From the archive

Vinaya Texts, Part I: The Pâtimokkha and the Mahâvagga I–IV — SBE Vol. 13 (trans. Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, 1881)

English·1879–1910·trans. T. W. Rhys Davids & Hermann Oldenberg·238 passages

The text · part 1 of 12

B 3 021 314

REESE... LIBRARY

OF THK

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
Received. Decorpeherr. A882

THE

SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST

(13] 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

VOL. XIII

@rford AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

p. 1881

VINAYA TEXTS

TRANSLATED FROM THE PALI

T. W. RHYS DAVIDS

AND

HERMANN OLDENBERG

PART I

THE PATIMOKKHA
THE MAHAVAGGA, I—IV
SE Lis fh >
“os < Aq :)

; IVER eit heya “ SEO ime @rford

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

p. 1881

[ Al rights reserved ]

2syo7

p. 3

CONTENTS.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION TO THE VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI . ix

Tue PArimmoxkHA . . . . . . . I
Nidina.. . . . . . . we I
The P4ragika Rules . . . . Loo. . 3
The Samghadisesa Rules . . .

The Aniyata Rules . . . . . . . 16
The Nissaggiya Pafittiya Rules . . . . 18
The Péfittiya Rules . . . . . . . 32
The Pafidesaniya Rules . . . . . - 56
The Sekhiya Rules . . . . . . - 59
The Adhikaraza-samatha Rules . . . . 68
Tue MawaAvaccA . . . rn 2
First Khandhaka (The Admission to the Order of
Bhikkhus) . . . . . . . - 73
Second Khandhaka (The Uposatha Ceremony, and
the Patimokkha) : . . . . . 239
Third Khandhaka (Residence during the Rainy Season) 298
Fourth Khandhaka (The Pavaraz4 Ceremony) . » 325

Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East . - 357

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

IN the present MSS. the Vinaya Pitaka is divided into the following books:

1. Paragika,

2. Pakittiya,

3. Mahavagga, )

4. Kullavagga, )

5. Parivara-patha.

These books constitute that part of the sacred literature of the Buddhists which contains the regulations for the outward life of the members of the Buddhist Samgha—nearly the oldest, and probably the most influential, of all Fraternities of monks,

It is impossible to frame any narrower definition of the Vinaya than this, since the gradual change of circumstances in the Fraternity resulted in a gradual change also in the Vinaya itself. To give any more detailed account of what the Vinaya is, it will be necessary to trace what can be at . present ascertained of its history; to show—that is, so far as it is yet possible to do so—the causes which led to the establishment of the oldest Rules and Ceremoniés of the Order, and to follow step by step the accretions of new literary work around this older nucleus.

For this purpose we propose to consider first the Rules of the work called the Patimokkha; for the later texts presuppose its existence. It is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of all Buddhist text-books; and it has been

\ called collectively the Sutta-vibhanga.

called collectively the Khandhakas.

x VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

inserted in its entirety into the first part of the Vinaya, the Vibhanga!.

The Patimokkha—the meaning of the name will be discussed later on—seems to have owed its existence to the ancient Indian custom of holding sacred two periods in each month, the times of the Full Moon and of the New Moon.

The Vedic ceremonies of the DarsapfirzamAsa sacrifice, and of the feast or sacred day (U pavasatha) connected with it, are known to have been very old, and the custom of celebrating these days would naturally be handed on from the Brahmans to the different Samavzas, and be modified and simplified (though, as it seems, sometimes increased in number) by them, in accordance with their creeds and their views of religious duty. According to Buddhist tradition?—and we see no sufficient reason for doubting the correctness of the account—the monks of other, that is, of non-Buddhistic sects, used to meet together at the middle and at the close of every half-month, and were accustomed then to proclaim their new teaching in public. At such times the people would crowd together ; and the different sects found an opportunity of increasing their numbers and their influence.

The Buddhists also adopted the custom of these periodical meetings, but confined themselves to meeting twice in each month’. And the peculiarity which gave to these meetings among the Buddhists their distinguishing character seems to have been borrowed by them neither from the Brahmans nor from other dissenters, but to have been an original invention of the Buddhists themselves, The Brethren and Sisters made use of these half-monthly gatherings to confess to the assembled Order the sins and faults which each of them had committed ; and to take upon himself, or herself, the penance which the transgressor had thereby incurred. It would be unnecessary to dwell here upon the details of these penitential meetings, as we can

1 The opening sentence only is found in the Mahavagga. See below, p. xv.
3 Mahavagga II, 1, 1. 3 Ibid. II, 4, 2.

INTRODUCTION. xi

refer the reader to the second book of the Mahavagga, where he will find them fully set out.

It was for use at such penitential gatherings that the text, now known as the Patimokkha, was composed. A list was drawn up—which of course it would be necessary from time to time to complete, and rectify—of those offences which ought to be confessed and atoned for; this list was read out in the half-monthly meetings of the Order; and the Brethren and Sisters who were present were asked if they were innocent of each one of the offences therein mentioned.

The use of such a list must have already begun in very early times. Tradition even ascribes the first laying down of each clause to the Buddha himself. This tradition is of course very far from being conclusive; but neither should we hold it impossible that the Patimokkha, either in its present shape, or at least in its most essential parts, can reach back to the Buddha’s own time, or to that of his personal disciples.

It is no doubt natural, through the influence of the history of early Christianity, or perhaps of the school of Socrates, to imagine that early Buddhism was far removed from all fixed and absolute forms, either of creed or of liturgy; and to represent the intercourse of Gotama and his disciples as purely and simply an interchange of spiritual edification, where the spirit was all in all, and the letter was nothing. But it should be remembered that Gotama continued to live for many years, almost for two generations, after he had formulated the essential points of his system, and after he had founded the brotherhood of his Order. And at that time the stream of scholastic and legal ideas which emanated from the earlier Brahmanism was flowing in full force through the religious circles of India. A rich phraseology of sacred and ecclesiastical expressions, an armoury of technical terms in philosophy and in theology (still preserved in the Brahmamas and Upanishads), had been developed and made ready for the use of the Buddhists, and Gainas, and other reforming schools. And earlier speculation had raised a whole series of pro-

Xii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

blems, and long-continued custom had elaborated a multifarious system of ecclesiastical observances, which the newly risen sects, orthodox or heretical, could grapple with, or could adopt. It seems to us that Gotama’s disciples, from the very beginning, were much more than a free and unformal union of men held together merely through their common reverence for their Master, and through a common spiritual aim. They formed rather, and from the first, an organised Brotherhood.

It seems to us that Gotama’s disciples, from the very beginning, were much more than a free and unformal union of men held together merely through their common reverence for their Master, and through a common spiritual aim. They formed rather, and from the first, an organised Brotherhood.

But if we look upon the Sakyaputtiya Samazas— for that is the name which the people in the earliest times gave to the community—as from the first an organised ‘body, it is highly probable that the earliest formularies, both of their creeds and of their liturgies, arose in a time, if not during the life of Gotama, yet at most not long after his decease. Now among the oldest expressions of belief we may with certainty rank the four sentences known as the Four Noble Truths and the summary of the so-called Noble Eightfold Path : and the oldest liturgical formularies preserved to us are, without any doubt, the Patimokkha and the various Kammavdaéas. It is true that these liturgical formularies, being so much more extensive, may possibly have been modified or added to before they reached the form in which we now possess them; but there is not the slightest trace of any other liturgies having ever been in use in the Buddhist fraternity.

It is of course impossible to attempt to draw a line between the part which Gotama himself may have had in the settlement of the list of offences contained in the Patimokkha, and the part that may have been taken by his disciples. Nor indeed, considering the limited character of our knowledge, is that a point of much importance. But it should perhaps be noticed in this connection that Buddhist tradition does ascribe to one among Gotama’s disciples—to Upéali—an especial connection with the Vinaya. This tradition reaches back at least as far as the time when the existing recension of the Pali Pisakas was made, for we find it both in the Sutta- and in the Vinaya-Pifakas,

INTRODUCTION. Xili

Thus in the Kullavagga (VI, 13, 1) we find the passage—

‘At that time the Blessed One proclaimed the Vinaya in many a way to the Bhikkhus, exalted the Vinaya, exalted the learning of the Vinaya, exalted again and again the venerable Upali. Then thought the Bhikkhus, “The Blessed One hath proclaimed the Vinaya in many a way, hath exalted the Vinaya, hath exalted the learning of the Vinaya, hath exalted again and again the venerable Upali. Come now let us learn the Vinaya from the venerable Upali.’ And so many Bhikkhus, old and middle-aged and young, learnt the Vinaya from the venerable Upali.’

Come now let us learn the Vinaya from the venerable Upali.’ And so many Bhikkhus, old and middle-aged and young, learnt the Vinaya from the venerable Upali.’

And again in a Sutta of the Anguttara Nik4éya!}, where those Bhikkhus are enumerated who, in any particular respect, are the first and foremost in the Brotherhood, Upali is mentioned as the first among the custodians of the Vinaya (the Vinaya-dhar4). And further, as is well known, it is Up4li who, according to the tradition, plays, at the First Council, the same part of propounder with regard to the Vinaya Texts which Ananda does with regard to the Dhamma Texts. There may well be some truth in this very ancient tradition that Upali was specially conversant with the Rules of the Order; but it would be hazardous on that account to ascribe to Upali a share, not only in the handing down of existing Rules, but in the composition of the Patimokkha itself,

As regards the order in which the various offences are arranged in the Patimokkha, the principal division corresponds to the division of the Order into Brethren and Sisters: there is a Bhikkhu-patimokkha and a Bhikkhuni-pdtimokkha. In each of these two chief divisions the offences are divided into various classes, beginning with the heaviest — with those, that is, that result in the exclu-

1 Phayre MS., vol. i. fol. kau. 9 Kullavagga XII.

5 In the Ceylon Chroniclers (Dipavamsa, Bhazavaras 4 and 5) Upali even becomes the first in a series of Vinayapamokkh§, or ‘ Chiefs of the Vinaya ;’ but no such office is known to the older tradition; and had it existed it would certainly have been mentioned in connection with the dispute about the socalled Ten Points of the Vinaya at the Council of Vesalt, xiv VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

sion of the offender from the Order. Inside each class the sequence of the clauses follows no invariable rule. Sometimes offences of a related character are placed together in groups}, but sometimes those which would naturally come together are found scattered in quite different parts of the same class*. It is perhaps worthy of notice that there sometimes seems, as in the two cases first mentioned in the last note, to be an effort to arrange the offences in groups (vagga) of ten: and in three cases we find regulations formulated with the utmost brevity (the offences being merely expressed by a locative case dependent upon pakittiyam) at the commencement of such a vagga. It seems to us, at least in the present state of our knowledge, quite impossible to draw any conclusions from such peculiarities as to the comparative age of any different parts of the Patimokkha. The irregularities in arrangement may very well be due to want of literary clearness in the compilers of the present Form of Confession, and it would be hazardous to attempt to trace in it any historical argument.

The irregularities in arrangement may very well be due to want of literary clearness in the compilers of the present Form of Confession, and it would be hazardous to attempt to trace in it any historical argument.

The various points in regard to the Patimokkha dealt with in the foregoing paragraphs do not of themselves show that it was at all older than the rest of the Vinaya Pifaka; and indeed the work, as a separate work, is not considered among Buddhists to belong to the Pitakas at all, and is therefore not included in the list of works of which the Pitakas consist. But every single Rule or Clause in the Patimokkha is in fact found word for word in the Sutta-vibhanga, the quotations being so complete that the Patimokkha might be entirely put together again by piecing together extracts from the Vinaya Pizaka. And it is not possible that the Patimokkha originated merely by such a process of dovetailing ; for the quotations in the Vinaya Pitaka, though not actually called quotations, bear the unmistakable stamp of being taken from some pre-existing work. The cause which led to the Patimokkha, and the

1 For instance, regulations as to the conduct of Brethren towards Sisters come together in Patittiya 21-30; those about meal-times in Pasittiya 31-40 ; about conduct in relation to armies in Pakittiya 48-50.

2 For instance, Pakittiya 5, 6, and 43-45; and again, Pakittiya 20 and 62, &c.

INTRODUCTION. XV

Upasampada-kammavaka, being separately preserved at all, is the same as the cause which led to their exclusion from the lists of the Pifaka texts—the fact, that is, of their being liturgical compositions.

We turn now to the consideration of the question how a series of further literary productions were gradually developed out of, or added to the Patimokkha!.

Whoever reads through the Mahdvagga will at once be struck by one section of it which differs completely both in contents and in form from the rest of the work. This is the section in the Second Book, Chapter III, paragraphs 4-8.

This passage is preceded by the opening words of the Patimokkha; and in the passage itself those words are separately paraphrased or explained. But the explanation does not appear to be put into the mouth of the Buddha; it bears rather, without any historical or conversational form, the impersonal shape of a simple commentary: and it only differs from the later commentaries by peculiar solemn diffuseness and rhetorical tautology.

But the explanation does not appear to be put into the mouth of the Buddha; it bears rather, without any historical or conversational form, the impersonal shape of a simple commentary: and it only differs from the later commentaries by peculiar solemn diffuseness and rhetorical tautology.

If we were to consider the Mahavagga only, the sudden and unexplained appearance in this connection, and in this connection only, of an isolated passage of this kind, would have to remain an insoluble puzzle. But when we look further into the other parts of the Vinaya Pizaka, an answer immediately suggests itself. In the portion of that Pizaka which is better called the Sutta-vibhanga, but is divided in the MSS. into two divisions, under the somewhat misleading titles of P4ragika and Péfittiya, we find, at regularly recurring intervals, passages of an exactly similar character, and without any doubt of the same origin, as the isolated passage in the Mahavagga.

The Sutta-vibhanga is occupied with laying down and explaining all the Rules which are contained in the Patimokkha. Now, immediately after the text of each of these Rules, there is found a word for word commentary upon

1 With the following paragraphs should be compared H. Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the Pali text of the Vinaya, vol. i. pp. xvi and following. :

xvi VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

them— precisely as a word for word commentary follows, in the passage above cited in the Mah4vagga, upon the quoted words of the Introductory Formular of the Patimokkha service. Here then lies the explanation. This Introductory Formular is the only passage contained in the Patimokkha which is not found also in the Sutta-vibhanga. And with the explanation of the curiously isolated passage in the Mahavagga we have also a new fact of very great importance. Not only does the Vinaya Piaka contain, word for word, the whole of the Patimokkha, but it contains also, and again word for word, the whole of an ancient Commentary on the Patimokkha.

This commentary no longer exists as a separate work, and it would indeed be strange if it did. It was not required in the simple liturgical services of Ordination and Confession in use in the Order: and if any one wished to refer to it, in order to refresh his memory as to the explanation of any passage in the Patimokkha, he had only to repeat, or to get repeated over to him, the corresponding passage from the Sutta-vibhanga. There he would find the Old Commentary (as we shall hereafter call it) word for word, together with the additional commentary by which it had been supplemented in later times.

There he would find the Old Commentary (as we shall hereafter call it) word for word, together with the additional commentary by which it had been supplemented in later times.

A question may then possibly occur to the reader whether we can be really sure that the Old Commentary has been preserved complete, or whether what we have is a fragment only. We think there can be but little doubt as to the right answer. The Patimokkha, which the Old Commentary deals with word by word, has been separately preserved to us, and we know that no one phrase of it remains uncommented upon. And further it is clear from several passages that the words of the old commentator were considered so sacred or authoritative that they have been kept intact even in cases where they are in contradiction to the later parts of the Vinaya Pifaka}. It should however be noted that this Old Commentary is philological

1 See, for instance, the comparison made by Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the text, vol. i. p. xviii. The Old Commentary follows of course the passage there referred to in the Patimokkha,

INTRODUCTION. XVii

and exegetical throughout, containing nothing of a legendary or quasi-historical nature. It is just possible to suggest that it may have originally contained not only such an explanation of the meaning of each Rule, but an account also of the occasion on which the Rule was laid down. But it is difficult to see why greater sacredness should have been attached to one part of the work than to another; or to explain how it was that, if any part was changed, the contradictory passages above referred to were not also altered. Every probability therefore points to the conclusion that we have the complete work still before us, and not fragments of it only.

It seems to us to have been precisely the absence of any such historical account in the older Commentary which probably led to the formation of what was practically the new edition of the P4timokkha which now lies before us in the first part of the Vinaya Pi¢aka.

In the earliest books of the Sutta Pizaka, which contains the statement of Buddhist belief, we find—just as in the Gospels and in the Socratic dialogues—that that belief is not stated directly. The books profess to give, not simply the belief itself, but the belief as the Buddha uttered it, with an account of the time when, and the place at which, he uttered it. The Buddha’s new method of salvation, his new doctrine of what salvation was, did not present itself to the consciousness of the early Buddhist community as an idea, a doctrine, standing alone, and merely on its own ‘merits. In their minds it was indissolubly bound up with the memory of the revered and striking personality of him who had proclaimed it. So in the Sutta Pifaka the actor and speaker is almost throughout the Buddha himself: (occasionally, but very seldom, one of his disciples.) Introductions—often indeed short and tending in later times to disappear—give a full account of where, and when, he spoke; what was the occasion which led to his uttering that particular speech; and to whom he uttered it. But, throughout, the principal thing is what the Buddha said.

It is only natural that this distinguishing mark of the

[13] b

XVill VINAVA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

literature of the Buddhist Dhamma—much of which was no doubt in existence at a very early date—should have reacted upon the literature of the Buddhist Vinaya. The members of the Order were no longer contented to learn, and to understand the meaning of, the various Rules of the Patimokkha, <A desire sprang up to have, for each one of them also, a kind of historical basis; to know the story of how the Buddha himself came to lay down the Rule to his disciples. And it was only the Brother who was properly acquainted with all this who was accounted a real ‘ Doctor of the Law.’

So it is said in the Kullavagga (IX, 5, 1):—‘If a Brother, Upali, has not received gladly both the Patimokkhas in their full extent, has not well divided them, well established them, well investigated them, both sutta by sutta, and in every detail; if when asked, “ Where was this spoken by the Blessed One?” he fail to solve the question: then there will be some who will say to him, “But then, let the venerable one still devote himself to learning the Vinaya!” thus will they say?.’

It is evident from this passage that, at the time when it was written, such a tradition regarding each Rule was in existence; and that the knowledge of these traditions was held in high esteem. It is therefore a reasonable conjecture that steps were taken to amalgamate these traditions with the Text and the Old Commentary in a complete work, which should also contain what we may call Notes on the Rules—that is, decisions on points of Law involved, though not expressed in so many words, in the Rules; discussions on what cases were really included and what were not, in particular regulations ; enumeration of exceptions to the Rules; and so on.

Whether this conjecture be right or not, it is precisely such a work that we have now before us in that part of the Vinaya Piéaka called the Sutta-vibhanga, and divided

1 No ke Upali bhikkhuno ubhayani Patimokkhani vittharena svagatani honti suvibhattani suppavattini suvinikkzitani suttato anuvyafiganaso, idam pan’ Avuso kattha vuttam Bhagavata ’ti iti puéého na sampdyati, tassa bhavanti vattdro: Ingha tava 4yasma Vinayam pariyapunass( ‘ti: iti ’ssa bhavanti vattaro.

INTRODUCTION. XIX

in the present MSS., as above pointed out, into two books called respectively—after the class of Rules with which they begin—Paragika and Pafittiya. And it is possible throughout, without the possibility of mistake, to distinguish between the three portions of which the present work is built up. The historical basis comes first, leading up to the extract from the Patimokkha, which is always placed in the Buddha’s own mouth; then comes the Old Commentary, with its verbal explanations; and then, finally, the Notes giving the exceptions to, and the extensions of, the Rule in the Patimokkha.

The foregoing paragraphs show the way in which the Sutta-vibhanga grew up on the basis of the Patimokkha. The following books—the Khandhakas—give a detailed and connected account of the admission into the Samgha ; of the ceremony of the Uposatha; of the annually recurring observances connected with the beginning and the end of the rainy season; of the principal disciplinary proceedings ; and of miscellaneous details regarding the medicine, food, dwelling-places, and daily life of the members of the Order (Bhikkhus). As in the Sutta-vibhanga, so here also, the outward form is arranged in such a way that in the case of every regulation a history was given of the occasion upon which the Buddha was supposed to have made it. These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out.

These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out.

While, however, in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga the liturgy on which it has been founded has been preserved in a separate shape, the formularies in the Khandhakas have not as yet, except in some instances, been found in existence apart from the Khandhakas. The principal exception is the Upasampada-kammavdaka (The Words of the Act of Ordination), which recurs in its entirety in the First Khandhaka of the Mahavagga (I, 76, 3 to I, 78, 5). It is impossible therefore as yet to trace the history of the gradual formation of the Khandhakas as we think it already possible to do in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga.

In the Khandhakas too, no doubt, the introductory b 2

XX VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

histories are the latest part. But while some of the formularies and regulations to which they lead up may well be very old, others are probably additions to, or modifications of, those older ones; and it is difficult to attempt to show, even with regard to the exceptions above mentioned, which are the older and which are the later. The misfortune that these forms are not all now separately extant! is probably simply due to the fact that the formularies separately preserved (including the Patimokkha) are the only ones which continued to be used in actual services among the members of the Order.

Such being the nature and contents, and such—so far as it can be traced—being the origin of the Sutta-vibhanga and of the Khandhakas respectively, it follows that in all probability they were composed, or put into their present shape, at about the same period in the development of early Buddhism—it is even possible that both works arose in immediate connection.

The kind of narrative setting with which, in both cases, the older material has been surrounded is alike in both. Here and there in both works are included real fragments of ancient legend or tradition—as, for instance, the account of the events from the attainment of Buddhahood down to the conversion of Sariputta and Moggallana (Mah4vagga I, 1-24), the story of Devadatta (Kullavagga VII), the story of the conversion and the sin of Sudinna (Vibhanga, First Paragika). But the greater number of these narratives are of the most meagre description, and have altogether the appearance of being mere inventions.

There is little doubt that this is what they, in fact, were. Actual remembrance of the Buddha, and of his time, could have sufficed only in the rarest instances to give a correct historical basis for the Rules or Ceremonies, which had to be explained. We find a precisely similar

1 Mr. Dickson has given us an excellent text of the Upasampada-kammavaka ; and it were much to be wished that the rest of them should also be published. Mr. Clough has given a translation of six others in ‘ Miscellaneous Translations

We find a precisely similar

INTRODUCTION. XX1

state of things leading, in the Introductions to the GAtaka Stories, to what were unquestionably inventions: and it must be acknowledged that the compilers have not taken the slightest trouble to conceal the evidently unsubstantial character of most of these summary introductions. But it does not follow that they were invented at the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled. They may possibly have formed part of the traditional explanatory teaching of the schools.

As to the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled, we have important evidence in their silence regarding the well-known Ten Points.

The long-continued struggle on that question—as important for the history of Buddhism as the Arian controversy for that of Christianity—agitated the whole Buddhist world to its very centre; and the attempted settlement of it, at the Council of Ves4li, led to a most serious schism in the Buddhist Church. Now the ten expressions in which the question was summarised or catalogued! are (as was pointed out in the Introduction to the Pali Text of the Mahavagga) conspicuous by their absence from the Vibhanga, and from all, except the last, of the Khandhakas?. The first mention of most of them, and the first use of any one of them as a distinctive war-cry, is found in those last books, which are evidently an appendix to the rest of the Khandhakas, and of an entirely different nature from the earlier ones; for they contain a regular historical account of the two Councils, that of Ragagaha, and that of Vesalt?.

1 Sitgiloza, dvaigula, &c. (Kullavagga XII, 1, 10).

3 That is, as war-cries; gatarQparagata occurs in the sense of the precious metals.

3 In the present division of the Khandhakas into two parts, called the Larger and Smaller Divisions (Maha- and Kulla-vagga), there are ten Khandhakas in the first Division, and ten, apart from this appendix, in the second Division. Without the appended two last Khandhakas the so-called smaller Division is really considerably smaller than the larger Division; and there is therefore a good reason for the name which was given to it. With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller

xxii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller xxii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

But the Ten Points in dispute were all matters of ecclesiastical law, they all related to observances of the brotherhood, they were in fact questions as to whether or not the ancient Rules should be relaxed or not in these ten respects. Is it possible that in a collection of works like the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas, which seek to set forth, down to the minutest detail, and even with hair-splitting diffuseness, all that has any relation to the daily life of the Brethren, and the regulations of the Buddhist Order—is it possible that in such a collection, if, when it was compiled, the struggle on the Ten Points had already burst into flame, there should be no reference at all, even in interpolations, to any one of these ten disputes? That the difference of opinion on the Ten Points remains altogether unnoticed in those parts of the collection where, in the natural order of things, it would be obviously referred to, and that it is only mentioned in an appendix where the Council held on its account is described, shows clearly, in our opinion, that the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas (save the two last) are older than the Council of Vesdli—and, of course, a fortiori that the Patimokkha and the Kammavdsds are so too.

The Council of Vesali is said in the XIIth Khandhaka of the Kullavagga to have taken place a hundred years after the Buddha’s death. This is no doubt a round number; and the exact year of the date of the Buddha’s death is open to question. If it be placed, according to the Ceylon chronicles, at exactly 218 years before Asoka’s coronation, it will fall in or about 483 B.c.

But the expression ‘218 years’ can in no case be regarded as an absolutely reliable statement of actual fact, and the date of 483 B.c. must therefore be taken subject to a marginal allowance of some decades. And it appears to one of us, for various reasons which he has elsewhere stated at length, that the balance of probability leads to the conclusion that the date of the Buddha’s Parinibbana must be

Division actually contains two more Khandhakas than the larger. We lay no stress upon these facts, but it confirms the general argument to find little points of this kind tending in the same direction,

INTRODUCTION, XXII

brought down to the period from 420-400 B.C. We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesali, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C.

We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesali, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C.

We would only point out that there is really no ground for discontent with a result which can. be fixed, after all, within a few decades. For what difference does that make in this case? If we had to deal with Grecian history, such a result might well be deemed unsatisfactory. There are differences, both personal and political, between Greece in 480, in 440, and in 400—differences well known to us. But whether we fix the date of an event in India in 480, or in 440, what does it, at present, matter? Who would be bold enough to say that the mention of India in 480 B.C. calls up to his mind a condition of things different from that suggested by the mention of India in 440 B.C., or even in 400 B.C.? We need not therefore take too much to heart the uncertainty of this chronological result; though we may regret that our comfort is drawn from no better source than our want of knowledge.

The Vibhanga and the Twenty Khandhakas were at that time (circa 350 B.C.) already held in such high repute that no one ventured to alter them; a sanctity of this kind is not acquired without the lapse of a considerable time: and we think it is not going too far to say, Firstly, that these books must have been in existence, as we now have them, within thirty years, earlier or later, of, at least, 360 or 370 B.C.; Secondly, that the Old Commentary they have preserved must be considerably, perhaps fifty years, older ; and Thirdly, that the Kammava#ds and the Patimokkha must be older still.

The reader will notice that in the foregoing discussion no mention has been made of the Fifth Book in the present

1 See the dissertation on this subject in Rhys Davids’s ‘ Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon;’ and, more shortly, the close of the Introduction to his ‘Buddhist Suttas from the Pali,’

XXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

division of the Vinaya Pitaka—the Parivdra-p4zha. The reason is that this work, an abstract of the other parts of the Vinaya, is in fact a very much later compilation, and probably the work of a Ceylonese Thera. In some stanzas, which are found at the end of the Parivara-p4tha, it is stated to have been composed by ‘the highly wise, learned, and skilful Dipa, after he had inquired here and there into the methods (literally, the way) followed by former teachers"

We have every hope that the foregoing argument will commend itself to our fellow workers as being, in the main, well founded. We now propose to test it by applying it in explanation of several difficult terms and phrases found in the Vinaya Pifaka, which seem to have been hitherto incorrectly interpreted.

We now propose to test it by applying it in explanation of several difficult terms and phrases found in the Vinaya Pifaka, which seem to have been hitherto incorrectly interpreted.

It has been pointed out that, in the Patimokkha, the offences are arranged in certain classes, called, with reference to the heinousness of the act committed, Paragika, Samghadisesa, Pakittiya, Pa¢idesaniya, and Sekhiya. In other parts of the Vinaya, other offences are called Thullakkaya and DukkaZa. On this nomenclature the Rev. S. Coles has founded a trenchant attack upon Buddhist morality. He says:

‘Beside the Parajikas there are lesser faults, the nature of which is determined by various causes, as will subsequently appear. These are Sanghddisesa, Thullaccaya, and Dukkadza faults, and can all be easily remedied, the two latter especially; as, after a fault of this kind has been committed, the culprit has only to confess to his Upajjhaya (ordaining priest) without much delay, and is then exempted from all evil consequences; but the Sanghéadisesa being more serious (about half a Parajika), a course of penance has to be submitted to, and confession without delay made to twenty-five superior Bhikkhus. The nature

1 Pubbatariyamaggan ka pukkhitva ka tahim tahim Dipo nama mahapafi#o sutadharo vikakkhano Imam vitthdrasamkhepam sagghamaggena magghime Kintayitva likhapesi sissakanam sukhavaham.

INTRODUCTION. XXV

and extent of these penances are not defined in the first book of the Vinaya Pitaka, but in others, to which reference will be made when these books are brought under consideration. Suffice it to say, that they can possibly have no deterring effect on crime, but rather form loop-holes through which most enormous and disgusting misdeeds may be committed, and yet the perpetrator may remain not only as a Buddhist, but as a Bhikkhu}’

Mr. Coles then applies this argument to show that many offences against morality, being only called Dukka¢a and © not Paradgika, must have been looked upon very leniently, not only by the Buddhists, but by Gotama himself; and that therefore his system of morality was not of the lofty kind it has usually been supposed to be, but was, in fact, a mere cloak and encouragement to wickedness and crime!

If Mr. Coles had looked at the Pizaka he was discussing from a historical, instead of from a controversial, point of view, he would scarcely have advanced this argument. The use of the term DukkaZza does not arise from, nor is it evidence of, a weakness in moral feeling; but merely of a difference in point of time. It occurs only in what we have ventured above to call the Notes: that is to say, in the latest portion of the Pitaka. When the author or authors of the final recension of the Vinaya had to speak of an offence not actually mentioned, though implied, in the text before them, they did not presume to call it by any of the names applied in the Patimokkha itself to the classification of offences. They no more dared to add to the number of Péragikas, for instance, than a clergyman would now venture seriously to propose an addition to the Ten Commandments. They made use of two technical terms (both entirely new ones), namely, ThullakZaya and DukkaZa (literally, Serious Transgression and Bad-deed), using the former more sparingly, and for graver misdemeanours. No argument based on passages where the word Dukkasa occurs can therefore have any force as to the teaching of Gotama himself; and the Bhikkhus, who did use the

1 Journal of the Ceylon Asiatic Society, 1867-1870, p. 55.

XXVIi-~=SsVINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI

word, were restrained from using the older term Paragika by a feeling of reverence towards their sacred books—a feeling surely deserving, not of censure, but of sympathy.

Again, there are certain terms applied to various parts of the Vinaya itself on which the above historical analysis may throw some light. When Asoka, in the Edict of Bhabra, addressed to the Buddhist Order, exhorted them to take as their authority, among other works, the Vinaya- Samukase, or Abstract of the Vinaya, he may fairly be supposed to have referred to the Patimokkha, which that epithet would very appropriately describe. If it be asked why he did not then call it the PAtimokkha, the explanation may be either that that word is more especially a term for the act to be performed, than for the liturgy which shows the way to perform it (though it was also undoubtedly used as a name of the liturgy), or else that the work was known under both designations.

We would just add, in passing, that, in the passage in question, the reading samukase (samutkarsha), instead of the formerly accepted samdkase, is quite clear in General Cunningham’s lithograph!; and the generally accepted view that the Edict was addressed to a council, and is therefore an authoritative confirmation of the Ceylon traditions regarding the Council of Patna, ought to be reconsidered. The Edict merely says: ‘King Devanampiya of Magadha salutes the Samgha’ (that is, the Order, or the Community, of Bhikkhus)?. Without desiring to throw any doubt upon the reality of the Council of Patna, we are driven to the conclusion that such an expression as ‘the Samgha’ could not have been meant to describe a formal

«Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum,’ pl. xv.

2 Burnouf translated ‘a l’assemblée du Magadha,’ and Wilson, ‘to the venerable assembly of Magadha’ (see ‘Corpus,’ &c., p. 131); but the reading is clearly Magadhe in the ‘Corpus,’ while the older facsimile in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society (ix. 618) had the impossible form Magdhem. Even if we could read Magadham samgham (an expression for which we know no parallel), the above remarks would still hold good. Compare further Professor Kern in the ‘ Jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten,’ pp. 30-35.

INTRODUCTION. XXVil

council. Surely, if the Edict had been addressed to such a council, the fact would have been plainly intimated.

It is just possible that Vinaya-Samukase may refer to the Old Commentary as well as to the Patimokkha; but this is not probable, for there is no reason to believe that in Asoka’s time the Old Commentary any longer existed apart from its setting in the Vibhanga. And Vinaya- Samukase cannot for the reasons above stated mean, as has been supposed, the Parivara-pAtha.

As regards the meaning of the word Patimokkha we have the explanation of the Old Commentator in that single passage of his work found, as above pointed out, in the Khandhakas!. He there describes it as ‘the origin, the front (mukha), the chief of the good Dhammas ;’ where the word Dhamma means ‘qualities,’ and where the evident inference is that the commentator? derived Patimokkha from mukha. But, on the other hand, the tradition of the Northern Buddhists, in whose Sanskrit works the word is replaced by Pratimoksha, points to a derivation from the root mu&,

It seems scarcely open to doubt that we must, in accordance with this last interpretation, connect the word with mu&, and not with mukha. ‘Pratimukha’ means in Sanskrit ‘over against, standing close in front.’ How is it possible to derive from that any meaning appropriate as a title for the liturgy of confession called Patimokkha? On the other hand, the derivation from mué is straightforward and simple. Prati-mué (A4tmanep.) means ‘to free oneself, to get rid of;’ and it is precisely through the recitation of this formular, and the answering of the questions contained in it, that the conscience of the member of the Brotherhood

Prati-mué (A4tmanep.) means ‘to free oneself, to get rid of;’ and it is precisely through the recitation of this formular, and the answering of the questions contained in it, that the conscience of the member of the Brotherhood

! Patimokkhan ti Adim etam mukham etam pamukham etam cusalanam dhamméanam, tena vutkati patimokkhan ti. Mahavagga II, 3, 4.

2 We use the phrase ‘Old Commentator’ for convenience only. The commentary was, no doubt, handed down by tradition in the Buddhist schools; and there is no reason to believe that it was the work of any one mind.

XXVili VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

was set free from the sense of the offence he had incurred}. Patimokkha or Pratimoksha means therefore ‘ Disburdening, Getting free.’ The lengthening of the first vowel in the Pali word is not without analogies which have been already adduced by Childers. It is certain that the word is older than the present shape of the Formulary now so called; for it is used several times in the Formulary itself, as well as in many of the oldest Suttas.

The Old Commentator makes the Patimokkha ‘the head of the good Dhammas.’ There is a curious passage in the Patimokkha where the Dhammas are said to be included in the Suttas:

‘Ifa Bhikkhu at the half-monthly recitation. of the Patimokkha should say, “Now for the first time do I notice that this Dhamma, as one handed down in the Suttas, embraced in the Suttas, gets recited every half-month!” then’ &c.?

It is plain here that neither Dhamma nor Sutta is used in the sense to which we are accustomed from the later books. The Dhammas recited half-monthly are those contained in the scheme of offences given in the Patimokkha, and the Suttas must therefore mean the separate clauses of that Formulary.

The fact is that the use of the word Sutta is by no means confined in the oldest Pali to the texts of what was afterwards the Sutta Pizaka, nor is it exclusively used either in earlier or later times® in opposition to Vinaya. Thus we find it used again, as we think, of the Rules of the Patimokkha; and in contrast, as in the rule above quoted, to Dhamma, in Kullavagga IV, 14, 22, 23:

‘This Bhikkhu, of such and such a name, is a preacher

1 Compare Mahavagga II, 3, 3.

2 Yo pana bhikkhu anvaddhamasam Patimokkhe uddissamane evam vadeyya ; idan’ eva kho aham gandmi, ayam pi kira dhammo suttagato suttapariyapanno anvaddhamasam uddesam Agakkaatiti, tat ke...(the 73rd PAtittiya, quoted in Kullavagga ITI, 34, 2).

8 Though more especially concerned here with the earlier use of the word Sutta, it may be well to remind our readers of the name Suttadhara applied in the Sumangala Vilasini to secular lawyers (see Alwis, ‘ Introd.’ &c., p. 100).

INTRODUCTION, XXIX

of the Dhamma; but the Suttas have not been handed down to him, nor the Sutta-Vibhanga.’

‘This Bhikkhu, of such and such a name, is a preacher of the Dhamma, and the Suttas have been handed down to him, but not the Sutta-Vibhanga!’

100).

INTRODUCTION, XXIX

of the Dhamma; but the Suttas have not been handed down to him, nor the Sutta-Vibhanga.’

‘This Bhikkhu, of such and such a name, is a preacher of the Dhamma, and the Suttas have been handed down to him, but not the Sutta-Vibhanga!’

So again in the constantly repeated phrase above referred to—

‘If the two Patimokkhas are (or are not, as the connection requires) thoroughly known to a Bhikkhu in their entirety with all their divisions and explanations, if he have (or have not) thoroughly mastered them Sutta by Sutta, and Detail by Detail; then’ &c.?

—the word Sutta evidently refers to the clauses of the two Patimokkhas; and we find also in the immediate context the mention of Dhamma or of Vinaya, or of both.

It is no doubt true that in one passage of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (IV, 8-11=pp. 39, 40), Sutta is opposed to Vinaya in much the same‘way as Sutta Pifaka was afterwards opposed to Vinaya Pitaka; yet the contrast between these two ideas is usually expressed by the apposition of Dhamma to Vinaya3, and the passage in the Mahé-parinibbana Sutta stands, so far as we yet know, quite alone. Indeed in the oldest tradition the discourses or conversations now called Suttas seem not to have been called by that name, but are referred to as Suttantas.

So in the Mahdvagga III, 5,9, 12 mention is made of devout men, or of devout women, who may have been accustomed to recite some well-known Suttanta*; and in the next Khandhaka (IV, 15, 4) we find Suttanta, Dhamma, and Vinaya all occurring in one context:

‘It may happen, Brethren, that in some district on the day of Pavdravd the night may have become far spent

1 Suttam tassa 4gatam na Suttavibhaigam. On the latter term see below.

2 Ubhay4ni nu kho Patimokkhani vittharena svagataéni suvibhattani suppavattini suvinisksitani suttato anuvyafiganaso (Mahavagga I, 36,14; I, 37,14; Kullavagga IV, 14,19; IX, 5,1). Anuvyafigana may perhaps refer here to the Old Commentary.

5 Compare H. Oldenberg’s Introduction to his edition of the Mahavagga, pp. 7 and following.

* Abhifi#atam va Suttantam bhazati.

XXX VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

while the Brethren are in confusion—some reciting the Dhamma, those versed in the Suttantas intoning some Suttanta together, the custodians of the Vinaya discussing the Vinaya, and the preachers of the Dhamma discoursing about the Dhamma.’

XXX VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

The whole of these expressions recur in Kullavagga IV, 4, 4; and are found again, with others of a similar character, in Kullavagga VI, 6,2. This last passage is in the Introduction to a fable which of course recurs, as a Gataka, in the Gataka collection, and with an introduction in almost the same words. We should therefore expect to find there also the epithet suttantika (‘versed in the Suttantas’), if that expression had remained in use as late as the fifth century A.D.; but it is omitted, the Suttantikas having been then long since replaced by those entrusted, not with the whole, but with special portions only, of the Dhamma literature. The word Suttanta was however still in common use at the time when the presumably later books now contained in the Pifakas were composed ; for it occurs in the Anguttara Nikéya}, and in a constantly recurring verse in the Buddhavamsa in which it is opposed to Vinaya?, and the word is still used in the MSS. as the title of the more important Suttas.

In the passage quoted above from the Kullavagga IV, 14, 22, 23 there is a term Sutta-vibhanga used as the name of some part of the Vinaya literature apparently distinct

1 The Anguttara Nikaya, Pazkaka Nipata (Phayre MS. vol. ii. fol. gk): Ye te Suttanta Tathagatassa bhavité gambhfra gambhirattha lokuttara suifiatapatisamyutta tesu bha#fiamanesu na sussissanti no sotam odahissanti na afinakittam upatthapessanti na ka te dhamme uggahetabbam pariyapuxitabbam mafissanti; ye pana te suttanta kathita kaveyya Aittakkhara hittabyaigana bahiraka sivakabh4sita tesu bhaiiamanesu sussissanti sotam odahissanti ; &c.

Ibid. fol. az : Ye te bhikkha bahussuta 4gatagama dhammadhara vinayadhara matikadhara te na sakkakkam suttantam param vakenti, tesam akkayena khinnamilako suttanto hoti apatisarano.

On the form compare the Sanskrit drish¢Anta, vrittanta, and siddhanta.

a Suitantam Vinayaw kapi navahgam Satthusdsanam

Sabbam pariyapusitvana sobhayi Ginasdsanam.

The phrase is used of various Buddhas in verses 317, 348, 594, 627, and 786 of the Buddhavamsa. This reference we owe to Dr. Morris.

INTRODUCTION, XXxi

from the Suttas of the Patimokkha. ‘The Suttas have been handed down to him, but not the Suttavibhanga.’

The word recurs only in one other passage}, and that is in the appended Khandhakas of the Kullavagga, in the account of the Council of Ves4lf?, Seven passages are there quoted from the Patimokkha in condemnation of seven out of the Ten Points raised by the heretics; and in answer to the question, ‘Where was it condemned?’ and before the passages are quoted, the place where the passage was uttered is mentioned, and condemnation is stated to be ‘in the Suttavibhanga.” Thus

Revata says, ‘Is it right, Lord, to drink galogi?’

Sabbakami replies, ‘What, Friend, is this galogi?’

Revata: ‘Is it right, Lord, to drink strong drink which not being fermented, is not yet intoxicating?’

Sabbakaémi: ‘No, my friend, it is not right,’

Revata: ‘Where has it been condemned ?’

Sabbakém?: ‘At Kosambi in the Suttavibhanga.’

Revata: ‘ What does he (who drinks galogi) commit?’

Sabbakam!?: ‘ He commits the Paittiya offence of drinking strong drink and of drinking intoxicating liquors.’

This is a quotation of the Pazittiya Rule, No. 51; but the words quoted do not in fact condemn the drinking of toddy, and neither the Patimokkha nor the Old Commentary contains any reference to the place, Kosambi, where the. words are here said to have been uttered.

It is only in the introduction afterwards appended (in what is now called the Vibhanga) to the two older works, that Kosambi is mentioned ; and in the appendix following the Rule 51 in the Vibhanga there are no exceptions which would include galogi. But Kosambi is mentioned in the Introductory History. It is therefore most probable that the term Sutta-vibhanga refers to what is now called the Vibhanga; or, if not, at least to that body of traditional teaching (including the Patimokkha and the Old Commentary) out of which the present Vibhanga was composed.

1 That is, of the Vinaya Pitaka. We are not certain that it may not be
found in the Sutta Pitaka. .
3 Kullavagga XII, 2, 8.

XXXII VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.

It may be convenient to make some reference here to the question whether the literature above discussed was handed down by memory only, or by writing. We are justified in expecting to find, in texts dealing in such minute detail with the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order, some distinct evidence—and it will be equally distinct whether it consists in actual statement, or in silence— as to writing, and the use of written books. And this expectation is not disappointed.

In the first place, there are several passages which confirm in an indisputable manner the existence of the art of writing at the time when the Vinaya texts were put into their present shape.

‘A certain man, who had committed a theft, ran away, and got ordained among the Bhikkhus. Now he was written up in the king’s palace with an injunction that he should be slain wheresoever he should be found!’—

‘But there occurred to the parents of Up§li this consideration: “If Upali should learn writing?, Up4li might thus after our decease live at ease, and not be troubled.”’

And in the Vibhanga we find an interesting explanation of the Third Paragika Rule, which lays down that whosoever wilfully kills a man, or brings about his death, must be expelled from the Order.

In the Notes on this Rule the Sutta-vibhanga discusses the case of some one causing the death of another by persuading him that suicide is glorious, or that it results in salvation.. And in this connection the possibility is considered of these representations being made to the proposed victim, not by word of mouth, and not by a messenger, but by writing. ,

‘He engraves a writing to this effect: “Who so dies, he acquires wealth, or acquires fame, or goes to heaven.” By that writing he is guilty of a Dukka/a offence. The other sees the writing, and, determining to die, is filled

1} Ajfiataro puriso korikam katva palayitva bhikkhisu pabbagito hoti. So ka raiio antepure likhito hoti yattha passitabbo tattha hantabbo ’ti (Mahavagga I, 43).

4 Sake kho Upali lekham sikkheyya (Mahavagga I, 49, 1).

INTRODUCTION. XXXill

with painful feelings. (The writer is) guilty of a Thullakkaya offence. He does die. (The writer is) guilty of a Paragika offence?.’

And again, with respect to the injunction addressed to the Sisters of the Order not to devote themselves to worldly wisdom (tirakkhana-vigg4), the Vibhanga makes an exception in favour of learning to write?.

It is evident therefore that writing was in vogue in the time when the Notes on the Rules were put into their present form, that it was made use of for the publication of official announcements, and for the drawing up of written communications in private life; and that while the knowledge of the art was a possible source of livelihood, it was not confined to ‘clerks, but was acquired by ordinary persons, and even by women.

But it is a long step from the use of writing for such public or private notifications to the adoption of it for the purpose of recording an extensive and sacred literature : and our texts show—and show, as it seems to us, in an equally indisputable manner—that for this latter purpose writing, however well known, had not yet come into use.

Had the sacred texts been written down and read, books, manuscripts, and the whole activity therewith connected, must have necessarily played a very important part in the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order. Now the texts of the Vinaya place clearly enough before our eyes the whole of the ‘personal property,’ so to speak, of the Buddhist Aramas and Viharas. Every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to, and its use pointed out; while the use of other articles, not usually found in the Viharas, is mentioned, and condemned. But nowhere do we find the least trace of any reference to manuscripts;

} Lekham khindati yo evam marati so dhanam va labhati yasam va labhati saggam va gakkhatiti. Akkharakkharaya Apatti dukka‘assa. Lekham passitva marissAmiti dukkham vedanam uppadeti. Apatti thullakkayassa. Marati, Apatti paragikassa,

* Anapatti lekham pariyfpuzti (Bhikkhuni-Patimokkha, Patittiya 49),

[13] ¢

XXXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.