Product Code Database
There are several Buddhist canons, which refers to the various scriptural collections of Buddhist texts or the various Buddhist Scriptural canon. (2025). 9780191726538, Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191726538
Tipitaka Encyclopædia Britannica (2015)"Buddhist Books and Texts: Canon and Canonization." Lewis Lancaster, Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, pg 1252 Some of these collections are also called Tipiṭaka () or Tripiṭaka () , meaning "Triple Basket", a traditional term for the three main divisions of some ancient canons. In ancient India, there were several Buddhist scriptural canons that were organized into three main textual divisions: Vinaya (monastic rule), Sutra (which contains teachings of the Buddha) and Abhidharma (which are more systematic and scholastic works). For example, the Pali Canon is composed of the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Piṭaka, and the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. In East Asian Buddhism meanwhile, the traditional term for the canon is Great Storage of Scriptures (traditional Chinese: 大藏經; pinyin: Dàzàngjīng).Jiang Wu, "The Chinese Buddhist Canon" in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to East and Inner Asian Buddhism, p. 299, Wiley-Blackwell (2014).
The Pāli Canon maintained by the Theravada in Southeast Asia, the Chinese Buddhist Canon maintained by the East Asian Buddhist tradition, and the Tibetan Buddhist Canon maintained by the Tibetan Buddhism are the three main important scriptural canons in the contemporary Buddhist world. The Nepalese canon, particularly its Buddhist Sanskrit literature has also been very important for modern Buddhist studies scholarship since it contains many surviving Sanskrit manuscripts. The Mongolian Buddhist canon (mostly a translation from the Tibetan into Classical Mongolian) is also important in Mongolian Buddhism.
While Tripiṭaka is one common term to refer to the scriptural collections of the various Buddhist schools, most Buddhist scriptural canons (apart from the Pāli Canon) do not really follow the strict division into three piṭakas.Mizuno, Essentials of Buddhism, 1972, English version by Ritik Bhadana, Tokyo, 1996 Indeed, many of the ancient Indian Buddhist schools had canons with four or five divisions rather than three. Likewise, neither the East Asian Buddhist canon nor the Tibetan canon is organized in a traditional Indian Tripiṭaka schema.
were the doctrinal teachings in aphoristic or narrative format. The Gautama Buddha delivered all of his sermons in Magadhi Prakrit. This language was related to other Prakrit like Pali, though its exact nature is not fully known. The sutras were transmitted orally until eventually being written down in the first century BCE. Even within the Sūtra Piṭaka it is possible to detect older and later texts.
The Vinaya Piṭaka appears to have grown gradually as a commentary and justification of the monastic code (Prātimokṣa), which presupposes a transition from a community of wandering mendicants (the Sūtra Piṭaka period) to a more sedentary monastic community (the Vinaya Piṭaka period). The Vinaya focuses on the rules and regulations, or the morals and ethics, of monastic life that range from dress code and dietary rules to prohibitions of certain personal conducts. Korean Buddhism has its own unique characteristics different from other countries , koreapost.com, Jun 16, 2019.
The Abhidharma refers to more scholastic philosophical works. Many of these texts are later than the sutras and are school specific. Hence, the Sarvastivada school's Abhidharma Pitaka contains a completely different set of texts than the Theravada school's Abhidhamma collection.
While these three textual categories were very common in the canons of the early Buddhist schools, they were not the only ones. Some schools also had additional Pitakas other than the main three. These extra Pitakas included collections of incantations, magical spells or Dhāraṇī which were called Vidyādhāra Piṭaka, Mantra Piṭaka or Dhāraṇī Piṭaka. Likewise, some Buddhist schools in India also maintained Bodhisattva Piṭakas, which contained texts that were later termed Mahayana sutras.
The twelve aṅgas are:
According to Yijing, an 8th-century Chinese pilgrim to India, the Nikaya Buddhism schools kept different sets of canonical texts with some intentional or unintentional dissimilarities. Yijing notes four main textual collections among the non-Mahayana schools:Zhihua Yao (2012) The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition, pp. 8-9. Routledge.
Yijing notes that though there were numerous sub-schools and sects, the sub-sects shared the Tripiṭaka of their mother tradition (which he termed the "four principal schools of continuous tradition" or the "arya" traditions).Zhihua Yao (2012) The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition, p. 9. Routledge. However, this does not mean that the various sub-schools did not possess their own unique Tripiṭaka. Xuanzang is said to have brought to China the Tripiṭaka of seven different schools, including those of the above-mentioned schools as well as the Dharmaguptaka, Kāśyapīya, and Mahīśāsaka.
According to A. K. Warder, the Tibetan historian Bu-ston said that around or before the 1st century CE there were eighteen schools of Buddhism each with their own Tripiṭaka transcribed into written form. However, except for one version that has survived in full and others, of which parts have survived, most of these texts are lost to history or yet to be found.
Various ancient sources (like Bhāvaviveka, and Paramartha) also indicate that the different branches of the Mahāsāṃghika tradition (such as the Bahuśrutīya) had a Bodhisattva Piṭaka in their canon.Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 48Walser, Joseph. Nāgārjuna in Context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. 2005. p. 53 The 6th century CE Indian monk Paramartha wrote that 200 years after the parinirvana of the Buddha, much of the Mahāsāṃghika school moved north of Rajgir, where they became divided over whether the Mahayana sutras should be incorporated formally into their Tripiṭaka. According to this account, they split into three groups based upon the relative manner and degree to which they accepted the authority of these Mahāyāna texts. Paramārtha states that the Kukkuṭika sect did not accept the Mahāyāna sūtras as buddhavacana ("word of the Buddha"), while the Lokottaravāda sect and the Ekavyāvahārika sect did accept the Mahāyāna sūtras as buddhavacana.Sree Padma. Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. 2008. p. 68. Also in the 6th century CE, Avalokitavrata writes of the Mahāsāṃghikas using a "Great Āgama Piṭaka," which is then associated with Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Prajnaparamita and the Daśabhūmika Sūtra.
According to some sources, Abhidharma was not accepted as canonical by the Mahāsāṃghika school."Abhidhamma Pitaka." Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008. The Theravādin Dipavamsa, for example, records that the Mahāsāṃghikas had no Abhidharma. However, other sources indicate that there were such collections of Abhidharma, and the Chinese pilgrims Faxian and Xuanzang both mention Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma. On the basis of textual evidence as well as inscriptions at Nagarjunakonda, Joseph Walser concludes that at least some Mahāsāṃghika sects probably had an Abhidharma collection, and that it likely contained five or six books.
The Dharmaguptaka Tripiṭaka is said to have contained a total of five piṭakas. These included a Bodhisattva Piṭaka and a Mantra Piṭaka (Ch. 咒藏), also sometimes called a Dhāraṇī Piṭaka.Baruah, Bibhuti. Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism. 2008. p. 52 According to the 5th-century Dharmaguptaka monk Buddhayaśas, the translator of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya into Chinese, the Dharmaguptaka school had assimilated the Mahāyāna Tripiṭaka (Ch. 大乘三藏).
Scholars at present have "a nearly complete collection of sūtras from the Sarvastivada school" thanks to a recent discovery in Afghanistan of roughly two-thirds of Dīrgha Āgama in Sanskrit." The Madhyama Āgama (Taisho Tripitaka no. 26) was translated by Gautama Saṃghadeva, and is available in Chinese translation as part of the Chinese canon. The Saṃyukta Āgama (Taishō Tripiṭaka no. 99) translated by Guṇabhadra, is also available in Chinese translation. The Sarvāstivāda is therefore the only early school besides the Theravada for which we have substantial number of sutras. The Sārvāstivāda Vinaya Piṭaka is also extant in Chinese translation, as are the seven books of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma Piṭaka, including the Mahavibhasa (Taishō Tripiṭaka 1545), which was the main canonical Abhiodharma text of the Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins of northwest India.
The dating of the Tripiṭaka is unclear. Max Müller states that the current structure and contents of the Pali Canon took shape in the 3rd century BCE after which it continued to be transmitted orally from generation to generation until finally being put into written form in the 1st century BCE (nearly 500 years after the lifetime of Buddha).
The Theravada chronicle called the Dipavamsa states that during the reign of Valagamba of Anuradhapura (29–17 BCE) the monks who had previously remembered the Tipiṭaka and its commentary orally now wrote them down in books, because of the threat posed by famine and war. The Mahavamsa also refers briefly to the writing down of the canon and the commentaries at this time. According to Sri Lankan sources more than 1000 monks who had attained were involved in the task. The place where the project was undertaken was in Aluvihare, Matale District, Sri Lanka. The resulting texts were later partly translated into a number of East Asian languages such as Chinese, Tibetan and Mongolian by ancient visiting scholars, which though extensive are incomplete.
Each Buddhist sub-tradition had its own Tripiṭaka for its monasteries, written by its sangha, each set consisting of 32 books, in three parts or baskets of teachings: (“Basket of Discipline”), (“Basket of Discourse”), and Abhidhamma Piṭaka (“Basket of Special or Doctrine”). The structure, the code of conduct and moral virtues in the Vinaya basket particularly, have similarities to some of the surviving Dharmasutra texts of Hinduism.Oskar von Hinuber (1995), "Buddhist Law according to the Theravada Vinaya: A Survey of Theory and Practice", Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies, volume 18, number 1, pages 7–46
Much of the surviving Tripiṭaka literature is in Pali, with some in Sanskrit as well as other local Asian languages. The Pali Canon does not contain the Mahayana Sutras and Tantras as Mahayana schools were not influential in Theravada tradition as in East Asia and Tibet. Hence, there is no major Mahayana (neither Hinayana or Pratyekabuddhayana) schools in Theravada tradition. The Tantric schools of Theravada tradition use Tantric texts independently, and not as the part of the Collection.
Some of the well known preserved Pali Canons are the Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka, Buddha Jayanthi Tripitaka, Thai Tipitaka, etc.
Wu and Chia state that emerging evidence, though uncertain, suggests that the earliest written Buddhist Tripiṭaka texts may have arrived in China from India by the 1st century BCE. An organised collection of Buddhist texts began to emerge in the 6th century CE, based on the structure of early bibliographies of Buddhist texts. However, it was the 'Kaiyuan Era Catalogue' by Zhisheng in 730 that provided the lasting structure. Zhisheng introduced the basic six-fold division with two sets of sutra, vinaya, and abhidharma works classified as Mahāyāna and Hinayana.Storch 2014: 125 It is likely that Zhisheng's catalogue proved decisive because it was used to reconstruct the Canon after the persecutions of 845 CE; however, it was also considered a "perfect synthesis of the entire four-hundred-year development of a proper Chinese form of the Canon."Storch 2014: 123.
One of the most well known preserved edition of the Chinese Canon is the woodblock edition of the Tripitaka Koreana. These woodblocks became the basis for the modern edition of the Japanese Taishō Tripiṭaka, the most widely used and digitized edition for modern scholarship. The Taishō Daizōkyō is the standard modern edition as systematized by Japanese scholars, published in Japan from 1924 to 1929.Harvey, Peter (2013), An Introduction to Buddhism (Second ed.), Cambridge University Press, Appendix 1: Canons of Scriptures.
While still referred to by the traditional term "Tripiṭaka", it is actually divided into many more textual categories, including: Āgamas (equivalent to Nikāyas), Jataka tales, Mahayana sutras, Esoteric texts, Vinaya, Sutra Commentaries, Abhidharma, Mahayana Shastra (‘Treatises’), Chinese commentaries, Chinese Treatises, Histories and biographies.
In the modern era, the Chinese Buddhist Canon was translated in full into Korean language. It was also fully translated into Japanese by Japanese scholars. While many texts have also been translated into English, many others remain untranslated.
The Tibetan Canon has its own scheme which divided texts into two broad categories:
There many editions of the Tibetan Canon, some of the major editions include the Derge edition, the Lhasa edition, the Peking edition and the Jiang edition.
The Tibetan Kangyur and Tengyur were also translated into Classical Mongolian, and these texts compose the Mongolian Buddhist Canon.
The Kathmandu Valley has long been a center for Buddhist scholarship, particularly following the destruction of Indian monasteries after the 12th-century Muslim conquests. Tibetan scholars often visited to acquire texts, and local Newar Buddhists, including householder clergy (śākyabhikṣus and Vajracharya), were proficient in Sanskrit, making it a significant language for Buddhist scholarship in the region.Tuladhar-Douglas, Will. Remaking Buddhism for Medieval Nepal: The Fifteenth-Century Reformation of Newar Buddhism, Introduction. Routledge, Jan 24, 2007. From the 19th century onwards, Sanskrit manuscripts from Nepal were collected and sent to academic institutions in Kolkata and Europe by figures like Brian H. Hodgson, contributing to modern Buddhist studies.Lewis, Todd T. Popular Buddhist Texts from Nepal: Narratives and Rituals of Newar Buddhism, p. 11. SUNY Press, Sep 14, 2000. However, the focus of modern Newar Buddhist literature was largely on local compositions in the Newar language, reflecting the distinct practices of Newar Buddhism. Newar texts often used bilingual formats, integrating Sanskrit and Newari, and employed diverse calligraphic scripts like Newā Lipi and Ranjana script.
The modern Indian scholar Rahul Sankrityayan is sometimes referred to as Tripiṭakacharya in reflection of his familiarity with the .
Myanmar Version of Buddhist Canon (6th revision):
Chinese Buddhist Canon:
Tibetan tradition:
Tripiṭaka collections:
Sri Lankan version of Tipiṭaka:
|
|
