Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1After him came 1 The Dtpavamsa, an early historical record of Buddhism compiled in Ceylon between the beginning of the fourth and the first third of the fifth century a.p. xil FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING. Sanavasa (she-na-po-sa), who also held the Dharmapiaka in 80,000 (divisions). After him came Upagupta, of whom the lord of the world (Buddha) predicted that as ““a Buddha without marks” (alakshazako Buddhas; see Burnouf, Introd. p. 378, note 1) he should overcome Mara, which is related in the Avad4nas (yin iin). This (master) could not hold the 80,000 divisions of the Dharmapifaka. After him there were five schools (the school of the “Great Assembly ” being the first of the five) to which the following names were given: (1) Dharmaguptas, (2) Mahisdsakas, (3) K4syapiyas, (4) Sarvastivadas. This last is also called the school “that holds the existence of all,” because it maintains the distinct nature of (things existing in) past, present, and future time. Each of these schools had its own president and distinctive doctrine. Because of this in the time of Asokaraga, when the king was in doubt what was right and what was wrong, he consulted the priests as to what should be done to settle the matter. They replied, “ The law (dharma) ought to be settled by the majority.” The king said, “If it be so, let the matter be put to the vote (by lots or tokens of wood), and so let it be seen who is right (in the majority).” On this they cast lots, and our sect (i.e. the Mahdsanghikas) was in great preponderance. Therefore it is called the Mahdsangiti or Great Assembly.’ From this it appears that the Mahdsanghikas, on their part, claimed to be the original portion of the Buddhist church, and that they regarded the foursects, whose names are given,to be heretical. The same colophon has a further notice respecting this subject. It states that ‘ There was in former times in Mid-India a wicked king who ruled the world. From him all the Sramanas fled, and the sacred books were scattered far and wide. This wicked king having died, there was a good king who in his turn requested the Sramavas to come back to their country to receive his protection (nurture). At this time in PAsaliputra there were 500 priests who wished to decide (matters of faith), but there was no copy of the Vinaya, or teacher who knew the Vinaya, to be found. They therefore sent forthwith to the Getavana Vihara to copy out the Vinaya in its original character, as INTRODUCTION. xill
2They therefore sent forthwith to the Getavana Vihara to copy out the Vinaya in its original character, as INTRODUCTION. xill it had been handed down to that period. Fa-hien, when he was in the country of Magadha, in the town of Pafaliputra, in the temple of Asokar4ga, in the Vihara of the Southern Devaraga (Virtdhaka), copied out the Sanskrit (Fan) original and brought it back with him to P’ing au, and in the twelfth year of the title I-hi (417 A.D.) [416 according to the cyclical characters] and the tenth month, he translated it.’ Here we seem to have an obscure allusion to a first and second Asoka. Is it possible that the reference is to an actual council held at PAaliputra in opposition to the orthodox assembly under Moggaliputta? The 500 priests who were sent to the Getavana might have represented the popular party, and being without a copy of their version of the Vinaya, they procured one from SrAvastt. This may or may not be so, and in the absence of further details we cannot give it much weight. On examining the copy of the Vinaya alluded to by Fa-hien, viz. that belonging to the Mahdsanghikas, we find ample reason for adhering to the statement of the Dipavamsa, viz. ‘that the members of the great congregation proclaimed a doctrine against the faith’ (p. 139 op. cit.) The sections illustrating the Para4gika and other rules are of a gross and offensive character. The rules are illustrated by an abundance of tales or gAtakas introduced in the text (this seems to favour the presence of a Northern element in the redaction). The account of the two councils differs from that found in the other copies of the Vinaya, and in the history of the second council at Vais4lt there is mention made only of one of the sins of the ‘ Vaggiputtakas,’ viz. receiving money; but the council itself is called, according to this account, for the purpose of revising the canon. Now this seems to show that the Mahdsanghika school took its rise at this time, and that a redaction of the canon was prepared by that school distinct from that in common use. According to the statement found in the Dipavamsa, ‘they composed other Suttas and another Vinaya’ (p. 141, § 36). This is confirmed by an account which we have given us in a work belonging to the Vinaya class in the Chinese Tripizaka, called ‘The Questions of S4ri- xiv FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING.
3According to the statement found in the Dipavamsa, ‘they composed other Suttas and another Vinaya’ (p. 141, § 36). This is confirmed by an account which we have given us in a work belonging to the Vinaya class in the Chinese Tripizaka, called ‘The Questions of S4ri- xiv FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING. putra’ (Catalogue, case 48, miscellaneous). I thought this might be the work referred to in the edict of Asoka as the ‘Questions of Upatissa,’ but on examination it appears to be a production of the Mah4sanghika school, and not exclusively bearing on questions of the Vinaya. Perhaps it was written and named in opposition to the orthodox text alluded to in the edict. To exhibit the teaching of the school to which it belongs I will briefly allude to the earlier portion of this SQtra. The scene is laid in Ragagrtha, the question proposed by S4riputra is, ‘Who is the true disciple of Buddha, and who not?’ Buddha replies, ‘The true disciple is one who attends to and obeys the precepts, as the Bhikshu Pao-sse, i. e. precious thing (Yasa), who hearing the statement of Buddha that all things (samskara) were impermanent, immediately perceived the whole truth. The disciple who attends to the tradition of the church is also a true one, as the Bhikshu who attended to S4riputra’s statement respecting K4ludayi’s drinking wine. Those, on the other hand, who neglect either the direct instruction of Buddha, or that of his successors—these are not true disciples.’ S4riputra then proceeds to ask what are the permissions and what the prohibitions made by Buddha in the rules of the Vinaya, especially in respect of food, as, for example, where Buddha forbids an early meal at the invitation of a villager, or where he permits the use of fish and other condiments. Buddha replies that these things must depend on circumstances, and that the rule of the true disciple is to follow the directions of the president of the church. For instance, after my Nirvaza (he proceeds) the great K4syapa will. have authority equal to mine; after Kasyapa, Ananda; after Ananda, Madhydntika ; after Madhyantika, Sanakavisa ; after Sanakavasa, Upagupta ; after Upagupta there will be a Maurya (king) Ku-ko (Asoka), who will rule the world and extend the Scriptures (Dharmavinaya). His grandson will be called Pushyamitra (Fu-sha-mih-to-lo), who will succeed to the empire of the righteous king (or who will succeed directly to the empire of the king, or the royal estate). This one will ask his ministers what he must INTRODUCTION. XV
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.
1After him came 1 The Dtpavamsa, an early historical record of Buddhism compiled in Ceylon between the beginning of the fourth and the first third of the fifth century a.p. xil FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING. Sanavasa (she-na-po-sa), who also held the Dharmapiaka in 80,000 (divisions). After him came Upagupta, of whom the lord of the world (Buddha) predicted that as ““a Buddha without marks” (alakshazako Buddhas; see Burnouf, Introd. p. 378, note 1) he should overcome Mara, which is related in the Avad4nas (yin iin). This (master) could not hold the 80,000 divisions of the Dharmapifaka. After him there were five schools (the school of the “Great Assembly ” being the first of the five) to which the following names were given: (1) Dharmaguptas, (2) Mahisdsakas, (3) K4syapiyas, (4) Sarvastivadas. This last is also called the school “that holds the existence of all,” because it maintains the distinct nature of (things existing in) past, present, and future time. Each of these schools had its own president and distinctive doctrine. Because of this in the time of Asokaraga, when the king was in doubt what was right and what was wrong, he consulted the priests as to what should be done to settle the matter. They replied, “ The law (dharma) ought to be settled by the majority.” The king said, “If it be so, let the matter be put to the vote (by lots or tokens of wood), and so let it be seen who is right (in the majority).” On this they cast lots, and our sect (i.e. the Mahdsanghikas) was in great preponderance. Therefore it is called the Mahdsangiti or Great Assembly.’ From this it appears that the Mahdsanghikas, on their part, claimed to be the original portion of the Buddhist church, and that they regarded the foursects, whose names are given,to be heretical. The same colophon has a further notice respecting this subject. It states that ‘ There was in former times in Mid-India a wicked king who ruled the world. From him all the Sramanas fled, and the sacred books were scattered far and wide. This wicked king having died, there was a good king who in his turn requested the Sramavas to come back to their country to receive his protection (nurture). At this time in PAsaliputra there were 500 priests who wished to decide (matters of faith), but there was no copy of the Vinaya, or teacher who knew the Vinaya, to be found. They therefore sent forthwith to the Getavana Vihara to copy out the Vinaya in its original character, as INTRODUCTION. xill
2They therefore sent forthwith to the Getavana Vihara to copy out the Vinaya in its original character, as INTRODUCTION. xill it had been handed down to that period. Fa-hien, when he was in the country of Magadha, in the town of Pafaliputra, in the temple of Asokar4ga, in the Vihara of the Southern Devaraga (Virtdhaka), copied out the Sanskrit (Fan) original and brought it back with him to P’ing au, and in the twelfth year of the title I-hi (417 A.D.) [416 according to the cyclical characters] and the tenth month, he translated it.’ Here we seem to have an obscure allusion to a first and second Asoka. Is it possible that the reference is to an actual council held at PAaliputra in opposition to the orthodox assembly under Moggaliputta? The 500 priests who were sent to the Getavana might have represented the popular party, and being without a copy of their version of the Vinaya, they procured one from SrAvastt. This may or may not be so, and in the absence of further details we cannot give it much weight. On examining the copy of the Vinaya alluded to by Fa-hien, viz. that belonging to the Mahdsanghikas, we find ample reason for adhering to the statement of the Dipavamsa, viz. ‘that the members of the great congregation proclaimed a doctrine against the faith’ (p. 139 op. cit.) The sections illustrating the Para4gika and other rules are of a gross and offensive character. The rules are illustrated by an abundance of tales or gAtakas introduced in the text (this seems to favour the presence of a Northern element in the redaction). The account of the two councils differs from that found in the other copies of the Vinaya, and in the history of the second council at Vais4lt there is mention made only of one of the sins of the ‘ Vaggiputtakas,’ viz. receiving money; but the council itself is called, according to this account, for the purpose of revising the canon. Now this seems to show that the Mahdsanghika school took its rise at this time, and that a redaction of the canon was prepared by that school distinct from that in common use. According to the statement found in the Dipavamsa, ‘they composed other Suttas and another Vinaya’ (p. 141, § 36). This is confirmed by an account which we have given us in a work belonging to the Vinaya class in the Chinese Tripizaka, called ‘The Questions of S4ri- xiv FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING.
3According to the statement found in the Dipavamsa, ‘they composed other Suttas and another Vinaya’ (p. 141, § 36). This is confirmed by an account which we have given us in a work belonging to the Vinaya class in the Chinese Tripizaka, called ‘The Questions of S4ri- xiv FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING. putra’ (Catalogue, case 48, miscellaneous). I thought this might be the work referred to in the edict of Asoka as the ‘Questions of Upatissa,’ but on examination it appears to be a production of the Mah4sanghika school, and not exclusively bearing on questions of the Vinaya. Perhaps it was written and named in opposition to the orthodox text alluded to in the edict. To exhibit the teaching of the school to which it belongs I will briefly allude to the earlier portion of this SQtra. The scene is laid in Ragagrtha, the question proposed by S4riputra is, ‘Who is the true disciple of Buddha, and who not?’ Buddha replies, ‘The true disciple is one who attends to and obeys the precepts, as the Bhikshu Pao-sse, i. e. precious thing (Yasa), who hearing the statement of Buddha that all things (samskara) were impermanent, immediately perceived the whole truth. The disciple who attends to the tradition of the church is also a true one, as the Bhikshu who attended to S4riputra’s statement respecting K4ludayi’s drinking wine. Those, on the other hand, who neglect either the direct instruction of Buddha, or that of his successors—these are not true disciples.’ S4riputra then proceeds to ask what are the permissions and what the prohibitions made by Buddha in the rules of the Vinaya, especially in respect of food, as, for example, where Buddha forbids an early meal at the invitation of a villager, or where he permits the use of fish and other condiments. Buddha replies that these things must depend on circumstances, and that the rule of the true disciple is to follow the directions of the president of the church. For instance, after my Nirvaza (he proceeds) the great K4syapa will. have authority equal to mine; after Kasyapa, Ananda; after Ananda, Madhydntika ; after Madhyantika, Sanakavisa ; after Sanakavasa, Upagupta ; after Upagupta there will be a Maurya (king) Ku-ko (Asoka), who will rule the world and extend the Scriptures (Dharmavinaya). His grandson will be called Pushyamitra (Fu-sha-mih-to-lo), who will succeed to the empire of the righteous king (or who will succeed directly to the empire of the king, or the royal estate). This one will ask his ministers what he must INTRODUCTION. XV
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.