Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Whereupon certain Indianists have rejoiced at being able to score a point, as they think, against these 1 This estimate excludes the space occupied by notes. The books marked with an asterisk in the foregoing list have already been printed. XXXVili THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. unbrahmanical Buddhists, and have jumped to the conclusion that the Buddhist canon must be late and spurious; and that the Buddhism of Asoka’s time must have been very different from the Buddhism of the Pali Pitakas. That would be much the same as if a Japanese scholar, at a time when he knew little or nothing of Christianity, except the names of the books in the Bible, were to have found an open letter of Constantine’s in which he urges both the clergy and laity to look upon the Word of God as their only authority, and to constantly repeat and earnestly meditate upon the Psalm of the Shepherd, the words of Lemuel, the Prophecy of the Servant of the Lord, the Sermon on the Mount, the Exaltation of Charity, the Question of Nicodemus, and the story of the Prodigal Son—and that our Oriental critic should jump to the conclusion that the canonical books of the Christians could not have been known in the time of Constantine, and that the Christianity of Constantine was really quite different from, and much more simple than the Christianity of the Bible. As a matter of fact the existence of such a letter would prove very little, either way, as to the date of the books in the Bible as we now have them. If our Japanese scholar were to discover afterwards a Christian work, even much later than the time of Constantine, in which the canonical books of the Christians were both quoted and referred to, he would have much surer ground for a sounder historical criticism. And he would possibly come to see that the seven portions selected for special honour and commendation were not intended as an exhaustive list even of remarkable passages, much less for an exhaustive list of canonical books, but that the number seven was merely chosen in deference to the sacred character attaching to that number in the sacred literature. Such a book is our Milinda. It is, as we have seen, later than the canonical books of the Pali Pivakas, and on the other hand, not only older than the great commentaries, but the only book, outside the canon, regarded in them as an authority which may be implicitly followed. And I venture to think that the most simple working hypothesis INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
2And I venture to think that the most simple working hypothesis INTRODUCTION. XXXIX by which to explain the numerous and varied references and quotations it makes, as shown in the preceding lists, from the Pifakas as a whole, and from the various books contained in them, is that the Pali Pitakas were known, in their entirety, and very nearly, if not quite, as we now have them, to our author. For out of the twenty-nine books of the Pizakas, we find in the lists of works referred to by him the three Pitakas as a whole, the Vinaya Pitaka as a whole, and all of its component books except the Parivara (which was composed in Ceylon), the Sutta Pitaka and each of the four great Nikdyas, the Abhidhamma Pifaka and each of its seven component books, and the Khuddaka Nikaya as a whole and several of its separate books. And when we further recollect the very large number of quotations appearing in my lists as not yet traced in the Pitakas, we see the necessity of being very chary in drawing any argument ex silentio with respect to those books not occurring in the lists. To sum up.—It may be said generally that while the Sutta Vibhanga and the Khandhakas, the four great Nikayas, and the Abhidhamma were certainly known to our author, he very likely had no knowledge of the Parivara; and it remains to be seen how far his knowledge of the Khuddaka Nik4ya, which he happens to mention once! as a whole by name, did actually extend. At present it is only clear that he knew the Khuddaka Patha, the Dhammapada collection of sacred verses, the Sutta Nipata, the Thera and Theri-gatha, the GAatakas, and the Kariya Pitaka. I hope to return to this question in the Introduction to my second volume, only pointing out here that the doubtful books (those concerning which our author is apparently silent) would occupy about two thousand pages octavo, out of the ten thousand of which the three Pifakas would, if printed, consist: and that those two thousand pages belong, for the most part, precisely to that part of the Pifakas which have not yet been edited, so that there they may very likely, after all, be quoted in one or other 1 Page 342 of the printed text. xl THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. of the numerous quotations entered as ‘not traced’ in my lists 1. Such being the extent, so far as can at present be shown, of our author’s knowledge of the three Pizakas, the question arises as to the degree and accuracy of his knowledge. In the great majority of cases his quotations or references entirely agree with the readings shown by our texts. But there are a few exceptions. And as these are both interesting and instructive, it will be advisable to point them out in detail.
3In the great majority of cases his quotations or references entirely agree with the readings shown by our texts. But there are a few exceptions. And as these are both interesting and instructive, it will be advisable to point them out in detail. The reference to the Avi#i Hell as being outside the earth, if not at variance with, is at least an addition to the teaching of the Pisakas as to cosmogony?. But there is some reason to believe that the passage may be an interpolation, and the difference itself is not only doubtful but also of no particular importance. The description of the contents of the Puggala Pa#“atti given in I, 26, does not really agree with the text. The book, in its first section, sets out six different sorts of discrimination or distinction. One paragraph only is devoted to each of the first five discriminations, and the author or authors then proceed, in the rest of the book, to deal with the details of the last of the six. Our author gives the six as the divisions of the book itself. But I think it is clear that so far as the description is inaccurate, the error is due, not to any difference between the text as he had it and that which we now possess, but simply to our author laying too great a stress upon the opening paragraphs of the book. In the reference to the Buddha’s first sermon, the Foundation of the Kingdom of Righteousness (in I, 38), our author says that ‘eighteen ko¢is of Brahma gods, and an innumerable company of other gods, attained to compre- ' About half of the canonical books, besides a considerable number of the uncanonical works, have already been edited in the last few years, chiefly owing to the Pali Text Society’s labours. 2 See the passages quoted in my note at p. 9. INTRODUCTION. xli hension of the truth.’ There is no statement of the kind in the Pisaka account of this event (see my translation in ‘Buddhist Suttas,’ pp. 146-155). But it is not inconsistent with the Pali, and is doubtless added from some edifying commentary. There is a difference of reading between the lines put into Sariputta’s mouth, at II, 2, 4, and those ascribed to Sariputta in the Thera Gatha (1002, 1003). If the Milinda reading is not found in some hitherto unpublished passage, we have here a real case of divergence.
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.
1Whereupon certain Indianists have rejoiced at being able to score a point, as they think, against these 1 This estimate excludes the space occupied by notes. The books marked with an asterisk in the foregoing list have already been printed. XXXVili THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. unbrahmanical Buddhists, and have jumped to the conclusion that the Buddhist canon must be late and spurious; and that the Buddhism of Asoka’s time must have been very different from the Buddhism of the Pali Pitakas. That would be much the same as if a Japanese scholar, at a time when he knew little or nothing of Christianity, except the names of the books in the Bible, were to have found an open letter of Constantine’s in which he urges both the clergy and laity to look upon the Word of God as their only authority, and to constantly repeat and earnestly meditate upon the Psalm of the Shepherd, the words of Lemuel, the Prophecy of the Servant of the Lord, the Sermon on the Mount, the Exaltation of Charity, the Question of Nicodemus, and the story of the Prodigal Son—and that our Oriental critic should jump to the conclusion that the canonical books of the Christians could not have been known in the time of Constantine, and that the Christianity of Constantine was really quite different from, and much more simple than the Christianity of the Bible. As a matter of fact the existence of such a letter would prove very little, either way, as to the date of the books in the Bible as we now have them. If our Japanese scholar were to discover afterwards a Christian work, even much later than the time of Constantine, in which the canonical books of the Christians were both quoted and referred to, he would have much surer ground for a sounder historical criticism. And he would possibly come to see that the seven portions selected for special honour and commendation were not intended as an exhaustive list even of remarkable passages, much less for an exhaustive list of canonical books, but that the number seven was merely chosen in deference to the sacred character attaching to that number in the sacred literature. Such a book is our Milinda. It is, as we have seen, later than the canonical books of the Pali Pivakas, and on the other hand, not only older than the great commentaries, but the only book, outside the canon, regarded in them as an authority which may be implicitly followed. And I venture to think that the most simple working hypothesis INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
2And I venture to think that the most simple working hypothesis INTRODUCTION. XXXIX by which to explain the numerous and varied references and quotations it makes, as shown in the preceding lists, from the Pifakas as a whole, and from the various books contained in them, is that the Pali Pitakas were known, in their entirety, and very nearly, if not quite, as we now have them, to our author. For out of the twenty-nine books of the Pizakas, we find in the lists of works referred to by him the three Pitakas as a whole, the Vinaya Pitaka as a whole, and all of its component books except the Parivara (which was composed in Ceylon), the Sutta Pitaka and each of the four great Nikdyas, the Abhidhamma Pifaka and each of its seven component books, and the Khuddaka Nikaya as a whole and several of its separate books. And when we further recollect the very large number of quotations appearing in my lists as not yet traced in the Pitakas, we see the necessity of being very chary in drawing any argument ex silentio with respect to those books not occurring in the lists. To sum up.—It may be said generally that while the Sutta Vibhanga and the Khandhakas, the four great Nikayas, and the Abhidhamma were certainly known to our author, he very likely had no knowledge of the Parivara; and it remains to be seen how far his knowledge of the Khuddaka Nik4ya, which he happens to mention once! as a whole by name, did actually extend. At present it is only clear that he knew the Khuddaka Patha, the Dhammapada collection of sacred verses, the Sutta Nipata, the Thera and Theri-gatha, the GAatakas, and the Kariya Pitaka. I hope to return to this question in the Introduction to my second volume, only pointing out here that the doubtful books (those concerning which our author is apparently silent) would occupy about two thousand pages octavo, out of the ten thousand of which the three Pifakas would, if printed, consist: and that those two thousand pages belong, for the most part, precisely to that part of the Pifakas which have not yet been edited, so that there they may very likely, after all, be quoted in one or other 1 Page 342 of the printed text. xl THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. of the numerous quotations entered as ‘not traced’ in my lists 1. Such being the extent, so far as can at present be shown, of our author’s knowledge of the three Pizakas, the question arises as to the degree and accuracy of his knowledge. In the great majority of cases his quotations or references entirely agree with the readings shown by our texts. But there are a few exceptions. And as these are both interesting and instructive, it will be advisable to point them out in detail.
3In the great majority of cases his quotations or references entirely agree with the readings shown by our texts. But there are a few exceptions. And as these are both interesting and instructive, it will be advisable to point them out in detail. The reference to the Avi#i Hell as being outside the earth, if not at variance with, is at least an addition to the teaching of the Pisakas as to cosmogony?. But there is some reason to believe that the passage may be an interpolation, and the difference itself is not only doubtful but also of no particular importance. The description of the contents of the Puggala Pa#“atti given in I, 26, does not really agree with the text. The book, in its first section, sets out six different sorts of discrimination or distinction. One paragraph only is devoted to each of the first five discriminations, and the author or authors then proceed, in the rest of the book, to deal with the details of the last of the six. Our author gives the six as the divisions of the book itself. But I think it is clear that so far as the description is inaccurate, the error is due, not to any difference between the text as he had it and that which we now possess, but simply to our author laying too great a stress upon the opening paragraphs of the book. In the reference to the Buddha’s first sermon, the Foundation of the Kingdom of Righteousness (in I, 38), our author says that ‘eighteen ko¢is of Brahma gods, and an innumerable company of other gods, attained to compre- ' About half of the canonical books, besides a considerable number of the uncanonical works, have already been edited in the last few years, chiefly owing to the Pali Text Society’s labours. 2 See the passages quoted in my note at p. 9. INTRODUCTION. xli hension of the truth.’ There is no statement of the kind in the Pisaka account of this event (see my translation in ‘Buddhist Suttas,’ pp. 146-155). But it is not inconsistent with the Pali, and is doubtless added from some edifying commentary. There is a difference of reading between the lines put into Sariputta’s mouth, at II, 2, 4, and those ascribed to Sariputta in the Thera Gatha (1002, 1003). If the Milinda reading is not found in some hitherto unpublished passage, we have here a real case of divergence.
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.