Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1This, however, is by no means easy, and the evidence on which we have to rely is such that we must not be surprised if those who are accustomed to test historical and chronological evidence 1 The figures within brackets refer to the other list of books in the Khuddaka-nikaya. See also p. xxviii. 2 M. Léon Feer in the Journal Asiatique, 1871, p. 266, mentions another commentary of a more philosophical character, equally ascribed to Buddhaghosa, and having the title Vivara Bra Dhammapada, i.e. L’auguste Dhammapada dévoilé. Professor Forchhammer in his ‘ List of Manuscripts,’ 1879-80, mentions the following works in connection with the Dhammapada: Dhammapada- Nissayo; Dh. P. A¢thakatha by Buddhaghosa; Dh. P. Atthakatha Nissayo, 3 vols., containing a complete translation of the commentary; Dh. P. Vatthu. Of printed books he quotes: Kayanupassanakyam, a work based on the Garavaggo, Mandalay, 1876 (390 pages), and Dhammapada-desanakyam, printed in ‘ British Burma News.’ INTRODUCTION. xi in Greece and Rome, decline to be convinced by it. As a general rule, I quite agree that we cannot be too sceptical in assigning a date to ancient books, particularly if we intend to use them as documents for tracing the history of human thought. To the initiated, I mean to those who have themselves worked in the mines of ancient Oriental literature, such extreme scepticism may often seem unscientific and uncalled for. They are more or less aware of hundreds of arguments, each by itself, it may be, of small weight, but all combined proving irresistible. They are conscious, too, of having been constantly on the look out for danger, and, as all has gone on smoothly, they feel sure that, in the main, they are on the right road. Still it is always useful to be as incredulous as possible, particularly against oneself, and to have before our eyes critics who will not yield one inch beyond what they are forced to yield by the strongest pressure of facts. The age of our MSS. of the canonical books, either in Pali or Sanskrit, is of no help to us. All Indian MSS. are comparatively modern, and one who has probably handled more Indian MSS. than anybody else, Mr. A. Burnell, has lately expressed his conviction that ‘no MS. written one thousand years ago is now existent in India, and that it is almost impossible to find one written five hundred years ago, for most MSS. which claim to be of that date are merely copies of old MSS. the dates of which are repeated by the copyists?.’ Nor is the language, whether Sanskrit or P4li, a safe guide for fixing dates. Both languages continue to be written to our own time, and though there are some characteristic marks to distinguish more modern from more ancient Buddhist Sanskrit and Pa4li, this branch of critical scholarship requires to be cultivated far more extensively and accurately before true scholars would venture to fix the date of a Sanskrit or Pali text on the strength of linguistic evidence alone ?,
21 Indian Antiquary, 1880, p. 233. 3 See some important remarks on this subject in Fausboll’s Introduction to Sutta-nipata, p. xi. Xil DHAMMAPADA. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty in assigning a date to their sacred canon. They are told in that canon itself that it was settled at the First Council, or immediately after the death of Buddha, and they believe that it was afterwards handed down by means of oral tradition, or actually written down in books by order of Késyapa, the president of the First Council?, Buddhaghosa, a learned and in some respects a critical scholar, living in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., asserts that the canon which he had before him, was the same as that fixed by the First Council ?. Several European students have adopted the same opinion, and, so far as I know, no argument has yet been| advanced showing the impossibility of the native view, that some collection of Buddha’s doctrines was made im-. mediately after his death at RAgagaha, and that it was finally settled at what is called the Second Council, or the’ Council of Vesali. But what is not impossible is not therefore true, nor can anything be gained by appealing to later witnesses, such as, for instance, Hiouen Thsang, who travelled through India in the seventh century, and wrote down anything that he could learn, little concerned whether one statement tallied with the other or not’. He says that the Tipitaka was written down on palm leaves by Kasyapa at the end of the First Council. But what can be the weight of such a witness, living more than a thousand years after the event, compared with that, for instance, of the Mahaévamsa, which dates from the fifth century of our era, and 1 Bigandet, Life of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), p. 350; but also p.120 note. 2 See Childers, s.v. Tipitaka. There is a curious passage in Buddhaghosa’s account of the First Council. ‘ Now one may ask,’ he says, ‘ Is there or is there not in this first Paragika anything to be taken away or added?’ I reply, There is nothing in the words of the Blessed Buddha that can be taken away, for the Buddhas speak not even a single syllable in vain, yet in the words of disciples and devatds there are things which may be omitted, and these the elders who made the recension, did omit. On the other hand, additions are everywhere necessary, and accordingly, whenever it was necessary to add anything, they added it. Ifit be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ‘at that time,’ ‘again at that time,’ ‘and so forth.’ > Pélerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p.158. INTRODUCTION. Xili
3Ifit be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ‘at that time,’ ‘again at that time,’ ‘and so forth.’ > Pélerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p.158. INTRODUCTION. Xili tells us in the account of Mahinda’s missionary journey to Ceylon (241/318), that the son of Asoka had to spend three years in learning the Tipizaka by heart from the mouth of a teacher!? No mention is then made of any books or MSS., when it would have been most natural to do so*. Ata later time, during the reign of King Vastagamani*® (88-76 B.C.), the same chronicle, the Mahavamsa, tells us that ‘the profoundly wise priests had theretofore orally (mukhapaésena) perpetuated the Pali of the Pitakattaya and its A¢thakatha (commentary), but that at this period the priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people assembled, and in order that the religion might endure for ages, recorded the same in books (potthakesu likhapayum)* No one has yet questioned the dates of the Dipavamsa, about 400 A.D., or of the first part of the Mahdvamsa, between 459-477 A.D., and though no doubt there is an interval of nearly 600 years between the composition of the Mahavamsa and the recorded writing down of the Buddhist canon under Va¢fagdmani, yet we must remember that the Ceylonese chronicles were confessedly founded on an older A¢thakatha preserved in the monasteries of the island, and representing an unbroken line of local tradition. My own argument therefore, so long as the question was only whether we could assign a pre-Christian date to the Pali Buddhist canon, has always been this. We have the commentaries on the Pali canon translated from Sinhalese into P&li, or actually composed, it may be, by Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa confessedly consulted various 1 Mahavamsa, p. 37; DipavamsaVII, 28-31; Buddhaghosha’s Parables, p. xviii. 3 Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, p. 351. * Dr. E. Miiller (Indian Antiquary, Nov. 1880, p. 270) has discovered inscriptions in Ceylon, belonging to Devanapiya Maharaga GAmini Tissa, whom he identifies with VattagAmani. * The same account is given in the Dipavamsa XX, 20, and in the Sarasafigraha, as quoted by Spence Hardy, Legends, p.192. As throwing light on the completeness of the Buddhist canon at the time of King Vattagdmani, it should be mentioned that, according to the commentary on the Mahavamsa (Turnour, p. liii), the sect of the Dhammarutikas established itself at the Abhayavihara, which had been constructed by Vattagdmani, and that one of the grounds of their secession was their refusing to acknowledge the Parivara (thus I read instead of Pariwana) as part of the Vinaya-pitaka. According to the Dipavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara. XIV DHAMMAPADA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1This, however, is by no means easy, and the evidence on which we have to rely is such that we must not be surprised if those who are accustomed to test historical and chronological evidence 1 The figures within brackets refer to the other list of books in the Khuddaka-nikaya. See also p. xxviii. 2 M. Léon Feer in the Journal Asiatique, 1871, p. 266, mentions another commentary of a more philosophical character, equally ascribed to Buddhaghosa, and having the title Vivara Bra Dhammapada, i.e. L’auguste Dhammapada dévoilé. Professor Forchhammer in his ‘ List of Manuscripts,’ 1879-80, mentions the following works in connection with the Dhammapada: Dhammapada- Nissayo; Dh. P. A¢thakatha by Buddhaghosa; Dh. P. Atthakatha Nissayo, 3 vols., containing a complete translation of the commentary; Dh. P. Vatthu. Of printed books he quotes: Kayanupassanakyam, a work based on the Garavaggo, Mandalay, 1876 (390 pages), and Dhammapada-desanakyam, printed in ‘ British Burma News.’ INTRODUCTION. xi in Greece and Rome, decline to be convinced by it. As a general rule, I quite agree that we cannot be too sceptical in assigning a date to ancient books, particularly if we intend to use them as documents for tracing the history of human thought. To the initiated, I mean to those who have themselves worked in the mines of ancient Oriental literature, such extreme scepticism may often seem unscientific and uncalled for. They are more or less aware of hundreds of arguments, each by itself, it may be, of small weight, but all combined proving irresistible. They are conscious, too, of having been constantly on the look out for danger, and, as all has gone on smoothly, they feel sure that, in the main, they are on the right road. Still it is always useful to be as incredulous as possible, particularly against oneself, and to have before our eyes critics who will not yield one inch beyond what they are forced to yield by the strongest pressure of facts. The age of our MSS. of the canonical books, either in Pali or Sanskrit, is of no help to us. All Indian MSS. are comparatively modern, and one who has probably handled more Indian MSS. than anybody else, Mr. A. Burnell, has lately expressed his conviction that ‘no MS. written one thousand years ago is now existent in India, and that it is almost impossible to find one written five hundred years ago, for most MSS. which claim to be of that date are merely copies of old MSS. the dates of which are repeated by the copyists?.’ Nor is the language, whether Sanskrit or P4li, a safe guide for fixing dates. Both languages continue to be written to our own time, and though there are some characteristic marks to distinguish more modern from more ancient Buddhist Sanskrit and Pa4li, this branch of critical scholarship requires to be cultivated far more extensively and accurately before true scholars would venture to fix the date of a Sanskrit or Pali text on the strength of linguistic evidence alone ?,
21 Indian Antiquary, 1880, p. 233. 3 See some important remarks on this subject in Fausboll’s Introduction to Sutta-nipata, p. xi. Xil DHAMMAPADA. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty in assigning a date to their sacred canon. They are told in that canon itself that it was settled at the First Council, or immediately after the death of Buddha, and they believe that it was afterwards handed down by means of oral tradition, or actually written down in books by order of Késyapa, the president of the First Council?, Buddhaghosa, a learned and in some respects a critical scholar, living in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., asserts that the canon which he had before him, was the same as that fixed by the First Council ?. Several European students have adopted the same opinion, and, so far as I know, no argument has yet been| advanced showing the impossibility of the native view, that some collection of Buddha’s doctrines was made im-. mediately after his death at RAgagaha, and that it was finally settled at what is called the Second Council, or the’ Council of Vesali. But what is not impossible is not therefore true, nor can anything be gained by appealing to later witnesses, such as, for instance, Hiouen Thsang, who travelled through India in the seventh century, and wrote down anything that he could learn, little concerned whether one statement tallied with the other or not’. He says that the Tipitaka was written down on palm leaves by Kasyapa at the end of the First Council. But what can be the weight of such a witness, living more than a thousand years after the event, compared with that, for instance, of the Mahaévamsa, which dates from the fifth century of our era, and 1 Bigandet, Life of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), p. 350; but also p.120 note. 2 See Childers, s.v. Tipitaka. There is a curious passage in Buddhaghosa’s account of the First Council. ‘ Now one may ask,’ he says, ‘ Is there or is there not in this first Paragika anything to be taken away or added?’ I reply, There is nothing in the words of the Blessed Buddha that can be taken away, for the Buddhas speak not even a single syllable in vain, yet in the words of disciples and devatds there are things which may be omitted, and these the elders who made the recension, did omit. On the other hand, additions are everywhere necessary, and accordingly, whenever it was necessary to add anything, they added it. Ifit be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ‘at that time,’ ‘again at that time,’ ‘and so forth.’ > Pélerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p.158. INTRODUCTION. Xili
3Ifit be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ‘at that time,’ ‘again at that time,’ ‘and so forth.’ > Pélerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p.158. INTRODUCTION. Xili tells us in the account of Mahinda’s missionary journey to Ceylon (241/318), that the son of Asoka had to spend three years in learning the Tipizaka by heart from the mouth of a teacher!? No mention is then made of any books or MSS., when it would have been most natural to do so*. Ata later time, during the reign of King Vastagamani*® (88-76 B.C.), the same chronicle, the Mahavamsa, tells us that ‘the profoundly wise priests had theretofore orally (mukhapaésena) perpetuated the Pali of the Pitakattaya and its A¢thakatha (commentary), but that at this period the priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people assembled, and in order that the religion might endure for ages, recorded the same in books (potthakesu likhapayum)* No one has yet questioned the dates of the Dipavamsa, about 400 A.D., or of the first part of the Mahdvamsa, between 459-477 A.D., and though no doubt there is an interval of nearly 600 years between the composition of the Mahavamsa and the recorded writing down of the Buddhist canon under Va¢fagdmani, yet we must remember that the Ceylonese chronicles were confessedly founded on an older A¢thakatha preserved in the monasteries of the island, and representing an unbroken line of local tradition. My own argument therefore, so long as the question was only whether we could assign a pre-Christian date to the Pali Buddhist canon, has always been this. We have the commentaries on the Pali canon translated from Sinhalese into P&li, or actually composed, it may be, by Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa confessedly consulted various 1 Mahavamsa, p. 37; DipavamsaVII, 28-31; Buddhaghosha’s Parables, p. xviii. 3 Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, p. 351. * Dr. E. Miiller (Indian Antiquary, Nov. 1880, p. 270) has discovered inscriptions in Ceylon, belonging to Devanapiya Maharaga GAmini Tissa, whom he identifies with VattagAmani. * The same account is given in the Dipavamsa XX, 20, and in the Sarasafigraha, as quoted by Spence Hardy, Legends, p.192. As throwing light on the completeness of the Buddhist canon at the time of King Vattagdmani, it should be mentioned that, according to the commentary on the Mahavamsa (Turnour, p. liii), the sect of the Dhammarutikas established itself at the Abhayavihara, which had been constructed by Vattagdmani, and that one of the grounds of their secession was their refusing to acknowledge the Parivara (thus I read instead of Pariwana) as part of the Vinaya-pitaka. According to the Dipavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara. XIV DHAMMAPADA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.