Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1xxix. ? 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.
2(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 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. i ee INTRODUCTION. XXxili
3Berol. 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. i ee INTRODUCTION. XXxili basket of Vinaya, and the basket of Abhidhamma, and the three subjects of Dhamma (sutta), Vinaya, and Abhidhamma, treated in these baskets. The subjects existed and were taught long before the three baskets were definitely arranged. Dhamma had originally a much wider meaning than Sutta-pizaka. It often means the whole teaching of Buddha; and even when it refers more particularly to the Sutta-piaka, we know that the Dhamma there taught deals largely with Vinaya and Abhidhamma doctrines. Even the fact that at the First Council, according to the description given in the Kullavagga, the Vinaya and Dhamma only were rehearsed, though proving the absence at that time of the Abhidhamma, as a separate Pitaka, by no means excludes the subject of the Abhidhamma having been taught under the head of Dhamma. In the Mahakaruz4puzdarika-sitra the doctrine of Buddha is divided into Dharma and Vinaya; the Abhidharma is not mentioned. But the same text knows of all the twelve Dharmapravazanani}, the 1. Sitra; 2. Geya; 3. Vydkarama; 4. Gath4; 5. Uddna; 6. Nid4na; 7. Avaddna; 8. Itivrzttaka ; 9. Gataka ; 10. Vaipulya; 11. Adbhutadharma ; 12. Upadesa ; some of these being decidedly metaphysical. To my mind nothing shows so well the historical character both of the Kullavagga and of Buddhaghosa in the Introduction to his commentary on the Digha-nikaya, as that the former, in its account of the First Council, should know only of the Vinaya, as rehearsed by Upali, and the Dhamma, as rehearsed by Ananda, while the much later Buddhaghosa, in his account of the First Council?, divides the Dhamma into two parts, and states that the second part, the Abhidhamma, was rehearsed after the first part, the Dhamma. Between the time of the Kullavagga and the time of Buddhaghosa the Abhidhamma must have assumed its recognised position by the side of Vinaya and Sutta. It must be left to further researches to determine, if possible, 1 See Academy, August 28, 1880, Division of Buddhist Scriptures. ? Oldenberg, Introduction, p. xii; Turnour, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vi, p. 510 seq. [10] c XXXIV DHAMMAPADA. the time when the name of pifaka was first used, and when Tipifaka was accepted as the title of the whole canon.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1xxix. ? 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.
2(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 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. i ee INTRODUCTION. XXxili
3Berol. 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. i ee INTRODUCTION. XXxili basket of Vinaya, and the basket of Abhidhamma, and the three subjects of Dhamma (sutta), Vinaya, and Abhidhamma, treated in these baskets. The subjects existed and were taught long before the three baskets were definitely arranged. Dhamma had originally a much wider meaning than Sutta-pizaka. It often means the whole teaching of Buddha; and even when it refers more particularly to the Sutta-piaka, we know that the Dhamma there taught deals largely with Vinaya and Abhidhamma doctrines. Even the fact that at the First Council, according to the description given in the Kullavagga, the Vinaya and Dhamma only were rehearsed, though proving the absence at that time of the Abhidhamma, as a separate Pitaka, by no means excludes the subject of the Abhidhamma having been taught under the head of Dhamma. In the Mahakaruz4puzdarika-sitra the doctrine of Buddha is divided into Dharma and Vinaya; the Abhidharma is not mentioned. But the same text knows of all the twelve Dharmapravazanani}, the 1. Sitra; 2. Geya; 3. Vydkarama; 4. Gath4; 5. Uddna; 6. Nid4na; 7. Avaddna; 8. Itivrzttaka ; 9. Gataka ; 10. Vaipulya; 11. Adbhutadharma ; 12. Upadesa ; some of these being decidedly metaphysical. To my mind nothing shows so well the historical character both of the Kullavagga and of Buddhaghosa in the Introduction to his commentary on the Digha-nikaya, as that the former, in its account of the First Council, should know only of the Vinaya, as rehearsed by Upali, and the Dhamma, as rehearsed by Ananda, while the much later Buddhaghosa, in his account of the First Council?, divides the Dhamma into two parts, and states that the second part, the Abhidhamma, was rehearsed after the first part, the Dhamma. Between the time of the Kullavagga and the time of Buddhaghosa the Abhidhamma must have assumed its recognised position by the side of Vinaya and Sutta. It must be left to further researches to determine, if possible, 1 See Academy, August 28, 1880, Division of Buddhist Scriptures. ? Oldenberg, Introduction, p. xii; Turnour, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vi, p. 510 seq. [10] c XXXIV DHAMMAPADA. the time when the name of pifaka was first used, and when Tipifaka was accepted as the title of the whole canon.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.