Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But although the date which we can assign to Buddhaghosa’s translation of the commentaries on the PAli Tipitaka proves the existence of that canon, not only for the beginning of the fifth century of our era, but likewise, though it may be, with less stringency, for the first century before our era, the time of Va¢tag4mani, the question whether Buddhaghosa was merely a compiler and translator of old commentaries, and more particularly of the commentaries brought to Ceylon by Mahinda (241 B.C.), or whether he added anything of his own}, requires to be more carefully examined. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty on that point. They consider the A¢édakathd4s or commentaries as old as the canon itself. To us, such a supposition seems improbable, yet it has never been proved to be impossible. The Mahavamsa tells us that Mahinda, the son of Asoka, who had become a priest, learnt the whole of the Buddhist canon, as it then was, in three years (p. 37)?; and that at the end of the Third Council he was despatched to Ceylon, in order to establish there the religion of Buddha (p. 71). The king of Ceylon, Devanampiya Tissa, was converted, and Buddhism soon became the dominant characters, in transcribing the manuscripts, which were written with the characters of Magatha. The Burmans lay much stress upon that voyage, and always carefully note down the year it took place. In fact, it is to Budhagosa that the people living on the’shores of the Gulf of Martaban owe the possession of the Budhist scriptures. From Thaton, the collection made by Budhagosa was transferred to Pagan, six hundred and fifty years after it had been imported from Ceylon.’ See ibid. p. 392. 1 He had written the Nanodaya, and the A‘thasalint, a commentary on the Dhamma-sangani, before he went to Ceylon. Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251. 2 He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma) ; the two Vibhatgas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42. INTRODUCTION. XXV
2Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251. 2 He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma) ; the two Vibhatgas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42. INTRODUCTION. XXV religion of the island. The Tipitaka and the A7¢thakatha, such as they had been collected or settled at the Third Council in 242 B.C., were brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, who promulgated them orally, the Tipifaka in Pali, the Atthakatha in Sinhalese, together with an additional Atthakatha of his own. It does not follow that Mahinda knew the whole of that enormous literature by heart, for, as he was supported by a number of priests, they may well have divided the different sections among them, following the example of Ananda and Upali at the First Council. The same applies to their disciples also. But the fact of their transmitting the sacred literature by oral tradition! was evidently quite familiar to the author of the Mah4vamsa. For when he comes to describe the reign of Vattagdmani (88-76 B.C.) he simply says: ‘The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the Pali Pisakattaya and its Azthakatha (commentaries). At this period these priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people (from the perversions of the true doctrines), assembled; and in order that the religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books.’ No valid objection has yet been advanced to our accepting Buddhaghosa’s A¢‘akathds as a translation and new redaction of the A¢thakath4s which were reduced to writing under Va¢tagAmani?, and these again as a translation of the old A¢thakath4s brought to Ceylon by Mahinda*. There is prima facie evidence in favour of the truth of historical events vouched for by such works as the Dipavamsa and the Mahdvamsa so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before Mahandma’s time. Beyond Mahinda we move in legendary history, and must be ready to surrender every name and every date as soon as rebutting evidence has been produced, but not till then. I cannot, therefore, see any reason why we should not treat the verses of the Dhammapada, if not as the utterances of Buddha, at least as what were believed by the 1 On the importance of oral tradition in the history of Sanskrit literature see the writer’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, pp. 497-524. ? Mahavamsa, p. 207; Dipavamsa XX, 20. 3 Mahavamsa, p. 251. XXVi DHAMMAPADA. members of the Council under Asoka, in 242 B.C., to have been the utterances of the founder of their religion; nor can I see that Professor Minayeff has shaken the date of Buddhaghosa and the general credibility of the Ceylonese tradition, that he was the translator and editor of commentaries which had existed in the island for many centuries, whether from the time of Va¢tagd4mani or from the time of Mahinda. DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON.
3DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON. We now return to the question of the date of the Buddhist canon, which, as yet, we have only traced back to the first century before Christ, when it was reduced to writing in Ceylon under King Va¢¢agdmani. The question is, how far beyond that date we may trace its existence in a collected form, or in the form of the three Pitakas or baskets. There may be, and we shall see that there is, some doubt as to the age of certain works, now incorporated in the Tipifaka. We are told, for instance, that some doubt attached to the canonicity of the Kariy4-pizaka, the Apadana, and the Buddhavamsa}, and there is another book of the Abhidhammapitaka, the Kath4vatthu, which was reported to be the work of Tissa Moggaliputta, the president of the Third Council. Childers, s. v., stated that it was composed by the apostle Moggaliputtatissa, and delivered by him at the Third Mahasangiti. The same scholar, however, withdrew this opinion on p. 507 of his valuable Dictionary, where he says: ‘It is a source of great regret to me that in my article on Kathavatthuppakarazam I inadvertently followed James D’Alwis in the stupendous blunder of his assertion that the Kathavatthu was added by Moggaliputtatissa’ at the Third Convocation. The Kathavatthu is one of the Abhidhamma books, mentioned by Buddhaghosa as having been rehearsed at the First Convocation, immediately after Gotama’s death ; and the passage in Mahavamsa upon which D’Alwis rests his assertion is as follows, Kathavatthuppakararazam paravadappamaddanam abh4si Tissatthero 4a tasmim sangitimazdale, which simply means ‘in that Convocation-assem- 1 See Childers, s. v. Nikaya. INTRODUCTION. XXVil bly the Thera Tissa also recited (Buddha’s) heresy-crushing Kathavatthuppakaraaa.’ This mistake, for I quite agree with Childers that it was a mistake, becomes however less stupendous than at first sight it would appear, when we read the account given in the Dipavamsa. Here the impression is easily conveyed that Moggaliputta was the author of the Kath4vatthu, and that he recited it for the first time at the Third Council. ‘Wise Moggaliputta, we read}, ‘the destroyer of the schismatic doctrines, firmly established the TheravAda, and held the Third Council. Having destroyed the different (heretical) doctrines, and subdued many shameless people, and restored splendour to the (true) faith, he proclaimed (pakAsayi) (the treatise called) Kathavatthu.’ And again: ‘ They all were sectarians?, opposed to the Theravada; and in order to annihilate them and to make his own doctrine resplendent, the Thera set forth (desesi) the treatise belonging to the Abhidhamma, which is called Kathavatthu?,’
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.
1But although the date which we can assign to Buddhaghosa’s translation of the commentaries on the PAli Tipitaka proves the existence of that canon, not only for the beginning of the fifth century of our era, but likewise, though it may be, with less stringency, for the first century before our era, the time of Va¢tag4mani, the question whether Buddhaghosa was merely a compiler and translator of old commentaries, and more particularly of the commentaries brought to Ceylon by Mahinda (241 B.C.), or whether he added anything of his own}, requires to be more carefully examined. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty on that point. They consider the A¢édakathd4s or commentaries as old as the canon itself. To us, such a supposition seems improbable, yet it has never been proved to be impossible. The Mahavamsa tells us that Mahinda, the son of Asoka, who had become a priest, learnt the whole of the Buddhist canon, as it then was, in three years (p. 37)?; and that at the end of the Third Council he was despatched to Ceylon, in order to establish there the religion of Buddha (p. 71). The king of Ceylon, Devanampiya Tissa, was converted, and Buddhism soon became the dominant characters, in transcribing the manuscripts, which were written with the characters of Magatha. The Burmans lay much stress upon that voyage, and always carefully note down the year it took place. In fact, it is to Budhagosa that the people living on the’shores of the Gulf of Martaban owe the possession of the Budhist scriptures. From Thaton, the collection made by Budhagosa was transferred to Pagan, six hundred and fifty years after it had been imported from Ceylon.’ See ibid. p. 392. 1 He had written the Nanodaya, and the A‘thasalint, a commentary on the Dhamma-sangani, before he went to Ceylon. Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251. 2 He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma) ; the two Vibhatgas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42. INTRODUCTION. XXV
2Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251. 2 He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma) ; the two Vibhatgas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See Dipavamsa VII, 42. INTRODUCTION. XXV religion of the island. The Tipitaka and the A7¢thakatha, such as they had been collected or settled at the Third Council in 242 B.C., were brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, who promulgated them orally, the Tipifaka in Pali, the Atthakatha in Sinhalese, together with an additional Atthakatha of his own. It does not follow that Mahinda knew the whole of that enormous literature by heart, for, as he was supported by a number of priests, they may well have divided the different sections among them, following the example of Ananda and Upali at the First Council. The same applies to their disciples also. But the fact of their transmitting the sacred literature by oral tradition! was evidently quite familiar to the author of the Mah4vamsa. For when he comes to describe the reign of Vattagdmani (88-76 B.C.) he simply says: ‘The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the Pali Pisakattaya and its Azthakatha (commentaries). At this period these priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people (from the perversions of the true doctrines), assembled; and in order that the religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books.’ No valid objection has yet been advanced to our accepting Buddhaghosa’s A¢‘akathds as a translation and new redaction of the A¢thakath4s which were reduced to writing under Va¢tagAmani?, and these again as a translation of the old A¢thakath4s brought to Ceylon by Mahinda*. There is prima facie evidence in favour of the truth of historical events vouched for by such works as the Dipavamsa and the Mahdvamsa so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before Mahandma’s time. Beyond Mahinda we move in legendary history, and must be ready to surrender every name and every date as soon as rebutting evidence has been produced, but not till then. I cannot, therefore, see any reason why we should not treat the verses of the Dhammapada, if not as the utterances of Buddha, at least as what were believed by the 1 On the importance of oral tradition in the history of Sanskrit literature see the writer’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, pp. 497-524. ? Mahavamsa, p. 207; Dipavamsa XX, 20. 3 Mahavamsa, p. 251. XXVi DHAMMAPADA. members of the Council under Asoka, in 242 B.C., to have been the utterances of the founder of their religion; nor can I see that Professor Minayeff has shaken the date of Buddhaghosa and the general credibility of the Ceylonese tradition, that he was the translator and editor of commentaries which had existed in the island for many centuries, whether from the time of Va¢tagd4mani or from the time of Mahinda. DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON.
3DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON. We now return to the question of the date of the Buddhist canon, which, as yet, we have only traced back to the first century before Christ, when it was reduced to writing in Ceylon under King Va¢¢agdmani. The question is, how far beyond that date we may trace its existence in a collected form, or in the form of the three Pitakas or baskets. There may be, and we shall see that there is, some doubt as to the age of certain works, now incorporated in the Tipifaka. We are told, for instance, that some doubt attached to the canonicity of the Kariy4-pizaka, the Apadana, and the Buddhavamsa}, and there is another book of the Abhidhammapitaka, the Kath4vatthu, which was reported to be the work of Tissa Moggaliputta, the president of the Third Council. Childers, s. v., stated that it was composed by the apostle Moggaliputtatissa, and delivered by him at the Third Mahasangiti. The same scholar, however, withdrew this opinion on p. 507 of his valuable Dictionary, where he says: ‘It is a source of great regret to me that in my article on Kathavatthuppakarazam I inadvertently followed James D’Alwis in the stupendous blunder of his assertion that the Kathavatthu was added by Moggaliputtatissa’ at the Third Convocation. The Kathavatthu is one of the Abhidhamma books, mentioned by Buddhaghosa as having been rehearsed at the First Convocation, immediately after Gotama’s death ; and the passage in Mahavamsa upon which D’Alwis rests his assertion is as follows, Kathavatthuppakararazam paravadappamaddanam abh4si Tissatthero 4a tasmim sangitimazdale, which simply means ‘in that Convocation-assem- 1 See Childers, s. v. Nikaya. INTRODUCTION. XXVil bly the Thera Tissa also recited (Buddha’s) heresy-crushing Kathavatthuppakaraaa.’ This mistake, for I quite agree with Childers that it was a mistake, becomes however less stupendous than at first sight it would appear, when we read the account given in the Dipavamsa. Here the impression is easily conveyed that Moggaliputta was the author of the Kath4vatthu, and that he recited it for the first time at the Third Council. ‘Wise Moggaliputta, we read}, ‘the destroyer of the schismatic doctrines, firmly established the TheravAda, and held the Third Council. Having destroyed the different (heretical) doctrines, and subdued many shameless people, and restored splendour to the (true) faith, he proclaimed (pakAsayi) (the treatise called) Kathavatthu.’ And again: ‘ They all were sectarians?, opposed to the Theravada; and in order to annihilate them and to make his own doctrine resplendent, the Thera set forth (desesi) the treatise belonging to the Abhidhamma, which is called Kathavatthu?,’
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.