Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Writing Down of The Tripitaka in Pali - Heinz Bechert
The Writing Down of The Tripitaka in Pali - Heinz Bechert
It is well known that the Pali chronicles relate the writing down of
the scriptures during the reign of King Vattagamani Abhaya (89-77
B.C.). This event is recorded in two stanzas of equal wording in the
Dlpavamsa 20.20-21 and in the Mahavamsa 33.100-101:
pitakattayapdlim ca tassa atthakatham pi ca /
mukhapdthena anesurri pubbe bhikkhu mahdmatt //
hdnim disvdna sattdnam tadd bhikkhu samdgata /
ciratthitattham dhammassa potthakesu likhdpayum //
“Before this time, the wise Bhikkhus had orally handed down the text
of the three Pitakas and also the Atthakatha. A t this time, the Bhik
khus who perceived the decay of created beings, assembled and in order
that the Religion might endure for a long time, they recorded (the
above-mentioned texts) in written books” (O ldek ber g ’s translation).
This tradition has been generally accepted as a historical record of
the first writing down of the Pali scriptures. W . Geiger formulates the
communis opinio that this passage attests “the fact that the text of the
canonical Buddhist literature, the Tipi taka, which had been orally
handed down up to that time, was written down in books during the
reign of king VattagEmani in the last century B.C.” 1. G eiger adds
that “this passage is so clear and simple that we are not allowed to put
a sophistical construction on it. It is true history, for we all know the
important part which oral tradition of sacred texts always played in
India, even when the art of writing had already become a general
practice.” 2 G eiger also draws our attention to the reference to the
commentaries (atthakatha) on this passage; these ancient commentaries
were composed in Elu, the Old-Sinhalese language, and therefore called
sihalatthakatha, “the Sinhalese commentary” . The Slhalatthakatha is
lost, and therefore it is difficult to judge the historical contents of this
part of the information. It is also well-known that the collection of
scriptures was enlarged after this period so that the scriptures which
were written down in the first century are not fu lly identical with the
Tipitaka which has been handed down to us.
The place o f the meeting o f the monks is not recorded in the chroni
cles. Ceylonese tradition considers the A lu vih ara (Alokavihara) near
Matale as this place. This tradition is found in the P u ja va liy a (com
posed 1266 A .D .), in the Nikayasangrahaya (ca. 1375) and in various
later historical sources. The Saddhammasahgaha, however, locates the
meeting in the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura3. Dham m akitti Maha-
sami, the author o f this work, did not come from India to Ceylon and
return to India, as asserted by K . R. N orman4, probably on the basis
o f the outdated remark by G. P. Malalasbkera 5. His home was
Ayuthya in Siam 6.
In his above quoted remark, G e i g e r stated th at “ we are not allowed
to put a sophistical construction” on the record o f the w ritin g down o f
the scriptures. H ere G e i g e r evidently refers to an article b y F r i e d r i c h
W e l l e r 7. W e l l e r had sent an off-print to G e i g e r who, however,
considered W e l l e r ’ s theory as rather abstruse and therefore restricted
himself to this indirect reference.
However, it m ay be useful to discuss W e l l e r ’ s relevant explana
tions, which seem to have escaped the notice o f most scholars. J. W . d e
J o n g recently pointed out that nobody has tried y e t to refute W e l l e r ’ s
opinion that the verses in question are a later interpolation8. W e l l e r
discussed these verses in the context o f his attem pt to prove the exist
ence o f a written tradition o f the canonical texts in the earliest period
o f Buddhist literary tradition. H e claims that the Pali te x t o f the
DTghanikaya has been “transcribed” into the P a li version from manu
scripts originating from mainland In d ia 9. Though W e l l e r ’ s theory
concerning w ritten sources for these earliest Buddhist texts is obsolete
and need not be discussed again, I shall summarize and discuss his
remarks on these stanzas, because they are interesting as pieces o f
textual criticism.
liy a 25 the event is related in the sentence preceding the record o f the
writing down o f the scriptures. In later texts, a m ore direct relation of
these two events is spoken of. It is evident that the danger o f some parts
o f the scriptures being lost as a result o f the death o f monks who had
memorised them, which is related in the com m entaries, must have
contributed to the decision to write down the texts.
This view is also held by modern historians. Thus, E. W . A d ik a -
r a m 2628gives a list o f the following causes that led to the w ritin g down
7
o f the texts: “ (1) the danger o f being attacked b y non-Buddhist for
eigners and wars, (2) the so-called Brahmanatissa famine, (3) the enter
ing o f irresponsible and irreligious people into the Order, and (4) the
formation o f the separate school o f A b h ayagiri” . This list has been
reproduced by various later authors with minor changes, e. g. b y N. A.
J a y a w i c k r a m a 27. According to K . It. N o r m a n 28 the “ Dlpavamsa
states that during the reign o f VattagSm ani A b h aya (29—17 B.C.) the
monks who had previously remembered the T ip ita k a and its commen
tary orally now wrote them down in books, because o f the threat posed
by a famine, war, and the growing power o f the newly established
Abhayagiri vihara, which enjoyed the king’s fa v o u r” . This statement is
quite misleading since no such detailed reasons are found in the Dipa-
vamsa passage, which is the only authority quoted b y N o r m a n , but the
reader remains under the impression that these reasons are found in the
relation o f the Dipavamsa.
Reconsidering the question on the basis o f the available evidence,
we may consider the writing down o f the scriptures during the reign o f
Vattagamani Abhaya as a historical fact. I t is not unlikely that this
m ay be said o f the traditions concerning the Alu vihara as the place o f
the relevant meeting o f knowledgeable monks as well. There cannot be
much doubt that the famine as well as the political and social disasters
o f the preceding period contributed to the decision to com m it the texts
to writing. H owever, no reliable inform ation has been handed down in
ancient sources about a direct relation o f this even t to the foundation
o f the Abhayagirivihara and its conflict with the Mahavihara. W e do
not know i f these events are interrelated. The Aluvihara m eeting and
the writing o f the scriptures are not unlikely to have been organized by
monks who came together (bkikkhü samügatà) for this purpose on their
own initiative, and not at the instigation o f the king or o f any estab
lished ecclesiastical organisation. I t was a group o f monks with the then
rather “ progressive” idea o f making use o f the medium o f writing for
handing down and spreading Buddhist texts. There are several in
stances o f im portant innovations resulting from the in itiative o f indi
viduals in the later history o f Theravâda, and this is even more likely
in this early period when the structure o f the formal ecclesiastical
organization was not y e t fu lly developed. The conspicious absence o f
information on this event and the existence o f many references to oral
tradition in the early P âli commentaries seem to point in this very
direction. Most probably not all the texts were written down at the
same time. A s w e learn from the well-known references to the existence
o f the bhânaJca tradition existing until later periods29 and from several
other sources30, oral tradition continued to exist side b y side with
written scriptures for m any centuries to come. Thus, the so-called
writing down o f the scriptures was only the beginning o f a new form o f
tradition, and this innovation was probably opposed b y the more
conservative monks. As w ith m any other innovations, it was only after
some time that it was generally accepted. Therefore, it was much later
that the records o f this event were transformed into an account o f a
“ council” (sangciyanâ, or sangïtï) which was held under the patronage o f
K in g Vattagâm ani.