Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We 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 from Oriental Languages,’ London, 1834; and the Liverpool Free Library has MSS. of others. ; INTRODUCTION. XX1 state of things leading, in the Introductions to the GAtaka Stories, to what were unquestionably inventions: and it must be acknowledged that the compilers have not taken the slightest trouble to conceal the evidently unsubstantial character of most of these summary introductions. But it does not follow that they were invented at the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled. They may possibly have formed part of the traditional explanatory teaching of the schools. As to the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled, we have important evidence in their silence regarding the well-known Ten Points. The long-continued struggle on that question—as important for the history of Buddhism as the Arian controversy for that of Christianity—agitated the whole Buddhist world to its very centre; and the attempted settlement of it, at the Council of Ves4li, led to a most serious schism in the Buddhist Church. Now the ten expressions in which the question was summarised or catalogued! are (as was pointed out in the Introduction to the Pali Text of the Mahavagga) conspicuous by their absence from the Vibhanga, and from all, except the last, of the Khandhakas?. The first mention of most of them, and the first use of any one of them as a distinctive war-cry, is found in those last books, which are evidently an appendix to the rest of the Khandhakas, and of an entirely different nature from the earlier ones; for they contain a regular historical account of the two Councils, that of Ragagaha, and that of Vesalt?. 1 Sitgiloza, dvaigula, &c. (Kullavagga XII, 1, 10). 3 That is, as war-cries; gatarQparagata occurs in the sense of the precious metals. 3 In the present division of the Khandhakas into two parts, called the Larger and Smaller Divisions (Maha- and Kulla-vagga), there are ten Khandhakas in the first Division, and ten, apart from this appendix, in the second Division. Without the appended two last Khandhakas the so-called smaller Division is really considerably smaller than the larger Division; and there is therefore a good reason for the name which was given to it. With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller xxii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.
2With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller xxii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. But the Ten Points in dispute were all matters of ecclesiastical law, they all related to observances of the brotherhood, they were in fact questions as to whether or not the ancient Rules should be relaxed or not in these ten respects. Is it possible that in a collection of works like the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas, which seek to set forth, down to the minutest detail, and even with hair-splitting diffuseness, all that has any relation to the daily life of the Brethren, and the regulations of the Buddhist Order—is it possible that in such a collection, if, when it was compiled, the struggle on the Ten Points had already burst into flame, there should be no reference at all, even in interpolations, to any one of these ten disputes? That the difference of opinion on the Ten Points remains altogether unnoticed in those parts of the collection where, in the natural order of things, it would be obviously referred to, and that it is only mentioned in an appendix where the Council held on its account is described, shows clearly, in our opinion, that the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas (save the two last) are older than the Council of Vesdli—and, of course, a fortiori that the Patimokkha and the Kammavdsds are so too. The Council of Vesali is said in the XIIth Khandhaka of the Kullavagga to have taken place a hundred years after the Buddha’s death. This is no doubt a round number; and the exact year of the date of the Buddha’s death is open to question. If it be placed, according to the Ceylon chronicles, at exactly 218 years before Asoka’s coronation, it will fall in or about 483 B.c. But the expression ‘218 years’ can in no case be regarded as an absolutely reliable statement of actual fact, and the date of 483 B.c. must therefore be taken subject to a marginal allowance of some decades. And it appears to one of us, for various reasons which he has elsewhere stated at length, that the balance of probability leads to the conclusion that the date of the Buddha’s Parinibbana must be Division actually contains two more Khandhakas than the larger. We lay no stress upon these facts, but it confirms the general argument to find little points of this kind tending in the same direction, INTRODUCTION, XXII brought down to the period from 420-400 B.C. We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesali, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C.
3We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesali, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C. We would only point out that there is really no ground for discontent with a result which can. be fixed, after all, within a few decades. For what difference does that make in this case? If we had to deal with Grecian history, such a result might well be deemed unsatisfactory. There are differences, both personal and political, between Greece in 480, in 440, and in 400—differences well known to us. But whether we fix the date of an event in India in 480, or in 440, what does it, at present, matter? Who would be bold enough to say that the mention of India in 480 B.C. calls up to his mind a condition of things different from that suggested by the mention of India in 440 B.C., or even in 400 B.C.? We need not therefore take too much to heart the uncertainty of this chronological result; though we may regret that our comfort is drawn from no better source than our want of knowledge. The Vibhanga and the Twenty Khandhakas were at that time (circa 350 B.C.) already held in such high repute that no one ventured to alter them; a sanctity of this kind is not acquired without the lapse of a considerable time: and we think it is not going too far to say, Firstly, that these books must have been in existence, as we now have them, within thirty years, earlier or later, of, at least, 360 or 370 B.C.; Secondly, that the Old Commentary they have preserved must be considerably, perhaps fifty years, older ; and Thirdly, that the Kammava#ds and the Patimokkha must be older still. The reader will notice that in the foregoing discussion no mention has been made of the Fifth Book in the present 1 See the dissertation on this subject in Rhys Davids’s ‘ Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon;’ and, more shortly, the close of the Introduction to his ‘Buddhist Suttas from the Pali,’ XXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. division of the Vinaya Pitaka—the Parivdra-p4zha. The reason is that this work, an abstract of the other parts of the Vinaya, is in fact a very much later compilation, and probably the work of a Ceylonese Thera. In some stanzas, which are found at the end of the Parivara-p4tha, it is stated to have been composed by ‘the highly wise, learned, and skilful Dipa, after he had inquired here and there into the methods (literally, the way) followed by former teachers" We have every hope that the foregoing argument will commend itself to our fellow workers as being, in the main, well founded. We now propose to test it by applying it in explanation of several difficult terms and phrases found in the Vinaya Pifaka, which seem to have been hitherto incorrectly interpreted.
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.
1We 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 from Oriental Languages,’ London, 1834; and the Liverpool Free Library has MSS. of others. ; INTRODUCTION. XX1 state of things leading, in the Introductions to the GAtaka Stories, to what were unquestionably inventions: and it must be acknowledged that the compilers have not taken the slightest trouble to conceal the evidently unsubstantial character of most of these summary introductions. But it does not follow that they were invented at the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled. They may possibly have formed part of the traditional explanatory teaching of the schools. As to the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled, we have important evidence in their silence regarding the well-known Ten Points. The long-continued struggle on that question—as important for the history of Buddhism as the Arian controversy for that of Christianity—agitated the whole Buddhist world to its very centre; and the attempted settlement of it, at the Council of Ves4li, led to a most serious schism in the Buddhist Church. Now the ten expressions in which the question was summarised or catalogued! are (as was pointed out in the Introduction to the Pali Text of the Mahavagga) conspicuous by their absence from the Vibhanga, and from all, except the last, of the Khandhakas?. The first mention of most of them, and the first use of any one of them as a distinctive war-cry, is found in those last books, which are evidently an appendix to the rest of the Khandhakas, and of an entirely different nature from the earlier ones; for they contain a regular historical account of the two Councils, that of Ragagaha, and that of Vesalt?. 1 Sitgiloza, dvaigula, &c. (Kullavagga XII, 1, 10). 3 That is, as war-cries; gatarQparagata occurs in the sense of the precious metals. 3 In the present division of the Khandhakas into two parts, called the Larger and Smaller Divisions (Maha- and Kulla-vagga), there are ten Khandhakas in the first Division, and ten, apart from this appendix, in the second Division. Without the appended two last Khandhakas the so-called smaller Division is really considerably smaller than the larger Division; and there is therefore a good reason for the name which was given to it. With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller xxii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.
2With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller xxii VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. But the Ten Points in dispute were all matters of ecclesiastical law, they all related to observances of the brotherhood, they were in fact questions as to whether or not the ancient Rules should be relaxed or not in these ten respects. Is it possible that in a collection of works like the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas, which seek to set forth, down to the minutest detail, and even with hair-splitting diffuseness, all that has any relation to the daily life of the Brethren, and the regulations of the Buddhist Order—is it possible that in such a collection, if, when it was compiled, the struggle on the Ten Points had already burst into flame, there should be no reference at all, even in interpolations, to any one of these ten disputes? That the difference of opinion on the Ten Points remains altogether unnoticed in those parts of the collection where, in the natural order of things, it would be obviously referred to, and that it is only mentioned in an appendix where the Council held on its account is described, shows clearly, in our opinion, that the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas (save the two last) are older than the Council of Vesdli—and, of course, a fortiori that the Patimokkha and the Kammavdsds are so too. The Council of Vesali is said in the XIIth Khandhaka of the Kullavagga to have taken place a hundred years after the Buddha’s death. This is no doubt a round number; and the exact year of the date of the Buddha’s death is open to question. If it be placed, according to the Ceylon chronicles, at exactly 218 years before Asoka’s coronation, it will fall in or about 483 B.c. But the expression ‘218 years’ can in no case be regarded as an absolutely reliable statement of actual fact, and the date of 483 B.c. must therefore be taken subject to a marginal allowance of some decades. And it appears to one of us, for various reasons which he has elsewhere stated at length, that the balance of probability leads to the conclusion that the date of the Buddha’s Parinibbana must be Division actually contains two more Khandhakas than the larger. We lay no stress upon these facts, but it confirms the general argument to find little points of this kind tending in the same direction, INTRODUCTION, XXII brought down to the period from 420-400 B.C. We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesali, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C.
3We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesali, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C. We would only point out that there is really no ground for discontent with a result which can. be fixed, after all, within a few decades. For what difference does that make in this case? If we had to deal with Grecian history, such a result might well be deemed unsatisfactory. There are differences, both personal and political, between Greece in 480, in 440, and in 400—differences well known to us. But whether we fix the date of an event in India in 480, or in 440, what does it, at present, matter? Who would be bold enough to say that the mention of India in 480 B.C. calls up to his mind a condition of things different from that suggested by the mention of India in 440 B.C., or even in 400 B.C.? We need not therefore take too much to heart the uncertainty of this chronological result; though we may regret that our comfort is drawn from no better source than our want of knowledge. The Vibhanga and the Twenty Khandhakas were at that time (circa 350 B.C.) already held in such high repute that no one ventured to alter them; a sanctity of this kind is not acquired without the lapse of a considerable time: and we think it is not going too far to say, Firstly, that these books must have been in existence, as we now have them, within thirty years, earlier or later, of, at least, 360 or 370 B.C.; Secondly, that the Old Commentary they have preserved must be considerably, perhaps fifty years, older ; and Thirdly, that the Kammava#ds and the Patimokkha must be older still. The reader will notice that in the foregoing discussion no mention has been made of the Fifth Book in the present 1 See the dissertation on this subject in Rhys Davids’s ‘ Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon;’ and, more shortly, the close of the Introduction to his ‘Buddhist Suttas from the Pali,’ XXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. division of the Vinaya Pitaka—the Parivdra-p4zha. The reason is that this work, an abstract of the other parts of the Vinaya, is in fact a very much later compilation, and probably the work of a Ceylonese Thera. In some stanzas, which are found at the end of the Parivara-p4tha, it is stated to have been composed by ‘the highly wise, learned, and skilful Dipa, after he had inquired here and there into the methods (literally, the way) followed by former teachers" We have every hope that the foregoing argument will commend itself to our fellow workers as being, in the main, well founded. We now propose to test it by applying it in explanation of several difficult terms and phrases found in the Vinaya Pifaka, which seem to have been hitherto incorrectly interpreted.
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.