!

Buddhavacana [BdV] “the word of the Buddha” is the discourse which belongs to the
Buddha sayings. It can be stated that

“articulated directly by the Buddha, transferred to the others disciples and also committed
to memory by his immediate disciples in the first council. This literal interpretation
maintains that the Tripitaka contains all the teachings that the Buddha gave from his first
words after his enlightenment to his last teachings before his death (parinirvāna).”1

It is classified to two characteristics namely, Dharma[Teaching]and Vinaya [Discipline]

that appear in many placed of the Buddhist texts, as in Mahaparinibbhana Sutta that

“It may be Ānanda, that this thought may arise in some of you the word of the Master is no
more. We no longer have a Teacher — It is not thus that you should think. The Doctrine
(Dharma) and the Discipline(Vinaya) which I have taught you shall be your teacher when
I am no longer with you.”2

In fact, early buddhavacana is well-known to the Buddhist scholars in the Old ninefold
teachings (Navangasattusāsana) namely, Sutta(discourses), Gayya(sutta mixed with
verses), Veyyākarana(pros-expositions),Gāthā(verses), Udāna(exclaimations),
Itivuttaka(thus-said discourses), Jātaka(birth-stories),Abbhūtadhamma(marvelous ideas),
Vedalla(question and answer).

In addition, the discourse which saying by the Buddha or by others is can be taken into
account of “Buddhavacana”. A scholar named Norman stated that “it becomes clear that
Buddhavacana was interpreted in a broader sense. Buddhavacana, in this broad sense,
means the sayings of the Buddha, but sometimes it means what the Buddha would have
said, had he been there, or sayings, about the Buddha, or sayings in accordance with the
buddha’s teaching.” 3

This article will discuss Buddhavacana in term of constitute and indicate the criteria of
Buddhavacana that Buddhist communities use to determine it and express why the criteria
of determination of Buddhist communities is important.

1 George D. Bond, Buddhism Encyclopedia p.94

2 Ven. Pategama Gnanarama, The Mission Accomplished, p. 196

3 K.R. Norman, A Philological Approach to Buddhism, p.158
 !2

The first argument have a preference to express constitute of the Buddhavacana. All forms
of the text that appear in the Buddhist scriptures are the Buddhavacana, even oral tradition.
In the early dissemination, oral literature is the tradition of Buddhist community at that
time, Norman stated that “the assumption in the early Buddhism, the buddhist’s followers
disseminate the massage as they had heard it from the Buddha himself, and from his chief
disciplines, and as they had remembered it.”4

Another scholar is Cousins argued that “early Buddhist literature is an oral literature.
Such a literature is not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer to the considerable
body of research on the nature of oral epic poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used
both as an aid to actual performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the
epic tradition.”5

Another characteristic of Buddhist teaching is the creation of the block of the Sutras.
This kind is more effectively impact on the preservation of the oral Buddhist literatures.
There are more discourses are the same as the block in the Buddhist texts. For example, the
introduction of many sutras in same place must begin with “ evam me sutam ekam
samayam bhagavā savattiyam viharati.” Or the contextual respect presentation to the
Buddha “…..upasamkamitvā bhagavantam apivātetvā ekamantam nisīti ฯ.” For respected
tradition like this, it was the hierarchical system in Asian cultural perspectives. As people
known, Indian tradition is very strongly hierarchies that regard to their status in society
belong to Vedic literature. However, in term of higher knowledge (Vijja) and great
behaviours (morality) are the major factors that Buddha’s followers respect him by their
heart which differ from Indian Vedic believers at that time.

The word of the Buddha (BdV) is combined the discourses that He spoken, the words from
relevant Disciplines, some monks and nuns and other persons that the Buddha certified or
not. They are “three types of certification may be distinguished: approval after
the event, approval before the event, and authorisations of persons. The first works as
follows………..most favourably impressed by the following one from the Mahasanghika
Vinaya:

By ‘dharma’ is meant that which the Buddha has spoken and that which the Buddha

Has personally and with his own mouth spoken’ is meant that which the Buddha has

certified’ is meant that which the Buddha’s disciplines or others have spoken and

4 Ibid, p.55.
5 Cousins, Pali Oral Literature, Buddhist review p. 1.
 !3

which has been certified by the Buddha.”6

The significant collections are uncertified in “ Theragāthā and Therīgāthā”. This part is
collections of poetical sayings of the elder monks and nuns respectively. They belong to the
Khuddakhanikāya, the last ‘nikāya’ of the sutta-pitaka of the Pali canon. The ‘Theragāthā’
contains 264 poems7 of the elder monks (theras), while the ‘Therīgāthā’ contains 73
poems8 belonging to the elder nuns (therī).” 9 This is included in BdV as well. For this
point of views, MacQueen stated that “more importantly, that not all of the discourses that
form the basis for the sutras were in fact spoken by the buddha. Some, for example, were
spoken by various disciplines.” 10

In general, the criteria that Buddhist communities determine the BdV depending on the
early texts by comparison in the terms of meaning and can involve or refer to the early
Buddhist literatures. The great authorities are the most effective in the judgment of criteria.
According to Lamotte, “Mahāpadesa ( divided as mahā – apadesa) literlly means “ great
argument”. Buddhaghosa has the following explanation:

Mahāpadesa ti mahā-okase mahā –apadesa vā. Budhadayo mahante apadisitvā vuttāni

mahākāranāni ti atto: “ alleged causes ( or authorities) in referring to the Buddha or

other great persons.”11 Many Buddhist scholars accept these authorities, some scholars of

them, for example, Graeme MacQueen stated that “according to the ‘great authorities’

(Mahāpadesa , the status of the utterance in question is it to be determined by checking it

against existing dharma and vinaya to see if it harmonises in import. If it does, it may be

6 MacQueen, Inspired Speech in Early Mahayana Buddhism I, P. 309.

7This is mentioned in Rhys Davids, C.A.F. 1980. Psalms of the Sisters. In Psalms of the early Buddhists.
London: Pali Text Society, p. xiv; Norman, K. R. 1983. Pali Literature: including the canonical literature in
Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the Hinayana schools of Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, p.72; von
Hinüber, O. 1996. A handbook of Pali literature: Indian philology and South Asian studies; v. 2. Berlin; New
York: Walter de Gruyter, p.51.

8 Rhys Davids, C.A.F., op. cit., p. xiv; Norman, K. R., op. cit., p. 75; von Hinüber, O., p.52.
9 Nuntivanich Daranee, Theragāthā’ and ‘Therīgāthā’ p.1
10 MacQueen, Inspired Speech in Early Mahayana Buddhism I, p.306.
11 Lamotte, Etienne, the essessment of the Tectual Authenticity in Buddhism,Buddhist studies review I , p.13.
 !4

accepted; if it does not, it must be rejected.”12

Another scholar as James P. Mcdermott refered to Bond that “Bond’s essay gives a detailed

Analysis of what is perhaps the key passage in the development of the formal application,

The Mahapadesa Sutta. Nonetheless, a précis of its key point seems in order. According to

this sutta a rule( vinaya) or doctrine ( dharma) may be considered an authoritative

teaching if it fulfills two criteria. First, it must have been heard directly-the text say “face

to face”-from one of four possible sources of authoritative teachings. There are: 1) the

Buddha himself, 2) a complete order of monks led by a venerable elder, 3) a number of

learned senior monks fully versed in the dharma, the vinaya, and the scholastic summaries,

and finally 4) “ a single elder monk of wide learning, versed in the doctrines, one who

know dhamma by heart, who know vinaya by heart, who knows the summaries by
heart.”.13

Also, famous scholar named “Lamotte” confirms that “in the cases envisaged the Buddha

orders his monks to apply the following rule: that bhikkhu’s utterance ( bhāsitā) should be

Neither approved (abhinanditabba) nor rejected ( patikkositabba). Without either

approving them or rejected them, those words and syllables ( tāni padavyajanāni), having

been carefully understood ( sāddhukam uggahetvā), should be collected with the Sutta (

sutte otāretabbāni), compared with the Vinaya, they cannot be found in the Sutta ( na

c’cva sutte otaranti), then the following conclusion should be reached: “ Certainly, this is

not the word of the blessed one ( bhagavato vacanam) and has been misunderstood

(duggahītam) by that bhikkhu, that Community, those Elders or that Elder”, and he will in

consequence reject that text. If the words following conclusion should be reached: “

12 Ibid., p.13.
13James P. Mcdermott, Scripture as the word of the Buddha. Buddhism,Buddhist studies review, vol. XXXI,
P.26
 !5

Certainly, this is the word of the blessed one and has been well understood ( saggahītam)

by that bhikkhu, that Community, those Elders or that Elder.”14

However, in any point of view in the same studies argued that “in order that proposed with

reference to one of the four Great Authorities be guaranteed, it is not necessary for it to be

literally reproduced in the Scriptures, it is not enough that its general purport be in

keeping with the spirit of the Sūtras, the Vinaya and the Buddhist doctrine in general.”15

Moreover, in the same study from above stated that “the spirit of the Sūtras is condensed

in the Discourse on the Four Noble Truths; the Vinaya prescriptions are essentially aimed

at the appeasing of the passions, and the keystone of Buddhist philosophy is the theory of

Dependent Origination (pratityasamutpāda) which Asvajit summaried for Sāriputra in a

famous stanza, untiringly reproduced on Buddhist monuments: Ye dharmā hetuprabhayā,

etc.”16

Eventually, the conclusion of Lamotte strongly argued that “Taking the best they could

from the late sources they had at their disposal, the Buddhists drew their inspiration, for

The assessment of textual authenticity, from very sure principles, successively using

external and internal criteria. First, they endeavours to test the extrinsic value of the texts

by determining their origin: the Buddha, a specific Samgha, a single or several

particularly learned Elders. Then, they went on to the examination of their intrinsic value,

and sought to find out whether the texts proposed for their approval were indeed in the

14 Lamotte, Etienne, the assessment of the Textual Authenticity in Buddhism,Buddhist studies review I , p.12.

15 Ibid, p. 13
16 Ibid, p.13
 !6

spirit of the Dharma, Discipline and Buddhist philosophy.”17

thus I heart (evamme sutam), thus- said discourses ( etam hetum bhagavā)

This essay argues that the same characteristics block of sutras are beneficial for the

recitation and memory for the monks and preservation the oral Buddhist literatures.

For example, the explanation of the Four Noble Truths in dhammajakkapavattana sutta (

the wheel of the dharma)“ itam dhukkham ariyasaccam…,itam dhukkha-samudayo

ariyasaccam…, itam dhukkha-nirodho ariyasaccam…, and itam dhukkha-nirodagāminī-

padipadā- ariyasaccam….”18

study focus on all kinds of Buddha teachings in the texts such as, Suttas (Nikayas or

Āgamas), Abhidharmma. For Suttas, they are four nikayas in suttantika namely, long

discourses ( Dhīgha nikaya), middle length discourses( Majjhima nikaya), thousand of

short discourses in fifty-odd groups(Samyutta nikaya), thousand of short discourses

arranged numerically from one to elevens(Anguttara nikaya) and thousand of

short discourses (Khudaka nikaya). Abhidharmma is belonging to the Sravakayana

schools namely, enumeration of states(Dharmma-sanggani), the book of

analysis(Vibhangha), discourse of elements(Dhatu-katha), concept of individuals(Paggala-

pannatti), subjects of debate(Katha-vatthu), pairs( Yamaka) and origin(Patthana).

Vinaya refers to the monastic rules, the Pali Vinaya- Pitaka divided into three sections: the

Suttavibhangha,the khandhaka and parivara. Suttavibhangha is mainly about patimokkha.

Patimokkha contains the regulation for the monks (bhikkhuvibhangha) and the regulations

17 Ibid, p. 13
18
 !7

for the nuns(bhikkhunivibhangha). Moreover, the khandhaka in two portions (the

Mahavagga and the Cullvagga), is based on the rules of conduct for the Buddhist

Community ( Sangha). All of these are the Tripitaka that mainstream schools (Theravada)
used to determine the BdV in order to the first council after the passing of the
Buddha(mahāparinibbāna).

All schools strongly believed the Tripitaka is the completed teachings of the Buddha. They
argued that if the creation of new movements are probably contrasting from Tripitaka and
are not connected to the early Buddhist , it can be rejected. This is the criteria of these
schools.The controversy of this criterion is about how Buddhist community can examine
the abstract of higher meditation due to their absence or insufficiency of intensive practice
and only the texts cannot translate direct to the real experience that meditators attain the
stream of Nibbāna.

For the Mahayana schools, the Buddhist philosophy such as, the Four Noble Truths,

emtiness( sulyatā) are the determination of what is the criteria of the BdV. If any

sutra can interpreted and regard to the Buddhist philosophy, it probably can be accepted.

The issue of these schools about the whole comprehension of the complete understanding

of the sutra. It is not only the words or technical terms but it is needed to observe carefully

in contexts of that words. For this strategy, it is more effective solution to legitimate that

sutras or key concepts of the literature. For example, emptiness that deals with the ability

of Subhūti is that “ the holy Subhūti’s demonstration of Dharma does not get stuck

anywhere, no more than an arrow shot into the air. In response to this comment by Sakra,

the Buddha affirms that ‘whatoever, Kausika, is clear to Subhūti the Elder is clear to him

from the standpoint of emptiness’ (yad yad eva hi Kausika Subhuteh sthavirasya pratibhāti

tat tad eva Kausika sunyatām ārabhya pratibhāti). And in the same passage he affirms

that one who speaks thus speaks the dharma, the Buddha’s word. In other words, it is
 !8

through such pratibhāna that buddhavacana is transmited to the community.”19

Another view that indicates the ability of Subhūti is that “The Buddha invites Subhūti to

speak, with the words ‘may it be clear to you’ (pratibhāhu te), he is asking that a

(doctrinal) discourse flow freely from Subhuti’s purifies consciousness. The invitation

constitutes a certification before the event and indicates the discourse is a form of extended

buddhavacana. Two important points are, therefore, immediately suggested by the use of

this construction: (1) the sutra ( and, perhaps, all Mahayana sutras) is not simple

buddhavacana but extended buddhavacana, that is, it is the speech of people other than

the Buddha but is certified by him; (2) this certified speech is the most independent and

creative sort recognized, that which comes freely from, or through, the disciple’s mind.”

Another example is the perfect of wisdom “…since what the text prefers to as intimacy

with the perfection of wisdom ( and skill in means, upayakasalya) is the precisely this

ability to carry out the bodhisattva task while standing in emptiness, the preacher’s

function is that of communicating perfect wisdom, bringing it to life, giving it flesh. In the

theistic inspiration contexts the preacher personifies, or brings to personhood, the source

of truth and successor to the Buddha, which is liberating wisdom Since liberating wisdom

has taken over the function of the Buddha, what the inspired preacher reveals on behalf of

it through his pratibhāna can be considered buddhavacana.”20

Liberating wisdom is another key word that Mahayanist refers to the word of the Buddha.

For example, “liberating wisdom is hence the mother of the buddhas, the guide of the

buddhas, and so on. This function of a Buddha is precisely to make known such wisdom to

19 MacQueen, Inspired Speech in Early Mahayana Buddhism II, p.

20 Ibid, pp.58-59.
 !9

others, and this function implies its priority.” 21

Pratibhāna is another Mahayana Buddhist term that “appear in the cannon two types of

different understandings of inspired speech. Neither the clear distinction in construction

nor, more importantly, the distinction in understanding of inspiration has survived entirely

intact in Mahayana.”22

In conclusion, the constitutes of BdV can be observed in two major perspectives

that regard to the schools, there are, Theravāda school and Mahāyana school. For the
Theravāda schools the Tripitaka that contains disciplines (vinaya), discourses (suttanta or
sutras) and analytical psychology (Abhidharma). This Tripitaka is creditable in term of the
completed collections of BdV. However, all of teachings are created by the Buddha and his
disciplines which can accepts to be identified as BdV by comparing it with the Vinaya and
Sutta. It could be accepted if literatures are articulated similar. the Mahayanist point of
view is indifferent to Theravada view about the Tripitaka but some points of views are
dissimilar such as, perfect wisdom and Bodhisattva path. The criteria that Buddhist
communities determine the word of the Buddha [BdV] is significantly not the same page.
Mahayana schools indicate BdV by the term of Buddhist philosophy such as, perfect
wisdom, emptiness(Sulyatā). Also, extended collaborations of BdV are accepted.

The importance of investigation the word of the Buddha is to preserve the early Buddhist
teachings and establish the instruments for later Buddhists. As this article have mentioned
earlier, the oral literature is the origin of BdV. Most of the blocks later are made into
uncomplicated version for recitation. Another benefit is that the paradox of BdV is possible
make a distinction of schools but they are maintaining the key concepts of the BdV.
Therefore, this analytical technique of the BdV leads to the division of Buddhism.

21 Ibid, p. 53.
22 Ibid, pp. 59-60.
 !10

References

Bond, G.D. 1982. The word of the Buddha: The Tipitaka and its Interpretation in

Theravada Buddhism. Columbo.

Bond, G. D., and R. E. Buswell, Jr. 2004. Arhat. In Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:

Macmillan Reference USA, p.94-95

Lamotte, Etienne 1982. “The Assessment of the Textual Authenticity in Buddhism.”

Buddhist Studies Review 1.1

Macqueen, G. 1981. “Inspired Speech in early Mahāyāna Buddhism I.” Religion 11.

--------------. 1982. “Inspired Speech in early Mahāyāna Buddhism II.” Religion 12.

McDermott, J.P. 1984. “Scripture as the Word of the Buddha.” Numen 31.1

Norman K.R. 2006 (2ND ed.). A Philological Approach to Buddhism. The Bukkyō

Dendō Kyōkai Lectures 1994. Lancaster (see index:buddhavacana).