a finale in many other places.  Artificial as this arrangement sounds when analyzed, it is a natural procedure for one who wished to impress on his hearers a series of philosophic propositions without the aid of writing, and I can imagine that these rhythmical formulae uttered in that grave and pleasant voice which the Buddha is said to have possessed, seemed to the leisurely yet eager groups who sat round him under some wayside banyan or in the monastery park, to be not tedious iteration but a gradual revelation of truth growing clearer with each repetition.

We gather from the Pitakas that writing was well known in the Buddha’s time[621].  But though it was used for inscriptions, accounts and even letters, it was not used for books, partly because the Brahmans were prejudiced against it, and partly because no suitable material for inditing long compositions had been discovered.  There were religious objections to parchment and leaves were not employed till later.  The minute account of monastic life given in the Vinaya makes it certain that the monks did not use writing for religious purposes.  Equally conclusive, though also negative, is the fact that in the accounts of the assemblies at Rajagaha and Vesali[622] when there is a dispute as to the correct ruling on a point, there is no appeal to writing but merely to the memory of the oldest and most authoritative monks.  In the Vinaya we hear of people who know special books:  of monks who are preachers of the Dhamma and others who know the Sutta:  of laymen who have learnt a particular suttanta and are afraid it will fall into oblivion unless others learn it from them.  Apprehensions are expressed that suttas will be lost if monks neglect to learn them by heart[623].  From inscriptions of the third century B.C.[624] are quoted words like Petaki, a reciter of the Pitakas or perhaps of one Pitaka:  Suttantika and Suttantakini, a man or woman who recites the suttantas:  Pancanekayika, one who recites the five Nikayas.  All this shows that from the early days of Buddhism onwards a succession of persons made it their business to learn and recite the doctrine and disciplinary rules and, considering the retentiveness of trained memories, we have no reason to doubt that the doctrine and rules have been preserved without much loss[625].

Not, however, without additions.  The disadvantage of oral tradition is not that it forgets but that it proceeds snowball fashion, adding with every generation new edifying matter.  The text of the Vedic hymns was preserved with such jealous care that every verse and syllable was counted.  But in works of lesser sanctity interpolations and additions were made according to the reciters’ taste.  We cannot assign to the Mahabharata one date or author, and the title of Upanishad is no guarantee for the age or authenticity of the treatises that bear it.  Already in the Anguttara-Nikaya[626], we hear of tables of contents and the expression is important, for though we cannot give any more precise explanation of it, it shows that care was taken to check the contents of the works accepted as scripture.  But still there is little doubt that during the two or three centuries following the Buddha’s death, there went on a process not only of collection and recension but also of composition.