Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c5: Chapter I. The Buddhist Canon and Its Chronology

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c5

Language
English

Chapter I. The Buddhist Canon and Its Chronology

c5.2

The Buddhist Canon.—In spite of the differences of language, place, dogmatic preferences, verbal variants, and the divisions of the canon, one can still speak of a "Canon of the Hīnayāna" divided in two Piṭakas. The only redaction of this canon which we possess in its entirety and in an early Indian language is the Pali redaction.¹

c5.3

¹ La Vallée Poussin, Opinions, pp. 30f.

c5.4

The Abhidharma and its versions.—The relative lateness of the Abhidharma Piṭaka is manifest. It probably grew out of the Mātikās² and is found in only two schools—Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda.³ The Pali Abhidhamma consists of seven works—Dhammasaṅgaṇi, Vibhaṅga, Puggalapaññatti, Dhātukathā, Paṭṭhāna, Yamaka, Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa. The Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma also consists of seven works—Jñānaprasthāna, and the six Pādaśāstras. The six Pādaśāstras in their traditional order (which is a little different from that of Nanjio) are⁴: 1. Saṅgītiparyāyapāda, 2. Dharmaskandha, 3. Prajñaptipāda, 4. Vijñānakāyapāda, 5. Dhātukāyapāda, 6. Prakaraṇapāda. According to tradition the Abhidharma too represents the words of Buddha.⁵ This opinion is, however, belied by the fact that the two Abhidharmas teach quite different doctrines. Takakusu tells us: "Comparing the two sets of Abhidharma works as far as accessible to me, I do not find anything in form or in matter which could lead us to suppose that they were the same, though they treat as a matter of course, of more or less similar subjects."⁶ Perhaps the most striking resemblance is to be noted between the Puggalapaññatti and the Saṅgītiparyāyapāda as both follow the Aṅguttara method. But the contents of the two do not correspond.⁷ It appears that the Abhidharmas are in fact a systematization and development of the doctrines of the sūtras along sectarian lines.⁸ Their growth belongs to the post-Nikāya period.⁹

c5.5

² Winternitz, History of Indian Literature II, p. 166.

c5.6

³ The Dharmaguptas and the Kāśyapīyas are also supposed to have had an Abhidharmapiṭaka (see EMB II, 163, 165) but they were subsects of the Sarvāstivāda group. The Pañca-Mātuka of the Mahāsaṅghika canon may refer to the Vinaya (Ib., pp. 55-56).

c5.7

⁴ Rosenberg, 'Die Probleme, p. 271.

c5.8

⁵ Minayeff—Recherches, p. 14. fn; Wassiljew—Der Buddhismus I, p. 115; Aṭṭhasālinī—p. 23f (Nāgarī Edition, Poona 1942).

c5.9

⁶ JPTS. 1905, p. 161.

c5.10

⁷ Ib., p. 162.

c5.11

⁸ Cf. Glasenapp, ZDMG. 1938, 408-13.

c5.12

⁹ See below.

c5.13

The Vinaya and its versions.—The Vinaya is available in the following versions: the Vinaya of the Theravādins in Pali, portions of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādins in Sanskrit contained in the Gilgit Manuscripts (ed. Dr. N. Dutt), and in Tibetan and Chinese translations (in the latter, not in its entirety); the Vinayas of the schools of Sarvāstivādins, Dharmaguptas, Mahīśāsakas and the Mahāsanghikas in Chinese translation.¹⁰ Besides, fragments are available in Sanskrit which clearly belonged to or were associated with the originals of some of these Vinayas.¹¹ At least eighteen of the narratives in the Divyāvadāna "sont autant de fragments ayant fait jadis partie du Vinaya Piṭaka des Sarvāstivādins.”¹² These are the Avadānas —1, 2, 3, 4; 5, 6, 7, 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31. 35, 36 and 38. Similarly is the Mahāvastu connected with the Vinaya of the Mahāsanghikas.¹³ A Sanskrit version of the Prātimokṣa of the Mahāsanghikas has been edited by Dr. Pachow and Sri Ramakanta Mishra in JGRI X pts. 1-4. The Prātimokṣa of the Mūlasarvāstivādins too is available in Sanskrit.¹⁴

c5.14

¹⁰ Wassiljew—op. cit. I, p. 97.

c5.15

¹¹ Winternitz—op. cit. II, p. 283, fn. 1.

c5.16

¹² Huber—B. L., École Fr. 1906. p. 1.

c5.17

¹³ Ib. p. 3.

c5.18

¹⁴ IHQ 1953:

c5.19

As to the relationship of these Vinayas, it is now an established fact that the Prātimokṣa is practically the same for all the sects.¹⁵ But the agreement is supposed to extend to the Vibhaṅga and even the Khandhaka.¹⁶ Fragments have been discovered at Koutcha which correspond to portions of the Mahāvagga;¹⁷ and Beal remarks on the close resemblance that exists in the order of representation between the Pali and Mahāsanghika Vinayas where the Mahāvagga is concerned.

c5.20

¹⁵ Cf. JA. 1913—Nov-Déc. pp. 467, 549; JA. 1912 Jan-Févr. p. 103; JRAS—1862 pp. 407 ff; ZDMG. 1898. p. 645; Cf. Winternitz loc. cit. Also Dr. Pa-Chow's partly published thesis—Comparative Study of the Prātimokṣa.

c5.21

¹⁶ ZDMG 1898 pp. 647f; cf. Wassiljew op. cit. p. 19.

c5.22

It appears that the diversity of the Vinaya redactions is a later growth based on an originally common stock of rules.¹⁷ᵃ

c5.23

Corresponding to the DN, MN, SN and AN of the Pali canon there exist in Chinese translation the DĀ, MĀ, SĀ and the EĀ.¹⁷ᵇ Several suttas of the Nikāyas occur in the Chinese Tripiṭaka in separate translations also.¹⁸ Further, fragments of various sūtras of the DĀ (Saṅgīti-sūtra, Āṭānāṭiya-sūtra), of the MĀ (Upāli-sūtra, Śukasūtra), of the SĀ and the EĀ, have been found in central Asia.¹⁹ Finally, various Buddhist Sanskrit works like the Ab.k, Ak.V. MK and MK.V, contain quotations from these Āgamas. The Divyāvadāna makes frequent mention of the Āgamacatuṣṭayam.²⁰

c5.24

¹⁷ Finôt—JA. 1911. Nov-Déc. 619-25.

c5.25

17a Cf. Winternitz—loc. cit.

c5.26

17b Nanjio, Catalogue, Columns 127-37.

c5.27

¹⁸ Ib. Columns, 138 ff.

c5.28

¹⁹ Winternitz. op. cit. p. 234 fn. 3.

c5.29

²⁰ Divyāv. pp. 77, 331, 333.

c5.30

About the relationship of the Chinese Āgamas and the Pali Nikāyas, Anesaki tells us “The materials of both are pretty much the same but the order of arrangement is strangely different.”²¹ “The deviations, in matter, though usually inconsiderable, are sometimes interesting.”²² Prof. Akanuma has compared the Āgamas with the Nikāyas in his work—“The Comparative Catalogue of Chinese Āgamas and Pali Nikāyas,” (1929). His main conclusions have been summarized by Prof. N. Dutt.²³ All the suttas of the DN with the exception of the Mahāli, Jāliya, and Subhasuttas are contained in DĀ, with a few in the MĀ. The DĀ contains two extra suttas. The order of suttas is very different in the two collections.²⁴ Of the 152 suttas of the MN only 19 are omitted in the MĀ viz., Cūḷasāropama (No. 30), Mahāsaccaka (No. 36), Sāleyyaka (No. 41), Verañjaka (No. 42), Kaṇdaraka (No. 51), Jīvaka (No. 55), Kukkuravatika (No. 57) Abhayarājakumāra (No. 58), Apaṇṇaka (No. 60) Tevijjavacchagotta (No. 71), Ghoṭamukha (No. 94), Caṅki (No. 95), Vāseṭṭha (No. 98), Saṅgārava (No. 100), Pañcattaya (No. 102) Kinti (No. 103), Sunakhatta (No. 105), Anupada (No. 111), Bhaddekaratta (No. 131). The MĀ contains 222 sūtras, 82 of which correspond to the suttas in the AN, 10 to suttas in the SN, 9 to those in the DN and the rest to suttas in the MN. The MĀ has, further, a few stray suttas corresponding to passages in the SN, Theragāthā, Therīs, and Vin (Mvg.).²⁵

c5.31

²¹ JRAS. 1901 p. 895.

c5.32

²² This with ref. to the MN. (Ib. 897).

c5.33

²³ EMB II. p. 125 ff.

c5.34

²⁴ See chap: Early and Late in the DN, where it is suggested that the Pali order is probably more authentic.

c5.35

²⁵ EMB. loc. cit; see below—“Early and Late in the MN”.

c5.36

The SĀ, as it exists in Chinese, is divided into 50 sections and incorporates a large number of suttas of the AN and a few of the other texts. There are a few sūtras which have no parallels in Pali. The Sagāthavagga of the two collections has much in common, but not the Nidānavagga; the 8th and 9th chapters of Nidāna viz., Samaṇabrāhmaṇa and Antarapeyyāla are wanting in the Āgama, while the first and fifth chapters (Buddha and Gahapati) show marked differences. In the same section, Abhisamaya, Dhātu and other Saṃyuttas are almost passed over in the Āgama, but there is much agreement in the following five Saṃyuttas : Anamatagga, Kassapa, Lakkhaṇa, Opanima and Bhikkhu. In the Khandhavagga of the Āgama the following Saṃyuttas are wanting : Okkantika, Valāha, Vacchagotta, and Jhāna. In the Saḷāyatana-vagga the following are absent : Mātugāma, Moggalāna. Asaṅkhata, Sammappadhāna, Bāla and Iddhipāda, while major portions of the Magga, Indriya and Sacca are omitted.²⁶

c5.37

²⁶ EMB. II. loc. cit. see below chap. Early and Late in the SN; Cf. Huber’s review of Pischel’s Bruchstücke des Sanskritcanons..in B. L’ecole Fr. 1904. 473-’4. It appears that the SĀ contains suttas corresponding to MN 1. 497, and AN I. 185. cf. Lévi in T’oung Pao V. p. 299 quoted by Dutt. op. cit. p. 127.

c5.38

The EĀ and AN have very little in common. This is partly due to the fact that a large number of the suttas of the AN are included in the MĀ and the SĀ. The Pali text is much more extensive than the Sanskrit and it seems that the two collections grew independently of each other. The following are more or less common to both. Samacitta (I. pp. 61-9), Devadūta (I. pp. 132-50), Brāhmaṇa to Loṇaphala (I. pp. 155-258), Cakka (II. pp. 32-44) Muṇḍarāja (III. pp. 45-62) Nīvaraṇa (III. pp. 63-79), Āghāta (III. pp. 185-202), Devatā to Mahā (III. pp. 329-420) Avyākata to Mahā (IV. pp. 67-139), Gahapati (IV. pp. 298-35), Savitta (V. pp. 92-112), Upāsaka (V. pp. 176-210), Jānussoṇi (V. pp. 249-73), and Anussati (V. pp. 328-58). This however is not an exhaustive list for there are stray agreements in other sections.²⁷

c5.39

²⁷ EMB II. loc. cit.

c5.40

In the absence of a detailed and exhaustive comparison between the Pali and Chinese sūtras it would appear very hazardous to comment on the relationship between the two. However, the fact of general similarity in contents appears to be as clear as that of difference in grouping and arrangement. That both the sets of collections go back to a common original is apparent. Winternitz concludes that they “were compiled from the same materials, but were arranged in different ways in different schools.”²⁸

c5.41

²⁸ Op. cit. p. 235.

c5.42

The quotations from the Āgamas in later Buddhist Sanskrit works find in many cases their parallels in the Pali Nikāyas. Poussin thus states that “la haute antiquité des suttas Pali est confirmée par le temoignage des sources sanscrites.”28a He points out that the Ak. V. contains parallels to SN. III. 25, Ib. 159, AN IV. 70-4; Similarly MK has passages corresponding to SN. III.

c5.43

28a JA. 1902 XX. p. 237.

c5.44

142, Ib. 138. Dr. Vaidya points out that Mk. XV, 7 seems to refer to SN. II, 172.²⁹ Some further parallels are noted below.³⁰

c5.45

²⁹ Études—p. 21.

c5.46

³⁰ See infra.

c5.47

A fifth Āgama or Nikāya does not appear to have been recognized by schools other than the Theravāda.³¹ The Pali Khuddaka Nikāya is itself of a miscellaneous character with variable contents.³² However, the Sanskrit canon is known to have included texts called Udāna, Dharmapada, Sthaviragāthā, Vimānavastu and Buddhavamsa, and corresponding to the Pali texts of the same titles.³³ Further, the Chinese Tripitaka contains texts corresponding to the Atthaka and Pārāyana sections of the Sn. and the It.³⁴

c5.48

³¹ Dutt op. cit., p. 128; cf. Winternitz op. cit., p. 236, fn. 2.

c5.49

³² See below Chap. III.

c5.50

³³ Winternitz loc. cit.

c5.51

³⁴ For a comparison of the Chinese and Pali versions see below Chap. III.

c5.52

According to Rockhill "The Udānavarga contains 300 verses which are nearly identical with verses of Dharmapada; 150 more resemble verses of that work; 20 are to be found in the Suttanipāta; and about the same number are very similar to parts of the same book." Thus more than half of Udānavarga is found in works of the southern canon.³⁵ La Vallée Poussin identifies many more verses and says that Dharmatrāta—the translator of the Udānavarga—has utilized the whole of the Udāna, prose and verse.³⁶

c5.53

³⁵ Rockhill—U. Vg.

c5.54

³⁶ La Vallée Poussin—JA. 1912 Mars—Avril—p. 312.

c5.55

According to Lévi³⁷ the Dhp. is represented in the Chinese collection by four works—1. Fa-Kiu-King, 2. Fa-Kiupi-Yuking. 3. Tchóu-Yao-King, and 4. Fa-tsi-yao-song-king. The first was translated in 224 A.D. but was not a literally faithful translation. Dharmapada was then already in circulation in China. Of the 39 sections of the first only 26 belonged to the original translation. The Pali text also has 26 sections. The order of verses is quite different but the rubrics are disposed in the same order. The second was translated by two Śramaṇas between A.D. 290–306 and is based on the first. The third was translated in A.D. 398-9, and is a veritable Aṭṭhakathā. The fourth dates from the end of the 10th cent. A.D. and is a revision of the third by an Indian monk.

c5.56

³⁷ JA. 1912—Sept.—Oct., p. 203ff.

c5.57

Lévi’s detailed comparative study of the Apramādavarga in the various redactions of the Dhp. shows close similarity with occasional differences.

c5.58

The chronology of the canon, esp. the Nikayas.—According to Buddhist tradition, the Vinaya and the Sutta Piṭakas were compiled immediately after the death of Buddha in the First Council held at Rājagṛha.³⁸ The question of the historicity and nature of the First Council has been the subject of keen debate among scholars for over half a century.³⁹ All the sources—Pali, Tibetan and Chinese—have been tapped and discussed threadbare. Oldenberg believed the First Council to have been a pure fiction, mainly on the ground that the Mahāparinibbānasutta gives the motive but not a word about the session of the Council.⁴⁰ Franke expressed the same opinion arguing that Cv. XI-XII constituted the only independent source of the tradition and were themselves no better than concoctions based on the Mahāparinibbāna sutta.⁴¹ Jacobi had already answered Oldenberg reasonably by saying that it was not really necessary for the Mahāparinibbāna sutta to go out of its way to describe the Council.⁴² Further, it has been suggested recently⁴³ that Cv. XI-XII originally formed part of the Mahāparinibbāna sutta. That Cv. XI-XII form a kind of appendix to the Cv. and could not have originally belonged to it, is very probable.⁴⁴ Further, Cv. XI begins abruptly unlike any other chapter of the Cv. It commences in the same way as the Mahāparinibbāna sutta and is closely allied to it in contents. Finally, a work entitled Saṃyuktavastu (Nanjio, 1121), the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, contains the account of both Parinirvāṇa and the Councils. It is thus not impossible that Cv. XI and DN. 16 formed originally a continuous narrative. It is, however, not clear why the Theravādins should have in that case separated the two. Perhaps they felt that Cv. XI had greater affinities with Cv. XII than with DN. 16.

c5.59

³⁸ The sources for the First Council are:
(i) Pali—CV.XI, which is the earliest of the group & from it are derived the traditions preserved in the Ceylonese chronicles and Buddhaghosa’s commentaries.
(ii) Sanskrit—short notices in the Mvu and the Mañjuśrī-mūlakalpa.
(iii) Chinese—the Vinayas of the Mahīśāsakas, Dharmaguptas, Mahāsaṅghikas and the Sarvāstivādins; Kāśyapasaṅgīti-sūtra (tr. A.D. 148–70); Aśokavadāna (tr. c. 300 A.D.); Mahāprajñāpāramitāśastra (tr. A.D. 402–5); Parinirvāṇa-sūtra (tr. A.D. 290–306); account of the compilation of the Tripiṭaka and of Tsa Tsang by Kāśyapa and Ānanda after the Nirvāṇa of Buddha in the Kingdom of Magadha, on the north of the town of Saṅkāśya (the work is in Chinese verse, dated between 317 and 420); comy. on the 1st Chap. of the EĀ (see Dutt—EMB. I, pp. 326ff).
(iv) Tibetan: Buston’s History of Buddhism; Tārānātha’s History of Buddhism.

c5.60

³⁹ Minayeff op. cit., p. 25ff; Oldenberg—Introduction to the Vin. I, XXV-XXIX; ZDMG. 1898, pp. 613-94; Poussin IA. 1908, pp. 1-18; 81-106; Franke—JPTS 1908, pp. 1-80; R. C. Majumdar, Buddhistic Studies (ed. B. C. Law), pp. 26-72; Finôt—IHQ 1923, pp. 241-6; Obermiller. Ib., pp. 781-4; Dutt op. cit., p. 324ff. The volume of Przyluski—Le Concile de Rājagṛha—deals with all the traditions available in Chinese and Tibetan.

c5.61

⁴⁰ Cf. ZDMG. 1898, 613-32.

c5.62

⁴¹ Op. cit.

c5.63

⁴² ZDMG. 1880, 184ff.

c5.64

⁴³ Finôt & Obermiller—1. c; Dutt. op. cit., p. 337f. Dr. Dutt points out that the argument really holds with reference to Cv. XI only.

c5.65

⁴⁴ See Winternitz op. cit., p. 25 & fn. 2.

c5.66

But although it may no longer be plausible to regard the first Council as pure fiction, its nature and work remain uncertain. According to Minayeff, the account of the First Council contains two clearly distinguishable parts, of which the one speaking of the compilation of the canon is much later, being, in fact, posterior to the rise of the sects.⁴⁵ Prof. Poussin would regard the Council as an enlarged Pātimokkha assembly.⁴⁶ According to Prof. Dutt,⁴⁷ the motive of the Council was to determine the ‘Khuddakānukhuddakāni sikkhāpadāni’, the abrogation of which was sanctioned by Buddha just before his passing away. The account of the recitation of suttas by Ānanda is a later engrafting upon the account of his Pārisuddhi, which was then, except for the Dharmagupta Vinaya, shifted from its proper place, i.e., before the recitation of the texts.

c5.67

⁴⁵ Op. cit., pp. 35-6. He points to the disagreement among the sources over what exactly was redacted in the First Council—Ib., p. 29. Dr. Dutt details the works supposed to have been redacted at the Council according to the various sources. Op. cit., pp. 333-4. Some sources speak of the redaction of the Abhidharma even—Minayeff, op. cit., p. 30.

c5.68

⁴⁶ EMB I, 339.

c5.69

⁴⁷ Op. cit., p. 339f.

c5.70

That the huge mass of the Vinaya and the Sutta Piṭakas was “recited” in the First Council is, of course, manifestly impossible. A beginning in the direction, however, might have been made quite naturally, but lack of certain evidence makes any pronouncement on the subject difficult.⁴⁸

c5.71

⁴⁸ Cf. Winternitz, op. cit., p. 7. Also, Mrs. Rhys Davids—Buddhism, p. 213 (H. U. L.).

c5.72

The years following the Parinirvāṇa appear to have been marked by a process of growth both with respect to the rules of discipline as well as with respect to doctrines. The Saṅgha grew in wealth, membership and complexity of organisation.⁴⁹ The original teachings must have left room for interpretative divergences, and the Theras in the various communities would act not only as the transmitters of tradition but also as commentators. Buddha himself is supposed to have discouraged the habit of regarding his actual words as sacrosanct and to have forbidden their “Sanskritization” and chanting after the Vedic manner.⁵⁰ This must have added to the swiftness with which the original

c5.73

⁴⁹ Cf. Ib., p. 26.

c5.74

⁵⁰ Majjhima sutta 139 which condemns bias in favour of particular Janapada-niruttis and Saññās; Cv. V. 33, of which Senart gives the parallel versions from the Vinayas available in Chinese of four schools (JA. 1915 Mai-Juin, 441 ff). The Dharmagupta and Mahīśāsaka Vinayas speak of Śiṣṭabhāṣā only; the Sarvāstivāda and Mūla° Vinayas introduce “Chanting”. Senart opines that perhaps at that time intonation was integral to correct speech. According to the Pali Aṭṭhakathā “putting in chandas” signified Sanskritization after the Vedic manner (Winternitz II, p. 603); Buddha permitted his teachings to be put down in “one’s own speech” (Sakanirutti). Aṭṭhakathā takes it to mean Māgadhī (Winternitz II, p. 602) cf. La Vallée Poussin, Opinions, p. 36.

c5.75

It appears that Buddha did not want his teachings to be fixed in any learned language but wished them to circulate in different local dialects. One may recall that Asoka followed a similar policy. It is thus that we have, for instance, the Prākṛta Dhammapada found in Central Asia. Pali is probably one of these ancient dialects—the dialect probably of Central India or N. Deccan (see App. I).

c5.76

message would get embedded in scholastic growth which followed several conflicting directions.

c5.77

The crystallization of the divergent tendencies within the community in the shape of definite schism appeared, we are told, by the end of the first century A.B. The history of the schism is considered later,⁵¹ but for our present purposes it is only necessary to observe that the state in which the canon was at the time of Saṅghabheda is difficult to ascertain. The minuteness, however, of the Ten Points at Vaiśālī or the Five Points of Mahādeva argues for a more or less well developed canon. Further, the period of a century will not appear to be too small to account for the extent of ideological development in the Nikāyas.

c5.78

⁵¹ See Chap. XV.

c5.79

In the Nikāyas, in spite of variety and even discrepancy, there is a general impression of homogeneity.⁵² Occasional controversies in interpretation are recorded, and though Saṅghabheda is feared,⁵³ it is not assumed as an actuality, except perhaps at a very few places.53a From the Kv. and the Ab. K. it is evident that the contending parties differed, not with respect to their scriptures, but only in their interpretation. It follows that the scriptures, which are mostly the Nikāyas53b go back to a period when the sects were, in important doctrinal matters at least, as yet one. Further, had not this been the case it would be difficult to account for the presence of clearly Pudgalavādin texts within the Pali version of the Nikāyas.53c Also, it should be noted that from the standpoint of doctrinal evolution, the stage of thought reflected in sectarian controversies is later than that common in the Nikāyas. The former is maturer and more decided; besides, partly at least, it represents the continued further development of some of the latest trends visible within the Nikāyas. The Nikāyas, thus, appear to reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Saṅgha was, in appearance at least, doctrinally one.53d It has, of course, to be remembered that particular versions of the Nikāyas may be expected to contain much editorial retouching, addition, and even expurgation.53e The problem will become more determinate were we to trust the Pali account of the Third Council, according to which the last of the Abhidharma works—the Kv. was composed by Tissa in that council held in the reign of Aśoka.53f The Kv. quotes from the Dhs. and Vbh. and refers to the contents peculiar to Paṭṭhāna. It does not quote from Dhātukathā and Puggalapaññatti, and has no direct reference to Yamaka, although like that work it uses ‘vokāra’ for ‘khandha’. As to the other two piṭakas, “all, even the Vinaya, are for its compiler (s) ‘Suttanta’ just as we would say, not Leviticus, or Luke, or King John, but the Bible, Shakespeare.”53g If then the Kv. belonged to the 3rd cent. B.C., the Nikāyas would have to be placed at the latest in the first half of the 4th cent. B.C. Minayeff argued that the Kv. apparently referred to the Vetulyakas and hence could not be pre-Christian.⁵⁴ To this Rhys Davids answered that the name actually occurred in the commentary on Kv.⁵⁵ Mrs. Rhys Davids has suggested that the Kv. was not composed en bloc. It has a "patchwork-quilt" appearance, which is explained if we suppose that each kathā was framed as a new heresy gained importance and was then added to the memorial stock.⁵⁶ That the whole of Kv. does not belong to the same stratum follows clearly from the fact that the first debate of the book—Puggalakathā—has some marked linguistic peculiarities. It uses "Ke" for "Ko", "vattabbe" for "vattabbo" "vattabbam", and "se" for "so"⁵⁷ It appears thus possible that the whole of the Kv. did not exist in the 3rd cent. B.C. On the other hand, it is probable that the first Kathā derives from a Magadhan text of Aśoka's times.

c5.80

⁵² Cf. Keith—BP., p. 21.

c5.81

⁵³ See Dutt—EMB. II, p. 7ff.

c5.82

53a Thus DN. III, 133 which says "Abhabbo (Arahā) Navaṭhānāni Ajjhācaritum" may have in mind the points of Mahādeva. Similarly, SN. IV, 325 may have in mind the Vajjian heresy of the Second Council (Cf. MN, p. 372, Nāg. ed.).

c5.83

53b This is apparent from Index I of Points of Controversy, (pp. 401-4).

c5.84

53c See Chap. on Nirvāṇa.

c5.85

53d Cf. N. Dutt—Aspects of Mahāyāna—pp. 146-7.

c5.86

53e See Chaps. on Stratification.

c5.87

53f The tradition is found only in the Aṭṭhakathās and the Ceylonese chronicles. See Debates Commentary, pp. 1-7 (tr. B. C. Law for the PTS).

c5.88

53g Mrs. Rhys Davids—Points of Controversy; cf. Sakya, p. 365.

c5.89

⁵⁴ Op. cit., p. 82.

c5.90

⁵⁵ Dialogues (DN), pt. I, Preface: Cf. Oldenberg in ZDMG 1898, pp. 632-43.

c5.91

⁵⁶ Intr. to Points of Controversy.

c5.92

⁵⁷ Sakya, p. 359; JRAS 1929, pp. 27ff.

c5.93

The very fact of the Third Council has been denied.⁵⁸ The more plausible opinion seems to be that the Third Council did take place, although it was a sectarian affair.⁵⁹ Aśoka, it is true, does not directly refer to the Council,⁶⁰ yet Dr. Bhandarkar seems to be right in thinking that some of his inscriptions appear to presuppose some such event.⁶¹ That Aśoka is not clearer over the Council may be explained by the supposition that he was not as intimately connected with the council as the Pali tradition would have us believe.⁶²

c5.94

⁵⁸ See Dutt, op. cit., II, pp. 265-6; Keith BP, pp. 18-9.

c5.95

⁵⁹ Ib. Also, Mrs. Rhys Davids—Buddhism (HUL) loc. cit.

c5.96

⁶⁰ Minayeff, op. cit., p. 75.

c5.97

⁶¹ Aśoka, pp. 96-102 (2nd ed.).

c5.98

⁶² Cf. Dutt, op. cit., II, pp. 269-70.

c5.99

It is thus not improbable that some parts at least of the Kv. were composed in the time of Aśoka. Apart from the frequent and direct references of the Kv. to the Nikāyas, stylistic and doctrinal considerations alone should suffice to place the greater part of the Nikāyas prior to the composition of the Kv. The major portion of the Nikāyas, thus, appears to have certainly existed in the 4th cent. B.C.⁶³

c5.100

⁶³ Cf. Rhys Davids—loc. cit.

c5.101

The relation of Aśoka to Buddhism has been the subject of much debate,⁶⁴ but it is clear that at places his rescripts show striking verbal similarities with the Nikāyas,⁶⁵ and although all the texts referred to in the Bairāṭ edict have not been satisfactorily identified, it is undeniable that Aśoka must have been familiar with a large number of Buddhist texts or Dhammaparyāyas which were regarded as the words of Buddha and some at least of which were identical with those found in our Nikāyas.⁶⁶

c5.102

⁶⁴ Thus, see Hultzsch C. I. I. I; D. R. Bhandarkar—op. cit., Chap. III; Dutt, op. cit., II. Chap. XIV; Minayeff—op. cit., p. 77; Mrs. Rhys Davids—Buddhism, p. 226ff (H.U.I. 1934) etc. etc.

c5.103

⁶⁵ Winternitz, op. cit., p. 16, fn. 1.

c5.104

⁶⁶ Cf. Bhandarkar, op. cit., p. 89ff; Winternitz, op. cit., Appendix III; Keith, op. cit., p. 17.

c5.105

An examination of the Bhārhut and Sāñchī inscriptions shows 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' . . . was preached, that some of these 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. . ."⁶⁷

c5.106

⁶⁷ Winternitz, op. cit., pp. 17-8.

c5.107

Finally, we are told that in the first century B.C., the entire Pali Tipiṭaka was written down in Ceylon.⁶⁸ The Nikāyas would then go back to the 3rd century B.C. at least.

c5.108

⁶⁸ Ib., pp. 8, 617; Malalasekara—DPPN. II, pp. 817-8.

c5.109

The evidence for ascertaining the chronology of the canon: of which the Pali version is still available in its entirety, is, thus, small, but it may be asserted that the growth of the Nikāyas falls between the 5th and the 3rd centuries B.C.⁶⁹ The fact that the Nikāyas take but slight notice of the issues contested by the earliest sects certainly suggests that they had practically reached completion in the 1st century A.B.⁷⁰ The silence of the Vinaya over the third Council suggests that it had reached completion in the 1st two centuries A.B.⁷¹ The silence of the canon over Aśoka, which contrasts so strongly with later tradition, is also significant in this respect and suggests its antiquity.

c5.110

⁶⁹ It may be remembered that AN. III, 57 speaks of King Muṇḍa at Pāṭaliputra, Cf. C. H. I. I, p. 195.

c5.111

⁷⁰ Rhys Davids concludes that the Nikāyas were put together out of older material at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Aśoka (Ib) Cf. La Vallée Poussin, Opinions—39.

c5.112

⁷¹ Cf. Minayeff, op. cit., p. 17.

Cites (84)