Part I. Tue DHamMaApPADA Part II. Tue Sutra-Nieata
[10] a
London
HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE
p. 7
THE
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST
TRANSLATED BY VARIOUS ORIENTAL SCHOLARS
AND EDITED BY
F. MAX MULLER
VOLUME X
PART I
@rford AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
p. 1881
[Ali rights reserved]
THE DHAMMAPADA
A COLLECTION OF VERSES
BEING ONE OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE BUDDHISTS
TRANSLATED FROM PALI
BY
F. MAX MULLER
ote
UIGi4
oe BEN SMIVERSITY, \, cy r anaes we
N
@rford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
p. 1881
[All rights reserved }
27K 7S
\
CONTENTS.
PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE DHAMMAPADA . . . . ix-lv DHAMMAPADA.
CuHapTER 1. The Twin-verses . . . . : . 3
” 2. On Earnestness . . . : . . 9
” 38. Thought. . . . . . . 12
» 4. Flowers . . . . . . . 16
” 5.. The Fool . . . . . - 20
” 6. The Wise Man (Pandita) soo 1 8 83
” 7. The Venerable (Arhat) . . . ry |
” 8. The Thousands . . . . . . 31
” 9. Evil . . . . . . . - 34
» 10. Punishment... . . . . . 36
» ll. OldAge . . . . . . . 41
» 12. Self. . . : . . . . 43
» 13. The World .~ . . . . - 47
» 14. The Buddha (the Avakened) . . . 49
» 1& Happiness . . . . - 53
» 16, Pleasure. . . . . . . 56
» 17. Anger . . . . . . - 58
» 18, Impurity. : . . . . . 60
» 19. The Just. . . . . . . . 64
» 20. “The Way . . . . : . . 67
» 21. Miscellaneous . . . . ny Le)
» 22. The Downward Course . . . . 44
» 23. The Elephant. . . . . . 77
» 24. Thirst . . . . . 80
» 25. The Bhikshu (Mendicant) . . . . 85
» 26. The Braéhmana (Arhat) . . . . . 89 Index
Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets .adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East (see the end of this volume) . rey
INTRODUCTION
TO , V L.Srpy
THE DHAMMAPADA, A Canonttat J Boo, - arate
THE Dhammapada forms part of the Pali Buddhist canon, though its exact place varies according to different authorities, and we have not as yet a sufficient number of complete MSS. of the Tipizaka to help us to decide the question}.
Those who divide that canon into three Pifakas or baskets, the Vinaya-pifaka, Sutta-pi¢aka, and Abhidhamma-pifaka, assign the Dhammapada to the Sutta-pifaka. That Pitaka consists of five Nikayas: the Digha-nikaya, the Magghima-nikaya, the Samyutta-nikaya, the Anguttaranikaya, and the Khuddaka-nikdya. The fifth, or Khuddakanikaya, comprehends the following works: 1. Khuddakapatha; 2. DHAMMAPADA; 3. Udana; 4. Itivuttaka; 5. Suttanipdta; 6. Vimanavatthu; 7. Petavatthu; 8. Theragatha ; g. Therigatha; 10. Gataka ; 11. Niddesa; 12. Pa¢isambhida; 13. Apadana; 14. Buddhavamsa ; 15. Kariy4-pitaka.
The fifth, or Khuddakanikaya, comprehends the following works: 1. Khuddakapatha; 2. DHAMMAPADA; 3. Udana; 4. Itivuttaka; 5. Suttanipdta; 6. Vimanavatthu; 7. Petavatthu; 8. Theragatha ; g. Therigatha; 10. Gataka ; 11. Niddesa; 12. Pa¢isambhida; 13. Apadana; 14. Buddhavamsa ; 15. Kariy4-pitaka.
According to another division 2, however, the whole Buddhist canon consists of five Nikayas: the Digha-nikaya, the Magghima-nikaya, the Samyutta-nikaya, the Anguttaranikaya, and the fifth, the Khuddaka-nikaya, which Khuddaka-nikaya is then made to comprehend the whole of the Vinaya (discipline) and Abhidhamma (metaphysics), together with the fifteen books beginning with the Khuddaka-pAzha.
The order of these fifteen books varies, and even, as it would seem, their number. The Dighabh4waka school
1 See Feer, Journal Asiatique, 1871, p. 263. There is now at least one com- f= plete MS. of the Tipitaka, the Phayre MS., at the India Office, and Professor Forchhammer has just published a most useful List of Pali MSS., collected in Burma, the largest collection hitherto known.
? See Childers, s, v. Nikdya, and extracts from Buddhaghosa’s. commentary on the Brahmagala-sutta.
x DHAMMAPADA.
admits twelve books only, and assigns them all to the Abhidhamma, while the Magg/imabh4zakas admit fifteen books, and assign them to the Sutta-pifaka. The order of the fifteen books is: 1. Gataka [10]; 2. Mahdniddesa [11]; 3. Kullaniddesa [11]; 4. Pazisambhidamagga [12]; 5. Suttanipata [5]; 6. DHAMMAPADA [2]; 7. Udana [3]; 8. Itivuttaka [4]; 9. Vimanavatthu [6]; 10. Petavatthu [7]; 11. Theragath4 [8]; 12. Therigatha [9]; 13. Kariy4pidaka [15]; 14. Apad4na [13]; 15. Buddhavamesa [14]}.
The Khuddaka-patha is left out in the second list, and the number is brought to fifteen by dividing Niddesa into Maha-niddesa and Kulla-niddesa.
There is a commentary on the Dhammapada in Pali, and supposed to be written by Buddhaghosa ?, in the first half of the fifth century A.D. In explaining the verses of the Dhammapada, the commentator gives for every or nearly every verse a parable to illustrate its meaning, which is likewise believed to have been uttered by Buddha in his intercourse with his disciples, or in preaching to the multitudes that came to hear him.
DATE OF THE DHAMMAPADA.
The only means of fixing the date of the Dhammapada is trying to ascertain the date of the Buddhist canon of which it forms a part, or the date of Buddhaghosa, who wrote a commentary on it. This, however, is by no means easy, and the evidence on which we have to rely is such that we must not be surprised if those who are accustomed to test historical and chronological evidence
1 The figures within brackets refer to the other list of books in the Khuddaka-nikaya. See also p. xxviii.
This, however, is by no means easy, and the evidence on which we have to rely is such that we must not be surprised if those who are accustomed to test historical and chronological evidence
1 The figures within brackets refer to the other list of books in the Khuddaka-nikaya. See also p. xxviii.
2 M. Léon Feer in the Journal Asiatique, 1871, p. 266, mentions another commentary of a more philosophical character, equally ascribed to Buddhaghosa, and having the title Vivara Bra Dhammapada, i.e. L’auguste Dhammapada dévoilé. Professor Forchhammer in his ‘ List of Manuscripts,’ 1879-80, mentions the following works in connection with the Dhammapada: Dhammapada- Nissayo; Dh. P. A¢thakatha by Buddhaghosa; Dh. P. Atthakatha Nissayo, 3 vols., containing a complete translation of the commentary; Dh. P. Vatthu. Of printed books he quotes: Kayanupassanakyam, a work based on the Garavaggo, Mandalay, 1876 (390 pages), and Dhammapada-desanakyam, printed in ‘ British Burma News.’
INTRODUCTION. xi
in Greece and Rome, decline to be convinced by it. As a general rule, I quite agree that we cannot be too sceptical in assigning a date to ancient books, particularly if we intend to use them as documents for tracing the history of human thought. To the initiated, I mean to those who have themselves worked in the mines of ancient Oriental literature, such extreme scepticism may often seem unscientific and uncalled for. They are more or less aware of hundreds of arguments, each by itself, it may be, of small weight, but all combined proving irresistible. They are conscious, too, of having been constantly on the look out for danger, and, as all has gone on smoothly, they feel sure that, in the main, they are on the right road. Still it is always useful to be as incredulous as possible, particularly against oneself, and to have before our eyes critics who will not yield one inch beyond what they are forced to yield by the strongest pressure of facts.
The age of our MSS. of the canonical books, either in Pali or Sanskrit, is of no help to us. All Indian MSS. are comparatively modern, and one who has probably handled more Indian MSS. than anybody else, Mr. A. Burnell, has lately expressed his conviction that ‘no MS. written one thousand years ago is now existent in India, and that it is almost impossible to find one written five hundred years ago, for most MSS. which claim to be of that date are merely copies of old MSS. the dates of which are repeated by the copyists?.’
Nor is the language, whether Sanskrit or P4li, a safe guide for fixing dates. Both languages continue to be written to our own time, and though there are some characteristic marks to distinguish more modern from more ancient Buddhist Sanskrit and Pa4li, this branch of critical scholarship requires to be cultivated far more extensively and accurately before true scholars would venture to fix the date of a Sanskrit or Pali text on the strength of linguistic evidence alone ?,
1 Indian Antiquary, 1880, p. 233. 3 See some important remarks on this subject in Fausboll’s Introduction to Sutta-nipata, p. xi.
Xil DHAMMAPADA.
The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty in assigning a date to their sacred canon. They are told in that canon itself that it was settled at the First Council, or immediately after the death of Buddha, and they believe that it was afterwards handed down by means of oral tradition, or actually written down in books by order of Késyapa, the president of the First Council?, Buddhaghosa, a learned and in some respects a critical scholar, living in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., asserts that the canon which he had before him, was the same as that fixed by the First Council ?.
Several European students have adopted the same opinion, and, so far as I know, no argument has yet been| advanced showing the impossibility of the native view, that some collection of Buddha’s doctrines was made im-. mediately after his death at RAgagaha, and that it was finally settled at what is called the Second Council, or the’ Council of Vesali. But what is not impossible is not therefore true, nor can anything be gained by appealing to later witnesses, such as, for instance, Hiouen Thsang, who travelled through India in the seventh century, and wrote down anything that he could learn, little concerned whether one statement tallied with the other or not’. He says that the Tipitaka was written down on palm leaves by Kasyapa at the end of the First Council. But what can be the weight of such a witness, living more than a thousand years after the event, compared with that, for instance, of the Mahaévamsa, which dates from the fifth century of our era, and
1 Bigandet, Life of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), p. 350; but also p.120 note.
2 See Childers, s.v. Tipitaka. There is a curious passage in Buddhaghosa’s account of the First Council. ‘ Now one may ask,’ he says, ‘ Is there or is there not in this first Paragika anything to be taken away or added?’ I reply, There is nothing in the words of the Blessed Buddha that can be taken away, for the Buddhas speak not even a single syllable in vain, yet in the words of disciples and devatds there are things which may be omitted, and these the elders who made the recension, did omit. On the other hand, additions are everywhere necessary, and accordingly, whenever it was necessary to add anything, they added it. Ifit be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ‘at that time,’ ‘again at that time,’ ‘and so forth.’
> Pélerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p.158.
INTRODUCTION. Xili
Ifit be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ‘at that time,’ ‘again at that time,’ ‘and so forth.’
> Pélerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p.158.
INTRODUCTION. Xili
tells us in the account of Mahinda’s missionary journey to Ceylon (241/318), that the son of Asoka had to spend three years in learning the Tipizaka by heart from the mouth of a teacher!? No mention is then made of any books or MSS., when it would have been most natural to do so*. Ata later time, during the reign of King Vastagamani*® (88-76 B.C.), the same chronicle, the Mahavamsa, tells us that ‘the profoundly wise priests had theretofore orally (mukhapaésena) perpetuated the Pali of the Pitakattaya and its A¢thakatha (commentary), but that at this period the priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people assembled, and in order that the religion might endure for ages, recorded the same in books (potthakesu likhapayum)*
No one has yet questioned the dates of the Dipavamsa, about 400 A.D., or of the first part of the Mahdvamsa, between 459-477 A.D., and though no doubt there is an interval of nearly 600 years between the composition of the Mahavamsa and the recorded writing down of the Buddhist canon under Va¢fagdmani, yet we must remember that the Ceylonese chronicles were confessedly founded on an older A¢thakatha preserved in the monasteries of the island, and representing an unbroken line of local tradition.
My own argument therefore, so long as the question was only whether we could assign a pre-Christian date to the Pali Buddhist canon, has always been this. We have the commentaries on the Pali canon translated from Sinhalese into P&li, or actually composed, it may be, by Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa confessedly consulted various
1 Mahavamsa, p. 37; DipavamsaVII, 28-31; Buddhaghosha’s Parables, p. xviii.
3 Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, p. 351.
* Dr. E. Miiller (Indian Antiquary, Nov. 1880, p. 270) has discovered inscriptions in Ceylon, belonging to Devanapiya Maharaga GAmini Tissa, whom he identifies with VattagAmani.
* The same account is given in the Dipavamsa XX, 20, and in the Sarasafigraha, as quoted by Spence Hardy, Legends, p.192. As throwing light on the completeness of the Buddhist canon at the time of King Vattagdmani, it should be mentioned that, according to the commentary on the Mahavamsa (Turnour, p. liii), the sect of the Dhammarutikas established itself at the Abhayavihara, which had been constructed by Vattagdmani, and that one of the grounds of their secession was their refusing to acknowledge the Parivara (thus I read instead of Pariwana) as part of the Vinaya-pitaka. According to the Dipavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara.
XIV DHAMMAPADA.
According to the Dipavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara.
XIV DHAMMAPADA.
MSS., and gives various readings, just as any modern scholar might do. This was in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., and there is nothing improbable, though I would say no more, in supposing that some of the MSS., consulted by Buddhaghosa, dated from the first century B.C., when Vaé“agdmani ordered the sacred canon to be reduced to writing.
There is one other event with reference to the existence of the sacred canon in Ceylon, recorded in the Mah4vamsa, between the time of Buddhaghosa and Vadtagamani, viz. the translation of the Suttas from Pali into the language of Ceylon, during the reign of Buddhad4sa, 339-368 A.D. If MSS. of that ancient translation still existed, they would, no doubt, be very useful for determining the exact state of the Pali originals at that time’. But even without them there seems no reason to doubt that Buddhaghosa had before him old MSS. of the Pali canon, and that these were in the main the same as those written down at the time of Vatéagdmani.
_BUDDHAGHOSA’S AGE.
The whole of this argument, however, rested on the supposition that Buddhaghosa’s date in the beginning of the fifth century A.D. was beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. ‘His age,’ I had ventured to say in the Preface to Buddhaghosha’s Parables (1870), ‘can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.’ But soon after, one of our most celebrated Pali scholars, the great Russian traveller, Professor Joh. Minayeff, expressed in the Mélanges Asiatiques (13/25 April, 1871) the gravest-doubts as to Buddhaghosa’s age, and thus threw the whole Buddhist chronology, so far as it had then been accepted by all, or nearly all scholars, back into chaos. He gave as his chief reason that Buddhaghosa was not, as I supposed, the contemporary of Mah4n4ma, the
1 A note is added, stating that several portions of the other two divisions also of the Pitakattaya were translated into the Sinhalese language, and that these alone are consulted by the priests, who are unacquainted with Pali. On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the Atthakatha exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69.
INTRODUCTION. XV
author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mah4n4ma, the king of Ceylon.
On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the Atthakatha exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69.
INTRODUCTION. XV
author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mah4n4ma, the king of Ceylon.
Professor Minayeff is undoubtedly right in this, but Iam not aware that I, or anybody else, had ever questioned so palpable a fact. There are two Mahandmas; one, the king who reigned from 410-432 A.D.; the other, the supposed author of the Mahavamsa, the uncle and protector of King DhAatusena, 459-477. ‘ Dhatusena,’ I had written, ‘was the nephew of the historian Mahandma, and owed the throne to the protection of his uncle. Dhatusena was in fact the restorer of a national dynasty, and after having defeated the foreign usurpers (the Damilo dynasty) “he restored the religion which had been set aside by the foreigners”’ (Mahav. p. 256). Among his many pious acts it is particularly mentioned that he gave a thousand, and ordered the Dipavamsa to be promulgated. As Mahandma was the uncle of Dhatusena, who reigned from 459-477, he may be considered as a trustworthy witness with regard to events that occurred between 410 and 432. Now the literary activity of Buddhaghosa in Ceylon falls in that period’?
These facts being admitted, it is surely not too great a stretch of probability to suppose, as I did, that a man whose nephew was king in 459-477, might have been alive in 410-432, that is to say, might have been a contemporary of Buddhaghosa. I did not commit myself to any further theories. The question whether Mahanama, the uncle of Dhatusena, was really the author of the Mah4vamsa, the question whether he wrote the second half of the 37th chapter of that work, or broke off his chronicle in the middle of that chapter, I did not discuss, having no new materials to bring forward beyond those on which Turnour and those who followed him had founded their conclusions, and which I had discussed in my History of Sanskrit Literature (1859), p. 267. All I said was, ‘It is difficult to determine whether the 38th as well as the (whole of the) 37th chapter came from the pen of Mahanama, for
* ‘Ungefahr 50 Jahre alter als Mah4nama ist Buddhaghosha,’ see Westergaard, Uber Buddha's Todesjahr, p. 99.
XVI DHAMMAPADA.
the Mahdvamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mah4n4ma carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D.
99.
XVI DHAMMAPADA.
the Mahdvamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mah4n4ma carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D.
What I meant by ‘all the circumstances of the case’ might easily be understood by any one who had read Turnour’s Preface to the Mah4vamsa. Turnour himself thought at first that Mahan4ma’s share in the Mahdvamsa ended with the year 301 A.D.,and that the rest of the work, called the Sulu Wansé, was composed by subsequent writers}. Dharmakirti is mentioned by name as having continued the work to the reign of Prakrama Bahu (A.D. 1266). But Turnour afterwards changed his mind?. Considering that the account of Mahdsena’s reign, the first of the Seven Kings, terminates in the middle of a chapter, at verse 48, while the whole chapter is called the Sattaragiko, ‘the chapter of the Seven Kings,’ he naturally supposed that the whole of that chapter, extending to the end of the reign of his nephew DhAtusena, might be the work of Mah4ndma, unless there were any strong proofs to the contrary. Such proofs, beyond the tradition of writers of the MSS., have not, as yet, been adduced °.
But even if it could be proved that Mah4ndma’s own pen did not go beyond the 48th verse of the 37th chapter, the historical trustworthiness of the concluding portion of that chapter, containing the account of Buddhaghosa’s literary activity, nay, even of the 38th chapter, would be little affected thereby. We know that both the Mahdvamsa and the somewhat earlier Dipavamsa were founded on the Sinhalese Azthakath4s, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the Mahavihara at Anurddhapura. We also know that that Vihdra was demolished by Mahdsena, and deserted by nearly all its inmates for the space of nine years (p. 235), and again for the space of nine months
1 Introduction, p.ii. The Kfllavamsa is mentioned with the Mahavamsa, both as the works of Mahan4ma, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pali MSS.
3 Introduction, p. xci.
® See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p.196.
INTRODUCTION. XVii
The Kfllavamsa is mentioned with the Mahavamsa, both as the works of Mahan4ma, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pali MSS.
3 Introduction, p. xci.
® See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p.196.
INTRODUCTION. XVii
(p. 237). We can well understand therefore why the older history, the Dipavamsa, should end with the death of Mahasena (died 302 A.D.), and why in the MahAvamsa too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during Mah4n4ma’s life, the Mahavihara at Anurddhapura was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the Dipavamsa, whether it be a general name of any ‘chronicle of the island,’ or of our Dipavamsa, or, it may be, even of our Mahavamsa, was ordered to be published or promulgated (dipetum) under Dhatusena, the nephew and protegé of Mahanama. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of Mah4n4ma, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of Anurfdhapura during Dhatusena’s reign, and probably under the personal auspices of Mahan4ma, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his Mahavamsa, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the Mah4vih4ra and the reign of Dhatusena, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese A¢¢hakath4 into the language of Magadha, we may well suppose that they rest on the authority of native chronicles, written not long after the events, and that therefore, ‘under all the circumstances of the case,’ the age of Buddhaghosa can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.
There is one difficulty still remaining with regard to the date of the historian Mahanama which might have perplexed Turnour’s mind, and has certainly proved a stumblingblock to myself. Turnour thought that the author of the commentary on the Mahdvamsa, the VamsatthappakAsini, was the same as the author of the Mah4vamsa, viz. Mah4nama. The date of that commentary, however, as we know now, must be fixed much later, for it speaks of a schism which took place in the year 601 A.D., during the reign of Agrabédhi (also called Dhatapatisso). Turnour’ looked
, 1 Introduction, p. liii.
de [ro] b
XVili DHAMMAPADA.
upon that passage as a later interpolation, because he thought the evidence for the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa too strong to be set aside. He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which he drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mah4vamsa (p. 254):
He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which he drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mah4vamsa (p. 254):
‘Certain members of the Moriyan dynasty, dreading the power of the (usurper) Subho, the balattho, had settled in various parts of the country, concealing themselves. Among them there was a certain landed proprietor Dhatusena, who had established himself at Nandivapi. His son named Dhatd, who lived at the village Ambiliy4go, had two sons, Dhatusena and Silatissabodhi, of unexceptional descent. Their mother’s brother (Mah4n4ma), devoted to the cause of religion, continued to reside (at Anuradhapura) in his sacerdotal character, at the edifice built by the minister Dighasandana. The youth DhAatusena became a priest in his fraternity, and on a certain day, while he was chaunting at the foot of a tree, a shower of rain fell, and a Naga, seeing him there, encircled him in his folds, and covered him and his book with his hood.... Causing an image of Mah4 Mahinda to be made, and conveying it to the edifice (AmbamAlaka) in which the thera’s body had been burnt, in order that he might celebrate a great festival there, and that he might also promulgate the contents of the Dipavamsa, distributing a thousand pieces, he caused it to be read aloud ?.’
If we compare with this extract from the Mahavamsa a passage from the commentary as translated. by Turnour, we can well understand how he arrived at the conclusion that it was written by the same person who wrote the Mahavamsa.
Turnour translates (p. liv):
‘Upon these data by me, the thera, who had, with due
1 Mr. Turnour added a note in which he states that Dipavamsa is here meant for Mahavamsa, but whether brought down to this period, or only to the end of the reign of Mah&sena, to which alone the Tik4 extends, there is no means of ascertaining (p. 257).
INTRODUCTION. xix
solemnity, been invested with the dignified title of Mahanama, resident at the pariveza founded by the minister Dighasandana, endowed with the capacity requisite to record the narrative comprised in the Mahavamsa, in due order, rejecting only the dialect in which the Singhalese Az¢akatha are written, but retaining their import and following their arrangement, the history, entitled the Palapadéruvamsa (Padyapadanuvamsa), is compiled. As even in times when the despotism of the ruler of the land, and- the horrors arising from the inclemencies of the seasons, and when panics of epidemics and other visitations prevailed, this work escaped all injury; and moreover, as it serves to perpetuate the fame of the Buddhas, their disciples, and the Paché Buddhas of old, it is also worthy of bearing the title of VamsatthappakAsini,’
As the evidence of these two passages in support of the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa seemed to me very startling, I requested Mr. Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary.
Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary.
The passage runs as follows:
Y4 ettavaté mahavamsatth4nusd4rakusalena Dighasandasenapatina karapita-mahdparivezavasina Mah4ndmo ti gar0hi gahitandmadheyyena thereva pubba-Sihala-bhasitaya Sthalasthakathaya bhdsantaram eva vaggiya atthasdram eva gahetva tantinayanurdpena katassa imassa Padyapadanuvamsassa atthavayvand may4 tam eva sannissitena araddha, padesissariya- dubbu¢¢hibhaya - rogabhayAdi - vividha-antaraya-yuttakale pi anantarayena niz#Z4nam upagata, s4 buddha-buddhasavaka-pakkekabuddhadinam poram4nam kikkam pubbavamsatthappakdsanato ayam Vamsatthappakasini nama ti dharetabb4. . . . Padyapaddnuvamsavannana Vamsatthappakasini niz¢sita,
Mr. Rhys Davids translates this:
‘The commentary on this Padyapadanuvamsa, which (latter work) was made (in the same order and arrangement, and retaining the sense, but rejecting the dialect, of the Sinhalese commentary formerly expressed in the Sinhalese tongue) by the elder who bore the name of Mahan4ma, which he had b 2
XX DHAMMAPADA.
received from the venerable, who resided at the MahAparivena built by the minister Dighasanda, and who was well able to conform to the sense of the Mahavamsa—(this commentary) which was undertaken by me out of devotion to that (history), and which (though thus undertaken) at a time full of danger of various kinds—such as the danger from disease, and the danger from drought, and the danger from the government of the province—has been safely brought to a conclusion—this (commentary), since it makes known the meaning of the history of old, the mission of the ancients, of the Buddhas, of their disciples, and of the Pakkeka Buddhas, should bear the name Vamsatthappakasini....
‘End of the VamsatthappakAsini, the commentary on the Padyapadanuvamsa.’
This shows clearly that Turnour made a mistake in translating this exceedingly involved, yet perfectly intelligible, passage, and that so far from proving that the author of the commentary was the same person as the author of the text}, it proves the very contrary. Nay, I feel bound to add, that we might now argue that as the commentator must have lived later than 601 A.D., the fact that he too breaks off at verse 48 of chapter 37, seems to show that at his time also the Mahavamsa did not extend as yet beyond that verse. But even then, the fact that with the restoration of the Mahavihara of Anuradhapura an interest in historical studies revived in Ceylon, would clearly show that we may trust the date of Buddhaghosa, as fixed by the second part of the 37th chapter of the Mahd4vamsa, at all events till stronger evidence is brought forward against such a date.
Now I am not aware of any such evidence*. On the contrary, making allowance for a difference of some ten or twenty years, all the evidence which we can gain from other quarters tends to confirm the date of Buddha-
’ Dr. Oldenberg informs me that the commentator quotes various readings in the text of the Mahavamsa.
On the contrary, making allowance for a difference of some ten or twenty years, all the evidence which we can gain from other quarters tends to confirm the date of Buddha-
’ Dr. Oldenberg informs me that the commentator quotes various readings in the text of the Mahavamsa.
* The passage, quoted by Professor Minayeff from the Sasanavamsa, would assign to Buddhaghosa the date of 930— 543 = 387 4.D., which can easily be reconciled with his accepted date. If he is called the contemporary of Sirip4la, we ought to know who that Siripala is,
_ INTRODUCTION. xxi ghosa!. I therefore feel no hesitation in here reprinting that story, as we find it in the Mahavamsa, not free from legendary ingredients, it is true, yet resting, I believe, on a sound foundation of historical fact.
‘A Brahman youth, born in the neighbourhood of the terrace of the great Bo-tree (in Magadha), accomplished in the “vigg4” (knowledge) and “sippa” (art), who had achieved the knowledge of the three Vedas, and possessed great aptitude in attaining acquirements; indefatigable as a schismatic disputant, and himself a_schismatic wanderer over Gambudipa, established himself, in the character of a disputant, in a certain vihdra?, and was in the habit of rehearsing, by night and by day with clasped hands, a discourse which he had learned, perfect in all its component parts, and sustained throughout in the same lofty strain. A certain Mahathera, Revata, becoming acquainted with him there, and (saying to himself), “ This individual is a person of profound knowledge, it will be worthy (of me) to convert him;” enquired, “Who is this who is braying like an ass?” The Brahman replied to him, “Thou canst define, then, the meaning conveyed in the bray of asses.” On the Thera rejoining, “I can define it;” he (the Brahman) exhibited the extent of the knowledge he possessed. The Thera criticised each of his propositions, and pointed out in what respect they were fallacious. He who had been thus refuted, said, ‘Well, then, descend to thy own creed ;” and he propounded to him a passage from the Abhidhamma (of the Piakattaya). He (the Brahman) could not divine the signification of that passage, and enquired, “Whose manta is this?” —“It is Buddha’s manta.” On his exclaiming, “Impart it to me;” the Thera replied, “Enter the sacerdotal order.” He who was desirous of acquiring the knowledge of the Piakattaya, subsequently coming to this conviction, “ This is the sole road” (to salvation), became a convert to that faith. As he was as profound in his eloquence (ghosa) as Buddha himself, they conferred on him the appellation of Buddhaghosa (the
1 See Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, pp. 351, 381. 2 On this vihara, its foundation and character, see Oldenberg, Vinaya, vol. i. p- liii; Hiouen-thsang, III, p. 487 seq.
XXil DHAMMAPADA. —
351, 381. 2 On this vihara, its foundation and character, see Oldenberg, Vinaya, vol. i. p- liii; Hiouen-thsang, III, p. 487 seq.
XXil DHAMMAPADA. —
voice of Buddha) ; and throughout the world he became as renowned as Buddha. Having there (in Gambudipa) composed an original work called MAnodaya (Rise of Knowledge), he, at the same time, wrote the chapter called Aithasalini, on the Dhammasangani (one of the commentaries on the Abhidhamma).
‘Revata Thera then observing that he was desirous of undertaking the compilation of a general commentary on the Piakattaya, thus addressed him: “The text alone of the Pizakattaya has been preserved in this land, the A/zthakatha are not extant here, nor is there any version to be found of the schisms (vada) complete. The Sinhalese Adthakath4 are genuine. They were composed in the Sinhalese language by the inspired and profoundly wise Mahinda, who had previously consulted the discourses (kathAmagga) of Buddha, authenticated at the three convocations, and the dissertations and arguments of S4riputta and others, and they are extant among the Sinhalese. Preparing for this, and studying the same, translate them according to the rules of the grammar of the Magadhas. It will be an act conducive to the welfare of the whole world.”
‘Having been thus advised, this eminently wise personage rejoicing therein, departed from thence, and visited this island in the reign of this monarch (i.e. Mahandma, 410- 432). On reaching the Mah4vihara (at Anuradhapura), he entered the Mah4padh4na hall, the most splendid of the apartments in the vihdra, and listened to the Sinhalese Adthakatha, and the Theravada, from the beginning to the end, propounded by the Thera Sanghapdla; and became thoroughly convinced that they conveyed the true meaning of the doctrines of the Lord of Dhamma. Thereupon paying reverential respect to the priesthood, he thus petitioned: “I am desirous of translating the A/¢thakatha ; give me access to all your books.” The priesthood, for the purpose of testing his qualifications, gave only two gathas, saying, “Hence prove thy qualification; having satisfied ourselves on this point, we will then let thee have all our books.” From these (taking these gAtha4 for his text), and
INTRODUCTION. XXiil
XXiil
consulting the Pi/akattaya, together with the A¢thakatha, and condensing them into an abridged form, he composed the work called the Visuddhimagga. Thereupon, having assembled the priesthood, who had acquired a thorough knowledge of the doctrines of Buddha, at the Bo-tree, he commenced to read out the work he had composed. The devatas, in order that they might make his (Buddhaghosa’s) gifts of wisdom celebrated among men, rendered that book invisible. He, however, for a second and third time recomposed it. When he was in the act of producing his book for the third time, for the purpose of propounding it, the devatds restored the other two copies also. The assembled priests then read out the three books simultaneously. In those three versions there was no variation whatever from the orthodox Theravadas in passages, in words, or in syllables. Thereupon, the priesthood rejoicing, again and again fervently shouted forth, saying, “Most assuredly this is Metteya (Buddha) himself,” and made over to him the books in which the Pitakattaya were recorded, together with the A/thakatha. Taking up his residence in the secluded Ganthakara-vihara (at Anuradhapura), he translated, according to the grammatical rules of the M4gadhas, which is the root of all languages, the whole of the Sinhalese A7¢¢hakatha (into Pali). This proved an achievement of the utmost consequence to all beings, whatever their language.
‘All the Theras and Afariyas held this compilation in the same estimation as the text (of the Pitakattaya). Thereafter, the objects of his mission having been fulfilled, he returned to Gambudipa, to worship at the Bo-tree (at Uruvelaya, or Uruvilva, in Magadha).’
Here! we have a simple account of Buddhaghosa? and
' Mahavamsa, p. 250, translated by Turnour.
7 The Burmese entertain the highest respect for Buddhaghosa. Bishop Bigandet, in his Life or Legend of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), writes: ‘It is perhaps as well to mention here an epoch which has been, at all times, famous in the history of Budhism in Burma. I allude to the voyage which a Religious of Thaton, named Budhagosa, made to Ceylon, in the year of religion 943 = 400 a.p. The object of this voyage was to procure a copy of the scriptures. He succeeded in his undertaking. He made use of the Burmese, or rather Talaing
XXIV DHAMMAPADA.
his literary labours written by a man, himself a priest, and who may well have known Buddhaghosa during his stay in Ceylon. It is true that the statement of his writing the same book three times over without a single various reading, partakes a little of the miraculous; but we find similar legends mixed up with accounts of translations of other sacred books, and we cannot contend that writers who believed in such legends are therefore altogether unworthy to be believed as historical witnesses.
But although the date which we can assign to Buddhaghosa’s translation of the commentaries on the PAli Tipitaka proves the existence of that canon, not only for the beginning of the fifth century of our era, but likewise, though it may be, with less stringency, for the first century before our era, the time of Va¢tag4mani, the question whether Buddhaghosa was merely a compiler and translator of old commentaries, and more particularly of the commentaries brought to Ceylon by Mahinda (241 B.C.), or whether he added anything of his own}, requires to be more carefully examined. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty on that point. They consider the A¢édakathd4s or commentaries as old as the canon itself. To us, such a supposition seems improbable, yet it has never been proved to be impossible. The Mahavamsa tells us that Mahinda, the son of Asoka, who had become a priest, learnt the whole of the Buddhist canon, as it then was, in three years (p. 37)?; and that at the end of the Third Council he was despatched to Ceylon, in order to establish there the religion of Buddha (p. 71). The king of Ceylon, Devanampiya Tissa, was converted, and Buddhism soon became the dominant characters, in transcribing the manuscripts, which were written with the characters of Magatha. The Burmans lay much stress upon that voyage, and always carefully note down the year it took place. In fact, it is to Budhagosa that the people living on the’shores of the Gulf of Martaban owe the possession of the Budhist scriptures. From Thaton, the collection made by Budhagosa was transferred to Pagan, six hundred and fifty years after it had been imported from Ceylon.’ See ibid. p. 392.
1 He had written the Nanodaya, and the A‘thasalint, a commentary on the Dhamma-sangani, before he went to Ceylon. Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251.
2 He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma) ; the two Vibhatgas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251.
2 He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma) ; the two Vibhatgas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
religion of the island. The Tipitaka and the A7¢thakatha, such as they had been collected or settled at the Third Council in 242 B.C., were brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, who promulgated them orally, the Tipifaka in Pali, the Atthakatha in Sinhalese, together with an additional Atthakatha of his own. It does not follow that Mahinda knew the whole of that enormous literature by heart, for, as he was supported by a number of priests, they may well have divided the different sections among them, following the example of Ananda and Upali at the First Council. The same applies to their disciples also. But the fact of their transmitting the sacred literature by oral tradition! was evidently quite familiar to the author of the Mah4vamsa. For when he comes to describe the reign of Vattagdmani (88-76 B.C.) he simply says: ‘The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the Pali Pisakattaya and its Azthakatha (commentaries). At this period these priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people (from the perversions of the true doctrines), assembled; and in order that the religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books.’ No valid objection has yet been advanced to our accepting Buddhaghosa’s A¢‘akathds as a translation and new redaction of the A¢thakath4s which were reduced to writing under Va¢tagAmani?, and these again as a translation of the old A¢thakath4s brought to Ceylon by Mahinda*. There is prima facie evidence in favour of the truth of historical events vouched for by such works as the Dipavamsa and the Mahdvamsa so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before Mahandma’s time. Beyond Mahinda we move in legendary history, and must be ready to surrender every name and every date as soon as rebutting evidence has been produced, but not till then.
I cannot, therefore, see any reason why we should not treat the verses of the Dhammapada, if not as the utterances of Buddha, at least as what were believed by the
1 On the importance of oral tradition in the history of Sanskrit literature see the writer’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, pp. 497-524. ? Mahavamsa, p. 207; Dipavamsa XX, 20. 3 Mahavamsa, p. 251.
XXVi DHAMMAPADA.
members of the Council under Asoka, in 242 B.C., to have been the utterances of the founder of their religion; nor can I see that Professor Minayeff has shaken the date of Buddhaghosa and the general credibility of the Ceylonese tradition, that he was the translator and editor of commentaries which had existed in the island for many centuries, whether from the time of Va¢tagd4mani or from the time of Mahinda.
DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON.
DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON.
We now return to the question of the date of the Buddhist canon, which, as yet, we have only traced back to the first century before Christ, when it was reduced to writing in Ceylon under King Va¢¢agdmani. The question is, how far beyond that date we may trace its existence in a collected form, or in the form of the three Pitakas or baskets. There may be, and we shall see that there is, some doubt as to the age of certain works, now incorporated in the Tipifaka. We are told, for instance, that some doubt attached to the canonicity of the Kariy4-pizaka, the Apadana, and the Buddhavamsa}, and there is another book of the Abhidhammapitaka, the Kath4vatthu, which was reported to be the work of Tissa Moggaliputta, the president of the Third Council. Childers, s. v., stated that it was composed by the apostle Moggaliputtatissa, and delivered by him at the Third Mahasangiti. The same scholar, however, withdrew this opinion on p. 507 of his valuable Dictionary, where he says: ‘It is a source of great regret to me that in my article on Kathavatthuppakarazam I inadvertently followed James D’Alwis in the stupendous blunder of his assertion that the Kathavatthu was added by Moggaliputtatissa’ at the Third Convocation. The Kathavatthu is one of the Abhidhamma books, mentioned by Buddhaghosa as having been rehearsed at the First Convocation, immediately after Gotama’s death ; and the passage in Mahavamsa upon which D’Alwis rests his assertion is as follows, Kathavatthuppakararazam paravadappamaddanam abh4si Tissatthero 4a tasmim sangitimazdale, which simply means ‘in that Convocation-assem-
1 See Childers, s. v. Nikaya.
INTRODUCTION. XXVil
bly the Thera Tissa also recited (Buddha’s) heresy-crushing Kathavatthuppakaraaa.’
This mistake, for I quite agree with Childers that it was a mistake, becomes however less stupendous than at first sight it would appear, when we read the account given in the Dipavamsa. Here the impression is easily conveyed that Moggaliputta was the author of the Kath4vatthu, and that he recited it for the first time at the Third Council. ‘Wise Moggaliputta, we read}, ‘the destroyer of the schismatic doctrines, firmly established the TheravAda, and held the Third Council. Having destroyed the different (heretical) doctrines, and subdued many shameless people, and restored splendour to the (true) faith, he proclaimed (pakAsayi) (the treatise called) Kathavatthu.’ And again: ‘ They all were sectarians?, opposed to the Theravada; and in order to annihilate them and to make his own doctrine resplendent, the Thera set forth (desesi) the treatise belonging to the Abhidhamma, which is called Kathavatthu?,’
At present, however, we are not concerned with these smaller questions. We treat the canon as a whole, divided into three parts, and containing the books which still exist in MSS., and we want to find out at what time such a collection was made. The following is a short abstract of the Tipitaka, chiefly taken from Childers’ Pali Dictionary :
’ I. Vinaya-piztaka.
1. Vibhanga 4. Vol. I, beginning with Péragika, or sins involving expulsion. Vol. II, beginning with Paéittiya, or sins involving penance.
2. Khandhaka. Vol. I, Mahavagga, the large section. Vol. II, Kullavagga, the small section.
3. Parivarapazka, an appendix and later resumé (25 chapters). See p. xiii, n. 4; p. xxiv, n. 2.
1 Dipavamsa VII, 40. 3 Dipavamsa VII, 55.
3 Dr. Oldenberg, in his Introduction to the Vinaya-pitaka, p. xxxii.
‘4 Oldenberg, Vinaya-pitaka I, p. xvi, treats it as an extended reading of the Patimokkha.
XXVIil DHAMMAPADA.
II. Sutta-pitaka.
1. Digha-nikaya, collection of long suttas (34 suttas) 1.
2. Magghima-nikaya, collection of middle suttas (152 suttas).
3. Samyutta-nikaya, collection of joined suttas.
4. Anguttara-nikaya?, miscellaneous suttas, in divisions the length of which increases by one.
5. Khuddaka-nikAya 3, the collection of short suttas, consisting of—
Khuddakapa¢ha, the small texts +,
. Dhammapada, law verses (423) >.
Udana, praise (82 suttas).
. Itivuttaka, stories referring to sayings of Buddha.
Suttanipata, 70 suttas °.
. Vim4navatthu, stories of Vim4nas, celestial palaces.
. Petavatthu, stories of Pretas, departed spirits.
. Theragath4, stanzas of monks.
. Therigath4, stanzas of nuns.
Gataka, former births (550 tales)’.
11. Niddesa, explanations of certain suttas by Sariputta.
_ ry ° .
p. 00
_
' The Mahéparinibbana-sutta, ed. by Childers, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, translated with other Suttas by Rhys Davids (S.B.E. vol. xi). Sept Suttas Palis, par Grimblot, Paris, 1876.
? The first four are sometimes called the Four Nikdyas, the five together the Five Nikayas. They represent the Dharma, as settled at the First and Second Councils, described in the Kullavagga (Oldenberg, I, p. xi).
5 Sometimes Khuddaka-nikaya stands for the whole Vinaya and Abhidhammapitaka, with the fifteen divisions here given of Khuddaka-nikaya. In the commentary on the Brahmagéla-sutta it is said that the Dighanikaya professors rehearsed the text of the Gataka, Maha and Kulla Niddesa, Patisambhidamagga, Suttanipata, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Vimana, and Petavatthu, Thera and Theri Gatha, and called it Khuddakagantha, and made it a canonical text, forming part of the Abhidhamma; while the Magghimanik4ya professors assert that, with the addition of the Kariy4pitaka, Apadana, and Buddhavamsa, the whole of this Khuddakagantha was included in the Suttapitaka. See Childers, s.v. Nikaya. See also p. x.
‘* Published by Childers, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1869.
5 Published by Fausbdll, 1855.
See Childers, s.v. Nikaya. See also p. x.
‘* Published by Childers, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1869.
5 Published by Fausbdll, 1855.
® Thirty translated by Sir Coom4ra SwAmy; the whole by Fausbdll, in Sacred Books of the East, vol. x.
7 Published by Fausbill, translated by Rhys Davids.
INTRODUCTION. XXIX
12. Patisambhidamagga, the road of discrimination, and intuitive insight.
13. Apadana}, legends.
14. Buddhavamsa', story of twenty-four preceding Buddhas and of Gotama.
15. Kariyapifaka', basket of conduct, Buddha’s meritorious actions’,
III. Abhidhamma-pifzaka.
1. Dhammasangazi, numeration of conditions of life’.
2. Vibhanga, disquisitions (18).
3. Kathavatthupakaraza, book of subjects for discussion (1000 suttas).
4. Puggalapaz#“atti or paznatti, declaration on puggala, or personality.
5. Dh&tukatha, account of dhatus or elements.
6. Yamaka, pairs (ten divisions).
4. Patthanapakarama, book of causes.
Taking this collection as a whole we may lay it down as self-evident that the canon, in its collected form, cannot be older than any of the events related therein.
There are two important facts for determining the age of the Pali canon, which, as Dr. Oldenberg* has been the first to show, should take precedence of all other arguments, viz.
1. That in the Tipitaka, as we now have it, no mention is made of the so-called Third Council, which took place at Pa¢aliputta, under King Asoka, about 242 B.C.
2. That in the Tipitaka, as we now have it, the First Council of RAagagaha (477 B.C.) and the Second Council of Vesalt (377 B.C.) are both mentioned.
_ From these two facts it may safely be concluded that the Buddhist canon, as handed down to us, was finally closed
1 Buddhaghosa does not say whether these were recited at the First Council.
2 Partly translated by Gogerly, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Ceylon, 1852.
® Cf. Gogerly, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Ceylon, 1848, p. 7.
* See Oldenberg’s Vinaya-pitaka, Introduction, p.xxv. The kings Agatasatru (485-453 8.c.), Udayin (453-437 B.c.), and Munda (437-429 B.C.) are all mentioned in the Tipitaka. See Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., XXXIV, PP. 752, 753-
XXX DHAMMAPADA.
after the Second and before, or possibly at, the Third Council. Nay, the fact that the description of the two Councils stands at the very end of the Kullavagga may be taken, as Dr. Oldenberg remarks, as an indication that it was one of the latest literary contributions which obtained canonical authority, while the great bulk of the canon may probably claim a date anterior to the Second Council.
Oldenberg remarks, as an indication that it was one of the latest literary contributions which obtained canonical authority, while the great bulk of the canon may probably claim a date anterior to the Second Council.
This fact, namely, that the collection of the canon, as a whole, must have preceded the Second Council rests on an argument which does great credit to the ingenuity of Dr. Oldenberg. The Second Council was convoked to consider the ten deviations! from the strict discipline of the earliest times. That discipline had been laid down first in the Patimokkha rules, then in the commentary now included in the Vibhanga, lastly in the Mahavagga and Xullavagga. The rules as to what was allowed or forbidden to a Bhikkhu were most minute*, and they were so firmly established that no one could have ventured either to take away or to add anything to them as they stood in the sacred code. In that code itself a distinction is made between the offences which were from the first visited with punishment (paragika and pdakittiya) and those misdemeanours and crimes which were put down as punishable at a later time (dukka¢a and thullazzaya). With these classes the code was considered as closed, and if any doubt arose as to the criminality of certain acts, it could be settled at once by an appeal to the Vinaya-pifaka. Now it so happens that, with one exception, the ten deviations that had to be considered at the Second Council, are not provided for in the Vinaya-pizaka ; and I quite agree with Dr. Oldenberg’s argument that, if they had been mentioned in the Vinayapitaka, the Second Council would have been objectless. A mere appeal to chapter and verse in the existing Pitaka would then have silenced all dissent. On the other side, if it had been possible to add anything to the canon, as it then existed, the ten, or nine, deviations might have been con-
1 Oldenberg, Introduction, p. xxix. ? Oldenberg, loc. cit. p. xx.
INTRODUCTION. XXxi
demned by a few additional paragraphs of the canon, without convoking a new Council.
I think we may be nearly certain, therefore, that we possess the principal portion of the Vinaya-pizaka as it existed before the Council of Vesalt.
xxix. ? Oldenberg, loc. cit. p. xx.
INTRODUCTION. XXxi
demned by a few additional paragraphs of the canon, without convoking a new Council.
I think we may be nearly certain, therefore, that we possess the principal portion of the Vinaya-pizaka as it existed before the Council of Vesalt.
So far I quite agree with Dr. Oldenberg. But if he proceeds to argue! that certain portions of the canon must have been finally settled before even the First Council took place, or was believed to have taken place, I do not think his arguments conclusive. He contends that in the Parinibbana-sutta, which tells of the last days of Buddha’s life, of his death, the cremation of his body, and the distribution of his relics, and of Subhadda’s revolt, it would have been impossible to leave out all mention of the First Council, if that Council had then been known. It is true, no doubt, that Subhadda’s disloyalty was the chief cause of the First Council, but there was no necessity to mention that Council. On the contrary, it seems to me that the unity of the Parinibbana-sutta would have been broken if, besides telling of the last days of Buddha, it had also given a full description of the Council. The very title, the Sutta of the Great Decease, would have become inappropriate, if so important a subject as the first Sangiti had been mixed up with it. However, how little we may trust to such general arguments, is best shown by the fact that in some very early Chinese renderings of the Hinay4na text of the Mahd4parinibb4na-sutta the story is actually carried on to the First Council, two (Nos. 552 and 119) mentioning the rehearsal under Kasyapa, while the third (No. 118) simply states that the Tipizaka was then collected *.
1 Loc. cit. pp. xxvi-xxviii.
2 There are several Chinese translations of Sfitras on the subject of the Mahaparinirvaza. Three belong to the Mahay4na school: 1. Mah4parinirvaaa-siitra, translated by Dharmaraksha, about 414-423 4. D.; afterwards revised, 424-453 (Nos. 113, 114). 2. Translation by Fa-hian and Buddhabhadra, about 415 4.pD.; less complete (No. 120). 3. Translation (vaipulya) by Dharmaraksha I, i.e. Ku Fa-hu, about 261-308 a.p. (No. 116). Three belong to the Hinay4na school: 1. Mah4parinirvaza-sfitra, translated by Po-fa-tsu, about 290-306 a.p. (No. 552). 2. Translation under the Eastern Tsin dynasty, 317-420 4.D. (No.119). 3. Translation by Fa-hian, about 415 a.p. (No, 118).
XXXii DHAMMAPADA.
(No. 116). Three belong to the Hinay4na school:
1. Mah4parinirvaza-sfitra, translated by Po-fa-tsu, about 290-306 a.p. (No. 552).
2. Translation under the Eastern Tsin dynasty, 317-420 4.D. (No.119). 3. Translation by Fa-hian, about 415 a.p. (No, 118).
XXXii DHAMMAPADA.
We must be satisfied therefore, so far as I can see at present, with fixing the date, and the latest date, of a Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council, 377 B.C. That some works were added later, we know; that many of the treatises included in the canon existed before that Council, can hardly be doubted. The second chapter of the Dhammapada, for instance, is called the AppamA4da-vagga, and if the Mahdvamesa (p. 25) tells us that at the time when Asoka was converted by Nigrodha, that Buddhist priest explained to him the Appamadavagga, we can hardly doubt that there existed then a collection {vagga) of verses on Appam4da, such as we now possess in the Dhammapada and in the Samyutta- ~ nikaya1.
With regard to the Vinaya, I should even feel inclined to admit, with Dr. Oldenberg, that it must have existed in a more or less settled form before that time. What I doubt is whether such terms as Pifaka, basket, or Tipitaka, the three baskets, i.e. the canon, existed at that early time. They have not been met with, as yet, in any of the canonical books; and if the Dipavamsa (IV, 32) uses the word ‘ Tipitaka,’ when describing the First Council, this is due to its transferring new terms to older times. If Dr. Oldenberg speaks of a Dvi-pi¢aka? as the name of the canon before the third basket, that of the Abhidhamma, was admitted, this seems to me an impossible name, because at the time when the Abhidhamma was not yet recognised as a third part of the canon, the word pifaka had probably no existence as a technical term °.
We must always, I think, distinguish between the three .
portions of the canon, called the basket of the Suttas, the i ee
1 Feer, Revue Critique, 1870, No. 24, p. 377- 2 Introduction, pp. x, xii.
8 Dr. Oldenberg informs me that pitaka occurs in the Kankisuttanta in the Magghima Nik4ya (Turnour’s MS., fol. the), but applied to the Veda. He also refers to the tipicakasaryas mentioned in the Western Cave inscriptions as compared with the Patkanekayaka in the square Asoka character inscriptions (Cunningham, Bharhut, pl. lvi, No. 52). In the Satrakrid-anga of the Gainas, too, the term pidagam occurs (MS. Berol. fol. 77a). He admits, however, that pitaka or tipitaka, as the technical name of the Buddhist canon, has not yet been met with in that canon itself, and defends Dvipisaka only as a convenient term.