THE CANON
1
There are extant in several languages large collections of Buddhist
scriptures described by some European writers as the Canon. The name is
convenient and not incorrect, but the various canons are not altogether
similar and the standard for the inclusion or exclusion of particular
works is not always clear. We know something of four or five canons.
(1) The Pali Canon, accepted by the Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma and Siam,
and rendered accessible to European students by the Pali Text Society.
It professes to contain the works recognized as canonical by the Council
of Asoka and it is reasonably homogeneous, that is to say, although some
ingenuity may be needed to harmonize the different strata of which it
consists, it does not include works composed by several schools.
(2) The Sanskrit Canon or Canons.
_(a)_ Nepalese scriptures. These do not correspond with any Pali texts
and all belong to the Mahayana. There appears to be no standard for
fixing the canonical character of Mahayanist works. Like the Upanishads
they are held to be revealed from time to time.
_(b)_ Buddhist texts discovered in Central Asia. Hitherto these have
been merely fragments, but the number of manuscripts found and not yet
published permits the hope that longer texts may be forthcoming. Those
already made known are partly Mahayanist and partly similar to the Pali
Canon though not a literal translation of it. It is not clear to what
extent the Buddhists of Central Asia regarded the Hina and Mahayanist
scriptures as separate and distinct. Probably each school selected for
itself a small collection of texts as authoritative[599].
_(3)_ The Chinese Canon. This is a gigantic collection of Buddhist works
made and revised by order of various Emperors. The imperial imprimatur
is the only standard of canonicity. The contents include translations of
works belonging to all schools made from the first to the thirteenth
century A.D. The originals were apparently all in Sanskrit and were
probably the texts of which fragments have been found in Central Asia.
This canon also includes some original Chinese works.
(4) There is a somewhat similar collection of translations into Tibetan.
But whereas the Chinese Canon contains translations dated from 67 A.D.
onwards, the Tibetan translations were made mainly in the ninth and
eleventh centuries and represent the literature esteemed by the mediæval
Buddhism of Bengal. Part at least of this Tibetan Canon has been
translated into Mongol.
Renderings of various books into Uigur, Sogdian, Kuchanese, "Nordarisch"
and other languages of Central Asia have been discovered by recent
explorers. It is probable that they are all derived from the Sanskrit
Canon and do not represent any independent tradition. The scriptures
used in Japan and Korea are simply special editions of the Chinese
Canon, not translations.
In the following pages I propose to consider the Pali Canon, postponing
until later an account of the others. It will be necessary, however, to
touch on the relations of Pali and Sanskrit texts.
The scriptures published by the Pali Text Society represent the canon of
the ancient sect called Vibhajjavâdins and the particular recension of
it used at the monastery in Anuradhapura called Mahâvihâra. It is
therefore not incorrect to apply to this recension such epithets as
southern or Sinhalese, provided we remember that in its origin it was
neither one nor the other, for the major part of it was certainly
composed in India[600]. It was probably introduced into Ceylon in the
third century B.C. and it is also accepted in Burma, Siam and
Camboja[601]. Thus in a considerable area it is the sole and undisputed
version of the scriptures.
The canon is often known by the name of Tripiṭaka[602] or Three Baskets.
When an excavation was made in ancient India it was the custom to pass
up the earth in baskets along a line of workmen[603] and the
metaphorical use of the word seems to be taken from this practice and to
signify transmission by tradition.
The three Pitakas are known as Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma. Vinaya
means discipline and the works included in this division treat chiefly
of the rules to be observed by the members of the Sangha. The basis of
these rules is the Pâtimokkha, the ancient confessional formula
enumerating the offences which a monk can commit. It was read
periodically to a congregation of the order and those guilty of any sin
had to confess it. The text of the Pâtimokkha is in the Vinaya combined
with a very ancient commentary called the Sutta-vibhanga. The Vinaya
also contains two treatises known collectively as the Khandakas but more
frequently cited by their separate names as Mahâvagga and Cullavagga.
The first deals with such topics as the rules for admission to the
order, and observance of fast days, and in treating of each rule it
describes the occasion on which the Buddha made it and to some extent
follows the order of chronology. For some parts of the master's life it
is almost a biography. The Cullavagga is similar in construction but
less connected in style[604]. The Vinaya contains several important and
curious narratives and is a mine of information about the social
conditions of ancient India, but much of it has the same literary value
as the book of Leviticus. Of greater general interest is the Sutta
Pitaka, in which the sermons and discourses of the Buddha are collected.
Sutta is equivalent to the Sanskrit word Sûtra, literally a thread,
which signifies among the Brahmans a brief rule or aphorism but in Pali
a relatively short poem or narrative dealing with a single object. This
Sutta Pitaka is divided into five collections called Nikâyas. The first
four are mainly in prose and contain discourses attributed to Gotama or
his disciples. The fifth is mostly in verse and more miscellaneous.
The four collections of discourses bear the names of Dîgha, Majjhima,
Saṃyutta and Anguttara. The first, meaning long, consists of thirty-four
narratives. They are not all sermons and are of varying character,
antiquity and interest, the reason why they are grouped together being
simply their length[605]. In some of them we may fancy that we catch an
echo of Gotama's own words, but in others the legendary character is
very marked. Thus the Mahâsamaya and Aṭânâṭiya suttas are epitomes of
popular mythology tacked on to the history of the Buddha. But for all
that they are interesting and ancient.
Many of the suttas, especially the first thirteen, are rearrangements of
old materials put together by a considerable literary artist who lived
many generations after the Buddha. The account of the Buddha's last days
is an example of such a compilation which attains the proportions of a
Gospel and shows some dramatic power though it is marred by the
juxtaposition of passages composed in very different styles.
The Majjhima-Nikâya is a collection of 152 discourses of moderate
(majjhima) length. Taken as a whole it is perhaps the most profound and
impassioned of all the Nikâyas and also the oldest. The sermons which it
contains, if not verbatim reports of Gotama's eloquence, have caught the
spirit of one who urged with insistent earnestness the importance of
certain difficult truths and the tremendous issues dependent on right
conduct and right knowledge. The remaining collections, the Saṃyutta and
Anguttara, classify the Buddha's utterances under various headings and
presuppose older documents which they sometimes quote[606]. The Saṃyutta
consists of a great number of suttas, mostly short, combined in groups
treating of a single subject which may be either a person or a topic.
The Anguttara, which is a still longer collection, is arranged in
numerical groups, a method of classification dear to the Hindus who
delight in such computations as the four meditations, the eightfold
path, the ten fetters. It takes such religious topics as can be counted
in this way and arranges them under the numbers from one to eleven. Thus
under three, it treats of thought, word and deed and the applications of
this division to morality; of the three messengers of the gods, old-age,
sickness and death; of the three great evils, lust, ill-will and
stupidity and so on.
The fifth or Khuddaka-Nikâya is perhaps the portion of the Pali
scriptures which has found most favour with Europeans, for the treatises
composing it are short and some of them of remarkable beauty. They are
in great part composed of verses, sometimes disconnected couplets,
sometimes short poems. The stanzas are only imperfectly intelligible
without an explanation of the occasion to which they refer. This is
generally forthcoming, but is sometimes a part of the accepted text and
sometimes regarded as merely a commentary. To this division of the
Pitaka belong the Dhammapada, a justly celebrated anthology of
devotional verses, and the Sutta-Nipâta, a very ancient collection of
suttas chiefly in metre. Other important works included in it are the
Thera and Therî-gâthâ or poems written by monks and nuns respectively,
and the Jâtaka or stories about the Buddha's previous births[607]. Some
of the rather miscellaneous contents of this Nikâya are late and do not
belong to the same epoch of thought as the discourses attributed to
Gotama. Such are the Buddha-vaṃsa, or lives of Gotama and his
twenty-four predecessors, the Cariyâ-Piṭaka, a selection of Jâtaka
stories about Gotama's previous births and the Vimâna and Peta-vatthus,
accounts of celestial mansions and of the distressful existence led by
those who are condemned to be ghosts[608].
Though some works comprised in this Nikâya (e.g. the Suttanipâta) are
very ancient, the collection, as it stands, is late and probably known
only to the southern Church. The contents of it are not quite the same
in Ceylon, Burma and Siam, and only a small portion of them has been
identified in the Chinese Tripitaka. Nevertheless the word
_pañcanekâyika_, one who knows the five Nikâyas, is found in the
inscriptions of Sanchi and five Nikâyas are mentioned in the last books
of the Cullavagga. Thus a fifth Nikâya of some kind must have been known
fairly early.
The third Pitaka is known by the name of Abhidhamma. Dhamma is the usual
designation for the doctrine of the Buddha and Buddhaghosa[609] explains
the prefix abhi as signifying excess and distinction, so that this
Pitaka is considered pre-eminent because it surpasses the others. This
pre-eminence consists solely in method and scope, not in novelty of
matter or charm of diction. The point of view of the Abhidhamma is
certainly later than that of the Sutta Pitaka and in some ways marks an
advance, for instead of professing to report the discourses of Gotama it
takes the various topics on which he touched, especially psychological
ethics, and treats them in a connected and systematic manner. The style
shows some resemblance to Sanskrit sûtras for it is so technical both in
vocabulary and arrangement that it can hardly be understood without a
commentary[610]. According to tradition the Buddha recited the
Abhidhamma when he went to heaven to preach to the gods, and this seems
a polite way of hinting that it was more than any human congregation
could tolerate or understand. Still throughout the long history of
Buddhism it has always been respected as the most profound portion of
the scriptures and has not failed to find students. This Pitaka includes
the Kathâ-vatthu, attributed to Tissa Moggaliputta who is said to have
composed it about 250 B.C. in Asoka's reign[611].
There is another division of the Buddhist scriptures into nine _angas_
or members, namely: 1. Suttas. 2. Geyya: mixed prose and verse. 3.
Gâthâ: verse. 4. Udâna: ecstatic utterances. 5. Veyyâkaraṇa:
explanation. 6. Itivuttaka: sayings beginning with the phrase "Thus said
the Buddha." 7. Jâtaka: stories of former births. 8. Abbhutadhamma:
stories of wonders. 9. Vedalla: a word of doubtful meaning, but perhaps
questions and answers. This enumeration is not to be understood as a
statement of the sections into which the whole body of scripture was
divided but as a description of the various styles of composition
recognized as being religious, just as the Old Testament might be said
to contain historical books, prophecies, canticles and so on.
Compositions in these various styles must have been current before the
work of collection began, as is proved by the fact that all the _angas_
are enumerated in the Majjhima-Nikâya[612].
2
This Tripitaka is written in Pali[613] which is regarded by Buddhist
tradition as the language spoken by the Master. In the time of Asoka the
dialect of Magadha must have been understood over the greater part of
India, like Hindustani in modern times, but in some details of grammar
and phonetics Pali differs from Mâgadhî Prakrit and seems to have been
influenced by Sanskrit and by western dialects. Being a literary rather
than a popular language it was probably a mixed form of speech and it
has been conjectured that it was elaborated in Avanti or in Gândhâra
where was the great Buddhist University of Takshaśîlâ. Subsequently it
died out as a literary language in India[614] but in Ceylon, Burma, Siam
and Camboja it became the vehicle of a considerable religious and
scholastic literature. The language of Asoka's inscriptions in the third
century B.C. is a parallel dialect, but only half stereotyped. The
language of the Mahâvastu and some Mahayanist texts, often called the
language of the Gâthâs, seems to be another vernacular brought more or
less into conformity with Sanskrit. It is probable that in preaching the
Buddha used not Pali in the strict sense but the spoken dialect of
Magadha[615], and that this dialect did not differ from Pali more than
Scotch or Yorkshire from standard English, and if for other reasons we
are satisfied that some of the suttas have preserved the phrases which
he employed, we may consider that apart from possible deviations in
pronunciation or inflexion they are his _ipsissima verba_. Even as we
have it, the text of the canon contains some anomalous forms which are
generally considered to be Magadhisms[616].
The Cullavagga relates how two monks who were Brahmans represented to
the Buddha that "monks of different lineage ... corrupt the word of the
Buddha by repeating it in their own dialect. Let us put the word of the
Buddhas into _chandas_[617]." No doubt Sanskrit verse is meant,
_chandas_ being a name applied to the language of the Vedic verses.
Gotama refused: "You are not to put the word of the Buddhas into
_chandas_. Whoever does so shall be guilty of an offence. I allow you to
learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect." Subsequent
generations forgot this prohibition, but it probably has a historical
basis and it indicates the Buddha's desire to make his teaching popular.
It is not likely that he contemplated the composition of a body of
scriptures. He would have been afraid that it might resemble the hymns
of the Brahmans which he valued so little and he wished all men to hear
his teaching in the language they understood best. But when after his
death his disciples collected his sayings it was natural that they
should make at least one version of them in the dialect most widely
spoken and that this version should be gradually elaborated in what was
considered the best literary form of that dialect[618]. It is probable
that the text underwent several linguistic revisions before it reached
its present state.
Pali is a sonorous and harmonious language which avoids combinations of
consonants and several difficult sounds found in Sanskrit. Its
excellence lies chiefly in its vocabulary and its weakness in its
syntax. Its inflexions are heavy and monotonous and the sentences lack
concentration and variety. Compound words do not assume such monstrous
proportions as in later Sanskrit, but there is the same tendency to make
the process of composition do duty for syntax. These faults have been
intensified by the fact that the language has been used chiefly for
theological discussion. The vocabulary on the other hand is copious and
for special purposes admirable. The translator has to struggle
continually with the difficulty of finding equivalents for words which,
though apparently synonymous, really involve nice distinctions and much
misunderstanding has arisen from the impossibility of adequately
rendering philosophical terms, which, though their European equivalents
sound vague, have themselves a precise significance. On the other hand
some words (e.g. _dhamma_ and _attho_) show an inconveniently wide range
of meaning. But the force of the language is best seen in its power of
gathering up in a single word, generally a short compound, an idea which
though possessing a real unity requires in European languages a whole
phrase for its expression. Thus the Buddha bids his disciples be
_attadîpâ atta-saraṇâ, anañña-saraṇâ: dhammadîpâ dhammasaraṇâ_[619]. "Be
ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge unto yourselves. Betake
yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Hold
fast to the truth as a refuge." This is Rhys Davids' translation and
excellent both as English and as giving the meaning. But the five Pali
words compel attention and inscribe themselves on the memory in virtue
of a monumental simplicity which the five English sentences do not
possess.
But the feature in the Pali scriptures which is most prominent and most
tiresome to the unsympathetic reader is the repetition of words,
sentences and whole paragraphs. This is partly the result of grammar or
at least of style. The simplicity of Pali syntax and the small use made
of dependent sentences, lead to the regular alignment of similar phrases
side by side like boards in a floor. When anything is predicated of
several subjects, for instance the five Skandhas, it is rare to find a
single sentence containing a combined statement. As a rule what has to
be said is predicated first of the first Skandha and then repeated
_totidem verbis_ of the others. But there is another cause for this
tedious peculiarity, namely that for a long period the Pitakas were
handed down by oral tradition only. They were first reduced to writing
in Ceylon about 20 B.C. in the reign of Vaṭṭagâmani, more than a century
and a half after their first importation in an oral form. This
circumstance need not throw doubt on the authenticity of the text, for
the whole ancient literature of India, prose as well as verse, was
handed down by word of mouth and even in the present day most of it
could be recovered if all manuscripts and books were lost. The Buddhists
did not, like the Brahmans, make minute regulations for preserving and
memorizing their sacred texts, and in the early ages of the faith were
impressed with the idea that their teaching was not a charm to be learnt
by heart but something to be understood and practised. They nevertheless
endeavoured, and probably with success, to learn by heart the words of
the Buddha, converting them into the dialect most widely understood. It
was then a common thing (and the phenomenon may still be seen in India)
for a man of learning to commit to memory a whole Veda together with
subsidiary treatises on ritual, metre, grammar and genealogy. For such
memories it was not difficult to retain the principal points in a series
of sermons. The Buddha had preached day by day for about forty-five
years. Though he sometimes spoke with reference to special events he no
doubt had a set of discourses which he regularly repeated. There was the
less objection to such repetition because he was continually moving
about and addressing new audiences. There were trained Brahman students
among his disciples, and at his death many persons, probably hundreds,
must have had by heart summaries of his principal sermons.
But a sermon is less easy to remember than a poem or matter arranged by
some method of _memoria technica_. An obvious aid to recollection is to
divide the discourse into numbered heads and attach to each certain
striking phrases. If the phrases can be made to recur, so much the
better, for there is a guarantee of correctness when an expected formula
appears at appropriate points.
It may be too that the wearisome and mechanical iteration of the Pali
Canon is partly due to the desire of the Sinhalese to lose nothing of
the sacred word imparted to them by missionaries from a foreign country,
for repetition to this extent is not characteristic of Indian
compositions. It is less noticeable in Sanskrit Buddhist sûtras than in
the Pali but is very marked in Jain literature. A moderate use of it is
a feature of the Upanishads. In these we find recurring formulæ and also
successive phrases constructed on one plan and varying only in a few
words[620].
But still I suspect that repetition characterized not only the reports
of the discourses but the discourses themselves. No doubt the versions
which we have are the result of compressing a free discourse into
numbered paragraphs and repetitions: the living word of the Buddha was
surely more vivacious and plastic than these stiff tabulations. But the
peculiarities of scholars can often be traced to the master and the
Buddha had much the same need of mnemonics as his hearers. For he had
excogitated complicated doctrines and he imparted them without the aid
of notes and though his natural wit enabled him to adapt his words to
the capacity of his hearers and to meet argument, still his wish was to
formulate a consistent statement of his thoughts. In the earliest
discourse ascribed to him, the sermon at Benares, we see these habits of
numbering and repetition already fully developed. The next discourse, on
the absence of a soul, consists in enumerating the five words, form,
sensation, perception, sankhâras, and consciousness three times, and
applying to each of them consecutively three statements or arguments,
the whole concluding with a phrase which is used as a finale in many
other places. Artificial as this arrangement sounds when analyzed, it is
a natural procedure for one who wished to impress on his hearers a
series of philosophic propositions without the aid of writing, and I can
imagine that these rhythmical formulæ uttered in that grave and pleasant
voice which the Buddha is said to have possessed, seemed to the
leisurely yet eager groups who sat round him under some wayside banyan
or in the monastery park, to be not tedious iteration but a gradual
revelation of truth growing clearer with each repetition.
We gather from the Pitakas that writing was well known in the Buddha's
time[621]. But though it was used for inscriptions, accounts and even
letters, it was not used for books, partly because the Brahmans were
prejudiced against it, and partly because no suitable material for
inditing long compositions had been discovered. There were religious
objections to parchment and leaves were not employed till later. The
minute account of monastic life given in the Vinaya makes it certain
that the monks did not use writing for religious purposes. Equally
conclusive, though also negative, is the fact that in the accounts of
the assemblies at Râjagaha and Vesâlî[622] when there is a dispute as to
the correct ruling on a point, there is no appeal to writing but merely
to the memory of the oldest and most authoritative monks. In the Vinaya
we hear of people who know special books: of monks who are preachers of
the Dhamma and others who know the Sutta: of laymen who have learnt a
particular suttanta and are afraid it will fall into oblivion unless
others learn it from them. Apprehensions are expressed that suttas will
be lost if monks neglect to learn them by heart[623]. From inscriptions
of the third century B.C.[624] are quoted words like Petakî, a reciter
of the Pitakas or perhaps of one Pitaka: Suttântika and Suttântakinî, a
man or woman who recites the suttantas: Pancanekâyika, one who recites
the five Nikâyas. All this shows that from the early days of Buddhism
onwards a succession of persons made it their business to learn and
recite the doctrine and disciplinary rules and, considering the
retentiveness of trained memories, we have no reason to doubt that the
doctrine and rules have been preserved without much loss[625].
Not, however, without additions. The disadvantage of oral tradition is
not that it forgets but that it proceeds snowball fashion, adding with
every generation new edifying matter. The text of the Vedic hymns was
preserved with such jealous care that every verse and syllable was
counted. But in works of lesser sanctity interpolations and additions
were made according to the reciters' taste. We cannot assign to the
Mahâbhârata one date or author, and the title of Upanishad is no
guarantee for the age or authenticity of the treatises that bear it.
Already in the Anguttara-Nikâya[626], we hear of tables of contents and
the expression is important, for though we cannot give any more precise
explanation of it, it shows that care was taken to check the contents of
the works accepted as scripture. But still there is little doubt that
during the two or three centuries following the Buddha's death, there
went on a process not only of collection and recension but also of
composition.
An account of the formation of the canon is given in the last two
chapters of the Cullavagga[627]. After the death of the Buddha his
disciples met to decide what should be regarded as the correct doctrine
and discipline. The only way to do that was to agree what had been the
utterances of the master and this, in a country where the oral
transmission of teaching was so well understood, amounted to laying the
foundations of a canon. Kassapa cross-examined experts as to the
Buddha's precepts. For the rules of discipline Upâli was the chief
authority and we read how he was asked where such and such a rule—for
instance, the commandment against stealing—was promulgated.
"At Râjagaha, sir."
"Concerning whom was it spoken?"
"Dhaniya, the potter's son."
"In regard to what matter?"
"The taking of that which had not been given."
For collecting the suttas they relied on the testimony of Ânanda and
asked him where the Brahmajâla[628] was spoken. He replied "between
Râjagaha and Nâlanda at the royal rest-house at Ambalatthika."
"Concerning whom was it spoken?" "Suppiya, the wandering ascetic and
Brahmadatta the young Brahman."
Then follows a similar account of the Sâmaññaphala sutta and we are told
that Ânanda was "questioned through the five Nikâyas." That is no doubt
an exaggeration as applied to the time immediately after the Buddha's
death, but it is evidence that five Nikâyas were in existence when this
chapter was written[629].
3
Lines of growth are clearly discernible in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas.
As already mentioned, the Khuddaka-Nikâya is, as a collection, later
than the others although separate books of it, such as the Sutta-nipâta
(especially the fourth and fifth books), are among the earliest
documents which we possess. But other books such as the Peta-[630] and
Vimâna-vatthu show a distinct difference in tone and are probably
separated from the Buddha by several centuries. Of the other four
Nikâyas the Saṃyutta and Anguttara are the more modern and the Anguttara
mentions Munda, King of Magadha who began to reign about forty years
after the Buddha's death. But even in the two older collections, the
Dîgha and the Majjhima, we have not reached the lowest stratum. The
first thirteen suttantas of the Dîgha all contain a very ancient
tractate on morality, and the Sâmaññaphala and following sections of the
Dîgha and also some suttas of the Majjhima contain either in whole or in
part a treatise on progress in the holy life. These treatises were
probably current as separate portions for recitation before the suttas
in which they are now set were composed.
Similarly, the Vinaya clearly presupposes an old code in the form of a
list of offences called the Pâtimokkha. The Mahâvagga contains a portion
of an ancient word-for-word explanation of this code[631] and most of
the Sutta-vibhanga is an amplification and exposition of it. The
Pâtimokkha was already in existence when these books were composed, for
we hear[632] that if in a company of Bhikkhus no one knows the
Pâtimokkha, one of the younger brethren should be sent to some better
instructed monastery to learn it. And further we hear[633] that a
learned Bhikkhu was expected to know not merely the precepts of the
Pâtimokkha but also the occasion when each was formulated. The place,
the circumstances and the people concerned had been in each case handed
down. There is here all the material for a narrative. The reciter of a
sutta simply adopts the style of a village story-teller. "Thus have I
heard. Once upon a time the Lord was dwelling at Râjagaha," or wherever
it was, and such and such people came to see him. And then, after a more
or less dramatic introduction, comes the Lord's discourse and at the end
an epilogue saying how the hearers were edified and, if previously
unconverted, took refuge in the true doctrine.
The Cullavagga states that the Vinaya (but not the other Pitakas) was
recited and verified at the Council of Vesâlî. As I have mentioned
elsewhere, Sinhalese and Chinese accounts speak of another Council, the
Mahâsangha or Mahâsangîti. Though its date is uncertain, there is a
consensus of tradition to the effect that it recognized a canon of its
own, different from our Pali Canon and containing a larger amount of
popular matter.
Sinhalese tradition states that the canon as we now have it was fixed at
the third Council held at Pataliputra in the reign of Asoka (about
272-232 B.C.). The most precise statements about this Council are those
of Buddhaghosa who says that an assembly of monks who knew the three
Pitakas by heart recited the Vinaya and the Dhamma.
But the most important and interesting evidence as to the existence of
Buddhist scriptures in the third century B.C. is afforded by the Bhâbrû
(or Bhâbrâ) edict of Asoka. He recommends the clergy to study seven
passages, of which nearly all can be identified in our present edition
of the Pitakas[634]. This edict does not prove that Asoka had before him
in the form which we know the Dîgha and other works cited. But the most
cautious logic must admit that there was a collection of the Buddha's
sayings to which he could appeal and that if most of his references to
this collection can be identified in our Pitakas, then the major part of
these Pitakas is probably identical in substance (not necessarily
verbally) with the collection of sayings known to Asoka.
Neither Asoka nor the author of the Kathâ-vatthu cites books by name.
The latter for instance quotes the well-known lines "anupubbena medhavi"
not as coming from the Dhammapada but as "spoken by the Lord." But the
author of the Questions of Milinda, who knew the canonical books by the
names they bear now, also often adopts a similar method of citation.
Although this author's probable date is not earlier than our era his
evidence is important. He mentions all five Nikâyas by name, the titles
of many suttas and also the Vibhanga, Dhâtu-kathâ, Puggala-Paññatti,
Kathâ-vatthu, Yamaka and Paṭṭhâna.
Everything indicates and nothing discredits the conclusion that this
canon of the Vibhajjavâdins was substantially fixed in the time of
Asoka, so far as the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas are concerned. Some works
of minor importance may have had an uncertain position and subsequent
revisions may have been made but the principal scriptures were already
recognized and contained passages which occur in our versions. On the
other hand this recension of the scriptures was not the only one in
existence. If the patronage of Asoka gave it a special prestige in his
lifetime, it may have lost it in India after his death and for many
centuries the Buddhist Canon, like the list of the Upanishads, must have
been susceptible of alteration. The Sarvâstivâdins compiled an
Abhidhamma Pitaka of their own, apparently in the time of Kanishka, and
the Dharmagupta school also seems to have had its own version of this
Pitaka[635]. The date of the Pali Abhidhamma is very doubtful and I do
not reject the hypothesis that it was composed in Ceylon, for the
Sinhalese seem to have a special taste for such literature. But there is
no proof of this Sinhalese origin.
According to Sinhalese tradition all three Pitakas were introduced into
Ceylon by Mahinda in the reign of Asoka, but only as oral tradition and
not in a written form. They received this latter about 20 B.C., as the
result of a dispute between two monasteries[636]. The controversy is
obscure but it appears that the ancient foundation called Mahâvihâra
accepted as canonical the fifth book of the Vinaya called Parivâra,
whereas it was rejected by the new monastery called Abhayagiri. The
Sinhalese chronicle (Mahâvamsa XXXIII. 100-104) says somewhat abruptly
"The wise monks had hitherto handed down the text of the three Pitakas
(Piṭakattayapâlim) as well as the commentary by word of mouth. But
seeing that mankind was becoming lost, they assembled together and wrote
them in books in order that the faith might long endure." This brief
account seems to mean that a council was held not by the whole clergy of
Ceylon but by the monks of the Mahâvihâra at which they committed to
writing their own version of the canon including the Parivâra. This book
forms an appendix to the Vinaya Pitaka and in some verses printed at the
conclusion is said to be the work of one Dîpa. It is generally accepted
as a relatively late production, composed in Ceylon. If such a work was
included in the canon of the Mahâvihâra, we must admit the possibility
that other portions of it may be Sinhalese and not Indian.
But still the _onus probandi_ lies with those who maintain the Sinhalese
origin of any part of the Pali Canon and two strong arguments support
the Indian origin of the major part. First, many suttas not only show an
intimate knowledge of ancient Indian customs but discuss topics such as
caste, sacrifice, ancient heresies, and the value of the Veda which
would be of no interest to Sinhalese. Secondly, there is no Sinhalese
local colour and no Sinhalese legends have been introduced. Contrast
with this the Dîpa-and Mahâ-vaṃsa both of which open with accounts of
mythical visits paid by the Buddha to Ceylon[637].
In Ceylon versions of the scriptures other than that of the Mahâvihâra
were current until the twelfth century when uniformity was enforced by
Parâkrama Bâhu. Some of these, for instance the Pitaka of the
Vetulyakas, were decidedly heretical according to the standard of local
orthodoxy but others probably presented variations of reading and
arrangement rather than of doctrine. Anesaki[638] has compared with the
received Pali text a portion of the Saṃyuktâgama translated by
Guṇabhadra into Chinese. He thinks that the original was the text used
by the Abhayagiri monastery and brought to China by Fa Hsien.
The Sinhalese ecclesiastical history, Nikâya-Sangrahawa, relates[639]
that 235 years after the Buddha's death nine heretical fraternities were
formed who proceeded to compose scriptures of their own such as the
Varṇapiṭaka and Angulimâla-Piṭaka. Though this treatise is late (_c_.
1400 A.D.) its statements merit attention as showing that even in
orthodox Ceylon tradition regarded the authorized Pitaka as one of
several versions. But many of the works mentioned sound like late
tantric texts rather than compositions of the early heretics to whom
they are attributed.
Ecclesiastical opinion in Ceylon after centuries of discussion ended by
accepting the edition of the Mahâvihâra as the best, and we have no
grounds for rejecting or suspecting this opinion. According to tradition
Buddhaghosa was well versed in Sanskrit but deliberately preferred the
southern canon. The Mahayanist doctor Asanga cites texts found in the
Pali version, but not in the Sanskrit[640]. The monks of the Mahâvihâra
were probably too indulgent in admitting late scholastic treatises, such
as the Parivâra. On the other hand they often showed a critical instinct
in rejecting legendary matter. Thus the Sanskrit Vinayas contain many
more miraculous narratives than the Pali Vinaya.
4
European critics have rarely occasion to discuss the credibility of
Sanskrit literature, for most of it is so poetic or so speculative that
no such question arises. But the Pitakas raise this question as directly
as the Gospels, for they give the portrait of a man and the story of a
life, in which an overgrowth of the miraculous has not hidden or
destroyed the human substratum. How far can we accept them as a true
picture of what Gotama was and taught?
Their credibility must be judged by the standard of Indian oral
tradition. Its greatest fault comes from that deficiency in historic
sense which we have repeatedly noticed. Hindu chroniclers ignore
important events and what they record drifts by in a haze in which
proportion, connection, and dates are lost. They frequently raise a
structure of fiction on a slight basis of fact or on no basis at all.
But the fiction is generally so obvious that the danger of historians in
the past has been not to be misled by it but to ignore the elements of
truth which it may contain. For the Hindus have a good verbal memory;
their genealogies, lists of kings and places generally prove to be
correct and they have a passion for catalogues of names. Also they take
a real interest in describing doctrine. If the Buddha has been
misrepresented, it is not for want of acumen or power of transmitting
abstruse ideas. The danger rather is that he who takes an interest in
theology is prone to interpret a master's teaching in the light of his
own pet views.
The Pitakas illustrate the strong and weak points of Hindu tradition.
The feebleness of the historical sense may be seen in the account of
Devadatta's doings in the Cullavagga[641] where the compiler seems
unable to give a clear account of what he must have regarded as
momentous incidents. Yet the same treatise is copious and lucid in
dealing with monastic rules, and the sayings recorded have an air of
authenticity. In the suttas the strong side of Hindu memory is brought
into play. Of consecutive history there is no question. We have only an
introduction giving the names of some characters and localities followed
by a discourse. We know from the Vinaya that the monks were expected to
exercise themselves in remembering these things, and they are precisely
the things that they would get rightly by heart. I see no reason to
doubt that such discourses as the sermon preached at Benares[642] and
the recurring passages in the first book of the Dîgha-Nikâya are a Pali
version of what was accepted as the words of the Buddha soon after his
death. And the change of dialect is not of great importance. Asoka's
Bhâbrû Edict contains the saying: _Thus the good law shall long endure_,
which is believed to be a quotation and certainly corresponds pretty
closely with a passage in the Anguttara-Nikâya[643]. The King's version
is _Saddhamma cilathitike hasati_: the Pali is _Saddhammo cîratthitiko
hoti_. Somewhat similar may have been the differences between the
Buddha's speech and the text which we possess. The importance of the
change in language is diminished and the facility of transmission is
increased by the fact that in Pali, Sanskrit and kindred Indian
languages ideas are concentrated in single words rather than spread over
sentences. Thus the principal words of the sermon at Benares give its
purport with perfect clearness, if they are taken as a mere list without
grammatical connection. Similarly I should imagine that the recurring
paragraphs about progress in the holy life found in the early Suttas of
the Dîgha-Nikâya are an echo of the Buddha's own words, for they bear an
impress not only of antiquity but of eloquence and elevation. This does
not mean that we have any sermon in the exact form in which Gotama
uttered it. Such documents as the Sâmaññaphala-sutta and Ambaṭṭha-sutta
probably give a good idea of his method and style in consecutive
discourse and argument. But it would not be safe to regard them as more
than the work of compilers who were acquainted with the surroundings in
which he lived, the phrases he used, and the names and business of those
who conversed with him. With these they made a picture of a day in his
life, culminating in a sermon[644].
Like the historical value of the Pitakas, their literary value can be
justly estimated only if we remember that they are not books in our
sense but treatises handed down by memory and that their form is
determined primarily by the convenience of the memory. We must not
compare them with Plato and find them wanting, for often, especially in
the Abhidhamma, there is no intention of producing a work of art, but
merely of subdividing a subject and supplying explanations. Frequently
the exposition is thrown into the form of a catechism with questions and
answers arranged so as to correspond to numbered categories. Thus a
topic may be divided into twenty heads and six propositions may be
applied to each with positive or negative results. The strong point of
these Abhidhamma works---and of Buddhist philosophy generally—lies in
careful division and acute analysis but the power of definition is weak.
Rarely is a definition more than a collection of synonyms and very often
the word to be defined is repeated in the definition. Thus in the
Dhamma-sangaṇi the questions, what are good or bad states of mind?
receive answers cast in the form: when a good or bad thought has arisen
with certain accompaniments enumerated at length, then these are the
states that are good or bad. No definition of good is given.
This mnemonic literature attains its highest excellence in poetry. The
art of composing short poems in which a thought, emotion or spiritual
experience is expressed with a few simple but pregnant words in the
compass of a single couplet or short hymn, was carried by the early
Buddhists to a perfection which has never been excelled. The
Dhammapada[645] is the best known specimen of this literature. Being an
anthology it is naturally more suited for quotation or recitation in
sections than for continuous reading. But its twenty-five chapters are
consecrated each to some special topic which receives fairly consecutive
treatment, though each chapter is a mosaic of short poems consisting of
one or more verses supposed to have been uttered by the Buddha or by
arhats on various occasions. The whole work combines literary beauty,
depth of thought and human feeling in a rare degree. Not only is it
irradiated with the calm light of peace, faith and happiness but it
glows with sympathy, with the desire to do good and help those who are
struggling in the mire of passion and delusion. For this reason it has
found more favour with European readers than the detached and
philosophic texts which simply preach self-conquest and aloofness.
Inferior in beauty but probably older is the Sutta-nipâta, a collection
of short discourses or conversations with the Buddha mostly in verse.
The rugged and popular language of these stanzas which reject
speculation as much as luxury, takes us back to the life of the
wanderers who followed the Buddha on his tours and we may imagine that
poems like the Dhaniya sutta would be recited when they met together in
a rest-house or grove set apart for their use on the outskirts of a
village.
The Buddhist suttas, are interesting as being a special result of
Gotama's activity; they are not analogous to the Brahmanic works called
sûtras, and they have no close parallel in later Indian literature.
There is little personal background in the Upanishads, none at all in
the Sânkhya and Vedânta sûtras. But the Sutta Pitaka is an attempt to
delineate a personality as well as to record a doctrine. Though the idea
of writing biography has not yet been clearly conceived, yet almost
every discourse brings before us the figure of the Lord: though the
doctrine can be detached from the preacher, yet one feels that the
hearers of the Pitaka hungered not merely for a knowledge of the four
truths but for the very words of the great voice: did he really say
this, and if so when, where and why? Most suttas begin by answering
these questions. They describe a scene and report a discourse and in so
doing they create a type of literature with an interest and
individuality of its own. It is no exaggeration to say that the Buddha
is the most living figure in Hindu literature. He stands before us more
distinctly not only than Yâjñavalkya and Śankara, but than modern
teachers like Nanak and Râmânuja and the reason of this distinctness can
I think be nothing but the personal impression which he made on his age.
The later Buddhists compose nothing in the style of the Nikâyas: they
write about Gotama in new and fanciful ways, but no Acts of the Apostles
succeed the Gospels.
Though the Buddhist suttas are _sui generis_ and mark a new epoch in
Indian literature, yet in style they are a natural development of the
Upanishads. The Upanishads are less dogmatic and show much less interest
in the personality of their sages, but they contain dialogues closely
analogous to suttas. Thus about half of the Bṛihad-Âraṇyaka is a
philosophic treatise unconnected with any particular name, but in this
are set five dialogues in which Yâjñavalkya appears and two others in
which Ajâtaśatru and Pravâhaṇa Jaivali are the protagonists.
Though many suttas are little more than an exposition of some doctrine
arranged in mnemonic form, others show eloquence and dramatic skill.
Thus the Sâmaññaphala-sutta opens with a vivid description of the visit
paid one night by Ajâtasattu to the Buddha[646]. We see the royal
procession of elephants and share the alarm of the suspicious king at
the unearthly stillness of the monastery park, until he saw the Buddha
sitting in a lighted pavilion surrounded by an assembly of twelve
hundred and fifty brethren, calm and silent as a clear lake. The king's
long account of his fruitless quest for truth would be tiresome if it
were not of such great historic interest and the same may be said of the
Buddha's enumeration of superstitious and reprehensible practices, but
from this point onwards his discourse is a magnificent crescendo of
thought and language, never halting and illustrated by metaphors of
great effect and beauty. Equally forcible and surely resting on some
tradition of the Buddha's own words is the solemn fervour which often
marks the suttas of the Majjhima such as the descriptions of his
struggle for truth, the admonitions to Râhula and the reproof
administered to Sâti.
5
As mentioned above, our Pali Canon is the recension of the
Vibhajjavâdins. We know from the records of the Chinese pilgrims that
other schools also had recensions of their own, and several of these
recensions—such as those of the Sarvâstivâdins, Mahâsanghikas,
Mahisâsakas, Dhammaguttikas, and Sammitîyas—are still partly extant in
Chinese and Tibetan translations. These appear to have been made from
the Sanskrit and fragments of what was probably the original have been
preserved in Central Asia. A recension of the text in Sanskrit probably
implies less than what we understand by a translation. It may mean that
texts handed down in some Indian dialect which was neither Sanskrit nor
Pali were rewritten with Sanskrit orthography and inflexions while
preserving much of the original vocabulary. The Buddha allowed all men
to learn his teaching in their own language, and different schools are
said to have written the scriptures in different dialects, e.g. the
Mahâsanghikas in a kind of Prakrit not further specified and the
Mahâsammatîyas in Apabhramsa. When Sanskrit became the recognized
vehicle for literary composition there would naturally be in India
(though not in Ceylon) a tendency to rewrite books composed in other
dialects[647]. The idea that when any important matter is committed to
writing it should be expressed in a literary dialect not too
intelligible to the vulgar is prevalent from Morocco to China. The
language of Bengal illustrates what may have happened to the Buddhist
scriptures. It is said that at the beginning of the nineteenth century
ninety per cent, of the vocabulary of Bengali was Sanskrit, and the
grammatical construction sanskritized as well. Though the literary
language now-a-days is less artificial, it still differs widely from the
vernacular. Similarly the spoken word of the Buddha was forced into
conformity with one literary standard or another and ecclesiastical Pali
became as artificial as Sanskrit. The same incidents may be found worked
up in both languages. Thus the Sanskrit version of the story of Pûrṇâ in
the Divyâva-dâna repeats what is found in Pali in the
Saṃyutta-Nikâya[648] and reappears in Sanskrit in the Vinaya of the
Mûlasarvâstivâdin school.
The Chinese Tripitaka has been catalogued and we possess some
information respecting the books which it contains, though none of them
have been edited in Europe. Thus we know something[649] of the
Sarvâstivâdin recension of the Abhidhamma. Like the Pali version it
consists of seven books of which one, the Jñâna-prasthâna by
Kâtyâyanîputra, is regarded as the principal, the rest being
supplementary. All the books are attributed to human authors, and though
some of these bear the names of the Buddha's immediate disciples,
tradition connects Kâtyâyanîputra with Kanishka's council. This is not a
very certain date, but still the inference is that about the time of the
Christian era the contents of the Abhidhamma-Pitaka were not rigidly
defined and a new recension was possible.
The Sanskrit manuscripts discovered in Central Asia include Sûtras from
the Saṃyukta and Ekottara Âgamas (equivalent to the Saṃyutta and
Anguttara Nikâyas), a considerable part of the Dharmapada, fragments of
the Sutta-Nipâta and the Prâtimoksha of the Sarvâstivâdin school. These
correspond fairly well with the Pali text but represent another
recension and a somewhat different arrangement. We have therefore here
fragments of a Sanskrit version which must have been imported to Central
Asia from northern India and covers, so far as the fragments permit us
to judge, the same ground as the Vinaya and Suttas of the Pali Canon.
Far from displaying the diffuse and inflated style which characterizes
the Mahâyâna texts it is sometimes shorter and simpler than our Pali
version[650].
When was this version composed and what is its relation to the Pali? A
definite reply would be premature, for other Sanskrit texts may be
discovered in Central Asia, but two circumstances connect this early
Buddhist literature in Sanskrit with the epoch of Kanishka. Firstly the
Sanskrit Abhidharma of the Sarvâstivâdins seems to date from his council
and secondly a Buddhist drama by Aśvaghosha[651] of about the same time
represents the Buddha as speaking in Sanskrit whereas the inferior
characters speak Prakrit. But these facts do not prove that Sanskrit was
not the language of the canon at an earlier date[652] and it is not safe
to conclude that because Asoka did not employ it for writing edicts it
was not the sacred language of any section of Indian Buddhists. On the
other hand some of the Sanskrit texts contain indications that they are
a translation from Pali or some vernacular[653]. In others are found
historical allusions which suggest that they must have received
additions after our era[654].
I have already raised the question of the relative value attaching to
Pali and Sanskrit texts as authorities for early history. Two instances
will perhaps illustrate this better than a general discussion. As
already mentioned, the Vinaya of the Mûlasarvâstivâdins makes the Buddha
visit north-western India and Kashmir, whereas the Pali texts do not
represent him as travelling further west than the country of the Kurus.
The Sanskrit account is not known to be confirmed by more ancient
evidence, but there is nothing impossible in it, particularly as there
are periods in the Buddha's long life filled by no incidents. The
narrative however contains a prediction about Kanishka and therefore
cannot be earlier than his reign. Now there is no reason why the Pali
texts should be silent about this journey, if the Buddha really made it,
but one can easily imagine reasons for inventing it in the period of the
Kushan kings. North-western India was then full of monasteries and
sacred sites and the same spirit which makes uncritical Buddhists in
Ceylon and Siam assert to-day that the master visited their country
impelled the monks of Peshawar and Kashmir to imagine a not improbable
extension of his wanderings[655].
On the other hand this same Vinaya of the Mûlasarvâstivâdins probably
gives us a fragment of history when it tells us that the Buddha had
three wives, perhaps too when it relates how Râhula's paternity was
called in question and how Devadatta wanted to marry Yaśodharâ after the
Buddha had abandoned worldly life[656]. The Pali Vinaya and also some
Sanskrit Vinayas[657] mention only one wife or none at all. They do not
attempt to describe Gotama's domestic life and if they make no allusion
to it except to mention the mother of Râhula, this is not equivalent to
an assertion that he had no other wife. But when one Vinaya composed in
the north of India essays to give a biography of the Buddha and states
that he had three wives, there is no reason for doubting that the
compiler was in touch with good local tradition.