2 The Book of the Discipline,III. p. xxxii. n.1 and p. l viii.
2 Journal Asiatique,1913, p.548
1 B.C.Law, History of Pali Literature, I.46-47, 49
Winternitz, History of Indian Literature, II.24
N.Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism, 1960, p.152
S.Dutt, Early Budhist Monachism, p.75
Miss Horner, Book of the Discipline, I.p.x.
Rhys Davids, Buddhism, its History and Literature, 1896, p. 54. However, in The Questions of King Milinda he says that the regulations in the Pātimokkha are only 220 in number. See SBE 35, p.203.n.1 (1890).
3 We should here take note of the explanation which the Commentaries give for the exclusion of the guilty monk from the assembly which had met for the recital of the Pātimokkha by the Buddha. It is said that if the Buddha recited the Pātimokkha with the guilty monk present in the assembly it would have spelt disaster for the guilty monk: sattadhā tassa muddhā phālessati. Thus, out of compassion for him the Buddha declined to recite the Pātimokkha in that assembly. See UdA.296; AA.IV.112
1 The Commentarial tradition maintains that the recital of sikkhāpadaas the Pātimokkha (āṇā pātimokkha) belongs exclusively to the Bhikkhus and not to the Buddha. See VinA.I.187; UdA.298.
2 M.III.10; Vin.I.103; IV.144
1 Taisho,Vol.22. p.128 C
2 Taisho,Vol. 22. p.447 B
1 i.e. other than in the story of the Suspension of the Pātimokkha which occurs at Vin.II. 236f, Udāna 51f, A.IV.204f.
1 A tradition in the Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā makes out the recital to be held every seventh year. See DhpA.III.237
2 Dhammapada vv.183,184,185. See DhpA.III.237.
3 Ibid.v.185. It is a pity that Sukumar Dutt has completely missed this very significant stanza. See his Early Buddhist Monachism, p.71
1 S.II.5-9, 106; A.II.21; Vin.III.7ff.
2 However, this is not true of the extant Mahāpadāna Sutta which gives a detailed account of the Pātimokkha recital of the Buddha Vipassi. See D.II.47- 49
3 The Sutta, however, does not use the term ovāda pātimokkhawith reference to this recital.
6 See VinA. I.186 f. where Buddhaghosa quotes extensively from Vin.II.240. Sabbabuddhānaṃ hi imā tisso ovādapātimokkhagāthā honti. Tā dīghāyukabuddhānaṃ yāva sāsanapariyantā uddesaṃāgacchanti. Appāyukabuddhānaṃ paṭhamabodhiyam eva sikkhāpadapaññattikālato pabhuti āṇāpātimokkham eva uddisīyati. Tañ ca kho bhikkhū yeva uddisanti na buddhā. Tasmā amhākam'pi bhagavā paṭhamabodhiyaṃ vīsativassamattaṃ eva idaṃ ovādapātimokkhaṃ uddisi. Tato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūāṇāpātimokkhaṃ uddisanti. VinA.I.187
1 Ibid.II.240. See also Vin.I.125
1 See also M.I.437f, 448f; A.I.230, 236; Vin.III.177, IV.142f.
3 Vin.IV.142f. Pācittiya 72.
1 Inspite of the diversity of opinion which existed regarding the identity of the khuddānukhuddaka sikkhāpada, the followers of the Aṅguttara tradition seems to have maintained this division up to the time of Buddhaghosa. Note: Imaṃ pana aṅguttaramahānikāyavalañjanakācariyā cattāri pārājikāni ṭhapetvā sesāni sabbāni'pi khuddānukhuddakānī'ti vadanti. AA.II.348. See Vin.II.288 for the diversity of opinion referred to above.
1 D.II.154: Yo vo ānanda mayā dhammo ca vinayo ca desito paññatto so vo mam'accayena satthā.
2 Vin.II.287, 290. See also D.II.154
1 D.II.154 and Vin.II.287
2 Taisho,Vol.23.p.449 B
3 Ibid.Vol.22.p.191 B
4 Ibid.p.967 B
1 Taisho,Vol.22.p.492 B-C.
2 Ibid.p.492 B
1 Ibid.p.492 C
3 Ibid.p.491 B-C.
2 It is said that the Mahāsaṅghikas branched off from the parent Theriya tradition after the ten disputed points of Vinaya which they put forward had been rejected by the orthodox Theriya group. See Dīpavaṃsa,Ed. Oldenberg. p.36
3 Rhys Davids, The Questions of King Milinda, Part I. [SBE.35] p.202
1 DA.II.592f. See also Miln.144
1 M.II.8; III.10
1 This interpretation is supported by the Samantapāsādikā which takes nigama, nagara and gāma to be all in the same category: Ettha ca nigamanagarānam'pi gāmen'eva saṅgaho veditabbo. VinA.V.1050. PTS Dictionary equates gāmantavihārī to āraññaka. This is obviously a mistaken identification, for the two terms are regularly used in antithesis as is clearly seen from the following example: Āraññakenā'pi kho āvuso moggallāna bhikkhunā ime dhammā samādāya vattitabbā pageva gāmantavihārinā'ti. M.I.273.
See also M.I.30f. See supra p.7.
1 The Samantapāsādikā defines an abbhantara as being twenty-eight cubits in length. See VinA.V.1052
1 See The Book of the Discipline IV. p.145
1 See VinA.V.1053, 1055, 1056
2 Malalasekera, Pali Literature of Ceylon,p.202
3 Bode, Pali Literature of Burma, p.39.n.1.
4 See Taw Sein Ko's Preliminary Study of the Kalyāni Inscriptions of Dhammaceti. 1476 A.D. (Ind. Ant. xxii,p.11f.).
5 Malalasekera, op.cit. p.251
1 Kanjin arrived at Nara in Japan in 753 A.D.
2 See Sir Charles Eliot, Japanese Buddhism, p.231f.
3 The statements within inverted commas which are reproduced above are extracts from the English summary of the introduction to the Sīmānayadappana of Dhammālaṅkāra Thera (published 1885 A.D.). This treatise, as would be clear from the notes above, was in support of the charge that the Sīmā at Balapitimodara in Ceylon was ritualistically invalid and it attempts to meet the arguments of the Sīmālakkhanadipanī of Vimalasāra Thera which was written in defence of the said Sīmā. (Published 1881A.D.).