Everything indicates and nothing discredits the conclusion that this canon of the Vibhajjavadins was substantially fixed in the time of Asoka, so far as the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas are concerned.  Some works of minor importance may have had an uncertain position and subsequent revisions may have been made but the principal scriptures were already recognized and contained passages which occur in our versions.  On the other hand this recension of the scriptures was not the only one in existence.  If the patronage of Asoka gave it a special prestige in his lifetime, it may have lost it in India after his death and for many centuries the Buddhist Canon, like the list of the Upanishads, must have been susceptible of alteration.  The Sarvastivadins compiled an Abhidhamma Pitaka of their own, apparently in the time of Kanishka, and the Dharmagupta school also seems to have had its own version of this Pitaka[635].  The date of the Pali Abhidhamma is very doubtful and I do not reject the hypothesis that it was composed in Ceylon, for the Sinhalese seem to have a special taste for such literature.  But there is no proof of this Sinhalese origin.

According to Sinhalese tradition all three Pitakas were introduced into Ceylon by Mahinda in the reign of Asoka, but only as oral tradition and not in a written form.  They received this latter about 20 B.C., as the result of a dispute between two monasteries[636].  The controversy is obscure but it appears that the ancient foundation called Mahavihara accepted as canonical the fifth book of the Vinaya called Parivara, whereas it was rejected by the new monastery called Abhayagiri.  The Sinhalese chronicle (Mahavamsa XXXIII. 100-104) says somewhat abruptly “The wise monks had hitherto handed down the text of the three Pitakas (Pitakattayapalim) as well as the commentary by word of mouth.  But seeing that mankind was becoming lost, they assembled together and wrote them in books in order that the faith might long endure.”  This brief account seems to mean that a council was held not by the whole clergy of Ceylon but by the monks of the Mahavihara at which they committed to writing their own version of the canon including the Parivara.  This book forms an appendix to the Vinaya Pitaka and in some verses printed at the conclusion is said to be the work of one Dipa.  It is generally accepted as a relatively late production, composed in Ceylon.  If such a work was included in the canon of the Mahavihara, we must admit the possibility that other portions of it may be Sinhalese and not Indian.

But still the onus probandi lies with those who maintain the Sinhalese origin of any part of the Pali Canon and two strong arguments support the Indian origin of the major part.  First, many suttas not only show an intimate knowledge of ancient Indian customs but discuss topics such as caste, sacrifice, ancient heresies, and the value of the Veda which would be of no interest to Sinhalese.  Secondly, there is no Sinhalese local colour and no Sinhalese legends have been introduced.  Contrast with this the Dipa-and Maha-vamsa both of which open with accounts of mythical visits paid by the Buddha to Ceylon[637].