114 Journai of the Asiatic Socrety of Bengal. [N.S.. XV, 
Judging from the valuable extract from the Jiianaprasthana 
given by Prof. Takakusu we can decide once for all that 
the work is not identical with the Pali Abhidhamma book 
latter. The Netti and Jfianaprasthana have many points in 
common, as they were written to serve a similar purpose. 
ning paragraphs or pages of his two books, 
Mahakaccayana frankly states that his work was not to start a 
new idea but to produce a s systematic analytical exposition of 
the expressions of others (paratoghosa).! The parikkharahara * 
of the Netti is a chapter based upon the patthana, though 
it throws new light on the subject of causal correlation. As 
appears from the section on Nayasamutthana, Mahakaccayana 
refers to the Buddhist schismatic or heretics (Ditthicarita 
asmim sasane pabbajita), whom he sharply distinguished from 
the outsiders (Ditthicarita ito bahiddhapabbajita). Such a 
thing as this is not possible within the first century of Buddha’s 
Nibbana. It presupposes the four nikayas and all other older 
books of the three pitakas from which it has quoted several 
passages. Without going into further details, we will not be 
far from the truth to suppose that the works of Mahakaccaiyana 
were indeed a connecting link between the Tripitaka on one 
side and all subsequent Buddhist texts on the other. Thus if 
we have to choose between his works and ns Katha vatthu, the 
priority must be said to belong to the form 
The Kathavatthu, which is a Buddhist book of debate 
on matters of theology and philosophy represents the fourth 
landmark. Buddhaghosa’s® plea for affiliation of this signifi- 
cant text to the Pali canon is ingenious enough. Buddha 
laid down the main propositions (Matika) which were discussed 
later by the adherents of different schools of thought.* It 
may however be doubted whether a book of controversy such 
as the Kathavatthu can be regarded as a landmark in the 
history of the commentaries. But a closer investigation will 
make it evident that this book of controversy is looked upon 
in one way as no more than a book of interpretation, as Maha- 
kaccayana * rightly points out that the Buddhist heretics, in 
spite of their individual paiseets. agreed in so far as their 
regard for the teachings of the master was concerned. The few 
imens of controversy which the Kathavatthu has embodied 
exhibit that both sides referred to Buddha as a final court of 
appeal. All have quoted passages from the canon, though 
their interpretations differ widely. Next we have to think of 
the ‘‘ Questions of ee Milinda’’ (Milinda-Patho), which is a 
! B. M. Barua’s Prolegomena to a history of Buddhist Philosophy, 
pp. pag: 42. 
2 Net Dane ce PP. 78-80. 8 Ibid., pp. 110-112. 
® Atthasélini 5 Nettipakarana, p. 112. 
