Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c7.s3.t8: Nikāyas, a Mosaic of Materials of Different Times and Places

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c7.s3.t8

Language
English

Nikāyas, a Mosaic of Materials of Different Times and Places

c7.s3.t8.1

It should be observed that all those scholars, who arrived at these conclusions, cited passages from the texts of the Nikāyas in support of their findings, and that the views taken by them in most cases followed naturally from those passages. In these circumstances, we have to admit that the Nikāyas as a whole do not present a coherent system of philosophy and doctrine, but the question is whether, in view of the fact that the Nikāyas took centuries to grow and attain a definite shape, we are entitled to expect from them a coherent system. The Nikāyas are, in fact, a mosaic made up of materials of various times and places, wide apart from each other; hence, it would not be reasonable to expect from them a coherent interpretation of Nirvāṇa. The ancient teachers, too, were puzzled in regard to the correct interpretation of Nirvāṇa, but they never attempted to discover a consistency in the passages of the Nikāyas as a whole. It will be seen from the discussions preserved in the Kathāvatthu and the Abhidharmakośa that these disputants cited a set of passages in support of their contentions, and not any particular Nikāya or Sūtra. To these ancient disputants each saying was independent, and carried the weight which a number of sayings would do. It is, however, striking that the disputants never questioned the authenticity of the passages cited by their opponents. This shows that a disputant only preferred one set of passages to another and built his theories on that set. The Nikāyas evidently are only a collection of these various passages put in a uniform setting and given the garb of the sūtras. Attempts, of course, are now being made to sift these sūtras and find out the various strata, but it is doubtful how far the efforts will be fruitful in the absence of new evidences. It may be contended that a Piṭaka is a collection of texts made by a particular school of Buddhist thought, and that consistency should be apparent or discoverable in the passages of that Piṭaka. The contention seems reasonable, but the facts are against it. Professor Poussin has discovered in the Nikāyas many passages cited by the Sarvāstivādins in the Kośa in support of their contentions, while Mrs. Rhys Davids and Mr. Aung have identified many of the citations of the opponents of the Theravādins in the Pāli Piṭaka, the collection of the Theravādins. This fact indicates that the collection of Pāli sūtras was not made with any sectarian motive and that the compilers of the Pāli Tripiṭaka included in it all the sayings that they could find out, excepting, very probably, some which went directly against their creeds and dogmas,¹ and for the rejection of which they took the plea of unauthenticity. It is now fairly well known that each Nikāya developed by itself under the special attention of a group of reciters called Bhāṇakas who confined themselves exclusively to the preservation of that particular collection.² Buddhaghosa, although an orthodox adherent of the Theravāda school, had to acknowledge that even these bhāṇakas differed among themselves regarding the use and sense of certain technical expressions.³ Thus, we see, that even the orthodox supporters of the Pāli Tipiṭakas believed that the Nikāyas did not agree in all their interpretations. We should also bear in mind the significant remark found in the Kośa⁴ that many sūtras were lost, that many of the sūtras underwent slight changes, and that new ideas and expositions were woven around them in such a way that the accretions conveyed a sense different from that of the kernel around which they were set.⁵

c7.s3.t8.2

¹ A hint to this effect is seen in the Dīpavaṃsa, ch. iv.

c7.s3.t8.3

² Sum. Vil., p. 15.

c7.s3.t8.4

³ Vis. M., p. 95: Majjhima-bhāṇaka Revatthera; p. 275: idaṃ tāva Dīghabhāṇaka-Samyuttabhāṇakānaṃ mataṃ. Majjhimabhāṇaka pana etc. See also pp. 286, 431.

c7.s3.t8.5

⁴ Kośa, ii. 55, p. 278 fn. sūtrāni ca bahūny antarhitāni mūlasaṅgīti-bhraṃsāt.

c7.s3.t8.6

⁵ Cf. Prof. Poussin's remark in his Nirvāṇa, p. 9: "La vieille tradition scripturaire (Petit Véhicule), codifiée, renouvelée, amplifiée par les écoles, est mal datée, en partie tardive, point toujours claire, contradictoire sinon dans ses dogmes du moins dans ses tendences". See also p. 133.

Linked texts (3)