The idea suggested to us by the application of the word Neibban to these three objects is that of a cessation of action, cessation of existence, and cessation of being. Indeed, it is impossible not to see in the meaning of this word the horrifying idea of absolute annihilation. The writer frankly avows that he has been, during many years, unwilling to adopt a conclusion which the obvious meaning of the words point out in a clear manner. He hoped that a deeper insight into the system of Buddhism would lead him to a conclusion more consonant with reason. But he has been completely disappointed in his expectations. By what process of arguing has the founder of Buddhism arrived to such a despairing terminus? How has he been led into that horrible abyss? How has he contrived to silence the voice of conscience, and set aside the clearest innate notions of the human mind? Gaudama took his departure from a true principle, viz.: that there are miseries in this world, attending the condition of all beings moving within the circle of existences. But ignorant of the real cause that has imported miseries into this world, he never could discover the way by which man can convert them to a useful and beneficial result. He declared that all the efforts of a wise man ought to converge towards one point, that of freeing himself from all the states of existence. The four meggas or ways to perfection lead to that great result. By science, connected with the practice of virtue, the wise man frees himself from all passions, which are the real causes which make a being move in the circle of existences. When they are not subdued but exterminated, there is no longer a cause that impels man into another existence. The end of a being has come. When we speak of the end of a being, we understand its complete and entire destruction, or, in other terms, its Neibban. Nothing remains of him. The materialistic principles of genuine Buddhism forbid us to think of a soul or spiritual substance surviving the destruction of the terrestrial portion of man’s being. When Gaudama unfolds his precepts and maxims for guiding man in the acquisition of science and the destruction of his passions, he elicits the admiration, nay, the astonishment of the reader, at the sight of the profound knowledge of human nature which he displays. But this feeling soon gives place to another of pity, sadness, and horror, when one sees that he has been led to the brink of Neibban.
[30] Kathaba speaks of the Pitagat or collection of the scriptures as of a compilation that was to be put in writing for better securing its fixity and permanency, and preventing, as far as human wisdom could reach, the introduction of new and heterodox doctrines. I feel inclined to believe that this expression is put into the mouth of the patriarch, and that in all likelihood he never uttered it. It is probable that, during the first ages of Buddhism, the doctrines were not put in writing, but orally transmitted. For supporting this apparently incredible assertion, we have the testimony of the authors of the Cingalese collection, who distinctly state that, during more than two hundred years after the introduction of the religion in Ceylon, tradition was the only vehicle for transmitting the contents of the Pitagat. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the inhabitants of the Irrawaddy valley possessed a copy of the sacred scriptures previous to the voyage of Buddhagosa from Thaton to Ceylon in the beginning of the fifth century of our era. He went to that island for the express purpose of making a copy of the Pitagat, and bringing it over to his countrymen. Be that as it may, the question on this subject is far from being settled. It well deserves the attention of the learned. A satisfactory solution may throw a much wanted light upon the history of early Buddhism. When we consider that Maheinda, the son of the mighty and pious Athoka, was the head of the mission, which, after the termination of the third council, went to preach religion in Ceylon, it is impossible not to suppose that he would have brought over with him a copy of the collection of the sacred scriptures, had that collection been put in writing at the time that he left Pataliputra on his pious errand.
[31] The collection of the Buddhist scriptures is divided into three parts, called the three Pitagats, or the three baskets, respectively named the Wini Pitagat, the Thoots Pitagat, and the Abidama Pitagat. The manuscript that the writer has had for his use, though correct in the main, is certainly defective in the enumeration of the divisions and subdivisions of the three great collections. He will, however, mention them, such as they are enumerated by the Burmese author; the few errors that may be detected can easily be corrected by those who have in their possession the Ceylonese collection, as there is no doubt that the work now under consideration is an abridgment of a more voluminous compilation to be found in Ceylon.
The divisions of the Wini are: Bikoo Patimouk, Bikoonee Patimouk, Bikoo Witin (probably Bikoo Win), Bikooni Win, twelve Kandaka, and sixteen Pariwara.
The thoots are considered as the instructions orally delivered by Gaudama himself, either to his disciples in private, or to the assembled multitudes, during the forty-five years of his public mission. In this collection the disciples have learned the doctrines of the master, and found all the elements necessary to compose all the treaties, which subsequently have formed the collections called Wini Pitagat and Abidama Pitagat. No one could ever believe that the author of Buddhism could have busied himself in writing treatises on metaphysics, or minutely and elaborately publishing the regulations under which the body of his followers, called the Sanga, were to live and spend their time. In his instructions Gaudama gave utterance to certain principles, which, being appropriated by his disciples and their successors, were enlarged, developed, and reduced to the shape of a treatise. In fact, he sowed the seed which, being let into the soil of the mind of enthusiastic disciples, grew up and multiplied into the voluminous above-named collections. Genuine Buddhism must be found in the thoots of the oldest stamp. Anywhere else we meet with the Buddhism such as it has been developed by doctors and commentators.
There are four collections of the thoots, named Nidia Nike, Midzima Nike, Thangoutta Nike, and Engouttara Nike. They are likewise arranged under fifteen heads, called: Koudakapata, Dammapata, Oodana, Ithi, Wouthaka, Thouttanibat, Wi, Mama-wouttoo, Pita-wouttoo, Terakatta, Terikatta, Dzattakani, Piti-sambika, Apadana, Buddha-wattoo.
The Abidamma has seven divisions, viz., Dammathingakani, Wittin, Datoogatta, Pouggala-pignia, Kathawattoo, Yamaik, Patan.
The attentive reader cannot be but surprised to see how the three great divisions of the Buddhistic scriptures are mentioned by the members of the first council as things already existing and arranged with the same method as they have been disposed during succeeding ages. It is certain that such divisions of Gaudama’s doctrines did not then exist at that time. Are we to conclude therefrom that the fact of the holding of the first council is to be rejected as a mere invention, because the mode of relating some particulars concerning that great assembly is liable to be seriously objected to? It seems that such a conclusion would be a too hasty one.
For establishing the fact of the holding of the first council, we have the evidence supplied to us by all the Buddhistic writings, found in the various countries where that religion has been established. Moreover, several monuments of great antiquity allude to that first assembly. We can scarcely raise a doubt upon the existence of the fact. But how are we to account for the manner in which mention is made of compilations which undoubtedly were not existing at that time? The redaction of all the particulars connected with the first assembly must have been made a considerable time after the holding of the said assembly, at an epoch when the Buddhistic scriptures had already been arranged under three distinct heads. The author, familiar with the division or compilation into three parts, called Pitagats, has arranged his narration in such a way as to give it a sort of agreement with a form which he thought must have been as familiar to others as it was to himself. It is probable that most of the points of discussion, such as we find them in the narrative, were actually brought forward before the assembly, but in a shape more simple and general, and less technical and positive. This is what can be said in the present imperfect knowledge of the history of Buddhism, for extenuating the charge of wilful forgery, which might be brought against the author of the redaction. On the other hand, whilst prudent discretion commands us not to be too hasty in passing a sweeping condemnation upon the compilation, we must be very cautious in not admitting at once, and not giving an absolute credit to all that is found in writings which do convey to us many things of great antiquity, but evidently mixed with multifarious details of a comparatively modern origin. This last remark ought to be ever present to the mind of him who peruses some portions of the Pitagats. The huge mass of rubbish which constitutes the largest portion of the scriptures is the production of the various Buddhistic schools which flourished eight and ten centuries after the first council.
[32] The few and meagre particulars which we possess respecting the causes that have occasioned the holding of the second council, disclose a curious state of things as existing in the Buddhist community. The disciplinary regulations appear to have occupied a conspicuous part in the discussions that took place during the period of the first century. Some of those regulations were of trifling importance. We wonder how the religious could lay so much stress upon such a trifle as this, “Is is lawful to put salt or other condiments into articles of food, that would have been offered without such requisites?” The activity displayed by both parties in the controversy indicates the gradual working of opinions which in those parts had been always inimical to genuine Buddhism. In Wethalie and Thawattie, the holders of false tenets had been at all times bold and numerous. In the days of Buddha, heretics were swarming in those places. In the beginning of the fifth century of our era, Fa-hian, when he visited those places, says that he found that religion had almost disappeared, and that heretics were prevailing in every direction. We must conclude from these two circumstances that Buddhism never flourished in those places, or, at least, that it was never the prevailing creed of the mass of the people.