Note 31 — Chapter IV

The collection of the Buddhist scriptures is divided into three parts, called the three Pitagats, or the three baskets, respectively named the Wini Pitagat, the Thoots Pitagat, and the Abidama Pitagat. The manuscript that the writer has had for his use, though correct in the main, is certainly defective in the enumeration of the divisions and subdivisions of the three great collections. He will, however, mention them, such as they are enumerated by the Burmese author; the few errors that may be detected can easily be corrected by those who have in their possession the Ceylonese collection, as there is no doubt that the work now under consideration is an abridgment of a more voluminous compilation to be found in Ceylon.

The divisions of the Wini are: Bikoo Patimouk, Bikoonee Patimouk, Bikoo Witin (probably Bikoo Win), Bikooni Win, twelve Kandaka, and sixteen Pariwara.

The thoots are considered as the instructions orally delivered by Gaudama himself, either to his disciples in private, or to the assembled multitudes, during the forty-five years of his public mission. In this collection the disciples have learned the doctrines of the master, and found all the elements necessary to compose all the treaties, which subsequently have formed the collections called Wini Pitagat and Abidama Pitagat. No one could ever believe that the author of Buddhism could have busied himself in writing treatises on metaphysics, or minutely and elaborately publishing the regulations under which the body of his followers, called the Sanga, were to live and spend their time. In his instructions Gaudama gave utterance to certain principles, which, being appropriated by his disciples and their successors, were enlarged, developed, and reduced to the shape of a treatise. In fact, he sowed the seed which, being let into the soil of the mind of enthusiastic disciples, grew up and multiplied into the voluminous above-named collections. Genuine Buddhism must be found in the thoots of the oldest stamp. Anywhere else we meet with the Buddhism such as it has been developed by doctors and commentators.

There are four collections of the thoots, named Nidia Nike, Midzima Nike, Thangoutta Nike, and Engouttara Nike. They are likewise arranged under fifteen heads, called: Koudakapata, Dammapata, Oodana, Ithi, Wouthaka, Thouttanibat, Wi, Mama-wouttoo, Pita-wouttoo, Terakatta, Terikatta, Dzattakani, Piti-sambika, Apadana, Buddha-wattoo.

The Abidamma has seven divisions, viz., Dammathingakani, Wittin, Datoogatta, Pouggala-pignia, Kathawattoo, Yamaik, Patan.

The attentive reader cannot be but surprised to see how the three great divisions of the Buddhistic scriptures are mentioned by the members of the first council as things already existing and arranged with the same method as they have been disposed during succeeding ages. It is certain that such divisions of Gaudama’s doctrines did not then exist at that time. Are we to conclude therefrom that the fact of the holding of the first council is to be rejected as a mere invention, because the mode of relating some particulars concerning that great assembly is liable to be seriously objected to? It seems that such a conclusion would be a too hasty one.

For establishing the fact of the holding of the first council, we have the evidence supplied to us by all the Buddhistic writings, found in the various countries where that religion has been established. Moreover, several monuments of great antiquity allude to that first assembly. We can scarcely raise a doubt upon the existence of the fact. But how are we to account for the manner in which mention is made of compilations which undoubtedly were not existing at that time? The redaction of all the particulars connected with the first assembly must have been made a considerable time after the holding of the said assembly, at an epoch when the Buddhistic scriptures had already been arranged under three distinct heads. The author, familiar with the division or compilation into three parts, called Pitagats, has arranged his narration in such a way as to give it a sort of agreement with a form which he thought must have been as familiar to others as it was to himself. It is probable that most of the points of discussion, such as we find them in the narrative, were actually brought forward before the assembly, but in a shape more simple and general, and less technical and positive. This is what can be said in the present imperfect knowledge of the history of Buddhism, for extenuating the charge of wilful forgery, which might be brought against the author of the redaction. On the other hand, whilst prudent discretion commands us not to be too hasty in passing a sweeping condemnation upon the compilation, we must be very cautious in not admitting at once, and not giving an absolute credit to all that is found in writings which do convey to us many things of great antiquity, but evidently mixed with multifarious details of a comparatively modern origin. This last remark ought to be ever present to the mind of him who peruses some portions of the Pitagats. The huge mass of rubbish which constitutes the largest portion of the scriptures is the production of the various Buddhistic schools which flourished eight and ten centuries after the first council.