories, as to a certain carelessness displayed in the revision of the texts. Many additions were made to the text of the Vinaya, in order to explain the origin and the meaning of the different ecclesiastical ordinances, and various passages from the Dhamma came to be inserted in the Vinayapitaka in this way. It is important therefore, in reading the Vinayapitaka, to avoid being misled by such additions as to what are the chief and essential contents of this Pitaka.

Looking at what is essential in the Vinayapitaka, we may define it as a collection of rules regulating the outward conduct of the Samgha and Bhikkhus.2 [No direct mention is made in the Vinaya of laymen (upasaka) associated with the Samgha, except that the rules regulate the conduct of the Bhikkhus towards laymen, their reception as Upasakas, etc.] It does not therefore deal with purely ethical questions, except so far as these affect such outward conduct; nor does it deal with outward conduct generally, but only with the outward conduct of the Samgha and the Bhikkhus.3 [The discourse on the duty of benevolence, for instance, falls to the Dhamma and not to the Vinaya, since it is not addressed to the Bhikkhus but to laymen. It is mentioned, together with a series of other doctrinal subjects belonging to the Dhamma, in an enumeration that is frequently found repeated: danakatha silakatha, saggakatha, kamanam adinavo, okaro, samkileso, nekkhamme anisamso.] The Dhamma, on the other hand, includes all that the Vinaya omits. It treats, therefore, of a great variety of subjects, and on this account does not, like the Vinaya, admit of so short and comprehensive a definition.

The doctrine regarding release from suffering, which forms so central an idea in the ancient Buddhist faith,1 [In the Cullavagga we have the striking remark: ayam dhammavinayo ekaraso vimuttiraso.] belongs to the province of the Dhamma. But although the Vinaya, according to its strict notion, has not to deal with this doctrine, still the religious ordinances there prescribed continually recognize and point to its existence. In the Dhamma we have an account of the inward process by which this release is accomplished, whereas the Vinaya treats only of the outward conduct of the life that is still struggling towards it. The Vinaya, which, as we have seen, is generally considered as co-ordinate with the Dhamma, appears, when regarded from this point of view, as a part of the Dhamma: and hence we can understand why it is that, side by side with those numerous passages which place the Dhamma and Vinaya in direct contrast, we may find, in the Buddhist texts, others, which bring the Vinaya within the province of the Dhamma.2 [The Cullavagga relates how Upali delivered the doctrines of the Vinaya to the Bhikkhus; the audience stand while listening to them “dhammagaravena.” He who spreads false doctrines concerning the Vinaya is called an adhammavadi (Mahavagga, X. 5, 4). King Asoka, in the inscription at Bairat (Corpus Inscr. plate XV.), reckons the vinayasamakase among the dhammapaliyayani.]

It is probable that the contrast as well as the connexion between the two ideas of the Dhamma and Vinaya originated in the earliest times of Buddhism — of this, however, we have no direct proof; but intrinsic evidence clearly points to this fact: and in further support of the same view, we may refer to the relation subsisting between the Dhamma and Vinaya and the Buddhist Trinity of Buddha, Dhamma and Samgha. It is immaterial whether we contrast Dhamma and Samgha or Dhamma and Vinaya, since Vinaya, as we have already seen, relates only to the Samgha.

It maybe objected, perhaps, that this division of Buddha’s teaching into two parts presupposes too long a period for its development; this objection would perhaps be well founded, were it not for the probability that much of the preparatory work of Buddhism had been already done for it by the Brahmanical theology,1 [It may be said that the Upanishads form the Dhamma, and the Kalpasutras, Grihyasutras, etc., the Vinaya of the Brahmans.] and other sects which preceded it. So that, when the first Buddhist communities made their appearance, the outward religious forms for the new sect were, to a great extent, already fully developed.

The traditional view [E.g., Gombrich (1996: 51).] is that the Buddha reinterpreted existing Indian ideas found in the Upanishads, but the Upanishads in question cannot be dated to a period earlier than the Buddha, as shown by Bronkhorst [Bronkhorst (1986).] and discussed below. Just as Early Buddhism cannot be expected to be similar to the Normative Buddhism of a half millennium or more later, so Early Brahmanism cannot be expected to be similar to Late Brahmanism (not to speak of Hinduism), attested even later. "Zoroaster was ... the first to teach the doctrines of ... Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body ... , and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body", [Boyce (1979: 29).] and Early Zoroastrianism was the faith of the ruling nation of the Persian Empire. Both Early Buddhism and Early Brahmanism are the direct outcome of the introduction of Zoroastrianism into eastern Gandhara by Darius I. Early Buddhism resulted from the Buddha's rejection of the basic principles of Early Zoroastrianism, while Early Brahmanism represents the acceptance of those principles. Over time, Buddhism would accept more and more of the rejected principles...

While, not surprisingly, the ordinary generic human contrast between truth and falsehood is found in the Vedas, the specifically Early Zoroastrian form of the ideas, including the result of following one or the other path, is completely alien to them. In the early Vedic religion, ritually correct performance of blood sacrifices was believed to be rewarded in this life, but the reward had nothing to do with one's virtuous actions or one's future in the afterlife. These ideas thus seem to have been introduced by the Achaemenid Persians into eastern Gandhara and Sindh, the western limits of the ancient Indic world and southeastern limits of the Central Asian world, just as they were introduced into Near Eastern parts of the vast Persian Empire. In fact, Early Zoroastrianism is attested in Achaemenid Central Asia and India in the earliest Persian imperial written documents from the region.35ii [Benveniste et al. (1958: 4), based on two inscriptions in Aramaic. Cf. Bronkhorst (2007: 358), who remarks, "In the middle of the third century BC, it was Mazdaism, rather than Brahmanism, which predominated in the region between Kandahar and Taxila". For Bronkhorst's views on Brahmanism and early Magadha, see Endnote ii.]

These specific "absolutist" or "perfectionist" ideas are firmly rejected by the Buddha in his earliest attested teachings, as shown in Chapter One. In short, the Buddha reacted primarily (if at all) not against Brahmanism,36 [Cf. Bronkhorst (1986; 2011: 1-4), q.v. the preceding note. From his discussion it is clear that even the earliest attested Brahmanist texts reflect the influence of Buddhism, so it would seem that the acceptance of Early Zoroastrian ideas in Gandhara happened later than the Buddhist rejection of them, but before the Alexander historians and Megasthenes got there in the late fourth century BC.] but against Early Zoroastrianism....

The insistence of modern scholars that Megasthenes' description does not accord with what "we know" about ancient Brahmanism is based not on ancient Brahmanism (of which we have absolutely no record for at least half a millennium after Megasthenes' time, and typically much longer), but on the imaginations of medieval to modern writers.] Not only does Megasthenes present this as the normal state of affairs, the gymnosophistai 'naked wise-men' (or "Gymnosophists") of ancient Greek tradition -- who were neither Sramanas nor Brahmanas -- described in all accounts as having lived extremely frugally, and they openly encouraged the Greeks to join them and live the same way so as to learn their philosophy and practices.

-- Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith


Having thus far treated of the relation between the Dhamma and Vinaya, we will now proceed to consider their development, and in doing so we shall first consider the development of the Vinaya.

The origin of the earliest rules or laws laid down by the Buddhist community for the guidance of its members appears to have been connected with those assemblies of the Bhikkhus which met at full and new moon. The custom of holding these meetings seems to be as old as Buddhism itself, or perhaps older, for it may well be that the custom was borrowed from some of those earlier sects which preceded Buddhism, and upon which it was to some extent modelled. At these assemblies the monks of every district met together, and those who had committed offences were obliged to confess them and submit to the prescribed penance. A list of those offences which deserved punishment or some kind of expiation was, at a very early period, drawn up for the use of these confessional meetings. This list was read out to the assembled Bhikkhus, and each one was asked whether he knew himself to be free from the sins there named. This list is called the Patimokkha, and is the earliest specimen of Buddhist Vinaya literature that we possess.

This brings up the problem of the Buddha's birthplace. Not only are his dates only very generally definable, his specific homeland is unknown as well. Despite widespread popular belief in the story that he came from Lumbini in what is now Nepal, all of the evidence is very late and highly suspect from beginning to end. Bareau has carefully analyzed the Lumbini birth story and shown it to be a late fabrication. [Bareau (1987). The lone piece of evidence impelling scholars to accept the Lumbini story has been the Lumbini Inscription, which most scholars believe was erected by Asoka. However, the inscription itself actually reveals that it is not by Asoka, and all indications are that it is a late forgery, possibly even a modern one. See Appendix C.] There are reasons to put the Buddha's teaching period -- most of his life, according to the traditional accounts -- somewhere in northern India, in a region affected by the monsoons. In particular, the eventual development of the primitive arama, the temporary seasonal shelter of the Buddha's lifetime, into the samgharama (an arama specifically for Buddhist monks) [This is the traditional understanding. Later, in the Kushan period, the fully developed monastery (eventually called the vihara) was introduced from Central Asia, as known from the excavations at Taxila (Marshall 1951). The idea of the "monastery" must have developed slowly within Buddhism -- no other religious or philosophical system anywhere is known to have developed it earlier. It clearly cannot be dated until well after the time of Megasthenes' account, which mentions explicitly where the sramanas lived but says nothing about monasteries or anything similar. The earliest identifiable group living centers, even if they were samgharamas (unlikely, since the stories about them are clearly ahistorical), are primitive affairs that can hardly be called "monasteries", as pointed out by Schopen (2004: 219; 2007: 61; cf. Bronkhorst 2011), partly on the basis of the early donative inscriptions at Sanci, which -- unlike later donative inscriptions -- do not mention viharas, indicating that the monks lived in villages. It is now clear that fully developed organized monasticism must have come first, and preceded any samgharamas, but it developed in Central Asia, whence it was introduced to India and China in the Kushan period (Beckwith 2014; forthcoming-a). Cf. Chapter Two.] -- the received historical trajectory, based on tradition, the "early" sutras, and archaeological data [Dutt (1962); see Chapter Two and the discussion in Beckwith (2012c).] -- actually requires an original location in the monsoon zone. That is to say, if aramas were necessary, then monsoons were necessary too, meaning Early Buddhism must have developed in a monsoon zone region of early India. However, that could be almost anywhere from the upper Indus River in the west -- including ancient eastern Gandhara -- to the mouths of the Ganges in the east.

-- Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith


The opinion here expressed as to the position of the Patimokkha in Buddhist literature is, I am well aware, opposed to the views of most Pali scholars. Mr. Rhys Davids1 [Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon, p. 6; Buddhism, p. 163.] considers the Patimokkha of more recent origin than the works which form the great complexus of the Tipitaka, and assumes that at the time when the latter works were collected, the Patimokkha either did not exist or was of too recent a date to be admitted into the holy writings. I will try to give my reasons for taking an opposite view.

Although we do not find the Patimokkha in its entirety and in its original form in the Vinayapitaka, yet all its rules and ordinances, separately it may be, but word for word the same, are found there; and indeed the whole Vibhanga2 [Vibhanga is the collective name for the two closely connected works which in the MSS. are called Parajika and Pacittiya. The latter titles are not old and may easily lead to mistakes. They are taken from that class of transgressions which are discussed in the beginning of each of the two halves; each work, however, in addition to discussing the one class of transgressions, from which it receives its name, treats of a number of others as well.] is nothing more than an extended reading of the Patimokkha. We thus learn the occasion upon which each individual ordinance was promulgated by Buddha; then follows the ordinance itself; and then an explanation or illustration of the several terms employed in it. In some cases, also, the rule is further illustrated by a reference to cases which come within the rule, and to others which form exceptions to it.

The question is, therefore, whether the ordinances originally appeared with the explanatory notes as in the Vibhanga, the Patimokkha being subsequently extracted from it; or whether the Patimokkha alone was the older portion, the additional matter of the Vibhanga being the work of a subsequent revision.

In dealing with this question, it should, in the first place, be observed, that if we read the ordinances of the Patimokkha, without the commentary of the Vibhanga, we find that they constitute one uninterrupted whole; 1 [This is not the case with the precepts of Buddha when extracted from the Mahavagga or Cullavagga.] and, moreover, it frequently happens that a rule refers to the one immediately preceding it, in a manner that would be altogether unintelligible if the two had been originally separated by the intervening explanations of the Vibhanga.2 [For example tassa bhikkhuno, in the 49th Pacittiya; tathavadina bhikkhuna, in the 69th Pacittiya.]

So, too, both the nature and effect of the explanations themselves seem conclusively to point to their later origin. Sometimes they extend the application of the rules, at others limit their operation, while occasionally they give directions for preventing their evasion. In some cases also the explanations substitute an entirely new rule, based upon a development of the law which took place since the framing of the rules.

A striking instance of this is seen in the proceedings against those Bhikkhus who by their evil conduct have set a bad example to laymen and their families (kuladusaka papasamacara). The following account of these proceedings is given in the Patimokkha.3 [See the last rule of the Terasuddesa (Minayeff, p. 6).]

The Bhikkhus are to remonstrate with the accused upon his course of life,4 [So bhikkhu bhikkhuni evam assa vacaniyo, etc.] and pronounce upon him sentence of banishment from his place of abode.5 [Pakkamat’ ayasma imamha avasa, alan te idha vasena 'ti.] If he resists and accuses the Bhikkhus of prejudice, they are to repeat the sentence; and if he should still persist in his obstinacy, they are to warn him three times to refrain from so doing.6 [So bhikkhu bhikkhuhi yavatatiyam samanubhasitabho tassa patinissaggaya.] If this also proves of no avail, he is guilty of “Samghadisesa," and has to submit to the penalty of the Manatta; and thereupon, before the assembled congregation, by the ceremony of the Abbhana, it is to be shown that the penance has been undergone.

Now the details which the Vibhanga furnishes with regard to this rule of the Patimokkha permit of our distinguishing two different stages in the further development of the proceeding. The first of these is represented by the explanations added in the Vibhanga to the text of the rule, the second by the account, prefixed by way of introduction, of some special case that is said to have provoked the making of the rule.

The explanations upon the whole follow the course which the rule itself specifies; but they give more complicated orders respecting the exhortations to be addressed to the persons accused; they prescribe a greater number of repetitions of the exhortations, and cause these at first to be proposed by one Bhikkhu alone, and afterwards in the presence of the assembled congregation.1 [The explanations exactly follow the text, as far as the words alan to idha vasend ’ti (Minayeff, p. 6, 1. 16); but then they prescribe a second and a third repetition of the same procedure (dutiyam pi vattabho, tatiyam pi vattabbo), and then go on to say: so bhikkhu samghamajjham pi akaddhitva vattabbo: mayasma evam avaca . . . dutiyam pi vattabbo, tatiyam pi vattabbo. Then; so bhikkhu samanubhasitabbo. The samanubhasana is then described as a natticatuttham kammam. As in this passage, the explanations differ from the text in the same way, in all the numerous similar instances where repeated exhortations to a guilty person are concerned.]

The picture of the proceedings against the Assajipunabbasuka bhikkhu, as presented by the account in the Vibhanga, differs much more from the text of the Patimokkha. Buddha gives the following precept regarding this proceeding: pathamam Assajipunabbasuka bhikkhu codetabba, codetva saretabba, saretva apattim ropetabba, apattim ropetva vyattena bhikkhuna patibalena samgho napetabbo: sunatu me bhante samgho. ime Assajipunabbasuka bhikkhu kuladusaka papasamacara. . . yadi samghassa pattakallam, samgho Assajipunabbasukanam bhikkhunam Kitagirisma pabbajaniyakammam kareyya na Assajipunabbasukehi bhikkhuhi Kitagirismim vatthabban ti, etc. In place of the repeated admonition by the Bhikkhus prescribed in the Patimokkha, we find in these statements a peculiar ecclesiastical decree (Samghakamma), fulfilled by the Samgha, of which the Patimokkha knows nothing. The restoration of the penitent culprit then takes place by the revocation (patippassaddhi) of the Kamma, not by the ancient ceremonies of the Manatta and of the Abbhana. It deserves to be noticed that in the same way as the Pabbajaniyakamma is not mentioned in the Patimokkha, neither is there any mention of the similar proceedings of the Ukkhepaniyakamma, etc., however much occasion for it might appear.1 [For instance, in the 68th Pacittiya we should expect to find some mention of the Ukkhepaniyakamma papikaya ditthiya appatinissagge. The text of this Pacittiya and the story narrated there stand in exactly the same contradiction, as has been proved in the case of the Pabbajaniyakamma.]

It seems to me unnecessary hero to give any further enumeration of instances where the Patimokkha proves itself to be the older, as compared with what has been added in the Vibhanga. The publication of the works themselves will enable every one to make his own observations and to form his own opinions on this question. I will here merely point to the fact that the other two works included in the Vinaya, the Mahavagga and the Cullavagga,2 [The Parivara, the fifth Book of the Vinayapitaka, is of much more recent date, and, in fact, does not come into consideration in questions relating to the history of the origin of the Vinaya.] although they do not stand in the same direct relation to the Patimokkha as does the Vibhanga, nevertheless distinctly presuppose its existence. The Mahavagga3 [II. 15. 1.] gives precepts concerning the recital of the Patimokkha, which put it beyond a doubt that the name Patimokkha refers here to that text which we also possess under the same name. Further, the laws against forbidden acts, scattered through the Mahavagga and Cullavagga, clearly presuppose the existence of an earlier collection of those prohibitions to which they are the supplement. The difference between such transgressions as were in earlier times (in the Patimokkha) threatened with penance, and such as were added at a later period (in the Mahavagga and Cullavagga) to the old list, is also evident from the terminology used for the penance which followed upon a transgression of this kind. The Patimokkha in this case uses the expressions Parajika, Samghadisesa, Pacittiya, etc. Now the circle of offences which constitute a Pacittiya, etc., appeared in later times as completed; if a punishment was to he inflicted for a transgression not speciflcd in the Patimokkha, they avoided using the expression Pacittiya, because, in doing this, they would have made an unauthorized addition of new matter to the ordinances of the Patimokkha as fixed of old, which was considered as inadmissible. Hence an offence of this kind, if it was a slight one, was termed Dukkata; if grievous, Thullaccaya. Any direct repetition of what had already been described in the Patimokkha was, in general, avoided in the detailed explanations of the Mahavagga and Cullavagga. If circumstances, nevertheless, made it desirable to give a repetition of this kind, there was in the outward form of such allusions, without any exception, some reference to the corresponding propositions in the Patimokkha, as if to something that had already been determined elsewhere.1 [Compare ukkotanakam pucittiyam, Mahavagga, IV. 16, 26, with reference to the 63rd Pacittiya; anadariye pacittiyain, Mahavagga, IV. 17, 7, 8, with reference to the 54th Pacittiya. At times allusion is made by the formula, yathadhammo karetabbo, to the penance prescribed in the Patimokkha for a transgression; for instance, Mahavagga, I. 49, 6, with reference to the 65th Pacittiya; Mahavagga, VI. 15, 10, with reference to the 23rd Nissaggiya. There are numerous similar passages.]

The proofs given will be sufficient to show that the Patimokkha is the earliest literary record of the Buddhist Vinaya. Of the further development of the Vinaya literature from this foundation, the following stages may be recognized.

The first thing done was to make a commentary on the Patimokkha. The text of the ancient formulas was furnished, sentence by sentence and word by word, with explanations or a paraphrase. These explanations, when the redaction of the Vinayapitaka was subsequently taken in hand, were all admitted into it.1 [The greater portion of this commentary on the Patimokkha has naturally found its place in the Vibhnuga in the discussion of the several Sikkhapada, of which the Patimokkha is composed. This commentary is in most distinct contrast to the loosely connected narrative portions which — of all component parts of the Vibhanga— were last added to it. Only one part of this ancient commentary on the Patimokkha has been placed outside the Vibhanga: the explanation of the formulas which introduce the recitation of the Patimokkha has been admitted into the Mahavagga (II. 3), together with these formulas themselves. If this passage — which is distinctly different from the style of description otherwise met with m the Mahavagga— be compared with the corresponding explanatory passages in the Vibhanga, it will at once be perceived that in both passages we have before us portions of the same original work, that this work is older than the Vinaya- pitaka in its present form, and that at the time of the redaction of the Pitaka the older work was admitted into it.]

With regard to their form of expression, these explanations did not pretend to come from Buddha himself; there was no admixture of narrative or dialogical elements; it was a simple commentary on the words of the Patimokkha, without any ornamentation.2 [The small portion of this commentary that is contained in the Mahavagga (II. 3) furnishes a sufficient proof for these assertions. In some passages of the Vibhanga, the address bhikhave (i.e. “O monks”) is added in these explanatory parts, which make it appear as if Buddha was speaking. The character of the passages in question, however, leaves no doubt that this address has been added at the time of the later revision.]

These first two periods in the literary development of the Vinaya were followed by a third, characterized by the greater breadth which it gave to its literary productions. It started again — as could scarcely fail to be the case — from the Patimokkha, and in a twofold manner. In the first place, the old material was treated anew, in accordance with the characteristics of the new era. While in earlier times the fundamental laws themselves were arranged briefly and simply, and in the following period were explained and paraphrased in an equally simple manner, the epoch we are now speaking of had a history to relate about all of them, in many instances long series of histories, in all of which Buddha himself pronounces his decision as to which cases fall within the said regulations and which do not.3 [A very clear proof of how the same legal proceedings were represented in the different stages of their development in the three successive elements which constitute the Vibhanga (the text of the Patimokkha, the commentary and the histories) is furnished by the already discussed ordinances (p. xvii-xiv) with regard to the proceedings against the kuladusaka papasamacara.] This is not the only instance in the history of Buddhism, as of history in general, that the further removed, with respect to time, documents, or pretended documents, are, from the events themselves, the more accurate becomes the knowledge they pretend to contain of them. That the histories, which have in this manner been added to the several rules of the Patimokkha, have for the most part been invented, and, moreover, invented in an extremely awkward and conventional way, will be perfectly evident to every one who reads a series of them one after the other.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vinaya Pitakam, Vol. 1, edited by Hermann Oldenberg

Postby admin » Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:01 am

Part 2 of 3

The new version of the Patimokkha, enriched with histories, is contained in the first two of the five parts of the Vinayapitaka, and bears the title of Vibhanga.

While the Vibhanga stands in the closest relation to the Patimokkha, there was a new and wider circle of additions added to that same centre of the Vinaya-discipline — the Patimokkha — most probably about the same time in which the Vibhanga originated: an endeavour was made to go beyond the more confined domain of that series of ecclesiastical offences as established of old, to give a coherent picture of the whole legal life of the Samgha. They gave a detailed and connected account of the admission into the Samgha, of the ceremony of the Uposatha, of the annually recurring observances which were connected with the appearance of the rainy season, etc. The titles of the two works in which these accounts are given are Mahavagga and Cullavagga, comprehended also under the common title of Khandhaka. As in the Vibhanga, here also the outward form was arranged in such a way that in the case of every statute a history was given relative to the occasion upon which Buddha made the said regulation. The whole style of composition of the Mahavagga and Cullavagga corresponds so exactly with that of the later written parts of the Vibhanga, i.e. the narrative portions, that it may be assumed with certainty that these texts were composed almost contemporaneously.1 [In the Mahavagga or the Cullavagga, where the discussion is of regulations that also occur in the Vibhanga, the same stories are related in connexion with them. Thus, for instance, the story of Pilindavaccha and of the King Bimbisara is given identically in the Mahavagga (VI. 15) and in the Vibhanga (Nissaggiya, 23). The story of the proceedings against the Assajipunabhasuka bhikkhu occurs in the Vibhanga (Samghadis. 13), and also in the first book of the Cullavagga. It has been proved above that this story points to a later form of the disciplinary proceedings in question than was known to the Patimokkha and its earliest commentary; it deserves to be noticed that the Cullavagga bears witness to the latest form of the procedure.] The histories, as a whole, are as undoubtedly pure inventions as those in the Vibhanga; this does not, of course, prevent their belonging to the most valuable sources for our knowledge of the life of the ancient Buddhist community. An essential difference between the Vibhanga on the one hand, and the Mahavagga and the Cullavagga on the other, lies in the fact that in the case of the Vibhanga the stories were added to an original basis of ecclesiastical regulations that had existed of old, i.e, the Patimokkha, whereas in the two other works the ecclesiastical regulations, and the stories given in connexion with these, were composed at one and the same time.

Taking all in all, if, on the one hand, we compare the short precepts of the Patimokkha, and, on the other, the stories, the endless pariyaya, the whole of the great apparatus that is brought forward in these Vinaya books, we shall find a very distinct contrast between the two literary epochs reflected in the said works. At the time when these later Vinaya works originated, the Buddhist literature was still far from the literary form of the Mahavaipulyasutra, but still a step in advance had been made on the path which subsequently led to it.

Without doubt, a careful investigation of the Suttapitaka would lead to similar results. As in the case of the Vinaya, we should be able to distinguish various strata representing the literary activity of those different periods. As I am too imperfectly acquainted with the materials in question, it is impossible for me, as yet, to make these investigations with the requisite accuracy, I must confine myself here to a few remarks.

Generally speaking, the probability is that the fixing of the fundamental doctrines of the Dhamma took place somewhere about the same time as the fixing of the fundamental laws of the Vinaya, that is, the fixing of the Patimokkha. If we may reckon the confessional-meetings, at which the Patimokkha was read aloud, as one of the most ancient elements in the life of the Buddhist community, then the need for an authentic fixing of the most important doctrines — the recognition of which united the members of the community among one another — can scarcely have been less old.

The earliest form in which these doctrines have been laid down was in all probability not that of the Sutta as we have it. These Sutta, as regards style, show the very greatest resemblance to the narrative portions of the Vinaya; the dogmatic doctrines are not stated directly, but are put into the mouth of the Buddha, and we are told of the occasion upon which he proclaimed them, precisely in the same way as the ecclesiastical prohibitions are manipulated in the Vibhanga.
Now we have seen that the Vibhanga was preceded by an earlier period of Vinaya literature, in which the ecclesiastical ordinances themselves were given with all brevity, without being put into Buddha’s mouth, and without being interwoven with any stories. It will not appear too bold a supposition to assume that the literature of the Dhamma developed in a similar manner. The Buddhist community began, in my opinion, with the fixing of the most important doctrines, such as the four Ariyasacca, the twelve Nidana, etc., without employing any narrative form; if the Bhikkhus, at the time of their assemblies, propounded the Dhamma to one another, their discourses probably consisted of the recital of such dogmatical paragraphs. The same changes in the views and literary tendencies which have led to the composition of the Vibhanga, on the foundation of the Patimokkha, probably have caused that, as a development of these ancient Dhammapariyaya, the modern Suttanta were produced, in which the doctrines are no longer directly taught, but where the stories are told how Buddha had once propounded them.

Such scholars as have access to the Suttapitaka in its full extent, should test these conjectures by the texts themselves, and correct what proves to be erroneous.

We have as yet spoken merely of the relative age of the various parts of the Buddhist Holy Scriptures. In order to fix the date itself of their origin, we must first of all examine the tradition concerning the most important events in the earliest ecclesiastical history of the Buddhists, that of the three Councils.

According to the traditional and widely-spread story, Buddha’s discourses were collected and fixed in an authentic form at the first Council, held a few months after the Master’s death; this collection of the Holy texts is said to have subsequently been subjected to new revisions at one following Council according to northern accounts,1 [We here leave the assembly held under King Kanishka entirely out of the question.] at two Councils according to southern reports. If the tradition could be relied upon in this form, the questions we are engaged upon would in all essential points be settled by it; if it cannot, we must — before casting the statements concerning the Councils entirely overboard — examine what facts may perhaps be found to shine through them. It is possible that these facts might throw some light upon the history of the development of the Buddhist sacred canons, although perhaps in a different way than seemed likely before the test was applied.


We shall confine our examination, in the first place, to the first and second Councils, concerning which the records of the northern and southern Buddhists essentially agree; the third Council, which is known almost solely to the southern records, we shall speak of afterwards.

Of the accounts referring to the first two Councils, the single section of the Pali Tipitaka itself which treats of these events deserves to be classed first. This is the closing chapter of the Cullavagga already mentioned. As the text of it will be given complete in my edition, I shall here confine myself to stating briefly the contents, in so far as they concern our present inquiry.

The tradition of the Councils takes up the thread of the story where the accounts of the life and work of Buddha, given in the Suttapitaka, end. After the death of the Master — so it is related in the Cullavagga — Subhadda, the last disciple converted by Buddha shortly before his death, proclaimed views which threatened the dissolution of the community. "Do not grieve, do not lament," he is said to have said to the believers; “it is well, that we have been relieved of the great Master’s presence; we were oppressed by him, when he said; 'this is permitted to you, this is not permitted.’ In future, we can do as we like, and not do as we do not like.” In opposition to Subhadda — the tradition goes on to relate — there came forward one of the most distinguished and oldest of Buddha’s disciples, the great Kassapa, who proposed that five hundred of the most eminent members of the community should assemble at Rajagaha, the royal residence of the ruler of Magadha, in order to collect the Master’s precepts in an authentic form. It has already been said above, how, during the seven months’ sitting of the assembly, Kassapa, the President, fixed the Vinaya, with the assistance of Upali, the Dhamma with Ananda.

This is the story as it has come down to us. What we have here before us is not history, but pure invention, and, moreover, an invention of no very ancient date. Apart from internal reasons that might be adduced to prove this, we are able to prove it by comparing another text which is older than this story, and the author of which cannot yet have known it. I allude to the highly important Sutta, which gives an account of the death of Buddha, and the Pali text of which has recently been printed by Prof. Childers. This Sutta1 [pp. 67, 68, in the edition of Childers.] gives the story — in long passages word for word the same as in the Cullavagga — of the irreverent conduct of Subhadda, which Kassapa opposes by briefly pointing to the true consolation that should support the disciples in their separation from the Master. Then follows the account of the burning of Buddha’s corpse, of the distribution of his relics among the various princes and cities, and of the festivals that were instituted in honour of these relics. Everything that the legend of the Council alleges as a motive for and as the background to the story about Kassapa’s proposal for holding the Council, is found here altogether, except that there is no allusion to the proposal itself or to the Council. We hear of those speeches of Subhadda, which, according to the later tradition, led Kassapa to make his proposal, but we do not hear anything of the proposal itself. We hear of the great assembly that meets for the distribution of Buddha’s relics, in which — according to the later tradition — Kassapa’s proposal was agreed to, but we do not hear anything of all these transactions. It may be added: we hear in this same Sutta (pp. 39, 60, 61) of the precepts which Buddha delivered to his followers shortly before his death, concerning doubts and differences of opinion that might arise, among the members of the community, with regard to the Dhamma and the Vinaya, and with regard to the treatment of such cases when he should no longer be with them. If anywhere, we should certainly have expected to find here some allusion to the great authentic depositions of Dhamma and Vinaya after Buddha’s death, which, according to the general belief of Buddhists, established a firm standard, according to which such differences could be judged and have been judged through many centuries. There is not the slightest trace of any such allusion to this Council. This silence is as valuable as the most direct testimony: it shows that the author of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta did not know anything of the first Council.1 [I shall here give the passage from the Cullavagga that comes into consideration, in order that it may be compared with the Mahapar. S. (pp. 67, 68). Kassapa says to the Bhikkhus: tatravuso ye to bhikkhu avataraga appekaccoe baha paggayha kandanti chinnapapatam papanti avattanti vivattanti: atikhippam bhagava parimbbuto, atikhippam sugato parinibbuto, atikhippam cakkhum loke antarahitan ti. ye pana te bhikkhu vitaraga te sata sampajana adhivasenti: anicca samkhara tam kut’ ettha lahbha ’ti. atha khv aham 'avuso te bhikkhu etad avocam (observe the alteration in the succession of the speeches compared with the Mahapar. S.): alam avuso ma socittha ma paridevittha, nanv etam avuso bhagavata patigace’ eva akkhatam, sabbeh’ eva piyehi manapehi nanabhavo vinabhavo annathabhavo, tam kut’ ettha avuso labbha yan tam jatam bhutam samkhatam palokadhammam tam vata ma palujjiti, n’etam thanam vijjatiti. tena kho pana samayena avuso Subhaddo nama buddha-pabbajito tassam parisayam nisinno hoti. atha kho avuso Subhaddo buddha- pabbajito te bhikkhu etad avoca: alam avuso ma socittha ma paridevittha, sumutta mayam tena mahasamanena, upadduta ca mayam homa idam vo kappati idam vo na kappatiti, idani pana mayain yam icchissama tam karissama, yam na icchissama na tam karissama ’ti, etc. — Thus in the Cullavagga the incident is related by Kassapa at the great assembly of Bhikkhus, and this narrative is followed by the proposal made by him: handa mayam avuso dhamman ca vinayan ca samgayama, pure adhammo dippati dhammo patibahiyati, etc.— The whole of this story is taken from the Mahapar. -Sutta; but Subhadda’s speech and Kassapa’s words of consolation are transposed. The reason of this transposition it is not difficult to understand, and characteristic. In the Mahapar. -Sutta, the interference of Subhadda is settled by the very fact of so important a person as Mahakassapa raising his voice. In the Cullavagga it is more appropriate that it should not yet be settled, in order that it may form the basis to Kassapa’s proposal. Hence, in this text, Subhadda’s words are placed at the end, in order that Kassapa’s proposal, which was called forth by them, may be attached to them.]

We may assume, with some probability, that the fact of the second Council does not play an unimportant part among those circumstances which led to the origin of the legends concerning the first Council; such dualisms of the same occurrences are, as is well known, often met with in historical legends. The ideas, out of which the story arose, can scarcely be considered doubtful. Buddha was dead; the two other members of the ancient Buddhist trinity, the Doctrine and the Community, were to survive the Master. It can hardly seem strange that, in order to give this continuance the right legendary expression, an authentic settlement of the Doctrine by the Community was invented, and that, for the strict preservation of the chronological continuity, this settlement was supposed to have taken place directly after Buddha’s death. To finish the picture of these proceedings, the Council of Vesali furnished the necessary materials.1 [The influence exercised by the tradition of the second Council upon the first also explains why the first is called Vinayasamgiti in the Cullavagga, although it was believed to have had to do just as well with the Dhamma as with the Vinaya. The second Council confined itself wholly to the domain of the Vinaya, and did not occupy itself with the Dhamma in the strict sense of the word.]


The account of the second Council stands in a very different position to the first with regard to its historical authenticity. The northern and southern records correspond in stating that the assembly was occasioned by ten deviations from the strict discipline of the earliest times, having occurred in Vesali. The ten points in question are extremely characteristic of the atmosphere in which the Buddhist community lived at the time. It was disputed whether the daily meal, in place of being partaken of at mid-day, might not also be partaken of when the shadows had attained the breadth of two fingers, and so forth. We thus perceive that the grand intellectual movement which we call Buddhism had even at that time lost the spirit of freedom upon which it was founded, and that it had degenerated into monkish ceremoniousness.

It is not my intention here to reproduce the detailed and most instructive account given in the Cullavagga of the course taken in the dispute concerning the ten doctrines; it is an account which, with all its pedantic snatching after trifles, bears the stamp of being in the highest degree trustworthy. The dispute was settled before an assembly of seven hundred of the faithful at Vesali; and the ten erroneous doctrines were rejected.

With this the Cullavagga closes its report of the assembly at Vesali. The story assumes quite a different appearance by an addition given to it by the later southern records, with which the northern records correspond in all essential points. The Dipavamsa, for instance, says (5, 26, and following): —

"The eight mighty Theras destroyed the ten false doctrines and dispersed the wicked ones. After they had dispersed the wicked Bhikkhus and put down the false doctrine, the eight powerful Theras selected 700 Arhats in order to purify their own doctrine; selecting the best ones, they made a revision of the Dhamma. In the famous city of Vesali, in the Kutagara hall, this second assembly was brought to a close after a period of eight months.”

The difference between the earlier and the later account of the Council held at Vesali is of considerable importance for the history of the Buddhist holy literature. According to the later version, we were expected to believe that this Council had revised the whole of the Holy texts; the earlier and undoubtedly authentic account knows nothing about this revision. If the later version were correct, it would be unintelligible that the very detailed earlier version of the acts of this Council should have omitted this main point, and had represented the insignificant disputes concerning the ten propositions as if the Council had been entirely occupied with them. We have already spoken of the influence which the Council of Vesali probably exercised upon the legend of the first Council. In the present case, conversely, at a later period, the account of the first Council had, to all appearance, reacted upon the second, and was the cause of the belief that a Dhammasamgaha was said to have been instituted by the Yasa, the Revata, and their associates, in the same sense as had formerly been said to have been done by Kassapa.

The result which this investigation furnishes to the question regarding the origin of the collection of the sacred writings, we may state to be this; the first Council is certainly brought by the tradition into connexion with the redaction of this collection, but this tradition contains no historical truth; the tradition of the second Council is historical, but in its authentic form it does not bring this Council into any connexion with the collection of the sacred books. Our inference is thus, for the present, a purely negative one; from the statements concerning the two Councils, nothing is directly gained with regard to the points in question. We shall subsequently have to return to the indirect results that might possibly be obtained; but we must first consider the third Council, held under King Dhammasoka.
As is well known, the tradition1 [The tradition is contained in the Dipavamsa, the Mahavamsa, and the Samantapasadika of Buddhaghosa. In the concluding chapter of the Cullavagga, the first two Councils only are spoken of.] in Ceylon concerning it is as follows: —

The acts of favour shown to the Community by Asoka induced a number of heretics to join the Community. For seven years the sacred ceremonies could not be performed, as the presence of these non-believers interfered with them. The King issued a command to the Community, through one of his officers, that the religious ceremonies must be observed; and, as this command was disregarded, the King’s minister put several of the Bhikkhus to death with his own hand. The King, horrified at this proceeding, endeavoured to atone for it. The Bhikkhus advised him to invite the aged teacher Moggaliputta; the latter came to the capital, preached before the King, and assured him that the minister’s crime in no way affected him. Moggaliputta then selected, from among the great host of Bhikkhus who had assembled in the capital, one thousand of them to hold a Council with him. The false doctrines of those who had forced themselves into the Community were denounced; Moggaliputta then, in a treatise called Kathavatthu, described the dogmatic position held by himself and his followers, and proclaimed it before the Council. This work is still preserved in the collection of the Pali Abhidhamma.

In the domains of northern Buddhism there is but little said concerning the third Council.1 [Mr. Beal writes to me: “With respect to the Councils, all the Chinese VERSIONS OF THE VINAYA PITAKA agree in alluding only to two. There is no mention whatever of a Council at Pataliputra.” In this the Chinese texts correspond perfectly with the Pali versions of the Vinaya Pitaka, which likewise mention only two Councils; but we must beware not to conclude from this that the third Council is a mere invention.] But it is incorrect to suppose that it was wholly unknown2 [See the remarks of Koppen, die Religion des Buddha, vol. i. p. 139.] there. That the references made to this Council are but rare may easily be accounted for.

It is well known that the period between the Councils of Vesali and Pataliputta is assumed by our records to have been the time of the origin of those schisms which separated the Buddhist fraternity into eighteen different schools. Moggaliputta, to whom is attributed the leading part at the Council of Pataliputta, was not an authority recognized throughout the whole domain of the Buddhist church (the very fact of the eighteen sects excludes such an assumption); he was, in fact, merely the head of one school. The Council, at which Moggaliputta formulated his own opinions, and denounced all views that differed from his own, resulted in a decisive triumph for his party over its adversaries. Thus it is perfectly intelligible that mention is so frequently made of these proceedings in the records of the Sinhalese, who consider themselves as belonging to the school of Moggaliputta, and so rarely, if at all, by the northern Buddhists. The tradition which ascribes the origin of differences of the schools to the period between the second and third Councils, and the fact that the northern and southern records speak much in the same way of the first two Councils, and not so with regard to the third, mutually confirm and explain each other. As a counterpart to the almost absolute silence in the records of the northern texts concerning Moggaliputta, it may be mentioned that Upagupta, whom the Buddhists of the north regard as the highest ecclesiastical authority under Asoka, is, as far as I know, nowhere mentioned by the Sinhalese.

After what has been said, we must not, from the fact that the northern writers do not allude to the third Council, entertain any suspicion of the Sinhalese historians having wilfully divided the facts belonging to the second Council, and framed two different Councils of them, or of their having referred to King Asoka — in whose reign the second Council was held — as to two different kings of the same name.1 [In Hiouen Thsang, at all events, in one passage, there is evidence of his being conscious of the difference between the two Asokas. The great king Dhammasoka he always calls Wou-yeou, and speaks of him as a well-known person. Now, he at one time says (Memoires de H. Ths., vol. i. p. 414): “Dans la premiere centaine d’annees qui suivit le Nirvana, il y eut un roi nomme ’O-Chou- Kia, qui etait l'arriere-petit-fils du roi Pin-pi-so-lo (Bimbisara). Il quitta la ville de la maison ’u roi (Rajagriha), transfera sa cour a Po-tch’a-li (Pataliputra) et fit construire une seconde enceinte autour de l’ancienne ville.” [Google translate: In the first hundred years after Nirvana, there was a king named ’O-Chou- Kia, who was the great-grandson of King Pin-pi-so-lo (Bimbisara). He left the city of the house of a king (Rajagriha), will transfer his court to Po-tch’a-li (Pataliputra) and built a second wall around the ancient city.] Shortly before and afterwards Dhammasoka is spoken of under the name of Wou-yeon. This is the only passage where Hiouen Thsang uses the name ’O-chou-kia. It seems undoubted that the author here understood ’O-chou-kia and Wou-yeon to be two different persons.] As little would it be correct to say that the northern writers have described the second and third Councils as one. The two incidents have nothing whatever  in common, with the exception of the accidental identity of names of the kings in whose reigns the events occurred; that most of the northern writers knew of or wished to know of but one of these events, is certainly as correct, as it is incorrect to assume that they turned the two into one.  

The Councils of Vesali and Pataliputta, respecting which we have here expressed our opinion, are the fixed points in the history of the earlier form of Buddhism. In order to indicate the position occupied by other incidents belonging to this period, we must look for the circumstances which connect them with those primary events

In the above investigation, we have already spoken of several facts which must be placed in the period between the Council of Vesali and that of Pataliputta. This period, first of all, saw the origin of the schisms, and was also the time of the development of the Abhidhamma literature, which was brought to a close by the proclamation of the text of the Kathavatthu at the Council of Pataliputta.1 [It is scarcely necessary to remark that the contemporaneous origin of the schisms and of the Abhidhamma is not accidental, but that in it the natural connexion of the events is apparent. The same characteristic signature of that very stage of the development of Buddhism, which first advanced from the simple handing over and receiving of the doctrines, to a systematical dogmatising, shows itself both in the domain of literature in the origin of the Abhidhamma, and in the domain of ecclesiastical life in those disputes which have produced the great schisms.] The composition of the closing chapter of the Cullavagga, which contains an account of the first two Councils, is, on the one hand, clearly of later origin than the Assembly at Vesali, and, on the other hand, of an earlier date than the origin of the schismatic schools and of the Abhidhamma books, for this identical chapter is met with in the Vinaya of the different schools at a corresponding place, and it does not mention the Abhidhamma among the sacred writings of which it gives a survey intended to be complete.

What, however, is the chronological relation between the origin of the main substance of the Vinaya [i.e., of the whole Pitaka, with the exception of this story of the Councils, and of the Parivara) and the Councils of Vesali and Pataliputta?

The account of the Councils follows upon the actual closing chapter of the Vinaya, containing the laws for the Bhikkhunis.1 [The Bhikkhunis are constantly spoken of in the Vinaya after the conclusion of the laws relative to the Bhikkhus. In agreement with the fundamental division of the Vinaya into two main parts (Parajika Pacittiya— Mahavagga Cullavagga), we find the regulations referring to the Bhikkhunis collected in two passages, in the Bhikkhunivibhanga at the end of the Pacittiya, and at the end of the Cullavagga before the story of the Councils.] It is evident that this account is written as the conclusion or an appendix to the Vinaya, and that, accordingly, the main substance of the Vinaya laws was not composed later. It remains to be considered whether, at the time the closing chapter was composed, the principal part of the work did already exist as a complete whole, or whether the closing chapter and the other portions of the Vinaya were composed at one and the same time. It seems to me that the first of these alternatives possesses by far the greater amount of probability, not to say certainty. And that for two reasons. First we must consider the circumstance that in the closing chapter the redaction of the whole Vinaya is said to have been made immediately after Buddha’s death. Now, though this tradition is proved to be untenable, it surely follows from the very fact of its existence — with perfect certainty — that, at the time the story in question was written, the redaction of the Vinaya was not a fact just accomplished or still held in fresh remembrance, and that least of all can it have been a part of the same diaskeuasis [The process of reviewing or revising a text] which gave rise to the very story that transposes that redaction a hundred years back.

Another point deserving consideration here is the treatment or non-treatment in the Vinaya of those questions which formed the subjects of discussion at the second Council.

No reader of the Vinaya will hesitate to admit that this collection contains not an historical account of what Buddha permitted and forbade, but an account of what was regarded as allowable and forbidden at a certain period long after Buddha’s time. Now the whole second Council was nothing more than a discussion on the permissibility of certain indulgences, a discussion which excited the attention of the whole community in the highest degree. We may with full assurance infer that if the discussions as to what was permitted and what forbidden, which we have before us in the Vinaya, were established after the time of this Council, it was next to unavoidable that, in appropriate passages, it should be directly stated how the Bhikkhus were to act with regard to the points so hotly disputed at Vesali. The materials for comparing the points disputed at Vesali with the doctrines of the Vinaya are all in our possession. The account in the Cullavagga concerning the Council even directly mentions, at each of the ten false precepts, where these are said to have been condemned by Buddha, so that we know upon what the ancient fraternity itself based the rejection of the ten heresies. Now we find that the text of the Vinaya, as we have it, does not in any way expressly touch upon most of these points;1 [There is only one of these directly mentioned in the Vinaya, the tenth, which is obviously the most important of the disputed points, prohibiting any Bhikkhu from accepting gold or silver.] that, in fact, it docs not know of the propositions discussed at Vesali. The passages of the Vinaya to which the Cullavagga refers respecting the decision of the ten disputed points contain only general principles, not any express reference to the special subjects of the ten Vatthu. To these main propositions themselves are added — to facilitate the interpretation — fuller details, which touch upon a great number of special cases relating to the various rules; but the cases upon which the controversy at Vesali turned are not specified.2 [I shall for the present not give in extenso in proof of this all the passages that come into consideration here; the publication of the complete Vinaya will enable every one to form his own opinion.] The texts of the Parajika and Pacittiya — with the unwearied minute acuteness which is characteristic of the Indian mind — collect all the in any way conceivable possibilities that might apply to the propositions to be explained, in order to cut off every doubt as to the sense. Every one who knows the manner in which the discussion proceeds in these texts will not hesitate, with perfect confidence, to draw the conclusion that, at the time when these texts received their present form, nothing was as yet known of the ten Vatthu of the Bhikkhus at Vesali. The discussion of the ten propositions is given in the form of an account of the Council at Vesali, as an appendix at the end of the Vinaya; this, I think, is the best proof of the fact that when the dispute concerning the ten propositions was being carried on, the Vinaya itself already existed, that IT IS OLDER THAN THE COUNCIL OF VESALI.

Probably, however, not much older. If we fix the date of the composition of the Vinayapituka, as handed down to us, too long BEFORE the Council held at Vesali, we shall thereby, first of all, come too close upon Buddha’s own day, and it is further opposed by the prophecy of Pataliputta being made the capital of the kingdom of Magadha, as contained in the Vinaya.1 [Mahuvagga, VI. 28, 8. Compare Mahaparinibb, S., p. 13.] According to the statement of Hiouen Thsang, King Kalasoka, in whose reign the Council of Vesali was held, is said to have changed his residence, and removed to Pataliputta; and, indeed, the royal residence had been removed there at the time the Council was being held, if the report in the Mahavamsa (p. 17, 1. 4) is correct. The removing of the residence of the Magadha kings to Pataliputta must be anterior to the redaction of the Vinaya Pitaka as we read it.


We shall now, in conclusion, draw up a list of the successive events in the literary and ecclesiastical history of the Buddhists, belonging to the period we have been discussing.

1. The Genesis of the Patimokkha. The earliest beginnings of the Dhamma literature.

2. The formation of the Commentary on the Patimokkha, which is included in the Vibhanga.

3. The Vibhanga is compiled; the Mahavagga and the Cullavagga are composed; origin of the main substance of the Suttanta literature.

4. Council at Vesali.

5. Origin of the legends of the Council at Rajagaha; composition of the closing chapter of the Vinaya.

6. Schisms in the Buddhist community; origin of the Abhidhamma.

7. Council at Pataliputta; the Kathavatthu.

If, as is justified by Asoka^s inscriptions, we assume the year 265 B.C. as the approximate date of his coronation, and we calculate 118 years back from this to the Council at Vesali — in accordance with the chronological system of the Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa1 [I agree perfectly with the remarks made by Dr. Buhler respecting the Sinhalese chronology: “The smallness of the period, sixty years of which are besides covered by the reigns of Candragupta and Bindusera, where Brahmans and Buddhists agree in their figures, makes a considerable deviation from the truth improbable, and for practical purposes the number of years given by the Buddhists may be accepted as a fact.” I believe I may be justified in agreeing to this judgment of Dr. Buhler, oven though I do not share his opinion that the edicts of Sahasram and Rupnath contain an authentic confirmation of the chronological system of the Sinhalese, which is as old as the time of Asoka himself. The statement in these inscriptions regarding the length of time during which the king who set them up, remained a layman (upasaka), does not seem to me to have been correctly treated by Dr. Buhler. The inscription of Sahasram reads: | | | | | | | iyani savachalani; the inscription of Rupnath: satirakekani adhiti ni va[sa]. Dr. Buhler’s transcription of this inscription reads adhitisani; in the drawing in the Corpus Inscriptionum (Vol. I. PI. XIV.), however, the penultimate is stated to be illegible, and the photo-zincograph in the Indian Antiquary (June, 1877) seems to furnish the reading ya rather than sa in the passage in question, and the reading ya is also confirmed by the Sahasram edict. It seems to me, therefore, that the only accredited reading is adhitiyani (or adhatiyani), and this is undoubtedly the same as addhateyva and addhatiya of the Pall and addhaijja of the Jaina Prakrit, which signifies “two and a half." The King, therefore, was not an Upasaka for thirty-two and a half years and more, but for thirty years less. Dr. Buhler’s principal argument in favour of the supposition that the inscriptions were made by Asoka is this: that it is only the long reign of this monarch, of all the kings of the Maurya dynasty, which tallies with the numbers given in the inscriptions. My opinion is that the inscriptions might have been made by any Maurya king, who had reigned for at least about four years; and the Community mentioned might be any one of the numerous sects of that time, and — considering the expression “vivutha” — any other rather than the Buddhist. If the King was nevertheless Asoka, and the Samgha the Buddhist, the inscription would not confirm the chronology of the Sinhalese, it would oppose it.] — we shall find the date of this Council to fall somewhere about 383 B.C. From what has been said above, the revision of the Vinaya must have been somewhere before that time, but not much earlier. Hence we shall be right in conjecturing that it was not very far removed from 400 B.C. The error which might possibly arise from the inaccuracy of this calculation cannot at all events be a considerable one.

I do not think we shall be overestimating the literary productivity of the Buddhist Samgha by considering it possible that, during the first ninety years after Buddha’s death, it had produced a literature of this great compass, and one so widely scattered in strata of an earlier and later origin. Let us compare it with the literary productions that emanated from the Socratic school during the seventy-seven years between the death of Socrates and that of Aristotle, or with the works of Kant and the philosophers who followed him, during the fifty years between the publication of the Critic of Pure Reason and the death of Hegel. The period of Indian history of which we are speaking was — this we must bear in mind — on the one hand, most seriously affected by the religio-ascetic thoughts which have created Buddhism; on the other hand, it possessed a perfect mastery of the literary form. It is most probable that other sects had preceded the Buddhists in laying down their ordinances for the community and their dogmatic principles in a literary form. What these sects had accomplished the Buddhists made use of; and, if nowhere else, they at all events found in the texts of the Brahmana, of the Sutra and Upanishad, prototypes for the development of a didactic material in a form appropriate for the further transmission to disciples. Fellow-labourers in the work were to be found throughout the whole Jambudipa, wherever there were Bhikkhus to whom the doctrines of Gotama Buddha had found their way. Hence our opinion of the early origin of the Buddhist texts, based as it is upon external proofs, does not clash, but agrees perfectly with the internal possibility and probability.1 [The edict of Bairat has been brought forward to oppose the great age of the Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the form we now have them; to me this seems altogether wrong. King Asoka mentions in that edict a number of texts, the study of which he recommends to the fraternity and to laymen. He intended in no way to draw up a list of all the sayings of Buddha which the King considered as authentic, but to give a selection of those which he held to be specially deserving of study. The fact that only some of the titles mentioned in the inscription have hitherto been met with in the texts cannot cause the slightest hesitation. First of all the Pali texts have not yet been examined so completely as will be necessary, and then we must remember that the same text was frequently known by several titles. Compare, for instance, the names which Buddha gives at the end of the Brahmajalasutta (Sept Suttas, p. 57) to this discourse (Atthajala, Dhammajala, Brahmajala, Ditthijala, Anuttarasamgamavijaya), or let us ask, who, at a first glance, would recognize the identity of the Parajika and Pacittiya with the Suttavibhanga, or the identity of the Agamas with the Nikayas, etc. Thus the “Moneyasuta,” to which the inscription alludes, may be identical with the Samannaphalasutta, if we must not rather identify it with the little discourse contained in the Tikanipata of the Anguttara-Nikaya which begins: “Tinimani bhikkhave moneyyani” (see the Apayavagga; fol. jhai of the Phayre MS.). The “Munigatha” most probably are the twelfth Sutta of the Suttanipata. The “Laghulovada,” concerning falsehood, which is mentioned in the inscription, is the Ambalatthikarahulovada, the sixty-first among the Suttas of the Majjhima-Nikaya. The Vinayasamakasa (= vinaya-samakarsha) is, I think, certainly not the Parivara, as Mr. Davids once supposed. This work, at least to judge from the Pali version which is the only one I know, is undoubtedly of more recent date than Asoka; besides, on account of its form, which is somewhat like an index, it was of all the Vinaya texts least of all adapted for being studied in wider circles. The expression “substance of the Vinaya" seems to me to apply very well to the Patimokkha. The meaning of the title Anagatabhayani can be gathered from the Arannikanagatabhayasutta of the Anguttaranikaya given in the Suttasamgaha, M8. Orient, fol. of the Royal Library in Berlin, fol. cam). This Sutta describes how the Bhikkhu, who lives a solitary life in the forests, should have ever before him the dangers that might suddenly put an end to his life— serpents, savage animals, etc. (these are the “fears of the future”), and such thoughts should lead him to exercise all his energies in order to arrive at the goal of his religious strivings.]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vinaya Pitakam, Vol. 1, edited by Hermann Oldenberg

Postby admin » Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:02 am

Part 3 of 3

We have hitherto endeavoured to describe the history of the development of the Buddhist Vinaya-literature without regard to the division of the schools, all of which have their own texts.2 [The opinion of Professor Wassiljew (Der Buddhismus, p. 68 of the German translation), that the Vinaya literature was the same in all the different schools, is, strictly speaking, not correct. It is true, only, so far as has yet been discovered, that the Vinaya of the different schools is based upon the same fundamental redaction, but this original Vinaya has assumed very different forms in the different schools.] We pass on to an examination regarding that school, the Vinaya-texts of which have been preserved to us in Ceylon, and of its position among the other schools into which the Buddhist church divided itself.

Among the historical traditions of the Mahavihara in Ceylon1 [The historical portions of the great Atthakatha, of the Mahavihara form the basis not only of the historical statements of Buddhaghosa, but also of the histories Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa. I intend to give a proof of this in my edition of the Dipavamsa.] there has been preserved an account of the eighteen sects which arose during the course of the second century after Buddha’s death; and we have several other similar accounts from the northern records.2 [Compare Wassiljew, l. c. p. 219 ff, Taranatha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (German translation), p. 270 n.] The various names in the different reports do not always correspond exactly; not only were different names given to the same school, but in the course of time more than eighteen schools arose, and the various reports selected from among these, first one and then another, in order to produce the number eighteen that had long been regarded as the established number. However, in spite of the lists not agreeing perfectly, we can, with sufficient certainty, discern several large groups of schools that are closely allied among one another.

Which is the school, the texts of which we have before us in the Pali language? And with which other schools was it most closely connected?

According to the traditions of the Sinhalese, one of the schools possessed a claim to be considered as orthodox, on account of its having held fast to the original tradition of the Theras (mulatheravada); of course the Sinhalese church considers itself as belonging to this party. That the name Theravadi was not a mere title of honour which the followers of this school applied to themselves alone, but that their right to it was generally recognized, is evident from the fact that Hiouen Thsang also gives this name (‘‘Chang- tso-pou”) to the Sinhalese community.

Now, in my opinion, it can be shown with tolerable certainty that this same school bore another name in addition, that of the Vibhajjavadi (Vibhajyavadinas). From the reports of the northern Buddhists, more especially those of the Mahasamghikas and Sammatiyas,1 [Taranatha, l. c. pp. 271, 272.] we find, by the side of two other groups of schools2 [In the centre of one of these groups stand the Mahasamghikas; in that of the other the Vatsiputriyas.] which are in close affinity, the following third group: the Sarvastivadinas, VIBHAJYAVADINAS, Mahicasakas, Dharmaguptakas, Kacyapiyas, Samkrantikas (by the side of the last we also find the Tamracatiyas mentioned here, which seem to be identical with or clearly related to them).3 [Taranatha, l. c. p. 273.] Now the historical literature of Ceylon corresponding with the above gives the following group: the Theravadi, Mahimsasaka, Sabbatthavadi, Dhammaguttika, Kassapika, Samkantika, Suttavadi. If those names that are the same on both sides arc left out, the result would most probably be the identity of the Theravadi with the Vibhajyavadinas.

Now this probability, it seems to me, becomes a certainty by the account in the Mahavamsa concerning the third Council held under King Asoka. Asoka caused large numbers of heterodox Bhikkhus to be expelled from the community, and finally asked the true believers: Which doctrine did Buddha himself proclaim? They answered: He was a Vibhajjavadi.
Whereupon the King turned to the Thera Moggaliputta: —

vibhajjavadi sambuddho hoti bhante 'ti aha so,
thero ama 'ti etc.4 [To the passage quoted above I add the following words I have met with in a subscription given by the Mahavihara monks to the third book of the Cullavagga: “acariyanam vibhajjapadanam (vibhajjavadinam ?) Tambapannidipapasadakanam Mahaviharavasinam.” See also Minayeff, in his Introduction to the Pratimoksha, p. ix.]


The result seems certain: if the appellation Vibhajjavadi was known as the name of a school, and the Sinhalese tradition — and moreover in a passage where the point in question was to distinguish the true from the false doctrines — declared the founder of the church to be a Vibhajjavadi, it is clear that the Sinhalese recognized that school as the orthodox one, and reckoned themselves as belonging to it.  

A somewhat different statement is given by Fa Hian,1 [Beal, Buddhist Pilgrims, p. 165.] who makes the express remark that the Vinaya used in Ceylon belonged to the Mahicasakas. This cannot be correct. For, in the first place, the Sinhalese themselves considered the Mahicasakas as one of those sects which had gone off from the true faith; and, secondly, Hiouen Thsang gives the sect which prevailed in Ceylon a different Chinese name to that which he, as a rule, employs for the Mahicasakas. Yet this, at least, seems to result from Fah Hian’s statement: the Vinaya of the Mahicasaka school must be remarkably like the version of the Vinayapitaka handed down in Ceylon. 2 [It is probably not accidental that the Dipavamsa mentions the Mahimsasaka first among those schools which branched off from the Theravada, and that the northern Buddhists also are in the habit of mentioning the Vibhajyavadinas and the Mahicasakas side by side.] Through the kindness of Mr. Beal I have been enabled to make a beginning on the comparison of the two versions. The task of proving in detail the relation between the texts of the different schools must be reserved for future investigations
; it can scarcely be doubted that a knowledge of the original form of the Vinaya will, in this way, be attained with as much certainty as accuracy with regard to detail. It is self-evident that first of all the Chinese translations of the Vinaya- literature of several of the Buddhist schools must be examined in detail. Persons acquainted with the Chinese language, and who have access to these works, will be sure to receive the thanks of all interested in the study of Buddhism for every communication with regard to these important literary documents. Meanwhile, however, it will at all events be of interest to inquirers in this domain to become acquainted at least with the arrangement of the Vinaya of the Mahicasaka-school, and to be enabled to compare it with the Pali Vinaya. I shall, therefore, here communicate the remarks which Mr. Beal has had the kindness to send me relating to the Mahicasaka-school, and I shall accompany these with notes, giving the corresponding data relating to the Pali version.

Mr. Beal writes:

1. ‘‘There is no division of the Chinese version of the Buddhist Vinaya corresponding to that you name in the Pali.1 [This is the division into the five works Parajika, etc.] In the case of the Mahisasakas, the first section of the FIRST DIVISION is called Po-lo-i, i.e., Parajika. The second section of the first division includes the 23 (13 ?) Samghadisesa rules. The third section of the first division is called Wou-teng, i.e., the Anitya dhamma. The fourth section of the first division is called Shi-sah, which I take to be = Nissaggiya. The fifth section of the first division includes the 91 (92 ?) Pacittiya rules.

2. “The SECOND division includes eight rules for the Bhikkhunis, called the eight Parajika rules. The remaining sections of this division contain rules for the Bhikkhunis similar to those for the Bhikkhus.2 [As yet all the data agree exactly with the Pali Vibhanga, except that no mention is here made of the short chapters which in the Pali redaction come in after the Pacittiya.]

3. “The THIRD DIVISION contains, 1st, a life of buddha,3 [This corresponds with the first chapters of the Pali Mahavagga.] 2nd, Rules for ordination, residence during rainy season, etc. This evidently corresponds to the Mahavagga of the Pali.

4. “The fourth division contains, 1st, a section called Mih-tsang, i.e. Adhikarana-samatha, rules for avoiding litigation, and 2nd, rules for holding sessions of priests (Samgha-kamma).4 [This corresponds with the first four Khandhas of the Cullavagga.]

5. The fifth division contains miscellaneous rules, and evidently agrees with the Pali Parivara.1 [More likely this section corresponds with the second half of the Cullavagga, and a section corresponding with the Parivara is wanting in the Chinese Vinaya. The story of the Councils which Mr. Beal mentions will be found in the Pali Vinaya, at the end of the Cullavagga.] Under this last division, we have in Chinese the history of the Councils.

"In order to test the identity of the Pali and Chinese versions, I will now give an outline of the first division, as it is found in the Mahisasaka school.

“The first section commences with a reason why the teaching of former Buddhas had not endured, viz. that like flowers, when not well fastened together, are scattered by the wind, so the teaching of Buddha, if not systematically arranged and bound together in order, would soon be dispersed by the opposition of enemies and heretics.

“Buddha then accepts the invitation of a Brahman, called Pi-lan-jo (Veranja), to partake of hospitality during the three months of wass. The Brahman forgets to fulfil his engagements, being immersed in bodily enjoyments; at the end of the three months Buddha goes to him and reproves him for his neglect.2 [All this corresponds exactly with the Introduction to the Vibhanga; the comparison also of the flowers which are scattered by the wind, is made use of in the Pali text.]

“Buddha then proceeds with his followers to the neighbourhood of Vaisali, and here begins an account of the transgressions against the Law meriting expulsion.

1. “The sin of Sudana Karandaputra,3 [Pali: Sudinno Kalandaputto.] who, having become a disciple, was tempted by his wife to abjure his vows of chastity.

2. “The story of a Bhikkhu4 [Tena kho pana mayena annataro bhikkhu Vesaliyam Mahavane makkatim amisena upalapetva tassa methunam dhammam patisevati, etc.] and a female monkey.

3. “A story about going to festivals and dances given by non-believers.5 [I do not find anything exactly corresponding with this in the Pali text. Perhaps the following is the passage meant: tena kho pana samayena sambahula Vesalika Vajjiputtaka bhikkhu yavadattham bhunjimsu, yavadattham supimsu, yavadattham nahayimsu, yavadattham bhunjitva . . . ayoniso manasikaritva . . . methunam dhammam patisevimsu.]  

4. "Specific transgressions, and their degree and guilt.

6. “The story of Danaka,1 [Dhaniyo kumbhakaraputta (second Parajika).] a potter's son, whose wooden house having been destroyed by thieves, he built him a large stone house, which Buddha ordered to be pulled down.

The Three Little Pigs

The story of The Three Little Pigs featured here has been adapted from different sources and from childhood memory. The primary sources are English Fairy Tales, retold by Flora Annie Steel (1922) with illustrations by L. Leslie Brooke from the 1904 version. This story is featured in our Favorite Fairy Tales and Children's Stories.

Once upon a time there was an old mother pig who had three little pigs and not enough food to feed them. So when they were old enough, she sent them out into the world to seek their fortunes.

The first little pig was very lazy. He didn't want to work at all and he built his house out of straw. The second little pig worked a little bit harder but he was somewhat lazy too and he built his house out of sticks. Then, they sang and danced and played together the rest of the day.

The third little pig worked hard all day and built his house with bricks. It was a sturdy house complete with a fine fireplace and chimney. It looked like it could withstand the strongest winds.

The next day, a wolf happened to pass by the lane where the three little pigs lived; and he saw the straw house, and he smelled the pig inside. He thought the pig would make a mighty fine meal and his mouth began to water.

So he knocked on the door and said:

Little pig! Little pig!
Let me in! Let me in!

But the little pig saw the wolf's big paws through the keyhole, so he answered back:

No! No! No!
Not by the hairs on my chinny chin chin!

Then the wolf showed his teeth and said:

Then I'll huff
and I'll puff
and I'll blow your house down.

So he huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down! The wolf opened his jaws very wide and bit down as hard as he could, but the first little pig escaped and ran away to hide with the second little pig.  

The wolf continued down the lane and he passed by the second house made of sticks; and he saw the house, and he smelled the pigs inside, and his mouth began to water as he thought about the fine dinner they would make.

So he knocked on the door and said:

Little pigs! Little pigs!
Let me in! Let me in!

But the little pigs saw the wolf's pointy ears through the keyhole, so they answered back:

No! No! No!
Not by the hairs on our chinny chin chin!

So the wolf showed his teeth and said:

Then I'll huff
and I'll puff
and I'll blow your house down!

So he huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down! The wolf was greedy and he tried to catch both pigs at once, but he was too greedy and got neither! His big jaws clamped down on nothing but air and the two little pigs scrambled away as fast as their little hooves would carry them.

The wolf chased them down the lane and he almost caught them. But they made it to the brick house and slammed the door closed before the wolf could catch them. The three little pigs they were very frightened, they knew the wolf wanted to eat them. And that was very, very true. The wolf hadn't eaten all day and he had worked up a large appetite chasing the pigs around and now he could smell all three of them inside and he knew that the three little pigs would make a lovely feast.

So the wolf knocked on the door and said:

Little pigs! Little pigs!
Let me in! Let me in!

But the little pigs saw the wolf's narrow eyes through the keyhole, so they answered back:

No! No! No!
Not by the hairs on our chinny chin chin!

So the wolf showed his teeth and said:

Then I'll huff
and I'll puff
and I'll blow your house down.

Well! he huffed and he puffed. He puffed and he huffed. And he huffed, huffed, and he puffed, puffed; but he could not blow the house down. At last, he was so out of breath that he couldn't huff and he couldn't puff anymore. So he stopped to rest and thought a bit.

But this was too much. The wolf danced about with rage and swore he would come down the chimney and eat up the little pig for his supper. But while he was climbing on to the roof the little pig made up a blazing fire and put on a big pot full of water to boil. Then, just as the wolf was coming down the chimney, the little piggy pulled off the lid, and plop! in fell the wolf into the scalding water.

So the little piggy put on the cover again, boiled the wolf up, and the three little pigs ate him for supper.

6. "The story of a Rishi who was annoyed by the visits of a Nagaraja. Bodhisatva ordered the Rishi to ask the Naga for the Mani-gem concealed in his crest, on which the Naga ceased to come to the Rishi. This story concludes with a gatha:
'Men do not like beggars, and they soon learn to hate them,
The Nagaraja hearing words of begging went away and never returned.’2 [This story belongs to the second Samghadisesa dhamma. That the person who advised the Rishi was the Bodhisatva himself is not expressly stated; in fact, it seems that in the earlier texts the stories related there of past times (“bhutapubbam’’) were only in few cases connected with Buddha himself, and with the persons surrounding him, whereas this invariably happens in the Jataka collection. The verse is as follows: “na tam yace yassa piyam jigimse, videso hoti atiyacanaya / nago manim yacito brahmanena adassanan neva tad ajjhagama ’ti."]

"The SECOND SECTION of this division is taken up with stories about Devadatta.3 [Similar stories occur in the Pali text in the discussion of the 10th and 11th Samghadisesa dhamma.]

The other sections are occupied with stories relating to the subjects discussed in them, viz. with reference to clothes, medicines, bedding and other matters.

“The SECOND DIVISION, relating to nuns,4 [Bhikkhuni-vibhanga.] is occupied by stories and instances of a similar character as those in the first division.

“The THIRD division is occupied by a life of Buddha, from his election in the time of Dipamkara down to the conversion of Sariputra and Moggallana.”5 [This corresponds with the introductory chapter of the Mahavagga. The story in it does not begin with an account of Buddha’s previous existences, but begins with the time when he attained the dignity of a Buddha. It extends, like the Chinese version, to the conversion of the two Aggasavaka.]


So far Mr. Beal's communication in connexion with the Vinaya of the Mahicasakas.

Of the Tibet Vinaya, the Vinaya of the Mahasarvastivadinas, we have the well-known detailed extracts of Csoma Korosi.1 [Analysis of the Dulva in the Asiatic Researches, vol. xx. especially p. 45 ff. That the Tibet Vinaya belongs to the Mahasarvastivadinas is stated by Wassiljew (Buddhismus, p. 96).] a comparison of the statements of these two scholars relating to the texts that have been examined by them, with the Pali Vinaya, leads with perfect certainty to the following conclusion:

All of the different versions of the Vinaya are based upon one foundation; the arrangement of the material is the same in all; a large portion of the stories interwoven in the text correspond in all. It has been pointed out above, that of the elements which constitute the Vibhanga the narrative portions were added last; the addition of these stories was made at an earlier period than that in which the differences of the various schools arose. Even the story of the first two Councils — which is clearly the part of the Pali Vinaya last composed, is also met with at the exactly corresponding place in the Vinaya of the Mahiyasakas, and of the Mahasarvastivadinas.


Hitherto, I have been unable to discover any traces in the Pali Vinaya that the original text common to all the various versions of the Vinaya has here experienced any kind of alterations; and more particularly we find here no kind of interpolations showing special reference to Ceylon.2 [Of the Sinhalese works, known to me, and which discuss Buddha’s first actions after he became a Buddha, not one omits mentioning his attention to Lanka. The Mahavagga, although it treats of the same portion of Buddha’s life, knows nothing of this.]

Chaps. 28-30 are, with a few unimportant variations, word for word the same as Mahāparinibbāna Sutta I, 19-II, 3; II, 16-24. -- Mahavagga, Khandaka 6, Chapter 28, Excerpt from Vinaya (2): The Mahavagga, by T.W. Rhys Davids

From this sentence down to the end of the verses at Chap. II, § 3, is, with a few unimportant variations, word for word the same as Mahâ Vagga VI, 28, 1, to VI, 29, 2. -- Buddhist Suttas, Vol. XI of The Sacred Books of the East, Translated from Pâli by T. W. Rhys Davids

The diction also and the archaic colouring of the language is the same throughout the whole Pali Vinaya; the easily recognizable and characteristic peculiarities of the later works admitted into the Tipitaka, and still more of the Atthakathas, are altogether foreign to this Vinaya. Thus it seems to me very possible, and even probable, that the Pali version represents the Vinaya in its original form, as it existed before the separation of the schools, and that the claim of the Sinhalese fraternity to possess the true Theravada is well-founded. With regard to the two other schools, we can perceive the existence of later additions even in the short quotations from them which are all we as yet possess. These additions are by no means altogether unknown to the Sinhalese church, but they have there been placed in the Atthakathas, so that the text of the Tipitaka, as preserved in Ceylon, has remained free from them.

With regard to the contents and the style of representation, the Pali version has hitherto shown itself to be the most original, if not the original version. But it may with certainty be maintained that in one respect, in reference to the dialect, it differs from the original text. No one acquainted with the earliest history of Buddhism will entertain any doubt that the fundamental constituent parts of its sacred texts were first fixed in the kingdom of Magadha, and in the Magadhi language. It is certain that the Pali language is not the Magadhi language, and it is unnecessary here to repeat the proofs which do not leave the smallest room for doubt.1 [Compare, E. Kuhn, Beitrage zur Pali-Grammatik, p. 7. Little as we can believe that in the Pali we have the Magadhi language itself, as little can we assume that the Buddhist texts were originally brought to Ceylon in Magadhi, and that there, under the influence of the Sinhalese, the language became changed into its present form, known as the Pali language; for the ancient Sinhalese language— as we at present know it from inscriptions— agrees with the Magadhi in some of those very points which distinguish the Magadhi from the Pali.] Now, in the Cullavagga it is said that Buddha had decreed that every one should learn the sacred texts in his own language.2 [anujanami bhikkhave sakaya niruttiya buddhavacanam pariyapuntitun ti.] This story will scarcely induce us to believe that such a decree proceeded from Buddha himself; however, it follows from this story with the greater certainty — what is of more importance for us— that at the time when the holy texts of the Buddhists were spread over India, they were certainly not handed over to the different parts of India in the Magadhi language, but in the vernacular dialect peculiar to the several districts. It is probable that if the Buddhist doctrines had, at that period, been adopted in Ceylon also, and that the texts also had, at that time, been brought over to Ceylon, the old Sinhalese language would have been the one used there for these texts, in the same way as the various Indian dialects were used throughout India.

The course of events was, in fact, a different one. The Tipitaka was transplanted to Ceylon at a time when the tradition of the holy texts had lost the character of elasticity which allowed every one to take Buddha's words, and to adapt them to his own language. A beginning had already been made not only to watch over the substance of the words, but over the very letters themselves — over Nama, Linga and Parikkhara, as is said in the Dipavamsa. Thus Ceylon received the sacred traditions in the language of that part of India from which the Tipitaka was brought over to the island, and in this same language — which consequently became the sacred language of the Buddhist community in Ceylon — the Sinhalese continued to propagate the tradition.

This language is the Pali. But to what part of India did the Pali originally belong, and from whence did it spread to Ceylon? There are two paths open for this investigation. By discussing the historical tradition one can inquire from which part of India Ceylon obtained its knowledge of the Buddhist literature; and secondly, on the basis of the ancient inscriptions, we may ask to what geographical limits the grammatical peculiarities are confined which distinguish the Pali language from the other popular dialects of India? If no error is made in the inquiry, the results obtained from these two paths must agree. Our investigation will take up the first of these paths, and be continually controlled by the results that present themselves on the second of the two.

The tradition of the Sinhalese, we know, connects the conversion of the island to the Buddhist belief with the name of Mahinda (Mahendra), the son of King Asoka. The Mahavamsa1 [Turnour’s edition, p. 76.] gives some details concerning the descent and the birth of Mahinda. When Asoka, as a young prince, left for Ujjeni, in order, at his father’s command, to undertake the regency of the country of Avanti, he, on his way thither, and in the city of Cetiya — also called Vidisa — married the daughter of a Setthi, and in Ujjeni she gave birth to Mahinda. Asoka resided in Ujjeni for ten years after the birth of Mahinda, but upon his father’s death he removed to Patalipiitta, and undertook the government of the whole kingdom. It is probable — as probable as the whole account itself — that young Mahinda lived in Ujjeni with his father till the latter became king.

On these data, Westergaard,2 [Ueber den aeltesten Zeitraum der indischen Geschichte (German translation, p. 87).] and with him E. Kuhn,3 [Beitrage zur Pali-Grammatik, p. 7.] have assumed that Mahinda, when he spread the Buddhist doctrines to Ceylon, made use of the language of his native country, and that consequently the Pali was the dialect of Ujjeni.

This hypothesis seems to me to possess but little probability. For even though we credit the statements of the historical books of the Sinhalese regarding the life of Mahinda, it is little in keeping with these to assume that the Prince made use of the Ujjeni dialect for his religious work. Mahinda joined the Buddhist Samgha in his twentieth year, six years after his father’s being anointed, ten years after the beginning of his father’s reign. It is hardly conceivable that he should have studied the literature of Buddhism in the language of his childhood, at a time when he had evidently for long lived at the royal court in Pataliputta, and that he should not rather have become acquainted with the works in the language of the court, it being, moreover, the language in which Buddha himself originally had taught his people.

Another difficulty presents itself. We are not yet acquainted, by inscriptions, with the Ujjeni dialect itself. But we have a safe support in the inscriptions of Bhilsa, which is identical with Vidisa, the home of Mahinda’s mother.1 [See Cunningham, The Bhilsa Topes, p. 95.] A lively intercourse was carried on between the town of Vidisa and the not very distant city of Ujjeni, as we learn from the numerous inscriptions found at Vidisa relating to citizens of Ujjeni. The dialect of the inscriptions of Bhilsa, however, differs in too many essential points from the Pali for us to regard it as in any way likely that the Pali language originated in this part of India.

Thus there are difficulties that cannot be overcome as long as we consider the traditions of the Pali Tipitaka as connected with the person of Mahinda; it is impossible both to identify the Pali with the language of Mahinda’s youth and with the court language of his paternal home.

A fundamental mistake in the investigation seems to me to lie in the fact of their making Mahinda play so decisive a part. In fact, it cannot by any means, with the requisite strictness, be considered as sufficiently attested, that Mahinda brought the sacred texts to Ceylon.

Asoka’s own inscriptions tell us that in the reign of this monarch steps were taken to propagate his beneficent maxims in a number of other countries, and also in Ceylon;1 [Second rock edict; Corpus Inscript. p. 66.] considering Asoka’s well-known position towards Buddhism, it is also very likely that the missionaries who, at his instigation, went to Ceylon, were Buddhists. And hence, in all probability, the stories of the Sinhalese concerning Mahinda may contain some germ of historical truth. This germ, however, has become surrounded by a coating of inventions which render it impossible to place any faith in the traditions of Mahinda. Prince Mahinda himself, as the founder of the Ceylonese Bhikkhusamgha, the Princess Samghamitta, his sister, as the foundress of the Bhikkhunisamgha, the stories about bringing over the relics and the Bodhi-branch: — all this looks like a tissue of a little truth and a great deal of fiction, invented for the purpose of possessing a history of the origin of the Buddhist institutions in the island, and to connect it with the most distinguished person conceivable — the great Asoka. The historical legend is fond of poetically exalting ordinary occurrences into great and brilliant actions; we may assume that, in reality, many things were accomplished in a more gradual and less striking manner than such legends make them appear. Whatever we may choose to think about the Buddhist impulses that are said to have reached Ceylon from the court of Asoka, in my opinion the naturalization of the whole great Buddhist Literature in the island of Ceylon does not look as if it had been brought about by the sudden appearance of missionaries from the Magadha kingdom, but as if it were the fruit of a period of long and continued intercourse between Ceylon and the adjacent parts of India. It is self-evident that, at all times, there must have been a greater amount of intercourse between Ceylon and the peninsula of the Deccan — more particularly the countries along the shore — than between Ceylon and Hindustan. Those acquainted with the ancient records relating to Ceylon, will know of numerous proofs with regard to the relations in which Ceylon stood to the kingdom of Kalinga,1 [Burnouf-Lassen, Essai sur le Pali, p. 44; Megasthenes, ed. Schwanbeck, p. 176; Mahavamsa, p. 241; Journ. Roy. As. Soc. N.S. vol. vii. p. 160 and following.] and in such a case we should scarcely require any express proofs at all. The Kalinga country, or one of the adjacent kingdoms of Southern India, seems to me to have the most claim to having been the medium for transplanting the Buddhist literature into Ceylon.


In corroboration of this conjecture, I appeal, in the first place, to the geographical distribution of the Buddhist schools in India, according to the statements of Hiouen Thsang. The followers of the Sthavira school (Chang-tso- pou), which predominated in Ceylon, are not mentioned by the Chinese traveller as met with in those parts of northern India, which have to be regarded as the true seat of ancient Indian civilization.2 [To this there is but one exception, which is, however, only an apparent one. There was at Gaya, in the immediate vicinity of the Bodhi-tree, a monastery belonging to the school Chang-tso-pou (II. Ths. iii. p. 487 seq.), but it had been founded by a Ceylonese king, and always remained in connexion with Ceylon. This monastery is of interest from the fact that in all probability it has played an important part in the life of Buddhaghosa. He was born “bodhimandasamipamhi” (Mahavamsa, p. 250); the place where he received the instigation to travel to Ceylon was most likely this very monastery.] The chief seats of this school apart from Ceylon—are situated on the eastern shores of India, beginning at the mouths of the Ganges, and southwards, in the dominion of the Kalinga and in the country of the Dravida; further, on the west coast in those parts which also stood in connexion with Ceylon, in Bharukaccha and Surashtra;3 [H. Ths. iii. pp. 82, 92, 119, 154, 165.] in the Malaya kingdom the school is not expressly named, but mention is made of a monastery said to have been founded by Mahinda.4 [Ibid. p. 121.] It may be added that the same school also, probably, had its seats in the dominion of the Andhra, the neighbours of the Kalinga. Buddhaghosa frequently speaks of the views expressed in the Atthakatha of the Andhra, so that it is a very likely supposition that the Atthakatha of the Andhra referred to the same redaction of the texts to which Buddhaghosa made a commentary.1 [This, however, cannot be regarded as certain; the indications given by Minayeff in his Introduction to the Pratimoksha (p. viii. adn. 11) would lead to a different view.]

Perhaps, when we possess a larger number of ancient inscriptions from the kingdoms of the Andhra, Kalinga, and neighbouring tribes, we shall with greater certainty be enabled to determine which was the original home of the Pali language. But even the inscriptions to which I, at present, have access, in my opinion, justify the assertion that the home of the Pali language must, for better reasons, be looked for more to the south than to the north of the Vindhya mountains. Look at the inscription of the mother of Satakanni,2 [No. 26 of the inscriptions collected by West (Journ. Roy. As. Soc. Bombay, vol. vii.).] King of the Andhra, found at Nasik, or the important, but unfortunately, as yet, partially unintelligible rock-inscription of Aira Mahameghavahana,3 [Corpus Inscrip. Plate XVII.] King of the Kalinga, discovered in Khandagiri, It will be found that the differences between the dialect of these inscriptions and the Pali are not greater than can readily be explained from casualties relating to the different manner in which the texts were handed down on both sides.4 [There is an interesting example, by which it can be shown that in one instance at least an apparent disagreement between the orthography of the Pali and that of the inscriptions did not exist at the time of Kaccayana, but was introduced into Pali at a later period; the spelling bb of the Pali (sabha, etc.), where the inscriptions give v, that is, vv (sava, etc.). Both Kern and Goldschmidt have made use of the spelling in disputing the great age of the Pali language. Thus it is an important fact that Kaccayana did not write dibbate, but divvate (vi. 2, 10, p. 236 ed. Senart).]

What I have said above will, I hope, give a certain probability to my supposition that the version of the Tipitaka preserved in Ceylon and its dialect the Pali were brought to the island from the peninsula of South India, probably from the kingdoms of the Andhra or Kalinga. In this way we lose, it is true, a fixed date for this event, such as is given in the story about Mahinda; we have no longer any right to regard Asoka’s reign as precisely the date of the separation of the northern and southern tradition of the Tipitaka. The events which, according to our view of the matter, take the place of Mahinda’s journey as a missionary, namely, the school Chang-tso-pou becoming naturalized in Southern India, more especially in the countries on the coasts, and its doctrines spreading to Ceylon, are such as do not admit as yet of any chronological determination. However, our investigations regarding the origin of the Vinaya offer some compensation for the chronological supports that are lost. If the view put forth above is correct — according to which the first four portions of our version of the Vinaya received the fixed form in which we now possess them about a century and a half before the time of Asoka, except as regards the dialect — there can scarcely be any great cause for lamenting the loss of those other chronological data.

It cannot be a matter of indifference to any branch of the inquiries into the development of the ancient Indian mind, whether we can safely assume the origin of a collection of works of such great compass and of such varied substance as the Buddhist Vinaya, to have been a century and a half earlier than the origin of those literary documents which were hitherto believed the oldest of those, the origin of which can be traced to a certain time. May those eminent scholars who have solved many a tough problem in the domain of Pali and of the Buddhist literature, lend us their assistance in leading the investigations which these observations are desired to excite, to safe conclusions!

Before I conclude, I beg to express my sincere thanks to the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin and to the India Office in London, by whose support I have been enabled to publish this work. The India Office Library, the Royal Library in Berlin, and, at the request of the German Imperial Foreign Office, the Bibliotheque Rationale in Paris, have, with the utmost kindness, placed at my disposal the manuscripts upon which the edition is based. I beg to express my gratitude also to the high authorities and to the administrators of these libraries.

The Editor
Berlin,
May, 1879.  
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests