Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We 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. It has been pointed out that, in the Patimokkha, the offences are arranged in certain classes, called, with reference to the heinousness of the act committed, Paragika, Samghadisesa, Pakittiya, Pa¢idesaniya, and Sekhiya. In other parts of the Vinaya, other offences are called Thullakkaya and DukkaZa. On this nomenclature the Rev. S. Coles has founded a trenchant attack upon Buddhist morality. He says: ‘Beside the Parajikas there are lesser faults, the nature of which is determined by various causes, as will subsequently appear. These are Sanghddisesa, Thullaccaya, and Dukkadza faults, and can all be easily remedied, the two latter especially; as, after a fault of this kind has been committed, the culprit has only to confess to his Upajjhaya (ordaining priest) without much delay, and is then exempted from all evil consequences; but the Sanghéadisesa being more serious (about half a Parajika), a course of penance has to be submitted to, and confession without delay made to twenty-five superior Bhikkhus. The nature 1 Pubbatariyamaggan ka pukkhitva ka tahim tahim Dipo nama mahapafi#o sutadharo vikakkhano Imam vitthdrasamkhepam sagghamaggena magghime Kintayitva likhapesi sissakanam sukhavaham. INTRODUCTION. XXV and extent of these penances are not defined in the first book of the Vinaya Pitaka, but in others, to which reference will be made when these books are brought under consideration. Suffice it to say, that they can possibly have no deterring effect on crime, but rather form loop-holes through which most enormous and disgusting misdeeds may be committed, and yet the perpetrator may remain not only as a Buddhist, but as a Bhikkhu}’ Mr. Coles then applies this argument to show that many offences against morality, being only called Dukka¢a and © not Paradgika, must have been looked upon very leniently, not only by the Buddhists, but by Gotama himself; and that therefore his system of morality was not of the lofty kind it has usually been supposed to be, but was, in fact, a mere cloak and encouragement to wickedness and crime!
2If Mr. Coles had looked at the Pizaka he was discussing from a historical, instead of from a controversial, point of view, he would scarcely have advanced this argument. The use of the term DukkaZza does not arise from, nor is it evidence of, a weakness in moral feeling; but merely of a difference in point of time. It occurs only in what we have ventured above to call the Notes: that is to say, in the latest portion of the Pitaka. When the author or authors of the final recension of the Vinaya had to speak of an offence not actually mentioned, though implied, in the text before them, they did not presume to call it by any of the names applied in the Patimokkha itself to the classification of offences. They no more dared to add to the number of Péragikas, for instance, than a clergyman would now venture seriously to propose an addition to the Ten Commandments. They made use of two technical terms (both entirely new ones), namely, ThullakZaya and DukkaZa (literally, Serious Transgression and Bad-deed), using the former more sparingly, and for graver misdemeanours. No argument based on passages where the word Dukkasa occurs can therefore have any force as to the teaching of Gotama himself; and the Bhikkhus, who did use the 1 Journal of the Ceylon Asiatic Society, 1867-1870, p. 55. XXVIi-~=SsVINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI word, were restrained from using the older term Paragika by a feeling of reverence towards their sacred books—a feeling surely deserving, not of censure, but of sympathy. Again, there are certain terms applied to various parts of the Vinaya itself on which the above historical analysis may throw some light. When Asoka, in the Edict of Bhabra, addressed to the Buddhist Order, exhorted them to take as their authority, among other works, the Vinaya- Samukase, or Abstract of the Vinaya, he may fairly be supposed to have referred to the Patimokkha, which that epithet would very appropriately describe. If it be asked why he did not then call it the PAtimokkha, the explanation may be either that that word is more especially a term for the act to be performed, than for the liturgy which shows the way to perform it (though it was also undoubtedly used as a name of the liturgy), or else that the work was known under both designations.
3We would just add, in passing, that, in the passage in question, the reading samukase (samutkarsha), instead of the formerly accepted samdkase, is quite clear in General Cunningham’s lithograph!; and the generally accepted view that the Edict was addressed to a council, and is therefore an authoritative confirmation of the Ceylon traditions regarding the Council of Patna, ought to be reconsidered. The Edict merely says: ‘King Devanampiya of Magadha salutes the Samgha’ (that is, the Order, or the Community, of Bhikkhus)?. Without desiring to throw any doubt upon the reality of the Council of Patna, we are driven to the conclusion that such an expression as ‘the Samgha’ could not have been meant to describe a formal «Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum,’ pl. xv. 2 Burnouf translated ‘a l’assemblée du Magadha,’ and Wilson, ‘to the venerable assembly of Magadha’ (see ‘Corpus,’ &c., p. 131); but the reading is clearly Magadhe in the ‘Corpus,’ while the older facsimile in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society (ix. 618) had the impossible form Magdhem. Even if we could read Magadham samgham (an expression for which we know no parallel), the above remarks would still hold good. Compare further Professor Kern in the ‘ Jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten,’ pp. 30-35. INTRODUCTION. XXVil council. Surely, if the Edict had been addressed to such a council, the fact would have been plainly intimated. It is just possible that Vinaya-Samukase may refer to the Old Commentary as well as to the Patimokkha; but this is not probable, for there is no reason to believe that in Asoka’s time the Old Commentary any longer existed apart from its setting in the Vibhanga. And Vinaya- Samukase cannot for the reasons above stated mean, as has been supposed, the Parivara-pAtha. As regards the meaning of the word Patimokkha we have the explanation of the Old Commentator in that single passage of his work found, as above pointed out, in the Khandhakas!. He there describes it as ‘the origin, the front (mukha), the chief of the good Dhammas ;’ where the word Dhamma means ‘qualities,’ and where the evident inference is that the commentator? derived Patimokkha from mukha. But, on the other hand, the tradition of the Northern Buddhists, in whose Sanskrit works the word is replaced by Pratimoksha, points to a derivation from the root mu&, It seems scarcely open to doubt that we must, in accordance with this last interpretation, connect the word with mu&, and not with mukha. ‘Pratimukha’ means in Sanskrit ‘over against, standing close in front.’ How is it possible to derive from that any meaning appropriate as a title for the liturgy of confession called Patimokkha? On the other hand, the derivation from mué is straightforward and simple. Prati-mué (A4tmanep.) means ‘to free oneself, to get rid of;’ and it is precisely through the recitation of this formular, and the answering of the questions contained in it, that the conscience of the member of the Brotherhood
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 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. It has been pointed out that, in the Patimokkha, the offences are arranged in certain classes, called, with reference to the heinousness of the act committed, Paragika, Samghadisesa, Pakittiya, Pa¢idesaniya, and Sekhiya. In other parts of the Vinaya, other offences are called Thullakkaya and DukkaZa. On this nomenclature the Rev. S. Coles has founded a trenchant attack upon Buddhist morality. He says: ‘Beside the Parajikas there are lesser faults, the nature of which is determined by various causes, as will subsequently appear. These are Sanghddisesa, Thullaccaya, and Dukkadza faults, and can all be easily remedied, the two latter especially; as, after a fault of this kind has been committed, the culprit has only to confess to his Upajjhaya (ordaining priest) without much delay, and is then exempted from all evil consequences; but the Sanghéadisesa being more serious (about half a Parajika), a course of penance has to be submitted to, and confession without delay made to twenty-five superior Bhikkhus. The nature 1 Pubbatariyamaggan ka pukkhitva ka tahim tahim Dipo nama mahapafi#o sutadharo vikakkhano Imam vitthdrasamkhepam sagghamaggena magghime Kintayitva likhapesi sissakanam sukhavaham. INTRODUCTION. XXV and extent of these penances are not defined in the first book of the Vinaya Pitaka, but in others, to which reference will be made when these books are brought under consideration. Suffice it to say, that they can possibly have no deterring effect on crime, but rather form loop-holes through which most enormous and disgusting misdeeds may be committed, and yet the perpetrator may remain not only as a Buddhist, but as a Bhikkhu}’ Mr. Coles then applies this argument to show that many offences against morality, being only called Dukka¢a and © not Paradgika, must have been looked upon very leniently, not only by the Buddhists, but by Gotama himself; and that therefore his system of morality was not of the lofty kind it has usually been supposed to be, but was, in fact, a mere cloak and encouragement to wickedness and crime!
2If Mr. Coles had looked at the Pizaka he was discussing from a historical, instead of from a controversial, point of view, he would scarcely have advanced this argument. The use of the term DukkaZza does not arise from, nor is it evidence of, a weakness in moral feeling; but merely of a difference in point of time. It occurs only in what we have ventured above to call the Notes: that is to say, in the latest portion of the Pitaka. When the author or authors of the final recension of the Vinaya had to speak of an offence not actually mentioned, though implied, in the text before them, they did not presume to call it by any of the names applied in the Patimokkha itself to the classification of offences. They no more dared to add to the number of Péragikas, for instance, than a clergyman would now venture seriously to propose an addition to the Ten Commandments. They made use of two technical terms (both entirely new ones), namely, ThullakZaya and DukkaZa (literally, Serious Transgression and Bad-deed), using the former more sparingly, and for graver misdemeanours. No argument based on passages where the word Dukkasa occurs can therefore have any force as to the teaching of Gotama himself; and the Bhikkhus, who did use the 1 Journal of the Ceylon Asiatic Society, 1867-1870, p. 55. XXVIi-~=SsVINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI word, were restrained from using the older term Paragika by a feeling of reverence towards their sacred books—a feeling surely deserving, not of censure, but of sympathy. Again, there are certain terms applied to various parts of the Vinaya itself on which the above historical analysis may throw some light. When Asoka, in the Edict of Bhabra, addressed to the Buddhist Order, exhorted them to take as their authority, among other works, the Vinaya- Samukase, or Abstract of the Vinaya, he may fairly be supposed to have referred to the Patimokkha, which that epithet would very appropriately describe. If it be asked why he did not then call it the PAtimokkha, the explanation may be either that that word is more especially a term for the act to be performed, than for the liturgy which shows the way to perform it (though it was also undoubtedly used as a name of the liturgy), or else that the work was known under both designations.
3We would just add, in passing, that, in the passage in question, the reading samukase (samutkarsha), instead of the formerly accepted samdkase, is quite clear in General Cunningham’s lithograph!; and the generally accepted view that the Edict was addressed to a council, and is therefore an authoritative confirmation of the Ceylon traditions regarding the Council of Patna, ought to be reconsidered. The Edict merely says: ‘King Devanampiya of Magadha salutes the Samgha’ (that is, the Order, or the Community, of Bhikkhus)?. Without desiring to throw any doubt upon the reality of the Council of Patna, we are driven to the conclusion that such an expression as ‘the Samgha’ could not have been meant to describe a formal «Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum,’ pl. xv. 2 Burnouf translated ‘a l’assemblée du Magadha,’ and Wilson, ‘to the venerable assembly of Magadha’ (see ‘Corpus,’ &c., p. 131); but the reading is clearly Magadhe in the ‘Corpus,’ while the older facsimile in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society (ix. 618) had the impossible form Magdhem. Even if we could read Magadham samgham (an expression for which we know no parallel), the above remarks would still hold good. Compare further Professor Kern in the ‘ Jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten,’ pp. 30-35. INTRODUCTION. XXVil council. Surely, if the Edict had been addressed to such a council, the fact would have been plainly intimated. It is just possible that Vinaya-Samukase may refer to the Old Commentary as well as to the Patimokkha; but this is not probable, for there is no reason to believe that in Asoka’s time the Old Commentary any longer existed apart from its setting in the Vibhanga. And Vinaya- Samukase cannot for the reasons above stated mean, as has been supposed, the Parivara-pAtha. As regards the meaning of the word Patimokkha we have the explanation of the Old Commentator in that single passage of his work found, as above pointed out, in the Khandhakas!. He there describes it as ‘the origin, the front (mukha), the chief of the good Dhammas ;’ where the word Dhamma means ‘qualities,’ and where the evident inference is that the commentator? derived Patimokkha from mukha. But, on the other hand, the tradition of the Northern Buddhists, in whose Sanskrit works the word is replaced by Pratimoksha, points to a derivation from the root mu&, It seems scarcely open to doubt that we must, in accordance with this last interpretation, connect the word with mu&, and not with mukha. ‘Pratimukha’ means in Sanskrit ‘over against, standing close in front.’ How is it possible to derive from that any meaning appropriate as a title for the liturgy of confession called Patimokkha? On the other hand, the derivation from mué is straightforward and simple. Prati-mué (A4tmanep.) means ‘to free oneself, to get rid of;’ and it is precisely through the recitation of this formular, and the answering of the questions contained in it, that the conscience of the member of the Brotherhood
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.