Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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 (p. 237). We can well understand therefore why the older history, the Dipavamsa, should end with the death of Mahasena (died 302 A.D.), and why in the MahAvamsa too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during Mah4n4ma’s life, the Mahavihara at Anurddhapura was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the Dipavamsa, whether it be a general name of any ‘chronicle of the island,’ or of our Dipavamsa, or, it may be, even of our Mahavamsa, was ordered to be published or promulgated (dipetum) under Dhatusena, the nephew and protegé of Mahanama. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of Mah4n4ma, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of Anurfdhapura during Dhatusena’s reign, and probably under the personal auspices of Mahan4ma, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his Mahavamsa, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the Mah4vih4ra and the reign of Dhatusena, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese A¢¢hakath4 into the language of Magadha, we may well suppose that they rest on the authority of native chronicles, written not long after the events, and that therefore, ‘under all the circumstances of the case,’ the age of Buddhaghosa can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India. There is one difficulty still remaining with regard to the date of the historian Mahanama which might have perplexed Turnour’s mind, and has certainly proved a stumblingblock to myself. Turnour thought that the author of the commentary on the Mahdvamsa, the VamsatthappakAsini, was the same as the author of the Mah4vamsa, viz. Mah4nama. The date of that commentary, however, as we know now, must be fixed much later, for it speaks of a schism which took place in the year 601 A.D., during the reign of Agrabédhi (also called Dhatapatisso). Turnour’ looked , 1 Introduction, p. liii. de [ro] b XVili DHAMMAPADA. upon that passage as a later interpolation, because he thought the evidence for the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa too strong to be set aside. He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which he drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mah4vamsa (p. 254):
2He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which he drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mah4vamsa (p. 254): ‘Certain members of the Moriyan dynasty, dreading the power of the (usurper) Subho, the balattho, had settled in various parts of the country, concealing themselves. Among them there was a certain landed proprietor Dhatusena, who had established himself at Nandivapi. His son named Dhatd, who lived at the village Ambiliy4go, had two sons, Dhatusena and Silatissabodhi, of unexceptional descent. Their mother’s brother (Mah4n4ma), devoted to the cause of religion, continued to reside (at Anuradhapura) in his sacerdotal character, at the edifice built by the minister Dighasandana. The youth DhAatusena became a priest in his fraternity, and on a certain day, while he was chaunting at the foot of a tree, a shower of rain fell, and a Naga, seeing him there, encircled him in his folds, and covered him and his book with his hood.... Causing an image of Mah4 Mahinda to be made, and conveying it to the edifice (AmbamAlaka) in which the thera’s body had been burnt, in order that he might celebrate a great festival there, and that he might also promulgate the contents of the Dipavamsa, distributing a thousand pieces, he caused it to be read aloud ?.’ If we compare with this extract from the Mahavamsa a passage from the commentary as translated. by Turnour, we can well understand how he arrived at the conclusion that it was written by the same person who wrote the Mahavamsa. Turnour translates (p. liv): ‘Upon these data by me, the thera, who had, with due 1 Mr. Turnour added a note in which he states that Dipavamsa is here meant for Mahavamsa, but whether brought down to this period, or only to the end of the reign of Mah&sena, to which alone the Tik4 extends, there is no means of ascertaining (p. 257). INTRODUCTION. xix solemnity, been invested with the dignified title of Mahanama, resident at the pariveza founded by the minister Dighasandana, endowed with the capacity requisite to record the narrative comprised in the Mahavamsa, in due order, rejecting only the dialect in which the Singhalese Az¢akatha are written, but retaining their import and following their arrangement, the history, entitled the Palapadéruvamsa (Padyapadanuvamsa), is compiled. As even in times when the despotism of the ruler of the land, and- the horrors arising from the inclemencies of the seasons, and when panics of epidemics and other visitations prevailed, this work escaped all injury; and moreover, as it serves to perpetuate the fame of the Buddhas, their disciples, and the Paché Buddhas of old, it is also worthy of bearing the title of VamsatthappakAsini,’ As the evidence of these two passages in support of the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa seemed to me very startling, I requested Mr. Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary.
3Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary. The passage runs as follows: Y4 ettavaté mahavamsatth4nusd4rakusalena Dighasandasenapatina karapita-mahdparivezavasina Mah4ndmo ti gar0hi gahitandmadheyyena thereva pubba-Sihala-bhasitaya Sthalasthakathaya bhdsantaram eva vaggiya atthasdram eva gahetva tantinayanurdpena katassa imassa Padyapadanuvamsassa atthavayvand may4 tam eva sannissitena araddha, padesissariya- dubbu¢¢hibhaya - rogabhayAdi - vividha-antaraya-yuttakale pi anantarayena niz#Z4nam upagata, s4 buddha-buddhasavaka-pakkekabuddhadinam poram4nam kikkam pubbavamsatthappakdsanato ayam Vamsatthappakasini nama ti dharetabb4. . . . Padyapaddnuvamsavannana Vamsatthappakasini niz¢sita, Mr. Rhys Davids translates this: ‘The commentary on this Padyapadanuvamsa, which (latter work) was made (in the same order and arrangement, and retaining the sense, but rejecting the dialect, of the Sinhalese commentary formerly expressed in the Sinhalese tongue) by the elder who bore the name of Mahan4ma, which he had b 2 XX DHAMMAPADA. received from the venerable, who resided at the MahAparivena built by the minister Dighasanda, and who was well able to conform to the sense of the Mahavamsa—(this commentary) which was undertaken by me out of devotion to that (history), and which (though thus undertaken) at a time full of danger of various kinds—such as the danger from disease, and the danger from drought, and the danger from the government of the province—has been safely brought to a conclusion—this (commentary), since it makes known the meaning of the history of old, the mission of the ancients, of the Buddhas, of their disciples, and of the Pakkeka Buddhas, should bear the name Vamsatthappakasini.... ‘End of the VamsatthappakAsini, the commentary on the Padyapadanuvamsa.’ This shows clearly that Turnour made a mistake in translating this exceedingly involved, yet perfectly intelligible, passage, and that so far from proving that the author of the commentary was the same person as the author of the text}, it proves the very contrary. Nay, I feel bound to add, that we might now argue that as the commentator must have lived later than 601 A.D., the fact that he too breaks off at verse 48 of chapter 37, seems to show that at his time also the Mahavamsa did not extend as yet beyond that verse. But even then, the fact that with the restoration of the Mahavihara of Anuradhapura an interest in historical studies revived in Ceylon, would clearly show that we may trust the date of Buddhaghosa, as fixed by the second part of the 37th chapter of the Mahd4vamsa, at all events till stronger evidence is brought forward against such a date. Now I am not aware of any such evidence*. On the contrary, making allowance for a difference of some ten or twenty years, all the evidence which we can gain from other quarters tends to confirm the date of Buddha- ’ Dr. Oldenberg informs me that the commentator quotes various readings in the text of the Mahavamsa.
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.
1The 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 (p. 237). We can well understand therefore why the older history, the Dipavamsa, should end with the death of Mahasena (died 302 A.D.), and why in the MahAvamsa too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during Mah4n4ma’s life, the Mahavihara at Anurddhapura was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the Dipavamsa, whether it be a general name of any ‘chronicle of the island,’ or of our Dipavamsa, or, it may be, even of our Mahavamsa, was ordered to be published or promulgated (dipetum) under Dhatusena, the nephew and protegé of Mahanama. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of Mah4n4ma, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of Anurfdhapura during Dhatusena’s reign, and probably under the personal auspices of Mahan4ma, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his Mahavamsa, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the Mah4vih4ra and the reign of Dhatusena, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese A¢¢hakath4 into the language of Magadha, we may well suppose that they rest on the authority of native chronicles, written not long after the events, and that therefore, ‘under all the circumstances of the case,’ the age of Buddhaghosa can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India. There is one difficulty still remaining with regard to the date of the historian Mahanama which might have perplexed Turnour’s mind, and has certainly proved a stumblingblock to myself. Turnour thought that the author of the commentary on the Mahdvamsa, the VamsatthappakAsini, was the same as the author of the Mah4vamsa, viz. Mah4nama. The date of that commentary, however, as we know now, must be fixed much later, for it speaks of a schism which took place in the year 601 A.D., during the reign of Agrabédhi (also called Dhatapatisso). Turnour’ looked , 1 Introduction, p. liii. de [ro] b XVili DHAMMAPADA. upon that passage as a later interpolation, because he thought the evidence for the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa too strong to be set aside. He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which he drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mah4vamsa (p. 254):
2He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which he drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mah4vamsa (p. 254): ‘Certain members of the Moriyan dynasty, dreading the power of the (usurper) Subho, the balattho, had settled in various parts of the country, concealing themselves. Among them there was a certain landed proprietor Dhatusena, who had established himself at Nandivapi. His son named Dhatd, who lived at the village Ambiliy4go, had two sons, Dhatusena and Silatissabodhi, of unexceptional descent. Their mother’s brother (Mah4n4ma), devoted to the cause of religion, continued to reside (at Anuradhapura) in his sacerdotal character, at the edifice built by the minister Dighasandana. The youth DhAatusena became a priest in his fraternity, and on a certain day, while he was chaunting at the foot of a tree, a shower of rain fell, and a Naga, seeing him there, encircled him in his folds, and covered him and his book with his hood.... Causing an image of Mah4 Mahinda to be made, and conveying it to the edifice (AmbamAlaka) in which the thera’s body had been burnt, in order that he might celebrate a great festival there, and that he might also promulgate the contents of the Dipavamsa, distributing a thousand pieces, he caused it to be read aloud ?.’ If we compare with this extract from the Mahavamsa a passage from the commentary as translated. by Turnour, we can well understand how he arrived at the conclusion that it was written by the same person who wrote the Mahavamsa. Turnour translates (p. liv): ‘Upon these data by me, the thera, who had, with due 1 Mr. Turnour added a note in which he states that Dipavamsa is here meant for Mahavamsa, but whether brought down to this period, or only to the end of the reign of Mah&sena, to which alone the Tik4 extends, there is no means of ascertaining (p. 257). INTRODUCTION. xix solemnity, been invested with the dignified title of Mahanama, resident at the pariveza founded by the minister Dighasandana, endowed with the capacity requisite to record the narrative comprised in the Mahavamsa, in due order, rejecting only the dialect in which the Singhalese Az¢akatha are written, but retaining their import and following their arrangement, the history, entitled the Palapadéruvamsa (Padyapadanuvamsa), is compiled. As even in times when the despotism of the ruler of the land, and- the horrors arising from the inclemencies of the seasons, and when panics of epidemics and other visitations prevailed, this work escaped all injury; and moreover, as it serves to perpetuate the fame of the Buddhas, their disciples, and the Paché Buddhas of old, it is also worthy of bearing the title of VamsatthappakAsini,’ As the evidence of these two passages in support of the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa seemed to me very startling, I requested Mr. Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary.
3Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary. The passage runs as follows: Y4 ettavaté mahavamsatth4nusd4rakusalena Dighasandasenapatina karapita-mahdparivezavasina Mah4ndmo ti gar0hi gahitandmadheyyena thereva pubba-Sihala-bhasitaya Sthalasthakathaya bhdsantaram eva vaggiya atthasdram eva gahetva tantinayanurdpena katassa imassa Padyapadanuvamsassa atthavayvand may4 tam eva sannissitena araddha, padesissariya- dubbu¢¢hibhaya - rogabhayAdi - vividha-antaraya-yuttakale pi anantarayena niz#Z4nam upagata, s4 buddha-buddhasavaka-pakkekabuddhadinam poram4nam kikkam pubbavamsatthappakdsanato ayam Vamsatthappakasini nama ti dharetabb4. . . . Padyapaddnuvamsavannana Vamsatthappakasini niz¢sita, Mr. Rhys Davids translates this: ‘The commentary on this Padyapadanuvamsa, which (latter work) was made (in the same order and arrangement, and retaining the sense, but rejecting the dialect, of the Sinhalese commentary formerly expressed in the Sinhalese tongue) by the elder who bore the name of Mahan4ma, which he had b 2 XX DHAMMAPADA. received from the venerable, who resided at the MahAparivena built by the minister Dighasanda, and who was well able to conform to the sense of the Mahavamsa—(this commentary) which was undertaken by me out of devotion to that (history), and which (though thus undertaken) at a time full of danger of various kinds—such as the danger from disease, and the danger from drought, and the danger from the government of the province—has been safely brought to a conclusion—this (commentary), since it makes known the meaning of the history of old, the mission of the ancients, of the Buddhas, of their disciples, and of the Pakkeka Buddhas, should bear the name Vamsatthappakasini.... ‘End of the VamsatthappakAsini, the commentary on the Padyapadanuvamsa.’ This shows clearly that Turnour made a mistake in translating this exceedingly involved, yet perfectly intelligible, passage, and that so far from proving that the author of the commentary was the same person as the author of the text}, it proves the very contrary. Nay, I feel bound to add, that we might now argue that as the commentator must have lived later than 601 A.D., the fact that he too breaks off at verse 48 of chapter 37, seems to show that at his time also the Mahavamsa did not extend as yet beyond that verse. But even then, the fact that with the restoration of the Mahavihara of Anuradhapura an interest in historical studies revived in Ceylon, would clearly show that we may trust the date of Buddhaghosa, as fixed by the second part of the 37th chapter of the Mahd4vamsa, at all events till stronger evidence is brought forward against such a date. Now I am not aware of any such evidence*. On the contrary, making allowance for a difference of some ten or twenty years, all the evidence which we can gain from other quarters tends to confirm the date of Buddha- ’ Dr. Oldenberg informs me that the commentator quotes various readings in the text of the Mahavamsa.
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.