Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1that might arise, among the members of the community, with regard to the Dhamma and the Vinaya, and with regard to — . — , 3 — 1 Pages 67, 68 in the edition of Childers. 8 Pages 39, 60, 61, ibid. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. XUl the treatment of such cases when he should no longer be with them. If anywhere, we should certainly have ex- pected to find here some allusion to the great authentic depositions of Dhamma and Vinaya after Buddha's death, which, according to the general belief of Buddhists, esta- blished a firm standard according to which differences could be judged and have been judged through many centuries. There is not the slightest trace of any such allusion to the Council. This silence is as valuable as the most direct testimony. It shows that the author of the Mah&- parinibb&na-Sutta did not know anything of the First Council.' The only objection which it seems to me possible to raise against this argument is that the conclusion is worded somewhat too absolutely ; and that it is rather a begging of the question to state, in the very first words referring to the Mahd-parinibbdna-Sutta, that it is older than the story in the ATulla-vagga, and that its author could not have known that work. But no one will venture to dispute the accuracy of Dr. Oldenberg's representation of the facts on which he bases his conclusion ; and the conclusion that he draws is, at least, the easiest and readiest way of explaining the very real discrepancy that he has pointed out. We shall be quite safe if we only say that we have certain facts which lend strong probability to the hypothesis that the author of the Mahd-parinibbana-Sutta did not know that account of the First Council which we find in the ATulla- vagga. We do not know for certain the time at which that part of the A\illa-vagga, in which that account occurs, was com- posed. I think it quite possible that it was as late as the Council of Patna (b. C. 250), though Dr. Oldenberg places it somewhat earlier 1 . But even if we put the conclusion of the ATulla-vagga as late as the year I have mentioned, it is still in the highest degree improbable that the Mah&- parinibbclna-Sutta, supposing it to be an older work, can have been composed very much later than the fourth century B.C. — a provisional date sufficient at present for practical purposes. 1 Maha- vagga, p. xxxviii. xiv THE BUDDHIST SUTTAS. This conclusion, however, is only almost, and not quite certain. It is just possible that the author of the Book of the Great Decease omitted all mention of the First Council at R&^agaha, not because he did not know of it, but because he considered it unnecessary to mention an event which had no bearing on the subject of his work. He was de- scribing the death of the Buddha, and not the history of the Canon or of the Order. I must confess however that I only mention this as a possibility from a desire rather to understate than to over- state my case.
2essary to mention an event which had no bearing on the subject of his work. He was de- scribing the death of the Buddha, and not the history of the Canon or of the Order. I must confess however that I only mention this as a possibility from a desire rather to understate than to over- state my case. For, firstly, it should be remembered that the writer does not merely omit to mention an occurrence subsequent to and unconnected with the Great Decease. He does more : he gives an account of the Subhadda in- cident which is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the legend or narrative of the R^agaha Council as related in the ATulla-vagga. Had that narrative, as we now have it, been received in his time among the Brethren, he would scarcely have done this. And, secondly, he does not, after all, close his book, as he might well have done, with the Great Decease itself. It will be seen from the translation below 1 that there was a point in his narrative, the exclamations of sorrow at the death of the Buddha, which would have formed, had he desired to omit all unnecessary details, a very fitting con- clusion to his narrative. The Book of the Great King of Glory, the Mahd-sudassana-Sutta K closes with the very ex- clamation our author puts, at this point, into the mouth of Sakka. The Mahd-parinibbana was then over, and the Mahci-parinibbcina-Sutta might have then been closed. But he goes on and describes in detail the cremation, the distribution of the relics, and the feasts celebrated in their honour. It is not necessary for my point to show that it was in the least degree unnatural to do so. It is sufficient to be able to point out that the author having done so, — having gone on to the arrival of Kassapa, who was after- wards (in the A^ulla-vagga) said to have held the Council ; having mentioned the very incident which, according to the 1 See below, Chap. VI, § 21. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. XV other narrative, gave rise to the holding of the Council ; and having referred to events which took place after the Council, — it is scarcely a tenable argument to say that he, knowing of it, did not refer, even incidentally and in half a sentence, to so important an event, simply because it did not come, necessarily, within the subject of his work. And when we find that in other works on the death of the Buddha, referred to below 1 , the account of the Council of Rd^agaha has, in fact, been included in the story, it is difficult to withhold our assent to the very great probability of the hypothesis, that it would have been included also in the P&li Book of the Great Decease had the belief in the tradi- tion of the Council been commonly held at the time when that book was put into its present shape. At the same time we must hold ourselves quite prepared to learn that some other explanation may turn out to be possible. The argument, if it applied to writers of the nineteenth century, would be conclusive.
3of the Council been commonly held at the time when that book was put into its present shape. At the same time we must hold ourselves quite prepared to learn that some other explanation may turn out to be possible. The argument, if it applied to writers of the nineteenth century, would be conclusive. But we know too little about the mode in which the Pali Pi/akas were composed to presume at present to be quite certain. The Mah£-parinibb£na-Sutta was then probably com- posed before the account of the First Council of Rd^a- gaha in the concluding part of the ATulla-vagga. It was also almost certainly composed after Pd/aliputta, the modern Patna, had become the capital city of the king- dom of Magadha ; after the worship of relics had become common in the Buddhist church ; and after the rise of a general belief in the Afakkavatti theory, in the ideal of a sacred king, a supreme overlord in India. The first of these last three arguments depends on the prophecy placed in Gotama's mouth as to the future great- ness of Pa/aliputta — a prophecy found in the Mahd-vagga as well as in the Mahci-parinibb&na-Sutta. It is true that the guess may actually have been made, and that it re- quired no great boldness to hazard a conjecture so vaguely expressed. The words simply are — 'And among famous places of residence and haunts of See p. xxxviii. xvi THE BUDDHIST SUTTAS. busy men, this will become the chief, the city of Pd/aliputta, a centre for interchange of all kinds of wares. But there will happen three disasters to Pd/aliputta, one of fire, and one of water, and one of dissension V But it is, to say the least, improbable that the conjecture would have been recorded until after the event had proved it to be accurate : and it would scarcely be too hazardous to maintain that the tradition of the guess having been made would not have arisen at all until after the event had occurred. What was the event referred to may also be questioned, as the words quoted do not, in terms, declare that the city would become the actual capital. But we know, not only from Buddhist, but from Greek historians, that it did, and this is most probably the origin of the prophecy. Now the Mctlcilank&ravatthu, a Pdli work of modern, date, but following very closely the more ancient books, has been translated, through the Burmese, by Bishop Bigandet; and it says, 'That monarch [Susuniga], not unmindful of his mother's origin, re-established the city of Vesdll, and fixed in it the royal residence. From that time R^gagaha lost her rank of royal city, which she never afterwards recovered. He died in 8i' [that is, of the Buddhist era reckoned from the Great Decease] 2 . . . . Relying on similar authority Bishop Bigandet afterwards himself says : * King Kd/dsoka left Ra^agaha, and removed the seat of his empire to Palibothra [the Greek name for Pi/aliputta], near the place where the modern city of Patna stands 2 .' 1 See below, Chap. I, § 28.
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.
1that might arise, among the members of the community, with regard to the Dhamma and the Vinaya, and with regard to — . — , 3 — 1 Pages 67, 68 in the edition of Childers. 8 Pages 39, 60, 61, ibid. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. XUl the treatment of such cases when he should no longer be with them. If anywhere, we should certainly have ex- pected to find here some allusion to the great authentic depositions of Dhamma and Vinaya after Buddha's death, which, according to the general belief of Buddhists, esta- blished a firm standard according to which differences could be judged and have been judged through many centuries. There is not the slightest trace of any such allusion to the Council. This silence is as valuable as the most direct testimony. It shows that the author of the Mah&- parinibb&na-Sutta did not know anything of the First Council.' The only objection which it seems to me possible to raise against this argument is that the conclusion is worded somewhat too absolutely ; and that it is rather a begging of the question to state, in the very first words referring to the Mahd-parinibbdna-Sutta, that it is older than the story in the ATulla-vagga, and that its author could not have known that work. But no one will venture to dispute the accuracy of Dr. Oldenberg's representation of the facts on which he bases his conclusion ; and the conclusion that he draws is, at least, the easiest and readiest way of explaining the very real discrepancy that he has pointed out. We shall be quite safe if we only say that we have certain facts which lend strong probability to the hypothesis that the author of the Mahd-parinibbana-Sutta did not know that account of the First Council which we find in the ATulla- vagga. We do not know for certain the time at which that part of the A\illa-vagga, in which that account occurs, was com- posed. I think it quite possible that it was as late as the Council of Patna (b. C. 250), though Dr. Oldenberg places it somewhat earlier 1 . But even if we put the conclusion of the ATulla-vagga as late as the year I have mentioned, it is still in the highest degree improbable that the Mah&- parinibbclna-Sutta, supposing it to be an older work, can have been composed very much later than the fourth century B.C. — a provisional date sufficient at present for practical purposes. 1 Maha- vagga, p. xxxviii. xiv THE BUDDHIST SUTTAS. This conclusion, however, is only almost, and not quite certain. It is just possible that the author of the Book of the Great Decease omitted all mention of the First Council at R&^agaha, not because he did not know of it, but because he considered it unnecessary to mention an event which had no bearing on the subject of his work. He was de- scribing the death of the Buddha, and not the history of the Canon or of the Order. I must confess however that I only mention this as a possibility from a desire rather to understate than to over- state my case.
2essary to mention an event which had no bearing on the subject of his work. He was de- scribing the death of the Buddha, and not the history of the Canon or of the Order. I must confess however that I only mention this as a possibility from a desire rather to understate than to over- state my case. For, firstly, it should be remembered that the writer does not merely omit to mention an occurrence subsequent to and unconnected with the Great Decease. He does more : he gives an account of the Subhadda in- cident which is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the legend or narrative of the R^agaha Council as related in the ATulla-vagga. Had that narrative, as we now have it, been received in his time among the Brethren, he would scarcely have done this. And, secondly, he does not, after all, close his book, as he might well have done, with the Great Decease itself. It will be seen from the translation below 1 that there was a point in his narrative, the exclamations of sorrow at the death of the Buddha, which would have formed, had he desired to omit all unnecessary details, a very fitting con- clusion to his narrative. The Book of the Great King of Glory, the Mahd-sudassana-Sutta K closes with the very ex- clamation our author puts, at this point, into the mouth of Sakka. The Mahd-parinibbana was then over, and the Mahci-parinibbcina-Sutta might have then been closed. But he goes on and describes in detail the cremation, the distribution of the relics, and the feasts celebrated in their honour. It is not necessary for my point to show that it was in the least degree unnatural to do so. It is sufficient to be able to point out that the author having done so, — having gone on to the arrival of Kassapa, who was after- wards (in the A^ulla-vagga) said to have held the Council ; having mentioned the very incident which, according to the 1 See below, Chap. VI, § 21. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. XV other narrative, gave rise to the holding of the Council ; and having referred to events which took place after the Council, — it is scarcely a tenable argument to say that he, knowing of it, did not refer, even incidentally and in half a sentence, to so important an event, simply because it did not come, necessarily, within the subject of his work. And when we find that in other works on the death of the Buddha, referred to below 1 , the account of the Council of Rd^agaha has, in fact, been included in the story, it is difficult to withhold our assent to the very great probability of the hypothesis, that it would have been included also in the P&li Book of the Great Decease had the belief in the tradi- tion of the Council been commonly held at the time when that book was put into its present shape. At the same time we must hold ourselves quite prepared to learn that some other explanation may turn out to be possible. The argument, if it applied to writers of the nineteenth century, would be conclusive.
3of the Council been commonly held at the time when that book was put into its present shape. At the same time we must hold ourselves quite prepared to learn that some other explanation may turn out to be possible. The argument, if it applied to writers of the nineteenth century, would be conclusive. But we know too little about the mode in which the Pali Pi/akas were composed to presume at present to be quite certain. The Mah£-parinibb£na-Sutta was then probably com- posed before the account of the First Council of Rd^a- gaha in the concluding part of the ATulla-vagga. It was also almost certainly composed after Pd/aliputta, the modern Patna, had become the capital city of the king- dom of Magadha ; after the worship of relics had become common in the Buddhist church ; and after the rise of a general belief in the Afakkavatti theory, in the ideal of a sacred king, a supreme overlord in India. The first of these last three arguments depends on the prophecy placed in Gotama's mouth as to the future great- ness of Pa/aliputta — a prophecy found in the Mahd-vagga as well as in the Mahci-parinibb&na-Sutta. It is true that the guess may actually have been made, and that it re- quired no great boldness to hazard a conjecture so vaguely expressed. The words simply are — 'And among famous places of residence and haunts of See p. xxxviii. xvi THE BUDDHIST SUTTAS. busy men, this will become the chief, the city of Pd/aliputta, a centre for interchange of all kinds of wares. But there will happen three disasters to Pd/aliputta, one of fire, and one of water, and one of dissension V But it is, to say the least, improbable that the conjecture would have been recorded until after the event had proved it to be accurate : and it would scarcely be too hazardous to maintain that the tradition of the guess having been made would not have arisen at all until after the event had occurred. What was the event referred to may also be questioned, as the words quoted do not, in terms, declare that the city would become the actual capital. But we know, not only from Buddhist, but from Greek historians, that it did, and this is most probably the origin of the prophecy. Now the Mctlcilank&ravatthu, a Pdli work of modern, date, but following very closely the more ancient books, has been translated, through the Burmese, by Bishop Bigandet; and it says, 'That monarch [Susuniga], not unmindful of his mother's origin, re-established the city of Vesdll, and fixed in it the royal residence. From that time R^gagaha lost her rank of royal city, which she never afterwards recovered. He died in 8i' [that is, of the Buddhist era reckoned from the Great Decease] 2 . . . . Relying on similar authority Bishop Bigandet afterwards himself says : * King Kd/dsoka left Ra^agaha, and removed the seat of his empire to Palibothra [the Greek name for Pi/aliputta], near the place where the modern city of Patna stands 2 .' 1 See below, Chap. I, § 28.
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.