著者

林 隆嗣

出版者

パーリ学仏教文化学会

雑誌

パーリ学仏教文化学 = Journal of Pali and buddhist studies (ISSN:09148604)

巻号頁・発行日

no.27, pp.21-46, 2013-12

---

The formation of the Tipitaka in Theravada history has been an object of study since the beginning of modern studies, and the notion of the "Canon" for a fixed list of Pali scriptures also has been reconsidered for the last several decades. However, studies of the canonization of the Pali scriptures have mainly focused on the extant set of the Tipitaka, including comparisons with the canonical collections in other Buddhist schools, while "apocryphal" works in contrast to "canon", which were to be excluded from a closed canon, have been for some reason neglected, except for considerably later works. The Samantapasadika classifies Buddhist texts regarding the exposition of dhammas, and here is a list of works outside of the Canon, namely, "those which were not listed in the three councils": the Kulumbasutta, the Rajovadasutta, the Tikkhindriya, the Catuparivatta, the Nandopananda as well as the Apalaladamana, of which the last one is not counted according to a Sihala-atthakatha (Mahapaccari). Those suttas are not found in the present Canon and seem to have been lost in the Theravada tradition. [Adikaram 1946: 98] mentioned them in the context of "other compilations, which were not recited at the three councils, but seem to have been accepted by the Theravadins". While [von Hinuber 1996/1997: sec. 437] noted that nothing is known about their contents, some of them are quoted in the Pali commentaries. This paper investigates the Atthasalini (As) which contains passages from the Kulumbasutta, from the Catuparivattasutta along with the Indriyagocarasutta and from an anonymous non-canonical sutta, contributing to the discussion on the nature and the date of the apocryphal texts in Theravada Buddhism. Same passage from the Kulumba-s is cited in several Pali commentaries, and it appears in the As in the discussion from the Maha-atthakatha as one of the leading Sihala-atthakathas. Comparison with the Chinese Agamas reveals that this sutta has phrases typical to the Pali Nikayas. The terminology and the method of analysis found in the quotation from the Catuparivatta-s and the Indriyagocara-s, formally evaluated as pariyayadesana, show the characteristic exclusive to the later Pali Abhidhamma, especially the Patthana. An anonymous sutta which was "not listed in the Council" is cited to support the interpretation of citta. Moreover, the first of the following three verses apparently related to this sutta is also not canonical. The third unfamiliar verse accompanied by the second canonical verse (Sn 654) preexists in the Kathavatthu where the opponent quotes and the Theravadins agree to them as suttantas and as what was said by the Buddha.