The Suttapiṭaka and the Vinayapiṭaka record the historical achievements of Śākyamuni. Nevertheless, “who” did “what” to “whom” “where” were written in detail, but “when” was not specified. Why so?
Also, when this “when” is dated as ekaṃ samayaṃ (a certain time) in the Suttapiṭaka, the Vinayapiṭaka distinguishes it by expressing it as tena samayena (then). Why so?
Śākyamuni had a consciousness that he became Buddha as result of following the ancient road that was travelled by the various Buddhas of the past, attaining enlightenment that the various Buddhas had attained, and of preaching the teachings that the various Buddhas of the past had preached. Based on this awareness were the suttas preached. Therefore, the contents of the Suttapiṭaka are universal, and it is not good to be caught in time.
Meanwhile, Śākyamuni had the recognition that the dhamma was extinct because the Buddhas of the past did not preach the Pātimokkha. Under this awareness, he established the Vinayapiṭaka, legislative documents that he originally established for maintaining and developing his saṅgha. Time is an extremely important factor for the law, because the same act becomes a crime or not depending on when the law was enacted.
The Suttapiṭaka and the Vinayapiṭaka are canonical records. The Buddha’s disciples edited the suttas in a form not limiting time using ‘ekaṃ samayaṃ,’ and edited the rules in a way that limits “time” using ‘tena samayena’. This is a poor measure of trying to solve two conflicting requests at the same time. Tena samayena does not mean “when”. Therefore, there were no biographies of Buddha in Buddhism.
