Tripitaka

← Encyclopedia

The Tripitaka — Pali Tipiṭaka, “three baskets” — is the name for the collected scriptures of early Buddhism, divided into three parts. The oldest and most complete version to survive in full is the Pali Canon of the Theravada school, the body of texts the southern Buddhist world has carried as the word of the Buddha. The word piṭaka names a basket: the loose bundles of inscribed palm-leaf in which a long text was kept, leaf stacked on leaf, threaded and boarded and stored, lifted out a basketful at a time. The metaphor preserves a habit of mind older than the books. A teaching could be handed along, passed from one to the next as a basket of earth is passed down a line of diggers — and what was passed was not a single scroll but a working division of labor, three kinds of material kept by three kinds of specialist.

The three baskets

The three baskets are not three subjects so much as three kinds of writing.

The Vinaya Piṭaka sets out the rules of the monastic order — the conduct binding monks and nuns. Its character is forensic. Each rule is framed by the story of the occasion that prompted it: a particular monk did a particular thing, a complaint reached the Buddha, and the rule was laid down to meet the case, often with later amendments as fresh circumstances exposed its edges. The result reads less like a code than like case law with its precedents attached. Around the core list of training rules — the Pātimokkha, recited fortnightly by the assembled community — the Vinaya gathers the procedures of ordination, the settlement of disputes, the regulation of robes, lodging, medicine, and the conduct of the rains-retreat, and it closes with accounts of the first communal recitations after the Buddha’s death. It is, among other things, the earliest sustained record of how an Indian religious community governed itself.

The Sutta Piṭaka gathers the discourses: sermons, dialogues, narrative, and verse attributed to the Buddha and his close disciples. It is organized into five collections, the Nikāyas — the long discourses (Dīgha), the middle-length (Majjhima), the connected or grouped by topic (Saṃyutta), the numbered, arranged by ascending lists (Aṅguttara), and a fifth, the Khuddaka, a miscellany of shorter works that absorbed much of the canon’s oldest poetry and its latest accretions alike. It is in this last basket-room that the best-known short texts are found: the Dhammapada, a compact anthology of ethical verse; the birth-stories of the Buddha’s former lives, the Jātaka; the psalms of the early monks and nuns; the Sutta Nipāta and the Udāna. The texture of the Sutta basket is conversational and mnemonic — repetitions, stock phrases, formulaic expansions — the grain of speech built to be carried in memory.

The Abhidhamma Piṭaka is the latest and most technical layer, and the one where the canon turns its instruments on itself. Where the suttas teach by narrative and dialogue, the Abhidhamma restates the teaching as analysis: it takes the ordinary flow of experience and resolves it into its constituent factors — the momentary mental and material events, the dhammas — then arranges and cross-indexes them with relentless completeness. Its seven books form a closed set. They run from the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, which opens by enumerating those factors under a grid of triple and double classifications, through the analytic Vibhaṅga, the cross-indexing Dhātukathā, the Puggalapaññatti (which alone among them speaks in the conventional idiom of persons), the polemical Kathāvatthu, and the paired logical questions of the Yamaka, to the vast final treatise, the Paṭṭhāna, the “Great Book,” which sets out the twenty-four conditional relations among the dhammas across every permutation the system allows. Conventional objects — a person, a chariot, a thought — dissolve under this analysis into a finite inventory of momentary phenomena arising and falling under conditions; nothing carries through but the lawful relations themselves. The result is a systematic psychology and an ontology in one — the achievement treated in its own right under the Pali Abhidhamma, and one of the great works of Indian scholasticism, comparable in ambition to the analytic systems built by the other early schools.

The traditional account of how it was fixed

Within the tradition, the canon has a history that begins at a council. Soon after the Buddha’s death, the elders are said to have convened at Rājagaha and settled the teaching by communal recitation — the disciple Upāli reciting the discipline, Ānanda the discourses — so that what one had heard could be checked against what all remembered. A second council at Vesālī, a century on, met over a dispute about monastic conduct; a third, at Pāṭaliputra under royal patronage, is credited in the Sri Lankan chronicles with purging the order of false teaching and dispatching missions outward. Each council repeated the founding exercise: to recite the whole, to purge what had crept in, and to confirm what belonged. The numbering would continue into the modern age — a council at Mandalay in 1871 had the canon cut into 729 marble tablets, and a great recitation at Yangon in 1954–56 produced the standard modern edition in forty volumes — so that the canon is, in the tradition’s own self-understanding, a text repeatedly re-fixed by the assembled community rather than a manuscript copied down once.

For several centuries it was carried not in writing but in memory, held by lineages of specialist monks, the bhāṇaka, each lineage charged with one collection and trained to deliver it whole. A reciter of the long discourses held the Dīgha; another held the numbered sayings; the verse and the rules had their keepers. Recitation in unison was the instrument of fixing the text — a roomful of memories collated against one another, error audible the moment one voice diverged. The repetitions and stock formulas that make the suttas read so unlike literary prose are the working machinery of this method: a text built to be remembered exactly, by many, and checked against itself.

The writing-down came late, and the tradition places it precisely. During the reign of Vaṭṭagāmaṇī Abhaya, in a period of famine and war that threatened the reciter lineages with extinction, the elders of Sri Lanka gathered at the Aluvihāra rock-shelter near Mātale, around the first century BCE, and committed the Tipiṭaka and its commentaries to palm-leaf — by the usual reckoning the earliest fixation of Buddhist scripture in writing anywhere. The canon had reached the island generations earlier, in the mission associated with Mahinda under Aśokan-era patronage, and had been kept at the Mahāvihāra of Anuradhapura, the monastery from which essentially all surviving Pali literature descends.

What scholarship adds

Scholarship treats this account with care, neither dismissing it nor taking it whole. The texts plainly contain material of very different ages. Strata can be read off the language, the meter, the doctrinal vocabulary, the internal cross-references: the oldest verse of the Sutta Nipāta sits in a different linguistic world from the latest prose of the Abhidhamma, and the Abhidhamma itself is widely regarded as a development of the centuries after the Buddha rather than his own teaching — the one canonical book to name an author, the Kathāvatthu, is traditionally ascribed to Moggaliputta-Tissa around the middle of the third century BCE and answers controversies that had not yet arisen in the Buddha’s lifetime. The precise wording, the philologists add, cannot be traced to the Buddha himself; what survives is Pali, a literary Middle Indo-Aryan language, not the dialect he is likely to have spoken, and the canon is the product of a long editorial process whose hand is everywhere and nowhere.

And yet the same scholarship that dissolves the claim of verbatim fidelity tends to confirm the claim of antiquity. The core discourses are old; their doctrinal content is internally consistent across collections that were transmitted by separate lineages, which is hard to explain except by a common early source. The oral methods that preserved them were, by the test of comparison, remarkably stable — where the Pali suttas can be set beside their counterparts surviving in Chinese translation, the agreement in substance is often close even where the wording diverges. The reciter culture was not a leaky bucket but a discipline, with its own controls against drift. The honest verdict is layered: a canon of mixed ages, its oldest layers genuinely early and its latest demonstrably later, its wording untraceable in detail but its structure and substance preserved with a fidelity that the bare fact of centuries of orality would not have led one to expect.

One canon among several

The Pali Tipitaka is one canon among several, and its completeness is in part an accident of survival. The early schools of Indian Buddhism each kept their own recension of the word of the Buddha; of these, the Pali alone has come down intact in an Indic language. The others survive mostly in translation — in the vast Chinese canon, where the corresponding collections (the Āgamas, the counterparts to the Nikāyas) were rendered from the lost Indic originals of the Sarvāstivāda and other schools, and in the Tibetan Kangyur. There the collections are larger, arranged differently, and bound up with a great further literature that the Pali canon does not contain.

For the Mahāyāna traditions added to this inheritance a wide body of their own scripture — the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, the Lotus, the Pure Land texts, and the rest — composed over many centuries and carrying their own claim to the Buddha’s authority. “Tripitaka” in East Asia therefore names something far broader than the Pali books alone: it became the standard word for the entire printed Buddhist canon, the Dazangjing, the “great treasury of scriptures,” which gathers Āgama, Mahāyāna sūtra, treatise, and commentary into a single immense collection. The most monumental survival of that effort is material rather than textual — the some eighty-one thousand carved woodblocks of the Tripitaka Koreana at Haeinsa, a thirteenth-century edition of the whole canon cut to print it. The range of these later collections is on display in the surviving Mahāyāna translations: the Pure Land and Perfection of Wisdom material gathered, for instance, in the nineteenth-century Sacred Books of the East rendering of Buddhist Mahâyâna Texts (Oxford, 1894).

The canon, the editions, the scholarship

The Pali in which the Tipitaka is written is public domain by age; what is owned and dated is the apparatus built around it — the printed editions, the translations, the indexes. The work of putting the canon into roman type and into European languages was carried out, from 1881, largely by the Pali Text Society founded by T.W. Rhys Davids, whose editions and translations remain the standard reference points and whose pre-1930 corpus is now substantially in the public domain; the society’s own catalog and its copyright information document which volumes it has since released. A reader can take the canon’s own texture directly from this older apparatus: Rhys Davids’s Buddhist Suttas of 1881 — the volume that appeared as the eleventh of Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East — a selection from the long discourses including the Mahāparinibbāna, the account of the Buddha’s last days; or Henry Clarke Warren’s Buddhism in Translations of 1896, which arranges its passages from the Pali Canon and from Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga into a single thematic reading of the whole.

The standard modern scholarship maps the canon as a stratified, multilingual object rather than a single book. K.R. Norman’s Pāli Literature (1983) remains the authoritative philological survey of the collection’s contents and its history of composition; Oskar von Hinüber’s A Handbook of Pāli Literature (1996) supplements it with close attention to dating and manuscript transmission; Rupert Gethin’s The Foundations of Buddhism (1998) sets the canon within the broader development of the tradition; and Richard Gombrich’s Theravāda Buddhism (2nd ed., 2006) treats the Sri Lankan fixation and the reciter culture in their social setting. Where the texts themselves can be read in the original and in translation side by side, the collaborative editions assembled at the digital library SuttaCentral align the Pali Nikāyas with their Chinese, Tibetan, and Sanskrit parallels — the comparative apparatus by which the “one canon among several” can actually be set against the others.

For the Theravada, the three baskets remain the measure of orthodoxy: what is canonical is what they contain, and the long work of commentary — Buddhaghosa’s fifth-century aṭṭhakathā and everything built on it — has been, in good part, the work of explaining them. To say of a teaching that it is “in the baskets” is to say that it stands; to say that it is not is to place it outside the wall the canon draws. The basket was a vessel for carrying. It became the boundary of what could be carried.

→ In the library: Rhys Davids — Buddhist Suttas (SBE XI, 1881) · Müller — The Dhammapada (SBE X, 1881) · Warren — Buddhism in Translations (1896) · Müller, Nanjio, Takakusu, Cowell — Buddhist Mahâyâna Texts (SBE XLIX, 1894)

→ Related: Mahabodhi Temple · Burmese Vipassana Revival · Buddhism · Buddha · Dhammapada · Mahayana · Buddhism Theravada · Pali Abhidhamma · Jataka · Anuradhapura