III. Abhidhamma-pitaka.

　　 Taking this collection as a whole we may lay it down as self-evident that the canon, in its collected form, cannot be older than any of the events related therein.

　　 There are two important facts for determining the age of the Pâli canon, which, as Dr. Oldenberg^[4] has been the first to show, should take precedence of all other arguments, viz.

　　 1. That in the Tipitaka, as we now have , , it, no mention is made of the so-called Third Council, which took place at Pâtaliputta, under King Asoka, about 242 B.C.

　　 2. That in the Tipitaka, as we now have it, the First Council of Râgagaha (477 B.C.) and the Second Council of Vesâlî (377 B.C.) are both mentioned.

　　 From these two facts it may safely be concluded that the Buddhist canon, as handed down to us, was finally closed

　　[1. Buddhaghosa does not say whether these were recited at the First Council.

　　2. Partly translated by Gogerly, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Ceylon, 1852.

　　3. Cf. Gogerly, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Ceylon. 1848, p. 7.

　　4. See Oldenberg”s Vinaya-pitaka, Introduction. p. xxv. The kings Agâtasatru (485-453 B.C.), Udâyin (453-437 B.C.), and Munda (437-429 B.C.) are all mentioned in the Tipitaka. See Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., XXXIV. pp. 752, 753.]

　　p. xxx after the Second and before, or possibly at, the Third Council. Nay, the fact that the description of the two Councils stands at the very end of the Kullavagga may be taken, as Dr. Oldenberg remarks, as an indication that it was one of the latest literary contributions which obtained canonical authority, while the great bulk of the canon may probably claim a date anterior to the Second Council.

　　 This fact, namely, that the collection of the canon, as a whole, must have preceded the Second Council rests on an argument which does great credit to the ingenuity of Dr. Oldenberg. The Second Council was convoked to consider the ten deviations^[1] from the strict discipline of the earliest times. That discipline had been laid down first in the Pâtimokkha rules, then in the commentary now included in the Vibhanga, lastly in the Mahâvagga and Kullavagga. The rules as to what was allowed or forbidden to a Bhikkhu were most minute^[2], and they were so firmly established that no one could have ventured either to take away or to add anything to them as they stood in the sacred code. In that code itself a distinction is made between the offences which were from the first visited with punishment (pârâgika and pâkittiya) and those misdemeanours and crimes which were put down as punishable at a later time (dukkata and thullakkaya). With these classes the code was considered as closed, and if any doubt a…

《The Dhammapada - Introduction》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…