Bhāṇaka

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bhāṇaka (

Buddhist canon
. Lineages of bhāṇakas were responsible for preserving and transmitting the teachings of the Buddha until the canon was committed to writing in the 1st century BC, and declined as the oral transmission of early Buddhism was replaced by writing.

Early Buddhist era

Academic consensus and Buddhist tradition holds that all early Buddhist traditions preserved their texts via oral transmission – significant evidence of this includes the structure and distinctive features of early Buddhist texts, the absence of Vinaya regulations dealing with writing and writing materials, and terms derived from practices of listening and recitation used to describe the Buddha's teaching and the acts of the early Sangha.[1]

The bhāṇaka system is believed to have originated in India, but the majority of the literary and inscriptional evidence relating to bhāṇakas comes from Sri Lanka.[2] Scholars suspect that the same techniques were used by the monks of all early Buddhist schools to fix and transmit the contents of the Agamas, but outside of the Theravada tradition little information about the pre-literary period of these traditions is available.[3] The earliest evidence for the association of monks known as bhāṇaka with knowledge and recitation of specific parts of the Buddhist canon dates to the 2nd or 3rd century BCE.[2][1]

All schools of Buddhism agree that shortly after the death of the

Ananda was similarly questioned regarding the Dhamma. Once the council had agreed on the contents of the teachings, they acknowledged their acceptance of the sutras by reciting them together.[3]

Subsequent major and minor

councils are depicted as following the same basic procedure to compare, correct, and fix the contents of the canon, with specialists in each area of the collection called upon to recite the complete text for confirmation by the gathered Sangha.[3]

Theravada tradition

Buddhaghosa reported that according to the oral tradition of the

Scholars doubt that the sutras and four Nikayas were established in their final form this early, with

Abhidhamma Pitaka and Khuddaka Nikaya clearly originate after the First Council, but Theravadins have generally regarded portions of the Abhidhamma as being included at this stage as part of the dhamma/suttas.[3] Texts known to have relatively late origins (after the Third Council) are included in the Theravada accounts of the First Council.[3][1] Texts that did not fit into any of the four Nikayas were assigned to the Khuddaka (which included the Abhidhamma in some traditions).[3]

In the

Abhidharma Pitaka they accepted as canonical.[3]

Anguttara Nikaya.[2] Roles as bhāṇaka of a particular Nikaya were passed down from teacher to student.[2]

KR Norman suggests that the Theravada practice of organizing bhāṇakas by Nikaya may not have originated until after the

Dipavamsa mentions a 'nine-fold' organization of the early texts being divided into individual chapters at the First Council, which may reflect an earlier method of organization.[3]

References to abhidhammikas (specialists in the Abhidhamma) but not to Abhidhamma-bhāṇakas in the

Third Buddhist Council) but, since the Abhidhamma may have been recited by some variety of sutta-bhāṇaka, could also indicate that being a specialist in a branch of texts was distinct from being responsible for its recitation.[1]

Decline

No fixed date has been established for the end of the bhāṇaka tradition, but scholars generally believe that the tradition went into decline as the Buddhist canon increasingly began to be preserved through written texts.[3][2] Buddhaghosa wrote about the bhāṇakas as though they were contemporary in approximately the 5th century CE, but may have been reflecting the perspective of the earlier Sinhala commentaries – his remarks do not definitively establish that the bhāṇaka practice persisted into his own era.[3][2][1]

The

Culavamsa refers to a bhāṇaka as late as the 13th century CE, but by this date the term may have become generic for a preacher or specialist in recitation, rather than a monk who preserved a significant portion of the canon by memory.[2]

See also

References