Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1It 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. In the earliest books of the Sutta Pizaka, which contains the statement of Buddhist belief, we find—just as in the Gospels and in the Socratic dialogues—that that belief is not stated directly. The books profess to give, not simply the belief itself, but the belief as the Buddha uttered it, with an account of the time when, and the place at which, he uttered it. The Buddha’s new method of salvation, his new doctrine of what salvation was, did not present itself to the consciousness of the early Buddhist community as an idea, a doctrine, standing alone, and merely on its own ‘merits. In their minds it was indissolubly bound up with the memory of the revered and striking personality of him who had proclaimed it. So in the Sutta Pifaka the actor and speaker is almost throughout the Buddha himself: (occasionally, but very seldom, one of his disciples.) Introductions—often indeed short and tending in later times to disappear—give a full account of where, and when, he spoke; what was the occasion which led to his uttering that particular speech; and to whom he uttered it. But, throughout, the principal thing is what the Buddha said. It is only natural that this distinguishing mark of the [13] b XVill VINAVA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. literature of the Buddhist Dhamma—much of which was no doubt in existence at a very early date—should have reacted upon the literature of the Buddhist Vinaya. The members of the Order were no longer contented to learn, and to understand the meaning of, the various Rules of the Patimokkha, <A desire sprang up to have, for each one of them also, a kind of historical basis; to know the story of how the Buddha himself came to lay down the Rule to his disciples. And it was only the Brother who was properly acquainted with all this who was accounted a real ‘ Doctor of the Law.’ So it is said in the Kullavagga (IX, 5, 1):—‘If a Brother, Upali, has not received gladly both the Patimokkhas in their full extent, has not well divided them, well established them, well investigated them, both sutta by sutta, and in every detail; if when asked, “ Where was this spoken by the Blessed One?” he fail to solve the question: then there will be some who will say to him, “But then, let the venerable one still devote himself to learning the Vinaya!” thus will they say?.’
2It is evident from this passage that, at the time when it was written, such a tradition regarding each Rule was in existence; and that the knowledge of these traditions was held in high esteem. It is therefore a reasonable conjecture that steps were taken to amalgamate these traditions with the Text and the Old Commentary in a complete work, which should also contain what we may call Notes on the Rules—that is, decisions on points of Law involved, though not expressed in so many words, in the Rules; discussions on what cases were really included and what were not, in particular regulations ; enumeration of exceptions to the Rules; and so on. Whether this conjecture be right or not, it is precisely such a work that we have now before us in that part of the Vinaya Piéaka called the Sutta-vibhanga, and divided 1 No ke Upali bhikkhuno ubhayani Patimokkhani vittharena svagatani honti suvibhattani suppavattini suvinikkzitani suttato anuvyafiganaso, idam pan’ Avuso kattha vuttam Bhagavata ’ti iti puéého na sampdyati, tassa bhavanti vattdro: Ingha tava 4yasma Vinayam pariyapunass( ‘ti: iti ’ssa bhavanti vattaro. INTRODUCTION. XIX in the present MSS., as above pointed out, into two books called respectively—after the class of Rules with which they begin—Paragika and Pafittiya. And it is possible throughout, without the possibility of mistake, to distinguish between the three portions of which the present work is built up. The historical basis comes first, leading up to the extract from the Patimokkha, which is always placed in the Buddha’s own mouth; then comes the Old Commentary, with its verbal explanations; and then, finally, the Notes giving the exceptions to, and the extensions of, the Rule in the Patimokkha. The foregoing paragraphs show the way in which the Sutta-vibhanga grew up on the basis of the Patimokkha. The following books—the Khandhakas—give a detailed and connected account of the admission into the Samgha ; of the ceremony of the Uposatha; of the annually recurring observances connected with the beginning and the end of the rainy season; of the principal disciplinary proceedings ; and of miscellaneous details regarding the medicine, food, dwelling-places, and daily life of the members of the Order (Bhikkhus). As in the Sutta-vibhanga, so here also, the outward form is arranged in such a way that in the case of every regulation a history was given of the occasion upon which the Buddha was supposed to have made it. These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out.
3These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out. While, however, in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga the liturgy on which it has been founded has been preserved in a separate shape, the formularies in the Khandhakas have not as yet, except in some instances, been found in existence apart from the Khandhakas. The principal exception is the Upasampada-kammavdaka (The Words of the Act of Ordination), which recurs in its entirety in the First Khandhaka of the Mahavagga (I, 76, 3 to I, 78, 5). It is impossible therefore as yet to trace the history of the gradual formation of the Khandhakas as we think it already possible to do in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga. In the Khandhakas too, no doubt, the introductory b 2 XX VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. histories are the latest part. But while some of the formularies and regulations to which they lead up may well be very old, others are probably additions to, or modifications of, those older ones; and it is difficult to attempt to show, even with regard to the exceptions above mentioned, which are the older and which are the later. The misfortune that these forms are not all now separately extant! is probably simply due to the fact that the formularies separately preserved (including the Patimokkha) are the only ones which continued to be used in actual services among the members of the Order. Such being the nature and contents, and such—so far as it can be traced—being the origin of the Sutta-vibhanga and of the Khandhakas respectively, it follows that in all probability they were composed, or put into their present shape, at about the same period in the development of early Buddhism—it is even possible that both works arose in immediate connection. The kind of narrative setting with which, in both cases, the older material has been surrounded is alike in both. Here and there in both works are included real fragments of ancient legend or tradition—as, for instance, the account of the events from the attainment of Buddhahood down to the conversion of Sariputta and Moggallana (Mah4vagga I, 1-24), the story of Devadatta (Kullavagga VII), the story of the conversion and the sin of Sudinna (Vibhanga, First Paragika). But the greater number of these narratives are of the most meagre description, and have altogether the appearance of being mere inventions. There is little doubt that this is what they, in fact, were. Actual remembrance of the Buddha, and of his time, could have sufficed only in the rarest instances to give a correct historical basis for the Rules or Ceremonies, which had to be explained. We find a precisely similar 1 Mr. Dickson has given us an excellent text of the Upasampada-kammavaka ; and it were much to be wished that the rest of them should also be published. Mr. Clough has given a translation of six others in ‘ Miscellaneous Translations
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.
1It 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. In the earliest books of the Sutta Pizaka, which contains the statement of Buddhist belief, we find—just as in the Gospels and in the Socratic dialogues—that that belief is not stated directly. The books profess to give, not simply the belief itself, but the belief as the Buddha uttered it, with an account of the time when, and the place at which, he uttered it. The Buddha’s new method of salvation, his new doctrine of what salvation was, did not present itself to the consciousness of the early Buddhist community as an idea, a doctrine, standing alone, and merely on its own ‘merits. In their minds it was indissolubly bound up with the memory of the revered and striking personality of him who had proclaimed it. So in the Sutta Pifaka the actor and speaker is almost throughout the Buddha himself: (occasionally, but very seldom, one of his disciples.) Introductions—often indeed short and tending in later times to disappear—give a full account of where, and when, he spoke; what was the occasion which led to his uttering that particular speech; and to whom he uttered it. But, throughout, the principal thing is what the Buddha said. It is only natural that this distinguishing mark of the [13] b XVill VINAVA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. literature of the Buddhist Dhamma—much of which was no doubt in existence at a very early date—should have reacted upon the literature of the Buddhist Vinaya. The members of the Order were no longer contented to learn, and to understand the meaning of, the various Rules of the Patimokkha, <A desire sprang up to have, for each one of them also, a kind of historical basis; to know the story of how the Buddha himself came to lay down the Rule to his disciples. And it was only the Brother who was properly acquainted with all this who was accounted a real ‘ Doctor of the Law.’ So it is said in the Kullavagga (IX, 5, 1):—‘If a Brother, Upali, has not received gladly both the Patimokkhas in their full extent, has not well divided them, well established them, well investigated them, both sutta by sutta, and in every detail; if when asked, “ Where was this spoken by the Blessed One?” he fail to solve the question: then there will be some who will say to him, “But then, let the venerable one still devote himself to learning the Vinaya!” thus will they say?.’
2It is evident from this passage that, at the time when it was written, such a tradition regarding each Rule was in existence; and that the knowledge of these traditions was held in high esteem. It is therefore a reasonable conjecture that steps were taken to amalgamate these traditions with the Text and the Old Commentary in a complete work, which should also contain what we may call Notes on the Rules—that is, decisions on points of Law involved, though not expressed in so many words, in the Rules; discussions on what cases were really included and what were not, in particular regulations ; enumeration of exceptions to the Rules; and so on. Whether this conjecture be right or not, it is precisely such a work that we have now before us in that part of the Vinaya Piéaka called the Sutta-vibhanga, and divided 1 No ke Upali bhikkhuno ubhayani Patimokkhani vittharena svagatani honti suvibhattani suppavattini suvinikkzitani suttato anuvyafiganaso, idam pan’ Avuso kattha vuttam Bhagavata ’ti iti puéého na sampdyati, tassa bhavanti vattdro: Ingha tava 4yasma Vinayam pariyapunass( ‘ti: iti ’ssa bhavanti vattaro. INTRODUCTION. XIX in the present MSS., as above pointed out, into two books called respectively—after the class of Rules with which they begin—Paragika and Pafittiya. And it is possible throughout, without the possibility of mistake, to distinguish between the three portions of which the present work is built up. The historical basis comes first, leading up to the extract from the Patimokkha, which is always placed in the Buddha’s own mouth; then comes the Old Commentary, with its verbal explanations; and then, finally, the Notes giving the exceptions to, and the extensions of, the Rule in the Patimokkha. The foregoing paragraphs show the way in which the Sutta-vibhanga grew up on the basis of the Patimokkha. The following books—the Khandhakas—give a detailed and connected account of the admission into the Samgha ; of the ceremony of the Uposatha; of the annually recurring observances connected with the beginning and the end of the rainy season; of the principal disciplinary proceedings ; and of miscellaneous details regarding the medicine, food, dwelling-places, and daily life of the members of the Order (Bhikkhus). As in the Sutta-vibhanga, so here also, the outward form is arranged in such a way that in the case of every regulation a history was given of the occasion upon which the Buddha was supposed to have made it. These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out.
3These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out. While, however, in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga the liturgy on which it has been founded has been preserved in a separate shape, the formularies in the Khandhakas have not as yet, except in some instances, been found in existence apart from the Khandhakas. The principal exception is the Upasampada-kammavdaka (The Words of the Act of Ordination), which recurs in its entirety in the First Khandhaka of the Mahavagga (I, 76, 3 to I, 78, 5). It is impossible therefore as yet to trace the history of the gradual formation of the Khandhakas as we think it already possible to do in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga. In the Khandhakas too, no doubt, the introductory b 2 XX VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. histories are the latest part. But while some of the formularies and regulations to which they lead up may well be very old, others are probably additions to, or modifications of, those older ones; and it is difficult to attempt to show, even with regard to the exceptions above mentioned, which are the older and which are the later. The misfortune that these forms are not all now separately extant! is probably simply due to the fact that the formularies separately preserved (including the Patimokkha) are the only ones which continued to be used in actual services among the members of the Order. Such being the nature and contents, and such—so far as it can be traced—being the origin of the Sutta-vibhanga and of the Khandhakas respectively, it follows that in all probability they were composed, or put into their present shape, at about the same period in the development of early Buddhism—it is even possible that both works arose in immediate connection. The kind of narrative setting with which, in both cases, the older material has been surrounded is alike in both. Here and there in both works are included real fragments of ancient legend or tradition—as, for instance, the account of the events from the attainment of Buddhahood down to the conversion of Sariputta and Moggallana (Mah4vagga I, 1-24), the story of Devadatta (Kullavagga VII), the story of the conversion and the sin of Sudinna (Vibhanga, First Paragika). But the greater number of these narratives are of the most meagre description, and have altogether the appearance of being mere inventions. There is little doubt that this is what they, in fact, were. Actual remembrance of the Buddha, and of his time, could have sufficed only in the rarest instances to give a correct historical basis for the Rules or Ceremonies, which had to be explained. We find a precisely similar 1 Mr. Dickson has given us an excellent text of the Upasampada-kammavaka ; and it were much to be wished that the rest of them should also be published. Mr. Clough has given a translation of six others in ‘ Miscellaneous Translations
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.