Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1? 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. Whenever we see such traces of growth, we feel that we are on historical ground, and in that sense Dr. Oldenberg’s researches into the growth of the Vinaya, previous to the Second Council, deserve the highest credit. He shows, in opposition to other scholars, that the earliest elements of Vinaya must be looked for in the short Patimokkha rules, which were afterwards supplemented by explanations, by glosses and commentaries, and in that form answered for some time every practical purpose. Then followed a new generation who, not being satisfied, as it would seem, with these brief rules and comments, wished to know the occasion on which these rules had been originally promulgated. What we now call the Vibhanga, i.e. the first and second divisions of the Vinaya-pizaka, is a collection of the stories, illustrating the origin of each rule, of the rules themselves (the P4timokkha), and of the glosses and comments on these rules, The third and fourth books, the Mahavagga and Kullavagga, are looked upon as possibly of a slightly later date. They treat, in a similar manner as the Vibhanga, on the rules not included in that collection, and give a general picture of the outward life of the monks. While the Vibhanga deals chiefly with the original so-called paragika, sangh4disesa, and paéitttya offences, the Khandhaka, i.e. the Mahdvagga and Kullavagga, treats of the so-called dukkaéa and thullakkaya crimes. The arrangement is the same, story, rule, and comment succeeding each other in regular sequence. If we follow the guidance of the Vinaya-pifaka, we should be able to distinguish the following steps in the growth of Buddhism before the Second Council of Vesali : 1. Teaching of Buddha and his disciples (543/477 A.D. Buddha’s death). 2. Collection of Patimokkha rules (first code). 3. Comment and glosses on these rules. 4. Stories in illustration of these rules (vibhanga). 5. Mahavagga and Kullavagga (Khandhaka). INTRODUCTION. XXXV 6. Council of Vesalf for the repression of ten abuses (443/377 A.D.) 7. Description of First and Second Councils in Kullavagga. The Kullavagga ascribes the settlement of the canon to the First Council, and does not even claim a revision of that canon for the Second Council. The Dipavamsa claims a revision of the canon by the 700 Arhats for the Second Council. CHRONOLOGY.
2The Kullavagga ascribes the settlement of the canon to the First Council, and does not even claim a revision of that canon for the Second Council. The Dipavamsa claims a revision of the canon by the 700 Arhats for the Second Council. CHRONOLOGY. In order to bring the Council of Vesali in connection with the chronology of the world, we must follow the Buddhist historians for another century. One hundred and eighteen years after the Council of Vesdli they place the anointment of King Asoka, during whose reign a Third Council, under the presidency of Tissa Moggaliputta, took place at Pasaliputta, the new capital adopted by that king, instead of Ragagaha and Vesalf. This Council is chiefly known to us through the writings of the southern Buddhists (Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, and Buddhaghosa), who belong to the school of Moggaliputta (Theravada or Vibhaggavada), which ruled supreme at P4éaliputta, while Upagupta, the chief authority of the northern Buddhists, is altogether ignored in the Pali chronicles. Now it is well known that Asoka was the grandson of Kandagutta, and Kandagutta the contemporary of Alexander the Great. Here we see land, and I may refer to my History of Sanskrit Literature, published in 1859, for the process by which the storm-tossed ship of Indian chronology has been landed in the harbour of real historical chronology. We are told by the monks of the Mahavih4ra in Ceylon that Asoka was crowned, according to their computation, 146+18 years before the accession of Du¢thagAmani, 161 B.C., i.e. 325 B.C.; that between his coronation and his father’s death four years had elapsed (329 B.C.); that his father Bindusara had reigned twentyeight years! (357-329 B.C.), and Bindusdra’s father, Kan- 1 Mahavamsa, p. 21. Cc 2 XXXVI DHAMMAPADA. dagutta, twenty-four years (381-357). As we know that Kandagutta, whom the Ceylonese place 381-357 B.C., was king of India after Alexander’s conquest, it follows that Ceylonese chronology is wrong by more than half a century. For reasons stated in my History of Sanskrit Literature, I fix the exact fault in Ceylonese chronology as sixty-six years, assigning to Kandagutta the dates 315-291, instead of 381-357. This gives us 291-263 for Bindusdra,'259 for Asoka’s abhisheka; 259+ 118=377 for the Council of Vesali, and 377 + 100=477 for Buddha’s death, instead of 543 B.C.)
3This gives us 291-263 for Bindusdra,'259 for Asoka’s abhisheka; 259+ 118=377 for the Council of Vesali, and 377 + 100=477 for Buddha’s death, instead of 543 B.C.) These dates are, of course, approximate only, and they depend on one or two points on which people may differ. But, with that reservation, I see no ground whatever for modifying the chronological system which I put forward more than twenty years ago. Professor Westergaard and Professor Kern, who have since suggested different dates for the death of Buddha, do not really differ from me in principle, but only in their choice of one or the other alternative, which I readily admit as possible, but not as more certain than my own. Professor Westergaard?, for instance, fixes Buddha’s death at 368 (370), instead of 477. This seems a wide difference, but it is so in appearance only. Following Justinus, who says that Sandrokyptos® had conquered the empire of India at the time when Seleucus laid the foundations of his own greatness, I had accepted 315*, half-way between the murder of Porus and the taking of Babylon by Seleucus, as the probable beginning 1 According to Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, p. 361, the era of Buddha’s death was introduced by Ag&tasatru, at the conclusion of the First Council, and began in the year 146 of the older Eetzana era (p. 12). See, however, Rhys Davids, Num. Orient. vi, p. 38. In the Karanda-vydha, p. 96, a date is given as 300 after the Nirvaza, ‘ tritiye varshasate gate mama parinirvritasya.’ In the Asoka-avadana we read, mama nirvritim arabhya satavarshagata Upagupto nama bhikshur utpatsyati. 2? Uber Buddha’s Todesjahr (1860), 1862. * The Greek name Sandrokyptus shows that the Pali corruption Kandagutta was not yet the recognised name of the king. * Mr. Rhys Davids accepts 315 8.c. as the date when, after the murder of king Nanda, Kandragupta stept into the vacant throne, though he had begun to count his reign seven or eight years before. Buddhism, p. 220. INTRODUCTION. XXXVI of Kandragupta’s reign. Westergaard prefers 320 as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and therefore places the death of the last Nanda and the beginning of Asoka’s royal pretensions 268. Here there is a difference between him and me of five years, which depends chiefly on the view we take as to the time when Seleucus really laid what Justinus calls the foundation of his future greatness. Secondly, Westergaard actually adopts the idea, at which I only hinted as possible, that the southern Buddhists made two Asokas out of one, and two Councils out of one. Trusting in the tradition that 118 years elapsed between Buddha’s death and the Council under Asoka (at Padaliputra), and that the Council took place in the king’s tenth year (as was the case with the imaginary K4lAsoka’s Council), he gets 268—10=258 as the date of the Council, and 368 or 370 as the date of Buddha’s death.
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.
1? 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. Whenever we see such traces of growth, we feel that we are on historical ground, and in that sense Dr. Oldenberg’s researches into the growth of the Vinaya, previous to the Second Council, deserve the highest credit. He shows, in opposition to other scholars, that the earliest elements of Vinaya must be looked for in the short Patimokkha rules, which were afterwards supplemented by explanations, by glosses and commentaries, and in that form answered for some time every practical purpose. Then followed a new generation who, not being satisfied, as it would seem, with these brief rules and comments, wished to know the occasion on which these rules had been originally promulgated. What we now call the Vibhanga, i.e. the first and second divisions of the Vinaya-pizaka, is a collection of the stories, illustrating the origin of each rule, of the rules themselves (the P4timokkha), and of the glosses and comments on these rules, The third and fourth books, the Mahavagga and Kullavagga, are looked upon as possibly of a slightly later date. They treat, in a similar manner as the Vibhanga, on the rules not included in that collection, and give a general picture of the outward life of the monks. While the Vibhanga deals chiefly with the original so-called paragika, sangh4disesa, and paéitttya offences, the Khandhaka, i.e. the Mahdvagga and Kullavagga, treats of the so-called dukkaéa and thullakkaya crimes. The arrangement is the same, story, rule, and comment succeeding each other in regular sequence. If we follow the guidance of the Vinaya-pifaka, we should be able to distinguish the following steps in the growth of Buddhism before the Second Council of Vesali : 1. Teaching of Buddha and his disciples (543/477 A.D. Buddha’s death). 2. Collection of Patimokkha rules (first code). 3. Comment and glosses on these rules. 4. Stories in illustration of these rules (vibhanga). 5. Mahavagga and Kullavagga (Khandhaka). INTRODUCTION. XXXV 6. Council of Vesalf for the repression of ten abuses (443/377 A.D.) 7. Description of First and Second Councils in Kullavagga. The Kullavagga ascribes the settlement of the canon to the First Council, and does not even claim a revision of that canon for the Second Council. The Dipavamsa claims a revision of the canon by the 700 Arhats for the Second Council. CHRONOLOGY.
2The Kullavagga ascribes the settlement of the canon to the First Council, and does not even claim a revision of that canon for the Second Council. The Dipavamsa claims a revision of the canon by the 700 Arhats for the Second Council. CHRONOLOGY. In order to bring the Council of Vesali in connection with the chronology of the world, we must follow the Buddhist historians for another century. One hundred and eighteen years after the Council of Vesdli they place the anointment of King Asoka, during whose reign a Third Council, under the presidency of Tissa Moggaliputta, took place at Pasaliputta, the new capital adopted by that king, instead of Ragagaha and Vesalf. This Council is chiefly known to us through the writings of the southern Buddhists (Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, and Buddhaghosa), who belong to the school of Moggaliputta (Theravada or Vibhaggavada), which ruled supreme at P4éaliputta, while Upagupta, the chief authority of the northern Buddhists, is altogether ignored in the Pali chronicles. Now it is well known that Asoka was the grandson of Kandagutta, and Kandagutta the contemporary of Alexander the Great. Here we see land, and I may refer to my History of Sanskrit Literature, published in 1859, for the process by which the storm-tossed ship of Indian chronology has been landed in the harbour of real historical chronology. We are told by the monks of the Mahavih4ra in Ceylon that Asoka was crowned, according to their computation, 146+18 years before the accession of Du¢thagAmani, 161 B.C., i.e. 325 B.C.; that between his coronation and his father’s death four years had elapsed (329 B.C.); that his father Bindusara had reigned twentyeight years! (357-329 B.C.), and Bindusdra’s father, Kan- 1 Mahavamsa, p. 21. Cc 2 XXXVI DHAMMAPADA. dagutta, twenty-four years (381-357). As we know that Kandagutta, whom the Ceylonese place 381-357 B.C., was king of India after Alexander’s conquest, it follows that Ceylonese chronology is wrong by more than half a century. For reasons stated in my History of Sanskrit Literature, I fix the exact fault in Ceylonese chronology as sixty-six years, assigning to Kandagutta the dates 315-291, instead of 381-357. This gives us 291-263 for Bindusdra,'259 for Asoka’s abhisheka; 259+ 118=377 for the Council of Vesali, and 377 + 100=477 for Buddha’s death, instead of 543 B.C.)
3This gives us 291-263 for Bindusdra,'259 for Asoka’s abhisheka; 259+ 118=377 for the Council of Vesali, and 377 + 100=477 for Buddha’s death, instead of 543 B.C.) These dates are, of course, approximate only, and they depend on one or two points on which people may differ. But, with that reservation, I see no ground whatever for modifying the chronological system which I put forward more than twenty years ago. Professor Westergaard and Professor Kern, who have since suggested different dates for the death of Buddha, do not really differ from me in principle, but only in their choice of one or the other alternative, which I readily admit as possible, but not as more certain than my own. Professor Westergaard?, for instance, fixes Buddha’s death at 368 (370), instead of 477. This seems a wide difference, but it is so in appearance only. Following Justinus, who says that Sandrokyptos® had conquered the empire of India at the time when Seleucus laid the foundations of his own greatness, I had accepted 315*, half-way between the murder of Porus and the taking of Babylon by Seleucus, as the probable beginning 1 According to Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, p. 361, the era of Buddha’s death was introduced by Ag&tasatru, at the conclusion of the First Council, and began in the year 146 of the older Eetzana era (p. 12). See, however, Rhys Davids, Num. Orient. vi, p. 38. In the Karanda-vydha, p. 96, a date is given as 300 after the Nirvaza, ‘ tritiye varshasate gate mama parinirvritasya.’ In the Asoka-avadana we read, mama nirvritim arabhya satavarshagata Upagupto nama bhikshur utpatsyati. 2? Uber Buddha’s Todesjahr (1860), 1862. * The Greek name Sandrokyptus shows that the Pali corruption Kandagutta was not yet the recognised name of the king. * Mr. Rhys Davids accepts 315 8.c. as the date when, after the murder of king Nanda, Kandragupta stept into the vacant throne, though he had begun to count his reign seven or eight years before. Buddhism, p. 220. INTRODUCTION. XXXVI of Kandragupta’s reign. Westergaard prefers 320 as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and therefore places the death of the last Nanda and the beginning of Asoka’s royal pretensions 268. Here there is a difference between him and me of five years, which depends chiefly on the view we take as to the time when Seleucus really laid what Justinus calls the foundation of his future greatness. Secondly, Westergaard actually adopts the idea, at which I only hinted as possible, that the southern Buddhists made two Asokas out of one, and two Councils out of one. Trusting in the tradition that 118 years elapsed between Buddha’s death and the Council under Asoka (at Padaliputra), and that the Council took place in the king’s tenth year (as was the case with the imaginary K4lAsoka’s Council), he gets 268—10=258 as the date of the Council, and 368 or 370 as the date of Buddha’s death.
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.