Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1According to the Dipavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara. XIV DHAMMAPADA. MSS., and gives various readings, just as any modern scholar might do. This was in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., and there is nothing improbable, though I would say no more, in supposing that some of the MSS., consulted by Buddhaghosa, dated from the first century B.C., when Vaé“agdmani ordered the sacred canon to be reduced to writing. There is one other event with reference to the existence of the sacred canon in Ceylon, recorded in the Mah4vamsa, between the time of Buddhaghosa and Vadtagamani, viz. the translation of the Suttas from Pali into the language of Ceylon, during the reign of Buddhad4sa, 339-368 A.D. If MSS. of that ancient translation still existed, they would, no doubt, be very useful for determining the exact state of the Pali originals at that time’. But even without them there seems no reason to doubt that Buddhaghosa had before him old MSS. of the Pali canon, and that these were in the main the same as those written down at the time of Vatéagdmani. _BUDDHAGHOSA’S AGE. The whole of this argument, however, rested on the supposition that Buddhaghosa’s date in the beginning of the fifth century A.D. was beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. ‘His age,’ I had ventured to say in the Preface to Buddhaghosha’s Parables (1870), ‘can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.’ But soon after, one of our most celebrated Pali scholars, the great Russian traveller, Professor Joh. Minayeff, expressed in the Mélanges Asiatiques (13/25 April, 1871) the gravest-doubts as to Buddhaghosa’s age, and thus threw the whole Buddhist chronology, so far as it had then been accepted by all, or nearly all scholars, back into chaos. He gave as his chief reason that Buddhaghosa was not, as I supposed, the contemporary of Mah4n4ma, the 1 A note is added, stating that several portions of the other two divisions also of the Pitakattaya were translated into the Sinhalese language, and that these alone are consulted by the priests, who are unacquainted with Pali. On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the Atthakatha exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69. INTRODUCTION. XV author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mah4n4ma, the king of Ceylon.
2On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the Atthakatha exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69. INTRODUCTION. XV author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mah4n4ma, the king of Ceylon. Professor Minayeff is undoubtedly right in this, but Iam not aware that I, or anybody else, had ever questioned so palpable a fact. There are two Mahandmas; one, the king who reigned from 410-432 A.D.; the other, the supposed author of the Mahavamsa, the uncle and protector of King DhAatusena, 459-477. ‘ Dhatusena,’ I had written, ‘was the nephew of the historian Mahandma, and owed the throne to the protection of his uncle. Dhatusena was in fact the restorer of a national dynasty, and after having defeated the foreign usurpers (the Damilo dynasty) “he restored the religion which had been set aside by the foreigners”’ (Mahav. p. 256). Among his many pious acts it is particularly mentioned that he gave a thousand, and ordered the Dipavamsa to be promulgated. As Mahandma was the uncle of Dhatusena, who reigned from 459-477, he may be considered as a trustworthy witness with regard to events that occurred between 410 and 432. Now the literary activity of Buddhaghosa in Ceylon falls in that period’? These facts being admitted, it is surely not too great a stretch of probability to suppose, as I did, that a man whose nephew was king in 459-477, might have been alive in 410-432, that is to say, might have been a contemporary of Buddhaghosa. I did not commit myself to any further theories. The question whether Mahanama, the uncle of Dhatusena, was really the author of the Mah4vamsa, the question whether he wrote the second half of the 37th chapter of that work, or broke off his chronicle in the middle of that chapter, I did not discuss, having no new materials to bring forward beyond those on which Turnour and those who followed him had founded their conclusions, and which I had discussed in my History of Sanskrit Literature (1859), p. 267. All I said was, ‘It is difficult to determine whether the 38th as well as the (whole of the) 37th chapter came from the pen of Mahanama, for * ‘Ungefahr 50 Jahre alter als Mah4nama ist Buddhaghosha,’ see Westergaard, Uber Buddha's Todesjahr, p. 99. XVI DHAMMAPADA. the Mahdvamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mah4n4ma carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D.
399. XVI DHAMMAPADA. the Mahdvamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mah4n4ma carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D. What I meant by ‘all the circumstances of the case’ might easily be understood by any one who had read Turnour’s Preface to the Mah4vamsa. Turnour himself thought at first that Mahan4ma’s share in the Mahdvamsa ended with the year 301 A.D.,and that the rest of the work, called the Sulu Wansé, was composed by subsequent writers}. Dharmakirti is mentioned by name as having continued the work to the reign of Prakrama Bahu (A.D. 1266). But Turnour afterwards changed his mind?. Considering that the account of Mahdsena’s reign, the first of the Seven Kings, terminates in the middle of a chapter, at verse 48, while the whole chapter is called the Sattaragiko, ‘the chapter of the Seven Kings,’ he naturally supposed that the whole of that chapter, extending to the end of the reign of his nephew DhAtusena, might be the work of Mah4ndma, unless there were any strong proofs to the contrary. Such proofs, beyond the tradition of writers of the MSS., have not, as yet, been adduced °. But even if it could be proved that Mah4ndma’s own pen did not go beyond the 48th verse of the 37th chapter, the historical trustworthiness of the concluding portion of that chapter, containing the account of Buddhaghosa’s literary activity, nay, even of the 38th chapter, would be little affected thereby. We know that both the Mahdvamsa and the somewhat earlier Dipavamsa were founded on the Sinhalese Azthakath4s, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the Mahavihara at Anurddhapura. We also know that that Vihdra was demolished by Mahdsena, and deserted by nearly all its inmates for the space of nine years (p. 235), and again for the space of nine months 1 Introduction, p.ii. The Kfllavamsa is mentioned with the Mahavamsa, both as the works of Mahan4ma, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pali MSS. 3 Introduction, p. xci. ® See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p.196. INTRODUCTION. XVii
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.
1According to the Dipavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara. XIV DHAMMAPADA. MSS., and gives various readings, just as any modern scholar might do. This was in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., and there is nothing improbable, though I would say no more, in supposing that some of the MSS., consulted by Buddhaghosa, dated from the first century B.C., when Vaé“agdmani ordered the sacred canon to be reduced to writing. There is one other event with reference to the existence of the sacred canon in Ceylon, recorded in the Mah4vamsa, between the time of Buddhaghosa and Vadtagamani, viz. the translation of the Suttas from Pali into the language of Ceylon, during the reign of Buddhad4sa, 339-368 A.D. If MSS. of that ancient translation still existed, they would, no doubt, be very useful for determining the exact state of the Pali originals at that time’. But even without them there seems no reason to doubt that Buddhaghosa had before him old MSS. of the Pali canon, and that these were in the main the same as those written down at the time of Vatéagdmani. _BUDDHAGHOSA’S AGE. The whole of this argument, however, rested on the supposition that Buddhaghosa’s date in the beginning of the fifth century A.D. was beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. ‘His age,’ I had ventured to say in the Preface to Buddhaghosha’s Parables (1870), ‘can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.’ But soon after, one of our most celebrated Pali scholars, the great Russian traveller, Professor Joh. Minayeff, expressed in the Mélanges Asiatiques (13/25 April, 1871) the gravest-doubts as to Buddhaghosa’s age, and thus threw the whole Buddhist chronology, so far as it had then been accepted by all, or nearly all scholars, back into chaos. He gave as his chief reason that Buddhaghosa was not, as I supposed, the contemporary of Mah4n4ma, the 1 A note is added, stating that several portions of the other two divisions also of the Pitakattaya were translated into the Sinhalese language, and that these alone are consulted by the priests, who are unacquainted with Pali. On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the Atthakatha exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69. INTRODUCTION. XV author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mah4n4ma, the king of Ceylon.
2On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the Atthakatha exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69. INTRODUCTION. XV author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mah4n4ma, the king of Ceylon. Professor Minayeff is undoubtedly right in this, but Iam not aware that I, or anybody else, had ever questioned so palpable a fact. There are two Mahandmas; one, the king who reigned from 410-432 A.D.; the other, the supposed author of the Mahavamsa, the uncle and protector of King DhAatusena, 459-477. ‘ Dhatusena,’ I had written, ‘was the nephew of the historian Mahandma, and owed the throne to the protection of his uncle. Dhatusena was in fact the restorer of a national dynasty, and after having defeated the foreign usurpers (the Damilo dynasty) “he restored the religion which had been set aside by the foreigners”’ (Mahav. p. 256). Among his many pious acts it is particularly mentioned that he gave a thousand, and ordered the Dipavamsa to be promulgated. As Mahandma was the uncle of Dhatusena, who reigned from 459-477, he may be considered as a trustworthy witness with regard to events that occurred between 410 and 432. Now the literary activity of Buddhaghosa in Ceylon falls in that period’? These facts being admitted, it is surely not too great a stretch of probability to suppose, as I did, that a man whose nephew was king in 459-477, might have been alive in 410-432, that is to say, might have been a contemporary of Buddhaghosa. I did not commit myself to any further theories. The question whether Mahanama, the uncle of Dhatusena, was really the author of the Mah4vamsa, the question whether he wrote the second half of the 37th chapter of that work, or broke off his chronicle in the middle of that chapter, I did not discuss, having no new materials to bring forward beyond those on which Turnour and those who followed him had founded their conclusions, and which I had discussed in my History of Sanskrit Literature (1859), p. 267. All I said was, ‘It is difficult to determine whether the 38th as well as the (whole of the) 37th chapter came from the pen of Mahanama, for * ‘Ungefahr 50 Jahre alter als Mah4nama ist Buddhaghosha,’ see Westergaard, Uber Buddha's Todesjahr, p. 99. XVI DHAMMAPADA. the Mahdvamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mah4n4ma carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D.
399. XVI DHAMMAPADA. the Mahdvamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mah4n4ma carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D. What I meant by ‘all the circumstances of the case’ might easily be understood by any one who had read Turnour’s Preface to the Mah4vamsa. Turnour himself thought at first that Mahan4ma’s share in the Mahdvamsa ended with the year 301 A.D.,and that the rest of the work, called the Sulu Wansé, was composed by subsequent writers}. Dharmakirti is mentioned by name as having continued the work to the reign of Prakrama Bahu (A.D. 1266). But Turnour afterwards changed his mind?. Considering that the account of Mahdsena’s reign, the first of the Seven Kings, terminates in the middle of a chapter, at verse 48, while the whole chapter is called the Sattaragiko, ‘the chapter of the Seven Kings,’ he naturally supposed that the whole of that chapter, extending to the end of the reign of his nephew DhAtusena, might be the work of Mah4ndma, unless there were any strong proofs to the contrary. Such proofs, beyond the tradition of writers of the MSS., have not, as yet, been adduced °. But even if it could be proved that Mah4ndma’s own pen did not go beyond the 48th verse of the 37th chapter, the historical trustworthiness of the concluding portion of that chapter, containing the account of Buddhaghosa’s literary activity, nay, even of the 38th chapter, would be little affected thereby. We know that both the Mahdvamsa and the somewhat earlier Dipavamsa were founded on the Sinhalese Azthakath4s, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the Mahavihara at Anurddhapura. We also know that that Vihdra was demolished by Mahdsena, and deserted by nearly all its inmates for the space of nine years (p. 235), and again for the space of nine months 1 Introduction, p.ii. The Kfllavamsa is mentioned with the Mahavamsa, both as the works of Mahan4ma, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pali MSS. 3 Introduction, p. xci. ® See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p.196. INTRODUCTION. XVii
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.