Similarly, the Vinaya clearly presupposes an old code in the form of a list of offences called the Patimokkha.  The Mahavagga contains a portion of an ancient word-for-word explanation of this code[631] and most of the Sutta-vibhanga is an amplification and exposition of it.  The Patimokkha was already in existence when these books were composed, for we hear[632] that if in a company of Bhikkhus no one knows the Patimokkha, one of the younger brethren should be sent to some better instructed monastery to learn it.  And further we hear[633] that a learned Bhikkhu was expected to know not merely the precepts of the Patimokkha but also the occasion when each was formulated.  The place, the circumstances and the people concerned had been in each case handed down.  There is here all the material for a narrative.  The reciter of a sutta simply adopts the style of a village story-teller.  “Thus have I heard.  Once upon a time the Lord was dwelling at Rajagaha,” or wherever it was, and such and such people came to see him.  And then, after a more or less dramatic introduction, comes the Lord’s discourse and at the end an epilogue saying how the hearers were edified and, if previously unconverted, took refuge in the true doctrine.

The Cullavagga states that the Vinaya (but not the other Pitakas) was recited and verified at the Council of Vesali.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, Sinhalese and Chinese accounts speak of another Council, the Mahasangha or Mahasangiti.  Though its date is uncertain, there is a consensus of tradition to the effect that it recognized a canon of its own, different from our Pali Canon and containing a larger amount of popular matter.

Sinhalese tradition states that the canon as we now have it was fixed at the third Council held at Pataliputra in the reign of Asoka (about 272-232 B.C.).  The most precise statements about this Council are those of Buddhaghosa who says that an assembly of monks who knew the three Pitakas by heart recited the Vinaya and the Dhamma.

But the most important and interesting evidence as to the existence of Buddhist scriptures in the third century B.C. is afforded by the Bhabru (or Bhabra) edict of Asoka.  He recommends the clergy to study seven passages, of which nearly all can be identified in our present edition of the Pitakas[634].  This edict does not prove that Asoka had before him in the form which we know the Digha and other works cited.  But the most cautious logic must admit that there was a collection of the Buddha’s sayings to which he could appeal and that if most of his references to this collection can be identified in our Pitakas, then the major part of these Pitakas is probably identical in substance (not necessarily verbally) with the collection of sayings known to Asoka.

Neither Asoka nor the author of the Katha-vatthu cites books by name.  The latter for instance quotes the well-known lines “anupubbena medhavi” not as coming from the Dhammapada but as “spoken by the Lord.”  But the author of the Questions of Milinda, who knew the canonical books by the names they bear now, also often adopts a similar method of citation.  Although this author’s probable date is not earlier than our era his evidence is important.  He mentions all five Nikayas by name, the titles of many suttas and also the Vibhanga, Dhatu-katha, Puggala-Pannatti, Katha-vatthu, Yamaka and Patthana.