Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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.
2But 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.
3There 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.
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.
1The 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.
2But 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.
3There 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.
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.