After the Final Extinction
(Parinirvana) of the Buddha, and the cremation of his
body, the community of monks chose five hundred Arahants
('worthy ones', 'perfected ones') to work together to compile
the doctrine and the discipline, in order to prevent the true
doctrine from being submerged in false doctrines. Each of the
recensions of the Vinaya now available contains an appendix
which narrates how one of the senior monks, Mahakasyapa, presided
over this assembly, which worked systematically through everything
the Buddha was remembered to have said and produced an agreed
canon of texts embodying it. The versions differ over the details
but agree in broad outline. The Arahants met in Rajagrha,
since that great city could most easily support such a large assembly
for several months. The organisation of the Buddhists tended to
centre on great cities as it was apparently not possible in any
other way to convene a meeting large enough to be authoritative
for the entire community, given its democratic constitution.
Ananda, who being the
Buddhas personal attendant, had heard the discourses more
than anyone else, first recited the doctrine (dharma).
Mahakasyapa asked him about all the dialogues, etc., he remembered
and the assembly endorsed his versions as correct. The doctrine
compiled in this way became known as the Sutra Pitaka,
the collection of sutras (the term pitaka probably signifies
a 'tradition' of a group of texts). The discipline was similarly
recited by Upali, a specialist in that subject, and codified as
the Vinaya Pitaka. On the third pitaka (Abhidhamma)
which should make up the Tipitaka ('Three Pitakas')
there is disagreement. The Sthaviravada and Mahasamghika versions
do not mention its recitation, and since the agreement of these
two schools should establish the oldest available textual tradition
it appears that originally there were only two Pitakas.
However, even the Mahasamghika account mentions the Abhidhamma
as among the texts handed down after the rehearsal. The Mahisasaka
version makes no mention of a third Pitaka.The Sarvastivada
and Dharmaguptaka Vinayas on the other hand have Ananda
reciting the Abhidhamma as well as the Sutra.
The Kasyapiya (=Haimavata) mentions the Abhidhamma Pitaka
without saying who recited it. A later text of the Sarvastivada
School, the Asokavadana states that Kasyapa recited the Matrka
or Matrka Pitaka (two versions of the text). The same
tradition is found in the Vinaya of the Mula Sarvastivada
School, a late offshoot of the Sarvastivada which thoroughly revised
and enlarged its Tipitaka. 'Whether a Matrka
or Abhidhamma was actually recited at the First Rehearsal
or not, all the early schools were equipped with a third, Abhidhamma
Pitaka.
According to the consensus
of the schools the Sutra Pitaka was arranged in five
agamas, 'traditions' (the usual term, but the Sthaviravadins
more often call them nikayas, 'collections'). The order
also is generally agreed to be as follows: (1) Digha Nikaya.
('Long Tradition', about 30 of the longest sutras); (2) Majjhima
Nikaya ('Intermediate Tradition', about 150 sutras
of intermediate length; the short sutras, the number
of which ran into thousands, and were classified in two Ways as)
(3) Samyutta Nikaya ('Connected Tradition', sutras classified
by topic, for example the sutras on conditioned origination);
(4) Anguttara Nikaya ('One Up Tradition', sutras
on enumerated items classified according to the numbers of the
items in sections of ones, twos, threes . . . up to elevens) ;
(5) Khuddaka Nikaya (outside the first four Nikayas,
there remained a number of texts regarded by all the schools as
of inferior importance, either because they were compositions
of followers of the Buddha and not the words of the Master himself,
or because they were of doubtful authenticity, these were collected
in this 'Minor Tradition').
This order of the five
'traditions' happens also to be the order of their authenticity,
probably because it was easier to insert short texts among a large
number or to get a composition of doubtful origin admitted to
the already doubtful Minor Tradition of a school. This is soon
ascertained by comparing the various available recensions. It
has been suggested that some schools did not have a Minor Tradition
at all, though they still had some of the minor texts, incorporated
in their Vinaya, hence the 'Four Nikayas' are
sometimes spoken of as representing the Sutras.
The most noticeable
feature of the Minor Tradition is that its texts are for the most
part in verse as opposed to the prevailing prose of the rest of
the Tipitaka. In other words, whatever else may be said
about their authenticity, they are poetic compositions which may
stimulate interest in the doctrine but are as remote as possible
from being systematic expositions of it. We have naturally ignored
them in investigating the teaching of the Buddha, but they are
of much interest in themselves, as literature, and in connection
with the popularisation of Buddhism in the centuries following
the parinirvana when in fact many of them were composed.
The First Rehearsal
is recorded to have taken place during the rainy season of the
first year after the parinirvana, the latter event
being the era from which the Buddhists have reckoned their chronology.
It does not now appear to be possible to determine the exact extent
and contents of the Tipitaka thus collected, in fact
as we have seen it may at first have consisted of only two pitakas,
not three, namely the Doctrine and the Discipline. It is clear
that some texts were subsequently added, even before the schisms
of the schools, for example the account of the First Rehearsal
itself, an account of a second such rehearsal a century later
and a number of sutras which actually state that they
narrate something which took place after the parinirvana
or which refer to events known to have taken place later. It is
interesting that the account in the Vinaya records that
at least one monk preferred to disregard the version of the Buddha's
discourses collected at this rehearsal and remember his own, as
he had received it from the Buddha. This was Purana, who returned
from the South after the Rehearsal. The elders invited him to
possess himself of the collection rehearsed but he politely declined.
If there were a number of monks in distant parts who missed the
First Rehearsal it is likely enough that quite a number of discourses
remembered by them and handed down to their pupils existed, which
were missed at the Rehearsal though perfectly authentic. Under
these conditions it would seem reasonable to incorporate such
discourses in the Tipitaka later, despite the risk of
accepting unauthentic texts.
The Mahaparinirvana
Sutra makes the Buddha himself lay down a rule to cover just
this situation: if someone claims to be in possession of an authentic
text not in the Sutras or in the Vinaya - again
two pitakas only - it should be checked against the Sutra
and Vinaya and accepted only if it agrees with them.
Such agreement or disagreement may have seemed obvious enough
at first. Later it was far from obvious and depended on subtle
interpretations; thus the schools came to accept many new texts,
some of which surely contained new doctrines.
It appears that during
the Buddha's lifetime and for some centuries afterwards nothing
was written down: not because writing was not in use at the time
but because it was not customary to use it for study and teaching.
It was used in commerce and administration, in other words for
ephemeral purposes; scholars and philosophers disdained it, for
to them to study a text presupposed knowing it by heart. To preserve
a large corpus of texts meant simply the proper organisation of
the available manpower. 'Few monks at any period seem to have'
known the whole Tripitaka. The original division of the
Sutras into several agamas, 'traditions', seems primarily
to have reflected what monks could reasonably be expected to learn
during their training. Thus in Sri Lanka, at least, in the Sthaviravada
School, it is recorded that the monks were organised in groups
specialising in each of the agamas or the Vinaya
or the Abhidhamma, handing these texts down to their
pupils and so maintaining the tradition. In fact even ten years
after his full 'entrance' into the community a monk was expected
to know, besides part of the Vinaya discipline obligatory
for all, only a part, usually about a third, of his agama,
and these basic texts are pointed out in the commentary on the
Vinaya. A monk belonging to the Digha tradition,
for example, should know ten of its long sutras, including
the Mahaparinivana, the Mahanidana and the Mahasatipatthana.
He was then regarded as competent to teach. Among the Sthaviravadins
there were even slight differences of opinion on certain matters
between the several traditions of the sutras. Thus the
Digha tradition did not admit the Avadanas to
have been a text authenticated by recital at the First Rehearsal,
whereas the Madhyama tradition did: they thus differed as to the
extent of the Tipitaka.
If there were a standard
Tipitaka as established at the First Rehearsal one might
expect its texts to be fixed in their actual wording, and therefore
in their language. This, however ' does not appear to have been
the case. The followers of the Buddha were drawn even during his
lifetime from many different countries and spoke, if not completely
different languages, at least different dialects. It has been
shown that the early Buddhists observed the principle of adopting
the local languages wherever they taught. Probably they owe much
of their success in spreading the Doctrine and establishing it
in many countries to this. The Buddha himself is recorded to have
enjoined his followers to remember his teaching in their own languages,
not in his language, nor in the archaic but respectable cadences
of the Vedic scriptures of the Brahmans. The recensions of the
Tipitaka preserved in different countries of India therefore
differed in dialect or language from the earliest times, and we
cannot speak of any 'original' language of the Buddhist canon,
nor, as it happens, have we any definite information as to what
language the Buddha himself spoke.' At the most, we can say that
the recension in the language of Magadha may have enjoyed some
pre-eminence for the first few centuries, since 'Magadhisms' have
been detected even in non-Magahi Buddhist texts. This may have
reflected the political supremacy of Magadha.
Extract from "Indian
Buddhism" by A.K. Warder
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers PVT Ltd. Delhi
|