A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s1.58

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.