Home | Temple | Calendar | Buddhism | Photo Gallery | Newsletter | Bookstore | Resources and Links

Buddhist Literature

1. Introduction
2. Sources: Pali Canon
3. Sources: Sanskrit Canons
4. Sources: Chinese Canon
5. Sources: Tibetan Canon

Introduction

A major characteristic of the Buddhist Tradition is that it has never placed a dogmatic or exclusivist value upon its written sources.  It is therefore impossible – at least where Buddhism is concerned – to speak of a single “Sacred Book” for which there would be only one possible canonical edition and/or interpretation.  Given that there is no “Buddhist Bible” as such, it is therefore – strictly speaking - also incorrect to refer to the collections of Buddhist literature as the Buddhist Canon.[1] 

The term Buddhist literature spans a gigantic collection of various works of diverse natures, all of them having a consensual reference value as being inspired by the fundamental teachings of the Buddha.  This however does not necessarily imply that they all – in a text-historical sense - date back to the time of the historical Buddha.  A large portion of the literature however does date back to the time of the Buddha or shortly thereafter[2].   

We notice – especially during a textual study of the older texts – that style and choice of subject are dependent upon the addressed audience.  Generally speaking one can distinguish three distinct types of audience in the older texts (i.e. texts until the 3^rd Century CE).  Texts that address the monastic community will be mostly concerned with disciplinary rules, didactic formulations of doctrine, methods of meditation, etc.; towards the lay community (among whom we find kings, craftsmen, merchants, farmers, women and children…) the emphasis will be mostly on “right living”, i.e. ethics, codes of behavior, social relations, etc.; a last type can be categorized under the label “specialists”: brahmans, recluses and hermits, sages (the so-called “muni”), including those of the “opposition”.  For them the texts will focus mostly on subjects relating to metaphysics and soteriology.  All of this, of course, contributes to the wide variety found within the corpus of Buddhist literature. 

In later times (4^th until 9^th Century) Buddhist literature seems to direct itself more towards set publics: philosophy (polemic debate, logic, metaphysics), popular devotional forms, history, etc. 

This diversity brings with it that many subjects will be approached in various ways, sometimes even seemingly contradictory ways.  Remarkable however remains the fact that these contradictions never seem to have had any repercussions on the basic content of the Buddha Dharma. 

The absence of any authoritative pressure makes that traditional Buddhist literature is a vast and open world of thought.  Because of its size, it is humanly impossible to know the complete contents of it.  Every path within the Buddhist tradition will therefore make a selection of its own preferred texts.  This however does not mean that within any given path the study of texts is limited by the preferred texts.[3] 

Division 

Within Buddhist literature we can distinguish several divisions. 

A first general division is that of Sutra’s and Sastra’s. 

1. Sutra’s: ‘Discourses’ mostly attributed to the Buddha himself.  They form the textual basis of the Dharma (Teaching).  A discussion about their historicity however is irrelevant.  We know for fact that for the first centuries the Dharma was transmitted orally and therefore remains historically untraceable.  It was only after three or four centuries that the first discourses were actually written down.  This makes any comparison with the Christian or Quranic literature impossible.  Since the period of compilation is so long, the question could arise whether ‘later’ texts are to be regarded as “apocryphal” or not.  The Buddhist answer to such questions is very clear: when a discourse provides a valid expression of the contents of the Dharma, than the text is more important than the probable author or time of composition.
    
2. Sastra’s: ‘Commentaries’, either anonymous or by author, on the discourses.  Often these commentaries do not only provide new wordings but also new insights to discourses.  This makes that they are of major importance in the origination and formation of the different currents and schools within the Buddhist tradition.

Other divisions will be mentioned in the chapter on “Sources”.  A special form of division – the so-called critical division according to theme – is found in China.  E.g. Chih-I divides the literary transmission according to “Periods of the Propagation of Sakyamuni” (p’an-chiao): 

1. Immediately following the Enlightenment: Avatamsaka-sutra (Garland Sutra);
2. First sermons: Agama (discourses of the Smaller Vehicle);
3. Elementary Mahayana: Vaipulya (most discourses of the Greater Vehicle);
4. Perfection of Wisdom: Mahaprajñaparamita (the philosophical basis of the Mahayana)
5. Buddha’s last years: Saddharmapundarika- and Mahaparinirvana-sutra’s (climax of the teaching).

Language (-s) 

Exactly what language the historical Buddha spoke remains an unanswered question.  Up to the present no conclusive documentation has been provided to suggest a particular language.  Modern scholars, mostly philologists, hold to the thesis that the Buddha spoke and ‘old East-Indian’ prakrit (popular language), probably preceding the later Magadhi (which is known primarily through the inscriptions found on Emperor Asoka’s columns). 

Through a combination of textual research and archaeological findings we now know for sure that during the earliest dissemination of Buddhism throughout India a number of Middle-Indian dialects were used.  The idea that the oldest Buddhist texts were recorded in a single language is therefore rejected. 

That such a recording could not have taken place in Sanskrit becomes clear when reading several historical or textual sources (e.g. Cullavagga 5:33 – see box) in which the Buddha rejects the translation to Vedic or Sanskrit, the literary or ritual language of those days,[4] and in which he states that the words of the Buddha should be proclaimed in the dialect of the listener. 

The fact that Indian Buddhist texts have largely been preserved in Pali (Middle-west Indian dialect), in BHS (Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) and in classical Sanskrit is mainly due to the diverse language- and religious communities in which the texts were put to writing (mainly during the 1^st through 4^th centuries).  Sporadically texts in other Middle-Indian languages such as e.g. Gandhari, Paisaci, Ardha-Magadhi, etc. are recovered. 

With the spreading of the Dharma outside of India the need for a systematic and precise translation of the scriptures into other non-Indian languages became necessary.  Another way of overcoming this problem (clearly against the advice of the Buddha) was to enforce a scriptural language upon peoples outside India.  This was mainly the case with the Pali texts.  In countries where Theravada Buddhism was the dominant school, Pali was enforced as the religious and liturgical language.  (e.g. in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Kampuchea, Laos). 

The texts that were written in BHS (Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) and classical Sanskrit were ‘exported’ to Central Asia and for the greater part were translated locally into Khotanese, Ferghanese, Sogdian, Thokhari, Uighur, etc.  Of these translations only fragments remain.  Now and then, however, new fragments of Sanskrit texts and/or their translations are being discovered, e.g. in Kasakhstan. 

The translation of texts into Chinese started fairly early after the introduction of Buddhism in China.  (Tradition would date this in 67 CE, historians however agree the date to be more like 2^nd century).  The oldest extent translations are ascribed to two Buddhists from Kushan (Parthia): An Shih-kao (c. 170) and Lokaksema (147-185). 

Given their different cultural attitudes the translation of Indian Buddhist texts into Chinese posed a great number of difficulties.  Sanskrit, which is an Indo-European language, has the use of an enormous wealth of pre- and suffixes, of word-combinations, grammatical and linguistic structures.  Classical Chinese, on the other hand, has no flexural possibilities and hardly is capable of expressing purely abstract terms. 

Because of this fundamental difference in language Chinese translations have gone through an entire evolution.  Usually, three distinct translation-periods are recognized: a first one (2^nd – 4^th century) characterized by an extensive use of transliteration[5] and Taoist terminology.  As an example of this period we see e.g. the Sanskrit word ‘Dharma’ (Teaching) being transliterated as ‘Ta-mo’ or being translated with the term ‘Tao’.  In a second period we notice the introduction of a newly created terminology or a reinterpreted Chinese terminology.  In this period, which knows a climax with the translation work of Kumarajiva (beginning 5^th century), we find terms such as ‘fa’ (literally ‘Law’) as a translation for ‘Dharma’.  The final period, from the T’ang-dynasty onwards, is characterized by the reworking of older translations, especially by renowned translators such as Hsüan-tsang (596-664) and Amoghavajra (705-774). 

Ever since Kumarajiva, translation became a typical teamwork in which special attention was given to a correct lecture of the original text and to a correctly rendered translation compliant with the literary standards of the Chinese language.  Often texts were translated more than once.  When new Sanskrit texts were received they were first checked for possible earlier translations.  If an earlier translation indeed existed it was than checked for significant differences in which case the new text would be translated in its entirety again.  This accounts for the fact that at a certain moment 12 versions of the Larger Sukhavati Sutra (Pure Land Sutra) were in circulation.  To avoid useless discussions and ‘hairsplitting’ the original Sanskrit text was destroyed after its translation. 

The texts that were translated into Tibetan (between the 9^th and 14^th centuries) underwent a different strategy.  Before actually translating a text a group of monks would come together to decide which original text was the best.  When this was decided a text was then translated into classical Tibetan.  This translation would then be presented to the most important abbots.  If they unanimously gave their approval of the translation, the text was ‘canonized’.  If  the approval was not unanimous, the text had to be translated again.  In contrast to the Chinese method in which different translations of one title co-existed, the Tibetan method knows only one translation for each title.[6]   

With the modern translation of Buddhist texts into Western languages we also encounter a number of difficulties, mainly as a result of the different ways in which languages are “sensed”.  Very obvious is e.g. the conscious - or even unconscious - attitude of using Hellenistic or Judeo-Christian terminology in which the meaning of certain terms often shifts away from the original meaning.  There is also a difficulty in finding a unified vocabulary.  All of this led to the Dalai Lama’s statement that all translations prior to 1956 should be revised…and…that all translations should be made by experienced Buddhists. 

In Conclusion 

There is only One Dharma, the Saddharma, the ‘Wonderful, Excellent Teaching’.  However, this Saddharma expresses itself in 84,000 different voices, approaches and opinions, all in function of time and place, and especially in function of the conceptual understanding and the willingness to practice of the follower. 

ñ