Appendix At the beginning of the
century, when the Buddha's Teaching had only recently come to widespread notice in the
West, many questions were yet unsettled. Although it was already recognized except,
perhaps, among those most hostile, that the Buddha was rather more than a primitive
sun-myth, yet many other mistaken ideas were being put forward to explain, or to explain
away, the Buddha and his Teaching. Some of these notions sound today quite as naive as the
sun-myth theory: but others, despite the evidence, continue to be raised, hence the
preceding essay. Doctrinal matters aside, the most fundamental of those concern the place
of Pali as a language in Indian history and thought, and the dates of composition and
compilation of the various Canonical texts.
Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids --
unquestionably the most influential of the early scholars concerned with Buddhism -- dealt
with these questions at length in various articles and books, the most comprehensive and
easily available of which is Buddhist India. Published in 1903, although it is
touched both by a lingering Victorian ethnocentricism and, doctrinal matters aside, by
some lesser judgements since demonstrated to be erroneous, it is nevertheless the earliest
general statement of what is, in the main, the accepted view on these questions today.
Although a scholarly examination of
these questions will never yield an understanding of the Teaching, yet mistaken notions
may well be an obstacle to comprehension. Some, therefore, will find a certain amount of
investigation into these points to be of value. While the question of the place of Pali as
a language and of the date of the Vinaya have not been part of our inquiry, yet it may be
pertinent to quote briefly on these subjects.
On the first point, Rhys Davids
concludes that there existed at the time of the Buddha "a language common among the
cultured laity ... which bore to the local dialect much the same relation as the English
of London, in Shakespeare's time, bore to the various dialects spoken in Somersetshire,
Yorkshire, and Essex"; that this "conversational dialect" was in use
"not only throughout the Kosala dominions, but east and west from Delhi to Patna, and
north and south from Savatthi to Avanti"; and that on this dialect was based
"Middle High Indian, Pali, the literary language."[1]
A scholarly debate has been in
progress for the last fifty years (with no end in sight) challenging and defending this
judgement. It should be noted, then, that even a "worst-case scenario," namely,
a conclusive and convincing demonstration that Pali was not the language spoken by the
Buddha (but see D. 16 (ii,108)), would not require us to change anything in this
essay. For if, as some contend, Pali is a western Prakrit while the Buddha spoke an
Eastern dialect, all that would be demonstrated is that the final editorial work on the
texts was done by monks who hailed from western India. In this regard we should note that
the account of the Second Council in the Vinaya repeatedly describes the orthodox monks as
being from the west, and the heretics as being from the east. And if, as others contend,
Pali as we now have it postdates the Buddha by a century or more, then all that would be
demonstrated thereby is that at the Second Council (and, for the Khuddaka, the Third) the
decision was made to "modernize" the language.[2]
There would be in neither case any need to question the authenticity of the Teaching as we
have it.
On the second point we may turn to
Rhys David's History and Literature of Buddhism (the "American Lectures")
of 1896 wherein, early in Lecture VI, he remarks:
... the first disruption in the Order took place ... on
matters connected with the regulation of the Order itself. One hundred years after the
death of the Buddha, according to the oldest account ... there arose a certain party in
the Order which proclaimed and practised a loosening of the rules in ten particulars ...
To put and end to the disputes upon
these points, a Council of the leading members of the Order was held at Vesali and the
heretical opinions were condemned. The long-continued struggle on the question -- as
important for the history of Buddhism as the Arian controversy for that of Christianity --
agitated the whole Buddhist world to its very center ...
Now the ten indulgences are each
summed up in a single word: and these words are, each and all of them, conspicuous by
their absence from the Books on the laws and regulations of the Order included in the
canon (i.e. the Vinaya), except that they appear in an historical account added quite
evidently as an appendix (i.e. the Twelfth Khandhaka, discussed in our essay), to the
collection of treatises, or Khandhakas ... This fact is of the very greatest importance in
determining the date at which those Khandhakas must have been composed. The ten points in
dispute were all matters of ecclesiastical law. They all related to observances of the
Brotherhood. Is it probable that, in a set of rules and treatises 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 regulation of the Buddhist Order -- is
it probable that, in such a collection, if, when it was compiled, the struggle on these
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 each
of the ten points remains altogether unnoticed in that part of the rules and treatises
where, in the natural order of things, it would obviously be referred to -- that the rules
are not in any way altered to cover, or to suggest, any decision on the points in dispute,
-- and that they are mentioned only in an appendix (= the Twelfth Khandhaka), where
the Council held to decide them is described, shows clearly that the rules and treatises,
as we have them, must have been put together before the time when the Council of Vesali
(= the Second Council) was held.
Lastly, on the question which has concerned us at length
-- the date of the Suttas -- we offer relevant excerpts from Chapter X of Buddhist
India:
... As to the age of the Buddhist canonical books, the
best evidence is the contents of the books themselves -- the sort of words they use, the
style in which they are composed, the ideas they express. Objection, it is true, has
recently been raised against the use of such internal evidence. And the objection is valid
if it be urged, not against the general principle of the use of such evidence, but against
the wrong use of it. We find, for instance, that Phallus-worship is often mentioned, quite
as a matter of course, in the Mahabharata, as if it had always been common everywhere
throughout Northern India. In the Nikayas, though they mention all sorts of what the
Buddhists regarded as foolish or superstitious forms of worship, this particular kind,
Siva-worship under the form of the Linga, is not even once referred to. The Mahabharata
mentions the Atharva Veda, and takes it as a matter of course, as if it were an idea
generally current, that it was a Veda the fourth Veda. The Nikayas constantly mention the
three others, but never the Atharva. Both cases are interesting. But before drawing the
conclusion that, therefore the Nikayas, as we have them, are older than the existing text
of the Mahabharata, we should want a very much larger number of such cases, all tending
the same way, and also the certainty that there were no cases of an opposite tendency that
could not otherwise be explained.
On the other hand, suppose a MS.
were discovered containing, in the same handwriting, copies of Bacon's Essays and
of Hume's Essay, with nothing to show when, or by whom, they were written; and that
we knew nothing at all otherwise about the matter. Still we should know, with absolute
certainty, which was relatively the older of the two; and should be able to determine,
within a quite short period, the actual date of each of the two works. The evidence would
be irresistible because it would consist of a very large number of minute points of
language, of style, and, above all, of ideas expressed, all tending in the same direction.
This is the sort of internal
evidence that we have before us in the Pali books. Any one who habitually reads Pali would
know at once that the Nikayas are older than the Dhamma Sangani; that both are older
than the Katha Vatthu; that all three are older than the Milinda. And the Pali scholars
most competent to judge are quite unanimous on the point, and on the general position of
the Pali literature in the history of literature in India.
But this sort of evidence can
appeal, of course, only to those familiar with the language and with the ideas. To those
who are not, the following points may be suggestive:
On the monuments of the third
century B.C. we find the names of donors of different parts of the building inscribed on
those parts (pillars, rails, and bas-reliefs). When the names are common ones, certain
epithets are added, to distinguish the donors from other persons bearing the same name.
Such epithets are either local (as we might say, John of Winchester) or they specify an
occupation (as we might say, John the carpenter, or John the clerk) or are otherwise
distinctive. Among these epithets have been found the following:
1. Dhamma-kathika. --
"Preacher of the system" (the Dhamma) -- the "System" being a
technical term in the Buddhist schools to signify the philosophical and ethical doctrine
as distinguished from the Vinaya, the Rules of the Order.
2. Petakin. --"One who
had (that is, knew by heart) the Pitaka." The Pitaka[3]
is the traditional statements of Buddhist doctrine as contained in the Sutta Pitaka
(= the five Nikayas). The word means basket, and, as a technical term applied to a
part of their literature, it is used exclusively by the Buddhists.
3. Suttantika. -- "A man
who knows a Suttanta (= Sutta) by heart."
4. Suttantakini. -- "A
woman who knows a Suttanta by heart." Suttanta is, again, a technical term used
exclusively of certain portions of the Buddhist canonical books, more especially of the
Dialogues....[4]
5. Panca-nekayika. --
"One who knows the Five Nikayas by heart." The five Nikayas, or
"Collections," as a technical term used of literary works, is applied to the
canonical Buddhist texts, and to them only....
The expressions here explained are
used on Buddhist monuments and refer to Buddhist books. They are conclusive proof that
some time before the date of the inscriptions (that is, roughly speaking, before the time
of Asoka), there was a Buddhist literature in North India, where the inscriptions are
found. And further, that that literature then had divisions known by the technical names
of Pitaka, Nikaya, and Suttanta, and that the number of Nikayas then in existence was
five.
But this is not all. Asoka, in his
Bhabra Edict, addressed to the Buddhist Order (the Sangha), recommends to the Brethren and
Sisters of the Order, and to the lay disciples of either sex, frequently to hear (that is
to learn by heart) and to meditate upon, certain selected passages. And of these he, most
fortunately, gives the names. They are as follows:
Ariya-vasani (now found in
the Digha Nikaya, in the portion called the Sangiti Suttanta).
Anagata-bhayani (now found
in the Anguttara Nikaya, vol. iii, pp. 105-108).
Muni Gatha (now found in
the Sutta Nipata, verses 206-220).
Moneyya Sutta (now found in
the Iti-vuttaka, p. 67, and also in the Anguttara Nikaya, vol. i, p. 272).
Upatissa Pasina. -- "The
questions put by Upatissa" (more commonly known as Sariputta). There are so many
such questions in the books that opinions differ as to which of them is the one most
probably referred to.
There is a word at the commencement
of this list which may either be an adjective applied to the whole list or the name of
another passage. However this may be, this Edict of Asoka's gives the actual titles of
some of the shorter passages included, in his time, in those books, the larger divisions
of which are mentioned in the inscriptions just referred to.
Now the existing literature, divided
into the same larger divisions, contains also the shorter passages. To suppose that it was
composed in Ceylon is to suppose that, by an extraordinary series of chances, the Ceylon
writers happened to hit upon just the identical technical terms, two of them then almost
fallen out of use, that had been used in these old inscriptions (of which they knew
nothing) for the names they gave to the larger divisions of the literature they made. And
we must further suppose that, by another extraordinary series of chances, they happened to
include in those divisions a number of shorter passages, each of them corresponding
exactly to those mentioned by name, long before their time, in Asoka's Edict, of which
also they knew nothing. To adopt such a theory as the most probable explanation of the
facts would be nothing less than absurd....
We must take our Pali canonical
books then to be North Indian, not Singhalese in origin: and the question as to whether
they have suffered from their sometime sojourn under the palm groves of the mountain viharas
in the south[5] must be decided by a critical study of them
in their present condition. Towards such a study there are some points that can already be
made.
The books make no mention of Asoka.
Had they undergone any serious re-editing after the reign of the great Buddhist Emperor
(of whom the Buddhist writers, whether rightly or wrongly, were so proud), is it probable
that he would have been so completely ignored?
The books never mention any person,
or any place, in Ceylon; or even in South India.[6] They
tell us a goodly number of anecdotes, usually as introductions to, or in illustration of,
some ethical point. It would have been so easy to bring in a passing reference to some
Ceylon worthy -- in the same way as the brahmin Buddhaghosa does so often, in his
Atthasalini, which was revised in Ceylon.[7] If
the Pitaka books had been tampered with, would not opportunity have been taken to yield to
this very natural impulse?
We know a great deal now of
developed or corrupted doctrine current in Ceylon, of new technical terms invented, of new
meanings put into the older phrases. Not one single instance has yet been found of any
such later idea, any such later form of language, any such later technical term in any one
of the canonical books....
It would seem, then, that any change
that may have been made in these North Indian books after they had been brought into
Ceylon must have been insignificant. It would be a great advantage if we should be able to
find even one or two instances of such changes. We should then be able to say what sort
and degree of alteration the Ceylon scholars felt justified in making. But it is clear
that they regarded the canon as closed.
While the books were in North India,
on the other hand, and the canon was not considered closed, there is evidence of a very
different tone. One whole book, the Katha Vatthu,[8] was
added as late as the time of Asoka; and perhaps the Parivara,[9]
a mere string of examination questions, is not much older. One story in the Peta Vatthu[10] is about a king Pingalaka, said in the commentary to
have reigned over Surat two hundred years after the Buddha's time; and another refers to
an event fifty-six years after the Buddha's death. The latter is certainly in its right
place in this odd collection of legends. The former may (as the commentator thinks) have
been added at Asoka's Council. Even if it were, that would be proof that they thought no
harm of then adding to the legendary matter in their texts.[11]
And the whole of the Vimana Vatthu[10] (really only the other half
of one and the same work), is certainly very late in tone as compared with the Nikayas.
The same must be said of two other
short collections of ballads. One is the Buddha Vamsa,[10] containing
a separate poem on each of twenty-five Buddhas, supposed to have followed one another in
succession. The other is the Cariya Pitaka,[10] containing
thirty-four short Jataka stories turned into verse. Both of these must also be late. For
in the Nikayas only seven Buddhas are known; and Jatakas, in the technical sense, are
not yet thought of. This particular set of Jatakas is also arranged on the basis of the paramitas,
a doctrine that plays no part in the older books. The Ten Perfections (paramitas)
are qualities a Buddha is supposed to be obliged to have acquired in the countless series
of his previous rebirths as Bodhisatta. But this is a later notion, not found in the
Nikayas. It gradually grew up as the Bodhisattva idea began to appeal more to the Indian
mind. And it is interesting to find already, in these latest of the canonical books, the
germs of what afterwards developed into the later Mahayana doctrine, to which the
decline of Buddhism, in the opinion of Professor Bhandarkar, was eventually so greatly
due...."
Postscript
This much having been said about the
Pali Suttas, it remains to say a few words concerning accessibility.[x]
The texts have been published in many
scripts. A very inexpensive edition is available in Devanagari script -- only the script
need be learned, not the language -- from Motilal Banarsidass, Bungalow Road, Jawahar
Nagar, Delhi 110 007, India. In a roman-script edition the texts are available from the
Pali Text Society, Broadway House, Newton Road, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1EN, England. Both
publishers offer free catalogs.
The P.T.S. also publishes a grammar,
dictionary and other aids to learning this not very difficult language. Less costly (but
less available) grammars have been produced in Sri Lanka by Ven. A. P. Buddhadatta,
Ven. Narada Mahathera, and others. Ven. Buddhadatta has also compiled a concise
dictionary.
The P.T.S. offers the only complete
English translation of the five Nikayas (of which the most reliable renderings are
K. R. Norman's translation of Thera-Theri-gatha as Elders' Verses I, II,
and I. B. Horner's Majjhima Nikaya translation as Middle Length Sayings I, II,
III) and the Vinaya. An inexpensive edition of 90 of the Majjhima Nikaya Suttas,
translated by Ven. Nanamoli Thera, has been published by Mahamakut Rajavidyalaya Press,
Bangkok (available from Wat Buddha-Dhamma, Wisemans Ferry, NSW 2255, Australia). Ven.
Nanamoli's Life of the Buddha (Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka) is
a well-selected and well-translated anthology. The Buddhist Publication Society also
publishes reliable translations[1] of selected texts,
available in the Wheel series. For a fuller listing of texts, translations,
anthologies and linguistic aids, see Russell Webb's An Analysis of the Pali Canon
(B.P.S., the Wheel No. 217-220).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Samanera Bodhesako (Robert Smith)
was an American Buddhist monk. Born in Detroit, Michigan, in 1939, he studied at the
University of Iowa, specializing in Literature and Creative Writing. He embraced Buddhism
in 1966 in India, where he was ordained at the Bengal Buddhist Association of Calcutta,
and spent several years as a monk in Sri Lanka. After leaving the robe in 1971, in 1980 he
again took ordination, this time in Thailand under the Venerable Somdet Nanasamvara of
Wat Bovornives. In 1982 he returned to Sri Lanka, living mostly in the upcountry region of
Bandarawela. In 1988, while on a return journey to the United States to join his father
for the latter's eightieth birthday celebration, Ven. Bodhesako died from a sudden
intestinal hernia while in Kathmandu.
Back to Contents
Footnotes:
1. Chapter IX of Buddhist
India. [Back to text]
2. In this regard we should
note that at the time of the Second Council, North Indian settlements had evolved in
social differentiation to the point of being on the verge of coalescing into the
sub-continent's first empire (the Mauryan: Chandragupta, Bindusara, Asoka, etc.) of this
inter-glacial period. These centuries were by all accounts times of great social
upheavals, and it may be expected that -- as with English today -- language would have
been subject to considerable diffraction. [Back to text]
3. Pitaka, like Nikaya, is a
later term, not found in this technical sense in the Suttas. [Back to text]
4. By "Dialogues"
Rhys Davids means the Digha and Majjhima Nikayas. [Back to text]
5. Viharas = temples,
monasteries. By "in the south" Rhys Davids means Ceylon (where live the
Singhalese people.) [Back to text]
6. The single exception,
overlooked by Rhys Davids, is in the Udana (Khuddaka Nikaya), wherein it is stated that
Bahiya Daruciriya travelled from his dwelling at Supparaka to Savatthi to learn the
Buddha's Teaching. Supparaka has been identified with Sopara, a town just north of
Bombay. However, this instance strengthens,rather than weakens, Rhys Davids' argument, for
it shows that the compilers of the Udana, though they knew something of South India, yet
had no interest or reason to make more than this single passing reference to it. (Compare,
on knowledge of distant parts, M. 93 (ii,149).) This could hardly have been the case
had there been editorial treatment of the texts at a time when the Teaching had already
penetrated southward into Kalinga (Orissa) and beyond. [Back to text]
7. Buddhaghosa was the compiler
of most of the traditional commentaries, including the Atthasalini (compiled, not
revised, in Ceylon): c. fifth Century, A.D., from South India. (Although the Commentaries
were translated from Sinhalese into Pali and compiled at that time, they probably
"ceased to grow by about the middle of the first century A.D.'' -- Adikaram, op.
cit. p. 41) [Back to text]
8. In the Abhidhamma
collection, not Sutta. [Back to text]
9. Now attached to the Vinaya
(see footnote 46 of our essay). [Back to text]
10. Of Khuddaka Nikaya. [Back to text]
11. We think it more likely
that the entire Peta Vatthu, and the Vimana Vatthu as well, were added to the Khuddaka
Nikaya in the Second or Third Century B.E. [Back to text]
x. The information given here is
rather outdated now. For more up-to-date information, see Access to Insight. --Ed. [Back
to text]
1. On the other hand, one
must beware of a few mass-marketed "translations" (particularly of the
Dhammapada) which grossly misrepresent the Teaching, either by gratuitously mistranslating
certain key terminology, or by acting so free and loose with the text in general as not to
deserve to be called a translation. [Back to text] |