Vinaya Texts
Translated from the Pāli by
T. W. Rhys Davids
and
Hermann Oldenberg
Oxford, the Clarendon Press
[1881]
Vol. XIII of The Sacred Books of the East
This work is in the Public Domain.
Reformatted from the Internet Sacred Text Archive version scanned and formatted by Christopher M. Weimer
Introduction To The Vinaya Texts From The Pāli
In the present MSS. the Vinaya Pitaka is divided into the following books:
| 1. Pārāgika, | } | called collectively the Sutta-vibhanga. |
| 2. Pākittiya, | ||
| 3. Mahāvagga, | } | called collectively the Khandhakas. |
| 4. Kullavagga, | ||
| 5. Parivāra-pātha. |
|
|
These books constitute that part of the sacred literature of the Buddhists which contains the regulations for the outward life of the members of the Buddhist Saṅgha — nearly the oldest, and probably the most influential, of all Fraternities of monks.
It is impossible to frame any narrower definition of the Vinaya than this, since the gradual change of circumstances in the Fraternity resulted in a gradual change also in the Vinaya itself. To give any more detailed account of what the Vinaya is, it will be necessary to trace what can be at present ascertained of its history; to show that is, so far as it is yet possible to do so — the causes which led to the establishment of the oldest Rules and Ceremonies of the Order, and to follow step by step the accretions of new literary work around this older nucleus.
For this purpose we propose to consider first the Rules of the work called the Pātimokkha; for the later texts presuppose its existence. It is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of all Buddhist text-books; and it has been inserted in its entirety into the first part of the Vinaya, the Vibhanga[1].
The Pātimokkha — the meaning of the name will be discussed later on — seems to have owed its existence to the ancient Indian custom of holding sacred two periods in each month, the times of the Full Moon and of the New Moon.
The Vedic ceremonies of the Darsapûrnamāsa sacrifice, and of the feast or sacred day (Upavasatha) connected with it, are known to have been very old, and the custom of celebrating these days would naturally be handed on from the Brāhmans to the different Samanas, and be modified and simplified (though, as it seems, sometimes increased in number) by them, in accordance with their creeds and their views of religious duty. According to Buddhist tradition[2] — and we see no sufficient reason for doubting the correctness of the account — the monks of other, that is, of non-Buddhistic sects, used to meet together at the middle and at the close of every half-month, and were accustomed then to proclaim their new teaching in public. At such times the people would crowd together; and the different sects found an opportunity of increasing their numbers and their influence.
The Buddhists also adopted the custom of these periodical meetings, but confined themselves to meeting twice in each month[3]. And the peculiarity which gave to these meetings among the Buddhists their distinguishing character seems to have been borrowed by them neither from the Brāhmans nor from other dissenters, but to have been an original invention of the Buddhists themselves. The Brethren and Sisters made use of these half-monthly gatherings to confess to the assembled Order the sins and faults which each of them had committed; and to take upon himself, or herself, the penanee which the transgressor had thereby incurred. It would be unnecessary to dwell here upon the details of these penitential meetings, as we can p. xi refer the reader to the second book of the Mahāvagga, where he will find them fully set out.
It was for use at such penitential gatherings that the text, now known as the Pātimokkha, was composed. A list was drawn up — which of course it would be necessary from time to time to complete, and rectify — of those offences which ought to be confessed and atoned for; this list was read out in the half-monthly meetings of the Order; and the Brethren and Sisters who were present were asked if they were innocent of each one of the offences therein mentioned.
The use of such a list must have already begun in very early times. Tradition even ascribes the first laying down of each clause to the Buddha himself. This tradition is of course very far from being conclusive; but neither should we hold it impossible that the Pātimokkha, either in its present shape, or at least in its most essential parts, can reach back to thc Buddha's own time, or to that of his personal disciples.
It is no doubt natural, through the influence of the history of early Christianity, or perhaps of the school of Socrates, to imagine that early Buddhism was far removed from all fixed and absolute forms, either of creed or of liturgy; and to represent the intercourse of Gotama and his disciples as purely and simply an interchange of spiritual edification, where the spirit was all in all, and the letter was nothing. But it should be remembered that Gotama continued to live for many years, almost for two generations, after he had formulated the essential points of his system, and after he had founded the brotherhood of his Order. And at that time the stream of scholastic and legal ideas which emanated from the earlier Brāhmanism was flowing in full force through the religious circles of India. A rich phraseology of sacred and ecclesiastical expressions, an armoury of technical terms in philosophy and in theology (still preserved in the Brāhmanas and Upanishads), had been developed and made ready for the use of the Buddhists, and Gainas, and other reforming schools. And earlier speculation had raised a whole series of problems, p. xii and long-continued custom had elaborated a multifarious system of ecclesiastical observances, which the newly risen sects, orthodox or heretical, could grapple with, or could adopt. It seems to us that Gotama's disciples, from the very beginning, were much more than a free and unformal union of men held together merely through their common reverence for their Master, and through a common spiritual aim. They formed rather, and from the first, an organised Brotherhood.
But if we look upon the Sakyaputtiya Samanas — for that is the name which the people in the earliest times gave to the community — as from the first an organised body, it is highly probable that the earliest formularies, both of their creeds and of their liturgies, arose in a time, if not during the life of Gotama, yet at most not long after his decease. Now among the oldest expressions of belief we may with certainty rank the four sentences known as the Four Noble Truths and the summary of the so-called Noble Eightfold Path: and the oldest liturgical formularies preserved to us are, without any doubt, the Pātimokkha and the various Kammavākas. It is true that these liturgical formularies, being so much more extensive, may possibly have been modified or added to before they reached the form in which we now possess them; but there is not the slightest trace of any other liturgies having ever been in use in the Buddhist fraternity.
It is of course impossible to attempt to draw a line between the part which Gotama himself may have had in the settlement of the list of offences contained in the Pātimokkha, and the part that may have been taken by his disciples. Nor indeed, considering the limited character of our knowledge, is that a point of much importance. But it should perhaps be noticed in this connection that Buddhist tradition does ascribe to one among Gotama's disciples — to Upāli — an especial connection with the Vinaya. This tradition reaches back at least as far as the time when the existing recension of the Pāli Pitakas was made, for we find it both in the Sutta- and in the Vinaya-Pitakas.
p. xiii Thus in the Kullavagga (VI, 13, 1) we find the passage — 'At that time the Blessed One proclaimed the Vinaya in many a way to the Bhikkhus, exalted the Vinaya, exalted the learning of the Vinaya, exalted again and again the venerable Upāli. Then thought the Bhikkhus, "The Blessed One hath proclaimed the Vinaya in many a way, hath exalted the Vinaya, hath exalted the learning of the Vinaya, bath exalted again and again the venerable Upāli. Come now let us learn the Vinaya from the venerable Upāli." And so many Bhikkhus, old and middle-aged and young, learnt the Vinaya from the venerable Upāli.'
And again in a Sutta of the Anguttara Nikāya[4], where those Bhikkhus are enumerated who, in any particular respect, are the first and foremost in the Brotherhood, Upāli is mentioned as the first among the custodians of the Vinaya (the Vinaya-dharā). And further, as is well known, it is Upāli who, according to the tradition, plays, at the First Council, the same part of propounder with regard to the Vinaya Texts which ānanda does with regard to the Dhamma Texts[5]. There may well be some truth in this very ancient tradition that Upāli was specially conversant with the Rules of the Order; but it would be hazardous on that account to ascribe to Upāli a share, not only in the banding down of existing Rules, but in the composition of the Pātimokkha itself[6].
As regards the order in which the various offences are arranged in the Pātimokkha, the principal division corresponds to the division of the Order into Brethren and Sisters: there is a Bhikkhu-pātimokkha and a Bhikkbunî-pātimokkha. In each of these two chief divisions the offences are divided into various classes, beginning with the heaviest — with those, that is, that result in the exclusion p. xiv of the offender from the Order. Inside each class the sequence of the clauses follows no invariable rule. Sometimes offences of a related character are placed together in groups[7], but sometimes those which would naturally come together are round scattered in quite different parts of the same class[8]. It is perhaps worthy of notice that there sometimes seems, as in the two cases first mentioned in the last note, to be an effort to arrange the offences in groups (vagga) of ten: and in three cases we find regulations formulated with the utmost brevity (the offences being merely expressed by a locative case dependent upon pākittiyam) at the commencement of such a vagga. It seems to us, at least in the present state of our knowledge, quite impossible to draw any conclusions from such peculiarities as to the comparative age of any different parts of the Pātimokkha. The irregularities in arrangement may very well be due to want of literary clearness in the compilers of the present Form of Confession, and it would be hazardous to attempt to trace in it any historical argument.
The various points in regard to the Pātimokkha dealt with in the foregoing paragraphs do not of themselves show that it was at all older than the rest of the Vinaya Pitaka; and indeed the work, as a separate work, is not considered among Buddhists to belong to the Pitakas at all, and is therefore not included in the list of works of which the Pitakas consist. But every single Rule or Clause in the Pātimokkha is in fact round word for word in the Sutta-vibhanga, the quotations being so complete that the Pātimokkha might be entirely put together again by piecing together extracts from the Vinaya Pitaka. And it is not possible that the Pātimokkha originated merely by such a process of dovetailing; for the quotations in the Vinaya Pitaka, though not actually called quotations, bear the unmistakable stamp of being taken from some pre-existing work. The cause which led to the Pātimokkha, and the p. xv Upasampadā-kammavāka, being separately preserved at all, is the same as the cause which led to their exclusion from the lists of the Pitaka texts — the fact, that is, of their being liturgical compositions.
We turn now to the consideration of the question how a series of further literary productions were gradually developed out of, or added to the Pātimokkha[9].
Whoever reads through the Mahāvagga will at once be struck by one section of it which differs completely both in contents and in form from the rest of the work. This is the section in the Second Book, Chapter III, paragraphs 4-8.
This passage is preceded by the opening words of the Pātimokkha; and in the passage itself those words are separately paraphrased or explained. But the explanation does not appear to be put into the mouth of the Buddha; it bears rather, without any historical or conversational form, the impersonal shape of a simple commentary: and it only differs from the later commentaries by peculiar solemn diffuseness and rhetorical tautology.
If we were to consider the Mahāvagga only, the sudden and unexplained appearance in this connection, and in this connection only, of an isolated passage of this kind, would have to remain an insoluble puzzle. But when we look further into the other parts of the Vinaya Pitaka, an answer immediately suggests itself. In the portion of that Pitaka which is better called the Sutta-vibhanga, but is divided in the MSS. into two divisions, under the somewhat misleading titles of Pārāgika and Pākittiya, we find, at regularly recurring intervals, passages of an exactly similar character, and without any doubt of the same origin, as the isolated passage in the Mahāvagga.
The Sutta-vibhanga is occupied with laying down and explaining all the Rules which are contained in the Pātimokkha. Now, immediately after the text of each of these Rules, there is found a word for word commentary upon p. xvi them — precisely as a word for word commentary follows, in the passage above cited in the Mahāvagga, upon the quoted words of the Introductory Formular of the Pātimokkha service. Here then lies the explanation. This Introductory Formular is the only passage contained in the Pātimokkha which is not found also in the Sutta-vibhanga. And with the explanation of the curiously isolated passage in the Mahāvagga we have also a new fact of very great importance. Not only does the Vinaya Pitaka contain, word for word, the whole of the Pātimokkha, but it contains also, and again word for word, the whole of an ancient Commentary on the Pātimokkha.
This commentary no longer exists as a separate work, and it would indeed be strange if it did. It was not required in the simple liturgical services of Ordination and Confession in use in the Order: and if any one wished to refer to it, in order to refresh his memory as to the explanation of any passage in the Pātimokkha, he had only to repeat, or to get repeated over to him, the corresponding passage from the Sutta-vibhanga. There he would find the Old Commentary (as we shall hereafter call it) word for word, together with the additional commentary by which it had been supplemented in later times.
A question may then possibly occur to the reader whether we can be really sure that the Old Commentary has been preserved complete, or whether what we have is a fragment only. We think there can be but little doubt as to the right answer. The Pātimokkha, which the Old Commentary deals with word by word, has been separately preserved to us, and we know that no one phrase of it remains uncommented upon. And further it is clear from several passages that the words of the old commentator were considered so sacred or authoritative that they have been kept intact even in cases where they are in contradiction to the later parts of the Vinaya Pitaka[10]. It should however be noted that this Old Commentary is philological p. xvii and exegetical throughout, containing nothing of a legendary or quasi-historical nature. It is just possible to suggest that it may have originally contained not only such an explanation of the meaning of each Rule, but an account also of the occasion on which the Rule was laid down. But it is difficult to see why greater sacredness should have been attached to one part of the work than to another; or to explain how it was that, if any part was changed, the contradictory passages above referred to were not also altered. Every probability therefore points to the conclusion that we have the complete work still before us, and not fragments of it only.
It seems to us to have been precisely the absence of any such historical account in the older Commentary which probably led to the formation of what was practically the new edition of the Pātimokkha which now lies before us in the first part of the Vinaya Pitaka.
ln the earliest books of the Sutta Pitaka, which contains the statement of Buddhist belief, we find — just as in the Gospels and in the Socratic dialogues — that that belief is not stated directly. The books profess to give, not simply the belief itself, but the belief as the Buddha uttered it, with an account of the time when, and the place at which, he uttered it. The Buddha's new method of salvation, his new doctrine of what salvation was, did not present itself to the consciousness of the early Buddhist community as an idea, a doctrine, standing alone, and merely on its own merits. ln their minds it was indissolubly bound up with the memory of the revered and striking personality of him who had proclaimed it. So in the Sutta Pitaka the actor and speaker is almost throughout the Buddha himself: (occasionally, but very seldom, one of his disciples.) Introductions — often indeed short and tending in later times to disappear — give a full account of where, and when, he spoke; what was the occasion which led to his uttering that particular speech; and to whom he uttered it. But, throughout, the principal thing is what the Buddha said.
It is only natural that this distinguishing mark of the p. xviii literature of the Buddhist Dhamma — much of which was no doubt in existence at avery early date — should have reacted upon the literature of the Buddhist Vinaya. The members of the Order were no longer contented to learn, and to understand the meaning of, the various Rules of the Pātimokkha. A desire sprang up to have, for each one of them also, a kind of historical basis; to know the story of how the Buddha himself came to lay down the Rule to his disciples. And it was only the Brother who was properly acquainted with all this who was accounted a real 'Doctor of the Law.'
So it is said in the Kullavagga (IX, 5, 1): — 'If a Brother, Upāli, has not received gladly both the Pātimokkhas in their full extent, has not well divided them, well established them, well investigated them, both sutta by sutta, and in every detail; if when asked, "Where was this spoken by the Blessed One?" he fail to solve the question: then there will be some who will say to him, "But then, let the venerable one still devote himself to learning the Vinaya!" thus will they say[11].'
It is evident from this passage that, at the time when it was written, such a tradition regarding each Rule was in existence; and that the knowledge of these traditions was held in high esteem. It is therefore a reasonable conjecture that steps were taken to amalgamate these traditions with the Text and the Old Commentary in a complete work, which should also contain what we may call Notes on the Rules — that is, decisions on points of Law involved, though not expressed in so many words, in the Rules; discussions on what cases were really included and what were not, in particular regulations; enumeration of exceptions to the Rules; and so on.
Whether this conjecture be right or not, it is precisely such a work that we have now before us in that part of the Vinaya Pitaka called the Sutta-vibhanga, and divided p. xix in the present MSS., as above pointed out, into two books called respectively — after the class of Rules with which they begin — Pārāgika and Pākittiya. And it is possible throughout, without the possibility of mistake, to distinguish between the three portions of which the present work is built up. The historical basis comes first, leading up to the extract from the Pātimokkha, which is always placed in the Buddha's own mouth; then comes the Old commentary, with its verbal explanations; and then, finally, the Notes giving the exceptions to, and the extensions of, the Rule in the Pātimokkha.
The foregoing paragraphs show the way in which the Sutta-vibhanga grew up on the basis of the Pātimokkha. The following books — the Khandhakas — give a detailed and connected account of the admission into the Saṅgha; of the ceremony of the Uposatha; of the annually recurring observances connected with the beginning and the end of the rainy season; of the principal disciplinary proceedings; and of miscellaneous details regarding the medicine, food, dwelling-places, and daily life of the members of the Order (Bhikkhus). As in the Sutta-vibhanga, so here also, the outward form is arranged in such a way that in the case of every regulation a history was given of the occasion upon which the Buddha was supposed to have made it. These histories again lead up, in most cases, to a liturgical formulary by which the regulation was to be carried out.
While, however, in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga the liturgy on which it has been founded has been preserved in a separate shape, the formularies in the Khandhakas have not as yet, except in some instances, been found in existence apart from the Khandhakas. The principal exception is the Upasampadā-kammavāka (The Words of the Act of Ordination), which recurs in its entirety in the First Khandhaka of the Mahāvagga (I, 76, 3 to I, 78, 5). It is impossible therefore as yet to trace the history of the gradual formation of the Khandhakas as we think it already possible to do in the case of the Sutta-vibhanga.
In the Khandhakas too, no doubt, the introductory p. xx histories are the latest part. But while some of the formularies and regulations to which they lead up may well be very old, others are probably additions to, or modifications of, those older ones; and it is difficult to attempt to show, even with regard to the exceptions above mentioned, which are the older and which are the later. The misfortune that these forms are not all now separately extant[12] is probably simply due to the fact that the formularies separately preserved (including the Pātimokkha) are the only ones which continued to be used in actual services among the members of the Order.
Such being the nature and contents, and such — so far as it can be traced — being the origin of the Sutta-vibhanga and of the Khandhakas respectively, it follows that in all probability they were composed, or put into their present shape, at about the same period in the development of early Buddhism — it is even possible that both works arose in immediate connection.
The kind of narrative setting with which, in both cases, the older material has been surrounded is alike in both. Here and there in both works are included real fragments of ancient legend or tradition — as, for instance, the account of the events from the attainment of Buddhahood down to the conversion of Sāriputta and Moggallāna (Mahāvagga I, 1-24), the story of Devadatta (Kullavagga VII), the story of the conversion and the sin of Sudinna (Vibhanga, First Pārāgika). But the greater number of these narratives are of the most meagre description, and have altogether the appearance of being mere inventions.
There is little doubt that this is what they, in fact, were. Actual remembrance of the Buddha, and of his time, could have sufficed only in the rarest instances to give a correct historical basis for the Rules or Ceremonies, which had to be explained. We find a precisely similar p. xxi state of things leading, in the Introductions to the Gātaka Stories, to what were unquestionably inventions: and it must be acknowledged that the compilers have not taken the slightest trouble to conceal the evidently unsubstantial character of most of these summary introductions. But it does not follow that they were invented at the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled. They may possibly have formed part of the traditional explanatory teaching of the schools.
As to the time when the Sutta-vibhanga and the Khandhakas were compiled, we have important evidence in their silence regarding the well-known Ten Points.
The long-continued struggle on that question — as important for the history of Buddhism as the Arian controversy for that of Christianity — agitated the whole Buddhist world to its very centre; and the attempted settlement of it, at the Council of Vesālî, led to a most serious schism in the Buddhist Church. Now the ten expressions in which the question was summarised or catalogued[13] are (as was pointed out in the Introduction to the Pāli Text of the Mahāvagga) conspicuous by their absence from the, Vibhanga, and from all, except the last, of the Khandhakas[14]. The first mention of most of them, and the first use of any one of them as a distinctive war-cry, is found in those last books, which are evidently an appendix to the rest of the Khandhakas, and of an entirely different nature from the earlier ones; for they contain a regular historical account of the two Councils, that of Rāgagaha, and that of Vesālî[15].
p. xxii But the Ten Points in dispute were all matters of ecclesiastical law, they all related to observances of the brotherhood, they were in fact questions as to whether or not the ancient Rules should be relaxed or not in these ten respects. Is it possible that in a collection of works like the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas, 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 regulations of the Buddhist Order — is it possible that in such a collection, if, when it was compiled, the struggle on the 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 the Ten Points remains altogether unnoticed in those parts of the collection where, in the natural order of things, it would be obviously referred to, and that it is only mentioned in an appendix where the Council held on its account is described, shows clearly, in our opinion, that the Vibhanga and the Khandhakas (save the two last) are older than the Council of Vesālî — and, of course, a fortiori that the Pātimokkha and the Kammavākās are so too.
The Council of Vesālî is said in the XIIth Khandhaka of the Kullavagga to have taken place a hundred years after the Buddha's death. This is no doubt a round number; and the exact year of the date of the Buddha's death is open to question. If it be placed, according to the Ceylon chronicles, at exactly 218 years before Asoka's coronation, it will fall in or about 483 B.C.
But the expression '218 years' can in no case be regarded as an absolutely reliable statement of actual fact, and the date of 483 B.C. must therefore be taken subject to a marginal allowance of some decades. And it appears to one of us, for various reasons which he has elsewhere stated at length, that the balance of probability leads to the conclusion that the date of the Buddha's Parinibbāna must be p. xxiii brought down to the period from 420-400 B.C.[16] We do not enter upon that question here, as the details are intricate, and the result uncertain; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to be able to fix the Council of Vesālî, even after making allowance for all possibilities, at within thirty years of 350 B.C.
We would only point out that there is really no ground for discontent with a result which can be fixed, after all, within a few decades. For what difference does that make in this case? If we had to deal with Grecian history, such a result might well be deemed unsatisfactory. There are differences, both personal and political, between Greece in 480, in 440, and in 400 — differences well known to us. But whether we fix the date of an event in India in 480, or in 440, what does it, at present, matter? Who would be bold enough to say that the mention of India in 480 B.C. calls up to his mind a condition of things different from that suggested by the mention of India in 440 B.C., or even in 400 B.C.? We need not therefore take too much to heart the uncertainty of this chronological result; though we may regret that our comfort is drawn from no better source than our want of knowledge.
The Vibhanga and the Twenty Khandhakas were at that time (circa 350 B.C.) already held in such high repute that no one ventured to alter them; a sanctity of this kind is not acquired without the lapse of a considerable time: and we think it is not going too far to say, Firstly, that these books must have been in existence, as we now have them, within thirty years, earlier or later, of, at least, 360 or 370 B.C.; Secondly, that the Old Commentary they have preserved must be considerably, perhaps fifty years, older; and Thirdly, that the Kammavākās and the Pātimokkha must be older still.
The reader will notice that in the foregoing discussion no mention has been made of the Fifth Book in the present p. xxiv division of the Vinaya Pitaka — the Parivāra-pātha. The reason is that this work, an abstract of the other parts of the Vinaya, is in fact a very much later compilation, and probably the work of a Ceylonese Thera. In some stanzas, which are found at the end of the Parivāra-pātha, it is stated to have been composed by 'the highly wise, learned, and skilful Dîpa, after he had inquired here and there into the methods (literally, the way) followed by former teachers[17].'
We have every hope that the foregoing argument will commend itself to our fellow workers as being, in the main, well founded. We now propose to test it by applying it in explanation of several difficult terms and phrases found in the Vinaya Pitaka, which seem to have been hitherto incorrectly interpreted.
It has been pointed out that, in the Pātimokkha, the offences are arranged in certain classes, called, with reference to the heinousness of the act committed, Pārāgika, Samghādisesa, Pākittiya, Pātidesaniya, and Sekhiya. ln other parts of the Vinaya, other offences are called Thullakkaya and Dukkata. On this nomenclature the Rev. S. Coles has founded a trenchant attack upon Buddhist morality. He says:
'Beside the Pārājikas there are lesser faults, the nature of which is determined by various causes, as will subsequently appear. These are Sanghādisesa, Thullaccaya, and Dukkata faults, and can all be easily remedied, the two latter especially; as, after a fault of this kind has been committed, the culprit has only to confess to his Upajjhāya (ordaining priest) without much delay, and is then exempted from all evil consequences; but the Sanghādisesa being more serious (about half a Pārājikā), a course of penance has to be submitted to, and confession without delay made to twenty-five superior Bhikkhus. The nature p. xxv and extent of these penances are not defined in the first book of the Vinaya Pitaka, but in others, to which reference will be made when these books are brought under consideration. Suffice it to say, that they can possibly have no deterring effect on crime, but rather form loop-holes through which most enormous and disgusting misdeeds may be committed, and yet the perpetrator may remain not only as a Buddhist, but as a Bhikkhu[18].'
Mr. Coles then applies this argument to show that many offences against morality, being only called Dukkata and not Pārāgika, must have been looked upon very leniently, not only by the Buddhists, but by Gotama himself; and that therefore his system of morality was not of the lofty kind it has usually been supposed to be, but was, in fact, a mere cloak and encouragement to wickedness and crime!
If Mr. Coles had looked at the Pitaka he was discussing from a historical, instead of from a controversial, point of view, he wouId scarcely have advanced this argument. The use of the term Dukkata does not arise from, nor is it evidence of, a weakness in moral feeling; but merely of a differenece in point of time: It occurs only in what we have ventured above to call the Notes: that is to say, in the latest portion of the Pitaka. When the author or authors of the final recension of the Vinaya had to speak of an offence not actually mentioned, though impIied, in the text before them, they did not presume to call it by any of the names applied in the Pātimokkha itself to the classification of offences. They no more dared to add to the number of Pārāgikās, for instance, than a clergyman would now venture seriously to propose an addition to the Ten Commandments. They made use of two technical terms (both entirely new ones), namely, Thullakkaya and Dukkata (literally, Serious Transgression and Bad-deed), using the former more sparingly, and for graver misdemeanours. No argument based on passages where the word Dukkata occurs can therefore have any force as to the teaching of Gotama himself; and the Bhikkhus, who did use the p. xxvi word, were restrained from using the older term Pārāgika by a feeling of reverence towards their sacred books — a feeling surely deserving, not of censure, but of sympathy.
Again, there are certain terms applied to various parts of the Vinaya itself on which the above historical analysis may throw some light. When Asoka, in the Edict of Bhabra, addressed to the Buddhist Order, exhorted them to take as their authority, among other works, the Vinaya-Samukase, or Abstract of the Vinaya, he may fairly be supposed to have referred to the Pātimokkha, which that epithet would very appropriately describe, If it be asked why he did not then call it the Pātimokkha, the explanation may be either that that word is more especially a term for the act to be performed, than for the liturgy which shows the way to perform it (though, it was also undoubtedly used as a name of the liturgy), or else that the work was known under both designations,
We would just add, in passing, that, in the passage in question, the reading samukase (samutkarsha), instead of the formerly accepted samākase, is quite clear in General Cunningham's lithograph[19]; and the generally accepted view that the Edict was addressed to a council, and is therefore an authoritative confirmation of the Ceylon traditions regarding the Council of Patna, ought to be reconsidered, The Edict merely says: 'King Devānampiya of Māgadha salutes the Saṅgha' (that is, the Order, or the Community, of Bhikkhus)[20]. Without desiring to throw any doubt upon the reality of the Council of Patna, we are driven to the conclusion that such an expression as 'the Saṅgha' could not have been meant to describe a formal p. xxvii council. Surely, if the Edict had been addressed to such a council, the fact would have been plainly intimated.
It is just possible that Vinaya-Samukase may refer to the Old Commentary as well as to the Pātimokkha; but this is not probable, for there is no reason to believe that in Asoka's time the Old Commentary any longer existed apart from its set ting in the Vibhanga. And Vinaya-Samukase cannot for the reasons above stated mean, as has been supposed, the Parivāra-pātha.
As regards the meaning of the word Pātimokkha we have the explanation of the Old Commentator in that single passage of his work found, as above pointed out, in the Khandhakas[21]. He there describes it as 'the origin, the front (mukha), the chief of the good Dhammas;' where the word Dhammā means 'qualities,' and where the evident inference is that the commentator[22] derived Pātimokkha from mukha. But, on the other hand, the tradition of the Northern Buddhists, in whose Sanskrit works the word is replaced by Prātimoksha, points to a derivation from the root muk.
It seems scarcely open to doubt that we must, in accordance with this last interpretation, connect the word with muk, and not with mukha. 'Pratimukha' means in Sanskrit 'over against, standing close in front.' How is it possible to derive from that any meaning appropriate as a title for the liturgy of confession called Pātimokkha? On the other hand, the derivation from muk is straightforward and simple. Prati-muk (ātmanep.) means 'to free oneself, to get rid of;' and it is precisely through the recitation of this formular, and the answering of the questions contained in it, that the conscience of the member of the Brotherhood p. xxviii was set free from the sense or the offence he had incurred[23]. Pātimokkha or Prātimoksha means therefore 'Disburdening, Getting free.' The lengthening or the first vowel in the Pāli word is not without analogies which have been already adduced by Childers. It is certain that the word is older than the present shape of the Formulary now so called; for it is used several times in the Formulary itself, as well as in many or the oldest Suttas.
The Old Commentator makes the Pātimokkha 'the head of the good Dhammas.' There is a curious passage in the Pātimokkha where the Dhammas are said to be included in the Suttas:
'If a Bhikkhu at the half-monthly recitation of the Pātimokkha should say, "Now for the first time do I notice that this Dhamma, as one handed down in the Suttas, embraced in the Suttas, gets recited every half-month!" then' &c.[24]
It is plain here that neither Dhamma nor Sutta is used in the sense to which we are accustomed from the later books. The Dhammas recited half-monthly are those contained in the scheme of offences given in the Pātimokkha, and the Suttas must therefore mean the separate clauses of that Formulary.
The fact is that the use of the word Sutta is by no means confined in the oldest Pāli to the texts of what was afterwards the Sutta Pitaka, nor is it exclusively used either in earlier or later times[25] in opposition to Vinaya. Thus we find it used again, as we think, of the Rules of the Pātimokkha; and in contrast, as in the rule above quoted, to Dhamma, in Kullavagga IV, 14, 22, 23:
'This Bhikkhu, of such and such a name, is a preacher p. xxix of the Dhamma; but the Suttas have not been handed down to him, nor the Sutta-Vibhanga.'
'This Bhikkhu, of such and such a name, is a preacher of the Dhamma, and the Suttas have been handed down to him, but not the Sutta-Vibhanga[26].'
So again in the constantly repeated phrase above referred to —
'If the two Pātimokkhas are (or are not, as the connection requires) thoroughly known to a Bhikkhu in their entirety with all their divisions and explanations, if he have (or have not) thoroughly mastered them Sutta by Sutta, and Detail by Detail; then' &c.[27]
— the word Sutta evidently refers to the clauses of the two Pātimokkhas; and we find also in the immediate context the mention of Dhamma or of Vinaya, or of both.
It is no doubt true that in one passage of the Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta (IV, 8-11 = pp. 39, 40), Sutta is opposed to Vinaya in much the same way as Sutta Pitaka was afterwards opposed to Vinaya Pitaka; yet the contrast between these two ideas is usually expressed by the apposition of Dhamma to Vinaya[28], and the passage in the Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta stands, so far as we yet know, quite alone. Indeed in the oldest tradition the discourses or conversations now called Suttas seem not to have been called by that name, but are referred to as Suttantas.
So in the Mahāvagga III, 5, 9, 12 mention is made of devout men, or of devout women, who may have been accustomed to recite some well-known Suttanta[29]; and in the next Khandhaka (IV, 15, 4) we find Suttanta, Dhamma, and Vinaya all occurring in one context:
'It may happen, Brethren, that in some district on the day of Pavāranā the night may have become far spent p. xxx while the Brethren are in confusion — some reciting the Dhamma, those versed in the Suttantas intoning some Suttanta together, the custodians of the Vinaya discussing the Vinaya, and the preachers of the Dhamma discoursing about the Dhamma.'
The whole of these expressions recur in Kullavagga IV, 4, 4; and are found again, with others of a similar character, in Kullavagga VI, 6, 2. This last passage is in the Introduction to a fable which of course recurs, as a Gātaka, in the Gātaka collection, and with an introduction in almost the same words. We should therefore expect to find there also the epithet suttantika ('versed in the Suttantas'), if that expression had remained in use as late as the fifth century A.D.; but it is omitted, the Suttantikas having been then long since replaced by those entrusted, not with the whole, but with special portions only, of the Dhamma literature. The word Suttanta was however still in common use at the time when the presumably later books now contained in the Pitakas were composed; for it occurs in the Anguttara Nikāya[30], and in a constantly recurring verse in the Buddhavamsa in which it is opposed to Vinaya[31], and the word is still used in the MSS. as the title of the more important Suttas.
In the passage quoted above from the Kullavagga IV, 14, 22, 23 there is a term Sutta-vibhanga used as the name of some part of the Vinaya literature apparently distinct p. xxxi from the Suttas of the Pātimokkha. 'The Suttas have been handed down to him, but not the Suttavibhanga.'
The word recurs only in one other passage[32], and that is in the appended Khandhakas of the Kullavagga, in the account of the Council of Vesālî[33]. Seven passages are there quoted from the Pātimokkha in condemnation of seven out of the Ten Points raised by the heretics; and in answer to the question, ' Where was it condemned?' and before the passages are quoted, the place where the passage was uttered is mentioned, and condemnation is stated to be 'in the Suttavibhanga.' Thus
Revata says, 'Is it right, Lord, to drink galogi?'
Sabbakāmi replies, ' What, Friend, is this galogi?'
Revata: 'Is it right, Lord, to drink strong drink which not being fermented, is not yet intoxicating?'
Sabbakāmi: 'No, my friend, it is not right.'
Revata: 'Where has it been condemned?'
Sabbakāmi: 'At Kosambī in the Suttavibhanga.'
Revata: 'What does he (who drinks galogi) commit?'
Sabbakāmî: 'He commits the Pākittiya offence of drinking strong drink and of drinking intoxicating liquors.'
This is a quotation, of the Pākittiya Rule, No. 51; but the words quoted do not in fact condemn the drinking of toddy, and neither the Pātimokkha nor the Old Commentary contains any reference to the place, Kosambî, where the words are here said to have been uttered.
It is only in the introduction afterwards appended (in what is now called the Vibhanga) to the two older works, that Kosambī is mentioned; and in the appendix following the Rule 51 in the Vibhanga there are no exceptions which would include galogi. But Kosambî is mentioned in the Introductory History. It is therefore most probable that the term Sutta-vibhanga refers to what is now called the Vibhanga; or, if not, at least to that body of traditional teaching (including the Pātimokkha and the Old Commentary) out of which the present Vibhanga was composed.
p. xxxii It may be convenient to make some reference here to the question whether the literature above discussed was handed down by memory only, or by writing. We are justified in expecting to find, in texts dealing in such minute detail with the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order, some distinct evidence — and it will be equally distinct whether it consists in actual statement, or in silence — as to writing, and the use of written books. And this expectation is not disappointed.
In the first place, there are several passages which confirm in an indisputable manner the existence of the art of writing at the time when the Vinaya texts were put into their present shape.
'A certain man, who had committed a theft, ran away, and got ordained among the Bhikkhus. Now he was written up in the king's palace with an injunction that he should be slain wheresoever he should be found[34].' —
'But there occurred to the parents of Upāli this consideration: "If Upāli should learn writing[35], Upāli might thus after our decease live at ease, and not be troubled."'
And in the Vibhanga we find an interesting explanation of the Third Pārāgika Rule, which lays down that whosoever wilfully kills a man, or brings about his death, must be expelled from the Order.
In the Notes on this Rule the Sutta-vibhanga discusses the case of some one causing the death of another by persuading him that suicide is glorious, or that it results in salvation. And in this connection the possibility is considered of these representations being made to the proposed victim, not by word of mouth, and not by a messenger, but by writing.
'He engraves a writing to this effect: "Who so dies, he acquires wealth, or acquires fame, or goes to heaven." By that writing he is guilty of a Dukkata offence. The other sees the writing, and, determining to die, is filled p. xxxiii with painful feelings. (The writer is) guilty of a Thullakkaya offence. He does die. (The writer is) guilty of a Pārāgika offence[36].'
And again, with respect to the injunction addressed to the Sisters of the Order not to devote themselves to worldly wisdom (tirakkhāna-viggā), the Vibhanga makes an exception in favour of learning to write[37].
It is evident therefore that writing was in vogue in the time when the Notes on the Rules were put into their present form, that it was made use of for the publication of official announcements, and for the drawing up of written communications in private life; and that while the knowledge of the art was a possible source of livelihood, it was not confined to 'clerks,' but was acquired by ordinary persons, and even by women.
But it is a long step from the use of writing for such public or private notifications to the adoption of it for the purpose of recording an extensive and sacred literature: and our texts show — and show, as it seems to us, in an equally indisputable manner — that for this latter purpose writing, however well known, had not yet come into use.
Had the sacred texts been written down and read, books, manuscripts, and the whole activity therewith connected, must have necessarily played a very important part in the daily life of the members of the Buddhist Order. Now the texts of the Vinaya place clearly enough before our eyes the whole of the 'personal property,' so to speak, of the Buddhist ārāmas and Vihāras. Every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to, and its use pointed out; while the use of other articles, not usually found in the Vihāras, is mentioned, and condemned. But nowhere do we find the least trace of any reference to manuscripts; p. xxxiv much less of inks, or pens, or styles, or leaves, or other writing materials.
And we do find, on the contrary, passages which show the difficulties which arose every time that the memorial tradition by word of mouth of any of the sacred texts was interrupted, or threatened to be interrupted.
So, for instance, we find the case discussed of no one Bhikkhu, among all the Brethren dwelling in some particular place, knowing the Pātimokkha. There was no other way out of the difficulty, save that of one of the Bhikkhus being sent out to some neighbouring fraternity, with the commission there to learn the Pātimokkha by heart, either in its full extent (that is, as we take it, all the rules being learnt in full) or at least in abstract[38].
And again, in a passage already quoted, we hear of the case of an Upāsaka, who knows some important Suttanta, and is afraid that the knowledge of it will fade away. So he sends to a fraternity of Bhikkhus, and invites the Brethren to come over to him; and in that case an exception is made to the Rule forbidding the Brethren to travel in the rainy season, provided only that they do not stay away from home longer than seven days[39].
We may quote in this connection a passage of the same tendency from the Anguttara Nikāya, in which, among the circumstances hurtful to the security and the propagation of the Buddhist faith, the possibility is mentioned of the well-instructed Bhikkhus neglecting to take pains to hand on to others the Suttantas which they know. Then, when they have passed away, 'the root of that Suttanta is cut off, and it finds no place of refuge[40].'
It is very plain from these last passages that the Buddhist community in its earliest days did not think of the p. xxxv possibility of using writing as a means of guarding against such painful accidents. Can this have arisen from any belief that writing the books would have been an irreverent treatment of them? We cannot think that among such a community as that of the Buddhists — who were so advanced in their views that they deliberately adopted the language of the people, and even took no thought, within the ranks of their community, of caste — any such consideration would have prevailed. It seems much more probable that, at the date referred to, the art of writing had not been taken advantage of for the purposes of any kind of literature; but that its use was wholly confined to recording short messages or notes, or private letters, or advertisements of a public character — a result which may well have been due to the want of any practical material on which to engrave the letters that were nevertheless evidently known[41].
On the texts above quoted, and the inferences which may fairly be drawn from them, we would base two remarks. Firstly, that there can be no reasonable ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient tradition preserved in the well-known verse of the Ceylon Chroniclers, when, speaking of the time of Vatta Gāmani, who began to reign 88 B.C., they say,
'The text of the Three Pitakas, and the Commentary too thereon,
The wise Bhikkhus of former time had handed down by word of mouth:
The then Bhikkhus, perceiving how all beings do decay,
Meeting together, wrote them in books, that the Dhamma might last long[42].'
But, secondly, though we must therefore believe that the p. xxxvi Vinaya, before it was reduced to writing, was handed down for about three hundred years solely by memory, and that it lived only in the minds of the Vinayadharā, the Bhikkhus 'who were versed in the Vinaya,' we do not think it is at all necessary, or even possible, to impugn the substantial accuracy of the texts handed down in a manner that seems, to moderns, so unsafe. The Text, as it lies before us, stands so well against all proofs, whether we compare its different parts one with another, or with the little that is yet known of its northem counterparts[43], that we are justified in regarding these Pāli books as in fact the authentic mirror of the old Māgadhî text as fixed in the central schools of the most ancient Buddhist Church. That text, in the dialect of Magadha, may have been lost to us, once for all; and we can scarcely hope, unless some isolated sentences may hereafter be found preserved here and there in Inscriptions, that this loss will ever be, even partially, made good. But we may well be thankful that the faithful zeal and industry of these old monks has preserved for us a translation, in a dialect so nearly allied to the original, and in so perfect and trustworthy a state as the Pāli version of the Vinaya still undoubtedly presents.
We trust that the choice we have made from the literature of the Vinaya Pitaka for insertion in this Collection of Translations from the Sacred Books of the East will be considered to need little justification. As the oldest and in many respects most important material of the Vinaya literature we have included a version of the Pātimokkha; though confining ourselves to the Bhikkhu-Pātimokkha, p. xxxvii as our predecessors, Mr. Dickson and Professor Minayeff, have done before us. We could not consider, even after their labours, that a new translation of this difficult text would be superfluous. And of the younger literature we have confined ourselves to the Khandhakas, both because these books, in their variety, and in the fullness of their contents, are better calculated to afford a correct view of the conditions, and the life, of that oldest and most influential of the many monkish orders, the Buddhist Saṅgha; and also because the Sutta-vibhanga is little more than an expansion of the Pātimokkha, which we have already, for the reasons just stated, determined to include[44].
T. W. RHYS DAVIDS.
H. OLDENBERG.
November, 1880.
Additional Note On Mahāvagga III, 2, 2 (vassupanāyikā).
As entering upon Vassa is called vassam upagakkhati or vassam upeti, we believe that upanāyikā, the final member of the compound vassupanāyikā (entrance upon Vassa), must not be derived from upa-nî, but from upa-i (upan-i). Comp. Satapatha-Brāhmana II, 3, 2, 2: ahar-ahar vai Nado Naishidho Yamam rāgānam dakshinata upanayati (Sāyana: upagakkhati). The preposition upan contained in upan-ayati will be treated ofby Professor JOH. SCHMIDT . in the 26th volume of Kuhn's Zeitschrift.
Next: Pātimokkha - The Words Of Disburdenment
[1] The opening sentence only is found in the Mahāvagga. See below, p. xv.
[2] Mahāvagga II, 1. 1.
[3] Ibid. II, 4. 2.
[4] Phayre MS., vol. i. fol. kau.
[5] Kullavagga XII.
[6] In the Ceylon Chroniclers (Dîpavamsa, Bhānavāras 4 and 5) Upāli even becomes the first in a series of Vinayapāmokkhā, or 'Chiefs of the Vinaya;' but no such office is known to the older tradition; and had it existed it would certainly have been mentioned in connection with the dispute about the so-called Ten Points of the Vinaya at the Conncil of Vesālî.
[7] For instance, regulations as to the conduct of Brethren towards Sisters came together in Pākittiya 21-30; those about meal-times in Pākittiya 31-40; about conduct in relation to armies in Pākittiya 48-50.
[8] For instance, Pākittiya 5, 6, and 43-5; and again, Pākittiya 20 and 62, &c.
[9] With the following paragraphs should be compared H. Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the Pāli text of the Vinaya, vol. i. pp. xvi and following.
[10] See, for instance, the comparison made by Oldenberg in the Introduction to his edition of the text, vol. i. p. xviii. The Old Commentary follows of course the passage there referred to in the Pātimokkha.
[11] No ke Upāli bhikkhuno ubhayāni Pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatmi honti suvibhattāni suppavattîni suvinikkhitāni suttato anuvyañganaso, idam pan' āvuso kattha vuttam Bhagavatā 'ti iti puttho na sampāyati, tassa bhavanti vattāro: Ingha tāva āyasmā Vinayam pariyāpunassû 'ti: iti 'ssa bhavanti vattāro.
[12] Mr. Dickson has given us an excellent text of the Upasampadā-kammavākā; and it were much to be wished that the rest of them should also be published. Mr. Clough has given a translation of six others in 'Miscellaneous Translations from Oriental Languages,' London, 1834; and the Liverpool Free Library has MSS. of others.
[13] Singilona, dvangula, &c. (Kullavagga XII, 1, 10).
[14] That is, as war-cries; gātarûparagata occurs in the sense of the precious metals.
[15] In the present division of the Khandhakas into two parts, called the Larger and Smaller Divisions (Mahā- and Kulla-vagga), there are ten Khandhakas in the first Division, and ten, apart from this appendix, in the second Division. Without the appended two last Khandhakas the so-called smaller Division is really considerably smaller than the larger Division; and there is therefore a good reason for the name which was given to it. With the two last Khandhakas the difference in length of the two Divisions as a whole is not sufficiently striking to account satisfactorily for the choice of their names; and the smaller Division actually contains two more Khandhakas than the larger. We lay no stress upon these facts, but it confirms the general argument to find little points of this kind tending in the same direction.
[16] See the dissertation on this subject in Rhys Davids's 'Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon;' and, more shortly, the close of the Introduction to his 'Buddhist Suttas from the Pāli.'
[17]
Pubbākariyamaggañ ka pukkitvā ka tahim tahim
Dîpo nāma mahāpañño sutadharo vikakkhano
Imam vitthārasamkhepam sagghāmaggena magghime
Kintayitvā likhāpesi sissakānam sukhāvaham.
[18] Journal of the Ceylon Asiatic Society, 1867-1870. p. 115.
[19] 'Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum,' pl. xv.
[20] Burnouf translated 'à l'assemblée du Magadha,' and Wilson, 'to the venerable assembly of Māgadha' (see 'Corpus,' &c., p. 131); but the reading is clearly Māgadhe in the 'Corpus,' while the older facsimile in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society (ix. 618) had the impossible form Māgdhem. Even if we could read Māgadham samgham (an expression for which we know no parallel), the above remarks would still hold good. Compare further, Professor Kem in the 'Jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten,' pp. 30-35.
[21] Pātimokkhan ti ādim etam mukham etam pamukham etam kusalānam dhammānam, tena vukkati pātimokkhan ti. Mahāvagga II, 3, 4.
[22] We use the phrase 'Old Commentator' for convenience only. The commentary was, no doubt, handed down by tradition in the Buddhist schools; and there is no reason to believe that it was the work of any one mind.
[23] Compare Mahāvagga II, 3, 3.
[24] Yo pana bhikkhu anvaddhamāsam Pātimokkhe uddissamāne evam vadeyya; idān' eva kho aham gānāmi, ayam pi kira dhammo suttāgato suttapariyāpanno anvaddhamāsam uddesam āgakkhattti, tañ ke . . . (the 73rd Pākittiya, quoted in Kullavagga III, 34, 2).
[25] Though more especially concerned here with the earlier use of the word Sutta, it may be well to remind our readers of the name Suttadharā applied in the Sumangala Vilāsinî to secular lawyers (see Alwis, 'Introd.' &c., p. 100).
[26] Suttam tassa āgatam na Suttavibhangam. On the latter term see below.
[27] Ubhayāni nu kho Pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatāni suvibhattāni suppavattîni suvinikkhitāni suttato anuvyañganaso (Mahāvagga I, 36, 14; I, 37, 4; Kullavagga IV, 4, 19; IX, 5, 1). Anuvyañgana may perhaps refer here to the Old Commentary.
[28] Compare H. Oldenberg's Introduction to his edition of the Mahāvagga, pp. 7 and following.
[29] Abhiññātam vā Suttantam bhanati.
[30] The Anguttara Nikāya, Pañkaka Nipāta (Phayre MS. vol. ii. fol. gāh): Ye te Suttantā Tathāgatassa bhāvitā gambhîrā gambhîratthā lokuttarā suññatapatisamyuttā tesu bhaññamānesu na sussissanti no sotam odahissanti na aññākittam upatthāpessanti na ka te dhamme uggahetabbam pariyāpunitabbam maññissanti; ye pana te suttantā kathitā kāveyyā kittakkharā kittabyañganā bahirakā sāvakabhāsitā tesu bhaññamānesu sussissanti sotam odahissanti; &c.
Ibid. fol. nah: Ye te bhikkhû bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā te na sakkakkam suttantam param vākenti, tesam akkayena khinnamûlako suttanto hoti apatisarano.
On the form compare the Sanskrit drishtānta, vrittānta, and siddhānta.
[31]
Suttantam Vinayañ kāpi navangam Satthusāsanam
Sabbam pariyāpunitvāna sobhayi Ginasāsanam.
The phrase is used of various Buddhas in verses 317, 348, 594, 627, and 786 of the Buddhavamsa. This reference we owe to Dr. Morris.
[32] That is, of the Vinaya Pitaka. We are not certain that it may not be found in the Sutta Pitaka.
[33] Kullavagga XII, 2, 8.
[34] Aññataro purisa korikam katvā palāyitvā bhikkhûsu pabbagito hoti. So ka rañño antepure likhito hoti yattha passitabbo tattha hantabbo 'ti (Mahāvagga I, 43).
[35] Sake kho Upāli lekham sikkheyya (Mahāvagga I, 49, 1).
[36] Lekham khindati yo evam marati sa dhanam vā labhati yasam vā labhati saggam vā gakkhatîti. Akkharakkharāya āpatti dukkatassa. Lekham passitvā marissāmîti dukkham vedanam uppādeti. āpatti thullakkayassa. Marati. āpatti pārāgikassa.
[37] Anāpatti lekham pariyāpunāti (Bhikkhunî-Pātimokkha. Pākittiya 49).
[38] Mahāvagga II, 17, 5. 6. On this meaning of vitthārena and samkhittena see also Mahāvagga ll, 15, 1. 2.
[39] Mahāvagga III, 5, 9.
[40] Katukka-Nipāta (Phayre MS. vol. i. fol. nā); and repeated in the Pañkaka-Nipāta (ibid. vol. ii. fol. nāh): Ye te bhikkhû bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikidharā te na sakkakkam suttantam param vākenti tesam akkayena khinnamûllako suttanto hoti apatisarano.
[41] Compare Burnell, 'Elements of South Indian Palaeography,' p. 10.
[42] Dîpavamsa XX, 20, 21; Mahāvamsa, p. 207. As the stanza is common to both works it is taken in all probability, word for word, from the Old Commentary in Simhalese, the Sîhalatthakathā, preserved in the Mahāvihāra in Anurādhapura. See H. Oldenberg's Introduction to his edition of the Dîpavamsa.
[43] How little this is, is apparent from the fact that Burnouf, who had studied all those that were then accessible, did not even find the words pārāgika and samghādisesa (Introduction, &c., p. 301). To the Tibetan texts Csoma Körösi has devoted a few pages ('Analysis of the Dulva' in Asiatic Researches, vol. xx. pp. 45 and foll.) Of the Chinese we have only the brief notices of M. Rémusat (Foe Koue Ki, pp. 104 and foll.) and of Mr. Beal (in H. Oldenberg's Introduction to the Vinaya, vol. i. pp. xliv, xlv). The last scholar also mentions several Vinaya works, of the contents of which however nothing further is known, in his Catalogue of Chinese Buddhist Works now in the India Office Library (pp. 67-71).
[44] For the Upasampadā-kammavāka see the passages recurring in the Khandhakas as pointed out above. p. xix.
