Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Literature v2.c19: Section III. Buddhist Literature

A History of Indian Literature v2.c19

Language
English

Contents

Section III. Buddhist Literature

The Pāli Canon or the Tipiṭaka

v2.c19.s1.1

1) See H. *Oldenberg*, Vinayapiṭaka, Vol. I, London, 1879, Introduction; ZDMG 52, 1898, 613ff.; NGGW 1912, 197ff.; Reden des Buddha (1922), Einleitung; *H. Jacobi* and *Oldenberg*, ZDMG 34, 1880, 184ff.; 751ff.; *Oldenberg* and *T. W. Rhys Davids*, SBE, Vol. 13, Introduction; *Rhys Davids*, Buddhist India, London, 1903, 167ff.; Cambridge History I, 192ff.; *W. Geiger*, Pāli Literatur und Sprache (Grundriss I, 7, 1916), p. 6ff.; R. S. *Copleston*, Buddhism, 2nd Ed., London, 1908, 45f., 167ff.; H. *Kern*, Manual of Indian Buddhism (Grundriss III, 8, 1896), 1ff., 101ff.; *Eliot* I, 275ff. The following are more or less sceptical about the authenticity of the Pāli Canon: I. P. *Minayeff*, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme (AMG, Bibliothéque d'études, t. 4, Paris, 1894); A. *Barth* in RHR, t. 5, 1882, 237ff.; t. 28, 1893, 241ff.; 277ff.; t. 42, 1900, 74ff. (= Oeuvres I, 340ff.: II, 156ff., 187ff., 356ff.; V. A. *Smith*, Ind. Ant. 32, 1903, 364ff.; L. *de La Vallée Poussin*, Bouddhisme, Études et Matériaux (Mémoires......publié par l'Académie roy. des sciences de Belgique, t. LV), Bruxelles, 1897, 1ff., 27ff., 44ff., 53ff.; Le Muséon, 1905, 213ff.; Ind. Ant. 37, 1908, 1ff., 81ff.; Bouddhisme, Paris, 1909, pp. 29ff., 155, 166ff., 248; *ERE.* Vol. IV, p. 179ff. (*Cf.* E. J. *Rapson*, JRAS, 1898, 909ff.); R. Otto *Franke*, JPTS, 1908, pp. 1-80; Dīghanikāya (1913), p. xliiff.; A. B. *Keith*, Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon, Oxford, 1923, pp. 3, 16ff.

v2.c19.s1.2

Vedic literature led us well-nigh into "prehistoric" times; and for the beginnings of epic poetry, too, we had to dispense with all certain dates. It is only with the Buddhist literature that we gradually emerge into the broad daylight of history, and we have seen that the darkness of the history of the Vedic and the epic literature is somewhat illuminated by this light. The approximate period of Buddha can be determined with some degree of probability, and that gives a starting-point, from which we can calculate the origin of a Buddhist literature. Gotama Buddha died probably a few years before or after 485 B. C.,2) and according to a tradition whose authenticity we are scarcely justified in questioning, he attained the age of 80 years. As a young man of 29 years he is said to have taken up the life of a wandering ascetic, and thus begun to seek the way of salvation. After severe internal struggles he began, as a mature man, to proclaim the doctrine he had discovered. The activity of the Buddha might, then, fall into the period of about 535-485 B. C.: the foundation and propagation of that Indian religion which was destined to become one of the three great religions of the world. The Ganges district in North-East India was the scene of his activity. Here—in the kingdoms of Magadha (Bihar) and Kosala (Oudh)—he wandered from place to place, preaching his doctrine and gathering ever more adherents about him.

v2.c19.s1.3

2) See Appendix I.

v2.c19.s1.4

Does this work of many decades include any literary activity? Certainly not. It is true that in the Tipiṭaka, the Pāli canon of the Buddhists, most of the speeches and sayings are placed in the mouth of Buddha himself; it is even related exactly and circumstantially where and on what occasion the master delivered a speech or made an utterance. How much, out of all this, should really be attributed to Buddha, will probably never be decided; for Gotama Buddha has not left behind him any written matter, even as little as Yājñavalkya, Śāṇḍilya, or Śaunaka. However, as much of the contents of the speeches and utterances of these sages has probably been handed down in the Upaniṣads, so, doubtless, many speeches and utterances of Buddha were faithfully preserved in the memory of his disciples and handed down to posterity. We may, without laying ourselves open to the charge of credulousness, regard as originating with Buddha himself, speeches such as the famous sermon of Benares on the "four noble truths" and the "noble eightfold path," which recurs always in the same wording, not only in many parts of the Pāli canon, but also in Buddhist Sanskrit texts, some of the farewell speeches handed down in the Mahāparinibbānasutta, which the master is supposed to have addressed to his disciples before his passing, and some of the verses and short utterances handed down as "words of the Buddha" in the Dhammapada, in the Udāna, in the Itivuttaka and in more or less the same form also in Sanskrit texts of Nepal, as well as in Tibetan and Chinese translations. Gotama Buddha, however, did not only preach his new doctrine of suffering and the end of suffering, but also founded a monastic order; he gathered around himself a community of disciples who, according to strict precepts, led a holy life in the way of the master, in order to reach the end of suffering—the much praised Nirvāṇa. And some of the rules and laws for this monastic community probably originated with Buddha himself, above all "the ten commandments for mendicant monks" (dasasikkhāpadāni), perhaps also the list of transgressions (pātimokkha), though in an earlier and shorter form than that in which we have it now.[^1)

v2.c19.s1.5

Now, though none of the works which belong to Buddhist literature can date back to the period of Buddha himself, isolated texts preserved in these works may probably be correctly regarded as words of Buddha. Also, among the first disciples of Buddha there must have been a few prominent leaders and some of the speeches, sayings and poems contained in our collections might have been composed by some of these disciples of Buddha.

v2.c19.s1.6

Almost the whole of the oldest literature of the Buddhists consists of collections—collections of speeches or conversations, of sayings, songs, narratives and rules of the order.

v2.c19.s1.7

[^1): *Cf. Eliot*, I, 294f.; *Oldenberg*, Reden des Buddha, p. xxiiiff. [^2): The metre, too, indicates that the verse aphorisms (gāthā) in particular are very old. According to *Oldenberg* (Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 9ff.) the metres of the Pāli gāthās are more archaic than those of the Rāmāyaṇa. See also R. *Simon* in ZDMG, 44, 1890, 83-97 on the Śloka in Pāli, and *Oldenberg* "Zur Geschichte des Śloka" (NGGW, 1909, p. 244).

v2.c19.s1.8

The Tipiṭaka is nothing but a great collection of such collections. It is clear that such collections can only form the conclusion of a considerable preceding literary activity, and that their component parts must belong to different times.

v2.c19.s1.9

According to Buddhist tradition one such conclusion had already been made very early. It is recorded that, a few weeks after the death of Buddha, an assembly of the monks—the so-called first Buddhist Council—organised by the immediate disciples of Buddha, was held in the city of Rājagaha (the present Rajgir) in order to establish a canon of the religion (dhamma) and of the discipline of the order (vinaya).¹ The very fact that this report expects us to believe too much speaks against its trustworthiness in its oldest form, as it has come down to us in the Tipiṭaka itself ;² for, it is absolutely impossible that the two great sections of the Tipiṭaka which deal with the doctrine and the discipline of the order—Suttapiṭaka and Vinayapiṭaka—should soon after the death of Buddha have been essentially such as we find them in our Pāli canon.³ We need not, on this account, assume that the tradition is entirely unfounded. There is probably preserved in it a recollection of the not improbable fact that the elders of the community assembled immediately after the death of the master, in order to agree upon the principal points of the doctrine and of the discipline of the order.⁴ But surely too short a time had elapsed immediately after the death of Buddha for the compilation of a canon of sacred texts such as our Tipitaka. The tradition of a second council, which is supposed to have been held at Vesālī, a hundred years after the death of Buddha, is more credible. According to the older report,¹ however, the sole object of this gathering was to do away with ten heresies regarding the discipline of the order. Only the later reports² add that at the same time during a session of eight months a revision of the doctrine took place. If we keep to the earlier report, we may accept it as an historical fact that, about a hundred years after the passing of the Buddha, a schism occurred, which stirred up so much controversy that a great assembly of monks had to be summoned, to decide what should be regarded as right with reference to the debatable points. Now this pre-supposes that there was in existence at that time some criterion or other for the decision of such questions, and that could only have been some canon of precepts for the life of the monks such as we find in the Vinayapiṭaka. Hence, though the first century after Buddha may not have witnessed the formation of a canon, at least a fundamental stock of texts for such a canon must have been formed.

v2.c19.s1.10

¹ The Pāli *Dhamma* (*i.e.*, Sanskrit dharma) is the technical expression for the religion of Buddha, and *Vinaya* for the "discipline of the order," *i.e.*, rules and regulations for the order of mendicants.

v2.c19.s1.11

² Vinayapiṭaka, Cullavagga XI.

v2.c19.s1.12

³ Other arguments against the authenticity of the tradition of the first Council have been raised by *Oldenberg* (Vinayapiṭaka, Introd., p. xxvff., ZDMG, Vol. 52, 625f.).

v2.c19.s1.13

⁴ *Cf.* H. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 103; *R. Pischel*, Leben und Lehre des Buddha, 4 aufl., 1926, p. 11, 99f.; *E. Windisch* in OC XIV, I, 284f.; L. de *La Vallée Poussin*, Ind. Ant. 37, 1908, 2ff.; *S. Lévi* (JA, 1915, s. 11, t. V, 401ff.) has compared the reports as to the first Council in the Pāli Vinayapiṭaka, the Udāna, the Divyāvadāna, as well as the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādins and the Sarvāstivādins, and has shown that they hark back to an early age.

v2.c19.s1.14

¹ Vinayap., Cullavagga XII, s. SBE, Vol. XX, p. 409ff.

v2.c19.s1.15

² Thus Dīpavaṁsa V, 27ff., Mahāvaṁsa IV.

v2.c19.s1.16

According to the report of the chronicles of Ceylon, a real canon of sacred texts was compiled on the occasion of the third Council, at the time of the famous King Aśoka. It is certain that, at that time, the Buddhist community was already divided into a number of schools or sects.³ For this reason it is not at all unlikely that the need for compiling a canon of texts for orthodox believers, *i.e.*, those who wished to be regarded as the adherents of the original doctrine of Buddha, was felt. Moreover, it is likely enough that a compilation of this kind should have been made precisely during the reign of King Aśoka, the great patron and adherent of the Buddhist community, for, in one of his edicts, the king himself decrees that heretical monks and nuns shall be excommunicated.[^1) Consequently, it would have been only natural for him to take an active interest in establishing what tenets constituted the true religion of Buddha. On the other hand, we find no mention in any of his numerous edicts of a council to determine the canon. It is true that he would have had no reason for so doing, because, even according to the tradition, it was not the king himself, but the learned monk Tissa Moggaliputta who, 236 years after the death of Buddha, convened an assembly of a thousand monks in the city of Pāṭaliputra (Patna), with the object of compiling a canon of texts of the true religion or the Theravāda, *i.e.*, the "doctrine of the elders," the immediate disciples of Buddha. The school of the Vibhajjavādins,[^2) to which Tissa, the President of the council, belonged, adhered to this Theravāda, and it is the canon of this school which was compiled during the nine months' session of the Council of Pāṭaliputra. Tradition has it, too, that Tissa also compiled the "Kathāvatthu," a book refuting all the heretical doctrines of those times, and incorporated it with the canon.

v2.c19.s1.17

³ 18 different schools are mentioned. We are familiar with the fact that the number 18 is a favourite number in India; hence the existing schools, whether they numbered more or less than 18, were fitted into a scheme of 18.

v2.c19.s1.18

[^1): See E. *Hultzsch*, Inscriptions of Aśoka, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, X, Oxford, 1925, pp. xliii f., 160 n. 5. [^2): There is no distinction in the chronicles between Theravāda and Vibhajjavāda; but *Theravāda* is probably a general term meaning merely "authentic doctrine." The word is used in this sense also with reference to the schools of Buddha's predecessors (Majjh. 26, I. 164f.). The *Vibhajjavādins* declared that they taught the Theravāda. However, the same thing was also maintained by other sects, such as the Mahīśāsakas and the Sarvāstivādins (s. *Kern*, Manual of Buddhism, p. 110f.). In Majjh. II, 197 (99) Buddha says, referring to himself, that he is a vibhajjavāda, *i.e.*, "one who explains everything with careful distinctions," and not an ekaṃsavāda, "who answers questions from one point of view only." *Cf.* Majjh. III, 208 (136); Aṅgutt. III, 67 (I, p. 197); Milindap., 144f.; Mrs. *Rhys Davids*, Points of Controversy, p. xl sq.; M. *Walleser*, Die Sekten des alten Buddhismus, Heidelberg, 1927, p. 13f.

v2.c19.s1.19

It has been much disputed whether or not there is any historical foundation for the tradition about the councils.¹ In the nature of things it is likely that, in the course of time, the orthodox Buddhists would feel the need of compiling a canon of doctrines, monastic rules and authentic texts as a defence against the schismatics; and this could only be done by one or several meetings of monks. This would be an argument in favour of there being at least a nucleus of historical truth in these reports, even though they are not attested in all their details. It has been rightly remarked² that the tradition about the councils would not have arisen, had not at least one council been a historical fact. As a matter of fact, it is probable that even more than three councils were held. Singhalese and North Indian records of a "great council" (mahāsaṅgīti) which is said to have led to the schism of the Mahāsaṅgītikas or Mahāsaṅghikas, would seem to indicate that the council of the orthodox Buddhists at Pāṭaliputra was preceded by a great assembly of the schismatics. It is true, nevertheless, that these reports contradict one another very considerably. It is possible that the canon was not compiled all at once, but at several meetings of the monks, the most important of which was the Pāṭaliputra session.

v2.c19.s1.20

¹ *Cf.* *Kern*, Manual of Buddhism, p. 101ff., *La Vallée Poussin* ERE IV, 1911 170ff.; *Geiger*, Mahāvaṃsa, Transl, p. li ff.; *Eliot* I, 254ff.; *Nalinaksha Dutt*, Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools, London, 1925 (Calcutta Oriental Series), pp. 225ff., 249ff. See also p. 1 note 1 above.

v2.c19.s1.21

² By *Copleston*, Buddhism, p. 174f.

v2.c19.s1.22

The chroniclers of Ceylon then go on to relate that it was Tissa, the President of the council, who first sent out missionaries to the North and the South and prepared the way for the propagation of Buddhism in foreign lands. A pupil of Tissa was Mahinda, the younger brother (according to another tradition, the son) of Aśoka, who is supposed to have brought Buddhism and the Buddhist texts to Ceylon. It is conceivable that legends took up this apostle of Ceylon; and even though we shall not believe the chronicler when he says that Mahinda and the monks who were accompanying him flew, like flamingoes, through the air to Ceylon, yet we need not reject the whole tradition,¹ but may suppose that underlying the many legends, there is the one historical fact that Mahinda actually introduced Buddhism into Ceylon and brought with him the texts of the canon. These texts are said to have been first transmitted orally, until, under the Singhalese king Vaṭṭagāmani, in the first century B.C., they were committed to writing. This again sounds quite trustworthy.²

v2.c19.s1.23

¹ As is done by *Oldenberg*, Vinayapiṭaka, Introd. p. li ff., for the opposite view, *cf. Kern*, Manual, p. 116f. When the chroniclers report that Mahinda was sent to Ceylon and Majjhima to the Himavat (Dīpavaṃsa VIII, 10) and when we find a reliquary in the stūpa at Sāñchī with the inscription: "(relics) of Majjhima, teacher of Himavat," it speaks strongly in favour of the authenticity of the Ceylon chronicles. (*Copleston*, Buddhism, p. 173f.).

v2.c19.s1.24

² See Vol. I, p. 32f. The Chinese pilgrim *Fa-hien* (*s.* A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms...transl. by *J. Legge*, Oxford, 1886, Chap. XXXVI), when he travelled through North India during the years 399-414 A.D., did not as yet find any manuscripts of the Vinayapiṭaka, but only oral tradition. It was not until he came to Pāṭaliputra that he found a copy of the Vinaya in a Mahāyāna monastery.

v2.c19.s1.25

Now, in the opinion of the Buddhists of Ceylon, that canon which was compiled at the third council, was brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, and was recorded in writing under Vaṭṭagāmani, is the same as our Pāli canon or Tipiṭaka, as we still possess it to-day. This Tipiṭaka—the word means "three baskets"—consists of three so-called piṭakas or "baskets,"³ namely:

v2.c19.s1.26

³ In the opinion of *V. Trenckner* (JPTS 1908, p. 119f.), which is accepted by T. W. *Rhys Davids* (SBE, Vol. 35, p. 28 note) the word *piṭaka* does not mean "receptacle" but rather “tradition.” In ancient times, when excavations were in progress, baskets were used which were passed along the line from one labourer to the next, in order to remove the dug-out earth from the site of the excavation: thus the treasure of the doctrine was transmitted in the “piṭakas” down a long line of teachers and pupils from olden times down to the present day. The Majjhima Nikāya 95 (II, p. 169) speaks of a “basket-like tradition” (piṭakasampradāya) of the ancient Vedic mantras. But is it not simpler to interpret it as receptacles in which gems, family treasures, were preserved from generation to generation? According to G. *Bühler* (on the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, Indian Studies III, 2nd Ed., Strassburg 1898, p. 86ff.) piṭaka is a basket, in which manuscripts were preserved, so that the division of the Buddhist sacred texts into piṭakas would be evidence of their having been *written*, though it is true that, according to Singhalese tradition, this would not have happened until towards the close of the first century B. C. Cf. *Keith*, Buddhist Philosophy, p. 24 n. 2.

v2.c19.s1.27

1. Vinayapiṭaka, "basket of the discipline of the order." This section contains all that refers to the monastic community (saṅgha), the rules of the discipline of the order, precepts for the daily life of the monks and nuns, and so on.

v2.c19.s1.28

2. Suttapiṭaka, “basket of the Suttas.” The Pāli word sutta corresponds to the Sanskrit sūtra, but with the Buddhists it has lost the old meaning of “short rule,”¹ and here means “discourse,” “sermon.” Every long or short explanation, frequently in the form of a dialogue, on one or more points of religion (dhamma) is called a sutta and often also suttanta (Sanskrit sūtrānta). The Suttapiṭaka consists of five nikāyas, *i. e.*, great collections of these suttas or suttantas.

v2.c19.s1.29

¹ See Vol. I, 268ff. The Buddhist “sūtras” are generally very prolix. *Trenckner* also tried to explain Sutta as “thread of tradition” (JPTS 1908, p. 121), but this is improbable.

v2.c19.s1.30

3. Abhidhammapiṭaka, “basket of the higher subtleties of the doctrine.”² The texts contained in this section, like those of the Suttapiṭaka, deal with the religion (dhamma); but they do so after a more learned and catechistical fashion, in the form of dry enumerations and formal divisions, which refer chiefly to the psychological foundations of Buddhist ethics.

v2.c19.s1.31

² According to Buddhaghosa (Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, p. 18: Atthasālinī, p. 2) *abhi* in *abhidhamma* means “higher,” “especially,” “specifically.” Side by side with *abhidhamma*, *abhivinaya* also occurs (“the higher subtleties of the Dhamma and of the Vinaya”), thus Vinayap., Mahāvagga I, 36, 12f.; 37, 11; Dīghanikāya III, p. 267; Majjhimanikāya I, p. 472; Milindapañha, p. 344 (SBE, Vol. 36, p. 237 n.).

v2.c19.s1.32

In the Tipiṭaka itself there is in various places³ mention of a division of the Canon into 9 Aṅgas or “limbs,” *viz.*, 1. Sutta, prose sermons, 2. Geyya, sermons in a mixture of prose and verse, 3. Veyyākaraṇa (Vyākaraṇa), explanations, commentaries,¹ 4. Gāthā, stanzas, 5. Udāna, pithy sayings, 6. Itivuttaka, short speeches beginning with the words: "Thus spake the Buddha," 7. Jātaka, stories of former births of Buddha, 8. Abbhutadhamma, reports of miracles, 9. Vedalla, teachings in the form of questions and answers. This division ² does not allude to a canon complete in itself, or to definite books, but is only meant to classify the various types of Buddhist texts according to their form and contents.

v2.c19.s1.33

³ Majjh. 22 (I, p. 133) and in several passages in the Aṅguttaranikāya. Cf. Milindapañha, p. 345; Sumaṅgalavilāsinī I, p. 23ff.; Atthasālinī, p. 26; Ganddhavaṃsa in JPTS 1886, p. 57; H. *Kern*, Manual, p. 7. E. *Senart*, JA 1901, s. 9, t. XVII, p. 407f. The texts dealing with Vinaya also belong to the "Sutta," whilst the Abhidhamma texts—at least according to Buddhaghosa—belong to the Veyyākaraṇa. However, they might also be included in the "Vedalla." Lord Chalmers (SBE V, pp. 93, 207ff.) renders *vedalla* by "miscellany." But it is doubtful whether there is any thought of Abhidhamma texts in the list of the Aṅgas.

v2.c19.s1.34

¹ In Buddhist Sanskrit, *vyākaraṇa* frequently means prophecy, especially the prediction of a future Buddha; thus also in Pāli in the Nidānakathā (Jātaka ed., Fausböll, pp. 34, 44).

v2.c19.s1.35

² A similar division into 9 Aṅgas, sometimes into 12 Dharmapravacanas, is also found in Sanskrit Buddhist texts. Cf. *Kern*, l.c.; Saddharmapuṇḍarīka II, 48 (SBE, Vol. 21, p. 45); Mahākaruṇāpuṇḍarīka in SBE, Vol. 10 (i), p. xxxiii.

v2.c19.s1.36

The list of the Aṅgas is evidence of the fact that, at the time when the Canon was compiled in its present form, all these diverse forms of Buddhist literature were already in existence. Moreover, there are other passages of the Canon which show us that there was at that time a great mass of short texts, rules of the order, speeches, dialogues, aphorisms in verse, and even minor collections of texts,³ which passed as "the word of Buddha" (Buddhavacanam), and were memorised and recited by the monks. They were recited as a kind of recitative, as all sorts of sacred texts are still recited to this day in India and Ceylon.⁴ Among the monks there were Suttantikas, reciters of the Suttantas, Dhammakathikas, preachers of the doctrine, and Vinayadharas, experts in the discipline.¹ In order to ensure the continuance of the knowledge of the doctrine and the rules of the order, the texts had to be memorised, recited and expounded again and again. When, during the rainy season, many learned monks assembled at a place, there was an opportunity to obtain enlightenment on knotty points. It happened that some learned monk or perhaps a whole community of monks in some monastery would declare as Dhamma or Vinaya something which had first to be investigated before it could be sanctioned as being really in accord with the "teaching of the Master" (satthusāsanam).² This means that there must have been authoritative texts which could be consulted. It is often said of prominent monks that they are "very learned, masters of the tradition, and well versed in the Dhamma, Vinaya and the Mātikās."³ The Mātikās are the "lists" or "tabulated summaries" of those ideas which are of importance in the doctrine and the monastic order. These Mātikās were subsequently worked into the texts of the Abhidhammapiṭaka.⁴ From this it would appear that the texts of the Abhidhamma were merely in their beginnings before the Canon was compiled.

v2.c19.s1.37

³ Such as the Aṭṭhakavagga, which we now find in the Suttanipāta, and which is already mentioned in the Vinayapiṭaka (Mahāv. V, 13, 9) and in the Udāna V, 6, (p. 59). Cf. Dhammapada 19, 20, 102, 185, 352; Suttanipāta 87.

v2.c19.s1.38

⁴ Cf. *Rhys Davids*, SBE, Vol. 20, p. 72 n. 3. The reciters (or leaders of a common recitation) were known as sarabhāṇakā "intoners." Later on, the entire Canon was divided into "lessons" (bhāṇavāra) for the purposes of recitation. Cf. SBE, Vol. 20, p. 415ff. In Cullavagga V, 3, it is expressly forbidden to sing the texts of the Dhamma to melodies, as if they were songs.

v2.c19.s1.39

¹ Cullavagga IV, 4, 4 and in many other passages. Cf. N. Dutt, Early History of the Spread of Buddhism, p. 207f. Upāli is mentioned as one of the first Vinayadharas, Cullavagga VI, 13; IX, 5; XI, 1, 7 ff. Cf. SBE, Vol. XIII, p. xiii.

v2.c19.s1.40

² Aṅgutt. VI, 51; IV, 180; Dīghanikāya XVI, 4, 7-11. The fact that there is always mention here of the Sutta and Vinaya but not of the Abhidhamma, proves that, at the time when this Sutta was completed, only *two* Piṭakas were recognised as authorities.

v2.c19.s1.41

³ Vinayapiṭaka, Mahāv. II, 21, 2; X, 1, 2; Cullav. I, 11, 1; XII, 1, 9f.; 2, 1; Dīgha. II, p. 125; Aṅgutt. I, p. 117. The phrase is: bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā.

v2.c19.s1.42

⁴ In the Sanskrit Buddhist texts the corresponding word *mātṛkā* is used for "Abhidharmapiṭaka." Cf. *Kern*, Manual, pp. 3, 104; *Oldenberg* and *Rhys Davids*, SBE, Vol. 13, p. 273; Mrs. *Rhys Davids*, Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics, 2nd Ed., pp. ix, cv-xiii.

v2.c19.s1.43

In our Pāli Canon we find the Kathāvatthu, traditionally ascribed to Tissa, as one of the books of the Abhidhammapiṭaka.

v2.c19.s1.44

It presupposes oot only the texts of the Vinayapiṭaka and of al! the Nikāyas of the Suttapiṭaka, but other books of the Abhidhammapiṭaka too.¹ It is therefore certainly one of the latest works of the Tipiṭaka, and, in the nature of things, it would be quite feasible to assume that this book was not written until the time of the compilation of the Canon by Tissa himself, and that the members of the Council appended it to the whole work by way of a crowning piece.

v2.c19.s1.45

¹ Cf. Mrs. *Rhys Davids*, Points of Controversy, pp. xxixf., 401ff.

v2.c19.s1.46

We must, however, consider the question as to whether we can agree with the Buddhist believers of Ceylon that the Canon compiled at the Third Council is really the same canon which has come down to us in the Pāli Tipiṭaka.

v2.c19.s1.47

First of all, the language of our Tipiṭaka can scarcely be the same as that of the Canon of the third century B. C. Buddha himself spoke the dialect of his native province Kosala (Oudh), and it was most likely in this same dialect that he first began to proclaim his doctrine. Later on, however, when he wandered and taught in Magadha (Bihar) he probably preached in the dialect of this province. We must, however, take into account the fact that, in the early days of Buddhism, little importance was attached to the linguistic form of texts. An utterance of Buddha has come down to us, in which he affirms that he cares not for mere wording, but only for the meaning itself.² When, in course of time, the doctrine spread over a large area, the monks of various districts preached each in his own dialect. It is probable that monks coming from Brahman circles also attempted to translate the speeches of Buddha into Sanskrit verses. In the Vinayapiṭaka, however, this procedure is expressly declared as a transgression against the monastic discipline, because it "contributes neither to the conversion of the unconverted nor to the augmentation of the converts," and it is declared to be right that each one should learn the doctrine in a version adapted to his own language.¹ The monks who compiled the Canon in Pāṭaliputra, most probably used an ancient Māgadhī dialect. *Pāli*,² however, the literary language of the Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma and Siam, though called "Māgadhī" by these people themselves, deviates essentially from the dialect, otherwise known to us through inscriptions, literary works and grammarians. On the other hand, it agrees just as little with any other dialect. The fact is that Pāli is a literary language, which was used exclusively as such only by the Buddhists, and like all literary languages, it developed more or less out of a mixture of dialects. Of course a literary language of this kind, even if it represents a kind of compromise between two different dialects, could at all events only have proceeded out of *one* certain dialect. This was very likely an old Māgadhī, so that the tradition which makes Pāli and Māgadhī the same, though it is not to be taken literally, has some historical background.

v2.c19.s1.48

² Majjhimanikāya, 103 (II, p. 240).

v2.c19.s1.49

¹ Cullavagga V, 33; SBE, Vol. 20, p. 150f. W. *Geiger*, Pāli Literatur und Sprache, p. 5, offers a different explanation for this passage, s. Appendix II.

v2.c19.s1.50

² See Appendix II.

v2.c19.s1.51

The time and place of the origin of this literary language cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.³ It is probable that, during the period immediately after Aśoka, when Buddhism had already spread throughout the whole of Central India and in the North-west too, it developed as a compromise between the various dialects spoken in this vast territory, among the monks engaged in handing down the Theravāda Canon. It is for this reason that Pāli bears traces of so many different Indo-Aryan dialects.⁴ When the Canon of the Vibhajjavādins was written down in the first century B.C., there was already an older and a more modern form of Pāli,¹ so that, even at that early period, Pāli must have been a language with a considerable development behind it. The monks of Ceylon were, however, bent on preserving and passing on the texts written in the language once established for them in India.² In all probability these monks were just as conscientious regarding the contents as regarding the language, and preserved and handed down to us the texts of the Tipiṭaka which was written down in the Pāli language, with rare fidelity during the last two thousand years. However, *before* they were fixed in Pāli and had reached Ceylon, they probably also passed through changes in contents.

v2.c19.s1.52

³ See Appendix II.

v2.c19.s1.53

⁴ Cf. S. K. *Chatterji*, Origin and Development of the Bengali Language, Calcutta, 1926, I, 55 ff.

v2.c19.s1.54

¹ Cf. *Geiger*, l. c., p. 1 f.

v2.c19.s1.55

² The fact that a Pāli Canon was known in North India as late as in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., is proved by a quotation (from the Saccasaṃyutta of the Saṃyuttanikāya?) about the "four noble truths" in an inscription dating from this period in Sarnath, s. *Konow*, Ep. Ind. IX, 1908, 291 ff. and Dharmananda *Kosambi*, Ind. Ant. 1910, 217. In inscriptions from Swat in the extreme North-west of India, written at the close of the first century B.C. or in the first half of the first century A.D., we find Sanskrit verses which seem to be literal translations from the Pāli of verses of the Mahāparinibbānasutta and the Dhammapada (G. *Bühler*, Ep. Ind. IV, 133ff.) A fragment of the Cullavagga discovered by C. *Bendall* (OC XIII Hamburg 1902, p. 58ff.) would seem to prove that the Pāli Canon was in existence in Nepal in the 8th and 9th centuries. But it is possible that the MS. was taken from Ceylon to Tibet. So also, when we find that Chinese and Tibetan translations betray familiarity with Pāli texts, it is possible that the translators had been in Ceylon.

v2.c19.s1.56

Thus, as regards language and contents, our Pāli Tipiṭaka, though closely approaching the canon compiled under Aśoka, is yet not identical with it. For we must admit that, in the period from the third to the first century before Christ, when the writing-down took place, and occasionally even still later, the texts suffered many a change, that especially much was added, and that in many cases commentaries penetrated into the texts and became mixed with them. Thus the collections as well as the separate texts contained in them, must have increased in extent. The centuries have surely not passed them by without leaving traces. This accounts, too, for the numerous contradictions within the Canon,¹ the many instances of juxtaposition of early and late traditions, and the frequent occurrence of the same texts in different collections.²

v2.c19.s1.57

¹ Such contradictions have been pointed out, for instance, by R. Otto *Franke* (*WZKM* 24, 1910, 1ff.). Cf. also *Minayeff*, Recherches, etc., p. 62ff., and Mrs. *Rhys Davids*, Buddhist Psychology, 2nd Ed., London, 1924, pp. 280 f., 291 f.

v2.c19.s1.58

² In particular, the same Gāthās occur in various collections, s. the concordance of the Gāthās, by R. O. *Franke* in ZDMG 63, 1909, 1ff.; WZKM 24, 1910, 1 ff.; 225 ff.; 26, 1912, 171 ff. However, these repetitions and the contradictions occurring in them are not sufficient reason for our immediately jumping to the conclusion, as has been done by *Franke* (ZDMG 63, 1909, 8 ff.) that the entire Canon is “not authentic and not original.” For, if a verse is ascribed in the one text to Buddha, and in the other to Sāriputta, or if an utterance was, according to the one text, made at Rājagaha, and according to the other at Benares, it merely proves that these legendary adornments are not authentic, but does not in any way confute our assumption that the verses and utterances are “authentic” in themselves, *i.e.*, that they faithfully reproduce the old doctrine of Buddha. The arguments of *Franke* and other critics destroy the belief of the orthodox Buddhist that every single word of the Canon is genuine and was spoken by Buddha himself, but they prove nothing against the hypothesis of those scholars who acknowledge the Canon to have a certain, though limited, genuineness and reliability.

v2.c19.s1.59

With these reservations and limitations, we can nevertheless say that our Pāli Tipiṭaka, at least the Vinaya and the Suttapiṭaka,³ does, on the whole, correspond to the Māgadhī Canon of the third century B.C. Our main witnesses to this are the inscriptions of King Aśoka. Not only do these edicts breathe the same spirit as the moral maxims which have come down in our Pāli Canon,⁴ but they show verbal similarities to the texts of our Canon, and quotations which can also be traced in our texts with but slight deviations.¹ But this is not all. In the edict of Bairāt (or Bhābrū) of the year 249 B.C., the king says to the monks of Magadha: "All that the Lord Buddha has said, is well said," and he names the titles of seven texts, the study of which he most particularly recommends to them. These texts have been traced in our Sutta-piṭaka, though not all in an entirely satisfactory manner.²

v2.c19.s1.60

³ Doubts against the Abhidhammapiṭaka are justifiable, because, with the exception of the Vibhajjavādins, only the Sarvāstivādins have a corresponding Abhidharmapiṭaka, and the latter contains totally different texts from the Pāli Abhidhammapiṭaka. Cf. *La Vallée Poussin*, Bouddhisme, p. 44; *Farquhar*, Outline, p. 68 f.; *Keith*, Buddhist Philosophy, p. 22. When, in the Dīpavaṃsa V, 35-37, we are told that, at the “great Council” of Vesālī, the Mahāsaṅgītika Bhikkhus rejected certain passages of the Suttas and the Vinaya, especially the Parivāra, Abhidhamma, Paṭisambhidā, Niddesa texts and portions of the Jātakas, and wrote down other texts in their place, it is noteworthy that it is precisely these texts which we, too, are inclined to suspect of being later additions to the Canon.

v2.c19.s1.61

⁴ Parallel passages from the Dhammapada, which are in accord with the Dhamma of Aśoka, are quoted by *Hultzsch*, Inscriptions of Asoka, p. xlvii ff. We can only compare such texts as have reference to the morals of the laity, as Aśoka had only these in view, and not the philosophy and dogmas of Buddhism.

v2.c19.s1.62

¹ Cf. G. *Bühler*, ZDMG 48, p. 57 ff.; F. W. *Thomas*, JRAS 1903, p. 831 ff.; K. E. *Neumann*, WZKM 11, 1897, p. 156 ff. However, when the last named scholar (Reden Gotamo Buddhos, III, p. 41 note) speaks of Aśoka as "brought up on our texts," he is saying more than he can prove. E. *Hardy* (JRAS 1901, 314) compares Aṅgutt. III, pp. 247, 340: yena...saddhammo ciraṭṭhitiko hotī ti, with Aśoka's Bhābrū Edict: hevaṃ sa dhammo cilaṭhitiko hāsatī ti.

v2.c19.s1.63

² See Appendix III.

v2.c19.s1.64

The majority of the inscriptions on the famous stūpas of Bharhut and Sānchī are written in the same characters as the inscriptions of Aśoka, and the stūpas were formerly regarded as monuments of the time of Aśoka. Now-a-days, however, authoritative archæologists are inclined to ascribe the bulk of the sculptures rather to the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.³ The remnants of the stūpa of Bharhut are at present among the most precious treasures in the Indian Museum at Calcutta, while we are as yet able to admire the magnificent remains of the stūpas of Sāñchī in their original place. (The railings and gateways of the stūpas of Bharhut and Sāñchī are covered with reliefs and inscriptions of inestimable value. The sculptures represent scenes from the life of the Buddha, testifying to an abundantly developed Buddha legend, such as we find in a few of the Pāli Suttas, but more especially in such works as the Nidānakathā, Lalitavistara and the Mahāvastu.¹ Many of the reliefs are, however, illustrations to fables and tales, the titles of which are generally mentioned in the inscriptions, in the case of the stūpa of Bharhut. These inscriptions prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the reliefs depict Jātakas, *i.e.*, "stories from former births of the Buddha," and most of these have also been traced in the Jātaka book of the Tipiṭaka. Moreover, we also find on the monuments of Bharhut and Sāñchī votive inscriptions, in which monks are given the epithets bhāṇaka, "reciter," sutaṃtika, "Sutta reciter,"² pacanekāyika, "knower of the five Nikāyas," peṭakin, "knower of the Piṭakas," and dhammakathika, "preacher of the doctrine."³

v2.c19.s1.65

³ The stūpa at Bharhut (Bharahut, Bharaut, Barāhat) was discovered by General A. *Cunningham* in the year 1874, and described by him in the work "The Stūpa of Bharhut," London, 1879. The inscriptions have been published and translated by E. *Hultzsch*, ZDMG 40, 1886, p. 58 ff. and Ind. Ant. 21, 1892, 225 ff., and B. M. *Barua*, Barhut Inscriptions, Calcutta, 1926. According to Cunningham, the inscriptions date from the period between 250 and 150 B.C. L. A. *Waddell* (JRAS 1914, p. 138 ff.) believes that most of the sculptures date from the 3rd century B.C., and that only the Eastern Gateway should be attributed to the 2nd or 1st century. The sculptures of the Sānchī stūpas have been described by F. C. *Maisey*, Sanchi and its Remains, London, 1892, and Sir J. H. *Marshall*, A Guide to Sanchi, Calcutta, 1918. G. *Bühler*, On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, p. 17, dates the stūpas of Bharhut and Sānchī in the 3rd century B.C. on palaeographic grounds (with repairs and additional buildings in the 2nd century). V. A. *Smith*, A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, Oxford, 1911, p. 73 ff. ascribes the Sānchī stūpas to the period between 150 and 100 B.C., but in his Early History (1924), p. 173, he speaks of them as "buildings of the Asokan period." See alse A. *Grünwedel*, Buddhistische Kunst in Indien, Berlin, 1900, 22 ff.; A. *Foucher*, The Beginnings of Buddhist Art, London, 1917, pp. 29 ff., 61 ff.; J. H. Marshall in Cambridge History, I, 618 ff., 627 ff. Only the earliest portions of the monuments, of which little has been preserved, go back to Aśoka's time. Cf. Grünwedel, l. c., p. 24; *Foucher*, l. c., p. 34 and Marshall, l.c., p. 627; Rapson in Cambridge History, I, p. 523.

v2.c19.s1.66

¹ Cf. B. M. *Barua* in Ind. Hist. Qu. I, 1925, 50 ff., 245 ff.

v2.c19.s1.67

² In one of the Sāñchī inscriptions, a nun, sutātikini, "female reciter of the Sutta," is also mentioned.

v2.c19.s1.68

³ Such experts for preaching and recitation are also mentioned in the Canon, s. above p. 11. In the days of Buddhaghosa there were also reciters of special texts, such as Dīghabhāṇakas, Majjhimabhāṇakas, etc.

v2.c19.s1.69

From all this, it follows that, some time before the second century B.C. there was already a collection of Buddhist texts, which was called "Piṭakas" and was divided into five "Nikāyas," that there were "Suttas" in which the "Dhamma," the religion of Buddha, was preached, that some of these Suttas agreed with those contained in our Tipiṭaka, and that "Jātakas" of exactly the same kind as those contained in the Tipiṭaka, already belonged to the stock of Buddhist literature—in short, that, at some period prior to the 2nd century B.C., probably as early as at the time of Aśoka or a little later, there was a Buddhist Canon which, if not entirely identical with our Pāli Canon, resembled it very closely.

v2.c19.s1.70

It is true that the earliest literary evidence of the existence of the "three baskets" as a triad of piṭakas (piṭakattayaṃ) and of Nikāyas is only to be found in the Milindapañha,¹ a work whose authentic portion probably belongs to the beginning of the first century A.D. But the whole of the remaining Buddhist literature other than the Pāli Canon, proves that the texts contained in the latter hark back to an early period, not so very far removed from the time of Buddha himself, and in any case may be regarded as the most trustworthy evidences of the original doctrine of Buddha and the Buddhism of the first two centuries after Buddha's death.

v2.c19.s1.71

¹ Ed. *Trenckner*, p. 22, about monks who are tepiṭakā, *i.e.*, "knowers of the three piṭakas," and those who are pañcanekāyikā and catunekāyikā, "knowers of the five Nikāyas" and "knowers of the four Nikāyas." I see no reason for regarding this passage as interpolated, as does F. O. *Schrader*. Sanskrit *trepiṭaka* occurs in an inscription of King Kaniṣka (2nd century A.D.), s. J. Ph. *Vogel*, Ep. Ind. VIII. 176.

v2.c19.s1.72

This is proved firstly by the non-canonical Pāli literature, including the dialogues of the Milindapañha, the chronicles of Ceylon Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa, and a rich commentary literature in connection with the Tipiṭaka. All these works indicate that the Tipiṭaka was in existence at least as early as the early centuries of the Christian era.²

v2.c19.s1.73

² The entire Pāli literature, canonical as well as non-canonical, is frequently termed "Southern Buddhist," because, at the present day it is preserved and spread among the Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma and Siam. This term is, however, to be deprecated owing to the fact that the texts of the Pāli Canon and the Milindapañha are in no wise related to the South, and do not even give indications of a knowlege of South India and Ceylon, but in all probability originated in North India. The occasional occurrence of the expression tāmraparṇīyanikāya in some manuscript or other, is not sufficient ground to justify our talking about "the Singhalese Canon" as does *La Vallée Poussin* (JA s. 9. t. XX, 1902 p. 237). Cf. *Rhys Davids* in JRAS 1896, 378 f. recensions of six different schools, that "*the Pāli version of the school of the Theravādins proves itself to be the most faithful preserver of an earlier tradition*" (p. 187). S. also *Oldenberg*, AR 13, 1910, 596 ff.; NGGW 1912, 171 ff. *Barth*, RHR, t. 41, 1900, 166 ff. (= Oeuvres II, 300 ff.); *La Vallée Poussin* and *T. W. Rhys Davids*, JRAS 1903, 359 ff. A canon similar to the Tipiṭaka is also recognised by the Mahāyāna Buddhists, s. *Kern*, Manual, p. 3 n. 4, and *La Vallée Poussin*, Bouddhisme, p. 29 f.

v2.c19.s1.74

Moreover, the Buddhist Sanskrit literature [^1) testifies to the antiquity and the fidelity of the Pāli transmission. This literature, composed partly in good Sanskrit, partly in "mixed Sanskrit," [^2) comprises works of the most varied kinds and of the most widely differing sects. One of these sects, namely that of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, had a canon of its own in Sanskrit, and it is only in recent times that fragments of it have been discovered in Central Asia. We find that this canon, though not translated from the Pāli, yet affords splendid evidence of the fidelity of the Pāli transmission : for, in spite of numerous deviations in the wording and the arrangement, there are yet so many literal agreements between the Sanskrit Canon and the Pāli Canon, that we must take it for granted that there is a uniform tradition behind both collections. In the Sanskrit texts of the Buddhists of Nepal, as well as in the works of the various Buddhist sects, known only through Tibetan and Chinese translations, we can establish a fundamental stock not only of doctrines, but also of texts, agreeing in all essentials with the transmission of the Pāli Canon. The more this Buddhist Sanskrit literature is opened up, and the more minutely it is compared with the Pāli Canon,[^3) the more it is proved that Oldenberg is right when he says : "The Pāli copy, though naturally not of infallible accuracy, must still be judged as

v2.c19.s1.75

[^1): The term "Northern Buddhist" as applied to the Sanskrit Buddhist literature as well as to the Buddhist literatures of Tibet, China and Japan which are based upon it, is even more unsuitable than the term "Southern Buddhist" for the Pāli literature: for by this term the texts of entirely different sects, such as Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, are all lumped together. [^2): See Vol. I, English edition, p. 48. [^3): For comparisons of this kind we are especially indebted to *E. Windisch*, Māra und Buddha (ASGW XV, 4), Leipzig, 1895, and Buddhas Geburt (ASGW XXVI, 2), Leipzig, 1908, and M. *Anesaki* in OC XIII Hamburg 1902, p. 61, and *Le Muséon*, N. S. VI, 1905 *23ff*., VII, 1906, *33ff*., who shows that even Pāli quotations occur in the Mahāyāna texts. *E. Waldschmidt*, Bruchstücke des Bhikṣuṇī-Prātimokṣa der Sarvāstivādins, Leipzig 1926, has come to the conclusion, after a careful and unbiassed comparison of the Bhikṣuṇī-Prātimokṣa in the eminently good."¹) There is indeed neither a canon nor any Buddhist text which has come down from such early times as the Pāli Canon which was written down in the first century B.C., in which there is as yet not even a single word of mention of the great Buddhist King Aśoka.²) In language, style and contents the Pāli texts are most closely connected with the Upaniṣads, while the Buddhist Sanskrit literature reminds us far more of the Purāṇas. Finally, the fact that in these texts, written down and transmitted in Ceylon, there are no references of any kind to Ceylon, again confirms the view that they are not a "canon of the Buddhists of Ceylon," but a canon of that Buddhist sect of India which, as a matter of fact, has preserved the most of ancient Buddhism and might, with some justification, call its doctrine "Theravāda," the doctrine of the first disciples of Buddha.

v2.c19.s1.76

¹ ZDMG 52, p. 673. Even A. *Barth* RHR 1900, t. 42, p. 57 (= Oeuvres II, 340), cf. Journal des savants 1899, p. 631, and RHR 1900, t. 41, p. 170 (= Oeuvres II, 303 f.), admits that there are very much surer guarantees to support the Pāli tradition than the disconnected mass of writings of the North.

v2.c19.s1.77

² The Indians have never been such deliberate forgers that, if Aśoka had been mentioned, they would have eliminated the references, in order to create the appearance of antiquity. Cf. *Rhys Davids*, Buddhist India, p. 174.

v2.c19.s1.78

If we had only the Pāli texts and nothing besides, we should certainly form merely a one-sided idea of Buddhism. On the other hand, if only the Sanskrit and semi-Sanskrit Buddhist texts and none of the Pāli Canon had come down to us, we should have an entirely distorted picture of Buddhism and only a scanty notion of the original teaching and personality of Buddha. We may say this without any bias in favour of the Pāli transmission, and without denying that our knowledge of Buddhism and especially of its history is very materially completed and extended by the Sanskrit Buddhist literature of Nepal, as well as by the Chinese and Tibetan translations from the Sanskrit.

v2.c19.s1.79

The Pāli texts, moreover, surpass all other productions of Buddhist literature, not only as a source for our knowledge of Buddhism, but also—which here concerns us first and foremost—from a purely literary standpoint. This will be shown by the following survey of this literature.¹

v2.c19.s1.80

¹ A complete edition of the sacred writings of the Tipiṭaka in 39 volumes (in Siamese type) was printed by the order of King Culalaṅkaraṇa of Siam on the occasion of the twenty-five years' jubilee of his reign, in 1894 in Bangkok, and, with admirable generosity, he had it distributed to European and American libraries. Cf. R. *Chalmers*, JRAS 1898, p. 1. ff. and Ch. *Lanman*, JAOS, Vol. XVI, 1895, Proceedings CCXLIV ff. Most of the texts have also been published by the *Pali Text Society*. Extracts from the Tipiṭaka have been translated by K. E. *Neumann*, Buddhistische Anthologie, Leiden, 1892; Henry Clarke *Warren*, Buddhism in Translations, Cambridge, Mass. 1896 (HOS, Vol. 3); Julius *Dutoit*, Das Leben des Buddha, Leipzig, 1906; M. *Winternitz*, Buddhismus, in A. *Bertholet*, Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, Tübingen, 1908, Einzelausgabe 1911 (new edition in preparation; Karl *Seidenstücker*, Pāli-Buddhismus in Übersetzungen, Breslau, 1911, 2nd Ed., 1923; H. *Oldenberg*, Reden des Buddha, München, 1922; E. J. *Thomas*, Buddhist Scriptures, London, 1913 (Wisdom of the East Series); F. L *Woodward*, Some Sayings of the Buddha according to the Pāli Canon, Oxford, 1925.

The Vinayapiṭaka of the Pāli Canon

v2.c19.s2.1

The Buddhists themselves place the Vinayapiṭaka² at the head of the canon, and we may follow their example, without committing ourselves to the opinion that this is earlier than the Suttapiṭaka.³ The Vinayapiṭaka comprises the following texts:

v2.c19.s2.2

² Edited by H. *Oldenberg*, London, 1879-1883.

v2.c19.s2.3

³ Kern, Manual, p. 2, and *La Vallée Poussin*, Buddhisme, E'tudes et Matériaux, p. 27, regard the Vinayapiṭaka as earlier. In the opinion of R. Otto *Franke* (JPTS 1908, pp. 8 ff., 68 ff., 74) the Mahāvagga and Cullavagga of the Vinayapiṭaka would be later than the Dīghanikāya. K. E. *Neumann* (Prefaces to Vols. I and III of the "Reden Gotamo Buddhos") believes that "the Vinayapiṭaka and later the Abhidhammapiṭaka gradually partly became eliminated, and partly were further developed, out of the Suttapiṭaka." In support of this view, we could adduce the fact that some of the Suttas deal with Vinaya, and some resemble the texts of the Abhidhamma very closely both in form and contents. However, as the Vinayapiṭaka and the Suttapiṭaka have some texts in common, I think it likely that the final compilation of these two took place at about the same time.

v2.c19.s2.4

I. The Suttavibhaṅga, consisting of 1. Mahāvibhaṅga, and 2. Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga.
II. The Khandhakās, consisting of 1. Mahāvagga and 2. Cullavagga.
III. The Parivāra or Parivārapāṭha.

First 84 of 1,804 passages. Read on

Linked texts (68)