Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c6: Chapter II. The Stratification of the Nikāyas: Problems and Methods

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Stratification of the Nikāyas: Problems and Methods

c6.2

The Problem.—The Nikāyas or the Āgamas are admittedly of prime importance for the study of early Buddhist doctrines, but they are collections of early as well as late sūtras differently ordered and edited in their different versions.¹ The stratification of the sūtras thus appears a sine qua non of future progress in the direction of discovering ancient Buddhism.² Oldenberg, in his introduction to the P. T. S. edition of V. P. I. and again in the introduction to SBE. XIII (in collaboration with Rhys Davids), has indicated the probable course along which the growth of the Vinaya took place. The Pātimokkha³ and part at least of the liturgical formulae embedded in the Khandhakas⁴ form the earliest stratum. The old commentary, wholly philological and exegetical, and containing nothing of a legendary or quasi-historical nature,⁵ constitutes the next stratum. The traditions of this latter character, together with what we may call Notes on the Rules, were, in the third stage, amalgamated to the Text and the old commentary.⁶ The last two books of the Cv. are still later,⁷ and the Parivāra is the latest of all.⁸ Thus, starting from a small and definite nucleus, the Vinaya has reached its present form in at least five stages. The investigation into the Kammavācās, it may be observed, is as yet rudimentary; and it appears that merely literary criteria are not sufficient for their stratification. It is the history of the material and organisational growth of the Saṅgha that must supply the main test. Those suttas in the Sutta-piṭaka, which relate to Vinaya, can also be of help here.⁹

c6.3

¹ See Mrs. Rhys Davids—Sakya; Buddhism (H.U.L.); What was the Original Gospel in Buddhism? etc.

c6.4

² Cf. N. Dutt—EMB I, Preface.

c6.5

³ The Bhikkhunī-Pātimokkha is patterned on that for the Bhikkhus (Winternitz, op. cit. II, p. 24); and the “Sekhiyā Dhammā” are merely rules of etiquette, and, besides, vary in the various versions of the Vinaya. (Ib., p. 23 fn. 5; also JRAS, 1862, p. 409).

c6.6

⁴ Of these it is difficult to sift the earlier from the later. The Upasampadā Kammavācā may be indicated among the earlier ones (see SBE XIII, p. XIX).

c6.7

⁵ Ib., p. XVII.

c6.8

⁶ Ib., XVII.

c6.9

⁷ Cf. Winternitz, op. cit., p. 25 fn. 2 (The fact that section X of Cv. has been added for the benefit of the Nuns fits in very well with its having been the final chapter once).

c6.10

⁸ SBE XIII, p. XXIV; cf. Winternitz, p. 33 also.

c6.11

⁹ On the relative priority or posteriority of the two Piṭakas, opinions are as yet quite fluid (see Winternitz, p. 21 fn. 3). The problem, in fact, must be sub-divided as to the separate relations of the constituents of the two Piṭakas and solved in detail. It will only then be possible to make a general and yet accurately qualified statement.

c6.12

The narratives in the Vinaya Piṭaka.—Again, though the ad hoc character of most of the narratives is patent, yet it has been admitted that they do contain some genuine history as well.¹⁰ The fragments relating to Buddha's biography will be considered later.¹¹ As a whole, however, the question needs further investigation, especially in the light of the Northern versions.¹²

c6.13

¹⁰ SBE XIII, p. xx; Winternitz, p. 27, 28.

c6.14

¹¹ Infra, Ch. X.

c6.15

¹² Cf. Takakusu—Int. Cong. Or. 1899. Tome 2, pp. 11-32 (A comparison of the Chinese and Tibetan Vinayas).

c6.16

Oldenberg on the Sutta Piṭaka.—From this picture of the evolution of the Vinaya to pass on to Dhamma in the way in which Oldenberg does, appears, however, without much justification. He supposes, on the analogy of the liturgical formularies, that the earliest expression of the Dhamma must have been in dogmatic paragraphs consisting of such formulae as the Four Noble Truths, the Twelve Nidānas etc., and barren of all narrative details.¹³ The analogy does not hold, because, whereas institutional rules from their very nature demand the order and coherence of systematic expression, and lend themselves easily to a formular mode of statement, the case is just the reverse where the profounder truths of religion and philosophy are concerned, especially where these are of a more or less mystical character. Originating in inspired vision, they not unoften find, particularly in earlier times, contemporary concepts inadequate to their originality, and at first express themselves quite nebulously, taking frequently the aid of myth. Formulae, technicalities and system appear relatively later with the growth of the "School", of controversies, change in linguistic habits under the new impact, and, very often with the failing of inspiration.

c6.17

¹³ SBE XIII p. XII.

c6.18

These arguments are, indeed, not brought forth to prove that the evolution of Buddha's Word must have been along these lines. It is only intended to point out how hazardous is the analogy on which Oldenberg has thrown out his suggestions as to the probable development of the Sutta-Piṭaka.

c6.19

The Sutta Piṭaka: T. W. Rhys Davids, and Dr. B. C. Law.—On this subject, however, the work of Rhys Davids is more important. According to him the four Nikāyas "had been put together out of older material at a period about halfway between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Aśoka.”[14] The course of the evolution is thus summarized: (1) The simple statements of the doctrine now found in identical words recurring in two or more of the present books—the stock passages or suttas.[15] (2) Episodes (not of doctrine only) similarly recurring. (3) Books quoted in the present books but no longer existing separately—the Sīlas, the Pārāyaṇa, the Octades, the Pātimokkha, etc. (4) Certain poems, ballads, or prose passages found similarly recurring in the present anthologies, or otherwise showing sign of greater age. (5) The four Nikāyas, the Sutta Vibhaṅga and the Khandhakas. (Approximate date 100 A.B.) (6) Sutta Nipāta, Therīgāthā, the Udānas the Khuddaka-Pāṭha. (7) The Jātakas (verses only), and the Dhammapada. (8) The Niddesa, the Iti-vuttakas, and the Paṭisambhidā. (9) The Peta- and Vimāna-Vatthu, the Apadānas, and the Buddhavamsa. (10) The Abhidhamma books, the latest of which is the Kv., and the oldest, perhaps, the Dahmmasangaṇi.[16] Dr. B. C. Law argues similarly, but with important differences (see his History of Pali Literature I. 42).

c6.20

¹⁴ C.H.I. I. 195.

c6.21

¹⁵ Some of these appear to have been called “Pariyāyas” or “Dhamma”, which has a more general meaning than “Sutta”. “Pariyāya” occurs in the Nikāyas and is used by Aśoka—cf. DNI. 46; II. 93; III. 115; MN. I. 445; AN. I. 65; IV. 63; AN. V. 288, 291; very often the “Pariyāya” had a special name—thus Brahma-jāla—DN. I. 46; Dhammādāso DN. II. 93; SN. V. 357. Sokasallaharaṇa AN. III. 62; Ādittapariyāyo SN. IV. 168; Lomahaṃsana MN. I. 83.

c6.22

¹⁶ Ib. 197; Buddhist India p. 188 has a similar list but with differences—*It requires the stock passages to occur in all the books; it does not have “etc.,” under 3; *stage 4 as marked above is absent; *the Suttavibhaṅga and the Khandhakas are later than the four Nikāyas and also the texts entered above under 6; Cariyāpiṭaka occurs under 9 and the earliest of the Abhidhamma books is supposed to be the Puggala-Paññatti. The asterisked differences are quite important.

c6.23

The test from vocabulary.—Further, Rhys Davids explicitly states the importance of the test from vocabulary, of "words used in one sense in the older strata of the literature and in another sense in the later strata (Abhiññā, anāgāmin, abhidhamma, ogha, etc.), new words introduced to modify or supplement ideas in older works (Dukkaṭa, dhutaṅga, etc.) and new words formed to express new ideas."¹⁷

c6.24

¹⁷ Dialogues of the Buddha III, p. ix.

c6.25

Criticism.—The stock-passages and suttas, however, themselves belong to diverse strata. Their formation seems to have taken place in at least three different ways. Sometimes they represent very old sayings remembered unaltered or with very little alteration.¹⁸ At others, a number of variant old versions seem to have received a single and late standardized form.¹⁹ And in many cases the stock-passages are simply late formulae.²⁰

c6.26

¹⁸ e.g., the small text "attadīpā viharatha—etc."

c6.27

¹⁹ Cf. Mrs. Rhys Davids—JPTS 1924-'27, pp. 244-45.

c6.28

²⁰ e.g., "Abhikkantam bhante abhikkantam bhante etc." occurring at the end of many sermons (Thus DN. Suttas, 2-4).

c6.29

In oral transmission mnemonic conveniences play a large part, and the reduction of the variety of expressions is clearly helpful in this respect. Besides, tradition as well as internal evidence prove that there was much "editing" of the texts; consequently the significance that attaches to recurrent identical passages in written literature is much lessened in this case. The only safe conclusion that can, in general, be drawn from them is about the upper limit to the composition of the larger texts within which they occur, provided they do not happen to be later additions to these.

c6.30

Again, the books that once existed independently but no longer do so now, though undoubtedly earlier than those in which they are referred to and also to the composition of the Nikāyas as a whole, do not yet form, among themselves, a single stratum. Whether the four Nikāyas were completed within the first or the first two centuries A.B., is considered in another chapter.²¹ The "Itivuttakas" appear to have been placed too late.²² The test from vocabulary is indeed important, but it is in most cases dependent on the view taken of the evolution of ideas in early Buddhism. In this respect Mrs. Rhys Davids' work is of paramount importance.

c6.31

²¹ Chap. I.

c6.32

²² Cf. Winternitz, op. cit., p. 91. The point is considered in detail below.

c6.33

The work of Mrs. Rhys Davids.—According to her "early Buddhism is not to be learnt in a few formulae": "Eightfold Path", "Four Truths", "Three Marks" and the like; that "it is a discerning of . . . 'fragments' as it were left-in in a surrounding structure of 'doctrine'."²³ She starts from the hypothesis "that world religions show a More of some kind in man, but never a Less."²⁴ She discovers that Gotama taught the doctrine of Man as Willer becoming better or worse along the way across the worlds. And in support of this she has collected together many "fragments" from the Nikāyas.

c6.34

²³ Buddhism (in the Home University Library; revised edition), pp. 8-9.

c6.35

²⁴ Ib., p. 10.

c6.36

Winternitz has pointed out that Mrs. Rhys Davids assumes too much,²⁵ and Keith rightly complains that she relies a great deal more than warranted on what is already an obsolescent psychology. Besides, her "fragments" are mostly too short and ambiguous to be at all conclusive. And yet, after her work, the facts of interpolation, elaboration and expurgation in the suttas can hardly be ignored.²⁶ And also, it is clear, that "the growing vogue of the coenobitic monk and his peculiar ideals, and the growing vogue of the study of mind, of mental procedure"²⁷ must be taken into account in rediscovering "the main fact about the old world view of man" whatever that might have been. In other words, increased "negativist" emphasis²⁸ and scholastic analysis and classification must be accepted, for purposes of stratification, as late characteristics.²⁹

c6.37

²⁵ Visvabharti, N. S. May, 1936.

c6.38

²⁶ Cf. "Kenāpyadhyāropitānyetāni sūtrāṇityabhiprāyaḥ" (AKV. Fol., 337 cited in Minayeff—Recherches...., p. 226); "sūtrāṇi ca bahūnyantarhitāni mūlasaṅgītibhramisāt" (Ib., p. 222).

c6.39

²⁷ Buddhism, (HUL) loc. cit.

c6.40

²⁸ Cf. JPTS 1924-'7. Contra—Wassiljew—Der Buddhismus Vol. I, p. 89.

c6.41

²⁹ The particular conclusions of Mrs. Rhys Davids will be considered below, as occasion arises.

c6.42

The Sutta Pitaka and other workers.—Apart from the "excursions" of Mrs. Rhys Davids, the "stratigraphy" of the Nikāyas does not seem to have attracted much attention.³⁰ Dr. Keith roundly declared it an impossibility.³¹ According to Franke, the Dīgha N. is a unitary literary composition,³² and the Majjhima "mindestens in groszen und ganzen das einheitlich, in Zusammenhang verfasste Werk eines Schriftstellers ist."³³ The ground-plan of the former, according to him, is "der Nachweis.

c6.43

³⁰ Cf. "Rien n'a été fait pour déterminer les <<strates>> chronologiques des Ecritures pâlies" (La Vallée Poussin—Bouddhisme: opinions sur l'histoire de la dogmatique. 4th ed. avant—propos. p. viii).

c6.44

³¹ Buddhist Philosophy, p. 21; but contra I.H.Q. 1936 where he not only thinks the method of Mrs. Rhys Davids sound but himself with Schayer, unearths the traces of "earlier doctrines" in the Nikāyas.

c6.45

³² Z.D.M.G. 1913, p. 410.

c6.46

³³ Ib., 1914, p. 474.

c6.47

dasz Gotama Buddha, der Erhabene, ein Tathāgata (so gegangene) sei, d.h. dasz Gotama selbst den in D. II. 40. 97 vorgeschriebenen Heilsweg zur Erlosenden Erkenntnis zurückgelegt habe.”³⁴ A certain homogeneity of ideas and style, of course, cannot be gainsaid, but the similarities of words, phrases and paragraphs pointed out by Franke, are not sufficient to prove his thesis which takes an inadequate notice of the differences. To explain this “identity-in-difference” we must resort to the hypothesis that the Nikāyas are frequently ‘edited’ texts embodying doctrines deriving from a common source.³⁵

c6.48

³⁴ W.Z.K.M. 1912, p. 199.

c6.49

³⁵ Cf. Winternitz, op. cit., pp. 54-55. Some more particular conclusions of Franke are considered below.

c6.50

Directly opposed to Franke’s is the view of Prof. Bapat.³⁶ He discovers three different literary strata in the Dīgha. The whole of the first volume is placed in the first stratum, and the argument is thus stated: “This Sutta (the Sāmaññaphala) forms the basis of all the subsequent suttas, except the last one, in the first volume, and serves the purpose of a common factor, thus indicating that almost the whole of the first volume must have been put together in its present form.”³⁷ The point that seems to have been proved is the posteriority of most of the suttas of the first volume, in their finished form, to the Sāmaññaphala text.

c6.51

³⁶ In A.B.O.R.I. VIII, 1926, pp. 1-16.

c6.52

³⁷ Ib., p. 4.

c6.53

Whereas this first stratum is marked by simplicity of teaching and the conception of Buddha as human,³⁸ the third stratum (indicated mainly in the third volume) compromises him on the subject of miracles, mentions the Metteyya Buddha, shows a great love of “Purāṇic” legends as also the beginnings of Tantric literature and employs the “Aṅguttara-form” in the last two suttas.³⁹ It must be remembered, however, that the antiquity of Tantric beginnings in Buddhism is uncertain.⁴⁰ Also, the “Aṅguttara-form” by itself does not indicate lateness. Numerical considerations in literary arrangement were not unknown in pre-Buddhist times. In the “family books” of the Ṛgveda, the hymns within the deity groups are arranged according to the diminishing number of the stanzas contained in them. Thus in the second book the first group of Sūktas, addressed to Agni, begins with one containing sixteen stanzas but ends with one containing only six. The first hymn of the next group, addressed to Indra, has twenty-one, whereas the last has only four stanzas.⁴¹ Again, if we consider the total number of hymns in each of the Books, from the second to the tenth, we get the following sequence 43, 62, 58, 87, 75, 104, 103, 114, 191—which is on the whole progressive. Further, the fact that the first and the last Books have the same number of hymns is also not without interest. If we turn to the AS., we find that in the first book, out of thirty-five, thirty hymns contain four stanzas each; in the second Book the hymns are as a rule of five stanzas each, these accounting for twenty-two in a total of thirty six; in the third Book out of thirty-one hymns thirteen contain six stanzas each; and in the next Book the majority, of hymns (twenty one out of forty) have seven stanzas each.⁴² The "ekottara-principle" is clearly visible here. In the Brāhmaṇas, again, objects are grouped as Kins (Bandhus) if they can be imagined to be in some way the examples of the same number.⁴³ Despite its occasional obscurantism this practice may be looked upon as the beginning of classification, especially of a numerical character. This becomes significant if we reflect that the Aṅguttara form is nothing but a certain progression of numerical groups.

c6.54

³⁸ Ib., p. 7.

c6.55

³⁹ Ib. p. 16.

c6.56

⁴⁰ Cf. Bloomfield’s remark on a similar problem, though in a different context—“The tenth book---contains a great deal of material, especially of an Atharvanic sort, which is undoubtedly foreign to the main theme....But why must all such material really be of more recent date....? (JAOS. Vol. XXI p. 43).

c6.57

⁴¹ Cf. Macdonell—A Vedic Reader—p. XIV.

c6.58

⁴² Cf. Winternitz op. cit. I. p. 121.

c6.59

⁴³ Cf. Tait. Up. 1-7.

c6.60

Besides, the fact that this form occurs in non-Buddhist writings as well seems to indicate that it developed out of a common literary antecedent.⁴⁴ Thus it is possible that it may have appeared quite early in the history of Buddhist literature, which is not to say that it was not used later.

c6.61

⁴⁴ e.g. in the Jaina Ṭhāṇaṅga and Samavāyaṅga, and some texts in the Mbh. Vide Winternitz. II. p. 65 fn. 1., where it is also pointed out that this very numerical method is employed in some riddles and litanies of other peoples as well cf. Śatapatha Bra—1.5.4. 6-11.

c6.62

Since, however, the main test of any scheme of stratification must be its consistency with the whole of evidence,⁴⁵ all these attempts obviously suffer through being fragmentary. That is, of course, hardly avoidable in the present state of our enquiry; and besides, their value lies in as much as they add to our stock of the observed peculiarities of style—early and late. It is only when this stock reaches a certain degree of fulness that a more or less complete stratification of the texts would be practicable.

c6.63

⁴⁵ Cf. J. E. Carpenter's remark in another but similar connection. Referring to Gospel criticism he says "....its success depends on the elements selected for judgment....and the range of considerations admitted to influence the result". (The Bible in the 19th Century 1903. p. 220).

c6.64

**Criteria of Stratification.**—The evolution of the Nikāyas falls between the age of the Upaniṣads and that of the Abhidharma and other Buddhist sectarian literature. This provides us with a general sense of direction in trying to discover what is early and what is late in the Nikāyas. The growth of monastic learning and of philosophical analysis and controversy led to increased complexity, subtlety and system in the realm of ideas, till the message of Buddha was converted into a stupendous scholastic philosophy.⁴⁶ At the same time the spread of Buddhism among the people led it to imbibe many elements of popular religion and helped the apotheosis of Buddha.⁴⁷ Pari passu with this orientation in doctrinal change there was a corresponding change in the style of expression which tended to lose simplicity and spontaneity and poetic vigour in favour of dry-as-dust abstract scholastic formulae.⁴⁸ Linguistically, too, the change may be seen in the use of new technical terms and in the development of new technical senses for old words.⁴⁹

c6.65

⁴⁶ Cf. Rosenberg "Das Studium des alteren Buddhismus musz mit den in der Sammlung des Abhidharma enthaltenen systematischen Traktaten beginnen d.h. mit der sogenannten Literatur der <<Kirchenväter>>—und nicht mit den Sūtra" (Die Probleme der buddhistischen Philosophie p. ix. This is a veritable modern defence of the ancient Vaibhāṣikas.

c6.66

⁴⁷ Cf. Louis Renou—The Civilization in Ancient India, p. 28.

c6.67

⁴⁸ Cf. Winternitz—History of Indian Literature II. pp. 68-70.

c6.68

⁴⁹ Cf. Rhys Davids—Dialogues of the Buddha III. p. ix.

c6.69

This is a very brief indication of some of the general criteria which may help us in stratifying the Nikāyas. The following remarks of Carpenter about the Gospel may be applied, mutatis mutandis, to our present context—"Most of the problems which they (the Gospels) suggest, can be solved, so far as solution is possible at all, only with their own aid,—by the comparison, that is to say, of the materials which they offer us. The history of Gospel-criticism is in reality a history of this process; and its success depends on the elements selected for judgment, on the skill with which they are displayed before the critical verdict, and the range of considerations admitted to influence the result.”⁵⁰ Like the Gospel, the Nikāyas “grew up in the dark; and their history can only be recovered in the form of a series of conjectures to account for the facts which they exhibit.”⁵¹

c6.70

⁵⁰ J. E. Carpenter—The Bible in the Nineteenth Century, (1903). p. 290.

c6.71

⁵¹ Ib. p. 303.

c6.72

Trends in the style and purpose of Metaphysics.—(a) The state of doctrinal evolution⁵²: Within the Nikāyas there appears to have been a steady growth of metaphysical interest resulting in increasing enumeration, classification and definition. At first it seems to have concerned itself mainly with the collection, explication and harmonizing of the Master’s sayings, but, as fresh problems emerged, it engaged itself more and more with further analysis on its own part, and, in the light of the new results, constantly reinterpreted the older dogmas. Rival interpretations sprang up and though attempts were made at co-ordinating them into coherent systems, only a few became standardized and the rest were condemned as heresy. This rise of sectarianism had a “retrospective effect” too as the sects not only composed new literature, but also tampered with the old one.⁵³

c6.73

⁵² For an excellent exposition of the meaning and process of doctrinal evolution in general, see Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine, Chaps. I and V; also Marin-Sola, L’Evolution homogène du Dogme Catholique, Tome I pp. 24ff.

c6.74

⁵³ See Supra.

c6.75

Side by side with metaphysics there was also the growth of a systematic Buddhist theology.⁵⁴ The number and classes of gods multiplied, one of the causes being the discovery or the adoption into the Buddhist fold of new mystic states or trances communicating with divine worlds.⁵⁵ Cosmological myths, in spite of the tradition which represents Buddha condemning these as futile "speculation"⁵⁶ flourished and indirectly served to discredit the gods.⁵⁷ Alongside it the aptitude towards the miraculous underwent a significant change.⁵⁸

c6.76

⁵⁴ Its points of contact with Vedic theology and mythology appear in general confined to Brahmā (whose nearest Vedic equivalent would be the much too nebulous Prajāpati) and Brahma-loka, Yama and Pettivisaya (for Māra, see infra), Inda (Sakka belongs to the Budd. mythology then being built up cf. PTSD on 'Inda'; Dial. II. 294-298), Gandhabbas and Accharās. "Prajāpati" is mentioned only in the formula "devā sa-indakā sa brahmakā sa pajāpatikā" (PTSD) ; on Soma, Vāyu, Pajjunna and Varuṇa see Buddhist India p. 235. The ideas on hell are much nearer to the Purāṇas. On the whole the independence of this mythology is manifest, and it must have taken some time to develop.

c6.77

⁵⁵ Another was the infiltration of the deities of local cults, esp. among the "Bhumma-Devas" (earth-gods) and the "Nāgas" (cf. Mahāsamaya and Ātānāṭiya). As Rhys Davids remarks "the idea was to reconcile the people to different ideas. The actual consequence was that the ideas of the people thus admitted, as it were, by the back-door, filled the whole mansion" (Budd. Ind. p. 220). Mythology did not leave uninvaded even the citadel of Abhidhamma, which is shown by the fact that the third Section of Vibhaṅga (Abhidhammic) contains considerable mythological material (cf. Winternitz II. p. 168).

c6.78

⁵⁶ e.g. in the Brahmajālasutta.

c6.79

⁵⁷ Cf. the Aggañña Sutta. Whether Brahmacarya was possible for gods became a hotly debated point among the sects.

c6.80

⁵⁸ Contrast the attitude in the Kevaṭṭa Sutta and the Pātimokkha with that in the Pāṭika Sutta.

c6.81

The Rise of Buddhology.—But the most far reaching theological trend was the apotheosis of Buddha. The idea of a Being incomparably superior to all creatures, including gods, and from time to time incarnating, actually or apparently,⁵⁹ according to a fixed norm (Dhammatā) solely out of compassion, is without a previous parallel. It is quite foreign to the earliest texts and must have developed gradually. The degradation of the concept of the Arhant⁶⁰ was the other aspect of the change, which was principally responsible for the first rent in the garment of the Saṅgha.⁶¹ The mention of previous Buddhas (like Sikhī),⁶² of Future Buddhas (like Metteyya), of the "Bodhisatta", of the Pacceka-Buddha, of the "birth miracles" and the narrative of the life of the Buddha as governed by "Dhammatā"—these, then, emerge as late characteristics. The change that came over the concepts of "Saddhā" and of "Omniscience" is also significant in this respect.⁶³ Similar is the great extension of the practice of Thūpa-worship, which though undoubtedly ancient, came to acquire a quite exceptional importance for later Buddhists.⁶⁴ There was also the growth of the physiognomical dogma of the thirty-two "Mahāpurisalakkhaṇas".⁶⁵

c6.82

⁵⁹ See infra.

c6.83

⁶⁰ Cf. Rhys Davids' introduction to the Pāṭikasutta in the Dialogues.

c6.84

⁶¹ See last Chap.

c6.85

⁶² In a general sense, of course, it is quite common to find Prophets referring to their spiritual predecessors and Buddha too might have done so. The theory of the Previous Buddhas, however, goes considerably beyond that. According to Mrs. Rhys Davids the idea of a Buddha was then "in the air." Kindred Sayings I. p. I. (fn).

c6.86

⁶³ See below.

c6.87

⁶⁴ The raising of tumuli over the dead is a widespread primitive practice. (Mitra, PI. pp. 301ff; Macdonell, VM. p. 165; RS. VII. 89. 1). The anct. meaning of Thūpa goes no further—see PTSD. cf. Vin. iv. 308; Jāt. III. 56. cf. Budd. Ind. p. 80). The non-discovery of pre-Aśokan stūpas is, however, significant, and indicates that the Buddhists took to them rather late.

c6.88

⁶⁵ These are called lokāyatamahāpurisalakkhaṇas and, again, declared a Brahmanic doctrine (see Ambaṭṭha Sutta for exam-

c6.89

The general ideological trend.—The result of this section may be summarised in the statement that an increase in the number, extent, subtlety and frequency of the theological and metaphysical “enumerated groups” may be considered a sign of lateness.

c6.90

(b) The state of literary evolution: In general, an older style is revealed by its striking simplicity, spontaneity and earnestness. It is often found in short texts although these short texts are frequently found embedded in larger ones. They are either dialogues reminiscent of the Upaniṣads,⁶⁶ but marked by a gentle, almost Socratic irony and sometimes more sustained reasoning;⁶⁷ or they are brief sermons, concerned not so much with philosophical niceties as with spiritual practice;⁶⁸ or more rarely, they are fragmentary biographical narratives.⁶⁹ In most cases they are sun-lit by apt similes and parables (both covered ple). The Brahmanic sources, however, are curiously silent.

c6.91

⁶⁶ e.g., compare the Sāmaññaphala° with Bṛ. IV, I. See Winternitz, II, p. 37 fn. 1., also Ib., p. 76. Here, for example, is a text quoted in Ak. V. (Sphutārthā) I, p. 17 which is obviously very near to the Upaniṣads—“Uktaṃ hi Bhagavatā—Pṛthivī bho Gautama kutra pratiṣṭhitā. Pṛthivī brāhmaṇa abmaṇḍale pratiṣṭhitā. Abmaṇḍalam bho Gautama Kva pratiṣṭhitam. Vāyau Pratiṣṭhitam. Vāyurbho Kva pratiṣṭhitah. Ākāśe pratiṣṭhitah. Ākāśam bho Gautama kutra pratiṣṭhitam. Atisarasi brāhmaṇa. Ākāśam brāhmaṇapratiṣṭhitamanālambanamiti vistaraḥ”. In style and expression and orientation of intellectual quest this is to be scarcely distinguished from some Upaniṣadic passages, e.g., Bṛ. Up. III, 6; III, 8.

c6.92

⁶⁷ Cf. Winternitz, II, pp. 69-70.

c6.93

⁶⁸ e.g., MN. Sutta 61.

c6.94

⁶⁹ e.g., MN. Ariyapariyesana sutta.

c6.95

At least two of the Marks have been sought to be traced to the influence of sculpture—those ref. to jālahatthapādo and uṇhīsasīso (see Foucher’s L’Art gréco-boudhique du Gandhāra).

c6.96

It is interesting to note that Sn. 1019, 1021 and 1022 refer to only 3 Lakkhaṇas.

c6.97

by Pali Upamā). Indeed, quite a number of these can be looked upon as having originated with Buddha himself,⁷⁰ who apparently was as fond of them as Jesus.⁷¹ This fits in with the non-learned character of much of his audience,⁷² the inspired and original character of his message⁷³ and the state of literary development in his times.⁷⁴ The parables are not merely illustrative and argumentative but also didactic, so that they frequently contain a positive teaching. Indeed some of these figures later became technical expressions.⁷⁵ This parabolic style was, however, superseded partly by the growth of greater precision and abstraction in expression and partly by the growth of edifying myth richly burdened with anecdotal trappings. Of course, late similes and parables are by no means rare, but they show a tendency to be lengthy and drawn-out to the minutest details, e.g., the comparison of the eight qualities of the ocean (Cv. IX, 1; 3f) or of the five kinds of monks in their relationship to women (Puggalapaññatti V, 3).⁷⁶

c6.98

⁷⁰ Cf. Winternitz, Loc. cit.: Sakya, pp. 313ff. Mrs. Rhys Davids' interpretations are, however, quite arbitrary.

c6.99

⁷¹ Cf. "....the naturalness, the lucidity, and the aptness of his (Jesus') parables place them in a class by themselves" (ERE IX, p. 630).

c6.100

⁷² Which must have, for the greater part, consisted of wandering mendicants, khattiya clansmen and merchants (see Chap. on Life).

c6.101

⁷³ See Chap. on 'Life of Buddha'.

c6.102

⁷⁴ The Upaniṣads, it is well-known, make use of simile and connected figures to expound philosophical and mystic ideas, e.g., Ch. VI 6ff; Bṛ. IV. 3. 19, etc.

c6.103

⁷⁵ Cf. Winternitz, op. cit., p. 74.

c6.104

⁷⁶ In view of the fact that the method of answering an opponent by comparisons is hardly Abhidhammic (Kv. resorts to it rarely if at all) is it possible that the author of the "Milindapañho" took his cue from the Pāyāsirājañña Sutta?

c6.105

In response to the needs of scholastic controversies and of the inculcation of dogmatics among the novices, a dry-as-dust catechistical style came into being. The "Vedallas" are a prominent example of this class. Pari passu emerged the commentarial style, illustrated by the "Vibhaṅgas".⁷⁷ The suttas calling themselves "Veyyākaraṇas" (otherwise, it is difficult to decide whether they are Veyyākaraṇas or not) should also perhaps be considered to have been similarly motivated.⁷⁸

c6.106

⁷⁷ These are not "purely philological-exegetical" as acc. to Oldenberg the commentarial core of the "Vibhaṅga" in "Vinaya" is.

c6.107

⁷⁸ e.g. Brahmajāla.

c6.108

There was also a considerable development of what may be called the "Purāṇic", or perhaps the "Mahāyānic" style. It is characterised by its wealth of narrative and descriptive material, by its predominantly mythological character, by its, to say the least, benevolent toleration of miracles, by exaggeration in numbers (of years, followers, converts, distances etc.) and in the epithets of praise and blame, and at places, by a marked change of taste.⁷⁹ Those suttas which exhibit a form akin to that of the "Jātakas" may be adduced as examples of this style,⁸⁰ e.g. MN. Sutta 81.

c6.109

⁷⁹ Cf. Rhys Davids's introductory remarks to the Pāṭika Sutta, Dialogues, III.

c6.110

⁸⁰ As to the "Parittās" they might have been used in certain popular circles quite early, but it must have been only gradually that they attained to that importance and recognition which is accorded to them in the Dīgha and the Khuddakapāṭha.

c6.111

(c) Interpolation: Many suttas reveal patchwork. That is not surprising in view of the fact that they were transmitted down long and independent lines of reciters steeped in later ideas, formulæ and interpretations, never had a single standard linguistic expression, and underwent probably more than one editorial revision.⁸¹ The progress of doctrine has, thus, left behind its enregistrations on many of the ancient texts. They are not confined to interpolations and appendages. Many times the old texts are merely “retouched”, for example made tidier in expression through the substitution of a looser statement by a more compact formula; or lists of adjectives are lengthened or cut down, or conventional beginnings or endings added. Most of these are cases of old texts unconsciously brought up-to-date. More serious is the assimilation of variant versions into new compositions, though they are sometimes left just juxtaposed.

c6.112

⁸¹ Cf. Chap. I.

c6.113

Thus late expression may be consonant with early ideas and isolated late features may be found in an otherwise early text. For other reasons also too great a demand should not be made on consistency.⁸² And as Bloomfield observes, in another connection, “at least the following caution ought to be observed; before throwing out we ought to know the reason why the redactors placed these extra materials where we find them.”⁸³

c6.114

⁸² Cf. the remark of C. Gore “Naïve records of personal experiences all the world over, which are quite credible on the whole, are still not drawn up with such precision as to stand minute cross-questioning” (Jesus of Nazareth p. 189 H.U.L.).

c6.115

⁸³ J.A.O.S. Vol. XXI, p. 44.

c6.116

An interesting class is formed by those suttas (particularly in D.N. II) which have Mahā prefixed to their titles and these appear to have reached their present bulk through the elaboration of shorter originals.⁸⁴ One result of the analysis of discrepancies which result from the confused jostling of old and new elements, is that sometimes we are able to glimpse sayings of an "unorthodox" character⁸⁵ i.e. sayings as are opposed to the established beliefs of the editors.

c6.117

⁸⁴ Cf. the Satipaṭṭhānasutta and Mahā°; cf. Bhārata and Mahā°.

c6.118

⁸⁵ e.g. SN. III 130.

c6.119

(d) *Vocabulary and other linguistic features:* Lutoslawski in his work on Plato's Logic has given great precision to stylometric methodology.⁸⁶ That procedure has the advantage of mechanical applicability, but it depends for its success on such extensive linguistic statistics as are simply not available in the field of Pali studies. The PTS dictionary is the best effort in the direction, but it does not list all the occurrences of a word, and treats the meaning historically in a few cases only. In any case, our situation is different from that of Lutoslawski, for we are after all not concerned primarily with the study of a particular person's style reflected in his choice and arrangement of words, in which case only, their comparative average frequency in texts of equal extent could be made the basis of further inference. For our purposes, words are just milestones in certain trends of semantic evolution, not the indicators of personal idiosyncracy. Unfortunately, uncertainty besets many of our word histories, which have, in any case, not been comprehensively worked out. At places, again, the possibility of interpolation makes a semantic test hazardous.

c6.120

⁸⁶ See Lutoslawski—op. cit., pp. 66-72; 146-151.

c6.121

Below is a list of the words which through change in their meaning or importance indicate the age of the compositions in which they occur. It does not include wholly post-Nikāya terms such as, appanā, āvajjana, bhavaṅga etc., and omits such terms as Dukkaṭa, Duṭṭhulla etc., which are of "stratigraphic" significance for the Vinaya alone—

c6.122

*Ajjhattacintin.*—The word is rare: PTSD has only two references, Sn. 174 and 388. Later on Ajjhatta became just the counterpart of what is Bahiddhā and preoccupation with either was condemned. Previously, however, Ajjhatta seems to have been commendatory. Similar is *Ajjhattarata*—Dn. II. 107; Sn. 263; Dh. 362; Ud. 64; A.N. IV. 312. Cf. Ātmaratiḥ—Ch. Up. VII-25-2 (Ajjhattasanti—Sn. 837—may also be noticed).

c6.123

*Paccatta, attan, anatta, attabhāva, attadīpa, °saraṇa.* See infra on the problem of Self (Chap. XII).

c6.124

*Attha.*—Mrs. Rhys Davids has pointed out that as a word for the summum bonum it tended to fall into disuse (see e.g. The Original Gospel....pp. 79–80).

c6.125

*Anāgāmin.*—“....in the oldest passages referring to these four stages (of spiritual progress) the description of the third does not use the word a° (D.N.I. 156; II. 92, III. 107, M.N. II. 146) and a° does not mean the breaking of bonds but the cultivation of certain specified good mental habits....At It 96 only three stages, the worldling, the anāgāmin and the arahant; and the saṃyojanas are not referred to. It is probable that already in the Nikāya period the older, wider meaning was falling into disuse” (PTSD). It may be added that in many old passages the place of anāgāmin is occupied by “Opapātika” which occurs in a more general meaning in the Jaina canon, as also in the report of some heretical doctrines in the Nikāyas e.g., in the Sāmaññaphala sutta.

c6.126

In view of this gradual growth of the theory of spiritual stages, it is likely that the terms Antarāparinibbāyin, upahacca°, sasaṅkhāra°, uddhaṃsota, and akaniṭṭhagāmin are also late, since these presuppose a fivefold classification of the anāgāmin.

c6.127

*Anusaya.*—In the older texts the word usually occurs absolutely, without mentioning the cause or direction of bias. So Sn. 369, 545; M.N. III. 31 etc., or in the triplet adhiṭṭānābhinivesānusayā S.N. II. 17; III. 10. etc. Later on its content is schematized in variant lists; and finally these govern the connotation of the word. It may be noted that among the sects the problem of the nature of ‘Anusaya’ and its relation to ‘pariyuṭṭhāna’ (used quite generally in the Nikāyas e.g. M.N. I. 18) and ‘citta’ assumed great importance.

c6.128

*Anussati* (6)—A list of subjects to be kept in mind.

c6.129

*Apadāna*—in the sense of ‘sublime life history’, appears late (See PTSD).

c6.130

*Appamāda, uṭṭhāna, parakkama, nikkama, viriya, Ārambha*, and possibly *Purisakāra* are so closely interwoven with the Zeitgeist of the 6th century B.C. that emphasis on them must have been early.

c6.131

*Ababa, and abbuda* (as also Roruva and Avīci) which are the names of hells or hell-periods, are possibly late.

c6.132

*Abhiññā* has an earlier general meaning, and a later one referring exclusively to the six supernormal psychical powers (see PTSD).

c6.133

*Abhidhamma* which would seem to mean “about Dhamma” i.e., expository to it, and not “special Dh.”

c6.134

*Abhivinaya.*—Must have come in familiar use only with the growth of an exegetical literature.

c6.135

*Abhibhāyatana.*—in its specialized signification of the eight stages of mastery over the senses may be late.

c6.136

*Amata.*—As a frequent expression for the summum bonum it is obviously nearer the upaniṣadic ‘Gedankenkreis’ than the other end of the Nikāya period.

c6.137

*Arahant.*—Its meaning suffered a degradation (see Dialogues II Intr. to Sutta 14).

c6.138

*Aviha.*—appears late. It stands for the 12th of the 16th Brahma-worlds—S.N. I. 35, 60; A.N. I. 279 Puggala° 17. Other words like ābhassara, subhakiṇha, manopadūsika, khiḍḍā° etc. appear similarly late. These belong to a mythology that was built up in independence of the Vedic tradition and must have taken time.

c6.139

*Āyatana.*—already found in the upaniṣads though it became extremely important in abhidharma. It must have, therefore, on the whole, tended to increase in frequency and technicality. And we do find quite a number of diverse āyatana groups or schemes; rajassāyatana in Sn. 406 is quite general. Vimutti° in D.N. III. 241, 279 is more specialized; the six āyatanas are still more so; and the 8 abhibhāyatanas as well as the 10 Kasiṇa° are possibly later still. Āyatanakusalatā (D.N. III. 212) shows not only the growth of technicality but also of abstraction. Notice also āyatanika S.N. IV. 126.

c6.140

*Ārammaṇa*—closely allied to the above in meaning,† and like it, became very popular later in psychological discussions.

c6.141

*Āsava.*—In the earliest texts it seems to have a quite general signification; then, for long, it denotes a set of three evils, which is later increased to four.

c6.142

*Inda.*—See above.

c6.143

*Indriya.*—Owing to its popularity °groups multiplied till at Vbh. 122 sq. we have a list of 22 indriyas. Of these the last three appear late (the order as given in PTSD).

c6.144

*Upadhi.*—At first it is used quite generally, and even where specified, means no more than material encumbrances like property etc. At the close of the Nikāya period, however, we find it systematized into a set of ten—(See PTSD).

c6.145

Upādāna.—It begins with a general signification, but is later dogmatized in a set of four-Kāmā°, diṭṭhi°, sīlabbata° and attavāda° D.N. II. 230; M.N.I. 51. 66; S.N. II. 3; V. 59 etc. Jaina “Āyāṇa” may be compared.

c6.146

Ogha.—Used at first in a lively figure, it was for some time interpreted with a certain amount of latitude. A.N. III. 69 speaks of Kāmogha. Sn. 945 identifies ogha with gedha while S.N.I. 126 has five oghas. “Towards the end of the Nikāya period we find, for the first time, the use of the word in the plural and the mention of the four oghas identical with the four ‘āsavas’ see D.N. III. 230, 276; S.N. IV. 175, 257 V. 59, 292, 309; Nd. 159; Nd. 178” (PTSD).

c6.147

Kappa (Mahā°) defined as consisting of four asaṅkheyya° viz. saṃvaṭṭa° saṃvaṭṭaṭṭhāyī°; vivaṭṭa° and vivaṭṭaṭṭhāyī°, as in A.N. II. 142, appears much more elaborate and schematic than the saṃvaṭṭavivaṭṭa° of D.N.I. 14 or It. 15.

c6.148

Kilesa.—“Its occurrence in the Piṭakas is rare; in later works very frequent...” (PTSD). Now the first statement at least, does not apply to upakkilesa which would seem to represent the earlier usage.

c6.149

Khandha.—The three (increased to four a little later) dhamma° are reminiscent of “trayo dharmas-khandhāḥ.... (Ch. Up II. 2. 3. 1). On the other hand, the scheme of the 5 upādānakkhandhas is much later. It assumes a full-fledged theory of Anatta, and a conception of Viññāṇa which has travelled far from its original form. Starting from the simple distinction between kāya or rūpa and viññāṇa (citta), psychological analysis in the Nikāyas arrived at this subtler conception through an intermediate stage. And this result was itself superseded in the Abhidharma stage (see below).

c6.150

*Gavesana*.—An early word according to Mrs. Rhys Davids. Coomarswamy in his review of her book “What was the original gospel in Buddhism?” remarks, “It would have been helpful to point out that the very word for way (Maggo: Dht. p. 298 has gavessati=maggana) derives from mṛg. to ‘hunt’ especially in the sense of track’ ” (JAOS 1938, p. 680).

c6.151

*Cakkavattī dhammiko dhammarājā cāturanto*.—According to R. Chanda “probably post-Aśokan” (Mem Arch Sur. of India, No. 39 p. 16; cf. Bhandarkar, Aśoka, p. 236). This is unlikely, for how, then, explain the utter silence of the Piṭakas about Aśoka? Besides, there are other instances of the early Buddhist tendency to replace many popular or Brahmanic ideas by “counter-ideas”. On the growth of the idea of King of Righteousness see Rhys Davids-Hibbert Lectures, p. 129ff.

c6.152

*Ñāṇavatthūni*: Forty-four in S. N. II. 56 ff. discussed in extenso in Vbh. 306—44.

c6.153

*Taṇhā*.—“The figure is a strong one, and the word Taṇhā is found mainly in poetry, or in prose passages surcharged with religious emotion. It is rarely used in the philosophy or the psychology. Thus in the long Enumeration of Qualities (Dh.) Taṇhā occurs in one only out of the 1366 sections (Dhs. 1059), and then only as one of the many subordinate phases of lobha” (PTSD). One may compare Ch. up. “apipāsa eva sa babhūva” (Ch. Up. III. 17. 6). It appears one of the central figures used by Buddha himself, and became less frequent as scholasticism grew.

c6.154

*Thūpa.*—See *supra*.

c6.155

*Daṇḍa.*—In the sense of violence (to creatures) appears an early usage and occurs frequently in verse, and is strongly akin to the Jaina usage.

c6.156

*Diṭṭhi.*—Came to acquire later the very special meaning of heresy.

c6.157

*Dukkhatā.*—The term occurs in Ch. up. VII. 26. 2. cf. D.N. III. 216; S.N. IV. 59; V. 56. Dukkha-dukkhata is purely Buddhist.

c6.158

*Devayāna.*—Sn. 139; D.N. I. 215. An Upaniṣadic and rare expression; hence early.

c6.159

*Dhammatā tathatā, dhammaṭṭhitatā,* and *dhammaniyāmatā*: may be late on account of their great abstraction. *Nirodhadhammatā* (S.N. IV. 217) is similar. So is “*Idappaccayatā*”. But cf. Bṛ. Up. IV. 1 where similar abstractions are used Prajñatā, Priyatā, Satyatā, Anantatā, Ānandatā and Sthitatā. Thus the issue remains uncertain from a linguistic approach. See below on Pratītyasamutpāda and Dhamma.

c6.160

*Dhamma.*—The “doctrine” is Dhamma, because it proclaims the Norm that lies behind things; and since it is through the mind that the abstract norms behind sensible things are apperceived, dhammas are the objective counterpart of “Mano”. This second meaning seems to have mediated in the progress of the meaning of dh. from “the Norm behind things” to “the ‘things’” themselves.

c6.161

*Dhātu.*—Another of the much-used words like Āyatana and Indriya, and, like the former, of importance in Abhidhamma. Its popularity betokens a strong analytical quest, which sought to reduce things to their ultimate elements, and thus we have kāma°, amata°, nirodha° and even nibbāna°.

c6.162

The distinction between *nītattha*, and *neyattha* (e.g., A.I. 60) belongs to the age of sectarian controversies.

c6.163

*Parovara*.—Found only in Sn. 353, 475, 704, 1048 and 1148 (PTSD). One may compare the Upaniṣadic usage. Probably early.

c6.164

Paccekavasavattin. D. N. II. 261 Pacceka-Brahman—S. N. I. 146. Pacceka-Sacca—A. N. II. 41; V. 29. { These show a tendency which became very prominent later.

c6.165

Pacceka-Buddha, e.g., M.N. III. 86; S.N. I. 92; Ud. 50.

c6.166

*Pajāpati*.—See above.

c6.167

*Padhāna*.—The more general earlier usage elaborated and crystallized in the sammappadhānas. The formula of the four padhānas as Saṃvara, Pahāna, Bhāvanā and Anurakkhanā as detailed in the Sangīti sutta seems to represent a still more precise and elaborate stage.

c6.168

*Parikkhāra*.—The conception of the seven Parikkhāras of samādhi is an obvious improvement on the formula of eightfold path.

c6.169

*Parittā*.—See above.

c6.170

*Parissaya*—has a meaning which is the exact opposite of the Jinist meaning.

c6.171

*Purisa*, °*puggala*, *puggala*.—While the first is the usual Upaniṣadic word, the third word is the usual one in Abhidharma. The second appears a transitional makeshift. Are the reasons for this introduction of the new word to be sought in the growth of the Anatta doctrine, which disliked purisa on account of its old associations? Already in the AN “Puggala” has reached pre-eminence; on the other hand, the only undoubtedly early use of the word appears to be in the “Sāmaññaphala sutta” where, however, it appears juxtaposed to satta.

c6.172

*Bodhisatta*.—has been discussed above and would appear to be late.

c6.173

*Magga*.—Mrs. Rhys Davids has suggested that it was not originally eightfold. The formula of the tenfold, at least, is clearly an elaboration. (The Tikapaṭṭhāna has twelve constituents—see PTSD).

c6.174

*Viññāṇa*.—Originally the "More-than-Body" which in its *patiṭṭhita* state was the mutable transmigrant; later it came to mean almost exclusively "sense-perception" (this latter meaning has its beginnings in the latest Upaniṣadic texts) which is its status in the full-fledged five khandha theory.

c6.175

*Vedalla*.—See above.

c6.176

*Saṃyojana*.—Originally a general meaning in which the metaphor is clear. Later it was elaborated into diverse lists.

c6.177

*Saṅkhāra*.—From a somehow 'conative' meaning (cf. the three saṅkhāras; abhisaṅkhāra) it came to have a very extended use and became very important later. A clearly late instance of its use is S.N. III. p. 87.

c6.178

*Saññā*.—used loosely and in forming many lists, some of which are the obvious elaborations of others. (See PTSD).

c6.179

*Satipaṭṭhāna*.—The usual scheme of four has come about through the elaboration of the simpler Sati or "mindfulness"—(See Chap. on Way).

c6.180

*Sahassī Lokadhātu*.—D.N. I. 46; A.N. I. 228. Implies developed mythology (cf. M.N. III. 101).

c6.181

*Suññatā* M.N. III. 111; Kv. 232. Shows abstraction and pronounced negativism. Great importance later. °*Paṭisamyutta* A.N. I. 72=III. 107=S.N. II. 257.

c6.182

From the side of linguistic morphology even fewer data are available. Geiger distinguishes four stages in Pali linguistic development,⁸⁷ of which only the first two are relevant to the present enquiry: 1. The language of the Gāthās i.e., the metrical pieces. It is of a very heterogeneous character, containing many archaic speech-forms which are distinguished from the old-Indian forms only phonologically. Fausböll⁸⁸ has pointed out that Sn. contains many old Vedic forms of substantives and verbs in the plural, such as Samūhatāse, Paccayāse, Paṇḍitāse, or Carāmase, Sikkhisāmase; the shorter Vedic plurals, as Vinicchayā and Lakkhaṇā for Vinicchayāni and Lakkhaṇāni; shorter instrumental singulars as mantā, pariññā, lābhakamyā,—for mantāya, pariññāya, lābhakamyāya; Vedic infinitives as vippahātave, uṇṇametave, sampayātave; contracted forms, such as, ātumānam, suvāmi, suvānā as well as archaic forms like sagghasi (=sakkhissasi), pāva or pāvā (Pavadati), pavecche (=pavesseyya), sussam (=suṇissāmi), daṭṭhu (=disvā), paribbasāno (=parivasamāno), avocāsi, ruṇṇena, uggahāyanti.

c6.183

⁸⁷ Pali Literature and Language (tr. by Batakrishna Ghosh, pp. 1-2).

c6.184

⁸⁸ In his intr. to SBE X (tr. of Sn). Quoted by Bapat in his ed. of Sn. (p. XXVIII).

c6.185

2. The language of the canonical prose, which is more homogeneous than that of the gāthās. The archaic forms diminish in number and frequency, while the use of the new formations is no longer accidental or arbitrary as in the oldest period of the language, but is governed by more rigid rules.

c6.186

(e) Geography.—According to Thomas the expansion of geographical knowledge towards the south and the west indicates a relatively later character of the reports.⁸⁹ In the DN. and MN. introductory sections generally mention the Kāsīs, the Kosalas, the Aṅgas, the Magadhas, the Kurus, the Vajjis and the Mallas. The Janavasabhasutta, however, also mentions, the Cetis and the Vamsas to the west of Prayāga, the Kurupañcālas, north west of the Kosalas, and still further west the Macchas and the Sūrasenas.⁹⁰ This list of twelve is extended in the AN.⁹¹ to sixteen by the mention of the Assakas of South, the Avantīs north of the Vindhyas, and, in the extreme north, the Gandhāras and the Kambojas.⁹² The Godāvarī is mentioned only in the introductory verses of Pārāyaṇa.

c6.187

⁸⁹ Life, pp. 13-14.

c6.188

⁹⁰ DN. II. p. 200.

c6.189

⁹¹ AN. I. 213; IV 252, 256, 260.

c6.190

⁹² Cf. also Thomas—Hist. of Budd. Thought p. 5.

c6.191

An "extension" of geographical knowledge, however, is difficult to prove. Even in the 6th century B.C. Kosambī had political connections with Avantī⁹³ and presumably with the adjacent states to the north-west;⁹⁴ and traders plied in caravans along the great highways to the North and the West. Again, Rhys Davids argues⁹⁵ cogently for the great antiquity of the Aṅguttara list of the Sixteen Powers, as also for the gāthās

First 190 of 225 passages. Read on

Linked texts (78)