Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c8: Chapter IV. Early and Late in the Dīgha-Nikāya

Studies in the Origins of Buddhism c8

Language
English

Chapter IV. Early and Late in the Dīgha-Nikāya

c8.2

Dirghagama and Dighanikaya.—The Chinese Dīrghāgama (No. 545 of Nanjio’s Catalogue) contains thirty sūtras instead of the thirty four of Pali. After a comparison of these, Nanjio concludes that six of the former collection “seem not to be given in the Pali text, or at least with different titles.”¹ These are: (5) on the four castes’; (11) ‘on the Ekottara (dharma)’; (12) ‘On the Trirāśi (Dharma)’; (15) ‘on (the city) ö-tho-i-(?)’; (17) ‘on the pureness (of practice)’; (30) ‘on the record of the world.’ On the other hand, the following ten suttas are missing in No. 545 (Dīrghāgama): (6) Mahāli°; (7) Jāliya°; (10) Subha°; (17) Mahāsudassana° (but found in the Madhyamāgama);² (22) Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna°; (24) Pāṭika°; (27) Aggañña°; (29) Pāsādika° (30) Lakkhaṇa°; (32) Āṭānāṭiya°.

c8.3

¹ Catalogue Column 137.

c8.4

² Acc. to Anesaki—“The Mahāsudassana is incorporated entire in the Mahāparinibbāna à propos of the reference to the Sudassana story in the M.P.s. 5. 42.” (JRAS 1901 p. 896)

c8.5

Nanjio, however, adds that on a minuter comparison some of these may still be found.

c8.6

Now, according to Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana³ sūtra 5 of the Chinese corresponds to the Pali Aggañña, sūtra 15 to the Pāṭika, and sūtra 17 to the Pāsādika° and, from the other side, No. 22 of Pali is supposed to correspond to No. 98 of the Madhyamāgama; and No. 30 of DN to No. 59 of the latter collection (i.e., MĀ). Nanjio gives the title of this No. 59 as “on the thirtytwo characteristic marks,” and that appears to confirm this last identification.

c8.7

³ Intr. to the Hindi tr. of the DN. (Published Sarnath, 1936)

c8.8

According to Lévi⁴ also Dīgha No. 29=Dīrgha Ā.17. Further, he proposes to equate one of the “grands sūtras” listed in the Sarvāstivādinaya with the Mahāli° and Jāliya° of Pali. Moreover, according to him, though the Āṭanāṭiya is not found in the Dīrghāgama it must have formed a part of the Sanskrit collection as it is reckoned in the “grands sūtras” in the middle of the sūtras of the Dīrghāgama.⁵

c8.9

⁴ JA. 1915, Mai-Juin. 121ff.

c8.10

⁵ Ib.

c8.11

Of the three sūtras of the Dīrghā°, untraced in Pali none it seems can be very early. Nos. 11-12 follow the Saṅgīti° and the Daśottara° and their titles also indicate their Aṅguttara form. As to No. 30, it appears from Nanjio’s description to treat of cosmography and cosmogony in twelve chapters!

c8.12

Thus all the suttas of the Pali Dīgha can be evidenced in the Āgamas, though not necessarily in the Dīgha. That only suggests the conclusion that the division between the DN and the MN was not a watertight one, which is very plausible otherwise also. These two collections appear to have been made out of a not very dissimilar material along the rough test of the size of the suttas. Consequently a certain difference of opinion between the sects as to the exact position to be assigned to a particular sutta in this or that collection is easily intelligible.⁶

c8.13

⁶ Cf. the accusation levelled against the mahāsaṅghikas by the Mahāvamsa: p. 28f.

c8.14

The order of Suttas in D.A. and D.N.—The difference in the order of the suttas that the Pali and the Chinese collections show within particular collections is however more serious.

c8.15

According to Franke⁷ the order of the Chinese Dīrghāgama almost suggests a deliberate attempt to remove the appearance of similar words and thoughts in the neighbouring suttas. He is inclined to attribute greater originality to the Pali than to the Chinese order, and advances the plausible argument that the latter makes ‘Brahmajāla’ the 21st sutta while in the Saṅgīti-sutta of the Cv, according to both the Pāli and the Dharmagupta canons, (Oldenberg Z. D.M.G. Vol. 52 653) it is represented as the first. It may be added that the testimony of the Dharmagupta canon is of particular value since the translator of the Dīrghāgama—Buddhayaśas—is also the translator of the Dharmaguptavinaya (Nanjio 1117) and the Dharmaguptaprātimokṣa (N.115g) beside that of the Ākāśagarbhabodhisattvasūtra (N. 68). If then the original of the Chinese Dīrgha too belonged to the Dharmagupta sect,⁸ its present order is all the more discredited.

c8.16

⁷ ZDMG 1913 (409f).

c8.17

⁸ Cf. Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana, loc. cit.

c8.18

The order of the Pali sutta-groups seems to show roughly the historical phenomenon of later writings being added to earlier ones since the third and second books of the Pali DN are on the whole recognizably later than the first one.⁹ Now, in the Chinese collection apart from the fourth varga which contains a single long cosmological sūtra in twelve sub-chapters and appears apocryphal, the first two vargas seem to have, on the whole, later material than the third. And the reason is that the first vagga of the Pali DN corresponds strongly to the 3rd Vagga of the Chinese. All the ten sūtras of the latter are found in the former, the three extra suttas of which are absent from the whole of the Chinese DĀ. The order of the sūtras within the varga is, however, very different in the two. The Chinese order is much less intelligible than the Pali one. It breaks, for instance, the obvious sequence of the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa and Kūṭadanta-suttas by the arbitrary interpolation of the Brahmajāla. The first and second vargas of the Chinese, on the other hand, show much less community with the 2nd and 3rd vargas of Pali, if taken separately. Chinese I contains only four suttas, whereas Pali II has ten, though it is noticeable that all the four of the former collection are out of the ten of the latter. One other interesting feature is that there are in these two vargas four groups of adjacent suttas such that they are adjacent in Pali also. These are Chinese 3-4; Pali 19-18: Chinese 5-6. Pali 27-26: Chinese 17-18; Pali 29-28: Chinese 9-10; Pali 33-34. The reversal in order in the case of the first three groups may be noted.

c8.19

⁹ See Bapat’s analysis already ref. to above; and Winternitz, II, p. 35.

c8.20

The relative solidarity of that group of suttas which forms the first book of the Pali collection is also apparent in the Chinese version, which seems to have preferred to add to them by placing the other suttas before rather than after them.

c8.21

This division of the DN into two literary strata, however, does not carry us very far because of important exceptions and also because of the pervasive editorial activity which the collection evidences. Besides, the accurate formulation of comprehensively valid strata is impossible so long as the analysis in detail of particular suttas and doctrines is not carried much beyond the stage in which at present it rests.

c8.22

Sutta 1: its late features.—The very first sutta makes the difficulties in the way of a clear-cut stratification apparent: it is a long and unitary composition, full of repetitions. It elaborately enumerates in a systematic manner sixty two speculative theses (Vatthus). The formular expressions appear long fossilized. Many of them recur identically in other parts of the canon. The Buddhists have here developed cosmological speculations of their own, which are in the same state as in the Pāṭika-suttanta. Further, the majjhima° and mahāsīlas are clearly inflated forms of the cūla°. The “eel-wrigglers”, it is possible, have been made to vascillate over more problems than they ever knew: the list of these problems appears to have attained its present length through the mechanical addition of further items taken over from other contexts.

c8.23

Contra-Indications.—But jostling by the side of these late features there are contra-indications too. The Brahmajāla, along with the Sāmaññaphala, is one of the two suttas which are explicitly mentioned in the canonical tradition of the first council.¹⁰ It was separately translated into Chinese even before the full Dīrghāgama had been so rendered (Nanjio on 554). According to Watanabe “it (d. 554) corresponds with slight differences to the Pali Brahmajāla”.¹¹ This shows the great repute in which the sutta was held. It makes not the slightest mention of the five khandhas or the Anatta doctrine, or even the Bodhipakkhiya dhammas. Above all, it represents the Paṭiccasamuppāda, not in its standard but in one of the earlier forms.¹² Its vehemence against holding to any speculation (Diṭṭhi) is reminiscent of the four Aṭṭhakas in the Sn, as also the expression—“Taṇhāgatānaṃ paritassitavipphanditameva” (e.g. DN.I. p. 48 Nāg. ed.; cf. Sn. sutta 49.v.5 “Passāmi loke pariphandamānānaṃ pajaṃ imaṃ taṇhāgataṃ bhavesu”). Finally, many of the speculations detailed here are quite primitive and do seem to go back to very early times.

c8.24

¹⁰ Vin II. p. 287.

c8.25

¹¹ Quoted by Poussin in JRAS 1903, p. 583.

c8.26

¹² See infra.

c8.27

Conclusion.—A late composition out of early material.—It appears thus that we have here a case not dissimilar to that of the First Sermon. In its present form it is a late composition, but it has been compiled out of ancient material. Diverse reports about the heresies in the times of the Master and condemned by him have been reduced to a single systematic and formular shape. That the previous variant versions disappeared after this standardisation is hardly to be wondered at. In this context it is significant to note that the sutta calls itself at the end a “veyyākaraṇa”. It is a scholastic exposition, no doubt, but based on much older traditions.

c8.28

Sutta 2.—The various versions.—The second of the suttas mentioned explicitly in the conciliar tradition already referred to, was also translated into Chinese independently as well of the Dīrghāgama.¹³ From a perusal of the English rendering of part of these in an appendix to Rockhill’s Life of the Buddha (pp. 255-259) it appears that these show a confusion of names, which is comparable to that in similar reports in the Aṅguttara.¹⁴ As to the Tibetan version in the Dulva, Rockhill states that it is very similar to the Pali sutta; only it looks much confused on doctrinal points.¹⁵ This growth of confusion about the names of the rival teachers contemporaneous with Buddha, which is evidenced not only in the Chinese and Tibetan translations but also within the Pali Nikāya itself (e.g., in the AN), seems to have resulted from the indifference of latter-day monks to the merely historical data contained in the reports of the "Diṭṭhis". It may be this tendency which cuts out all such encumbrances from the Brahmajālasutta, and, instead, treats us with a merely logically constructed "net" of sixty-two "views".

c8.29

¹³ See Nanjio . . . . . 593.

c8.30

¹⁴ See below, Chap. on AN. Thomas-Life—p. 130; cf. P. V. Bapat—The Śrāmaṇyaphala Sūtra and its different Versions in Buddhist Literature—IC 1947, pp. 107ff.

c8.31

¹⁵ See Rockhill, op. cit., pp. 95-106.

c8.32

Early features of the Sutta.—All this goes to enhance the impression of antiquity made by the Sāmaññaphala°, which is not only clearest in this respect, but in which the enumeration of the heresies follows organically from a context reminiscent of Bṛ. IV. I. Oldenberg’s suggestion of an imitation here of the Upaniṣadic setting¹⁶ is quite unwarranted. The situation described in the Pali sutta could well have resulted as naturally from the multiplicity of contemporary teachers plus the philosophical interest that king Ajātasattu is reported in the sutta to have had, as the one in the Upaniṣad did from the similar interest of Janaka in a not very dissimilar atmosphere of thought-ferment. Since there seems to be no reason to doubt this obvious explanation of the partial resemblance in form of the two texts, a resort to the hypothesis of literary borrowing is hard to justify.

c8.33

¹⁶ Quoted Winternitz, II, p. 37 fn. 2. Prof. Bapat.conclusively establishes the authenticity of the historical setting of the Sāmaññaphala sutta (see IC, loc. cit.).

c8.34

Both the sections of the sutta—that relating to heretical doctrines and that to the "Sāmaññaphalas"—recur in identical formulation at many other places in the canon, especially the second, which occurs in all the subsequent suttas except the last one of the first vagga of the DN. From this we cannot, indeed, conclude that the whole of that vagga forms a single stratum,¹⁷ although it certainly does emerge that suttas 3-12 of the DN in their present form presuppose the prior existence of the Sāmaññaphala°. It is, of course, not impossible that there once existed independently a text containing only the list of the "Sāmaññaphalas" to which the present sutta of that title and the other suttas mentioned above are equally indebted. But there is no direct evidence whatever to support this supposition.

c8.35

¹⁷ Cf. Bapat. ABORI 1926, p. 4.

c8.36

The leading emphasis of the sutta is on the practice of spiritual life, though it contains incidentally a good deal pertaining to theoretical beliefs. Man is conceived as a complex of ‘Kāya’ and ‘Viññāṇa’.¹⁸ This represents a perceptibly earlier stage of analysis than the doctrine of the Five Khandhas, of which there is no mention here. It will be incorrect to suppose that there is no occasion for mentioning that doctrine, since, according to the context just referred to, the Bhikkhu, after he has attained to mental purity and quietude, proceeds to the attainment of ‘Knowledge-vision’ (Ñāṇa-dassana) and thus realizes his own nature as kāya-cum-viññāṇa, and, now, if the doctrine of the five khandhas were the ruling dogma about the nature of man, this opportunity should clearly have been availed of in order to mention it. The omission becomes all the more glaring if we remember that the enthusiasm of those who held the theory of the Five Khandhas was for some time so great that they insisted upon introducing it even where the excuse for doing so was slight. Besides, between the view of man as Kāya-plus-Viññāṇa and the view of him as a complex of the Five Khandhas in its standard interpretation there is a clear gulf fixed by the difference in the meaning of viññāṇa. In the former it is “consciousness as individualized through embodiment”, in the latter it is ‘perception regarded as one of the four aspects of empirical consciousness.’ This reflects not only increased psychological analysis but also a changed epistemological standpoint.

c8.37

¹⁸ See DN. I, pp. 87-88 (Nāgari ed.).

c8.38

In form also the sutta shows early traits: it is a dialogue containing a sermon enlivened by “similes” (Pali-upamā) and free from exaggeration. It is true that it describes the Four Jhānas in a formular and schematic form, but it has to be remembered that the doctrine of ‘Jhāna’ probably belonged to the original mandate itself and consequently must have engaged the attention of system-makers very early. Besides, within the four prose Nikāyas, at any rate, an earlier stage of this doctrine is hardly to be found. The same remarks apply to the formula of the three vijjās although it must be remembered that the present sutta does not contain the exact formula.

c8.39

Some late features.—Moreover ‘the sutta as it is cannot be considered quite free from “interpolation”. Like the preceding sutta it contains the lengthy threefold “Moralities”, and these, it has been suggested by Rhys Davids, formed once an independent text. Our present sutta perhaps contained originally a reference to the ‘Cūḷasīla’ alone which may have been later replaced by its amplified version.

c8.40

Para 83 of the sutta (in the Nāgari ed., para 99 of the PTS ed.) contains a conventionalized phraseology in which the convert-to-be expresses his reaction to the sermon and the desire to betake himself to the Three Refuges. As to when this formula came into existence it is difficult to pronounce with any degree of certainty, but it appears likely that when it did, it was added on to previously existing suttas as a convenient finish.

c8.41

Finally, the description of ‘Āsavakhaya’ is suspect. The simile that follows illustrates the attainment of discrimination between a ‘pure’ principle and impurities really external to it. This resembles the picture of Sāṅkhya ‘Prasaṅkhyāna’. The actual description, on the other hand, only speaks of the knowledge of the Four Truths (which are repeated with the substitution of “Āsava” for ‘dukkha’) and of the consequent emancipation from the Āsavas. Of any discriminative insight in the sense indicated above there is no talk. It appears therefore that the repetitive section of the Four Truths has usurped the place of the original reference to the dawn of Paññā or Vijjā. That there was such a reference is also supported by the fact that DN. s. 8. subsumes the last ‘Sāmaññaphala’ in the Paññāsampadā. Suttas 3 and 4 subsume it under Vijjā and Paññā respectively. It., (Sutta) 99 also speaks of “Puna ca param—Bhikkhu āsavānaṃ Khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭhéva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññāya sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati* ayamassa tatiyā vijjā adhigatā hoti avijjā vihatā vijjā uppannā tamo vihato āloko uppanno….” At many other places also there is reference to the three vijjās, with the last sāmaññaphala as the third ‘vijjā’. Further the conception of ‘Āsava’ as threefold is not its earliest conception. Nor was avijjā at first regarded as

c8.42

*This occurs in DN. 6 also (DN. Pt. I. P. 181 Nāg. ed.).

c8.43

merely one-third of the whole evil. This also argues against the earliness of para 81 (Nāgari ed.=para 97 of the PTS ed.).

c8.44

Sutta 3-5.—Suttas 3-5 are closely interconnected in subject and style, and all presuppose the sāmaññaphala.° They are long unitary compositions and full of anti-Brahmanic polemic. Compared to the similarly purposed suttas in SN I and Sn, they are more developed, being longer, more aggressive and more dialectical. In the first (i.e., D.N. 2) the theory of the Thirty-two Marks is well-established. There is supernatural intervention in favour of Buddha who himself displays miraculous powers in order to convince a Brāhmaṇa about the two Marks not visible normally from the outside. The ‘sāmaññaphalas’ are divided into ‘caraṇa’ and ‘vijjā’. This corresponds to the ‘sīla-paññā’ dichotomy of the next sutta.

c8.45

DN. 4 speaks only of the “Lokāyatamahāpurisalak-khaṇas” while there is no reference to the number 32. The next sutta is in this respect similar. Unlike the preceding too, however, it is directed not against caste but against sacrifice, and it achieves its purpose not through disputation but through offering a figurative and ethical reinterpretation of the idea of sacrifice, taking the aid of a Jātaka-like tale in doing so.

c8.46

Of the three suttas, thus only the second (DN. 4) is free from miracle and myth; it is likewise the most logical. Since, however, the correlation between the growth of the miraculous, of the Jātaka-form and of ‘dialectics’ among the early Buddhists is as yet a quite uncertain subject, it is impossible to attempt a minuter stratification as between these three suttas.

c8.47

DN. 6.—DN. 6 describes the true purpose of “Brahmacariya” as “Cetovimutti-Paññā°”, and not the attainment of miraculous powers. This sounds an early note. The use of “opapātika” for “anāgāmin” is concordant with it, though the use of the expression “three Fetters (saṃyojanas)” as if it were a well known technicality indicates that we are not dealing with a text belonging to the earliest stratum. This is confirmed by the bare enumeration of the eightfold way. It occurs at a place where the “sāmaññaphala” series might have been expected. Both serve the same purpose of grouping together spiritually helpful practices, though the latter considers them primarily as means to progressive ends. It is not suggested that the formula of the ‘Eightfold Path’ has here ousted an original reference to the “Sāmaññaphalas” though that is not impossible—but only that unlike the latter the antiquity of the former is dubious. It appears to be one of the many attempted systematizations of the more or less general directions of Buddha relating to the Way.

c8.48

Jaliya Sutta.—To DN. 6 is tacked on at the end, the Jāliya sutta without any relevancy whatever. And this other sutta itself suffers from confusion. Instead of answering the problem raised by Jāliya, Buddha is made to digress into the “Sāmaññaphala” text, thus very aptly illustrating himself, as it were, the gibe of Ajātasattu “Ambaṃvā puṭṭho labujaṃ vyākareyya” (DN. 2)!

c8.49

The original continuation appears to have been lost. Can it be recovered elsewhere in the canon? It is worth recollecting here that the present sutta is one of the few not traceable in the Chinese Dīrghāgama.

c8.50

Sutta 8.—In sutta 8 Buddha refutes the charge of condemning all asceticism, of which he explains his own conception; the cultivation of friendliness (mettacittaṃ)

c8.51

and the attainment of Freedom (cetovimutti, Paññā°). It is noteworthy that almost throughout DN. I. the talk is of Vimutti and not Nirodha. At this point Acelakassapa (Buddha’s addressee) asks him to explain the three “Sampadā” and so we have the sāmaññaphala text repeated. The following two paragraphs appear to have been suggested by paras 6–12 (both in the Nāgari and PTS eds). That they portray Buddha as very vainglorious is a further argument for their lateness. Finally, it may be noticed that this sutta mentions both the Eightfold Path as well as the Sāmaññaphala series, which is not divided into three grades-sīla°, citta°, and Paññā-sampadās.

c8.52

DN. 9.—Composite.—DN. 9 is a lengthy patchwork showing at least two clear strata. The first belongs to the stage of the Sāmaññaphalasutta. The second adds to it three “arūpa-vimokkhas”. (The treatment of this very topic of “Aṇupubbanirodha” is still more elaborate in AN.). It appears that this section was added on to an already existing sutta, for that will also explain the addition of para 22, which goes beyond the stage of thought reflected in the sāmaññaphala°, and that in this way: the first version of the sutta contained reference to the Olārika° and Manomaya Attās only—as is the case in the Sāmaññaphala°. With the inclusion and growth of the prestige of the “arūpavimokkhas” (the two very highest of which Buddha is reported to have turned down as useless during his “quest”) in the Buddhist fold, the conception of the “arūpisaññāmaya Attā” also became important. The later redactor, who was familiar with it, finding it missing in the older sutta interpolated it and furnished the answer of the corresponding query by a mechanical adaptation of the answer in the previous two paras. The sutta according to all expectations should end in para 31 (Nāg. ed.) where not only is the sermon ended but the chief addressee is also satisfied. It is continued, however, partly as a zealot's reaction to the disrespect shown to Buddha by the Paribbājakas in the preceding para and partly as an attempt to meet their objections better—Buddha had only said that he did not answer certain problems because they were irrelevant to spiritual perfection. That, however, is no satisfactory answer to one who wants to know just those very problems. The answer now added is that they are indeterminate (Anekamsika), although indeterminacy is established by no better means than an appeal to the previous answer:—a proof of the lack of much originality in the redactor. It is not impossible that Buddha himself had given this answer at a different place, whence it has been adapted here.

c8.53

∗ Unless otherwise stated the ref. for the first two volumes of DN. is to the Nāgarī ed.

c8.54

Then follows a reconsideration of the whole problem of Attā. This section seems to use, however, two ancient upamās—that of the Janapadakalyānī,¹⁹ ridiculing those who talked more than evidence warranted; and that of the transformation of milk, establishing an unchanging identity behind changing appearances. Now the drift of the second 'simile' is clearly "un-Buddhist" and so we have the corrective—

c8.55

¹⁹ Occ. also in the Tevijja.

c8.56

"Iti imā kho citta lokasamaññā lokaniruttiyo lokavohārā paññattiyo yāhi Tathāgato voharati aparāmasamti!"

c8.57

DN. 10.— DN. 10 is explicitly later than the death of Buddha. Ānanda arranges the Sāmaññaphala° under the three khandhas of Sīla, Samādhi and Paññā. This further analysis of the Sāmaññaph° may suggest the relative lateness of the sutta.

c8.58

“Confusion” in D.N. 11.—D. N. 11. is actually composed of two independent suttas. The junction point is contained in para 13 (in PTS ed. 67). The “first” sutta (i.e., paras 1–12) explains Buddha’s views on miracles. The extension of the connotation of the term “Pāṭihāriya” is comparable to the similar extension attempted with the terms “Brāhmaṇa”, “Yañña”, “Maṅgala”, “Dāna”, etc.

c8.59

The abrupt transition to the next sutta is thus effected “Imāni kho kevaṭṭa tiṇi Pāṭihāriyāni mayā sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā paveditāni Bhūtapubbaṃ Kevaṭṭa imasmiṃ yeva Bhikkhusaṅghe aññatarassa Bhikkhuno evaṃ cetaso parivitakko udapādi kattha nu kho ime cattāro mahābhūtā aparisesā nirujjhanti.”²⁰

c8.60

²⁰ DN. I, p. 247 (Nāg. ed.).

c8.61

This tacking on is similar to that in the Mahāli-sutta already referred to.

c8.62

But whereas the whole of the first sub-sutta of DN. 11 belongs to the same early stratum, the second one consists of some very ancient verses at the end preceded by a late mythological preface (which describes an ascending hierarchy of fourteen classes of Buddhist gods) belonging to the class of “Tendenzschriften”, its purpose being to make the gods confess their own inferiority to Buddha and themselves stress the folly of seeking refuge in anybody else except in him.

c8.63

An examination of the final verses, moreover, shows that they too are not free from later addition. First we have three lines of query²¹ “Kattha āpo ca paṭhavī tejo vāyo na gādhati| Kattha dīghañca rassañca aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ Kattha nāmañca rūpañca asesaṃ uparujjhati.|| Then follows the answer (Tatra veyyākaraṇaṃ bhavati): “Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ ettha āpo ca” etc. till “asesaṃ uparujjhati Viññāṇassa nirodhena etth’etaṃ uparujjhati.”

c8.64

²¹ The transition from the prose to these is supplied in a manner that deserves to be noted. B. says that the question should not be asked in the manner in which it is done in the prose quotation above, but thus—as in the metrical lines that follow. One may pertinently ask: “Why? what is wrong with the prose formulation?” The only answer would seem to be: “Nothing. But the verses have to be brought in!”

c8.65

The conception of Viññāṇa in the first of this second group of lines deserves to be noted; it is, so strongly reminiscent of the Upaniṣads. That in such a viññāṇa “Prapañcopaśama” should be sought, is easily intelligible. Now comes the last line which is not only unnecessary but flatly contradicts what precedes. And the situation is in no wise mitigated by the fact that the last line is in itself not late, since it occurs in verse 6 in the “Ajitamāṇavapucchā (Sn. Pārāyaṇavaggo).²² There the meaning of Viññāṇa is different.²³ It is true that both these meanings of Viññāṇa—transcendental and phenomenal—are probably equally ancient. Buddha himself perhaps used the term ambiguously. But that the two usages should be juxtaposed in such a manner as to lead to the appearance of a flagrant contradiction is more than suspicious. The best explanation seems to be that the last line is a corrective appendix added by one for whom Viññāṇa had a purely phenomenal meaning.

c8.66

²² On Viññāṇa see below, where its two meanings are distinguished, and the explanation that Buddhaghosa offers to the present text is also considered.

c8.67

²³ Cf. “Yattha nāmañca rūpañca asesaṃuparujjhati Taṃ te dhammaṃ idhaññāya acchidum bhavabandhanam.” (SN. I. 35)

c8.68

DN. 12.—DN. 12 is a short lively dialogue with a ‘Socratic’ turn. It reveals Buddha full of compassion for others and criticizing ‘spiritual selfishness’. It mentions as well known technicalities the following:— The Sotāpattiphala, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi and Arahatta. The use of “anāgāmin” suggests that it is later than DN. 6, which has “opapātika”.

c8.69

DN. 13—early.—DN. 13 is, barring repetitions, a medium-sized spirited dialogue, full of good-humoured irony and fittingly illustrated by upamās. Of these, that of the Janapadakalyāṇī has already occurred; the two new upamās are: of the river Aciravati and of the Andhaveṇī. The latter is placed among the “original” upamās by Mrs. Rhys Davids.²⁴

c8.70

²⁴ Sakya.

c8.71

The sutta draws a very vivid picture of Brāhmaṇic society and beliefs, just as we might expect these to have been in the 6th cent. B.C. Further, the character of Buddha stands out for its earnestness and independence of thought. He insists that Truth must be directly known, and declares a merely traditional belief quite inadequate.

c8.72

Besides, the sutta is quite free from any late features. This strengthens the impression of earliness which it breathes in style and spirit.

c8.73

It deserves notice that paras 6–7 (PTS ed., paras 9–10) suffer from some confusion. Buddha in para 6 asks his Brāhmaṇa visitors as to the point of their dispute. This is quite unnecessary in view of the fact that the controversy has been already communicated to him in the previous para. Further, the next para (para 7) mentioning the diversity of ways propounded by the Brāhmaṇas asks if they all equally lead to salvation. So far right, but it now goes on to adduce an illustration to prove that all ways do lead to the same end, and then asserts as much explicitly. The Brāhmaṇas, thus, themselves answer their own problem, and in a way which might have been employed by Buddha himself! May it be suggested it was Buddha who pointed out that there could be more than one right way to the goal, although in fact there was not a single Brāhmaṇic way which could be called right? In the face of this common thrust the Brāhmaṇas would forget their mutual differences, thus leading to the discussion that follows.

c8.74

As to the problem of the Peyyāla after para 75 (of the PTS ed.) there can be no doubt that that edition is in the wrong. For the correctness of the Burmese edition, the Nāgari ed. adduces convincing arguments (see DN. I, p. 283 in Nāg ed.).

c8.75

Second Vagga—Change of atmosphere (DN. 14).—With the very first sutta of the second Vagga a change in atmosphere is unmistakable. In DN. 14 the lives of the Buddhas follow an unvarying archetype; all their course is but the manifestation of eternal norms (Dhammatā). Already the list of the Previous Buddhas has enlarged to six; and the thirty-two Marks of greatness are mentioned in detail. The title itself of the sutta “Mahāpadāna” suggests its lateness. The “apadānas” became a popular genre later on, but the very word, in this meaning, is not early (see PTSD).

c8.76

Yet the sutta does not represent the latest stratum even within the four prose Nikāyas. Its description of the Paṭiccasamuppāda is less developed than that which became standard later.²⁵

c8.77

²⁵ Cf. “The oldest account (of the Paṭicca°) is found in the Mahāpadāna where 10 items form the constituents of the chain.” (PTSD) But see below Ch. XI.

c8.78

Though it uses the term Dhammatā it does not do so in connection with the Paṭiccasamuppāda. Further, instead of the twelve Nidānas (as in the Sutta in SN. II, which contains the standard form) it has only ten.

c8.79

There is another circumstance that deserves to be noticed; on p. 28 (DN. II Nāg ed.) para 21 (Ib) ends thus—“Nirodho nirodho ti kho bhikkhave Vipassissa Bodhisattassa pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhum udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.” After this we have yet another para before the Bhāṇavāra ends, and it proceeds thus—“Atha kho bhikkhave vipassī Bodhisatto aparena samayena pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu udayabyayānupassī vihāsi: iti rūpaṃ etc. . . . Tassa pañcasu . . . viharato na cirasseva anupādāya āsavehi cittaṃ vimucci.” The implication is that “freedom” does not follow immediately from “knowledge”. This is in direct contradiction to other more authentic reports of the doctrine; and is in itself quite untenable. The explanation would seem to be that we have here an interpolation by some over-enthusiast of the Five Khandha theory who, finding all reference to this doctrine missing in what precedes, thought it to append it here as a remedy.

c8.80

The interpolative character of this para is proved by yet another fact. It is immediately followed by “Atha kho bhikkhave vipassissa bhagavato arahato samāsambuddhassa etadahosi yannūnāhaṃ dhammaṃ deseyyanti” but then he reflects—“adhigato kho me ayaṃ dhammo gambhīro duddaso....duddasam idaṃ ṭhānam yadidaṃ idappaccayatā paṭiccasamuppādo....” This implies the following sequence of events: the realization of Paṭiccasam°; the desire to preach it; hesitation. This sequence is however rudely broken by the intrusion of the para in question (para 22, p. 28 of DN. II, Nāg. ed.) according to which the Bodhisatta became a Sammāsambuddha not through the realization of the Paṭiccasam° (the culmination of which in the viloma order is reached in Nibbāna—see the quotation above “Nirodho nirodho ti kho,”) but through the practice of the feeling of impermanence in the Five Khandhas! The paragraph, in short, is not only unnecessary and inconsistent but also breaks the natural sequence of the context.

c8.81

DN. 15.—Composite.—It is possible that the suttas having Mahā prefixed to their titles have perhaps attained to their present bulk either through successive additions or the elaboration of shorter originals.²⁶ DN. 15 (Mahānidāna) presents an instance of the second class.

c8.82

²⁶ Cf. Winternitz, II, p. 39.

c8.83

Para 1—22 (Nāg. ed.) constitute the first piece of the mosaic. Buddha disagrees with Ānanda when the latter describes Paṭiccasam° as “simple”, and proceeds to explain it. In other words, the sutta represents a deliberate essay in philosophic interpretation undertaken to refute those who considered Paṭiccasam° “simple”. This suggests a scholastic authorship, delighting in metaphysical subtleties. The use of the terms Adhivacanasamphassa and Paṭigha° point in the same direction. It is noticeable, however, that in the explanation of Nāmarūpa there is no mention of the Five Khandhas.

c8.84

There is a very unusual feature in this exposition of the Paṭiccasam°, and that is the digression in paras 9–18. This seems to embody an attempt to harmonize with the generally known law of Paṭiccasam° another form of it, developed along a different line. This other form has a part-parallel in the Sn. (Sutta 49).

c8.85

In paras 21–22 Viññāṇa is explained as the transmigrating agent that takes on a new name and a new body. This dangerously soul-like character of Viññāṇa appears to have caused the addition of the next section in the sutta, comprising paras 23–32. It intrudes upon the previous section suddenly and without apparent relevancy. This is not to say that it is radically opposed to the former in idea; but there is an undoubted shift of accent. While the preceding “section” expounds Viññāṇa-cum-Nāmarūpa as coterminous with the phenomenal,²⁷ the present section directs attention to the utter transcendentality of “Attā”. This difference comes out clearly in the last few lines of para 32 (with which the second section closes). These are manifestly patterned on the last lines of the preceding section (in para 22). Whereas these latter leave the matter at the level of the phenomenal, the former by a slight change focuss the whole attention on what lies beyond it. The second section, in short, is a supplement to the first.

c8.86

²⁷ Ettāvatā kho Ānanda jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā, ettāvatā adhivacanapatho, ettāvatā niruttipatho, ettāvatā paññattipatho ettāvatā paññāvacaram ettāvatā vaṭṭam vaṭṭati itthattaṃ paññāpanāya yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ saha viññāṇena.” (DN. pt. II, pp. 50-1, Nāg. ed.).

c8.87

Then follows a discourse on the Viññāṇaṭṭhitis which has no relevancy to the immediately preceding context. It appears to have been suggested by the fact (viññāṇapatiṭṭhiti) mentioned towards the end of the first section (i.e., in para 22) of which it is an elaborate and schematic development. It, however, goes beyond the purpose of the sutta into the attainment of liberation and furnishes the occasion for the detailing of the eight “vimokkhas”.

c8.88

The sutta thus shows the successive growth of a short and compact original. None of its pieces, however, can be counted among the earliest in the Nikāyas, nor yet among the latest.

c8.89

DN. 16 —A veritable mosaic.—Of the mosaic character of the Mahāparinibbāna° there can hardly be any doubt. According to Winternitz,²⁸ very early there must have been a “sutta of the perfect Nirvāṇa” which in course of time, through interpolations and additions, became the present “Great sutta of Pari°”. According to him those sections in which Buddha appears as a human being represent the authentic and earlier portion. Such are: the narrative of the illness which befell Buddha at Beluvagrāma; or the grief of Ānanda in the fifth section. The verses, too, which are scattered in the Sutta bear, according to him, “the stamp of the greatest antiquity”. On the other hand, where Buddha works miracles like a demigod or a magician, and the concluding section which mentions the relics of Buddha and the erections of stūpas, are regarded as late.

c8.90

²⁸ loc. cit.

c8.91

Rhys Davids has exhaustively listed those passages of the sutta which occur in other parts of the canon also and concludes that full one-third of the sutta thus recurs.

c8.92

The conclusions of Przyluski.—Przyluski has considered in great detail the various versions of the sutta.²⁹

c8.93

²⁹ See also Dr. W. Pachow: Comparative Studies in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta and its Chinese Versions. (1946)

c8.94

His conclusions are formulated in three groups: those relating to the Parinirvāṇa; those relating to the itinerary; and those about the funerary rites.

c8.95

As to the first he finds that two Parinirvāṇasūtras are discoverable in the Sthavira-and Mūlasarvāstivādin canons—“l’un, très court, presque entièrement rédigé-en vers [Saṃyukta Ā (i.e. SĀXIII. 4, p. 59a, Col. 1) et saṃyutta pāli (I p. 158)], l’autre qui reproduit les stances du premier, mais en les encadrent dans de long developements en prose (vinaya des mūlasarvāstivāda et mahāparinibbānasutta).”³⁰

c8.96

³⁰ JA. 1918 t. XI, pp. 511-12.

c8.97

With regard to these we see “Saṃyukta Ā, est très voisin du texte de l’Avadānaśataka et du Dulva.”³¹ A comparison of these with the Pali version reveals that the most significant difference lies in the absence from the latter of the first verse by an anonymous Bhikkhu pronounced over the death of the master, and of the last two by Ānanda.³² The first verse is of no doctrinal significance; as to the latter, Przyluski suggests that the omission is due to the changed ideas about the cremation of Buddha as a cakravartin, which was contradicted by the verses in question, since these represented Buddha as merely covered by “cīvaras”; hence they were suppressed.³³

c8.98

³¹ Ib. p. 501.

c8.99

³² Ib., p. 508.

c8.100

³³ Ib., p. 526.

c8.101

But it must be remembered “Dass Ānanda nicht zugleich mit dem Andern, vielmehr erst bei einer späteren Gelegenheit seinem Gefühle durch einem lyrischen Erguss Luft machte, wird im Avadānaśataka ausdrücklich gesagt.”³⁴ It is therefore possible that these verses have been omitted from the Saṃyutta version because they do not, strictly, belong to the context. Their non-appearance in the Mahāparinibbāna also, however, supports Przyluski’s hypothesis.

c8.102

³⁴ Speyer in ZDMG 53. 1899, p. 123.

c8.103

The fact that in contrast to the Saṃyutta, the verses of Anuruddha are made to precede the utterance of Ānanda in the Dīgha, is, according to Przyluski, to be explained as a triumph of the theologians.³⁵ This appears quite likely, although Rhys Davids thinks it “scarcely possible.”³⁶

c8.104

³⁵ Op. cit., p. 526.

c8.105

³⁶ Dialogues—II, p. 73.

c8.106

As to the itinerary³⁷ Przyluski traces three stages of its growth: 1. This belongs to the “ère de Rājagṛha.” It was a narrative of Buddha’s journey across Magadha, consisting principally of discourses arranged in decreasing numerical order: at Rājagṛha, discourse of 7 or 6 points; Pāṭaliputra—5 points; Koṭi—4 truths; Bhoganagara—three causes of earthquake. At Pāvā and near the river Kakutsthā “les deux transfigurations et les deux offrandes de nourriture”. “Il n’était guerre alors question de Vaiśālī que pour mentionner le dernier regard jeté sur elle par le Maître et peut-être aussi la reception du Buddha par la courtisane Ambapālī.”

c8.107

³⁷ JA. 1918. t. XII, pp. 455-56.

c8.108

2. The period of Vaiśālī owing to the spread of the faith in the Vṛji country.

c8.109

3. Further northward spread of the faith and the entry of Śrāvastī in the narrative.

c8.110

As to the funerary rites,³⁸ “Le cérémonial traditionnel indien a fourni la trame des rècits bouddhiques.” This is true of the older records, the newer ones having effaced some of the earlier features “C’est ainsi que des traditions relatives aux lamentations des pleureuses, aux lavage du corpse, au cortege funèbre ont été peu à peu èliminées,” and can only be restored from the traces left in some versions. On the other hand “Sur ce fond antique....apparaissent des ornements plus éclatants et plus moderns.” They are taken from the ceremonial of kings and the efforts of the theologians to divinize the Buddha.

c8.111

³⁸ JA. 1920. t. XV, pp. 53-54.

c8.112

The main tendencies that were, thus, responsible for the elaboration of the originally plain and personal narrative of the last journey and death of Buddha may be thus indicated: the desire to interpolate later doctrines so as to give them the appearance of great authenticity (the very importance of the narrative made it the special victim of interpolation); the revision of the older text in the light of the newer apotheosis of Buddha.

c8.113

An analysis of DN. 16.—To examine internally the Pali DN. 16³⁹ (Nag. ed.) 1–15: There is nothing against the meeting with Vassakāra and the sermon to the Vajjis having been historical.

c8.114

³⁹ A detailed comparison with the Chinese Version will be found in Dr. W. Pachone: Op. cit.

c8.115

6–11 of the six lists of Aparihāniya dhammas the first suits the occasion most. The lists appear to have been successively added merely in order to enhance their prestige, with the result that we have now a veritable cascade of them.

c8.116

12–15 Itinerary notices, which cannot be checked on internal evidence alone.

c8.117

16–17 Sāriputta praises Buddha,⁴⁰ and considers that the only way to Enlightenment lies through abandoning the five Nīvaraṇas and cultivating the four Sati-paṭṭhānas plus the seven Sambojjhaṅgas. This represents a particular interpretation of the “Way” and its very eagerness to establish its bonafides as unique may be considered suspicious.

c8.118

⁴⁰ This is not to be found in any of the Chinese Versions (Dr. Pa-Chow: Op .cit. p. 23).

c8.119

18–25 Journey to Pāṭaligāma and a sermon to the householders there.

c8.120

26–32. This contains the prophecy about the future greatness of Pāṭaliputta, and the dangers to it. This section could hardly have been added much before the Village of Pāṭaligāma actually attained such eminence as to become the capital of Magadha, an event which according to tradition took place in the reign of Kālāśoka (B.C. 392–365).⁴¹

c8.121

⁴¹ See Fleet JRAS 1906 p. 670.

c8.122

33–34 The miraculous crossing of the Gaṅgā. This appears to have resulted from a misunderstanding of the final udāna “Ye taranti aṇṇavaṃ setuṃ katvāna visajja pallalāni/ Kullaṃ hi jano pabandhati, tiṇṇā medhāvino Janā ti//”

c8.123

This contains no reference whatever to an actual crossing of any river.

c8.124

II 1–3 Sermon on 4 Truths

c8.125

4–5 Itinerary

c8.126

6–7 B. explains the after life of many individuals

c8.127

8–9 Dhammādāsapariyāya on faith in the Three.

c8.128

10–11 to Vesālī

c8.129

12–13 Short sermon on Sati and (sampajañña)

c8.130

14–25 The well known story of Ambapālī. For an invention the story with its discomfiture of the Licchavi noblemen would appear very unpolitic on the part of a growing church.

c8.131

21–26 Buddha at Beluvagāma; his illness; and the sermon to Ānanda. Winternitz argues convincingly for its authenticity on the whole.

c8.132

III. 1–51 The whole of the section appears to present a single very late stratum. Buddha is portrayed as harbouring the desire for further life, and made to throw out an oblique hint to Ānanda that if so requested he might exercise his miraculous powers to prolong his earthly stay. Ānanda, however, disappoints him,

c8.133

and for this has to suffer rebuke soon after. Later, according to tradition, the theras again took him to task on this very account in the First Council. It was in all likelihood to strengthen their case against Ānanda that this section was inserted in the Mahāpari° which incidentally degraded Buddha himself to a level where he could harbour mundane longings, boast like a magician, and take to devious ways of expression.

c8.134

The rest of the section accords with it. When Buddha yields to the temptation to die, there is a great earthquake. This is described as “Bhiṃsanako lomahaṃsano”. May it not be that these adjectives have been suggested by the “gāthā” of Ānanda at the death of the Lord “Tadāsi Yaṃ Bhiṃsanakaṃ tadāsi lomahaṃsanaṃ Sabbākāravarūpete Sambuddhe parinibbuteti.” (This is among those gāthās at the time of Parinibbāna the earliness of which has been demonstrated by Przyluski). This is supported by the probable lateness of the verse that follows. E. Muller quotes, and agrees with Windisch that the last pāda of this stanza (III § 10) which reads “Abhida Kavacamivattasambhavamti” is later than (Divyāvadāna, p. 208) “Abhinat Kośamivāṇḍasambhavam” because the latter gives the better sense and suits the metre. (JRAS. 1913, p. 1089).

c8.135

Buddha utilizes the occasion to enumerate a list of the 8 causes of earthquakes and follows it up by three other quite irrelevant and quite unconnected lists of “eights”.

c8.136

At the end, this section (III) purports to set down B’s farewell speech recommending the seven lists that constitute the 37 Bodhipakkhiyas. Then follows the leave-taking and finally a few verses. It is a little remarkable that the words reported to be Buddha’s last⁴² should also have been uttered by him three months before his death. Is it not better to suppose that whoever composed this sermon thought to add to its appearance of authenticity by appending to it some acknowledgedly authentic words of the Master, forgetting the difference in context?

c8.137

⁴² i.e., Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādetha.

c8.138

The verses at the end, on the other hand, appear much earlier. They show no trace of the existence as yet of any systematic dogmatics. In fact, they contain the sort of material out of which the latter must have developed. IV 2–3: whereas in DN I. we had the twofold or threefold lists of Sīla and Paññā or Sīla, Samādhi and Paññā, § 2 adds to it a fourth element—Vimutti, § 3 ascribes to Buddha verses which speak of him in the third person and explicitly describe him as Parinibbuta. These are obviously apocryphal. It may be noticed that §§ 2–3 have the same subject-matter. It is possible that § 3 versifies § 2. In §§ 7–12 Buddha preaches the four “mahāpadesas” which seem to assume controversies over the authenticity and interpretation of sutta or vinaya, and the existence of the class of “Dhammadharā vinayadharā” 13—20 seem to contain, in contrast to the preceding, the very ancient narrative of B’s dinner at the place of Cunda.

c8.139

22—38 contain the justification for the title of the Bhāṇavāra—Āḷāravedalla”.

c8.140

39—43 take up the thread of narrative which is apparently broken by the previous sequence. This coupled with the fact that this latter (22—38) describes a miracle and shows Buddha as possessed of a very sensitive vanity, suggests its interpolative character.

c8.141

V. 1—7 Presuppose the apotheosis of Buddha.

c8.142

10—11 Buddha prescribes a cakravartin’s treatment for his body after death.

c8.143

12. The four classes deserving a Thūpa. Distinguishes between Sammasāmbhddha and Pacceka°.

c8.144

13—14 Ānanda weeps and Buddha consoles him.

c8.145

15—Seems to imply the doctrine of Previous Buddhas.

c8.146

16—Buddha praises the wonderful qualities of Ānanda

c8.147

17—22 The past of Kusinārā. The mallas come to see Buddha 23—30: The conversion of Subhadda—In 27 Buddha regards the Eight fold Path as the chief mark of his doctrine; with this contra 1. § 17; and III 50).

c8.148

VI—7 The last moments. No late element discoverable here.

c8.149

8—9 B. first climbs up to the Saññāvedayitanirodha, then comes to the first Jhāna; goes up again—this time only up to the 4th Jhāna, where he reaches “Perfect Nibbāna”. One may ask why this tortuous procedure? The account varies greatly in some of the Chinese versions (see Pa-chow op. cit. 69).

c8.150

10. Contains the verses which Przyluski regards as very ancient, but the accounts in the different Chinese versions all contradict each other. (see Pa-Chow loc. cit.) 11-28: closely interwoven with the mythical and the miraculous. Buddha appears as a veritable great deity.

c8.151

DN. 17.—DN. 17 is an elaboration of DN. 16 V §§ 17-18.⁴³ Its lateness is further manifest from the detailed and gorgeous descriptions that it contains of the royal city, the 7 Jewels and the "Dhamma" palace. It also shows great exaggeration in numbers, and is not free from the miraculous.

c8.152

⁴³ See Bapat ABORI 1926 p. 10.

c8.153

Its Jātaka-form also suggests lateness, although it differs in several important respects from the Jātaka of the same name (No. 95 in Fausböll's edition).⁴⁴ It has no Paccuppannavatthu and differs radically in emphasis. According to Rhys Davids No. 95 serves to illustrate "Aniccā sabba-saṅkhārā" etc. Now the present sutta appears to be really addressed to the laity. It points out that king Suddassana got all his glory through the practice of the virtues of Dāna, Dama, and Saṃyama. And the implication is clear enough.

c8.154

⁴⁴ See Rhys Davids in intr to the tr of DN. 17 (Dialogues II).

c8.155

DN. 18.—DN. 18 is similar to the above in as much as it also is an elaboration of a portion of DN. 16 (II. 5-7).⁴⁵ It is permeated by the mythical and the miraculous. It mentions the four Iddhipādas, the three "Okāsādhigamas" (a rare set), the four "saṭipaṭṭhānas" and the three "aveccappasādas" And it mentions the eight elements of the Path in the form of "Samādhi" and its seven "Parikkhāras".

c8.156

⁴⁵ Bapat loc. cit.

c8.157

It is, therefore, in style as well as doctrine, late DN. 19.—Prof. Bapat suggests unconvincingly that DN. 19 is based on DN. 18.⁴⁶ It appears that we have here an ancient non-Buddhist story preaching the “Karunajhāna” as the way to the direct realization of Brahmā, converted to Buddhist purposes. This is suggested by several circumstances: It contains some old-looking memorial verses which contain the name of “Govinda” (the hero). This suggests that the present composition takes as its point d’appui an earlier legend. Further, it is interested solely in Brahmā, which is hardly to be expected from a composition originally Buddhist. Even the introduction of all the four Brahmavihāras, which, it may be remarked, occurs first in the penultimate section of the story proper, appears the work of the adapter, who, it is possible, was responsible for other changes also.

First 156 of 203 passages. Read on

Linked texts (42)