Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Researchnstitute, Poona
by Bhandarkar, D. R.
pp.171--201
p.171
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PALI CANON*
BY
DR. BIMALA CHURN LAW, Ph. D., M. A., B. L.
Rhys Davids in his Buddhist India (p. 188 ) has
given a chronological table of Buddhist literature
from the time of the Buddha to the time of Asoka
which is as follows:--
1. The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now
found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses
recurring in all the books.
2. Episodes found, in identical words, in two or
more of the existing books.
3. The Silas, the Parayana, the Octades, the
Patimokkha.
4. The Digha, Majjhima, Anguttara, and Samyutta
Nikayas.
5. The Sutta-Nipata, the Thera-and Theri-Gathas,
the Udanas, and the Khuddaka Patha.
6. The Sutta Vibhanga, and Khandhkas.
7. The Jatakas and the Dhammapadas.
8. The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas and the
Patisambbhida.
9. The Peta and Vimana-Vatthus, the Apadana, the
Cariya-Pitaka, and the Buddha-Vamsa.
10. The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is
the Katha-Vatthu, and the earliest probably the
Puggala-Pannatti.
This chronological table of early Buddhist;
literature is too catechetical, too cut and dried,
and too general to be accepted in spite of its
suggestiveness as a sure guide to determination of
the chronology of the Pali canonical texts. The
Octades and the Patimokkha are mentioned by Rhys
Davids as literary compilations representing the
third stage in the order of chronology. The Pali
title corresponding to his Octades is Atthakavagga,
the Book of Eights. The Book of Eights, as we have
it in the Mahaniddesa or in the fourth book of the
Suttanipata, is composed of sixteen poetical
discourses, only four of which, namely, (1.)
Guhatthaka, (2) Dutthatthaka. (3) Suddhatthaka and
(4) Paramatthaka share the common title of Atthaka
and consist each of eight stanzas. That is to say,
the four only out of tile sixteen poems fulfil the
definition
--------------------------
* a chapter work on " A history of Pail Literature "
to be published shortly.
p.172
of an Atthaka or octade, while none of the
remaining poems consists, as it ought to, of eight
stanzas. The present Atthakavagga composed of sixteen
poems may be safely placed anterior to both the
Mahaniddesa and Suttanipata. But before cataloguing
it as a compilation prior to the four Nikayas and the
Vinaya texts, it is necessary to ascertain whether
the Atthakavagga presupposed by the four Nikayas was
a book of four poems bearing each the title of
Atthaka and consisting each of eight stanzas or it
was even in its original form an anthology of sixteen
poems. Similarly in placing the Patimokkha in the
same category with the Silas and Parayanas it would
be important to enquire whether the Patimokkha as
bare code of monastic rules was then in existence or
not, and even if it were then in existence,whether it
contained in its original form 227 rules or less than
this number. There are clear passages in the
Anguttara Nikaya to indicate that the earlier code
was composed of one and half hundred rules or little
more (sadhikam diyaddhasikkhapadasatam, A. N., Vol.
II, p.232) . As Budddhaghosa explains the pali
expression, " Sadhikam diyaddhasikkhapadasatain ", it
means just 150 rules. According to a more reasonable
interpertation the number implied in the expression
must be taken more than 150 and less than 200. If the
earlier code presupposed by the Anguttara passages
was composed of rules near about 150 and even not
200, it may be pertinently asked if the Patimokkha,
as we now have it;, was the very code that had
existed prior to the Anguttara Nikaya. Our doubt as
to the antiquity of the Patimokkha as a bare code of
rules is intensified by the tradition recorded by
Buddhaghosa in the Introduction to his
Sumangalavilasini, (pt. I.,p. 17 ) that the two
codes of Patimokkha were to be counted among the
books that were not rehearsed in the First Buddhist
Council.
The putting of the first four Nikatyas under head
No. 4 with the implication that these were anterior
to the Suttanipata and the remaining books of the
Pali canon are no less open to dispute. With regard
to the Dighanikaya it has been directly pointed out
by Buddhaghosa that the concluding verses of the
Mahaparinibbana Suttanta relating to the
redisribution of Buddha's bodily remains were
originally composed by the rehearsers of the Third
Buddhist Council and added later on by the
Buddhist teachers of Ceylon. A material objection to
putting the Digha and the Anguttara Nikayas in the
same category is that in the Digha Nikaya the story
of Mahagovinda (Digha, II.,
p.173
pp. 220 foll.) has assumed the earlier forms of
Jatakas characterised by the concluding
identification of Buddha, the narrator of the story,
with its hero, while in the Anguttara Nikaya the
story is a simple chronicle of seven purohitas
without the identification. The four Nikayas are
interspersed with a number of legendary materials of
the life of the Buddha which appear at once to be
inventions of a later age when the Buddha came to be
regarded and worshipped as a superhuman
personality.(1) Our case is that without
discriminating the different strata of literary
accretion it will be dangerous to relegate
all the four Nikayas to the early stage of the Pali
canon.
The Suttainpata figures promniently in the fifth
order of the chronology suggested by Rhys Davids.
Without disputing that there are numerous instances
of archaism in the individual suttas or stanzas
composing this anthology, we have sufficient reasons
to doubt that the anthology as a whole was at all
anterior to the Niddesa which heads the list of the
Pali Canonical texts representing the eighth order.
By the Niddesa we are to understand two separate
exegetical works counted among the books of the
Khuddaka-Nikaya, (l) the Mahaniddesa being a
philological commentary on the poems of the
Atthakavagga (forming the fourth book of the
Sutta-Nipata) and (2) the Cullaniddesa being a
similar commentary on the poems of the Parayanavagga
(forming the fifth or the last book of the
Sutta-Nipata). The two questions calling for an
answer in this connection are (vide B. M. Barua's
Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga as two independent
Buddhist anthologies -- Proceedings and Transactions
of the Fourth Oriental Couference, Allahabad, 1928,
pp. 211-219) (1) was the Mahaniddesa composed,
being intended as a commetary on the Atthakavagga,
the fourth book of the Sutta-Nipata or on the
Atthakavagga, then known to the Buddhist Community as
a distinct anthology? and (2) was the Cullaniddesa
composed, being intended as a colmmentary on the
Parayanavagga, the fifth book of the Sutta Nipata or
on the Parayanavagga then known to the Buddhist
community as a distinct collection of poems? With
regard to the second question it may be pointed out
that the poems of the Parayana group, as these are
found in the Sutta-Nipata, are Prologued by 56
Vattugathas, while the Cullaniddesa is found without
these introductory stanzas. The inference as to the
exxclusion is based upon the fact that in the body of
the Cullanid-
----------------------
1. Read the Life of Gotama, the Buddha by E.II.
Brewster.
p.174
desa, there is nowhere any gloss on any of the
introductory stanzas. We notice, moreover, that the
glosses of the Cullaniddesa are not confined to the
sixteen poems of the Parayanavagga, the scheme of the
Canonical Commentary including an addi tional sutta,
namely, the Khaggavisana, which now forms the second
sutta of the first book of the Sutta-Nipata, From the
place assigned to this particular sutta in the
Cullaniddesa, it is evident that when the
Cullaniddesa was composed, it passed as a stray
sutta, not belonging to any particular group, such as
the Uragavagga. The stray nature of the Khaggavisana
Sutta may be taken as conclusive also from its mixed
Sanskrit version in the Mahavastu (Senart's edition,
Vol. I., pp. 357-359 ), in which, too, it is not
relegated to any group. If any legitimate hypothesis
is to be made keeping the above facts in view it
should be that the scheme of anthology in the
Cullaniddesa rather shows the anthology of the
Sutta-Nipata yet in the making than presupposing it
as a fait accompli.
Even with regard to the first question
concerniug the chronological order of the Mahaniddesa
and Sutta-Nipata, a similar hypothesis may be
entertained without much fear of contradiction. The
Mahaniddesa, according to its internal evidence, is
an exegetical treatise which was modelled on an
earlier exegesis attempted by Mahakaccana on one of
the Suttas of the Atthakavagga, namely, the Magandiya
Sutta (Mahaniddesa, pp. 197 ff). The modern exegesis
of Mahakaccana forming the corner stone of the
Mahaniddesa can be traced as a separate sutta of the
Samyutta Nikaya, Vol. III., p.9, where the Sutta
commented upon by Mahakaccana is expressly counted as
a sutta of the Atthakavsagga (Atthakavaggike
Magandiya panhe ). Once it is admitted that the
Atthaka group of poems had existeed as a distinct
anthology even before the first redaction of the
Samyutta Nikaya sand Mahakaccana's model exegesis on
one of its suttas and, moreover, that the Mahaniddesa
as an exegetical work wars entirely based upon that;
earlier model, it is far safer to think that the
Mahaniddesa presupposes the Atthakavagga itself as a
distinct collection of poems rather than the Atthaka-
vagga of the Sutta-Nipata. Though the scheme of
anthology in the Mahaniddesa includes only the poems
of the Atthaka group, there is a collateral evidence
to prove that in an earlier stage of Pali Canonical
literature two stray poems were associated with those
of the Atthaka group just in the same way that the
stray poem, Khaggavisana suttta, has been associated
in the Cul-
p.175
laniddesa with the poems of the Parayana group.
The Divyavadana, (1) for instance, mentions that
Purna, an associate of Sthavira Mahakatyayana,
recited the Munigatha and Sailagatha along with the
poems Munigatha of Arthavarga (Pali Atthakavagga with
the implication that the (corresponding to Pali
Munisutta ) and Sailagatha (corresponding to Pali
Selasutta ), included respectively in the Uragasutta,
the first book and in the Mahavagga, the third book
of the Sutta-Nipata, were associated with the poems
of the Atthaka group. To put forward another argument
the Nalaka Sutta in the third book of the
Sutta-Nipata is prologued by twenty Vatthugatha or
introductory stanzas which are absent from its mixed
Sanskrit version in the Mahavastu (Vol. III pp.386,
ff.). Judged by the theme and metre of the
Vatthugatha, they stand quite apart from the Sutta
proper. The Sutta proper is a moral discourse of the
Buddha which is quite on a par with several suttas in
the Sutta-Nipata and other texis, while in the
Vatthugatha, we come to hit all of a sudden on a
highly poetical composition serving as a historical
model to the Buddhacarita of Agvaghosa. The
Moneyasute (Moneyya Sutta) is one of the seven tracts
recommended by King Asoka in his Bhabru Edict for the
constant study of the Buddhists. This Sutta has been
rightly identified by Prof. D. Kosambi (Indian
Antiquary, 1912, Vol. XLI, pp. 37-40) with the Nalaka
Sutta in the Sutta-Nipata which, as pointed out
above, has a counterpart in the Mahavastu (Mahavastu
Ed. Senart, vol. II., pp.30-43 & Vol.III., pp. 382
ff.)where it does not bear any specific title. Judged
by its theme, Moneyya Sutta is more an appropriate
title than Nalaka. The importance of its naming as
Nalaka arises only when the Vatthugatha or the
introductory stanzas are prefixed to the Sutta
without any logical connection between the two.
Considered in the light of Asoka's title Moneya-sute
and the counterpart in the Mahavastu as well as of
the clear anticipa tion of Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita
in the Vatthugatha, it appears that the christening
of the Moneyya sutta as Nalaka and the edition of the
introductory stanzas took place some time after
Asoka's reign and not before. Some stanzas of the
Padhana Sutta have been quoted in the Kathavatthu
which, according to the Buddhist tradition, was a
compilation of Asokan time. The stanzas are quoted
without any mention of the Sutta or of the text on
which these have been drawn. The Pali version of the
)
----------------------
1. (Cowell and Neil Ed. )p. 35.
p.176
Sutta is to be found only in the Sutta-Nipata,
Book III. The inference that call legitimately be
drawm from the quotation is that the Papdhana Sutta
had existed in some form prior to the compilation of
the Kathavatthu, leaving the question of the Sutta-
Nipata altogether open.
The Khuddakapatha figures as the last book in
the fifth order, it being supposed to be earlier than
the Sutta Vibhanga, the Khandhakas, the Jatakas, the
Dhammapadas, the Peta and Vimanavatthus as well as
the Kathavatthu. Buddhaghosa in the introduction to
his Sumangalavilasini, informs us that the
Dighabhanaka list of the Pali Canonical texts
precluded these four books, namely, the Buddhavamsa,
the Cariyapitaka, the Apadana and the Khuddakapatha
while the Majjhimabhanaka list included the first
three of them. The preclusion may be explained either
as due to sectarian difference of opinion or due to
the fact that when the Dighabhanaka list was drawn up
these four texts were non-existent. If a comparison
be made between the Khuddakapatha and the
Khandheakas, it will be noticed that the first
short; lesson (saranattayam) of the Khuddakapatha was
nothing but a ritualistic elaboration of an earlier
refuge formula that can be traced in a passage of the
Khandhakas. The second lesson may be regarded as
rnade up of an extract from another passage occurring
in the Khandhakas. The same observation holds true
also of the fourth lesson, the Kumarapanham. The
sources being not mentioued, it is indecisive whether
the Khuddakapatha has drawn upon the Khandhakas or on
some isolated passages. But if judging by the nature
of differences in the common passages we are to
pronounce our opinion on the relative chronology of
the two texts, the priority must be accorded rather
to the Khandhakas than to the Khuddakapatha. The
Tirokuddasutta of the Khuddakapatha is the first and
the most important sutta of the Petavatthu. The
existence of this sutta previous to the reign of king
Asoka is clearly proved by certain quotations in the
Kathavatthu from it. Here again we are to grope in
the dark whether the quotations were from the
Tirokudda as an isolated Sutta or from a sutta in
the Petavatthu or in the Khuddakapatha. If any
inference may be drawn from the high prominence that
it enjoys in the Petavatthu our opinion will be
rather in favour of priority of the Petavatthu. Now
coming to the Kathavatthu, we have already mentioned
that it contains certain significant quotations from
two suttas, the Tirokudda and the Nidhikanda, both of
which are embodied in the Khuddakapatha, but there is
nothing to show that when the
p.177
Kathavatthu was compiled with these quotations
the Khuddakapatha itself was then in actual
existence, it being quite probable that the
quotations were made front the two isolated suttas,
we mean when these suttas had not come to be included
in the Khuddakapatha.
The Abhidhamma treatises figure as latest
compilations in the chronological table of Rhys
Davids. Of the seven Abhidhamma books, the
Kathavatthu is traditionally known as a compilation
of Asokan age. The credibility of the tradition can
be proved by a very peculiar dialectical style of
composition developed in the all-important book of
Buddhist Controversies and the traces of which can
also be found to linger in some of the inscriptions
of Asoka, namely the Kalsi Shahabazgarhi and
Manserahversions of the ninth Rock Edict (Vide B. M.
Barua's old Brahmi Inscriptions, p. 284 ). Another
and more convincing piece of evidence may be brought
forward to prove the credibility of the tradition.
Prior to the despatch of missionaries by Asoka,
Buddhism as a religious movement was confined, more
or less, within the territorial limits of what is
known in Buddhist literature as the Middle Country
(Majjhimadesa) and the Buddhist tradition in Pail is
very definite on this point. The Sanci stupas which
go back to the date of Asoka enshrine to the relies
of the missionarieswho were sent out to the Himalayan
tracts as also of the " good man " Mogaliputa, aptly
identified by Dr. Geiger with Moggaliputta Tissa, the
traditional author of the Kathavatthu. Curiously
enough, the Kathavatthu contains the account of a
controversy, (I.3) in which it has been emphatically
pointed out that up till the time of this particular
controversy, the Buddhist mode of holy life remained
confined to the places within the middle country and
had not gained ground in any of the outlying tracts
(paccantimesu janapadesu), the representatives of
Buddhism whether the monks or the laity having had no
access to those regions (B.M. Barua, Old Brahmi
Inscriptions, p.284 ). The account clearly brings out
one important historical fact,namely, that so far as
out; the outlying tracts are concerned, there were
undeniably at that time other modes of Indian holy
life. It is interesting to find that the 13th Rock
Edict of Asoka is in close agreement with the
Kathavatthu regarding this point. For in this
important edict issued in about the 13th or 14th
regnal year of King Asoka, His Gifted Majesty
definitely says that there was at the time no other
tract within his empire save versions
p.178
and except the Yona region where the different
sects of Indian recluses, the Samanas and Brahmanas
were not to be found and where the inhabitants had
not adhered to the tenets of one or other of those
sects (Vide Inscriptions of Asoka by Bhandarkar and
Majumdar. pp. 49-50- "Nathi cha she janapade yata
nathi ime nikaya anamta yenesha bamhmane cha shamane
cha nathi cha kuva pi janapadashi (ya) ta nathi
manushanam ekatalashi pi pashadashi no nama
pashade"). Squaring up the two-fold evidence, it is
easy to come to the conclusion that the compilation
of the Kathavatthu could not be remote from the reign
of Asoka.
In the Kathavatthu, there are quotations the
sources of which can now be traced in some of the
passages in the Vinaya Pitaka, Digha Nikaya, the
Majjhima Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Anguttara
Nikaya and some of the books of the Khuddaka Nikaya.
A few of the quotations can be traced in the
Dhammasangani and the Vibhanga among the Abhidhamma
books. As the passages are quoted in the Kathavatthu
without any mention of the sources, rather as
wellknown and authoritative words of the Buddha, it
cannot be definitely maintained that the quotations
were cited from the canonical texts in which the
individual passages are traceable. There were suttas
in some definite collections but until other definite
evidences are forthcoming, it will be risky to
identify them with the Nikayas and the Vinaya texts
as they are known to us. Even with regard to this
point our position remains materially the same if we
take our stand on the evidence of the Inscriptions of
Asoka, particularly on that of the Bhabru Edict. The
Bhabru Edict clearly points back to a well-known
collection of Buddha's words, the words which came to
be believed as at; once final and authoritative (
ekemchi bhamte Bhagavata Buddhena bhasite save se
subhasite). But here again we are helpless as to by
what name this collection was then designated and
what were its divisions? If such be the state of
thing, it will be difficult to regard all the
Abhidhamma books in the lump as the latest
productions among the books of the Pali Pitakas. As
for the chronology of the Pali canonical texts, the
safer course will be to fix first of all the upper
and lower limits and then to ascertain how the time
may be apportioned between them in conceiving their
chronological order. As regards the upperlimit
certain it is that we cannont think of any text on
Buddhism before the enlightenment of the Buddha.
Whatever be the actual date of the individual
p.179
texts, it is certainly posterior to the great
event of Buddha's enlightenment, nay, posterior even
to the subsequent incident of the first public
statement or promulgation of the fundamental truth of
the new religion. The upper limit may be shifted on
even to the demise of the Buddha, even to the demise
of the Buddha, the first formal collection of the
teachings of the Buddha having taken place, according
to the unanimity of the Buddhist tradition, after
that memorable event. Looked at from this point of
view, the period covered by the career of 45 years of
Buddha's active missionary work may be regarded just
as the formative period which saw the fashioning of
the early materials of the Buddhist Canon. With
regard to the lower limit we need not bring it so far
down as the time of the Pali scholiasts, Buddhadatta,
Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala, that is to say, to the
fifth century A. D. Going by the tradition, the
Buddhist canon became finally closed when it was
committed to writing for the first time during the
reign of King Vattagamani of Ceylon (Circa 29-17
B.C.). The truth of this tradition can be
substantiated by the clear internal evidence of the
text of the Milinda Panha which was a compilation of
about the first century A. D. As is well-known, in
several passages, the author of the Milinda Panha has
referred to the Pali books or to some chapters of
them by name and the number of books mentioned by
name is sufficiently large to exhaust almost the
traditional list. Further, it is evident from
references in this text that when it was compiled the
division of the canon into three Pitakas and five
Nikayas was well established. The Dhammasangani, the
Vibhanga, the Dhatukatha, and the rest were precisely
the seven books which composed the Abhidhamma Pitaka
and the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Ekuttara
(Anguttara) and Khuddaka were the five Nikayas which
composed the Sutta Pitaka. The Simhalese
commentaries, the Mahaatthakatatha, the
Mahapaccariya, the Mahakurundiya, the Andhaka and the
rest, presupposed by the commentaries of Buddhadatta,
Buddhaghusa and Dhammapala point to the same fact,
namely, that the canon became finally closed sometime
before the begining of the Christian era. Thus we can
safely fix the fast quarter of the first century B.
C. as the lower limit.
The interval of time between these two limits
covers not less than four centuries during which
there had been convened as many as six orthodox
councils, three in India and three in Ceylon, the
first during the reign of King Ajatasattu, the
p.180
second in the reign of King Kalasoka (Kakavarni
of the Puranas ), the third in the reign of Asoka,
the fourth in the reign of King Devanam Piyatissa of
Ceylon, the fifth in the reign of King Dutthagamani
and the sixth or the last in the reign of King
Vattagamani. The Pali accounts of these councils make
it clear that the purpose of each of them was the
recital and settling of the canonical texts. If
these councils can be regarded as certain definite
landmarks in the process of the development of Pali
canonical literature, we can say that during the
first four centuries after the Buddha's demise, Pali
literature underwent as many as six successive
redactions. Going by the dates assigned to these
councils, we may divide the interval into such short-
er periods of Pali literary history as shown below:--
First period ---(483--383 B.C.)
Second " ---(383--265 B.C.)
Third " ---(265--230 B.C.)
Fourth " ---(230--80 B.C.)
Fifth " ---( 80-20 B.C.)
Keeping these periods in view, we can easily
dispose of some of the Pali books. We may take, for
instanices, the Parivarapatha which is the last
treatise to be included in the Vinayapitaka. This
treatise, as early stateed in the Colophon (nigamana)
was written in Ceylon by Dipa, evidently a learned
Buddhist scholar of Ceylon as a help to his pupils to
the study of the contents of the Vinaya
(Parivarapatha, p.226, "Pubbacariyamaggan ca
pucchitva'va tahim tahim Dipanamo mahapanno sutadharo
vicakkhano imam vitthara samkhepam sajjhamaggena
majjhime cintayitva Iikhapesi sissakanam sukhavaham
Parivaran ti yam vuttam sabbam vatthum salakkhanam
attham attena saddhamme dhammam dhammena pannatte ").
As such the Parivarapatha was composed as a digest of
the subject-matter of Vinaya or Buddhist discipline.
We say that this treatise was composed in Ceylon
because there are references within the text itself
that it had been written after the Vinayapitaka was
promulgated by Thera Mahinda and a number of his
disciples and by their disciples in Ceylon. The
succession of his disciples from the time of Thera
Mahinda as set forth in the Parivarapatha (pp. 2-3 )
may suffice to show that the date of its composition
could not be much earlier than the reign of
Vattagamani. Even we may go so far as to suggest that
the Parivarapatha was the Vinaya treatise which was
canonised at the council held during the
p.181
reign of Vattagamani. For it is clearly stated in
that the author caused the treatise to be written
(likhapesi), a mode of preserving the scriptures
which would be inconceivable before the reign of
Vattagamani.The reference to the island of Tambapanni
or Ceylon is not only in the verses which one might
set aside as interpolation but in the prose portions
which form the integral parts of the text.
Now if we fix our attention on the traditional
verses embodied in the Parivarapatha (pp.2-3 edited
by Oldenberg) we have to infer therefrom that the
five Nikayes, the seven treatises of the
Abhidhammapitaka and all the older texts of the
Vinayapitaka were made known to the people of Ceylon
by the wise Mahinda who arrived in Ceylon from
Jambbudipa(India) after the third Buddhist council had
been over. (Parivarapathapp. 2-3, "Upali Dasako,
c'eva Sonako Siggavo tatha, Moggaliputtena Pancama
ete Jambusirivhaye tato Mahindo Ittiyo Uttiyo Sambalo
tatha Bhaddanamo ca pandito, ete naga mahapanna
Jambudipaidhagata, Vinayam te vacayimsu pitakam
Tambapan niya nikaye panca vacesum satta c'eva
pakarane" ).
The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga are two among
the earlier and important texts of the Vinayapitaka.
Twentytwo Khandhakas or stock fragments are
distributed into the two texts, ten into the
Mahavagga and the remaining twelve into the
Cullavagga. These fragments constituting the separate
divisions are arranged in a chronological order, and
they are intended to present a connected account of
the ecclesiastical history of the Buddhists from the
time of the enlightenment of the Buddha down to that
of the second Buddhist council which was convened,
according to the Cullavagga account, a century after
the demise of the Buddha (Vassasataparinibbute
Bhagavati ). The growth of the two texts may be
sought to be accounted for by these two hypotheses:
(1) that the Khandhakas were being added as they
came into existence from time to time, or (2) that
they were arranged all at the same time according to
a set plan. Whatever be the actual merit of these
hypotheses, none of them prevents us from maintaining
that the series of the Khandhakas was closed with the
inclusion of the account of the second Buddhist
council and that nothing material was added after
that, nothing, we mean to say, except the Uddanas or
mnemonics in doggerel verses appended to each of the
Khandhakas. Had the compilation of the Khandhakas
remained open after the second
p.182
Buddhist council, it would have included an
account of the later councils, particularly of one
held during the reign of Asoka. This line of argument
is sufficientiy strong to establish that the
compilation of the twenty two Khandhakas as we find
them embodied in the Mahavagga and Cullavagga was
anterior to the reign of Asoka, as well as that its
history is primarily associated with the tradition
of the second Buddhist council. Assuming then that
the closing of the collection of the Khandhakas
in the shape of the Mahavagga and the Cullavagga
could not be removed from the first century of the
Buddha era, we may briefly examine what inferences
can be drawn from the Cullavagga accounts of the
first and second Buddhist councils regarding the
development of the Canonical texts. First with regard
to the carlier Vinaya texts, the Cullavagga account
of the second Buddhist council (Chap. 12) has
referred to the followillg authorities by name,
namely (1) Savatthiya Suttvibhanga
(2) Rajagahe "
(3) Savatthiys "
(4) Savatthiya sutta
(5) Kosambiys "
(6) Savatthiya "
(7) Rajagahe "
(8) Rajagahe uposathasamyutte
(9) Campeyyake Vinaya Vatthusmin.
The Suttavibhanga passages referred to in the
Cullavagga account have been all found out by Prof.
Oldenberg in the Suttavibhanga and what is more, the
identified passages have satisfied the context
supplied (Savatthiya, Rajagahe Kosambiya ). Keeping
this fact in view can it be doubted that the
Suttavibhanga of the Vinayapitaka was current as an
authoritative text on Vinaya when the Cullavagga
account referring to its passages was written? Now
with regard to the remaining two references, namely,
Rajagahe Uposathasamyutte and Campeyyake
Vinayavatthusmin traced respectively in the Mahavagga
(II., 8. 3 ) and Mahavagga (IX. 3.5 ), it is curious
that the first reference is to a Samyutta passage and
the second to a Vinayavatthu. Although the Samyutta
passaga has found its place in the Mahavagga, so long
as the fact remains that the reference is to a
passage in the Sutta collection, our inference must
be that the Mahavagga in its extant form was not yet
in existence. The second reference is important as
p.183
pointing back to the existence of certain
Vinayavatthus serving as materials for a compilation
like the Mahavagga.
Turning at last to the Cullavagga account of the
first Buddhist council, it will be a mistake to
suppose that the account as we have it in the
Cullavagga is as old as the time of the counci1
itself. The account must have been posterior to the
time when the scriptural authorities of the Buddhist
community comprised (1) Ubhato Vinaya-the
disciplinary code of the bhikkhunis, and (2)
Panca-Nikaya-the five Nikayas, Digha, Majjhima and
the rest. Some of the Burmese manuscripts read Ubhato
Vibhanga in lieu of Ubhato Vinaya.* That may be a
mistake. But the contents mentioned in the Cullavagga
account are uudoubtedly the contents oh the two
vibhangas, the Bhikkhu and the Bhikkhuni. The list of
the Sikkhapadas codified as bare rules in the two
Patimokkhas is important as showing that the author
of the Cullavagga account kept in his mind nothing
but the Suttavibhanga with its two divisions: the
Bhikkhu-Vibhanga and the Bhikkhuni-Vibhanga. Further,
when this account was written, the five Nikayas were
well-known. But the contnts mentioned are found to be
only those of the first two suttas of the Digha
Nikaya, Vol. I., we mean the Brahmajala and the
Samannaphala-Suttantas. In the absence of the
remaining details and of the names of the separate
texts it is impossible to say that the Digha-Nikaya
as presupposed was completed in all the three volumes
as we now get or the five Nikayas as presupposed
contained all the fourteen suttanta texts as we now
have them. One thing is, however, certain that there
is yet no reference to the Abhidhamma treatises. For
the reference to the Abhidhamma-Pitaka we have to
look into the Uddanagathas in which there is mention
of the three pitakas (Pitakam tini). But nothing
should be built upon it with regard to the
development of canonical texts in so early a period
as this on the strength of these uddana gathas which
are appar ently later additions.
The line of investigation hitherto followed has
compelled us to conclude that the Suttavibhanga with
its two great divisions, e.g., the Bhikkhu and the
Bhikkhuni Vibhangas were extant as
-----------------------
* It may be observed that in giving an account of
the first Buddhist council, Buddhaghosa makes
mention of Ubhato-Vibhanga signifying " thereby the
whole text of theSutta Vibhanga completed in 64
bhanavaras (Snmagalavilasini, pt.1., p.13 ).
p.184
authoritative texts on the questions of Vinaya
previous to the compilation of the Mahavagga and the
Cullavagga. The hisori cal references that may be
traced in the Suttavibhanga appertain an to earlier
times and cannot, therefore, justify us in assigning
the text to a period far removed from the demise of
the Buddha. but we have still to enquire whether or
not the Suttavibhanga can be regarded us the first or
the earliest landmark of the Vinaya tracts. It may be
sound to premise that the first landmark of the
Vinayapitaka is not the landmark of the Vinaya
tracts. The point at issue really is whether or not
the text of the Sutta Vibhanga forming the first
landmark of the Vinayapitaka presupposes certain
earlier literary developments and if so, where can
this be traced? This is to seriously ask what; was
the earlier and more probable denotation of the term
ubhato-vinaya, the two-fold Vinaya. If we decline to
interpret it in the sense of two-fold Vibhanga, we
must be raising this important issue just to remove
an anomaly arising from the two-fold significaion of
the Pancanikaya divisions of the Pa1i canon.
Buddhaghosa, the great Pali scholiast, says that in
their narrower signification the five nikayas denoted
the five divisions of the texts of the Suttapitaka,
and that in their wider signification the five
nikayas included also the texts of the remaining two
pitakas, namely, the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma, the
Vinaya and Abhidhamma treatises being supposed to be
included in the Khuddakanikaya [Sumangalavilasini,
pt. I., p.23, cf., Atthasalini, p.26; Katamo
Khaddakanikayo? Sakalam Vinayapitakam
Abhidhammapitakam Khuddakapathadayo ca
pubbe-nidassita-pancadasa bheda (pubbe dassitacuddasa
pabheda iti pathantaram ), thapetva cattaronikaye
avasesam Buddhavacanam]. Buddhaghosa also informs us
that the Anumana Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya was
known to the ancients as bhikkhuvinaya and the
Singalavada sutta of the Digha Nikaya was venerated
as gihi Vinaya.(1) It such terms as bhikkhuvinaya and
gihivinaya had been current among the Buddhists of
olden times, it is pertinet to enquire whether the
expression "the two-fold vinaya. "was originally used
to denote the Bhikkhuvinaya and bhikkhunivinaya or
the bhikkhuvinaya and gihivinaya. If we examine the
contents of the Anguttara or the Ekuttara Nikaya, we
need not be surprised to find that Anguttara abounds
in the Vinaya passages. In
---------------------------
1 B.M. Barna-A note on the Bhabru Ediet,
J.R.A.S., October' 1915, pp. 805-810 ).
p.185
each nipata of this Nikaya we come across
passages relating to the two-fold Vinaya namely the
Bhikkhu and Gihi. Looked at from this point of
view, the Anguttara Nikaya may justly be regarded as
a sutta store-house of distinct Vinaya tracts. In
this very nikaya we hit upon a vinaya tract (A. N.,
I., pp 98-100) which sets forth a rough sketch
(matika) not of any particular vinaya treatise but of
the whole of the Vinaya pitaka. The list of Vinaya
topics furnished in this particular tract cannot be
construed as a table of contents of any particular
text of the Vinaya pitaka. Similar Vinaya tracts are
scattered also in the suttas of other nikayas. The
con sideration of all these facts cannot but lead
one to surmise that the treatises of the Vinaya
pitaka point to a sutta background in the vinaya
materials traceable in the Nikayas particularly in
the Anguttara. The Sutta background of the Vinaya
texts is clearly hinted at in the concluding words
of the Patimokkha. " So much of the words of the
Blessed One handed down in the Suttas, embraced in
the suttas, comes into recitation every half-month"
(Vinaya texts, S. B. E., Vol. I. p. 69 ). As for the
date of the composition of the two Patimokkha codes,
one for the bhikkhus (monks) and other for the bhik-
khunis (nuns ), it is important to bear in mind that
according to an ancient Buddhist tradition cited by
Buddhaghosa, the Patimokkha codes as they are handed
down to us are two among the Vinaya texts which were
not rehearsed in the first Buddhist council(
SumangalavilasinI, pt. I., p. 17 ). It may he readily
granted that the codification of the Patimokkha rules
in the extant shape was not accomplished immediately
after the demise of the Buddha. It is one thing to
sa this and it is quite another that the rules
themselves in a classified form had not been in
existence from the earlier times. The Cullavagga
account of the first Buddhist council throws some
clear light on the process of codification. It is
said that the utterance of the dying Buddha
authorising his followers to do away with the minor
rules of conduct (Khuddanu-Khuddakani sikkhapadani ),
if they so desired, formed a bone of contention among
the bhikkhus who took part in the proceedings of the
first Buddhist Coundil (See Milinda Panha,
pp.142-144). They were unable to decide which were
precisely the minor rules they were authorised to
dispense with. Some suggested all but the four
Parajika rules, some, all but the four Parajika and
thirteen Samghadisesa rules, some, all but the four
Parajika, 13 Samghadisesa and two Aniyata rules and
thirty Nissaggiya
p.186
rules; some, all but the four Parajika, 13
Samghadisesa, two Aniyata, thirty Nissaggiya and
ninety-two Pacittiya rules and some suggested all
but 4 Parajika, 13 Samghadisesa, 2 Aniyata, 30
Nissaggiya, 92 Pacittiya and 4 Patidesaniya rules.
The suggestion stopped with the 4 Patidesaniya rules
and did not proceed beyond them, leaving us in the
dark as to what the bhikkhus meant by all but 11 all
these " (counted by names ). The Patimokkas code in
its final form includes two hundred and twenty-seven
rules, that is to say, the seven adhikarana samathas
and seventy-five sekhiya rules in addition to those
mentioned in the Cullavagga account. Omitting the 75
sekhiya rules the total of the Patimokkha precepts
of conduct would come up to 152, If the theras of the
first Buddhist Council had in their view a
Patimokkha code in which the 75 Sekhiya rules had no
place, the total of precepts in the code recognised
by them was 152. Now we have to enquire if there is
any definite literary evidence to prove that in an
earlier stage of codification, the total of the
Patimokkha precepts was fixed at 152. Happily the
evidence is not far to seek. The Anguttara
Nikaysa, as we heave seen above, contains two
passages to indicate that the earlier Patimokkha code
contained one and half hundred rules or little more (
Sadhikam diyaddhasikkhapadasatam). * The earlier
Patimokkha code with its total of 152 rules may be
shown to have been earlier than the Suttavibhanga on
the ground that the Sutta-Vibhanga scheme makes room
for the 75 Sekhiya rules, thereby rocognising the
Patimokkha total to be 227 which was possible only in
the second or final stage of codification of the
Patimokkha rules.
In dealing with the chronology of the seven
treatises of the Abhidhammapitaka, we can only
maintain that the order in which these treatises are
enumerated can be interpreted as the order of the
chronology. Any attempt at establishing such an
interpretation would be vitiated by the fact that
the order of enumeration is not in all cases the
same. The order in which these are mentioned in the
Milinda Panha ( p.12 ) and which has since become
classical is as follows:-- ( I ) Dhammasangani (
Dhammasamgaha as Buddhaghosa calls it-vide
Sumangalvilasini,p.17),(2) Vibhanga,(3) Dhatukatha,(4)
Puggalapannatti, ( 5 ) Kathavatthu, ( 6 ) Yamakra and
(7) Patthana.
--------------------------
* Cf. Miinda Panha which refers to the some total of
the Patimokkha rules in the expression
"Diyaddhesa Sikkhapadasatesu."
p.187
A somewhat different order is evident from a
gatha occurring in Buddaghosa's Sumangalavilasini,
Pt. I., p. 15.
" Dhammasamgani-Vibhanganca Kathavatthunca Puggalam
Dhatu-Yamaka-Patthanam
Abhidhammoti vuccati."
It be noticed that in the gatha ordor the Kathav-
atthu stands third instead of fifth and the
Dhatukatha stands fifth instead of third. We have
already noted that according to general
interpretsaion of the five nikaya divisions of the
Pail canon, the Ahhidhamma treatises come under the
KhuddakaNikaya. This is apparently an anomaly which
cannot be re moved save by a liberal interpretation
making it signify a sut- tanta back-ground of the
Abhidhammapitaka. Thus an enquiry into the suttanta
back-ground becomes a desideratum and we may lay down
a general canon of chronology in these terms. The
closer connection with the Sutta materials, the
earlier is the date of composition. Among the seven
Abhidhamma treatises, tho Puggalapannatti and the
Vibhanga stand out pro minently as the two texts
which bear a clear evidence of emergence from a Sutta
back-ground. The Puggala classifications in the
Digha, Samyutta and Anguttara Nikayas are seen to
constitute at once the sutta back-ground and the
stereotyped Vibhangas or Niddesas, mostly contained
in the Majjhima Nikaya may be take to repesent the
Sutta background of the Vibhanga. The exact position
of the Puggalapannatti in relation to the Suttanta
collections has been properly examined by Dr. Morris
in his edition of the Puggala Pannatti published for
the P. T. S. London, Introduction, pp X-XI.
We have just one remark to add, namely, that
compared with the Suttanta materials utilised in it,
the Puggalapannatti is the least original treatise of
the Abhidhammapitaka and its inclusion in the
Abhidhamma Pitaka would have been utterly
unjustifiable but for the Pannatti classifications in
the matika No. 1. Whatever be the actual date of its
compilation in respect of subject matter and
treatment, it deserves to be considered as the
earliest of the Abhidhamma books.
In the opinion of Mrs. Rhys Davids, the Vihhangs
is "anticipated" by the Dhammasangani, although " it
is by no means covered by the latter work either in
method or in matter" ( Vibhanga, P. T. S., Preface
XIV ). "In other words, the present hook (the
Vibhanga ) seems by Buddhists to have
p.188
ranked secpnd in the seven of its Pitaka not
accidentally, but as a sequel to the Dhammasangani
requiring, in those who came to the study of it, a
familiarity categories and formulas of the latter
work-that is with the first book of the Abhidhamma
", (Ibid, XIII ). Thus whether the Vibbanga is
anticipated by the Dhammasangani or the latter is
anticipated by the former is the point at issue.
Examining most of the chapters of the Vibhanga we
find that each of them has a Abhidhamma
superstructure ( Abhidharmma-bhajaniya ) built upon
and kept distinct from a Suttanta exegesis (
Suttantabhajaniya) the counterpart of which is to be
found in the first four nikayas and mostly in the
Majjhima, as it will appear from the following
table:---
Saccavibhanga (Suttantabhajaniya)-Saccavibhanga
sutta ( Majjhims, Vol. III., No. 141 );
Satipatthanavibhanga (Suttantabhajaniya) = Sati
patthanasutta ( M.N.I., No.10), Dhatuvibhanga (
Suttantabhajaniya )--Dhatuvibhanga sutta of the
Majjhima, Vol. III.. No. 140.
It is evident from the juxtaposition of the
Suttanta and the Abhidhamma exegesis in its different
chapters that the Vibhanga marks that stage of the
developmet of the Abhidhamms pitaka when the
Abhidhamma or Transcendental method of exegesis had
not yet gained an independent foothold, when, in
other words, it ramained combined with the Suttanta
or earlier method. The predilection is as yet for
attempting the exegesis of the formulations in the
Suttas. An independent treatment of pure topics of
Psychological ethics, such as we find in the
Dhammasangani is far beyond the scheme of the
Vibhanga. In the progressive working out of
exegetical schemes, the Niddesa or detailed
specification of meanings of terms comes second to
the uddesa or matika. Now if we compare the treatment
of Rupakkhandha in the Vibhanga ( pp. 12-14 ) with
that in the Dhammasangani (pp. 124 ff.), we cannot
but observe that all that the Vibhanga has to present
is merely the uddesa or matika of the Rupakkhandha
section of the Dhammasangani. The Niddesa of the
rupa-matika is to be found in no other Abhidhamma
books than the Dhabmmsasangani. Mrs. Rhys Davids
admits (in a way arguing in ourofavour) that the
contents of the Vibhanga are by no means covered by
the Dhammasangani. The Vibhanga has, for instsnce, a
section entited Paccayakaravibhanga, an exegesis on
the causal relations. The paccayas fall outside the
p.189
scope of the Dhammasangani and they form the
subject matters of the great Abhidhamma treatise,
the Patthana or the Mahapatthana; but compared with
the Patthana, the Vibhanga treatment of the subject
is crude and vague, which is to say earlier.
Considered in this light, the Vibhanga seems to stand
out as a common presupposition of both the
Dhammasangani and the Patthana. It is much easier to
proceed from the contents of lhe Vibhanga to the two
highly systematic treatises of the Dhammasangani and
the Patthana then to proceed from the latter to the
former. The Dhatukatha being nothing but a supplement
to the text of the Dhammassangani may he briefly
disposed of as a Abhidhamma treatise dependent; on
and necessarily later than the Dhammasangani.
It is not only with regard to the Dhammasangani (
with its supplement, the Dhatukatha and the Patthana
that the Vibhanga represents the immediate
background; it appears equally to have been the
background of the Yamaka. It is easy to account for
the dialectical method of the study of the
Abhidhamma matters by keeping the Panhapucchakas
appended to the different chapters of the Vibhanga.
All these considera tions lead us to couclude that
strictly speaking the Vibhanga making " an extended
application of ( the ) organun or vehicle for the
cultivation of the moral intellect " is the first and
the earliest of the Abhidhamma books.
1. Puggala Pannatti
2. Vibhanga (a) Dhammasangani Dhatukatha
(b) Yamaka
(c) Patthana
3. Kathavatthu
Although one can conceive in this manner the
chronological succession of the five Abhidhamma books
( leaving out the Puggalapannatti which is rather a
suttanta text and the Kathavatthu which forms a class
by itself ), it is difficult to determine the actual
dates of their composition. One thing is certain that
the seven books of the Abhidhammapitaka were
well-known and very carefully read especially in the
Himalayan monastery when the Milinda panha was
composed in about the first century A. D. There is no
reason for doubt that the Pali canon when committed
to writing during the reign of king Vattagamani in
Ceylon, it included all these books in it. We have
shown that when the Uddanagathas of the Cullavagga
p.190
(Chap. II) of' the Vinayapitaka were added, the
three pitakas of the Pali canon had already come into
existence. The question, however, is how far the
date of the books of the Abhidhammapitaka can be
pushed back. Here the only anchor-sheect is the
Kathavatthu, the third or the fifth Abhidamma book
which according to tradition, was a compilation of
the Asokan age. We have already adduced certain
proofs in suport of this tradition and have sought to
show that when certain controversies which find a
place in the Kathavatthu took place, Buddhism as a
religion had not overstepped the territorial limits
of the middle country. But according to Buddhaghosa's
commentary, the Kathavatthu contains discussion of
doctrines held by some of the Buddhist schools, e.
g., the Hemavata, the Andhaka, the Pubbaseliya and
the Aparaseliya, which could not be possible if the
Kathavatthu had been closed in the time of Asoka. If
it was a growing compilation, we have necessarily to
suppose that although it commenced in Asokan time, it
was not brought to a close till the rise of the later
Buddhist schools mentioned above.
Turning at last to the Suttapitaka comprising the
live nikaytas, we can definitely say that it had
reached its final shape before the composition of the
Milinda Panha in which authoritative passages are
quoted from the texts of this pitaka, in certain
instances by a mention of the name of the sources.
Wwe can go further and maintain that the Suttapitaka
was closed along with the entire Pali canon and when
the canon was finally rehearsed in Ceylol and
committed to writing during the reign of King
Vattagamani. The tradition says that previous to the
reign of Vattagamani the texts were handed down by an
oral tradition (mukhapathavasena ) from teacher to
teacher ( acariyaparamparaya ) the process of
transmission be ing compared to the carrying of earth
in baskets from head to head. Buddhaghosa says (
Sumangalavilasini, pt. I, pp. 12 foll. ) that
immediately after the demise of the Buddha and after
the session of the first Buddhist Council, the task
of transmitting and preserving each of the five
nikayas to an individual thera and his followers,
which ultimatly gave rise to some schools of bhanakas
or chanters. The existence of the distinct schools of
reciters of the five nikayas is clearly proved (as
shown by Dr B. M. Barua, Barhut Inscriptions, pp.
9-10 ), by the Milinda Panha where we have mention of
the Jatakabhanakas ( the repeaters of the Jatakas) in
addition to the Dighabhanake, the Majjhimabhanaka,
p.191
Samyuttabhanaka, Anguttara-bhanaka and Khuddaka-
bhanaks, ( Milinds Paiiha, pp. 341 foll. ). The terms
'pancanekayika' ( one well versed in the five nikayas
) and bhanaka as well, occur as distinctive epithets
of some of the Buddhist donors in the Sanci and
Barhut inscriptions which may be dated in the lump in
the middle of the second century B. C. The inference
from the evidence of these inscriptions has already
been drawn by Prof. Rhys Davids to the effect that
before the use of Pancanekayika ( one well-versed in
the five nikayas ) suttantika ( a man who knows the
Suttanta by heart ), Suttantakini (a feminine form of
Suttantika ) and Petaki ( one who knows the pitaka by
heart )as distinctive epithets, the pitaka and five
nikaya divisions of the Pali canon must have been
well-known and well-established. We say of the Pali
canon because substi tution of nikaya for the term
'Agama' is peculiar to the Pali tradition. The term "
Pancanikaya " occurs as we saw also in the Vinaya
Cullavagga( Chap. II ) which we have assigned to a
period which immediately preceded the Asokan age. But
even presuming that the five nikaya divisions of the
growing Buddhist canon were current in the third
century B. C., it does not necessarily follow from it
that all the books or Sutt-as or individual passages
comprising the five nikayas were composed at that
time. All that we can make bold to say that the first
four nikayas were, to all intents and purposes, the
complete, while the Khaddakanikaya series remained
still open.
We have pointed out that this account in the
Vinaya Cullavagga clearly alludes to the Digha as the
first of the five nikayas as well as that the first
two suttas were the Brahmajala and Samannaphala while
as to the number and succession of the remaining
suttas, we are kept completely in the dark. Strain-
ing the information supplied in the Vinaya Cullavagga
we can proceed so far no doubt, that the first
volume of the Digha Nikaya was mainly in the view of
its compilers. Comparing the Suttas comprised in the
remaining two volumes and marking the differences in
theme and tone, it seems that these two volumes were
later additions. The second volume contains two
suttas, namely, the Mahapadhana and MahaGovinda
which have been mentioned in the Cullaniddesa ( p.
80) as two among the notable illustrations of the
Suttanta Jatakas, the Jatakas as found in the
earliest forms in Pali literature. We have already
drawn attention to the earlier chronicles of the
seven purohitas in the Anguttara Nikaya where it is
far
p.192
from being a manipulation in a Jataka form. The
casting of this chronicle in a Jataka mould as we
find it in the Maha-Govinds Suttanta could not have
taken place in the life-time of the Buddha. The
second volume contains also the Payasi Suttanta
which, as shown by the previous scholars, brings the
story of Payasi to the death of Payasi and his after
life in a gloomy heaven. Thus suttanta contains
several anecdotes forming the historical basis of
some of the Jataka stories. In the face of all these
facts, we cannot but agree with Prof. Rhys David who
places the date of this suttanta at least half a
century after the demise of the Buddha. The third
volume of the Digha includes in it the Atanatiya
suttanta which is otherwise described as a rakkha or
a saving chant manipulated apparently on a certain
passage in the them know Mahabharata. The development
of these elements such as the Jataka stories and the
Parittas could not have taken place when Buddhism
remained in its pristine pur ity. These are later
accrotions or interpolations, the works of fable and
fiction, we mean of imaginnative poetry that crept,
according to a warning given in certain passages of
the Anguttara Nikaya, under the influence from
outside. But there is no reason for surprise that
such developments had already taken place as early as
the fourth century B.C. for the passages strike the
note of alarm are precisely one of those seven
important tracts recommended by Asoka in his Bhabru
Edict under the caption 'Anagatabhayani. The growth
of these foreign elements must have caused some sort
of confusion otherwise it would not have been
necessary to discuss in a sutta of the Samyutta
Nikaya the reasonable way of keeping genuine the
utterances of the Buddha distinct from others that
crept in under the outside influence and were
characterised by poetical fancies and embellishments
(kavikata ). ( Samyutta Nikaya, pt. II, p.267 ). We
may then be justified in assigning the whole of the
Digha Nikaya to a pre-Asokan age, there being no
trace of any historical event or development which
might have happened after King Asoka. The only
exception that one has to make is only in the case of
the concluding verses of the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta
which were interpolated according to Buddhaghosa in
Ceylon by the teachers of that island. Like the first
volume of the Digha Nikaya, the whole of the Majjhima
Nikaya strikes us as the most authoritative and
original among the collections of the Buddha's
teachings. There is no allusion to any political
event
p.193
to justify us in relegating the date of its
compilation to a time far removed from the demise of
the Buddha. If it be argued that the story of
Makhadeva, as we find it embodied in the Makhadeva
sutta of this Nikaya, has already assumed the form
of a Jataka, of a Suttanta-Jataka, mentioned in the
Cullaniddesa, it cannot follow from it that the
Nikaya is for that very reason a much later
compilation. For the Makhadeva story is one of those
few earliest Jatakas presupposed by the Pali
Canonical collection of 500 Jatakas. The literary
developments as may be traced in the suttas of the
Majjhima Nikaya are not of such a kind as to require
more than a century after the demise of the Buddha.
Now concerning the Samyutta which is a collection
of kindred sayings and the third of the five nikayas,
we may point out that it has been guoted by name in
the milinda panda, as also in the Petakopadesa under
the We can simple title of Samyuttaka and that as
such this Nikaya had existed as anauthoritative book
of the Pali both the Milinda panha and the
Patakapadesa. go so far as to maintain that the
Samyutta Nikaya had reached its final shape previous
to the occurrence of Panca nekayika as a personal
epithet in some of the Barhut and Sanci-inscriptions,
nay, even before the closing of the Vinaya Cullavagga
where we meet with the expression " Pancanikaya". In
dealmg with the account of the Second Buddhist.
Council in the Vinaya Cullavagga (Chap. XII), we have
noted that a canonical authority has been alluded to
as "Rajayahe uposatha Samyutte" at Rajagaha in the
Uposatha Samyutta. The translators of the Vinaya
Texts (pt. 11, p. 410 ) observe that the term
'Samyutta' "must here be used for khandhaka", the
passage referred to being the Vinaya Mahavagga (II.
8.3. the Uposatha Khandhaka). But looking into the
Mahavagga passage, We find that it does not fully
tally with the allusion, as the passage has nothing
to do with Rajagaha. In the absence of rajagaha
giving a ture clue to the tracing of the intended
passage, it is difficult to premise that the passage
which the compilers of the Cullavagga account kept in
view was the khandhaka passaga in the Vinaya
Mahavagga. Although we have so far failed to trace
this passage also in the Samyutta Nikaya, the
presumption ought to be that the intended passage was
included in a Samyutta collection which was then
known to the compilers of the Cullavagga. The Suttas
in the
p.194
Samyutta Nikaya do not refer to any political
incident justifying one to place the date of its
compilation far beyond the demise of the Buddha. As
contrasted with the Ekuttara or Anguttara Nikaya the
Samyutta appears to be the result of an attempt to
put together relevant passages throwing light on
the topics of deeper doctrina1 impotance while the
former appears to be numerical groupings of relevant
passage throwing light on the topics relating to the
conduct of the monks and house-holders. Considered
in this light, these two Nikayas must be regarded as
fruits of a critical study of suttas in some previous
collections.
Now coimg to deal with the Ekuttara or Anguttara
Nikaya, we have sought to show that its main bearing
is on the two-fold Vinaya, the Gahapati Vinaya and
the Bhikkhu Vinaya. This Nikaya contains a
section(Mundarajavagga in the Pancaka
Nipata)commemorating the name of King Munda who
reigned, as shown by Rhys Davids, in Rajagaha about
half a century after the demise of the Buddha The
Nikaya made within the fifty years from the Buddha's
demise. There is, however, no other historical
reference to carry the Mahaparinibbana compilation
beyond the first century from the Mahaparinibhana of
the Buddha. The date proposed for the Anguttara
Nikaya will not, we think, appear unreasonable if it
be admitted that the suttas of this nikaya form the
real historical back-ground of the contents of the
Vinaya texts.
We have at last to discuss the chronology of the
fifteen books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, which are
generally mentioned in the follwiug order:--
(1) Khuddaka Patha, (2) Dhammapda, (3) Udana, (4)
Itivuttaka, (5) Sutta Nipata (6) Vimanavatthu, (7)
Petavatthu, (8) Thera-therigatha, (9) Jataka, (11)
Niddesa. (Culla and Maha.) (12) Patisanibhidamagga,
(13) Apadana, (14) Buddha vamsa, ani (15)
Cariyapitaka.
This mode of enumeration of the fifteen books of
the khuddaka Nikaya (pannarasabheda Khuddakanikaya)
can be traced back to the days of Buddhaghosa
(Sumangalavilasini, pt.I.,p,17).It is obvious that in
this list the Cullaniddesa and the Mahaniddesa are
counted as one book; while counting them as two
books, the total number becomes sixteen.There is no
justifica- tion for regarding the order of
enumeration as being the order of
p.195
chronology. In connection with the Khuddaka
Nikaya, Buddhaghosa mentions the following facts of
great historical importance. He says that the
Dighabhanakas classified the books of the Khuddaka
Nikaya under the Abhidhamma Pitaka enumerating them
in the following order:--
(1) Jataka, (2) Mahaniddesa, (3) Cullaniddesa,
(4) Patisambhidamagga, (5)Suttanipata, (6) Dhammapada
(7) Udana, (8) ltivuttaka, (9) Vimanavatthu, (10)
Petavatthu, and (11) Therigatha, and leaving out of
consideration the four books, namely, the
Cariyapitaka, the Apadana, the Buddhavamsa and the
Khuddakapatha.Buddhaghosa informs us thak the Majjhi-
mabhanaka list contained the names of 15 books
counting the Cariyapitaka, the Apadana and the
Buddhavamsa as the three books in addition to those
recognised by the Dighabhanakas(Sumanangalavilasini,
Pt.I., p.15) It is important to note that the
Majjhimabhanaka list has taken no cognisance of the
Khuddakapatha mentioned as the first book in
Buddhanaka list was drawn up, the Khuddaka Nikaya
comprised just 12 books and when the Majjhima Nikaya
list was made it came to comprise altogether 15
books, the Mahaniddesa and the Cullaniddesa having
been counted as two books instead of as one. It is
also easy to understand that from that time on ward
the traditional tota1 of the books of the Khuddaka
Nikaya became known as fifteen, and so strong was
this tradition that to harmonise with it, the sixteen
books had to be somehow counted as fifteen, the
Mahaniddesa and the Cullaniddesa being treated as a
single book. From this we may proceed to show that
the Khuddakapathe appearing as the first book of the
Khuddaka Nikaya in Buddhaghosa's list, is really the
last book taken into the Khuddaka Nikaya sometime
after the Majjhimabhhanaka list recognising 15 books
in all had been closed. We need not be surprised if
the Khuddakapatha was a compilation made in Ceylon
and was given a place among the books of the Khuddaka
Nikaya either immediately before the commitment of
the Pali Canon to writing duriug the reign of King
Vattagramani or even after that, although before the
time of Buddhaghosa. The commentaies of Buddhabhosa
are our oldest authorities that mention the
Khuddakapatha as a canonical book. It does not find
mention in the Milinda Panha nor in any other work,
canonical or ex-canonical, which was extant before
the time of Buddhagosa. The text is made up of nine
lessons or short readings all culled certain earlier
canonical sources, the arrangement of these lessons
being such
p.196
as to make it serve as a very useful handbook for
the beginners and for the clergy ministering to the
needs of the laity. The consideration of two points
may suffice to bear out our contention. The first
point is that the first lesson called the sarana-
ttaya presents a doveloped mode of refuge formula of
the Buddhists which is not to be found precisely in
this form anywhere in other portions of the Pali
canon. As for the second point we may note that the
third lesson called the Dvattimsakara (the thirty-two
parts of the body)enumrrates mattake matthalungam
which is not to be found in the list furnished in the
Mahasatipatthana Suttanta of the Digha Nikaya, the
Satipatthana Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya and
numerous other discourses.
We have seen that the Buddhavamisa, the
Cariyapitaka and the Apadana are the three books
which found recognition in the list of the
Dighabhanakalist, Majjhimabhanakas and were taken no
notice of in the Apart from other arguments, one has
to presume that these three books were complied and
received into the canon after the list was once known
to have been complete with 12 books. These three
books, as far as the subject matters go, are
interconnected, the Buddhavamsa enumerating the
doctrine of pranidhana us an essential condition of
the Bodhisatta life, the Cariyapitaka enumerating the
doctrine of cariya or practices of a Bodhisatta and
the Apadana the doctrine of adhikara or competence
for the attainment of the higher life. These three
books presuppose a legend of 24 previous Buuddhas
which is far in excess of the legend of six Buddhas
contained in other portions of the Canon. The Buddha-
vamsa and the Cariyapitaka present a systematic form
of the Bodhistta idea that was shaping itself through
the earlier Jatakas and the Apadana furnishing the
previous birth stories of the theras and the theris
cannot but be regarded as a later supplement to the
Thera-Theri-gatha.
Besides the Thera-Theri gatha, the Vimanavatthu
or the book of stories of heaven is just another
canonical work which is presupposed by the Apadana.
It is important to note that the Vimanavatthu
contains one story, namely, the story of Serissaka,
the incident of which, according to the story itself,
took place hundred years, calculated by human
computation from the death of the chieftain Payasi. "
Manussakam Vassasatam atitam Yadagge kayamhi
idhuappanno " (Vimanavatthu, P.T. S., p. 81 ).
p.197
The Payasi Suttanta of the Digha Nikaya clesrly
shows that the death of Payasi could not have taken
place until a few years after the Buddha's demise.
Thus going by the consideration of this point, we
are compelled to assign a date of its composition to
an age ahead of a century and a half from the demise
of the Buddha. So the canonisation of this book
could not have taken place earlier than the time of
the third Buddhist Council, we mean the time of King
Asoka. Our suggestion for the date of the
Vimanavatthu will gain in significance as we consider
the contents of the Petavatthu, the book of stories
of hell. We have noticed aboue that in all the three
lists of the books of the Khuddaka Nikaya the name of
the Petavatthu stands after that of the Vimanavatthu.
From the occurrence of certain common stories, a
suggestion has already been made that it was somehow
an offshoot of the Vimanavatthu. Now in one of the
stories (Petavatthu, IV. 3, p. 57 )(1), we have
allusions to the Moriya( Maurya) king, who is
identified in the commentary with king Asoka (2). If
this construction of the word Moriya is correct, it
leaves no room for doubt that the Peta Vatthu, as we
mow have it, was a post-Moriyan or post-Asokan
compilation.
The Cullaniddesa is a canonical commentary of the
Khaggavisana sutta and the Parayana group of sixteen
poems, all of which find place in the anthology
called the Sutta Nipata. We have sought to show that
the Cullaniddesa indicates a stage of development of
the Pali canon when the Khaggavisana sutta hang on
the Parayanavagga as an isolated poem, without yet be-
ing included in a distinct group such as the
Uragavagga of the Sutta Nipata. Though from this line
of argument it follows that the Cullaniddesa is
earlier than the Sutta-Nipata, it cannot at the same
time be denied that it is posterior not only to such
Suttanta-Jatakas as the Mahapadaniya, Mahagovinda,
Mahasudassaniya and the Maghadeva suttanta contained
in the Digha and Majjhima Nikayas but also to a
collection of 500 Jatakas (Pancajatakasatiani ) (
Culianiddesa, p.80 ). As such the Cullaniddesa cannot
be dated much earlier than the reign of Asoka.
-------------------------
1."Raja Pingalako nama Suratthanam adhipapi ahu
Moriyanam upatthanamgantva surattham punar againa."
2. " Moriyanan'ti Moriyarajunam Dhammasokam samdhaya
vadati " Petavatthn. P.T.S.,p.98.
p.198
The Mahaniddesa too is a canonical commentary on
the atthaka group of sixteen poems forming the fourth
book of the Sutta-Nipata. As shown before the
exegeses attempted in this book were all modelled on
an earlier exegesis of Mahakaccana in the Samyutta
Nikaya. If this canonical commentary came into
existence when the Atthakavagga was yet currrnt as an
isolated group, the date of its composition cannot
but be anterior to that of the Suttanipate. A clear
idea of the date of this work can be fomed from its
list of places visited by the Indian seagoing
merchants. The Mahaniddesa list clearly points to a
time when the Indian merchants carried on a sea-borne
trade with such distant places as Java in the east
and Paramayona in the west and it alludes as well as
to sea route from Tamali to Java via Tambapanni or
cetlon which was followed in the 5th century A. D. by
the Chinese pilgrim, Fa-Hien. We can expect to come
across such a list only in the Milinda Panha which
may be dated in the 1st or 2nd century A. D. Such a
wide expansion of India's maritime trade as indicated
in the Mahaniddesalist would seem impossible if the
book was a composition much earlier than the second
century B. C. Now turning to the Suttanipata we have
been inclined to place it later than the two books of
the Niddesa on the ground that when it was compiled,
the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga came to
represent two distinct books of a comprehensive
anthology and the Khaggavisana sutta ceased to be a
stray poem hanging for its existence on the Parayana
group. But our main reason for dating it posterior to
the Cullaniddesa is that the Parayanavagga in the
Suttanipata is prefaced by a prologue which is absent
from the Cullaniddesa scheme. Similarly the
Nalakasutta perhaps known originally as Moneyya sutta
as evidenced by the titles suggested in Asoka's
Bhabru Edict as a prologue clearly anticipating the
poetical style of Asvaghosa's Buddhaearita. In spite
of the fact that the suttas embodied in it were
gleaned from earlier collections, the Sutta-nipate
scheme of anthology does not seem to have been
carried into effect before the 2nd century B.C.
With regard to the Jatakas as a book of the
Khuddaka Nikaya, we have just seen above that the
Cullaniddesa points to a canonical collection of 500
Jatakas. That five hundred was the original total of
the Jatakas is proved on the one hand by the 500
Jataka representations witnessed by Fa-Hien round the
Abhayagiri monastery of Ceylon and on the other band
by the mechanical multiplication of the stories in
order to raise the
p.199
total from 500 to 550 from the days of
Buddhaghosa. The Milinda Panha alludes to the
existence of the repeaters of the Jatakas apart from
the repeaters of the five Nikayas. We are unable to
decide whether the Milinda reference is to the
canonical books of the Jataks or to a commentary
collection which was then in exislence. The numerous
illustrations of the jatakas on the ancient Buddhist
railings such as those at Barhut and Bodhagaya,
unmistakably presuppose the existence of the
legendary story of the Buddha's life past and
present. But the canonical collection of 500 Jatakas
referred to in the Cullaniddesa appear to be earlier
than the scriptural basis of the Buddhist sculptures
and whatever the actual data of composition might be
it was certainly later than that of the Suttanta
Jatakas scattered throughout the first four Nikayas.
We may say indeed that the canonical collection took
a definite shape near about the early Maurya period.
The Thera-Theri-Gathas are two campanion
anthologies of the stanzas that are supposed to have
been uttered by the theras and theris surrounding the
Buddha during the lifetime of the Master, or at least
shortly after his death. (Theragabha Oldenberg's
preface, XI ).
"The separate uddanas or indices which occur
regularly at the end of each nipata and at the end
also of the whole work, and give the names and
numbers of the theras (and the theris ) and the
number of verses in each chapter and in the whole
work respectively seem to be based on a recension or
condition of the text different from that which now
lies before us " (Ibid, p.XIV). In the opinion of
Dhammapala, the commentator, the Theragatha anthology
had reached the final shape not earlier than the time
of Asoka. He points out that the Thera Tekicchakari
whose gathas are embodied in the Theragatha lived
under King Bimbisara, the father of Dhammasoka. He
further adds that the verses uttered by this thera
were received into the canon by the fathers who
assembled in the third Buddhist Council. Dhammapala
attributes some of the gathas to Vitasoka, the
younger brother of Dhammasoka and certain other
verses to Tissakumara, the youngest brother of King
Asoka. If we can at all depend for chronology on the
information supplied by Dhammapala, the anthologies
of Thera-Theri-gatha must be taken as compilations
that had received their final shape at the Third
Buddhist Council and not before.
p.200
The Pali Dhammapada is just one and undoubtedlly
the earliest of the six copies of the anthologies of
the Dhammapada class. The earliest mention of the
Pali Dhammapada by name is to be found in the Milinda
Panha which is a composition of the first or secnd
century A.D. From the mere fact that there were
certaiu quotations in the Kathavatthu and Mahaniddesa
ofstanzas now traceable in the Dhammapada, no
definite conclusion can be drawn as to the actual
date of its composition. The Dhammapada hardly
includes any stanzas that might be supposed to have
been drawn upon the canonical collection of Jatakas.
But as shown by the editors of the Prakrit Dhammapada
there are a few gathas which were evidently
manipulated on the basis of the gathas in the
Jatakas. Similary it cannot be maintained that the
Dhammapada contains any stanzas that were diretly
derived from the Suttanipata, for the suttas which
singled out as the source of some of the gathas of
the Dhammapada are to be found also in such earlier
collections as the Digha or the Majjhima or the
Samyutta or the Anguttara. The Thera and Theri-gathas
are the two anthologies of the Khuddaka Nikaya which
appear to have been presupposed by the Dhammapada. As
re gards external evidence, there is only one
tradition, namely, that a powerful discourse based on
the Appamadavagga of the Dhammapada served to attract
the attention of King Asoka to Buddhism, clearly
pointing to the existence of the Dhammapada as a
distinct anthology as early as the third century B.C.
Itivuttaka, the Udana and the Patisambhidamagga
are the remaining three books of the Khuddaka Nikaya
of which the date of composition must depend upon
mere conjecture till accidentally we obtain any
reliable date. The Itivuttaka is a book of questions
of genuine sayings of the Buddha, making no re-
ference to any canonical work or to any historical
event ascertaining its date, though it seems that it
was the result of an afterthought, of a critical
study of the authentic teachings of the Buddha in a
certain light and for a specific purpose. The Udana
is a curious medley of legends and historical
records, presened in a particular setting with a view
to emphasising some prononne ed opinions of the
Buddha on certain contrversial matters. The
Patisambhidamagga presents a systematic exposition of
certain important topics of Buddhism, and as such it
deserves to be classed rather with the books of the
Abhidhammapitaka than with those of Suttanipata. It
is quite possible that before the development of the
extant Abhidhamma pitaka, it passed as one
p.201
of the Abhidhamma treatises, Concering there three
books the utmost that we can say that they are
mentioned even in the list of the Dighabhanakas,
being counted there as three among the twelve books
of the Khuddaka Nikaya, and that if the tradition
about this list is at all credible, these three books
must have existed when the list was drawn up, say, in
the second century B. C.
The results arrived at concerning the chronology
of the Pali canonical listerature are preseented in
the subjoined table.
(1) The simple statements of Buddhist doctrines
now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or
verses recurring in all the books.
(2) Episodes found, in identical works, in two or
more of the existing books.
(3) The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen
poems without the prologue, the atthaka group of four
or sixteen poems, the sikkhapadas.
(4) The Digha, Vol. l, the Majjhima, the
Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code
of 152 rules.
(5) The Digha, Vols. II & III, the
Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the
Suttavibhanga, the Partisambhidamagga, the
Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.
(6) The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the
Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the
Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada and the
Kathavatthu.
(7) The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana,
the Itivuttaka, the Suttanipata, the Dhatukatha, the
Yamaka and the Patthana.
(8) The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka and the
Apadana.
(9) The Parivarapatha.
(10) The Khuddakapatha.