Vol.63 , No.3(2015)213清水 俊史「『論事』(Kathavatthu)を正典化する理論」

Jburnal

_ofindian

and BuddhistStualiesVbl.

63,

No.

3,

March

2015

(149)

The

Doctrinal

Canonization

of

the

Kathavatthu

SHIMIzu

Tbshifumi

Introduction

To date,research intothe_{problem of}

identifying

_the

doctrinal

basisfbrvesting authority

in

textsas "the

word of the

Buddha,"

and theiracknowledgement as canon-even when

they are authored by Buddhist_priestsmany _{generationsremoved} from _thehistorical

Bud-dha-has

been advanced _primarily

in

connection with

Mah5yana

Buddhism and theworks of

the

SarvastivEda,

which

is

a

Buddhist

school thatwas once active

in

the

Indian

subcon-.tlnent.

An identicalphenomenon can also

be

seen

in

comiection with theTherav5da school that

flourishedin

Sri

Lanka,

fbr

theTheravada canon

includes

theKbthavatthu,_which

is

_a

Bud-dhist

scripture composed

by

Tissa,a monk who livedmore than two centuries after the deathof theBuddha. However, there

has

not

_yet

been

sufficient investigationofthe

doctri-nal

basis

fbr

the

inclusion

of the

Kdthavatthu

in

thecanon. Therefore,this_paperconsiders

the

doctrine

behind

thecanonization ofthe Kathavatthu.

1.

Karmic

_Thil

of

the

Kbtha'vatthu

First,letus examine thetradition of theKbthavatthu'screation.

We

have

been

left

with

thetradition,aswritten

in

the

Kathavatthu-Aglhakatha

(N.

A.

Jayawickrama,

ed.

[London:

Pali[fextSociety,1979]

)

,that

"while

the

direct

author of theKathdvatthuwas

Tissa,

a

fig-ure who

lived

more thantwo centuries after thedeathof

the

Buddha,

thesubject of

dis-course

(matika,

i.e.,

_thecore elements ofthe text)thatserve as the substance ofthe

Kdtha-vatthu

is

theteachingof the

Buddha

himsel

£" _In

response tothistradition,_an

interlocutor

appears

in

the

Dhammasafigapt-Agghahathn

_{who argues thattheKtithdvatthushould}

be

re-moved from thecanon:

But theVitapdaschool say: "Why

bringintheKdtha-vatthu?Wtisitnot settledbyTissa,Moggali's - 1243

-(150)

The DoctrinalCanonizationefthe Kdthavatthu

(T.

SHIMrzu)

son,two hundredand eighteen _yearsafter theBuddha'sParinibbana?Henceitis

[mereiy]

theword ofhiadisciples.RejectiV'

(Dhammasahgani-A#hahathi,

Edward MUIIer,ed.

[LQndon:

Palifext

Society,1979],p.3.2s-2g)i)

Inresponse tothiscontroversy, theTheravada school offers thefbllowingreason

fbr

the text'sinclusioninthecanon.

Now when helaiddown thetableofcontents heforesawthat,t-'Qhundredand eighteen _yearsafter

hisdeath,Tisaa,Moggali'sson, seated inthe midst of one thousand bhikkhus,would elaborate the

1<dthivatthutothe extent of the Digha Mkdya, bringingtogether fivehundred orthodox and five

hundTedheterodoxSuttas.SoTissa,Moggali'sson, expounded thebook not byhisown knowledge

butaccording tothe subject of discourse

(matik5)

laiddown,as well as by the method _given,by

the[[leacher.Hencetheentire bookbecamethe word ofthe Buddha.

(Dhammasanga4i-Atthakatha,

P.4.24-34)2)

Inother words, thisexplanation holdsthat"the Kathavatthuwas not written

indepen-dently

by

Tissa

on the

basis

ofhis own

knowledge,

but

rather,

because

it

was written on the

fbundation

of the subject of discourse

(m5tika)

left

behind

by

the Buddha himselC the

Kathavatthu

was also `the word of the Buddha."'

Such

debates

identify

the traditions

preached

by

theKathdvatthu-AgFhahathaas an

important

hintfbrunderstanding the

canon-ization

ofthe

IQzthavatthu.

2.

Doctrinal

Canonization

In

theprevioussection, we exarnined the

debate

with an

interlocutor

who claimed that

"the

Kdthavatthu

is

simply a textcomposed by a

diseiple

of theBuddha, and should

be

re-moved

from

thecanon." Inresponse tothe

indications

of such interlocutors,theTheravEda school

develops

a

doctrine

thatvests authority

in

textswritten

by

disciplesas C`the

word of

theBuddha."

In

theDhammasahga4i-At(hahatha, Buddhaghosa, citing a

description

in

the

Macthupin.

4ika

Stittanta

(M40'hima-AJikilya,

Suttano.

18,

Vilhelm

Trenckner,

ed.

[London:

Palirl)ext

Society,

1888],voL I,_pp. 108.13-114.19),claims thatthe

Kathavatthu

isalso

"the

word of theBuddha."

The

MacVzupin.

_ofiko

Sttttanta

cited here

develops

along the

fo1-lowinglines.

(1)

The Buddhapreaches cryptic teachings to

his

disciples.

(2)

Mystified,the

disciples

call on Mahakaccaha toexpound theteaching.He then

plainsthetme meaning ofthe teachings.

(3)

The

disciples

thenask the

Buddha

toconfirrn thetruthofMahEkaccEna's

-1244-The DoctrinalCanonizationofthe Kathavatthu

(T.

SHiMizu)

(151)

tion.

(4)

The

Buddha

answers, `CIf

you

had

asked me themeaning of this,I_would

have

plained

it

to

_you

in

the same way that

Mahakaccana

has

explained

it.

Such

is

the

meaning ofthis, and so

_you

should remember

it."

[Ibward

this,

Buddhaghosa

provides

the

fbllowing

explanation, while

interpolating

his

own supplementary commentary.

Afterwhich _precedent?Afterthe imtthupin,

4ika

Sutlantaand others. In_thatSuttanta_theBlessed

one, after layingdown a subject ofdiscourse

(matikE)

_, ended thus:"Bhikl(hu, owing tosuch causes

thefactorsofprolonged rebirth beseta _man. Hereiftherebenething tobe_pleasedwithal, _proud oe or assimilated, thenitisthe end of the latentbiasof lust,"etc. -and thenrose fromhisseat and

teredthe monastery. [[1iebhiltkhus,who received the doctrine,approached MahakaccEnaand

tioned him as tothe meaning ofthe subject

(mEtika)

laiddown bytheBuddha of the Ten Powers...

Afterthuspraisingthe[feacherhe,attherepeated request ofthebhikkhus,expounded in_greatdetail

the meaning ofthe subject ofdiscourse

(matikE)

laiddown by_theBuddha and sent thernaway

ing:"Sirs, ifyouare willing, approach theBuddhaand ask himthemeaning. And _youshould accept

what heexplains to_you,so thatifmyexplanation harmonizeswith omniscience

(sabbafifiutafiiiana)

you should takeit;ifnot,reject it,"Theyapproached theBuddhaand asked

him.

The[[eacher,

out referring toany

[possibly]

ill-spokenwords ef Kaccaha, raised hisneck aloft likea _golden

drumand fi11ingwith breathhisnoble mouth, gracefu1as thefull-blownlotus,emitted the Brahma

voice, and saying, "Well done,

well done!"_totheElder,added: `"Bhikkhus, learnedis

cana, _profoundlywise isMahakaccEna. If_you hadasked me thesame _question,Iwould have

swered exactly as hehasdone."Thus since thetime_when theTeacher_gavehisa roval

(anumodita),

the whele Shrttantabecametheword of the Buddha. And itisthe same with theSuttasexpounded

by

Ananda

and others.

(Dhammasaftgapt-Auhakatha,

_{pp.4,34-5.34)}3)

Acgording to thisexplanation,

in

order thatthe word of the Buddna's

disciples

also

be

vested with authority as "the word of the

Buddha,"

it

is

necessary thatthey comprise the

fo11owing

threeelements.

(ct)

Theircontent

is

based

on the subject of

discourse

(matika)

demonstrated

by

the

Buddha

(B)

That

content

is

consistent with omniscience

(sabbafifiutafifffirpa)

(y)

Furthermore,thetmth of thatcontent isretroactively acknowledged throughthe

Buddha's approval

(anumoditalanumodana)

'

Out efthese three,thetradition

in

theKathavatthuthat"the Buddha leftonly thesubject of

discourse

(matika)

in

the

KZithnvatthu

totherealm of

devas,

and

Tissa's

commentary

was

faithfu11y

_given

on thebasisof thatsubject of

discourse"

appears to satisfy the condi-

-1245-(152)

The DoctrinalCanonizationofthe KZzthavatthu

(T.

SH[Mizu) tionswith regard tou.As

for

P,

the Buddha himself_predictedthat"Tissa, _the

author of the

Kathavatthu,

is

a man of

_great

larning

(mahApafifia)"

inthe tradition

described

in

the

Kathdvatthu-A#hakatha

(p.

1.20), which is considered to satisfy thiscondition.4)

The

final

element _y isalso

important.

Inthe case of

Theravada,

the word of Buddha's

disciples

will not

be

accepted as C`the word of theBuddha" without obtaining their

retroac-tiveacknowledgement through theapproval

(anumodana)

of the Buddha

himsel

£ 5)

Nev-ertheless, this_givesrise to the_problem that`Csince

theKbthavatthuisa textthatwas writ-ten more than two centuries after the deathof the Buddha,

it

could not have obtained

his

retrospective approval

(anumodani)."

In

fact,

since there

is

no _apparent descriptionof such retrospective approval

(anumodanZ)

in

thetraditionofthe

Kathdvatthu's

compilation expounded

in

the

Kdthavatthu-At(haimthd,

thethirdof theabove conditions _y isnot effec-tive

fbr

vesting authority

in

the

Kdthavatthu

as "the

word ofthe Buddha."

This

_problem

is

also taken up

in

theDhammasahga4i-Mitlaeikii,where the commentator,

Ananda,

6)

vents this

diMculty

by

reinterpreting as fbllows.

Thus since thetimewhen the teacher gavehisapproval

(anumodita),

thewhole Suttanta

came theword ofthe Buddha" seems to_pointtothe conferral of"approval"

(anllmodanfi)

as the

basisfbrbecoming`fthe

word ofthe Buddha." Inthisway, because

[it]

isnot approved

(anumodita),

theKathavatthudoesnot seem tobe`'the

word of theBuddha." Here,we _should understanding the

meaning as fo11ows.Thatis,hesaid "Thus

since thetimewhen theteacher_gavehisapproval

(anumodita),

the whole Suttantabecame theword of theBuddha" inthe sense that"Deciding

that"MahEkaccana _will

probablyexplain

[the

teachings]inthis way," theBlessedOneleftbehind

thesubjectofdiscourse

(matika)

and entered themonastery. Then, since theVenerableOne

hakaccana]faithfu11yexplained on the basisofthe subject ofdiscourse

(matika)

]eftbehindbythe

BlessedOne,

[Mahalcaccdna's

words also] becamethe"word ofthe Buddha." Then,

[the

Blessed

One] showed this

[the

factthatMahakaccdna's words had also become the`tword of theBuddha"]

throughhisapproval

(anumodana).

(Dhammasaitga4i-Miltatika,

Dhammagiri-Pali-granthamalE

edition, vol. 130

[Igatapuri:

VipaSyana ViSodhanaVinyasa,1998],p.16.1O-15) 7)

Inother words, while the

precess

of"the conferral ofapproval

(anumodana)

transform-ing

X into`the

word ofthe Buddha"'

is

expounded intheDhammasahga4i-A(thakatha as a transformationthat

fo11ows

retrospective acknowledgment through the approval

(anumo-dana)

of

the

Buddha, thiscannot canonize the Kdthtivatthu,written after the

death

of the

Buddha.

Accordingly,

in

theDhammtzsangani-MiuTlatihatheconditionality ofapproval

(an-umodana)

is

removed, and approval

(anumodana)

is

granted

tothe

fact

of transfbrmation

into

"the

word oftheBuddha," ina _processunderstood as`fthe transfbrmation ofX inte`the

-TheDoctrinalCanonizationofthe Kbthavatthu

(T,

SHiMizu)

(153)

word of the Buddha'

becomes

the object of approval

(anumodana)."

Understood

inthis

manner, theKtithavatthucan

be

canonized

by

being

vested with theauthority of "the word of the Buddha" even without retrospective acknowledgement of the

Buddha's

approval

(anuniodan5)

.

Conclusion

The fbregoinghasdiscussedthedoctrinethatisused tecanonize theKathavatthu.Inthe

Theravada

school, thereare threeelements thatseem to

be

important

fbr

the "words of the

disciples

of

Buddha"

toacquire authority as "the

word of theBuddha":

(a)

the fbrmer must

be

based

on thesubject ofdiscourse

(m5tika)

demonstratedby theBuddha,

(B)

their content must

be

consistent with omniscience

(sabbafiiiutafifiana)

, and

(y)

theirtruthmust

be

retroactively acknowledged throughtheBuddha's approval

(anumodana)

.

Because

the

Kdthavatthu

isa work written after the deathof Buddha, itcannot satisfy

conditions ctor _y as they are currently stated. Accordingly,theTheravada school achieves

thecondition or

by

appending a karmic tale,which holdsthat the subject of discourse

(matika)

ofthe Kathltvatthuissomething thatwas

_put

in

_place

by theBuddha hirnselfdur-inghislifetime.Then,concerning condition _v,we note theremoval ofretroactive

acknowl-edgement

by

"approval"

(anumodanA)

as a necessary condition

fbr

canonization

in

the

commentary by Ananda, who reinterprets the_processof "approval leadingto transforma-tion

into

`the

word of the Buddha"' as "approval

oftransfbrmation

into`the word of the

Buddha."'

We

can summarize the conditions fbrcanonization ineach ofthe commentaries

as fo11ows:

(or)mitika(P)sabbafifiutafifiEpa(y)anumodana

Dhammasahgapt-Atthakatha, byBuddhaghosa(5th)

o

o

o

Dhammasahgani-Miila(iha, byhnanda(5th-6th?)

o

o

When we compare these various conditions with those of the SarvEstivadaschool, the necessary conditionsfbrcanonization aremore strictintheTherav5da school. Inthe

Sarva-stivEda school, so

long

as one

insists

on a consistency with the

dharma-nature

(dhaTmat5)

_, the canonization ofeven an arbitrary _personalopinion would seem to

be

_possible.g)

(154)

TheDoetrinalCanonizationofthe 1(athavatthu

(T.

SHiMizu)

ever, fbrtheTheravada _{school, simply claiming} the _{consistency ofa personalopinion with} omniscience

(sabbafifiutafifitipa)

is

not enough; canonization

is

not

_possible

unless

it

is

an explanation

based

on a subject ofdiscourse

(matika)

_preached

by

theBuddha; and

further-more,

it

is

necessary to come up with the traditionthat

it

has

received retrospective

ap-proval

(anumodana)

from

the

Buddha

himsel

£

In

thisway, theclosed nature,

fixity,

and exclusivity of the Theravada canon9) can also

be

ascertained

from

the

doctrinal

canoniza-tion ofthe Kathavatthu.

1

)

Vitandav5di _panSha:kathSvatthukasma _gahitarp?Nanu sammasambuddhassa _{parinibb5nato} acthdrasavassadhikAni dve vassasatani _atiklcamitvA Moggaliputtatissattheren'_etarp

thapitam?

Tasma

sivakabhasitatta chaddetha nan ti.

The Englishtranslatienof theDhammasarigapt-Aglhakathb isbased Qn thatof PeMaung Tin

(71he

Iixpositor

_[London:

PalitextSociety,1921

]

)

,which ispaniallymodified tosuit thispaper.

2

)

Tarp _pani etarp mEtikam _thapentoimarp disva_thapesi:mama _{parinibbanato}

atthErasavassa-dhikdnamdvinnarpvassasattinarp matthake Moggaliputtatissattheronama bhikkhu

bhikkhusahassama-jjhe

nisinno sakavEde _paficasuttasatani _{paravEdepafica}tisuttasahassaTp samodhanetva dighanikayap-pamdnarp kathfivatthuppakararpambhajessatiti.Moggaliputtatissatthero_piimam _pakararpam desento

na attano fiarpenadesesi,satthErE _panadinnanayena_{!hapitamatikaya}desesi.Itisatthara dinnanayena

thapitamatikayadesitattasakalam _p'etam _pakaraqambuddhabhasitam eya nama

jatarp.

3

)

YathakiTp?YathEMadhupipdikasuttantfidini.Madliupindikasuttantasmifihibhagavai

yatonidE-narp bhiltkhu_{purisaippapaffcasafifiasahknfi}samudAcaranti, ettha ce n' atthi abhinanditabbaTp abhiva-ditabbaip

_{ajjhositabbarp,}

es' ev' anto r5ganusaydnan timatikarp thapetvautthEyasana vihdrarp _pEvisi. Dhammappatiggfihaka bhikkha MahakaccEnattheraip upasafikamitva dasabalena

thapitamatikaya

attharp _pucchimsu...punappunam therehiyacitosatthdrathapitamatikayaattharnvibhajitva Ekanlcha-mzana ca _panatumhe ayasmantobhagavantarp_yevaupasatikamitv5 etam attharp _{patipuccheyy5tha:} sace sabbafifiutafifianena saddhirp sarpsandiyamanarp sameti _gapheyyatha,no ee rna_gai)hitthatiimina adhippayena _yathavo bhagavEbyal[aroti_tathinaui dhareyyatha_{tivatva uyyojesi.}1[e_satthararp

upas-afikamitvE _pucchirpsu.SatthadukkathitarpKaccanena tiavatva suvapmalifigarp ussapente viya _givam unnEmetv5 supupphitasatapattasassirikarp mah5mukhaip _pUrento brahmassaram nicch5retva sadhu sadhU titherassasfidhuk5ram datva:_papdito,bhikkhave,Mahfikaccano,mahfipafifio bhiklchave

Ma-hakaccEno,marp ce _pitumhe,bhikkhave,etam attham _{patipuccheyyatha,}aham _pitarpeyam evarn

byakareyyam_yathatam Mahakaccdnenabyakatantialia.Evarp sattharfi anumoditakfilato _patthayaea

pgtug-!alsg!ggL!u!!gp!glu-b}!gg!!g!l!!aEi!{!g!-gglug2

akl ttt bddhbht t.Anandattheradihivittharitasuttesupies'eva nayo.4

)

The same kindofargument isobserved within theSarvastivAdaschoel, inwhich words ofthe

Buddha's disciplesare acknowledged as `the

word of theBuddha" ifthesewords are consistent with

the dharma-nature

(dharrnata)

_.This dharma-naturecan beunderstood byonly a _personwho is

om-nicient. CfiMtihdvibhasaSlistra,vol. 1

([laisho,

vol. 27,_p.Ia8-9),and HoajbYbshifumi

lg!llRISt,

-The　Doctrinal　Ca皿onization 　of　the　Katha−_vatthu （T．　SHIM【zu） （155＞

“Abidaruma

　Bukky6　t。　Da昶 Bukky6 ” ア ビダルマ 仏 教 と大乗仏 教 ［Abhidharma ・Buddhism　and

Mah5yEna　Buddhism］_，in　D_砌δβμ蜘 δηo ’α_砂 ’

δ大乗 仏教の 誕生 ［Birth　of　the　MahEyana 　Bud −

dhism_］，　ed_．　Katsura　Sh6ryO桂 紹 隆，　Sait6　Akira斎 藤 明，　Shimoda　Masahiro下田 正弘，　and　Sueki Fumihiko 末 木 文美士，　Shirizu　Daij6　Bukky6 シ リ

ー_{ズ大 乗仏 教}

，　vol．2 （Tokyo：ShunjUsha，2011）．

5）It　can　aiso　be　said　that　only 　the　Buddha　himself　is　capable 　ofjudging 　whether 　it　is　consistent 　with omrllSCIence ．

6

）In　the　Dhammasahgapt一浸瑠 葡 ，　commentator 　Dhammap 巨la　does　not　make 　any 　explanation 　on this　problem ．

7）Anurnoditakalato　pa_書重hfiya ．．．pe＿ buddhabhfisita p皿轟ma 　

jfitan

　ti　etena 　anumodan 盃bud −

dhabh5sitabh5vassa　kdrapan　ti　ayamattho 　vutte　viya　dissati，　evafi　ca　sati　kathavatthussa　budChabh_五sita−

bh互vo　na　siy且　ananumoditatta ，　tasm巨　evamettha 　attho　datthabbo： “

mah 盃kacc互_yano　evam 　vibhajissati”

ti　disv巨　bhagav互　m 五tikarp　nikkhipitv 巨　vihArarp 　pavittho，　tatheva　ca　thero　bhagavat巨　dinnanayena　thapi−

tamatikaya 　vib_岡 i　ti　buddhabhasitarp　nEma 　

jEtanyi

，　tarp　pana　anumodan5ya 　p5katarp　

j

　5tan　ti　etam

attharp 　sandh 互ya“eva _叩 satth函r5 ．．．pe．．　．　nfima 　

jfitan

”ti　vuttanti ．

8 ）Honj6　YoshifUmi，　“Abidatsuma　

bussetsu

−ron　to　Daij6　bussetsu−ron ” 阿 毘 達磨仏説論 と大乗仏 説tmb　_［The　theroy　that　Abhidharma　was 　exp 。unded 　by　the　Buddha 　and　the　theory　that　Mah 蕊ydna　was expounded 　by　the　Buddha ］_，Indogaku　Bukk_ソo’gaku　kenig・ii印度学仏 教 学研 究 ［Joumal　of　lndian　and Buddhist　studies _］38_，　no _．1_（1989_），p．62_．13− 17．

9

）C£ Steaven　Collins，‘‘On　the　Very　Idea　of　the　P五li　Canon，”▽Journal_ofthePaliTextSoeietyXV

（1990）， Kenneth　Roy　Norman ，　A　Philological　Ap フroaeh 　to　Buddhism ：　The　Bukdyo −

　DendoJ　Kyo−kai

Lectures　1994 （London ：School　of　Oriental＆ African　Studies

，1997），pp ．131 −₁₄₈

，　and 　Baba

　Nori− hisa_{馬場紀寿，}　Jo“zabu 　Bukkyδ　no 　shiyδ　keisei上座部仏 教の思 想形 成 ［The　development　ofThera −

v蕊da　Buddhist　philosophyコ（TDkyo：Shunjttsha_，2008 ），pp ．155−253．

＜Key　words ＞ Therav5da　Abhidhamma

，　m 訌tik互，論 母，　sabba 簡uta簡帥a，

一_{切智 性 智，　anumodan 巨，} 随喜 ，阿毘 達 磨仏 説論

　　　　　　　（Research　Fellow，　Research　lnst_童tUteofBuklcyo 　University）