Dialogues of the Buddha, Part II — trans. T. W. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids (1910)

A glance at the above columns shows that the two texts arcidentical except in two particulars. The Digha gives the episode in narrative form, whereas the Vinaya puts it into the mouth of Kassapa himself. And secondly, whereas the Digha puts Kassapa's speech after the outburst of Subhadda, the Vinaya puts it before — that is, the last two paragraphs in the Digha are transposed in the Vinaya.

Professor Oldenberg, who was the first to point out (more than thirty years ago) l the parallelism between the two texts, acutely suggests that the change is due to the position occupied by this episode in the Vinaya. It is there used as introduction to the account of the Council at Rajagaha held, according to the tradition, to counteract such sentiments as were expressed in Subhadda's outburst. It was considered more appropriate, therefore, that in that connexion, Subhadda's words should come last, to lead up to what follows. The whole of the story is accordingly taken from our Suttanta. But the last paragraphs are transposed, and the whole is put into the mouth of Kassapa, on whose advice the Council is stated to have been convened.

This seems a very probable explanation of the transposition, and of the existence of two slightly different accounts of the

1 Introduction to the Vinaya, xxvi— xxviii.

episode. If we accept it — and I think we should1 — we have to face the further question : Why was the episode inserted in the Digha? It is given there in the middle of the account of the cremation of the Buddha at Kusinara. It has very little to do either with what precedes, or with what follows it ; and is said to have taken place away from Kusinara. The outburst itself was of little importance in the long story of the Buddha's last days ; and (in the older order as preserved in the Digha) is immediately overwhelmed by Maha Kassapa's apt quotation from the Master's words. Have we not here a very similar motive, acting on either the same or very similar minds ? Is it not precisely the part played by this anecdote in the traditional account of the First Council that led the compilers of the Digha to find a place for it in the Book of the Great Decease? They might so easily have left it out. As it stands it only breaks in upon the narrative. And, apart from the tradition about the First Council, it had no importance.

There has been much discussion both for and against the authenticity of this First Council. Is this really necessary ? Oldenberg's analysis of the comparative date of the different parts of the Vinaya has shown conclusively that the record, as we have it, is later than the Council of Vesali, that is at least a hundred years later than the meeting whose proceedings it purports to record. What can be the value of so late a record ? It may be objected to this that though the extant record is late the tradition may be older. No one can prove that it was not. But this would not help matters at all. We must then point out that the details as given are, as one might expect, quite inaccurate2.

Space will only allow of one example being taken.

It is well known that all the ancient sacred literatures of the world have grown up gradually, and are a mosaic of earlier

1 It does not quite follow that the Vinaya is borrowing direct from the Digha. That may be so. But the Subhadda story may have been in existence before either Digha or Vinaya was put into its present shape. If so, it was doubtless current in the form now preserved by the Digha ; and was changed by the compilers of the Vinaya. Both Oldenberg {Joe. cit.) and Franke (J. P. T. S., 1908, 8-12) suppose the Vinaya to be borrowing from the Digha. It is quite possible that the two books — Digha and Vinaya — may have been put together, as we now have them, at the same time.