Dear Rett,

> The most common one is the threefold division into the three Pi.takas.

But we should note that the Three Pitakas system is not, as far as can
ascertain, mentioned in the suttas or the vinaya. The original division as
mentioned in the suttas and vinaya is simply that: the suttas and the
vinaya. There is no mention of the Abhidhamma in the sense it is being used
in this discussion. It is for this reason that some perspicacious
commentators seek to include in in the Khuddka-nikaya.

In discussing the Pitakas and their origin, the following should be noted.

1. Despite some "drift" -- more often superficial than substantial -- all
the Vinayas of the different lineages that survive can be sourced to a
single original text, probably the one which was circulated at the time of
the great Ashokan missions (See: Frauwallner, "The Earliest Vinaya"). The
same situation applies to the surviving four nikayas / agamas, with the
possible exception of the Anguttara / Ekottara. In other words, it can thus
be demonstrated that both the 4 nikayas / agamas and the vinaya go back to a
single source, shared, transmitted and respected by all the Indian schools
of Buddhism.

2. The Kuddaka-nikaya / K.sudraka-aagama is problematic. That category
is found in some schools and not others, though individual elements were
preserved in other canonical categories. Since many of the Indian Buddhist
schools which dutifully and accurately perserved the four basic nikayas /
aagamas, but not the Kuddaka-nikaya / K.sudraka-aagama, this suggests to me
that it is a later sectarian compilation. This is not, of course, to say
that it is inauthentic as Buddha-dharma.

3. For similar reasons, it seems logical to think that the Theravadin
Abhidhamma is a post-Ashokan sectarian creation. Some Indian Buddhist
schools had an Abhidharma and others did not, while those that did each
transmitted a totally different set of Abhidharma texts. If there is
considerable homogeneity with regards the sutras and the vinaya of the
different schools, then we should expect but do not see the same situation
regarding the Abhidharma. Again, so I do not upset certain people, this is
not to suggest that the eg. Theravadin Abhidhamma is wrong or fraudulent --
it is just one amongst many equals. They each have their strengths and
weaknesses points.

4. Such similarity in subject matter as we can observe in the various
Abhidharma collections suggests that those shared elements between the
various Indian Buddhist schools were inspired by some standard and basic
matrika list, dating back at least to the Ashokan period. The Abhidharmas
seem to have been developed using these lists. Indeed, some Indian schools
had a Sutra-pitaka, a Vinaya-Pitaka and a Matrika-pitaka.

Finally, I should say that all of this seems to be totally irrelevent to
following the path. If any one element of the rich heritage of the
Buddha-Dharma works for you, then that is right for you.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge