{"collection":"Buddhism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bud/dob/dob-07tx.htm","path":"bud/dob/dob-07tx.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-07tx.htm","text":"[This Sutta having been incorporated, word for word, as \u00a7\u00a7 15-19, inclusive, in the last Sutta, the reader is referred to the translation given there.\nThe Mah\u00e2li Sutta must have already included, when the D\u00eegha was put together, this G\u00e2liya episode. For there would otherwise be no reason for the Mah\u00e2li Sutta being put into the S\u00eelakkhanda Vagga, the S\u00eelas being contained only in that episode.\nWhy then should the episode appear also again, in full, as a separate Sutta? Is it merely because of the importance of the question? We have another instance of a similar kind, where the episode of Nigrodha's question, only referred to at \u00a7 23 of the Kassapa-S\u00eehan\u00e2da Sutta, is set out afterwards, in full, in the Udumbar\u00eeka S\u00eehan\u00e2da Sutta (No. 25 in the D\u00eegha). But there the whole episode is not given twice in full. Such cross-references are fairly frequent in the Pitakas, and are of importance for the history of the literature. One of the most striking cases is where the Samyutta quotes a Sutta, now contained in the D\u00eegha, by name. (Sakka-pa\u00f1ha Sutta, S. III, 13; compare Sum. I, 51; Mil. 350.)]\nReturn to top Next: Introduction to the Kassapa-S\u00eehan\u00e2da Sutta","title":"VII. G\u00e2liya Sutta","type":"page"}