No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2013
As is well known, the oldest extant chronicle of Sri Lanka, the Dīpavaṃsa,1 has preserved a succession line of the foremost teachers who transmitted and taught the vinaya in India: Upāli, Dāsaka, Soṇaka, Siggava and Moggaliputta Tissa; the length of time they have been regarded as vinayapāmokkha; the dates when they ordained the next in line and when they entered parinirvāṇa. An intriguing range of dates has been inferred from an interpretation of these figures, especially for dating the death of the historical Buddha. I do not intend to rehearse the whole discussion here but cordially refer to the proceedings of the grand symposium organised by H. Bechert in 1988 at the University of Göttingen.2
1 The Dīpavaṃsa, the oldest extant chronicle of Sri Lanka, has been handed down anonymously and is likely to have been composed not long after 350 ad. von Hinüber, O., A Handbook of Pāli Literature (Berlin and New York, 1996), p. 89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Bechert, H. (ed.), The Dating of the Historical Buddha (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, Volume 1) (Göttingen, 1991)Google Scholar, Ibid. Volume 2 (1992), Ibid. Volume 3 (1997).
3 For example, W. Geiger, The Mahavamsa or The Great Chronicle of Ceylon (New Delhi and Chennai, [1912] 2003), p. l; Frauwallner, E., The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (Rome, 1956), p. 170 Google Scholar; Lamotte, E., History of Indian Buddhism from the Origins to the Saka Era (Louvain and Paris, [1958] 1988), pp. 203–205 Google Scholar came to the following conclusions: Upāli was ordained 44 years before Buddha died. He was Vinaya Chief from 1 until 30 ab. He ordained Dāsaka in 16 ab. Dāsaka succeeded Upāli on the latter's death and was Vinaya Chief for 50 years from 30 to 80 ab. Soṇaka was ordained in 60 ab. He succeeded Dāsaka as Vinaya Chief and remained in authority for 44 years from 80 to 124 ab. Siggava was ordained in 100 ab. He was Vinaya Chief for 52 years from 124 to 176 ab. Moggaliputtatissa was ordained in 164 ab. On the death of Siggava, he became Vinaya Chief and remained in authority for 68 years, from 176 to 244 ab. He ordained Mahinda in 224 ab. Mahinda died in 284 ab. Asoka's consecration is dated in 218 ab.
4 For example, Rhys Davids, T.W., “On the Ceylon date of Gautama's death”, in On the Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon, with a Discussion of the Ceylon Date of the Buddha's Death (London, 1877)Google Scholar, reprinted in H. Bechert (ed.) (1992), pp. 401–421, p. [46] 410; Kern, H., Manual of Indian Buddhism (Strassbourg, 1898), p. 109 Google Scholar; K.R. Norman, “Observations on the dates of the Jina and the Buddha”, in H. Bechert (ed.) (1991), pp. 300–312, p. 309. The most recent and extensive research on this issue was made by R. Gombrich, “Dating the Buddha: A red herring revealed”, in H. Bechert (ed.) (1992), pp. 237–59 and Gombrich, R., “Discovering the Buddha's date”, in Perera, Lakshmi S. (ed.), Buddhism for the New Millennium (London, 2000), pp. 9–25 Google Scholar. He came to the following conclusions: Upāli died in 30 ab, Dāsaka was ordained in 16 and died in 60 ab, Soṇaka was ordained in 41 and also died in 60 ab, Siggava was ordained in 58 and died in 114 ab, Moggaliputta Tissa was ordained in 102 ab and Mahinda in 142 ab. Gombrich (1992), pp. 246, 251 and (2000), p. 19.
5 Following Gombrich (1992), p. 246.
6 Gombrich (1992), pp. 246, 251.
7 Prebish, C., “Cooking the Buddhist books: The implications of the new dating of the Buddha for the history of early Indian Buddhism”, Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 15 (2008), pp. 1–21 Google Scholar.
8 The 開元釋教錄 Kaiyuan shijiao lu, ‘A Buddhist catalogue of the Kaiyuan period’, compiled by Zhisheng in 730 and considered a standard reference, records that the Shanjian lü piposha was translated into Chinese between 488 and 489 ad, in Canton by the monk 僧 伽 跋 陀 羅 Sengqiebatuoluo, Saṅghabhadra. T55n2154, p. 535c22.
9 The Samantapāsādikā is a commentary on the Theravādavinaya, written at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century in Pāli and traditionally ascribed to the commentator Buddhaghosa. It can be dated in 369/370 ad or in 429/430 ad. Von Hinüber (1996), p. 104.
10 A: length of time they were regarded as vinayapāmokkha, leading expert on the vinaya. Cf. Dīpavaṃsa, v.96.
11 B: the time when they ordained the next in line. Cf. Dīpavaṃsa , iv.27–46 continued at v.69 and v.72 and Dīpavaṃsa, v. 76–82.
12 C: the time when they entered parinirvāṇa. Cf. Dīpavaṃsa, v.89–95 repeated at v.103–107.
13 Dīpavaṃsa, iv.41 states that Dāsaka ordained Soṇaka when he had completed 45 years. v.78, on the other hand, states 40 years for the same event.
14 Dīpavaṃsa, vii.24 states that Moggaliputta Tissa ordained Mahinda when he had completed 60 years, while v.82 states 66 years for the same event.
15 Dīpavaṃsa, v.94 states 86 years. In v.95, the number 80 is given, which is repeated at v.107. The date of Moggaliputta's death is moreover linked to Asoka's 26th year on the throne, in v.102.
16 Oldenberg, H., The Dipavamsa, An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record (New Delhi – Madras, [1879] 2001), p. 145Google Scholar.
17 Gombrich (2000), p. 20.
18 H. Bechert, “The origin and the spread of the Theravāda chronology”, in Bechert (ed.) (1991), pp. 329–343, p. 338; Gen'Ichi Yamazaki, “The lists of the patriarchs in the northern and southern legends’ in ibid., pp. 313–328, p. 316; Norman (1992), p. 302; Gombrich (2000), p. 19.
19 Oldenberg ([1879] 2001), pp. 95 and 202.
20 For example Kern (1898), p. 108; Rhys Davids (1877), p. [54] 418; Gombrich (1992), pp. 238, 243; Gombrich (2000), p. 19.
21 The Dīpavaṃsa gives 37 (iv.40) for the time when Dāsaka admitted Soṇaka into the order (Pāli pabbājesi) and the number 45 (iv.41) when he ordained him (Pāli: upasampanno). This directly contradicts my presumption that the two ordination procedures did not exist in the early years. However, this is the only example I have seen in the Dīpavaṃsa that explicitly differentiates between these two procedures; I see two possible explanations for this discrepancy. Either it is a later interpolation, or the difference between admittance and ordination did exist, but a minimum age of 20 was not necessarily prescribed.
22 Oldenberg, H., The Vinaya Piṭakaṃ: One of the Principal Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the Pāli Language. Vol. IV (Oxford, [1882] 1993), pp. 128–130 Google Scholar and Horner, I.B., The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-Piṭaka), Vol. III (Oxford, [1942] 2004), pp. 10–14 Google Scholar.
23 Gombrich (1992), p. 247: “Although the term vinaya-pāmokkha occurs several times in Dīp., it does not occur in any of the other relevant primary sources: P., Sp. and Mhv. It must strike us as odd, if these monks held so important an office, that those sources never mention the fact. The reason, however, is simple: there was no such office.”
24 Gombrich (2000), p. 21.
25 74–60 = 14; 64–40 = 24 or 64–45 = 19; 66–40 = 26; 76–64 = 12; 80–60 = 20 or 80–66 = 14 or 86–60 = 26 or 86–66 = 20.
26 E: The year in which they were ordained.
27 F: The date of their death.
28 A: length of time they were regarded as expert in their field.
29 B: a point of time when they ordained the next in line.
30 C: a point of time when they entered parinibbāna.
31 74–60 = 14; 64–40 = 24 or 64–45 = 19; 66–40 = 26; 76–64 = 12; 80–60 = 20 or 80–66 = 14 or 86–60 = 26 or 86–66 = 20.
32 E: year of ordination.
33 F: the year in which they died.
34 G: The third entry of column E, diminished by the second entry of the same column gives the result in G. Thus 56/61–16 = 40/45; 98- 56/61 = 37/42; 167–98 = 69; 221/227/233–167 = 54/60/66.
35 H: [F–E = H] Thus: 80–16 = 64; 124–56/61 = 63/68; 179–98 = 81; 247–167 = 80.
36 Cf Note 3 above.
37 D = C-B: 74–60 = 14; 64–40 = 24 or 64–45 = 19; 66–40 = 26; 76–64 = 12; 80–60 = 20 or 80–66 = 14 or 86–60 = 26 or 86–66 = 20.
38 Compare Table 4 above, columns G and H to columns B and C concerning Siggava.
39 A: date of ordination.
40 B: seniority following ordination until the year in which they ordain the next in line.
41 C: seniority following ordination until death.
42 D: the number of years that lie between the moment they ordained the next in line and they died themselves.
43 E: time of death.
44 F: the length of time they were regarded as experts in their field.
45 Dīpavaṃsa, iv.47 and v.16.
46 Dīpavaṃsa v.55, v.59.
47 Takakusu, J. and Nagai, M. (eds), Samantapāsādikā, Buddhaghosa's Commentary on the Vinaya Piṭaka, Vol. I (London, [1924] 1975), p. 33 Google Scholar.
48 Ibid., p. 35.
49 Dīpavaṃsa, iv.46–47.
50 Gombrich (2000), p. 18.
51 Cf. Note 6 above.
52 A: length of time they were regarded as vinaya expert.
53 B: seniority following ordination until the year in which they ordain the next in line.
54 C: seniority following ordination until death.
55 D: the number of years that lie between the moment they ordained the next in line and they died themselves.
56 Takakusu and Nagai, Vol. I ([1924] 1975), pp. 72–73.
57 T24n1462, p. 687.