Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Revata says, ‘Is it right, Lord, to drink galogi?’ Sabbakami replies, ‘What, Friend, is this galogi?’ Revata: ‘Is it right, Lord, to drink strong drink which not being fermented, is not yet intoxicating?’ Sabbakaémi: ‘No, my friend, it is not right,’ Revata: ‘Where has it been condemned ?’ Sabbakém?: ‘At Kosambi in the Suttavibhanga.’ Revata: ‘ What does he (who drinks galogi) commit?’ Sabbakam!?: ‘ He commits the Paittiya offence of drinking strong drink and of drinking intoxicating liquors.’ This is a quotation of the Pazittiya Rule, No. 51; but the words quoted do not in fact condemn the drinking of toddy, and neither the Patimokkha nor the Old Commentary contains any reference to the place, Kosambi, where the. words are here said to have been uttered. It is only in the introduction afterwards appended (in what is now called the Vibhanga) to the two older works, that Kosambi is mentioned ; and in the appendix following the Rule 51 in the Vibhanga there are no exceptions which would include galogi. But Kosambi is mentioned in the Introductory History. It is therefore most probable that the term Sutta-vibhanga refers to what is now called the Vibhanga; or, if not, at least to that body of traditional teaching (including the Patimokkha and the Old Commentary) out of which the present Vibhanga was composed. 1 That is, of the Vinaya Pitaka. We are not certain that it may not be found in the Sutta Pitaka. . 3 Kullavagga XII, 2, 8. XXXII VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. It may be convenient to make some reference here to the question whether the literature above discussed was handed down by memory only, or by writing. We are justified in expecting to find, in texts dealing in such minute detail with the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order, some distinct evidence—and it will be equally distinct whether it consists in actual statement, or in silence— as to writing, and the use of written books. And this expectation is not disappointed. In the first place, there are several passages which confirm in an indisputable manner the existence of the art of writing at the time when the Vinaya texts were put into their present shape. ‘A certain man, who had committed a theft, ran away, and got ordained among the Bhikkhus. Now he was written up in the king’s palace with an injunction that he should be slain wheresoever he should be found!’— ‘But there occurred to the parents of Up§li this consideration: “If Upali should learn writing?, Up4li might thus after our decease live at ease, and not be troubled.”’ And in the Vibhanga we find an interesting explanation of the Third Paragika Rule, which lays down that whosoever wilfully kills a man, or brings about his death, must be expelled from the Order.
2In the Notes on this Rule the Sutta-vibhanga discusses the case of some one causing the death of another by persuading him that suicide is glorious, or that it results in salvation.. And in this connection the possibility is considered of these representations being made to the proposed victim, not by word of mouth, and not by a messenger, but by writing. , ‘He engraves a writing to this effect: “Who so dies, he acquires wealth, or acquires fame, or goes to heaven.” By that writing he is guilty of a Dukka/a offence. The other sees the writing, and, determining to die, is filled 1} Ajfiataro puriso korikam katva palayitva bhikkhisu pabbagito hoti. So ka raiio antepure likhito hoti yattha passitabbo tattha hantabbo ’ti (Mahavagga I, 43). 4 Sake kho Upali lekham sikkheyya (Mahavagga I, 49, 1). INTRODUCTION. XXXill with painful feelings. (The writer is) guilty of a Thullakkaya offence. He does die. (The writer is) guilty of a Paragika offence?.’ And again, with respect to the injunction addressed to the Sisters of the Order not to devote themselves to worldly wisdom (tirakkhana-vigg4), the Vibhanga makes an exception in favour of learning to write?. It is evident therefore that writing was in vogue in the time when the Notes on the Rules were put into their present form, that it was made use of for the publication of official announcements, and for the drawing up of written communications in private life; and that while the knowledge of the art was a possible source of livelihood, it was not confined to ‘clerks, but was acquired by ordinary persons, and even by women. But it is a long step from the use of writing for such public or private notifications to the adoption of it for the purpose of recording an extensive and sacred literature : and our texts show—and show, as it seems to us, in an equally indisputable manner—that for this latter purpose writing, however well known, had not yet come into use. Had the sacred texts been written down and read, books, manuscripts, and the whole activity therewith connected, must have necessarily played a very important part in the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order. Now the texts of the Vinaya place clearly enough before our eyes the whole of the ‘personal property,’ so to speak, of the Buddhist Aramas and Viharas. Every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to, and its use pointed out; while the use of other articles, not usually found in the Viharas, is mentioned, and condemned. But nowhere do we find the least trace of any reference to manuscripts; } Lekham khindati yo evam marati so dhanam va labhati yasam va labhati saggam va gakkhatiti. Akkharakkharaya Apatti dukka‘assa. Lekham passitva marissAmiti dukkham vedanam uppadeti. Apatti thullakkayassa. Marati, Apatti paragikassa, * Anapatti lekham pariyfpuzti (Bhikkhuni-Patimokkha, Patittiya 49), [13] ¢ XXXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.
3Akkharakkharaya Apatti dukka‘assa. Lekham passitva marissAmiti dukkham vedanam uppadeti. Apatti thullakkayassa. Marati, Apatti paragikassa, * Anapatti lekham pariyfpuzti (Bhikkhuni-Patimokkha, Patittiya 49), [13] ¢ XXXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. much less of inks, or pens, or styles, or leaves, or other writing materials. And we do find, on the contrary, passages which show the difficulties which arose every time that the memorial tradition by word of mouth of any of the sacred texts was interrupted, or threatened to be interrupted. So, for instance, we find the case discussed of no one Bhikkhu, among all the Brethren dwelling in some particular place, knowing the Patimokkha. There was no other way out of the difficulty, save that of one of the Bhikkhus being sent out to some neighbouring fraternity, with the commission there to learn the Patimokkha by heart, either in its full extent (that is, as we take it, all the rules being learnt in full) or at least in abstract}. And again, in a passage already quoted, we hear of the case of an Updsaka, who knows some important Suttanta, and is afraid that the knowledge of it will fade away. So he sends to a fraternity of Bhikkhus, and invites the Brethren to come over to him; and in that case an exception is made to the Rule forbidding the Brethren to travel in the rainy season, provided only that they do not stay away from home longer than seven days’. We may quote in this connection a passage of the same tendency from the Anguttara Nikaya, in which, among the circumstances hurtful to the security and the propagation of the Buddhist faith, the possibility is mentioned of the well-instructed Bhikkhus neglecting to take pains to hand on to others the Suttantas which they know. Then, when they have passed away, ‘the root of that Suttanta is cut off, and it finds no place of refuge’,’ It is very plain from these last passages that the Buddhist community in its earliest days did not think of the 1 Mahavagga II, 17, 5.6. On this meaning of vittharena and samkhittena see also Mahavagga II, 15, 1. 2. ° 3 Mahavagga III, 5, 9. 8 Katukka-Nipata (Phayre MS. vol. i. fol. x4); and repeated in the Pawikaka- Nipata (ibid. vol. ii. fol. naz): Ye te bhikkhi bahussuta dgatégama dhammadhara vinayadhara matikadhara te na sakkakkam suttantam param vakenti tesam akkayena kkinnam@lako suttanto hoti apatisarano. © INTRODUCTION. XXXV
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.
1Revata says, ‘Is it right, Lord, to drink galogi?’ Sabbakami replies, ‘What, Friend, is this galogi?’ Revata: ‘Is it right, Lord, to drink strong drink which not being fermented, is not yet intoxicating?’ Sabbakaémi: ‘No, my friend, it is not right,’ Revata: ‘Where has it been condemned ?’ Sabbakém?: ‘At Kosambi in the Suttavibhanga.’ Revata: ‘ What does he (who drinks galogi) commit?’ Sabbakam!?: ‘ He commits the Paittiya offence of drinking strong drink and of drinking intoxicating liquors.’ This is a quotation of the Pazittiya Rule, No. 51; but the words quoted do not in fact condemn the drinking of toddy, and neither the Patimokkha nor the Old Commentary contains any reference to the place, Kosambi, where the. words are here said to have been uttered. It is only in the introduction afterwards appended (in what is now called the Vibhanga) to the two older works, that Kosambi is mentioned ; and in the appendix following the Rule 51 in the Vibhanga there are no exceptions which would include galogi. But Kosambi is mentioned in the Introductory History. It is therefore most probable that the term Sutta-vibhanga refers to what is now called the Vibhanga; or, if not, at least to that body of traditional teaching (including the Patimokkha and the Old Commentary) out of which the present Vibhanga was composed. 1 That is, of the Vinaya Pitaka. We are not certain that it may not be found in the Sutta Pitaka. . 3 Kullavagga XII, 2, 8. XXXII VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. It may be convenient to make some reference here to the question whether the literature above discussed was handed down by memory only, or by writing. We are justified in expecting to find, in texts dealing in such minute detail with the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order, some distinct evidence—and it will be equally distinct whether it consists in actual statement, or in silence— as to writing, and the use of written books. And this expectation is not disappointed. In the first place, there are several passages which confirm in an indisputable manner the existence of the art of writing at the time when the Vinaya texts were put into their present shape. ‘A certain man, who had committed a theft, ran away, and got ordained among the Bhikkhus. Now he was written up in the king’s palace with an injunction that he should be slain wheresoever he should be found!’— ‘But there occurred to the parents of Up§li this consideration: “If Upali should learn writing?, Up4li might thus after our decease live at ease, and not be troubled.”’ And in the Vibhanga we find an interesting explanation of the Third Paragika Rule, which lays down that whosoever wilfully kills a man, or brings about his death, must be expelled from the Order.
2In the Notes on this Rule the Sutta-vibhanga discusses the case of some one causing the death of another by persuading him that suicide is glorious, or that it results in salvation.. And in this connection the possibility is considered of these representations being made to the proposed victim, not by word of mouth, and not by a messenger, but by writing. , ‘He engraves a writing to this effect: “Who so dies, he acquires wealth, or acquires fame, or goes to heaven.” By that writing he is guilty of a Dukka/a offence. The other sees the writing, and, determining to die, is filled 1} Ajfiataro puriso korikam katva palayitva bhikkhisu pabbagito hoti. So ka raiio antepure likhito hoti yattha passitabbo tattha hantabbo ’ti (Mahavagga I, 43). 4 Sake kho Upali lekham sikkheyya (Mahavagga I, 49, 1). INTRODUCTION. XXXill with painful feelings. (The writer is) guilty of a Thullakkaya offence. He does die. (The writer is) guilty of a Paragika offence?.’ And again, with respect to the injunction addressed to the Sisters of the Order not to devote themselves to worldly wisdom (tirakkhana-vigg4), the Vibhanga makes an exception in favour of learning to write?. It is evident therefore that writing was in vogue in the time when the Notes on the Rules were put into their present form, that it was made use of for the publication of official announcements, and for the drawing up of written communications in private life; and that while the knowledge of the art was a possible source of livelihood, it was not confined to ‘clerks, but was acquired by ordinary persons, and even by women. But it is a long step from the use of writing for such public or private notifications to the adoption of it for the purpose of recording an extensive and sacred literature : and our texts show—and show, as it seems to us, in an equally indisputable manner—that for this latter purpose writing, however well known, had not yet come into use. Had the sacred texts been written down and read, books, manuscripts, and the whole activity therewith connected, must have necessarily played a very important part in the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order. Now the texts of the Vinaya place clearly enough before our eyes the whole of the ‘personal property,’ so to speak, of the Buddhist Aramas and Viharas. Every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to, and its use pointed out; while the use of other articles, not usually found in the Viharas, is mentioned, and condemned. But nowhere do we find the least trace of any reference to manuscripts; } Lekham khindati yo evam marati so dhanam va labhati yasam va labhati saggam va gakkhatiti. Akkharakkharaya Apatti dukka‘assa. Lekham passitva marissAmiti dukkham vedanam uppadeti. Apatti thullakkayassa. Marati, Apatti paragikassa, * Anapatti lekham pariyfpuzti (Bhikkhuni-Patimokkha, Patittiya 49), [13] ¢ XXXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.
3Akkharakkharaya Apatti dukka‘assa. Lekham passitva marissAmiti dukkham vedanam uppadeti. Apatti thullakkayassa. Marati, Apatti paragikassa, * Anapatti lekham pariyfpuzti (Bhikkhuni-Patimokkha, Patittiya 49), [13] ¢ XXXIV VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI. much less of inks, or pens, or styles, or leaves, or other writing materials. And we do find, on the contrary, passages which show the difficulties which arose every time that the memorial tradition by word of mouth of any of the sacred texts was interrupted, or threatened to be interrupted. So, for instance, we find the case discussed of no one Bhikkhu, among all the Brethren dwelling in some particular place, knowing the Patimokkha. There was no other way out of the difficulty, save that of one of the Bhikkhus being sent out to some neighbouring fraternity, with the commission there to learn the Patimokkha by heart, either in its full extent (that is, as we take it, all the rules being learnt in full) or at least in abstract}. And again, in a passage already quoted, we hear of the case of an Updsaka, who knows some important Suttanta, and is afraid that the knowledge of it will fade away. So he sends to a fraternity of Bhikkhus, and invites the Brethren to come over to him; and in that case an exception is made to the Rule forbidding the Brethren to travel in the rainy season, provided only that they do not stay away from home longer than seven days’. We may quote in this connection a passage of the same tendency from the Anguttara Nikaya, in which, among the circumstances hurtful to the security and the propagation of the Buddhist faith, the possibility is mentioned of the well-instructed Bhikkhus neglecting to take pains to hand on to others the Suttantas which they know. Then, when they have passed away, ‘the root of that Suttanta is cut off, and it finds no place of refuge’,’ It is very plain from these last passages that the Buddhist community in its earliest days did not think of the 1 Mahavagga II, 17, 5.6. On this meaning of vittharena and samkhittena see also Mahavagga II, 15, 1. 2. ° 3 Mahavagga III, 5, 9. 8 Katukka-Nipata (Phayre MS. vol. i. fol. x4); and repeated in the Pawikaka- Nipata (ibid. vol. ii. fol. naz): Ye te bhikkhi bahussuta dgatégama dhammadhara vinayadhara matikadhara te na sakkakkam suttantam param vakenti tesam akkayena kkinnam@lako suttanto hoti apatisarano. © INTRODUCTION. XXXV
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.