—- EARLY HISTORY OF BUDDHISM IN CEYLON OR “STATE OF BUDDHISM IN CEYLON 4s REVEALED BY THE PALI COMMENTARIES OF THE ora CENTURY A.D.” (Thesis eubited and occepld by the University of London for the Degree of Dacor of Philnopy) cy E,W. ADIKARAM, M.A., Ph.D. (Lond.) & COLOMBO M. D. GUNASENA & CO., LTD.Firat Impression 1946 ‘Becond Impression 1958 : To MY TEACHERS Venerable Kolonnivé Saddhinanda There Copyright revered by the Author Fate Wn Con ‘De, William Stede of the Univesity of Tendon Pamrep nx Cuyiox ay M. D. Guxasexa & Co, Lap, ‘Nonnis Roan, Covoapo.PREFATORY NOTE. Tax greatly indebted to a number of my friends who made it poasible for me to get this book published at a time like the present. T had almost given up hopes of getting the book printed in the near future, when Dr. 0.H. de A. Wijesekera and Dr. G. C. Mendis of the University of Ceylon, insisted that I should not delay the publication in spite of the dificulties of war-time printing. At the same time my friend, Mr, D. 8, Paswella, came to my rescue in readily oonsenting to bear the cost of printing ‘The proofs were corrected by Dr. and Mrs, O. H. de A. Wijesekera and the index was compiled by Mr. W. A. Jayawardhana. My sincerest ‘thanks go to them for all the help they have given me. Thave also to extend my grateful thanks to my teacher, Dr. W. Stede of the University of London, who always gave me his valuable advice and guidance, and to Prof, B,J. Thomas of the University of Cambridge for a number of very valuable suggestions. Last, but not least, my thanks aro due to the Printing Dept. of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon, Ltd., Colombo, for the eare and pains they took in sesing the book through the press. Teshould like also to add that a work of this nature in en unexplored field must necessarily remain very incomplete, I shall, therefore, be grateful to my readers if they will kindly send me their suggestions and criticisms ao that necessary improvements may be made in subsequent editions, B, W, Apreanaxe Ananda Sestralaya, Kotte, 26-10-45 ————— SECOND IMPRESSION T must thank Messrs M.D. Gunasona & Co. Ltd., Colombo, for kindly undertaking to reprint this book, B, W. ApreanaseAppendix Appendix Appendix Appendix: Appendix Appendix: CONTENTS PART ONE ‘The Pali Commentaries ‘The Sources of the Pali Commentaries ‘The Bhinakas ‘The Nature of the Contents of the Pali Commentaries PART TWO Before the Advent of Mahinda ‘The Advent of Mahinda ‘The Spread of the Faith ‘The Writing down ofthe Texts ‘The First Literary porod ‘The Growth of Dissntiont Schools Where the Hath Hlourshed ‘The Buddhist Fife ‘The Growth of Ritual ‘The Position of the Deitiesry Man Man Se aa ana Mr Mate Nk Pap Paps By Rie Pe. Pam prs. ug. Pas Com Pea, RAS 8 8A BA Sa Sep Smp so Sem Vil sv ‘Thera A Ther A waa w Vea, ABBREVIATIONS ‘Abgateranietys ‘Spada AYthakaths Ahan Buddhaghoes (The Life and Works of| by B.C, Law Busidherara “ Buddhevames Atthakath “ asivipitake Aftbakathé (Clavatnne (Clarampn Translation by W. Gaiger Dighaaitiya ‘Dipavatin and Mabivass “ Dhtnmapede Aythakatha (Goglah Teanlation) by W. Gogce ‘Wak Aiybakathl (Fausballs Biton) “Tourn ofthe Pili Text Society ‘Joural of the Royal Asinto Soniaty ‘Joural ofthe Royal AsatioSoniety (Colon Branch) Tl iaikhietterst Mojhimanltya “ Manoeetheparaat “ Manceathapiran (Sinhaleee Eton) Milindepani Mahdalddens Atfhakaths, Mahivamea Mabivaree Translation by W. Gage ‘Nott Atthakatha apadearidaal “. Papeliensdan! (Sinbalee Eaton) Paramatthajouts PHL Literatare of Cxplon by G. P. Malalaaekara eth of Pasty Patisambhiditagee Arthakat Pili Text Society Pogealapeitiatt Commentary Petavattns Atthkathi “Royal dante Society Sanyustankiys Sampyattanikige Atphakach (Séntthappakisin’) Seppe Arhostd(Sntappdn) Sabai) aii) Samantepietdika ‘Samantapishl (Sinhalve Editon) Sumaiglavilant Sammobarinedant ‘Thoragichs Ayfhakathé ‘Thargecha Aitbakatha Vann attbabatha Viondahisgge Sc Vimisavatabu AtthakathaINTRODUCTION fr history of Badahism in Ceylon inl an almost unexposed eld. As se cere tered is concerned out Haowedye has been liited to sth cient om he Dipavate andthe Mavame, A wealth f Haan ete tre in the Pat Afiakathis or Commentaries of the Fai sn che present work an attempt to nk together that BA conte) aj and. reomstrach the history of Buddhiem inthe land Te to that cntary. ea rr fernees to incidnta which took plein Ceylon were not Fee eae cris of history. Their only woe to th commentators intended eee in the clucidation of the Canonial Texts. Such being Serene eas ore not to be found in chronological or any other fhe ca es dus han one to read cores of pgos in u Commentary before ere lt tom rfpene ton person oF place oF event connected with, ue comes sens Tlghen such references are obtained it i exceedingly Seen One S20, St pride in the history of Ceylon the events thus fal aoe ter iasance, there ace over & hundred references in all ter at rh lived ia the eof Ring DahogSit. Taking gabont twenty Shcceh thera eepratly one cannot possibly aay that the rene the mage at that King. Fortanately in exe pace We Sa een es atone as contemporary of another, Who in fn on ot fer suthr reference toe the contanporary of third thers, frp, alte sfrtber some of them ate sid to have recived o gif from and soon and fare anection with chelangia question. ‘Thus it beeomes ena ce fact that al hee theres were contemporaes of Pose eae te in general; i the method of the linking together of Bink monte ga ehroughowt this work. Tho Mahavamus and the Dipt- “Santo: bese of very pest ue inthis diction. spa, fc. bese of sale number of teferenen whieh, with our proven Aen SF Goyon story, ate ilete tobe treated chronologically + Tee eeP esc ‘hbwes therefor, been grouped acoorling to the lvalitite Mono dee cn and form the content of «separate chapter (Part TT ann aver of en ofa geographical nate. With the dicovery hy) hihi mee dr inscription, emay bosme posible to know more {Tony shout the places mented th group of rene Se a id of thes, the ree of tho avalable material has Deen Co errr 2s pene, a conaocted history of the futh from the mild fee Goen to theanh cenary AD. As a rule facta given in deta SUR ebiamea have been lls out entirely or are mentioned only inti Aa wate tecuae had be taken +o tia method of treatment as the dently ct present work nfo gives history af the faiths revealed by > Theat Gommentarie easel into two parts. Pat forms a ncesary introduction ta TT in dans with te Pall Comstentais, thelr oures and the natare of ther content aan ang often chapters, in devoted toa consideration of the int Tittoca Beliisan to Clon, ie spread there and the efecto which introduction lpon the feof the inhabitant ofthe laland. Coniderableattention is paid, eapecially in the chapters on the “ Dissentient: Schools ” i the * Growth of Ritual ”—and also in the fourth chapter of Part. Ito the development (or corruption) which the faith underwent in its new home, AAs & possible aid to further research on the subject, an alphabetical index of nauies of persons and places in Ceylon as found in the Commentaries it inserted as an Appendix As far as available the Atthakathis used are the publications of the Pali Text Society, London. For the rést I have used those published in Ceylon in Sinhalese’ charscters. “Even when a translation of « Commentary. available in English Ihave, in order tobe tore precise, often preferred the ‘original Pali, PART I The Pali Commentaries ‘Tus Pali Afthakothas or Commentaries form the main source of material for our attempt to reconstruct the history of Buddhist in early Ceylon. ‘The light they throw on every aspoct of the Buddhist life at that period is invaluable. "Hence it is necessary to give at the very outset, atleast a bret survey of the works themselves, their authors, the sources from which they were drawn, and the nature of theit contents. In the present chapter we shall deal with the fist two points The following table gives alist of the Commentaries, the Canonical Texta on which they are written, and their authors ext COMMENTARY AUTHOR OF COMMENTARY Vieuddhimagga Buddhaghoea Vinaya Vinaya Pitaka Samantapietdies Buddhaghose Patimokicha Kankhavitarant Buddhaghosa Sutta ‘Dighanikiya Sumangolavilisint Buddhaghosa Majihimanikiva Papadcasidant Rnddhaghoes Samyuttanikaye Siratthappakisint |. Buddhaghoca Apguttaranikiaya Manorathaparent Buddhaghosa Khuddskanikiya (1) Khuddakapitha Paramatthajotiki Attributed to Buddhaghosa, (2) Dhammapada Dhammapadetthakathi Attributed to ‘Buddhaghoea (3) Udine + Paramattbadi (4) Teivattakca Paramatthadipant Dhammapala (6) Sattanipata Paramatthajotiks Attributed to (6) Viminavattha Paramatthadipant (1) Retavatthu Paramatthedtpant (8) Theragatha Paramatthadipan (9) Therigatha, sramatthadIpant Dhammspala (lo) Satake jatakafthakaths ‘Attributed to Buddhaghosa (11) Niddesa ~ Suddbammapajoi, .. Upasena (12) Pafisambhidimaggs |‘ Saddhemmappakisini ©. Mehdnéma (13) Apadina Visuddhajanavilisiat © Not known (14) Buddhavemsa Madhuratthavilésint | Buddhadatta (15) Cariyapigaka Paramatthadipant DhommapilaAtthasiint Buddhaghosa Sammohavinodent Buddhaghosa ) | } Patcappakarapatthakath’ Buddhaghoss J ghosa fist shows that more than half of the works are by Buddhaghoss. ‘indeed, the greatest Buddhist commentator and, quite naturally, e the legend that have grown round his life. Tn Ceylon there exists ‘the present day a popular tradition that he was born in this world ole purpose of writing the Pali Commentaries and thereby of helping, iyatt sdoana oF the "teaching in doctrine” of the Buddha to be ved in al te purity fora long time. “Mahiivamnsa? gives a wealth ofinfarmation about this great personage. ‘Buddhaghosuppatti? too, gives a very long account of his life, but dered from a historical point of view, itis unfortunstaly not of imuch ddhaghos's task was not to write a series of orginal books on Buddhism to put into Pili in acoherent and intelligent form the matter that already inthe. vacios Sinhalese Commentaries, "Hin method of work is vibed. by himelf in te introduction to the Samantapasidikh : "In fommencing this commentary-—having embodied therein the Mahi. Atsba- hay without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained Jn the Mahd-paccar, as sao inthe famous Kurunl and other commentarie, ‘and including the opinions of the Blders rom these commentarie, ser casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including foto deco, without oemtepping ny Pa om sal proce ‘autfiaghows hed befor him copie of al the dierent Sinhalese Comnen- tates and sso the Canonical Texts, In tranaating an A¥(hokathi from Sinhalese into. Pili he frequently consulted the corresponding. Canonical ‘Text. An illustration from the Somaygslavilisint will make cia point ear, Having given the etymological explanation of the wond Ehid ‘potest, be mentions that there ia also & variant reading Khidda-padustt qh the Text; and at the same time he observes that the later form is not, rmmentary.* Instanoes of this nature are very frequent in Buddhaghoos’s works, While on the one hand, these are an index to the ‘cholasly way in which the great commentator performed his task, on the ‘ther, they show that in his Gime the various recension» difered from one Stother only very alightly. ‘The phrase aabba athakachiw puto (mene tioned in all the Commentaries) ie lao of frequent oceurrence,¢ ands root for us that Baddbaghosa had bofore im and that he referred to all the Sin- halese Commentaries. Toh, we alo—2mm 2 ined tnd tnaclatea by J. Grey, plabd by Lan & Coy 1602, See alo PLAC. eof soilvirii, 4 Saez, Kei, 2 ‘Whenever Buddhaghosa has to give his own viows on any point, compelled Yo do ao by the absence of any explanation elucidating it in the Sinhalese saartaie ho dots not fail oniention thatthe views are bis own (oyom tne alana matt) The diigence and presison which Buddhaghon, Ter show: ins works may not appear to be anything rematkable Min compared with the scientiie accurtey of the present tay scholar Bare mur not be forgotton that he lived Steen hundred years ag, ond iti duly as we take thing eosideration and cotpare hin wih scholars of D Gthe civilized countries of the same day that a true estimate of bim becomes possible "There are, however, several stymologial errs in the works, of Buddhaghoss. or example the word dovin in dovind rll (~moonlight right) i deGaed at dondpugatd (ive from stains). Dorin is clewrly the Pal fom of the Senskrtjytond(—moonlight),and therefore cannot have the Ihetning amigned to 1 here.” Again Madar, the name of a well kaown Tetio the lays ofthe Buddha, is derived from mi Ralf(—donot stumbleP, Siren the ortest name ofthe philosopher seems to have been Masharn. "The tex Mestarin iw explsned by Pagini as meaning one who caries & bamboo staff (mastora) According t0 Pataijalts comments the ‘ime indioates.a school of Wanderers or Sopbists who were called Maskarins Zot so much because they carted batibo sta abou them as because they Senied the From ofthe will ‘On the oter hand in some pats of the Commentarea we have clear ov denoo ofthe knowledge of Saunirt grammar possessed by those who were feoponable for thir compilation. The Visuddhimaggs explains Indigtho we Tadalingtino. ndriyttho, indadesitatho indryatho, indadihatto ndriyain,Indasithathosndriyattho,indajlthatha indrigotto.” ‘This Seplcnaton, as Harneth Do pointe owt, i evdentiy «reminiscence of the Pasi Sata (V. 209)" Indvigom indralsigam indo indrasam ind ust sndradatine i "8 ‘Farther we have an apparant chronologial error in the Samantepsdik, in which Buddhagow ives a Ist of the teachers who handed down the Vinnya from the time of Makinda “up tothe present day '(ydeaajjatand).* Bur Zo thera in the lt belongs, as willbe sown in later chapter, tow period after theft century A.D.-wheress Buddhnghooa wrote his Commentaries {nthe carly pert of the fifth century AD. The problem involved in this seeming chfonslogical eror as well atin what was pointed out immediate Doforo namely, the ignorance of Sanskrit exhibited In some parts of the Pi Commentaries and the Knowledge of the same in other parts, cannot be ‘an 1 2, Som VLE 148, 144 Serbhk Barun A History of ProBuddhistis Indian Phllosophy pp- 208, 200. Te ie teresting vo note thatthe error wth rgard tothe Word i fous not‘oly in the Pall Gominentaries of Cey Cag to awe known otter the cotroct meaning ofthe er {he Valosooher wee called Maka hecanre hs father was a Blaha, tht in 2 ‘lal in piture” "As Barua obvergon certain amount of mystery bangs round the atte and feof thie teacher Op cp 28, 6. 4.'P, 1.8, 1906-1007 p. 173. For smila Sonar influences ooo alo Pj. T17, 214,satisfactorily explained if we are to assume that Buddhaghosn used froo hand in the Commentaries, But the problem becomes easy of tlaton if we take the view that the Sinhalese Commentaries grew in cour of tine "eoivng ditions af the hands of Snhlee teacher tone of whom were conversant with the Sanskrit language and some not, and that the tack ot Buddhaghowa as editor and translator was not to Testy the eepectonn embodied in the Commentaries that mere before him, but to rearrange thors te summarize them where neoewary and to tur them into the Pal ieagease Rhys Davide has summed up in few words all that could be aid howe Bactdhaghoss: Of his talent there ean be no doubt, jt way equaled one by his extraordinary industry. But of originality, of independaat thought, there i at preeat no evidence, Visuddhimagga ‘The Visuidhimogga was the frst work of Buddhaghose in Ceylon. Tho Mahavamse tells us that he wrote itn Urief" summang up the tho Pitalns together with the Commentary? According to the suse asshoity ¢ ga ‘mitten as an exposition of two verses given him by the Mahivibars comet, nity in onder to teat hie abilitioe priot to entrusting him with the weighty snd responsible task of translating the Sinhalese Commentaries nto Pale The Viauddhimaggs is a concise but complete eneyclopacdia ef, the Buddhist teachings. In the words of Mrs, Rhys Davida °of this exten ordinary book we might ay, within it, what said the Divine Cat anedia and ofthe Shakeapearean pays: inits pages may be ound comet on everything ie in the earer Buddhist Hterature ‘Throughout ee work Baddhaghoss draws meteral and quotes from pracialy all. the Canonical Texts as well aa some post-Canonical works suchas the Pejakone esa, Milindapafthe and the Anagstavamen’ “Prequont aeerence is cep tunde to the Sinhalese Atthaknthas and to the works ‘lssed’ as ike ude (he Anca)” Wt the ints we all deal nthe ext cio e Visuddhimiagga, in turn, 1s quoted in Buddhaghows' own, bat Iter, Yorks and alo in several other Gobmentarien® With regard to the other works of Buddhaghosa we ate natin a position to place them in any definite chronological order. Tn almost allt boss there are references to.one or other of the commentators other mene? bat they afford uso certain elie. ‘This due tothe fact that a book whens reference is mado to another is taelf refered to in taut other, Forinstanen inthe Atthasilnt the reader i asked to refer for some detalls to the Suman, fapisidiki.® This may lead ur to infer that the Atthaslin! was the lobes vrork, but such easy conclusion becomes unwarranted, when we fd tke ‘ader ofthe SamantapisUdikS referred tothe Adthaslint fora like purpose > Without, therefore, attempting the task, which does not scem to be mee 2, 4 Afterword to Vienddhimaggs P.TS, Elton, 6 See Mrs Rhye Davide Inde to Vs 6 See eg, Man,Sn' 000,708. SV" sr, 391 Ate 18 196, UAA 24,296, 269, 259, ‘Pema 7435.” Bj 11 208, 268, 240, Py TL @) 444 7 eg SV is entioned in Pup 11 30,8.A 145, Att in SV 43, 386, 410, 470. To thew “iu, ie rfeeed to as the Dhammasatiguat eats 8 ani 8 Simp. 10, 4 witout pt noe of eno ing en brn Tequence we all deat Suh thenin the orders any, Saba and ABR ‘se — Se eer agate te emeratey ce Os ore, Ps rae eel re eee ee te deo eed fd eircom Beers eee Comucittmn on meet aban, setae Beso Tee ci aes rie ae he oe aah year and completed in the twenty-first year of king Sirinivasa,? that is, ‘was written in the year 429—430 A.D. Ce Ee oe Se ‘As it was usual in times of trouble the defenvters of the faith fled to Robana ‘and it took more than a quarter of a century bofore the Sinhalese regained ‘ghosa to leave Ceylon before he could complete the writing of Pili Commen- Tica the Patimokkhe., "This ‘was based on the tradition of the Mahavihira and Maghom apologies for vnderakiog to writ, Grab ofall @ 1 1Spmcary the Vag Dacre tthe etl oe of haan Sinmgar hgh p30 % cations tht Buddhaghoee Vinay (lpi pe 27) Malaasekars (PLAC. 0) to, Lge he wrote it"Geore all oshers baauae the Vinay forms the foundation ct Bie ahs “Ay ‘tubonty Zor te vignette, got Say, ‘rvs, Dut Lam unable ta dry ether of thee inferences from ths ot any otber "ers in ihe pola or fe pogo the Samanapinidi 2 Simp. Sa ILA " 23 For the indent see PLLC. p. 96 44 Sp. Sa TT 027 SB ateeas ve at OkeDithinaga of the Sumaigala Pasivena.* Perhaps it was the ‘Parivepa that suggested to Buddhaghose the title Sumatgalailasiat for his Commentary. The PapatcasUdant was written at the request of the thera Buddhamitte, a frend of our commentator with whom he lived at Mayura Paftana.? “A thera called Sotipaa is mentioned as having requested Bicldhaghowa to write the Siratthappadisint® Probably he isthe same as the Jotipila mentioned in the eplogue to the Manorathaptiragt as having been t tovesident of Buddhaghosa when the later was at Kafcipura.: In the prologue to each of thee book itis said that these are translations ino Pal of the orginal Sinhalese Commentaies brought to. Ceylon by Mahinda and preserved there by the dwellers of the Mahia. Moreover in the concluding verses itis atid that the PAIL Versions are written incor poratiog the essence (siram adda) of the Sinhalese Mahi-atthakathi Feimay also be intresting to note that more than half the number of nein rego Col mented in he Manorthaptrn ae conned With the provinge of Roane, from which it may, periape, be inferred that the Sinhatewe Commentary on the Anigattara Nikiya received its fal form ia that provinee Bulldkaghoss is also sid to have written the Commentaries on four books belonging. to. the. Kiuddaka ‘Nitays, namely, Dhammapeda, Jataka, haddaltapijha and Suttanipita, Dhannagdattats ‘Th Dinmnapadatfbakath, too, according to ite introductory ver, isthe Pu trandaton ofan eriginal Stole Commentary, and he tana Tition was anade atthe raquo «thers named Kumtraasspa. Many Scholars hold the view thatthe Dhamazapadadthakatha i not a work ofthe fest commentator Buddbaghoas.* Geiger haf opinion that it is ater than fier Javake collecdon.’ A. anza atthe end of the book tall ue that at the ‘time of wiking the Demmapadattbakathi. the author Ser iling' int soidonon baile by King Sibadga® Sinkudda Sppaceniy only another nate fr Sisinvsen (Mahinuiay® ‘This brings (ihe taf ef Badhagdown. ‘There ek fru, erence in langage tha sivl between the Dhammapadattakatha and th other Contmentarea ‘hich belong to Buddhaghon, But this shold sot b talon ae the only “rion, for “this ference may possibly be due to the difleencn a the subject tater of the various xt ken sp for comment JFatakotthakatha Various acholara have also expressed their doubt as to the authenticity of the tradition that ascribes the Jitakatthakath to Buddhaghoss. The Commentary was written in Pali at the request of thee theras Atthadassi, Buddhamitta and Buddhadeva. The last thera mentioned belonged to the i Wiertare an 5 ha TV. 238. Sprache p Mahiipsisaka sect but the work is based on the Mahivihira recension of the ‘Tatake collection? Brom this we may justly infer that at least as far as the {Interpretation of the Jatalas was concerned there existed at this period no dntagonisti feling between the Theravada and the Mahimsisalea sects. Paramatthojotiba “The Commentaries on the Khuddakepiths and the Suttanipita are both, called by the same name Paramatthajotiki and are attributed to Buddha- {Ghova. "How far ths tradition is authentic we shall now try to investigate. ‘Butidhaghosa’s works, about the authorship of which we have no doubt, fare written at the request of tome thera or other, whereas no such request is mentioned in these two Commentaries. The patthand verses (those ex pressing the author's aspiration), too, of the Khuddakapstha and the Sutta- Fipita Commentaries, though the one set is identical with the other, are ‘Titerent from those in other works? Tt is also significant that neither of {these two Commentaries is sai to be based on the records of the Mahiibira, Fraternity, a fact which Baddhaghosa never fails to mention. These con Siderations make one doubtful as to the authenticity of the tradition, but fare in themselves not saficient to disprove it ‘Something more definite can be said of the Khuddakapitha Commentary. In the opening verses, the author expresses how difficult itis for a person such as timsef, not understanding the Doctrine, to write a Commentary oo the Khuddakas Khuidakanam gambhiratts kind ati dukkara Vannand madisen'est abodhantena edsanam. However, as the decisions of the ancient teachers (pubbicariyaviniechayo) cenit up to his day he summons up courage to attempt the task. Such an ‘admission of wealmess Buddhoghosa has never recorded in any other work, Te is, indeed, unlikely thet Buddhaghoss who was capable of compiling @ ‘work such at the Visuddbimagga would offer such an apolégy. Moreover, good deal of the material in this Commentary appears to be taken ftieiose- direct. trom the Vieuddhimagga sad tho Somantaptendikas At the end of the book there appears the usual passage, which is found at the ul ofall works of Buddhaghoss, comeing an enlogy, of hme in which he. is described as a. person ‘ possessing unrivalled knowledge in the teachings of the Buddha including the three Pitakas and the ‘Aethakathia’ (ipilakaparigattippabhede satthakathe satthuatsane appati- hutaRigappabhavena).+ How incotpatible this is with the introductory versa referred to above! "The peculiar style of this Commentary is also worthy of notice. While commenting on the Ratena Sutta the author states that some teachers held the view that the whole of the Sutta was uttered by the Buddha whereas others held that only the first five were uttered by him, ‘The author then proceeds to say "Let this be so or otherwise. Of what use is this investi- Eation to us? We shall comment on the whole of this Ratana Sueta."* ‘An attitude such as this is, indeed, foreign to Buddhaghosa, Tats mare Pj 1 288 and Pj IL (2) 608 with Vi 11712, 713 or SV 525, 524, rapars P} 1 s1--t0 wat Vi 250-200, wr 100 with Vi 200212 Soest Sp. 116,Taking into consideration all hope fasts we may with justification infer that this Commentary it not work of Buddhaghosa and tat the elophon Yas added ta time when traditional bali wasn favour of attributing to him,” Tt is also ponible that ta eve author was another Buddhaghon Pethaps ho was the ‘Buidhaghoss who requested the gest commentator fo wnte the Atthaslint andthe Sammoharinodan Further, in spite of the few rsemblaner that were pointed out earlier between the" Commentaries on the Keuftskapsia a te Sittanipta, fhe following reasons make st very walkely that thoy mete complaions of the same tutor (1) Fllcomments are made on the Ratann# Mangas? and Nett Satas jn both looks. ‘This repetition would have beta ‘unnecesery if the Same person wrote bot, {2 Inthe Settanipta Commentary the reader referred to the Vieuddi- amiggs for certain deta of the" doutinadra'® but thse ae given in fallin the Commentary on the Khudésiapatia® If the author were ienical'me should have expected the sine bret teatnent in the later cate an (@) Siilasly in the Suttanipdta Atjhakathi reference is made to th Papatcatdan with regard to the explanation ofthe phrase cram me ua whereas tn piven in detail inthe Rhuddakapahe Afhakstha-s Commentaries on the Abkidhamma ‘The Commentaries on the seven Texts belonging to the Abbidhemma Pitaka were written by Buddhaghosa at the request of another there of the ‘same name,? and are based on the original Sinhalese Commentaries at well ‘as on the accepted interpretations of the Mahivibara.'° They consist of| three books, namely, the Atthasilint on the Dhammaeaigent, the Sammo- hhavinodanit on the Vibhaiga, and the Pascappakerapalthaiatha on the seuntining five Texts, Kathavatchn, Puggalapanatcl, Dhavukaths, Yamala ‘and Patthina, The Simmohavinodant contains much information regarding the stato of Buddhism in early Ceylon and is perhaps the most valuable of the Pali Commentaries in that respect. Budilhaghosa's Successors ‘The task of writing the Atthakathis which were left: untranslated into Pali by Buddhaghosk was accomplished by Buddhadatta, Dhammapale, Upssena, Mubinima and another thera whose name isnow lost to. us, ‘These Commentaries are, unfortunately, far less useful than those of Buddha ‘ghosa when considered from the point of view of the light they throw on the religions and social history of Ceylon, Some of these, e.g,, the Vina and Peta-vatthu and Cariyapitaka Commentaries contain no references at all to any incident 1, SY 628, Tbr fal, BM 278, 13 fot, 1 500, Tn fa” PTE 18, 11240, 2,200 i seh Buddadatta Buddhadatta was a contemporary of Buddhaghosa. Madhuratthevilisnt, the Commentary on the Buddhavatpss, is attebuted to him, At the time of waiting this Commentary he wae residing in monastery at Kavira. Paffana." Dhammapaa Dhammapila was a thera who dwelt at Badaratittha* on the south-east coast of Tnudia, a litle to the south of Madras, and very probably he was = Dravidian by birth. The time in which he Rourished must have been some shat later than that of Buddhaghos a the works of the later are mentioned in some of his Commentaries. The works attributed to him ar the Atha Kathis on Udina, Itivattaks, Vimanavatthu, Petavattho, Therogathi, ‘herigitha and Caiyapicaka. All these are cailed by the name Paramat fhadipant. ‘Dhammapdia drew material for hie works fom the ancient Sinhalese Commentaries. Ie is also likely that he made tae of Dravidian Commentaries that were available im his day in South Indie. The Commen tary onthe post-Canonical work Neti, too, is atsbuted to itm. ‘This was written at te request ofthe thera Dhammarakkhita, at time when Dhan soapila was reading st Nigupatana inthe vibra bull by Ring Dhan Saddhammapejjotiki, the Commentary on the Niddesa, was written by ‘the thera Upasens of the Maha Parivene at the request ofthe thera Deva.® According to the colophon to this bool, Upasena, tthe time of writing i, ‘vas residing at Anuradhapura in the Parivene built by the minister Bhatt ena. The work Was completed inthe twenty-sith year of King Siinivisa Sirisighabodhi.’" Such « name’ does not scear ia the Mehevarzen. and Boruggamuve Revata thera considers this King to be Aggubodi 1 of the sixtheentiry ADS Makandna Saddhammappakisins, the Commentary on the Patisambhidimagga, vwat written in Pali in the third year after the death of king Moggallana bf @ ‘thera called Malinda. “At te time of writing this he was ving in the monastery built by the minister Uttaramant.’ We are unfortunste in not being able to know any more details abot this thera. Tastly we come to Visuddhajenavilsint, the Commentary on the Apadina Tt isnot posible to aay who the author was or when the Commentary Was vritten, ‘The Gandhavampaa attibutes st to Buddhaghosa.1° Sorata thera ‘of Miligikands, Colombo, has, in hie admirable preface o the Hewaviti- zane edition of the Apulina Commentary, shown clearly that in Point of both subject matter and style, it cannot be ascribed to Baddhaghost 2 Uda we apnea ‘ile Waa 24,286, 288, 2595 SV in UA 89,48; Atin CpA 14; NA 190,174 Naas Pama 920, S'BAT 8 for 1686p. 00 16s 8 Invroduoton tothe Mahiniddoes Aifhakath, Hew. Bd piv ° 1 ApA Preface pp iv,The Sources of the Pali Commenter ‘Wax Buddhaghosa came to Ceylon thre were already inthe island many collections of eommontarial matter preserved tsinly ia the Sinbalse lan. guage. Some of thew calletons were in book form, othors as seatered {teretare embodying the views of learned teachers of the put. Buddhas shoe andthe other comentaton often refer to them tng hem. te “Among the more import of these may be mentioned ‘Mabaatfhokath’ or Malahat Mahapaccargs-atfhakathi Karundvatthakatna ‘Andhalceffhakatha Semhepetthakatha Vinayatthakatha Suttantatthakatba Agamatthaeatha Dighsttinkatha 10, Majtimatthakatha, 11. Sanpyuttetfbakaths 12 Abgettaratihakathi 13, Abhidbammetshalethi He Sian 15, -Atghakath fn the singolar number 1s. Aithacetas (nthe pagal umbeo) hakathcariy i Rares 19. Rearyavida 20. ‘Keatiyamate 21; ‘Theraallipe 22. Paraearauddava thers 25. Vitandavadi 34. Porina 25. Portgakatthert 25. Porigtearia 27, Pordgatthkatha 28, Bhaval Betoreproceeiing further it should be mentioned that only afow of those were distinct works, Some, for example, the. Sthalaftnakathiy the Suttan- {efphakaths and Absitasimatthaketha comprised whole groups of works, weeny one were posbly merely arate nanos for ike enna Sihalathakatha vis not possible to say how many works were meant by the term Stha- la¢thakeatha (the Sinhalese Commentary), ‘The Mahi-atthalths, the Maba~ 10 pecoar-atthakatha and the Kurundi-atthakath’ were among them ; and ‘becording to Buddhaghota there were other Commentaries as well which were trell known though perhaps not to the same extent. The greatest number of references to these made in the Samantapasidika.* Tradition is that the Sthalatthakatha comprised the Commentaries brougit by Mahinda to Ceylon ‘and preserved there in the Sinhalese language. ‘They evidently contained ssupertiuous material, for Buddhaghoca mentions as a part of the task in his ‘translation the removal of the error of repetition which he found in the ori- shan “There were leo plage wher an explanation did not ally with the janonical Text and where Buddhaghosa had to give preference to the latter. Mahi-atthakatha (Of these Sinhalese compilations the Mahé- or tho Mola-etthakathé ‘ocoupied the foremost position. Most of the works of Buddhaghosa hav ‘Grawn on this Commentary for their substance.® As is evidenced from the refprences made to it i the respective Atthakathis, it contained expositions ‘on all the three Pifakas,” Tt was more complete in ite contents than the ‘other Commentaries.® Expositions of words left unexplained in them were ‘often found here.® Buddhaghoss usually, though not always, prefers the Maha-atthakatha to the Mahapaceari and the Kurundi.1”. ‘The great regard with which he held it is clearly expreseed more than once.! Th some eases ‘the interpretations given in the several Commentaries are recorded and the decision is left open.1? Mention is also made by Buddhaghosa of some faults in this Commentary (Mabi-Atthakath) that were due to alip of the 1219 as well as of places where the exposition appeared to contradict the ext.\¢ Further, the Somantapdaddiks has recorded instances where certain Coylonese teachers before Buddhaghose’s time differed from the interpre- tations given in the Mahi-atthakathi. One such teacher was the thera ‘Mahapedduma's of the frst century A.D. According to the Paramatthajotiki, the Mahi-atthakatha did not contain ‘comments on the last two verses of the Kokalika Sutta in the Suttanipita, ‘The author of the Paramatthajotika is therefore inclined to consider that ‘the original Sutte did not have these two vei The fact recorded here 1 SmpIp.2 v.10, 2 Swegs Simp 12, 265, 298, 283; Smp 11288, 200 300, ‘sr 434.404, '400;" Smp 11 987, 016, 627,716,718, ‘SEAT PopTn at 4 Pept 5 Commoatary on the Yamaka. J-P.T.S. 1012 p. $3. 8 Sup 1-2, Pap Su 1080, 8A Sx IIT 285, Man Sh 855 1 (a) Vinaya: Ste references in note 10 below, {@) Sula Sunil 190, 16; Pap 133, 1 206 SA IE 17 {@) abhidnamina:Aet 80, 82, 86, 107, 151,410; Pug. Pa Com i See eg B) Ir 202 9 Smp fi’ 39, 20 Sup 1, 317, 848,11 597, Smp S011 31. For preference given to other Commentaries 318, 380, 49, 960, 7 pat 8, 28, Pj IT one BETS 1A p25, aver tho Mahacasfhatatha see Smp Ti 319, IIT a01, 67, 116, 726, 21 Sip HP sas, Tr 701 12 Td 1 ao! oy HSL Mr 30, 15 Simp 1288, 11454 ae Pr @) a7 nis significant because it points with more or les certainty tos epeciie instance of an addition, however smal, made to the Pali Canon a cousidersble tine after it was brought to Ceylon and probably after it was committed to writing at Matala Janapada. ‘There sao evidence thatthe Mabi-atyhakathi contained a large number of anecdotes based on incidents that took place in Ceylon.’ Butdhagheca ineluded in his Commentaries only afew of thee stories which, had they been preserved in their entirety, would have given usa much cleaver insight into ‘he conditions of ancient Coylon than we are able to have at present. Mahapaccari and Kurundi Atthakathas ‘The Mahipaocari and Kurundi Afthakathis were so named because they wore composed on a raft (paccari) and in the Krandivela Vihava respec. tively in Coylon.® _As far as Tam aveare these two Commentaries are referred to only in the Samantapisidiki and there, too, they are invariably mentioned slong with the Mahi-atthakatha, "In a few instances the ex. positions given in these two are preferred to those given in the other.? Andhakotthakatha The Andhakatthakathi was handed down at Katicipure (Conjevaram) in South India, and very likely it was written in the Andbaka languages vis often referred to by Buddhaghoaa in his Samantapasidiks. He telers to it not so much to agree with its expositions as to find fault with them, Sometimes he is hursh in his exiticism. “This is wrongly said’, "That ‘agrees neither with the Atthakathi nor with the Canon, and therefore should nob be accepted these are some of tho expressions that Buddhaghosa uses in refuting the Andhakatfhakatha explanations. Buddhaghosa vefers also to certain expositions of the Vinaya which were based on conditions that, prevailed in the Andha country and were therefore not of general application.* A view exprossod by the thera Mabistmma of Gaylon on the interpretation of certain Vingya rule is rogarded in the Andhakatthakathe fs an authoritative statement? ‘This thera lived in the first century AD and, therefore, we may conclude that the Commentary was written at a date acer than that century. Sabo Aghakatha ; “Another Commentary that is mentioned in the Samantapsidiks is the Safhepwatfhakaths or the “short Commentary’, "rom the fragmentary evidence of the Sumantapisdiika as to the Contents of the Sei Cousmentary it appears tht it had much in common with the Msbapacess? and itis posible that it was an abridged verson ofthe same, According to Vijesinha the Sirattha Dipant and the Vimati Vinodant Tikia ennaersee theo works called Andhakaffiakatha. and Salhepot tha Tapia 2 Matic et 11919, uL6r ‘rund (prefered) Sup Su 9 epee Ao 3 io, mp So 14 8 Sap ii er, sp So 11204, 8 Sip Sait 3 np fie, 2 Vajira Buddhi Toki gives Cullapscear? and Andhakaffhakathi. Ths, ‘oo, lea us to suppone thatthe Saskhepafthakaths wee perbaps th same asthe Callapaceart (mall or abridged Pace)? Vinayothakaha, Tn addition o works such as the Mubi-atthakathi which dealt with ehe ‘whole Canon there ‘were sao. Commentaries that. more restricted to the ‘Hert branchesofthethnee Pifakas. ‘Thus the Visuddbinugge refers group of works called the Vinayafthakatha. Sometimes the word used is th the singular number? sometimes inthe plasa. This probably means that there ere tore tan one Commentary onthe Vinyasa also parhepe that there was ono which wea more important than the others end’ which therfore cowld be called the Vinyafthaiathis We ud similar references to Commentaries on the Sut us wel as on the Abkiibamma. The Viswthi Soagge mentions slo. the Suttantafiukathi’ the Majjkimatthakathi, tho Samyuttatthakeths? and the Angottaratfhakathi® and the Abbidhan- soayfhakathd.?” As the Visuddhinagga wae the frst work of Baddhoghoca iE"Gaylon, shea references must neeemurly be to the Commentaret that tint lvady in Coylon when he came to the iaand. “A Dighaithatha, tooy is mentioned in the Sumaigaaviisint® aud this, again ident ‘work that wasn Coylon at tho tip of Buddhghoras etal in the and “the Atthsdlni refers to some Agamaftinlathaes*, Very likely theso were the Commentaries onthe four Agnmae or Nikayas roferred to in tho Sunat folvilsing and Visadahimoggn asthe Dightry Majjhima-, Saxpyutta~ fd ASguttarsatghelaths. “That thee Agsma(ihacathle were seperate ‘orkaand not meray sctons ofthe Mabi-affnkatha, which alo contained ‘ommentaral matter on th four Agamus i to be inferted from pasage {nthe Atthaslint which mentions sete by side both the Agamatthabattas and the Mahie(fhakatha ‘Moreover, the existence of spparate Commentary on the Jitakasis evident fom wsoorence tot the Pal takaffiakathi Atthhathd and Aithcathin {Quotations ade by Baddhaghosa and his uccesors from the Atphakath nd the Atfiniathta are nutgerous'*” As wan mentioned in. connection ‘rth tho Commentaries on the Vinay. ere, to, the Aighakatbiy when it eeurs in any Pali Commentary refers very probmply not to the Mabe 13, B.A.S. 1570 (Val. V, New Benen) p. 208 2 Hor cihereforenoes io Satichepui habs 5 Vin212 Alo oj 10 tt 2 § vier, 8 Thid. 172, 184, 11 si on econ of the Apgattraitbakatha i lo mentioned by Buddhaghosa ert ite Dukanipaciiiabsthas Wi T 1 o finn ar oe 10 Sem Vi Ts 11 Aw 185, 180 12 Att. Agamanatthakathdu inthe P.T, tox x clsnly mispriot for Agamat- Sa 1H Aha ang) VT 61, 8 29, 916,11 364, 400, 448, 450, Sum VA I 549,052, 68, irae 60 Fao, 20, Bap T 240, 1 286, Man 140, aa 0,68 994 ‘Asha por} WET 19,172,160, 198, 280 285 1452, 627, UA 89, 04, 127,928, 18kathi but to. the corresponding Sinbalese Commentary ;2 for ‘when the word Aftakathé (in the singular number) oocurs in the galavilasnt it denotes the Sinhalese Dighanikaya-afthakatha. But when the word occurs in the Visuddhimagga we may be mote of les certain that it refers to the Mahi-atthakatha which was the Sinhalese Commentary par excellence, There are also instances where the word Afthakstha is used inva wider sense to denote the Commentaril Literature in conteadistinction to the Pali or the Canonical Texts? ‘The Afyhakathis (in the plural number) ‘on the other hand, refer to the original Sinhalese Commentaries in general ‘With this difference in mind we may deal with the references to the Atsha- ‘kothis and the Abfhakathas as relating merely to the whole group of the ‘Sinhalese and some of the Dravidian Commentates. ‘Buddhaghosa is very cautious when he deala with Canonical marter left anexplained in tho Commentaries that were before him. Sometimes he explains 4 point and hastens to add a clause of apologetic warning: * As {his has nof been handed down in the Commentaries it should be accepted after investigation” (Aithakathdew pana andgatats vimameeted gahelabbam) ‘Even when Buddhaghose is forced by his own reasoning to disagree with the ‘Aqphaleathis he hesitates to give his definite opinion. "As it ts said in all ‘the Agthakathas ” he says sometimes itis not possible to reject (the expla notion). What is correct should be found out or the Commentators should be taken on trust:"* “The Aftbakatht explanations are always prefarrod 0 those advanced by such well known teachers as Mabisiva,* Tipitaka Calibhaya® and Abbidhammika Godha." "These Commentaries, though they were compiled in the Sinhalese language, appear to have contained Pali verees. We find only a few verses definitely ‘uiributed to the Atthakathis,® but it is possible that there were many uch verses. ‘There are numerous veree passages in the Pali Commentaries ‘the sourees of which we are unuble to trace, and it may be that many of these “yore preserved inthe original Sinhalese Commentaries as mnemonic verses, Atthakathikt ond AMhakathdcariya ‘Closely connected with the term Atthakathi are the words Aftha- lkathiks and Atthakathdcariys. ‘Those who studied and handed down the ‘Atfhakathis were known aa the Atfhakathilas.®” By the other teria were ‘generally understood the teachers (dcariyd) responsible for the compilation ‘of the Afthakathés.1? Buddhaghosa holds the Atthakathdoa TAs i oan be infeed from Sump HT 300 2 See VET 96, 0, 107 5 Me 90, sam Vi D78, 4 Shp 86 1131, See als VEX 198, (Then it may be remarked inldentally, ar fartor Inatanees whigh lecly show iat Buddhaplow did not incade he Own vise a the Pill Commeataris). 5 Ate 207, 8 Pap Sn 02. 7 WUL ISa. For other inrtancs of view rejected by Baddbaghow on the ground they were aot found or oxpainedotherwi Io the AWiiakathas, So Ate 21 Vi IL ‘1, Sum Vil HE 1001 4 Sip 1240, 114575 Pama 474 ori isl 10 Aninstanos however of the ute of the word AithakahfoaiyS ina tene identical with hat of Aithaiathie found in Vi T 62 11 For some af the reference to Afthakathdoaris See Vi 108, 982; Sam Vil 1187s up Tab, 225, 255, Man Ht g8s SV 310,290; Ate 123; Sum Vil II d Udi 's5P) T 110, Pama 30 “ Ligh esteom and says that they knew the intentions of the Buddha and therefore their word should be taken as authority. Pali verses, too, are found attributed to the Atthakathicariyas?® Aeariyantta, Acariyamata and Aeariya "The Aeariyavada (talks or expositions ofthe teachers) are the same as the Athakathas (dcariyaedds nana dfthakatht).> and in degree of authenticity ‘age second only to the Canonical Texts, If any views expresaod in te ‘eariyavidas do not agree with the Suttantas tao former ae to be seocted.# ‘The individual views or opinions expressed by well known acters ave classed as the Avariyamatas (opinions of teachers) and are different frm the AffhakathS expositions.” These opinions it they are aot comaborsed hy the Txt or the Commentary, are nat to be regarded.aaesentally comet Similar in signifieance to ibe Acariyamatas ave the expositions abeabated to the earns (otters) ered to often in the Pal Comes carga sadant and ariydkathayant (he teachers say), The great tense Such ae Mahapadusna? bsiong to this group of teachers Therasallapa 4 discussion that took place amoug the theras Kalhilavést Sumena, Lokuttaravis! Cilasiva and Dighabhinaka Tipitaka Mabasiva is mentioned in the Sumadgalavilisint as a Theraealldpa.® As to its value a therasallipa is evidently equal to an Acariyamata. The opinions expressed by similar teachers, but whose names have not been preserved, are given in the Com: ‘mentaries with the simple introduction : oi vadanti (some say) ot Beet eannayant (some deseribe). 10 Parasamvuddavisi Thera Some views of theras who lived outside Caylon have also been preserved, ‘They are referred to a the views of Parasamuddnedst ther (thera ving Ob tag her ds of the oe. 1 term dcariganam vandnatthatathd (identical expositions of the teachers) also out frequentiy, and is invariably found ja eonncntion with the eeitation nf the views proclaimed by the Vitapdavtdinns” Te nciileah, to say whether thess diferent views aud opinions of eminent teachers of ld which are now incorporated in the Pali Comientaries Were found te: corded inthe original Sinhalese Commentaries ot whether they were found preserved separately in the Malitvihar. 1 Sap Sa Ht 12, Ser alo Br 310 2 Ate 85; Sp Sw IE 2 3 Sum ViL TT 887. Ste alo Vi 98 4 Sam Vit sa evn 1 Moro sbout the theres wil be grea Jn 8 eubaguent chapter, 8 Se eps Bmp 1 28 9 Som Vit TL 2, 10 Pap 135,38 11 Pap Sn 718, 72, 290 22 At 0, 02, 24; Pap Sa 72ve ela he a eg solbtetiae oC: want Aetna Pech Thabane lhe we bt tc ns Prine oie fe Se betel a ees Boyce Alta Mien bul pS she if Spel eee Eas hay tr chun ash Sicigstar net) “iM "tow wl de oud SRMLRP SGC Ha tet te CPR i cha ta nye of ee ean ae a ah aba stale ie Sel uty aenex eon Beane ee nia he mei wan lads ai totems ici noe sen tae rR a, cee fiaiatay Sa Awe Tere 6 a found in ll the Pali Commentasien hich ae probably prose though they may le be fragments of two stanzas. he greater pact of ho aw to be found in Bohan’ woke Th iddesa Cominentary of Upaseoa and the Patisoubhidemagge Commenter ‘of Mahinima are also rich in them, whereas they are scanty in the Com. ‘meatares of Dharmapala. ‘The Commentary on the post Canonical Hock Net has one vere quotation, ‘The following table shows how the passages aré distributed Verse Verse Total Pro or No.of No.of No.of Prosot references references verses Visuddhimagea wa Samantapasadiki, 2% Kaskhivitarayt Atthasilint Sammohavinodant Paficappakarapattbakathi ‘Sumsagalavilisiat Pspaficastidant ‘Siratthappelsint Manorathaparant ‘Khuddakepitha Atghakeths Dhammapada . . Udina Teivattaka Suttanipita : Viminavattn : Petavattha : = ‘Theragarha " = Therigitha : Satake — Niddesa Patisambbidamagga |, Apadina : Buddhavarea Cariyapitake : Netti 1 1 Tora. Ww 2G Sometimes the same verse or prose passage occurs in more than one Atehakath3.” For example, the verse = Bhagaei ti vacanam setflam Bhagavi ti vacanam wstamayn Garugaravayutto 20 Bhagavs tena ouccai ‘occurs in twelve Commentaries—in one, namely, Paramatthajotiki T it does not however occur as a quotation from the Poraqas—and the verse Yatha thambhe nibandheyya eaccham damam naro idha Bandheyy'evam sakay citar satiyérammane datham 1occurs in six! When the repetitions are removed the 142 verses reduco themselves to 902 Tt is interesting to note that nearly one-fifth of this snumber--17 verses to be exaot—is found, though not under the name of the Porigas, in the Vimuktisagraha, a Sinbalese prose work interspersed free ‘with Pali verso and prose, and composed at a comparatively modern date We are, however, not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the lst given above exhausis the number of the quotations from the Poripas, though they certainly are the only ones definitely called by that name inethe Com- mentaries, ‘Three verses given in the Siratthappakisint® without any ruference as to their ouree are asoribed to the Porias in the Visuddhimagge.* Similasly two verses ia the Buddhavamsa Commentary® and one in the Paramatthajotied® ovout as quotations from the Porapas in some other Afhakathis.’ As was already observed in another connection, there aro in the Pal Commentaries very many verse quotations the sources of which have so far not been traced. It is quite possible that some of these may belong to the Poripas also. ‘This fact remains—and perhaps will remai for ever-—an obstacle in the way of our obtaining definite knowledge as to the real nature of the Porinas. ‘A glance at the Pordna passages shows that they, in some measure or other, deal with every aspect of the teachings of the Buddha, and also that many of them reveal a Commentarial nature. ‘The subjects dealt with range from moro points of grammar to deep philosophial speculation, from pre legendary matter to history. ‘The following brief survey will make this more cles. On the Vinaya rulee Buddhaghoss, on the authority of the Poripas, says that. a Vinayadhara bbilekha in trying snother’bhikkehu on a charge of thelt sould take into com sideration the following five points: the thing stolen, the time when and. the country whore the theft took place, the value of the stolen property, and also whether it had been used by ite owner. 3 “Oblate ene Ane co” ete SA TK 20 Ere 8 Sip FPS. 8 Admonition to ead the higher life ‘The admonition of the Poripas to a bhikichu to lead the higher life and ‘guin the amata oF the deathless state isto act like one whose head is ablaze. “Seeing these eight supreme advantages, ‘The sage reviews break-up and contemplates Repeatedly to gain the deathless state, Like one whose head is wrapped in blazing cloth "2 Reflections on impermanence, ‘A bhikkhu should reflect on the breaking up of the complexes (saikhird) ‘and know that what is called death is their breaking up ; and that there is ‘aothing ele. Hence the Ancients say "The aggregetes are ceasing ; there's nought else, ‘The break-up of the agaregates is death ‘The ardent man wisely their loss discerns, As though a gem were drilled with adamant.” On the Abhidhamma Practically all the Poriya quotations on the Abhidhamme are found in ‘the Visuddbimagga. They are numerous and noteworthy in thet. they represent a stage in the Abbidhamme more systematic and developed than the Canonical Texts and in that they try, as Mrs. Rhys Davids points out,? to lay great emphasis on the Anatta or non-soul doctrine. hit is evident from the following quotation given in the Viseudhimagga “There is here truly name-and-form, Therein existe no being oF man. "Tis void and fashioned like a doll, A lump of il, like geass and sticks.” ‘Suita Nomenclature ‘Not only were the Porinas considered as authorities on the exposition of the Vinaya and the Abkidhamma, but in the Sutta also their views were much respected. Buddhaghosa tells us that tho Anumina Sutta® of the Majjhimanikaye was called the Shukkhupatimokihe by the Porias.) In the exposition of the Firtyana Sutta, too, the Porinas are quoted as santhority.? Incidents in th life of the Bualdha Certain alleged incidents in the life of the Buddha are alluded to in some Poripa verses, One pastage describes how he walked immediately after his birth,* and another how he went to the Santhagira Hall at Kapilavatthn.? ‘he Paramatthajotiks records the following legendary account given b tho Porinas as to the origin ofthe town of Vesti In daye gone by. the YEE 603; PP. nL 768 Vi 04s, Pe. It 70,chief queen of the king of Bonares gave birth toa lump of flesh. This was ‘turown into the river, but, under the protection of the devatas, reached the hhands of a hermit, in whose hermitage it separated itealf into two portions. and in course of time became a prince snd a princess, Later on they were brought up by cowherds and ultimstely they beoame the king and queen of a nowly established town. As the town was enlarged again and again (punappuna "vied" katatta) it becatme known as Vesa! Historical Incidents From legend we now turn to history. ‘The Semantapasadika, after giving in prose certain incidents relating to the coming of Mahinda to Ceylon, quotes some Pordya verses as authority for the same? “Again, a seriea of such verses is given to show the continuity in the line of teachers from the time of Mahinda to a later date. Some of these verses are very similar to- ‘those found in the Dipavansa.t Cogmaeay ce ‘Nor hat cosmology escaped the notice of the Pordnas. Budddhaghosa gives ‘hei ideas ato how this world is situated. | “The great world’s rocky rim sinks in the deep ighty-two thousand yojunas ite height dential, encizcling the whole world.”® Baegetical Motior There are also several references of an exegetical nature. ‘These aro mostly in prose. The euthor of the Khuddakapatha Commentary defines manussd (men) as Manuno apaced (sons or descendants of Manu}, and then gives the Pordpa definition which is mana-ussannatdya manused (men are 20 called. because they are mentally exalted).® Grammar i 1A pastage ocourring trie inthe Commentaries explains the usage of a grimmatical construction, It pointe out that there is no dferane in ‘eanng between “aomim smaye ad ona semayena of tom eamayan.* Deseription of Canonical Texts ‘The Papaitcasidant and the Apadina Atthakeths afford instances of another type. Buddhaghose on the authority of the Porinas records that ‘the Majjhimanikiya consists of 80,523 words (puda)* and the anthor of the Apadiina Commentary gives similarly the number of Apadnas in the Text.” Closely allied to the references to the Porinas ate thote to the Poriia- lkattherd (the theras of old), Pabbicariya (former teachers), Porapicariya, (teachers of old) and Afthakathicariya (teachers of Commentaries). Tt will now be seen whether these terms signified different men or were used indiscriminately to denote the same teachers or groups of teachers, Prise fal f Sue Dips 2, vy 13,35 ob, Pe IE 238 By 2 Man 113, Pap. 110 2 Pordimakatthera collection of pasge refesng to the Pstnakattheraa given Appen- dix IL. Tt will be observed that the references to them are considersbly different from those to the Porinas. In them there is not a single verse passage, In one instance the opinion of the Pordnakattheras is definitely set aside and another interpretation advanced by the original commentator (or commentators) of the Ariguttaranikiya. In the other passages, too, the general tendency is not to take their views as authority, a itis the case with the Porina passages, but to record them as explanatory of parallel notes. We are thus led to draw the inference that the Porigas aze not the samo as the Pordnakattheras, Pubbcariys Tn the opening vers of the Khuddakapithe Ajthalathd, its author states that ia spite of hs santy Knowledge of the sisana, he i atempting to write the Commentary bweause the cisions of the former teachers (pubhicariyavinicchaya) ate extant up to his day. Immediately sfver this He says that be intends to base his work on the pordgacvinischaya (the dssions of the ancients from which we tay plausibly infer that the Pubbaoasyas ae the same asthe Porinas ‘A quotation in the Visuddhimaggs, too, strengthens this inference Buuidhaghosa desires his readers to realize how dificult itis t0 aoquite a proper understanding of the. Patvcasomuppida (esusal happening). To prot his eave he quotes a verse from the Porapas’ However, he proceeds fo expound thie dieu doctrine in view of the fact that the sisann Is “domed with manifold ways of expresion (ang detand naya manditam) and that the path of the former tenchers (pibbdceriya-magg) proceeds ia Unbroken continuity. Then he requests his readers to ites to him een: tively and quotes a. vere from the Pubbacaiyes (ettom. hem Pubbac ‘noright) to fit ont the benef Istening abontvely to thio focteine™ Both these verses are’ on the saine topic and the manues, too, in which Buddhaghoas has quoted them, gives us the impression thet he is draving bis material from he same source Porinacariys ‘The term Porinicariyd also occurs fairly frequently in the Pili Comme taries, “One naturally feels inclined to ask the question ' Are the Porip cariyas the same as the Porigas?” The Gandhavanse defines the Por cariyas as the dhammasoigthaka theras or the theras who took part in the ‘three Councils, but with the exception of Mahikwccayana.* Now, in the Milindapafiha a certain vere is ascribed by Nagasena to the dhammasnigahaka theras.6. This same verse, as pointed out by Mrs. Rhys Davide, ogeurs in the Visuddhimagga as a quotation from the Porkpas."” ‘Thus, with regard to this vorse at least, the Porigas are the same as the Porigacariyas, both being the sume as the dlammasaigihatas. ‘The Gandhavamsa goes further Man 1128, Pll Vitae 8.1880 pp, 58,5 ato assert a connection between the Porinicariyas and the A¢thakathicariyas (We Pordndcariyd te yeoa Althakathdcariya).2 {If what has been pointed out in the preceding paragraph is correct we may infer the possibility of a close connection between the Porinas and the Atthakathicariyas, ‘Buddhaghosa, commenting on the MGlapatiyaya Sutta of the Majjbima- nikiya, gives the Atthakatha exposition of the phrase pafhavim abhinandat, ‘and coming to the next phrase pathavim mainati says that it has the samme ‘meaning as the previous one but that the reason for this repetition has not been discussed by the Porinas.. Then he procesds to give his own opinion {ayam pana me atiano mati) “Here, evidently, Buddhaghoea takes Porn, In the sense of Atthakathicariya ‘Once more, while commenting on the Asivisopama Sutta of the Samyutta- nikiya, he quotes four verses from the Atthalkuthicariyas (len’ahu tthe athacariya). A while later he quotes four more verses of a similar nature, but this time from the Por athe Pordnd)s Further, the commentator of the Suttanipita gives a very brief intro: duction to the Ratana Sutta and remarks that the Poriiyas open their ex postion of this Sutta from the beginning of the story connected with (the building up of) Vesili.t Here, again, itis likely that the word Porgy has the same significance. But these instances are not sufficient for us to arrive ft a decision about the identity of the two. Pordyatthakatha ‘This leads us to the further problem of the relationship between the Pori ‘and the Poripatthakathi (the ancient Commentary). As we have observe earlier Oldenberg was convinced that the two were identically the same. Geiger, too, is ofthe same opinion. He pointe out that the Pordpatthakatha ‘which formed the basis of the Mabavainsa is nothing other than the work of the Porsyas mentioned in its proom (1.2) and in the description of the Mabithape (29-24) and also mentioned seven times in the Mahavamia ‘Thki.® | Gioger’s argument is to me convincing, On the other, end I “cannot ayeee with Mulalasekara when he suggests that, Buddhaghosa’s references are to anonymous teachers of old, whove expositions were not nevesearily embodied in the Commentaries but were handed down in various schools.® We have seen « remark of Buddb ghosa in the Papaiicastdanf about an explanation let out by the Porias If the Poripa interpretations were handed down in various schools by oral ‘tradition, such a remark as that could have been made only by one who had sorefully’studied the traditions of all thoee schools, Buddhaghosa’s stay ‘in Ceylon was however too brief for us to assume that he could have studied ‘them folly. But this would have been an easy matter if the Poria inter- rotations were available to him in the form of a compilation, either as a ‘separate collection or embodied in the Commentaries themselves or if the Poriuas were the same as the Atthakathicariyas, a probability before noted. 7.8. 1886 p50 ‘sn 11 4, 41 8 pp, 44 ft 1 oPhe' Farther, the fact that prose passages of identical form are found quoted ore than once suggtats strongly thatthe commentators deew thoes prove Dasege from a writen compilation ‘The Pordgas were undoubtedly revered teachers of old and they must Lave played en important part in the formation and stailing of the ‘Theravida echool. ‘They had thee origin in Tada avis evidenced hy the verse attributed tothe dhammasongahake theras in the Milindapata and to'which we have made reference eartive. Probably they were ot known i." It may be thet their viows and interpre. tations of the Dortrine were incorporated in an old Commentary, and thst shen otlier now Commentaries sith a8 the Mabiratfbakathl, Mahipuccart fad the Kuru came to be written thi old Commentary was called the Porinetthaketha, and the teachers whose views were incorporated vere termed the Porayaor the teachers of old Sil later the dstinetion Uetwreen the views ofthese teachers of eld snd the reat of tho counts uf the old Commentary may have disappeared andthe term Porigi> and Perinat fhakatha aequied tho same significance. ven as the shortened. form ‘'Rorundt "was often ased instead of the word Rurundafthakatha, so also the word" Porto" may have hwen asd to denote the Porta. ‘We are, unfortunately, nat in « position to know how many of the Poras quotations refer to the views of Celoneee thera Hn this been known it ‘ould have been of fwalmable help in tracing the development of Buddhist Brought in Ceylon Bhapatas We ace now lft with one other important source ofthe Pali ommentariey, namely, the traditions handed down by the Bhapalas’ or the“ Reiters! of the Yarous portions ofthe Caton, In the next chapter we sal eal with this soute, tracing as far as posable the history fom the Tocaption uf the Bhipaka system tothe tie of Buddaghor, 1 See Appendix It‘The Bhanakas Wire we consider the log ministry of the Buddha we ro lo to think that the discourses he delivered andthe rales lai down by him for the guance of his dissples must have bron necesarly very extensive. AB far as we have evidenoe, no attempt bad been made during hi lis time to coy his teachings, thovgh probably they were sued and remembered by hig disciples in the form of “olletins (eamitt—Paly “oak. "The word schitam in the Dharsnapada verse bakum pe anhitam Bhtsaméno likely refers to such a collection. We may-atey sate that thare wore fo auch tanineoletions = the Vinay cllection or the collection wf tues an regulations for the guidance cf monks and mune andthe Dhamma allestion or that of the discourses. The division of the Dhamma into the Sotia andthe Abidbamm i evidently a ater on. Origin of the Bhinakes ‘Tiros month after the pasing away of the Buddha, His disciples with Mahikassapa thei head ave suid to have assembled at Rjageha hero they rected, clasied and arranged the teachings. In that counal it was deoized advisable to entrant diferent sections of the Canon to diferent sroups of disciples. ‘The lack of atable wting material and the consequent foveny of handing down the Texts by wont of mouth from teacher to Pupil made it expedient to adopt thi division of labour. Different seatons ff the Canon were accordingly entrusted to groupe of monks Who: were Alceady noted for their proiteney in thove sections, a evident from the fntruning of che Vinaya to Upali and his pupils?” The Disha, Mayjhina, Samyutta and Abgattara Nikivas were nntritnd to Ananda. the pupiy of ‘putt, Mlahikssapa and Anuradha respectively. Of these Nikigae the Mojtima contains, nthe Sattas sich sa the Artupada materia which nay be considered as the tain source ofthe. latersystemntied Abhidhamma. Itis therefore sgutcant that this Nika wat eatrasted to the pupil of Siriputta noted for his knowledge of the Abbidhamme About fon centuries later Yeon Chwang noticed that on atspicous daye Sériputta’was honoured by the Abhidhammikas.*. ‘The group of mooks to whom those sections were entrusted and their pupils afte thet preserved the teachings of the Buddha by learning and recting the same. “Phus they came to be known as the Bhapalas or the Rectore” af the repeating Seotions ofthe Canon, Closigeation of the Bias Tn the Pali Commentaries reference is made to the Bhipakas ofthe Digha, Maja, ‘Samyutta, and. the AnguttarsNikiyan, the to. Vibhudges (Ghats ibkaiga) the Dhacsapeda. andthe Mahi-Aiyavamea, One also often comms sore the two terms Sarabhiuaka® and Padabhapaka, Teer 2 Son Vals Sta Nou AN Date Sod of Bodiam and Budi Sobol pp 20208 bur they have no cnneston wth the Bhigas that we ae deling with Ire. fa no Commentary, a far as Iam awaro, te thre any reference ta the reotters of the Khuddakanikiya, But in the Milndapati. the word Khuuliakabhigaks occurs in lst of the Bhipalas." this ooarrence is both intresting and strange." The Mitindapaiin atleast the main. part af the book—and this passage fs included in that scton-is older than Buddhaghose's Commentaries And if Bhageleas of all the five Nikiyes existed in India atthe tine when the Milintapetba. was compiled, how i fone to account forthe absence of any mention of the Khnddulabhipatas in Ceylon? Did they not exist, on if they did, were they not sufiently prominent in the island? Orieie that Buddhaghosa and the other commen {store had no occasion to mention thom The reference nthe Miia, however, gives usa definite cue as tothe place of oign of the Bhigakay, namely, hat they are in India and notin Colon, With regard to the thee divisions of the Canon : the Suta, the Vinaya fand the Abhidhanma, we And that thove who recited and handed them down ‘were not known by the name Bhigaka but’ were designated Sottantik, Vinayadbars and Abhidhaanmik seapectively.”Dbammadhars was another nam for Suttantika* ‘The Buddha himself was considered ‘the first Abhidhammika.? Those who studied and recited the Commentaries. were called Atthakathiki.t Besides these there were the Tipitaki (those ered in the three Pian) andthe Catwniyia(thore ver in the four 23). Again, there were those who stat al the three Ptakas hut specialized in one Nikiya > Dighashapata Tipifaka Mahisiva thera may be dled as an illstration Tei neceary to nots here that bring» Bhagakn ‘of paticlar section ofthe Canon meant only thet the person in question toad a special study of that portion and did not in any way ly an ignorance or neglect of other sections of the Pikes, ‘These ip alo evden for ws Lo infer thal in order vo become x Dhak of «particular Niky it wna not eseatal for one to learn the whole of thet Nikaya, ‘The Semantapasedi tells us that a bhikki who counts ten years ftom his upavompad ordination and who is atthe hend of a ecle of Bhs shold now st leat in addition to certain portion ofthe Vingye-~ it he in a Majjhimabbitoaks, he st fity discourses (of the Majin: sikiye ; if4 Dighabhpaka, the Mabivagga ¢ {Ea Sumyuttabhinaka, the fst three sugges or the Mahivag itn Adguttarabhaqac, the frst or the sscond half of the Nikiya or, feling'to learn ithe nipata (ection) upto the third-aceordag to the Mahipaceartatthalathi ‘eh leanting only one pita Should lata the fourth or the ffth; and it ditaksbhinate, the Jataka book together with its Commentary— coordi tthe’ Mehipeocart he should learn the Dheimmapeda, too, wih it storie 1a ae 2 Maa tt 180 Brio. 1 Som Vil 549 UI ssa 6 ‘The second epg ohapte) cluding Suttas M— 29 of the Dighanikya,gts ee ele ptt porto oe cS ae pee men erg Sires sn ge mee ed pean ee ee i now see what we cen glean from the Pali Commentaries regending characterstios of the Bhipakat and the divergences, i there be Bh the views held by them. fnakas mentioned before, itis said that the study and the handing down of fp Dighanikaye was entrusted to Ananda and his pupils Whether the jabhipakas of Ceylon were direct descendants of Ananda in the lineage chore iti tot possible to say. There was nothing to prevent a pupil 4 Dighabhsaka teacher becoming a Catunikayika or a Tipitaka, and one of his pupils studying the Majjbimenikiya under him and be- ng Majjhimabhigaks, ‘The same may be said with regard to the ters of tho other Nikayas. re isa considerable number of references to Dighabhinaka theres ving in diffrent parts of Ceylon. In Anuridhapura there lived several ‘them. The Suimadgelavilisnt mentions that at Ambalathika which to the west of the Lohapisida, the Dighabhayaka theras started & tal ofthe Brahmajila Sutta and that at the end of it the earth quale? cording to this Commentary some Dighabhinata theras were vecting Mahasudassana Sutta at the same place when King Vacabha (127-179 ‘Ad. went there and, on listening to Xe, was greatly plessed The Ap © dsnatHnakatha deseribes an ancedote connected with a young Digbabhayebe Giving in the Kalyani vibira.t The thera Dighablsyake Abhaya, too, ved at Teast fora time at Kalyaoi Mention i male several nee of two Dighobhigaka thereo. One io the ‘thera mentioned above and the other is ‘Mabiaiva. In some places the former is called Dighabhayaka Abhaya and in othets Dighabbayake Mahi Abbaye. Whether both refered to the same person of bot we are Unable to say definitely. The same is true of the latter who is refered to both a © Dighabhinaks Mabisiva und. es Dighabhiyaka Tpiteka, Mabtsiva, Buddhaghosa quotes the name of Abbays a8 thera noted for his memory® fand again as one famed for bis pationce with those whose words, wore insulting.’ “In the Atthaslint there is an interesting’ seoount of how Dighabhinaka Mahi Abhays converted a band of thieves who came to plunder the Cstiyapabbaca vibira.® In this and other accounts we have 1 Smp Sa 1134 2 Son vin 5 Toit. eas 4 Apa 3 Pap se sao @ Som Vint oao 1 Paprie 8 At 300; Simp Kae 26 of this thera there is dewwn for us a fairly vivid picture of his personality.” Concerning Mahasiva thera, too, there are muny references in the Commen: taries, but these will be dealt with ina later ehaper, ‘We shall next ove in what respects the reciters of the Dighanikiya differed from those of the other Nikiyas, Available material, however, is not auficont for us to arrive at any definite conclusions ‘The following points of difference in the views held by the Dighabhipakas and the Msjjhimabhapekas are recorded in the Commentaries Dighabhipakas Majjhimabhipakas 1. At the council held at Rija- 1. In order to make known that aha, when the other 499 theras sat he hadattained Arabantship Ananda i thee eats, Ananda, who attained, thera di not go with the other Arahantship in the eatly moruing of theras. After they had assembled, hat same’ day, went last tov the they suw Ananda’ seat vacant and Assembly Hall ‘and took his seat. inguired where he was. Then Ananda He “shone like the fullmoon on a dived into the earth and appeared cloudless night, like lotus touched in his seat, Some (eke) say that into bloom by’ the rays of the sun; he went through the air and took his face was pure, cleansed, radiant his seat. and resplendent as though it were proclaiming his attainment — of Arahantship ”(attano arahatiappatim. Groeayamaino viya)? 2. ‘Theras at the first council rit. 2, ‘The Majjhimabhiyakas ada ed the Texts to the list of the Dighabhiyakas the three Texts ‘itaka Caviyapitalea Maht-Niddesa Apudana and Gila-Niddesa Buddhavarnse, Paticombhidamogga tnd oay that the theras at the fast Suttanipite council called ‘this collection the Dhammapada Khuddskagantha and included it Udine in the Suttanta Pifala.« Hivuttaka Vimina-peta-vatthu, ‘Thora-theri-gith, and calling them the Khuddakagan- tha, ineluded the same in the Abi hamme Pitskat 3. (With regard to the degree of subtleness of the body when one is Practising the Andpinasati meditation.) 1 For other seferoncs see Man 1 249; VII 36,208 SV Sr nd algo Appendix Ta 2 Sam Vill 10 shia Im, 48am Vil“It (ie. the body-complex at the “But the Majjhima Reciters time when the Anapinasasi is prac- desire that it should be more subtle tised) is subtle in the access to the at the access than at the Jhina First Jhina, subtle in the Piest Thana,” gros in the first Jaana. and jn the access to the Second Jhina, subtle in the Second Jhina and in the Thina. ‘access to the Thitd Shins, gross in the Third Jhina and in the’ aosess to ‘the Fourth Jhina. In the Fourth Thins it is ‘exceedingly subtle and attains to extinction. Such is. the opinion held by the Reciters of the ‘Digha snd the Samayatta.® 4. “And when the after-image has made its appearance (in the practice of the dnapanasati meditation) the monk should approach the tescher and inform him thus : * To me, sit, such and such an image has appeared.” at tho aooess to the ‘The teacher should not sey, ‘It is But the Majjhima Reciters hold the image’, but he should say, that the teacher’ should. say, “Friend, it ib so. Give repeated at! “Friend, it is the image, Attend tention to it” Should he say, “It is to the ‘subject repeatedly, good not the image,” the monk might be- man,” come discouraged and dejected. ‘Therefore without saying either, be should exhort him to give attention, So say the Digha Reciters.”2 5, The light (obAdso) that appears 5. The light remains for a period at the moment when a Buddba is of time as long ss that which is bom, does not remain even as long taken” in snapping the ‘fingers ; as the time taken todrink one mouth- it disappears before one could Snish fal of gruel. Tt only remains for such saying." what's this!” on. seeing interval of time as is oosupied between a Hash of lightning? ‘ones awakening from sleep and seeing fan object. ther dieres ae 6. The Dighabhipakas held the view that Prince Siddhattha, before he decided to leave the household life, saw on the same day the four signs (catia ‘nimittan) viz., an old man, « diseased man, « corpse and an ascetic, Other Bhayakas maintained that he saw them on four different occasions, each at ‘an interval of four months from the other. 7. The term gomuttaoniito was interpreted by the Dighabhipakas as he’ who, being in'the first period of his life (pafhamavaye), pursues the 1 Smp 11418, VIT25, PP. 1316 2 Smp T1428; ViT 266; PP. 11328 8 Pap Sn 921 5 Apa T jx improprieties (anceand) and the six uncongenial spheres (agocara) ‘Others explained it as one whose all three doors of aetion are impare.! 8. Lastly, the Dighabhanakas did not agree with the view of the com- ‘mentators of the Abbidhamma Text Dhammasaigant regarding the inter- Beaton of dithgjukamma (rettude of views) as being «basis of all Majjhimabhanakas Only one Majjhimabhinaka thera is mentioned by name in the Com- mentaries, and thet is Reva thera® Probably he lived in Malaya, the ‘mountainous district of central Coylon ; but there is no means of ascertaining when he lived, ‘We have some information concerning the differences between the views held by the Majjhimabhiyakas and those held by others, Tt has already Deen seen in what respecte the former differed from the Dighabhinakas ‘The Manorathapirapt mentions two incidents in the life story of the Buddha's disciple Bacula, on which the Majjhimabhiakas held views diferent from those mentioned in the Sinhalese Atguttaranikiya-atthakatha.« According to the Visuddhimagga the Majjhimabhinakas difered from the Samyuttor Dhipakas with regard to the interpretation of the phrase “eka dre santati tra (one or two intervals of eontineity).® In the Sat}patthinasutta-vengand ‘of the Papalicastidant, Buddhoghosa says that some theras held the view ‘thet the subduing of Kammisapide by the Bodkisatta took place during the latter's birth as Sutacoma, whereas " these theras'” (ime pana ther) held ‘that the event oocurred during his birth as Jayaddisa, ‘The Tika to the Papaiicasidant explains “ these” aa the Majjhimabbipekas.® In the same Commentary is mentioned still another difference between the Bhapakas of the Majjhima and those of the other Nikiyas.? Samputiadhdakas The Buddhavamsa Commentary resorde the enasns given by the Saipyattabhinakas as to why the Buddha Padumuttara was ealled by that namo! ‘The Samyuttabhinake thera, Cilasiva by name, is mentioned ‘as an example of those people who, on account of their practising of love {meta are tnaffected even by poiton.® This thera lived at the time of the ‘Brihmanatissa famine?? and’ was one of the forefnost (pimokkha) ainong the Dhikdehas of his day.?? Aiguttarabhivakas ‘There is no mention by name of an Aiiguttarabbinake thera and the references to their views are meagre. Buddhaghora, while dealing with the thirteen diuaiiga practices in his Visuddhimagga, points out that the Aiiguttarabhiinakas differed from the aocepted tradition in eartain details 1 att 151 8 Vit gI3; Nan Su 847 1 Th date of the govortnce of this famine will be incase ina ater chapter al syaconnected with four of them.! It is not safe to generalizo and arrive at conclusions from a few facts, but when we read these passages. in the Visuddhimagga we get the impression that the Adgattarabbapakas. were perhaps not to strict as the others were about rigid religious practices, ‘The possible correctness of this impression is supported by another passage in the Manorathapiranl. According to this Commentary the teachers who maintained the Anguttaranikiya (Aagutara-mahdnikayam valarjanaka eariyl) considered all the Vinaya rales other than the four pardjskds as lessee and minor (Kiuddémukhuddaka) rules This ia elearly not in confor mity with the views of the orthodox Theravida school that considered strict adherence to all the Vinaya rules as a matter of prime importance. aatabhialas ‘Tho dilate collection seems to havo become Yry popalae from quite an cay iate here re aswe Know, carve depobag Huan on the sla of te tnd atury ne Teun have inn te lve ofthe P'ife Papateastdnat mentions w Jatakabbagake bhi who led i the tine'af the Baddl® "Tus evidence fe oss 6 At eenany boo ca ae trent Wat took Pace abo ten ects eater Suv wiansrag ihe {ica Bedbehone compel he Popetartdcat busog hs onan ta very much offer material ‘and alo that fom a, very any date the Jitakas were included in the ninefold division of the teachings of the Buldhns Wis pole that the Teles ef tho Jakes weve eve ofthe llestgroops of fhe Baas tanige USeioP 42) heeds wil he ges 0 Hokage the Ray aca the Stati thc Ahan Tas ‘ihdea" dhe King: oeng greatly pleas, restored the Niguabasinare tind gave tthe extension of hundred unbent bows in length, ade enlarged ts Bape cen ohn hs ban (ner then The Manorathaptrayi, too, gives us an account of a preacher of the Jausans A young uibtie seing’ aie Hasasabteoire abe gatos heard tht ike Stnajotakabhatata theta a Dagevapt ne Co pete Eines Vesastare JOG whack comestol aftoen hoseand Peer tna gat on he dee fo her the pruching tate wen Bighav gh teieclige'n oe day the lng tinance of nize soja o. Th aceon Streator more thn tne enon The Vesey Soak ath tosoeant one thousand tere ad appetr fo have foe ena in Yes, or'lie'soo ihe we havent pvt Gf bot Pron at Yee ths 3 Fee Culovaggn XI sections 9 and 10 depose Shales mae Sheps sent 4 There ave tira Teas by this same (Pusbil's Edn Vel. 1 pp, 268-270 aod IIL Pee te a a is Sich as a Fee aera sean ee wt Se recat tins ceatcea tae sb Ha Satte » latter amounting to only 174 stanzas, ‘The word Mahijitakabhinaka thera ‘abso is significant. It is not clear whether we are to take ites Mahi Jatakabhinake thera (the grest thera, reciter of the Jitakas) or as Mak jitaka-+bbipala thera (the thera, reciter of the great Jitakas). Taking {into account the nature of the Jitaka preached inthis case, itis more probable that the word is to be taken as to signify a reciter of the “great datekas ” If this interpretation is correct, then there were two divisions of the ‘Jatakabhinakas : (1) the reciters of the ordinary Jatakas and (2) those of ‘the Mahajatakas, Still another episode connected with a Jitakebhinaka bhikkhu is recorded in tho Sammobavinodant.t ‘The Suttanipita Commentary records that the Jitakabhinakas differed from others in regard to a detail in the story connected with the Cpdala Suint Mataiga, According to this Commentary the once conceited ‘git Ditthamadgaliki, whose pride was now completely destroyed by Mataiga, ‘carried in her arms the latter to his village. The Jitakabhapakas said that hho was carried on her back.® ‘As noted before, Buddhaghosa tells us in the Samantaplisiika that, according to the MabipaccarT Commentary, @ Jitakabhapake. bhikkig ‘was expected to learn the Dhammepada with its stories in addition to the Fitake stories It was probably the similarity of the Jateka stories to the stories round the Dhammapada verses that brought about this connection, Dhammapadathinakas ‘There is very little information to be had about the reciters of the Dhammspada.’ One of them, a thera called Mabitises, is mentioned in the Dhammapadajfhakatha. He lived in the time of King Dutthagatin+ ‘The frst words uttered by the Buddba were considered by sone to bo ‘the verses ‘gadd have pitubhavanti dhamma -.., ete ‘The Dhamme adabhagakas considered his frst words to be the verses,“ anekajti sansiram . . . "© The Khuddakapatha Commentary reconciles the tro views by assorting that the latter versos were formulated mentally but wore not nttared by the Buddha.” Uvhatovibhargabhayakas ‘There is only one reference to an Ubhatovibhaigabhapaka thera, a reciter of the two Vibhfigas, namely, Mabitissa of Panpavalike. “He is quoted in the Samantapisidika as an authority on a Vinaya problem.” Malate ‘bases his opinion on what he had heard frou earlier great theras.® ‘Similiarly, only once is reference made, as far as I att aware, toa reciter of the Mubi-Ariyavamsa.* The term Mahicattalisskabhiyake, too, ocsurs sv ase BY thon be ato 3 av 310 Spp se 11S Den 1 anht {Bia 18. ‘Thon are tho verses 152, 154 in she Dhamimapad, Sr als Dba HL 24 PLL The Mahivae glen sll anther group of neve he ease ‘Bud "Fore vali dcwaton on the dlrent Centos seed Phe Lie of Badd ad Lagead and History pp i fl up Tit ote oe td 8 Sabet ioguce in the Sammohavinodani Tt denotes a reciter not of any separate ‘Text but of the Mahicattisfsaka Suita in the Majjhimanikiya.” Bhayas atthe time of the compilation ofthe Commentaries The original purpose for which the Bhigalea system was established was a ery useful one. But for this division of labour, it would have been Impossible to hand down orally the teachings of the Buddha. from the time this porinibhina upto the tine when the Pitakas were committed to writing st Alokavihira in Ceylon about four centuries Ian. Even after this event ‘the Bhipaka system was exceedingly veeful as writing material was not susily available for the bhikkus of Ceylon to dispense with the method of oral tanamison However, as time went on, this eystom tended to ereate factions among the bhikiéus. ‘Thos Buddhaghosn observes that in his day there were Uhikkhus who had workly affection (gehasta pema) towards the Doctrine fd were in the habit of regarding : “this is our Dighanikiya nd this is ‘our Majjhimniksya. The Samantapasadik spocks of the proper and correct attitude to be adopted by the bhikchus when a layman eame to invite them for meals and ask for certain number of mahithorss, simaperas, Majjkimabhapskas or monks belonging to some other group.* The pastage refered to here lends ws to draw the inference that the distinction among the Bhinakas of the various Nikiyas was cufently pronounced for the laity to attach different values to then ‘The Samantapésidika records aguin that a Dhiklehu who comes to get a ease settled should not be questioned as to his caste whether ho is'a Kuattiya or a brihmana, cto, or ae to is Agama’ whether le is Dighabbipaka or a Majjhimabhapaks, et” ‘This, too, indicates that the Bhinakas of a patticular Agena (or Nikiya) were perhaps of w diferent standing from the Bhipekas of another Agua. 1h the Euttaviblaiya-veygund Buddhaghoss says that a bhikku should sot appropriate for himself any article which ia given to the brotherhood ‘a8 « hole, as itis not possible to reach all the bhikkhus in order to make them relinquish the ownership of that articla, but that this may be done in the caso of snything given to single Dhikkha or toa group such as the Dighabipakas.* From ‘this remark it appears that the number of the Bhigaks at the time in question was comparatively small, x0 imived in ssumber that it was posible to reach them all if one wished to ebtain their ‘consent on any matter. ‘The Bhipaka system dovs not exist in Ceylon today, and it is not possible to say when it came to an end nor ia there now a way of ascettaining definitely in what form of record the views of the Bhapakas were available ‘to Buddhaghoss 1 sv a 2M. Satta No, 17 {Pip II 8, Timmy slo bo tht thie tat of afiaits prevailed when the Sinhalse Com- ientates were compiled ad that ‘Buddhaghons ie het seelycepaning What was {ound nthe rginal document Sup S011 329 Sad soe © Sap 11339 2 ‘The Nature of the Contents of the Pali Commenta Tus Atthalathis, as we know, ate exegetical treatises on the Teta of the Pl Canon," The main object sen to expat if words and sbruse pints of doctrine that coer the Test and elas ta give editor explanatory information wherever it was deemed neceqary, © We need nat doubs the sncerty af thowe who mere espns for tes ception not ‘nt, as the Gomamentaros gow inthe cous of several estan ta be het tro find today, extraneous matter inevitably crept nto the belts that mene Hed orthodox. It is this extraseous matter tint if intrest to eet present attempt to reconstruct the hatory of Buddhism in early Coplon ae 4c enables us to se how lar the popalar doctrines ofthe AUfuakatha peed Aifoed from thon ented in the Pali Canon, We may divide our material roughly into two groups I. Differences between the Atthakathis and the Canon, and HL. Differences between one Affhakathi and another, I ‘Tho first group may be subdivided into three classes as follows :— 1, A Commentary appearing to differ from a Textual statement, 2 A Commentary enlarging on a point raised in the Text, and 5. A Commentary adding new facts to whut is given in the Text Class 1 ‘The Pali Jetakatthakathi montions several places where the Sinhalese version differed from the Jataka Text, Sometimes the difference is only in & single word. In the Godha Jitake oceurs the stenza a ptpajanasaevtacontanutham edkti Godhakulam kakapto va kali pipet atdnam ‘The Canonical Text here, we are told hed philam instead of alm and the commentator rejects the former word on the ground that it is itre levant. 1 Sometimes. stanza in the Atthakathi doce not have all the words found in the corresponding stanze in the Text, or the words are found in different form? 13.1488 For other instances where the Atthakathé version is referred tothe Toxt, ‘Ser Tid. 175, 2 Ibid. 11241, 208 1V 286, V 95,27, 20, VI 98‘The Sammohavinodant mentions an example where the Commentariat explanation is contradictory to the Text. A similar example is also found in the Patisambhidimagea-Agthakatha.® An attempt to reconcile another contradiction, which the Pili commentator himself observes, is made in the Udina-atthakathi? The commentator of the Buddhavamisa, too, points ‘out an instance of such a difference between the Buddhavamsa and the Khandbaka as well as the Atghaleatha.+ ‘This brings us to tho Buddhavamsa and its Commentary which reveal a sable number of differences one from the other®. Some stanzas given fin the Text do not occur in the Commentary, and vice verea, ‘The last two ‘of the Text, namely, the Buddhapakippaka-khanda and the Dhata- iyakathi® ure also not commented on in the Atfhakatha. These es are so great that we may rightly infer that the Text which the BR: wy 20-99, 38 31 1928, 25,31 vie SS. ve 117, 20,25, ‘Siva 0. wr it'by, 28 ares 68: vr, 3425, 30 hw 38 EE. ¥ee 1019, 29,28 Sf, vr 1922, 25,30, 8, ves 1619, Shoe 2 Tot but not inthe Atthakaths “atthsuathi but oot in tho Text ("Bah 6 the a = 8 15 fee wo cans oatad of Bap. 21. x 98) ) ASS lst two stamas| ® B.1ae nt stone L140, secon ue ofthe verm Naku (6) Aino iassar om pp. 303, 208,215, 217 (2d lanza. Along with each ofthese thor wom to have Son her stanaar alo sei evident from the paso area bile sabato coaall the mab inge (of words) tn the femalningstanees ope pp too 3 commentator had before him was different fom the one we have today, ‘and that the original Text received in Ceylon many additional verses after ‘the Pali Commentary was written. Further, the Nidanakath® of the ‘Tatakatthakaths quotes in full the fist two chapters of the Buddhavamsa land the verses there agree with those in the Buddhavamsa Commentary and not with those in the Text, the differences being precisely the same as pointed out before. This fact, too, corroborates our inference as to the Inter additions mace to the Buddhavannsa. Class 2 Tnstances of amplifications made in the Commentaries on the original ‘Texteare more numerous, Asan llustration we may make here a comparison of some parts of the Aechariyabbbutadhamma Sutta of the Majjhimanikiya® ‘with the Commentary on this Sutta, Teat Commentary (4) “When the Bodhisattahasen- (a) The four gods are the Four tered his mother, four gods approach Great Kings. Taking four from her to protect the four quarters (say- each of the ten thousand world- ing), Let nought human or anything systems they number forty thousan ‘elrehurt the Bodhisstta orthe Bodhi- Of them the four Great Kings of ‘satta's mother "."« this workd-ayatem stood with swords in hand. inthe bedroom (of the Bodhisatta’s mother), others stood. at the door of the room, and so forth, ‘up to the very end of the universe, all Keeping guard. to drive away. hostile demons. They kept guard in this manner not because thet was any danger to the lie of the Bodbisatta, for none howsoever great ‘could Kill him, but lest his mother should perchance be ‘frightened at tthe right af nonchuman beinge nly to look at or at hearing the cry of & bid striking terror in the hearts of men.” Another reason for keeping guard was that they were urged to Jo so by the might of the Bodhi fatta’s vite, ‘The gods were visible to the Bodhisatta’s mother at all times excepting when she was bath- ing, dressing, taking meals or per- forming the’ fanctions of nature 3 bat as a result of the power of her ‘own virtue as also her son's, she felt no terror in their presence.” She considered them merely ae the war lore of the household.® i : SE TE natant 5 Pap Sn 921, 922. a iA s(B) “When the Bodhisatta tered his mother, there arises in ‘the Bodhisatta’s mother no thought of men connected with the senses, and the Bodhisatta’s mother is not to be ‘overcome by any man of passionate heart." (©) * As soon as born the Bodhi- satta firmly standing with even feet goes towards the north with sven Tong steps, a white parasol being held over him (by the gods), He surveys all the quarters, and in a lordly voice says, “Lam the chief in the world, T am the best in the world, I am the first in the world. This is my last birth. "There is now no existence agin PEI Thomas, Op ot pa 2 Pap 5 BS. Thomas, Op ot p31 (0) There arses in her no thought connected with the senses with te gard. to the Bodhiasta’s father oF any other man. Te ro happens aot because she has destroyed al fle rents ‘but’ because of her respect towards the ‘Bodhistta. The’ like: ness of her even a. skilled. artise fannot paint. Tt cannot be said that a man who sees her beauty will not feel an attachment to her.” But if an impassioned man were to fel inclined to approach er, his’ fet, would not cary him, for they would be ied with a colestit chain. There- fore itis said that she is not to bo overcome by any’ man of passionate fea ' (c) Tn, the Text it appears as if (che Bodhisatea walked) immediately after his bith Bat it should not be Viewed so. As soon as he was bors the Brabnita received htm fest in a golden net. From their hands. tho our Great Kings reocived him in a soft antelope skin tht was held to be Auspicious. Finally from their hands men took him in’ delicate cloth. ‘After that he stood on the ground, “The” white parasal” (mentioned in this pasage) a "white parol of the gous" Along with it were the five emblems of royalty also, though in the Text the parasol. alone is tmentioned as in the deverption of « King’s journey. “Tn that ‘assembly only the paraoo, the sword and other fmblems were visible, but not those ‘who held ther ‘Tho mention of the words, “all the quarter, ete" seems to raggest that the Boriisata. looked “at all ‘the quarters at the end of his walking the seven steps. “But it should not be viewed in tie manner. ‘The Bodhisatts, after geting down fromthe hands of the men (who received him), looked ‘towards the ast. Then numberless systems of worlds became one plane and. the devas and men residing in them ‘worshipped him with incense, flowers and the like, saying : "Great Boing, here there ia none to equal thee | why speak of e superior! "In this way the Bodbisatta looked at the ten directions, namely, the four chiet directions, the four’ intermediary. direotions, and above and below Having seen his equal in none of them, he walked seven steps towards the north. tis easy to seo in these instances how far the Commentary hi from the Text Again, according to the Pabbajja Satta in the Suttanipita, king Bimbisira saw the Bodhisatta who, having left the householder’ life and become an ascetic, was going about with begging bowl in his hand in the streets of Rajagaha. The king, noticing his serene look and gait, sent men to follow him with the words :" May the royal messengers un (to find out) where the Dik goes” (rajadaea sidhdvaniu kuhin bhikku gamissati).? The Sutto- nipita Commentary explains the words very clearly without edding any extraneous matter to it, but the Jitakatthekatha, referring to the same incident, puts into the mouth of Bimbiskra strange details as to how the messengers should find out who he was. ‘The king is reported to have suid “Goand find out who he is. If he is demon (amanuesa) ke will vanish when he goes outside the town. if a deity he will travel through epace, if nda hho will dive into the earth if he inn man he will partake af the food that he bias received The Dhammapadetthakathi, too, commenting on the stanza Yatha pi rahado gambhiro vippasanno andvilo Buasn diammani sutvina vippasidanti pandita (Just like a lake deep, elea, ere When as they things in dasrma heat, wise men become serene, compoted).* ‘explains rahado (lake) as that goean which is undisturbed by the descent of ‘the four-fold army. * Rakado,’ proveeds the Commentary, “is the vast blue ‘ocean, eighty-four thousand yojanas deep. Up to a height of forty thousand yojanas from the bottom its water is disturbed by fish. An equal depth rom the surface it is disturbed by wind. The water in the middle layer hhaving a thickness of four thousand yojanas remains calm. This is what is ahaa viated 2 Suttanipata p72. lL 3 Pyar) a0 tate 5 irs Rye Dav 6 Dha i Yon ‘Tho Minor Anthologies ofthe Pali Canon, p. 31 3Horo it would oertainly have beon the nobler service, had the Atthakethi not troubled to" explain the simple beauty of the lines.” Numerous examples of a similar character, though, joehaps, not very many where the *expla- nations" are developed to such proportions aa here, may be cited,! But the {ow that we have already quoted above ate sufficient to show the enlargenients ‘made in the Commentaries on the original Texts, yy giving a detailed explanatory stifcation of the same, aleng some sich remark as ‘This too, was tid by the Blesed One, but it has not been inelaed inthe Text (idan pi kira Bhagavad vwtam’ eve, Paliyam, pont na dathan) “all thiswhat is included in the text as well as What 1 not included the Blessed One uttered dam Pagan aralhak ca ndrithaf ca valbam Bhagat aronn or the ext has come in rit” (Pa. pana sanheyona dal} Clase 3 This brings us to the consideration ofthe inclusion inthe Commentaries of aatter which takes the forin not meray of enlarging on what is contained fa the Texts but of definite additions to them, "Not seldom do we come across the mores of exposition known as the Sumiahvlandra (aenifld seston) and the Palimuttakanaya (method of isuing or drawing out from the Text) ‘The Buddhavamsa-atfhakath& makes evident the mature of the formes According to this Commentary the deseription in the Buddhavammaa of rack Badidha consists of twenty sections such as the declaration of the eyes af time (kappa) in which» pariular Buddha was born, his nate end sc for But, adds the Commentary, here the Sambahulavdra, too, should be imsrted, which consste ofthe ten sections, vay the declaration of tho petiod which each Buda spent as w householder, the free palace, the dancing women (who were of his retinue tedaiqea, : the som, the med of eonvayanoe (ned by him when leaving hoe), the setting forth (into the homeless life), : the petiod of exertion, the (hit etendante, and the vibirs The commentator farther declares that he would briefly deal with these tem also in the course of his work» Now those are precisely the same items as are found included in out Baddhavama but left uocommented in the Affhakatha* The inesce to be drawn is clear. ‘Bafore the Pali Commentary wea written the verses that deseribed thos items were not included in the Te They formed a Dart of each chapter of the Sinhalese Buddhavamae Commentary The ‘verses were, however, modolled on the aiyle of the Text, and tii close ‘Ser eq, Pap Qn 107; SATE 166; Man IE 300; 8 im GT E38; SAT 201 sm Vil I 445,675,078; SA Sn TIT 18, 38 295 > tt RN eee resemblance in styl aswell asin subject matter naturally induce the later itr far he enn tha Tot _ ‘The Suraagalvidsint and the PopaaSidast, to, give instanos of the ie of sanbahulnara by way of justifying the inclusion of additional matter, in comaection with the early lie ofthe Buddha Tv is not posible to say ‘hat the origin of these aocounte was, though ther is tle doubt thatthe {ccounts wore handed down by tradition from ate mich earlier than the ‘iting of the Commentarien, ‘Thongh not ppeasing under the name sontohulasira, there are numerons ‘ther instances where mditonal matters given inthe Aehakath. Several of the accounts given in the Buddhavarea Commentary belong to tis fentepory jeg. the subduing of the demon Narada by the Buddba Dipat Kara che Buddha Sumaigala giving, while he was yot a Bodhisatta, his bo children as alms toa yahat and tho manner in wich burned himsa x ® torch infront of the eetya ofa previous Buddha.® Not » single of thee ‘pisodes ia mentioned inthe Text.""The sane Commentary gives the names ‘Fthree Buddhas prior to Buddha Dipaikare,® and here foo the Text 3 Silent on them, The Manorathapacayt narrates an episode connected with the lif of Gutila, the musician. He sent a thousand pieces of money to x certain Women, but sho refused it alightingly. Enraged at this, Gulia went one evening to the door ofthis woman and began to singin accompaniment to is iuncal instrament. Tearing his singing she wasso enchanted that with the inten- tion of approaching him she stepped out of the open window thinking thet it'was the door. The real was that ne fell down and ied? An acount ‘of Gatti’ ite and activities given in the Iatasttakat, but this episodo does not occur init Nor amt T aware of any ether place where thi i mmontioned ‘he Visidahimagge, to, in its exposition of the Aggregates doseribon 9 number of ripar (material guaities) and then says * These are the metal ‘uslties that are mentioned in the Text. Bue in the Commentary other Ihaterial qualities acy brought together to wit: the material quality of strength, of ergn, of production ef scheath ai, in the opinion of somes ‘of torpor “* “Here the datnction ix between the Text andthe Commentary Sometimes these two meses of exposition are called the Sisana-nays Desand-nay (method ofthe Teaching) an the dfhakath-nayorepectvely When refering to the Abkidbanima Texts the word. Pafrane-noy Te lo std in place of Desond-naya!t ‘The detailed description of the fve antaradhnas (disappearances) given in the Manorathapiraot i alo a clar example of such Tater additions account given tof the feof Buddha Vipasi, wherene ‘same soooant rors to that of Bud Cotes: 8 i. 108 7 Man 138 81128 9 VIII 450, P,P. 1 623: So alan Vi 1499, Pap 1245, 10 Pap 138; aie 22 42 1 SV215; Som ¥ 12 Mao 18) fal,