О хронологии Канона.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PALI CANON*
BY DR. BIMALA CHURN LAW, Ph. D., M. A., B. L.http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/bcl.htm
From Orsborn (Huifeng) 2009: 9-14
3. Compilation and Stratification of the Early Canon
Although, as Hinüber notes, few studies have been conducted on the structure of the Theravāda Nikāyas (Hinüber 1996: 25), considerably more has been attempted with the Chinese sources, especially those from the Sarvāstivāda tradition. Part of the reason may be that very few specialist Pāli scholars are also able to examine the Chinese translations for comparison, whereas Chinese and Japanese translations of the Pāli Canon, which though not 100% reliable, have allowed Japanese and Chinese scholars in particular to access all the relevant early sources. Although the Āgamas / Nikāyas provide the most detail regards the doctrine of the Buddha, the various Vinayas also provide critical information, too, especially regards historical matters.
Two studies in particular are very useful in this area, Yinshun’s (1971) Compilation of the Early Buddhist Canon, and Nakamura’s (1980) Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Both include the Āgamas / Nikāyas, the Vinaya, and other Abhidharma and śāstras, with much reference to earlier Japanese scholarship in this area, which considers all available sources. In the end, it is only from such studies which cover all the literature that we may gain a full picture of the development of the canon – others will continue to retain source and / or sectarian biases. This can be supplemented by Pande’s Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, which though mostly lacking the comparative basis, does have a wealth based on linguistic analysis and considers the broader picture of ancient Indian religious literature. These three studies, each with their own merits, when taken together should produce an optimum result.
We shall begin with Yinshun, as his study is most thorough and detailed. He presents four main stages of the compilation of the canon within the early Nikāyan schools (cf. Yinshun 1971: 867ff):
1. Post-parinibbāna: Compilation of the Buddha Dharma into Dhamma and Vinaya (Sutta Piṭaka and Vinaya Piṭaka), the former being the Four Āgamas, and the latter the Paṭimokkha / Prātimokṣa.
a、 The earliest parts of (what would later become Theravāda) KN are:
i. Pārāyana of the Suttanipāta.
ii. Aṭṭhakavagga (Atthakavagga / Arthavargīya) of the Suttanipāta.
iii. Dhammapada or Udānavarga.
iv. (Also parts of the Mahāvastu).
b、 The Dhamma:
i. Sutta / sūtra – the bulk of the suttas in the nidāna-, dhātu-, ṣaḷāyanata-, vedanā-, khandha-, magga-, bojjhaṅga-, satipaṭṭhāna-, indriya-, sammappadhāna-, bala-, iddhipāda-, anāpānāsati-, jhāna- and sacca-saṃyuttas of SN (& SĀ) (cf. Yinshun 1980: 526f).
ii. Geya / geyya – verses, also known as gāthā and / or udāna, which is the Sagāthā-vagga of SN (& SĀ).
c、 Some of the Jātakas and Avadānas were also recited at this time.
2. Circa 300 bce, the Saṃgha split into Sthaviras and Mahāsaṃghikas.
i. Vyākaraṇa / veyyākaraṇa added to geyya and sutta. Those of Tathāgata- and sāvaka-veyyākaraṇa. These are equivalent to the lakkhaṇa-, nāga-, supaṇṇa-, garuda-, valāhaka-, sotāpatti-, diṭṭhi- (and moggallāna-)saṃyuttas of SN (& SĀ) (cf. Yinshun 1980: 526f). These are largely in the khandha-vagga.
b、 The Sthaviras began their Abhidhamma / Abhidharma, which they held as the word of the Buddha (either explicitly or implicitly), and thus the third Piṭaka.
c、 The Vinaya khaṇḍa was established by this point.
d、 Formalization of Theragāthā and Therigāthā, as well as the Jātakas and Avadānas.
e、 The (third) convocation at Pāṭaliputra in the mid 3rd century bce, marks the separation of the Sthaviras into Sarvāstivāda and Vaibhajyavāda, (and further split of the Abhidhamma / Abhidharma).
3. From circa 250–100 bce, schools split into a total of 18+ schools. The major schools further finalized the teachings into their own distinctive canons, and the smaller schools largely relied on these.
a、 Each school’s Vinaya Piṭaka had content specific to that school, and some also established their own Abhidharma and commentarial texts.
b、 The Khuddhaka, which was originally part of the Sutta Piṭaka, became an independent Piṭaka for some, with its Jātakas and Avadānas featuring prominently (cf. Yinshun 1980: 536ff, 550).
c、 The Sarvāstivāda did not establish such a Piṭaka, but put some of the content into one section of their Vinaya.
4. Subsequently, there were further changes amongst the schools, some adding more texts to their literature. For example:
a、 Late Mahāsaṃghika took the texts on the deeds of the bodhisattva in the fourth Piṭaka, and adding the Vaipulya Mahāyāna (方等大乘), established the Bodhisattva Piṭaka.
b、 The Dharmagupta established *Mantra- (or *Vidyā-? / *Dhāraṇi-?) Piṭaka 《咒藏》 and Bodhisattva Piṭaka 《菩薩藏》, five in total (cf. Yinshun 1980: 513, 540, 550).
c、 This ever-increasing bodhisattva literature also includes the Buddhavaṃsa and Cariyāpiṭaka in the Theravāda, and such material was part of a general trend in virtually all the schools, that was gradually gaining popularity everywhere.
Nakamura relies largely on the work of Ui, as he classifies the earlier portions of the Pāli scriptures into several groups according to the chronological order (cf. Nakamura 1980: 27-29):
1 Pārāyana (of the Suttanipāta)
2.a The first four stages of the Suttanipāta, and the first Sagāthāvagga of the Saṃyutta-nikaya.
2.b Itivuttaka, Udāna.
2.c The first eight vaggas of Nidāna-saṃyutta of the Saṃmyutta-nikāya II and Vedalla, as was mentioned by Buddhaghosa; ie. MN, nos. 9, 21, 43, 44, 109, 110; DN no. 21.
3 The twenty-eight Jātakas which are found at Bharhut and Abbhutadhamma, as was mentioned by Buddhaghosa; ie. AN, IV, nos. 127, 128, 129, 130 (Vol II, pp. 130-133); VIII, nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; MN 123 (Vol III, p. 118f)
All of these largely agree with Yinshun (above). Nakamura also considers that “some verses of the Sagāthā-vagga have features more archaic than those of the Suttanipāta”, and has two literary assumptions, namely: 1. That “generally speaking, gāthās were composed earlier, but there are some exceptions”; and 2. Stock phrases are usually earlier, but not always. In conclusion, he feels that “[c]riticism must proceed verse by verse and phrase by phrase, with careful attention to the linguistic and metrical peculiarities of the literature being studied.” (Nakamura 1980: 27)
When we consider the period which we consider as “early” Buddhism, both Yinshun and Nakamura also indicate the various strata of the Āgamas, in particular with regard the system of nine-limbs or twelve limbs. For Yinshun, this is before the fundamental split between the Sthaviras and Mahāsaṃghikas. In his analysis of compilation of the four Āgamas / Nikāyas (Yinshun 1971: 629ff), he places the SĀ / SN (& AltSĀ) as the earliest, and his rearrangement of its contents, following on the earlier work of Lü Cheng (呂澂), shows a system which is in general shared amongst the Sthavira traditions. He considers three sections as the earliest: 1. sūtra / sutta (修多羅); 2. geya / geyya (祇夜); 3. vyākaraṇa / veyyākaraṇa (記說), further divided into those taught by the Tathāgata and those taught by the disciples, with the subsequent vargīyas being a process of continual additions (Yinshun 1971: 694ff, 788ff; cf Choong 1999: 5ff). Although Bodhi considers the SN as the third of the Nikāyas (which is the traditional Theravāda position), his brief comparison of the Saṃyuttas of SN and SĀ “reveals a remarkable correspondence of contents arranged in a different order” (Bodhi 2000: 21, 29ff). MN / MĀ and DN / DĀ are somewhat more disparate, however, and their alignment with texts in other Āgamas is strongly suggestive of their being later compilations. MN / MĀ “emphasizes the Saṃgha” and is a “continuation of doctrinal teachings”, whereas DN / DĀ appears to contain more which is “(later) adaptations to society” (Yinshun 1971: 694ff, 747, 788ff). MN / MĀ are important for us here, as they contain the Cūla- and Mahā-śūnyatā Sūtras, which prima facie at least are core texts concerning the early doctrine of śūnyatā. DN / DĀ are of more secondary value, as they seldom explicitly teach śūnyatā, though the Brahmajāla Sutta is considered a definitive explanation of Buddhist right view. All these cross-comparisons of the first three Āgamas are based on those from Sthavira lineages, whereas EĀ is late Mahāsaṃghika, making it difficult to compare with AN. Yinshun himself only deals with the EĀ in his “sectarian” and not “early” period in Investigations into Śūnyatā (Yinshun 1985: 133f). However, both of these are almost certainly later compilations, their arrangement reflecting a mātikā structured format, which was a basis for the early Abhidharma literature (Yinshun 1971: 788ff). Unfortunately, this means that almost all of our sources for “early Buddhism”, and much of the first stages of the Nikāyan sectarian period, are all from branches of the Sthavira lineage. Such a source bias cannot be helped, in the present day and age, we have no other option!
On the stratification of the Āgamas, Nakamura (1980: 28-29) states that “The process of the formalization of the 12 aṅgas can be divided into the following three stages.” 1. The former five of the 9 aṅgas (ie. sutta, geyya, veyyakaraṇa, gāthā, udāna); 2. The latter four of the 9 aṅgas (ie. itivuttaka, jātaka, vedalla, abbhutadhamma); 3. The three aṅgas peculiar to the form of the 12 aṅgas (ie. nidāna, avadāna, upadeśa). These happen to correspond quite closely to the first three stages in Yinshun’s analysis. Nakamura’s inclusion here of the vedalla class as the second stage, does seem to be in discord with his position in 2c earlier, which considers the two Vedalla Suttas – Mahā- and Cūḷa- – as very early. He also provides reference to a verse in the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣa 《薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙》 which illustrates this schools opinion on the purpose of each of the four Āgamas (cf. Nakamura 1980: 32 n5).
Pande (1957: 51-77) confirms the antiquity of the Pārāyaṇa- and Aṭṭhaka-vaggas in the Sutta-nipāta, as well as many of the verses in the Udāna. He likewise analyzes the DN, MN, SN and AN, though the results are too detailed to list here, there are a couple of relevant points worth mentioning: In the MN, the two Vedalla Suttas are both considered “late”, most of the other MN suttas that we shall use below are of “uncertain” date (Pande 1957: 179). In the SN, the Sagāthā-vagga “has a greater proportion of early suttas than the other vaggas” (ibid. 181) – this equates to the geyya section of Yinshun and Nakamura’s first stages (Yinshun 1971: 517, 701, 824). Although Pande’s work only gives relative dates within each Nikāya, his literary, phonetic and metrical analysis largely confirms Yinshun’s results, which did not have the benefit of working directly with the Pāli language.
 Yinshun’s dating may seem rather late compared to earlier views giving the Buddha’s life as circa 563–483 bce, eg. Conze (1962: 31), Warder (1970: 44-45). Recent research confirms Yinshun, however, giving the Buddha’s parinibbāna as “approximately a few decades on either side of 400 bce”, and is supported also by Gombrich (in Prebish 2008: 3, 16). This makes the first council, 100 or 116 years later, in which the Sthaviras and Mahāsaṃghikas split at circa 304-283 bce. In general, this conforms to Japanese scholarship in the area, cf. Hirakawa (1990: 22-23), Ui and Nakamura (1980: 14), based upon earlier research, to which Yinshun had access.
 Nakamura (1980: 27 n27) has Ui Hakuju, 印度哲學研究 Indo Tetsugaku Kenkyū (Studies in Indian Philosophy), Vol. 2, pp. 157f.
 Here, Nakamura (1980: 28 n35-44) relies heavily on the work of Mayeda Egaku: Genshi Bukkyō Seiten no Seiritsushi Kenkyū (原始佛教聖典之成立史研究 A History of the formation of original Buddhist texts), Sankibo Busshorin, Tokyo, 1964, pp. 480ff. 477ff.; and Mizuno Kōgen: Nippon Bukkyō Gakukai Nenpō (日本佛教學會年報 The Journal of the Nippon Buddhist Research Association); et al.
 Nakamura (1980: 32 n5), the original text is Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣa 《薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙》卷1：「為諸天世人隨時說法。集為增一。是勸化人所習。為利根眾生說諸深義。名中阿含。是學問者所習。說種種隨禪法。是雜阿含。是坐禪人所習。破諸外道。是長阿含。」(CBETA, T23, no. 1440, p. 503, c27-p. 504, a1) 〔隨〕－【宋】【元】【明】。
“1. The Dharma taught according to occaision to the gods and people of the world, were compiled into the Ekottara. Those who preach train in this [Āgama]. 2. Those teachings on the profound meaning for the sake of living beings of sharp faculties are named the Madhyamāgama. Those who are erudite in learning train in this [Āgama]. 3. The teachings on various methods (dharmas) of dhyāna are the Saṃyuktāgama. Those who are dhyānīs train in this [Āgama]. 4. [Those teachings] which refute the heterodox paths, are the Dīrghāgama.”http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=86773&view=findpost&p=1169027