Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pali Literature and Language c6.s2: II. The Non-Canonical Literature

Pāli Literature and Language c6.s2

Language
English

Contents

II. The Non-Canonical Literature

I Period: From the Completion of the Canon to the 5th Century A.D.

c6.s2.t1.2

18. According to the Indian tradition it was Mahinda who brought to Ceylon along with the canon also an Aṭṭhakathā, a commentary on it. The authenticity of this tradition however cannot be proved. It is at all events certain that in Ceylon already at an early time there was a commentary literature of considerable magnitude and multifarious contents. On this commentary literature is based not only the later commentaries such as those of Buddhaghosa, but also the historical literature beginning with the Dīpavaṃsa. This Aṭṭhakathā of Ceylon seems to have been still existing and accessible even in the 12th century.¹ In the opening verses of his Vinaya-commentary, the Samantapāsādikā, Buddhaghosa mentions the Aṭṭhakathā as the source of his own work.² Buddhaghosa says that the Aṭṭhakathā was composed in the (old) Sinhalese language. In order to make it accessible to the Bhikkhus, and at the suggestion of the Thera Buddhasiri, he translated it into Pāli. The chief source was the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā; but he turned into account also the materials of other commentaries, such as the Mahāpaccari- and the Kurundi-Aṭṭhakathā. The two Ṭīkās on Smp., the Vajirabuddhi and the Sāratthadīpanī,³ mention moreover the Cullapaccari, the Andhaṭṭhakathā the Paṇṇavāra, and the Saṃkhepaṭṭhakathā. According to the Saddhammasaṃgaha (14th century) the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā was the commentary on the Sutta-Piṭaka, the Mahāpaccari on the Abhidhamma, and the Kurundi on Vinaya.⁴ Also the Gandhavaṃsa ⁵ mentions the same three Aṭṭhakathās, and in fact the Aṭṭhakathā par excellence (i.e., the Mahā-A.) is ascribed to the Porāṇācariyā, and the two others are regarded as works of the Gandhācariyā—which clearly shows that they are later. Nothing has been directly preserved of all these old Ceylonese Aṭṭhakathās.

c6.s2.t1.3

¹ This is quite evident from the data of the Mahāvaṃsa-Ṭīkā, ZDMG.68.549-550. R. O. Franke's objection (D.XLV35) may be met simp'y by consulting the contents of the passages of the Mhvs. Ṭī. quoted by me.

c6.s2.t1.4

² Edited by Saya U Pye I.21 ff. Cf. also the introductions to the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, Manorathapūraṇī, etc.

c6.s2.t1.5

³ In Minayeff, Prātimoksha, p. VII, note 10. Look there for the meaning of the title.

c6.s2.t1.6

⁴ Sdhs., JPTS. 1890, p. 55f. Cf. also Minayeff, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, p. 284. It is however remarkable that Buddhaghosa does not mention the Kurundi as the chief source of his Smp.

c6.s2.t1.7

⁵ Gnvs., JPTS. 1886, pp. 59 and 68.

c6.s2.t1.8

19. There are preserved from the time before Buddhaghosa: 1. The Nettippakaraṇa "book of guidance," also called simply Netti, and 2. the Peṭakopadesa "instruction on the Piṭaka" or the Peṭaka.¹ In Burma these two works are regarded as canonical.² As the titles show, they serve as introduction to the teachings of Buddhism. According to tradition they were composed by Mahākaccāyana, one of the most prominent disciples of Buddha.³ This is however certainly not true. The author was probably Kaccāyana by name and was hence identified with the renowned disciple of Buddha. The same was the case also with the grammarian Kaccāyana. The problem of the time of origin of these two works has been discussed by E. Hardy ⁴ in the light of both internal and external evidences. He assigns to them a date about the beginning of the Christian era. In connection with the Netti and the Peṭaka let us also mention 3. the Suttasaṃgaha ⁵ "collection of the Suttas." It is the only comprehensive anthology of Suttas as well as of texts such as Vimānavatthu, etc. We know nothing about the time of its origin or about its author. This work has however to be mentioned here because, along with Netti, Peṭaka and the book of Milinda, it is considered in Burma to belong to the "canonical" Khuddaka-Nikāya.⁶

c6.s2.t1.9

¹ The Netti-Pakaraṇa with extracts from Dhammapāla's commentary, ed. E. Hardy, London, PTS. 1902 (Cf. J. d' Alwis, Catal., p. 70 ff.); Specimen des Peṭakopadesa (Dissertation) by R. Fuchs, Berlin 1908.

c6.s2.t1.10

² M. Bode, Pali Lit. of Burma, p. 4 f.

c6.s2.t1.11

³ Gnvs. p. 49. The authorship of Mahākaccāyana is claimed for the Netti both in the introductory verses and at the end.

c6.s2.t1.12

⁴ Netti, Introd., p. VIII ff.

c6.s2.t1.13

⁵ Oldenberg, Catal., p. 80, Nr. 44; Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 31, Nr. 92.

c6.s2.t1.14

⁶ Cf. f.-n. 2.

c6.s2.t1.15

20. The Milindapañhā ⁷ "Questions of Milinda," contains in the style of Suttas a dialogue between King Milinda and the Thera Nāgasena about the most important problems of Buddhism.⁸ In contents the book represents the orthodox point of view of the Theravādins. As the quotations occurring in it show, the canon known to the author does not differ in anything from the Pāli canon.¹ Milinda is the Indian form of the name of the Graeco-Bactrian king Menander (end of the 2nd century B.C.), who was evidently well disposed towards Buddhism, but of whom it remains unknown whether he actually became a Buddhist.² Our Milindapañhā is very probably based on a Buddhistic Sanskrit work, composed in North-West India about the beginning of the Christian era.³ The translation into Pāli took place in Ceylon, already before Buddhaghosa who quotes it repeatedly. The original work was much shorter as the Chinese translations show.⁴ The real contents of the work ended with Chapter 2, at the end of which we find in our Pāli text the remark: Nāgasena-Milindarāja-pañhā niṭṭhitā. Its introduction too was much shorter in the original than in the Pāli version. It was considerably extended in Ceylon by various additions after existing models.⁵ It is not improbable that there were various versions of it in Pāli; also the fragments of a metrical version are found in the Pāli text.

c6.s2.t1.16

⁷ This is probably the correct title.

c6.s2.t1.17

⁸ The Milindapañho...ed. V. Trenckner, London 1880.—Translations: Rhys. Davids, The Questions of King Milinda, transl., I, II=SBE XXXV, XXXVI, London 1890, 1894. Cf. R. Garbe, ein histor. Roman aus Altindien. Rodenbergs Deutsche Rundschau,

c6.s2.t1.18

¹ Rhys Davids, Questions I, p. XIV ff.

c6.s2.t1.19

² See Rhys Davids, Questions I, p. XIX ff.; V. Smith, Early History of India, pp. 187, 226; von Gutschmid, Gesch. Irans, p. 104 ff.

c6.s2.t1.20

³ Rhys Davids, Questions I, p. XLV ff.

c6.s2.t1.21

⁴ B. Nanjio, Catal. of the Buddhist Tripitaka, Nr. 1358; E. Specht, Deux Traductions Chinoises du Milindapañho (with Introduction by Sylv. Lévi), Transact. IXth Congress of Or. I, London 1893, p. 520; Takakusu, JRAS. 1896, p. 1 ff.; E. Specht, JAs. sér. 9, t. VII, 1896, p. 155.

c6.s2.t1.22

⁵ Thus, as Rhys Davids, Ibid., I, p. 8, f.-n. 2 has noticed, the story of the dispute with Purāṇa-Kassapa and Makkhali-Gosāla is only an echo of the introduction to the Sāmaññaphalasuttanta, D.I. 47. The story of Nāgasena's relation with Rohaṇa (Milp. 819 ff.) corresponds, as I have to point out, exactly to the story related in Mhvs. 5. 191 ff.

c6.s2.t1.23

21. To the works of the age before Buddhaghosa belong also the *Dīpavaṃsa* "the island chronicle,"⁶ a history of Ceylon up to the end of the reign of Mahāsena (325-352 A.D.). As Buddhaghosa knows the Dpv., it must have been composed between 352 and about 450 A.D. Regarded from the literary point of view it is certainly a very weak performance. The author possessed only a very imperfect knowledge of Pāli and in language he is wholly dependent on his sources by

c6.s2.t1.24

⁶ The Dīpavaṃsa...ed. and transl. H. Oldenberg, London 1879; W. Geiger, Dīpavaṃsa und Mahāvaṃsa, Leipzig 1905. Cf. IA. 35, 1906, p. 153 ff.

c6.s2.t1.25

Vol. 112, p. 261 ff., 1902; F. O. Schrader, Die Fragen des Königs Menandros I, Berlin 1907; Winternitz, Buddhist Lit., p. 174 ff. A translation of the Milp was begun also by Nyānatiloka, fascicles 1-3, Leipzig 1914.

c6.s2.t1.26

studying which he collected his materials. R. O. Franke was quite right in all this.¹ But he is quite wrong when, confusing form with contents, he refuses to recognise in Dpvs. any historical value. In contents the Chronicle is based on the historical portions of the old Aṭṭhakathā. That the informations given in it are not quite imaginary² is proved by its frequent agreement with the tradition current in continental India. The Dpvs. is therefore the vehicle of an old historical tradition, and it is the duty of historical criticism to examine it minutely and assess its worth.

c6.s2.t1.27

¹ WZKM. 21. 203 ff., 317 ff. My reply in ZDMG. 63. 540 ff., and again Franke, D., Introduction, p. XLIV f. Winternitz, Buddh. Lit., p. 210 ff. has accepted my view.

c6.s2.t1.28

² When Franke, JPTS. 1908, p. 1 says "that in the absence of any sources, the last-named work--namely, precisely this same Dpvs.--must be considered as standing unsupported on its own tottering feet," he is expressing as clearly as possible that the author of the Chronicle had freely invented his data! Who can however say that seriously?

II Period: From the 8th to the 11th Century

c6.s2.t2.2

22. The beginning of the 2nd period is characterised by commentaries which were composed on the Tipiṭaka and which are based on the Ceylonese Aṭṭhakathā. Buddhaghosa is the greatest figure in this commentary literature. He was born in a Brahmin family of Northern India and came to Ceylon during the reign of king Mahānāma (458-480). He studied the Tipiṭaka and the Aṭṭhakathā in the Mahāvihāra of Anurādhapura and afterwards showed a very fruitful literary activity. The details about his life as handed down by tradition are probably nothing but legends.³ The commentaries composed by him on the Tipiṭaka are the following⁴:

c6.s2.t2.3

³ Buddhaghosuppatti, ed. Gray; Mhvs. 37. 165 ff. (Colombo edition); Sdhs. 51 ff.; Sāsvs. 28 ff. Cf. Minayeff, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, p. 189 ff.; Winternitz, Buddh. Lit., p. 190 ff. Cf. B. C. Law, The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa, Calcutta and Simla 1923. Of the commentaries on the Tipiṭaka, many have been published in Bangkok (Siamese script), Rangoon (Burmese script), Colombo (S. Hewavitama Request, 1917 ff., Ceylonese script). The editions of the PTS. are given in the regular reports of the Society. Edition of the Visuddhimagga by C. A. F. Rhys Davids, 2 vols., PTS. 1920-21.

c6.s2.t2.4

⁴ Gnvs., p. 59; de Zoysa, Catal., p. 2-3.

c6.s2.t2.5

I. Vin. 1. Samantapāsādikā⁵ =Co. on Vinaya-Piṭaka
2. Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī⁶ =Co. on Pātimokkha II. SP. 3. Sumaṅgalavilāsinī ¹ =Co. on Dīgha-Nikāya .
4. Papañcasūdanī ² = ,, ,, Majjhima-Nikāya
5. Sāratthapakāsinī ³ = ,, ,, Saṃyutta-Nikāya
6. Manorathapūraṇī ⁴ = ,, ,, Aṅguttara-Nikāya
7. Paramatthajotikā = ,, ,, Khuddaka-Nikāya, Nr. 1, 5

c6.s2.t2.6

⁵ Edited in Burmese script by Saya u Pye, 4 vols., Rangoon 1902, 1903. The historical Introduction in Oldenberg, Vin. Piṭ. III. 283 ff. For a Chinese version of it, see Takakusu, JPTS, 1896, p. 415 ff.

c6.s2.t2.7

⁶ Unpublished.

c6.s2.t2.8

¹ Edited by Saya u Pye, 3 vols., Rangoon 1903. Further the Sumaṅgala-Vilāsinī, Part I, ed. Rhys Davids and Carpenter, London, PTS., 1886. Of a Singhalese edition (by Saraṇaṅkara) in Ceylon 3 parts only have appeared.

c6.s2.t2.9

² 5 fascicles have appeared of a Singhalese edition from Colombo (1898-1911).

c6.s2.t2.10

³ Colombo edition, Parts 1-7 (1900-11).

c6.s2.t2.11

⁴ Edition by Dharmārāma (Singh. script), Peliyagoda 1893-1907; second edition 1904-13.

c6.s2.t2.12

III. Abh P. 8. Atthasālinī ⁵ = ,, ,, Dhammasaṅgaṇi
9. Sammohavinodanī ⁶ = ,, ,, Vibhaṅga
10. Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā ⁷ = ,, ,, AbhP., Nr. 5, 4, 3, 6, 7.

c6.s2.t2.13

⁵ Atthasālinī, ed. E. Müller, London, PTS., 1897. Further edition by Saya u Pye, Rangoon 1902.

c6.s2.t2.14

⁶ Edition by Saya u Pye, Rangoon 1902.

c6.s2.t2.15

⁷ Edition by Saya u Pye, Rangoon 1902. The commentary on Kyu. was edited by Minayeff, JPTS. 1889, p. 1 ff.; that on Dhk. by Gooneratne as appendix to the edition of this text, London, PTS., 1892, p. 114 ff.; that on Yam. by Mrs. Rhys Davids, JPTS. 1912, p. 51 ff.

c6.s2.t2.16

The commentaries of the Abhidhamma seem to have borne the general designation Paramatthakathā ⁸ Also the commentaries on the Jātaka and the Dhammapada are ascribed to Buddhaghosa, about which further below. Also the Apadānas are said to have been commented upon by him. ⁹ While still in India he is said to have composed a work called Ñāṇodaya, as well as an Atthasālinī ¹⁰ which was probably a first sketch of the later commentary on Dhammasaṅgaṇi.

c6.s2.t2.17

⁸ Gnvs. 59²⁶.

c6.s2.t2.18

⁹ Gnvs. 59²⁷⁻³⁰. Cf. de Zoysa, Catal., p. 2. Nr. 18; Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 81, Nr. 91.

c6.s2.t2.19

¹⁰ Sāsvs. 315⁻⁶.

c6.s2.t2.20

Along with the commentaries of Buddhaghosa should be mentioned also his Visuddhimagga “Path of purification.” ¹¹ It is a kind of encyclopaedia of Buddhist doctrines divided into three parts: *sīla*, *samādhi*, *paññā*. The origin of this work, which is held in high esteem by the Southern Buddhists of the present day, is shrouded in legends of all kinds.¹

c6.s2.t2.21

¹¹ Visuddhi-Magga with Singhalese paraphrase, Colombo 1890 ff. (JPTS. 1912, p. 154). Cf. de Zoysa, Catal., p. 16. An analysis of the Vism. by Warren, JPTS. 1893, p. 76 ff. Translations by same, Buddhism in Translations, pp. 145, 150, 155, etc. Cf. also Carpenter, JPTS. 1890, p. 14 ff.

c6.s2.t2.22

¹ Cf. Mhvs. 87. 181 ff. (Colombo edition), Sāsvs 306, 311⁹.

c6.s2.t2.23

23. Whether the Jātakaṭṭhavaṇṇanā,² the commentary on the Jātaka-verses mentioned above in 13 under Nr. 10, was also composed by Buddhaghosa, is not certain. The Jātaka-commentary³ as it appears in Fausböll's edition, contains in all 547 stories, which are referred to former births of the Buddha and which are therefore called Jātakas "birth stories." Every story consists of four parts: 1. the canonical Gāthās; 2. the Atītavatthūni, "the stories of the past," *i.e.*, the prose narratives belonging to the Gāthās; 3. the Paccuppannavatthūni "stories of the present," in which is described the occasion on which the particular Jātaka was told, along with the appended *samodhānāni*, in which is mentioned what characters have been assumed at present by the persons in the Jātaka; 4. the Veyyākaraṇāni, the "commentaries," in which the verses are explained word by word.⁴ The whole work is preceded by an introduction called the Nidānakathā, which contains the story of the Buddha in his earlier existences and in his last birth up to the dedication of the Jetabanavihāra in Sāvatthī.

c6.s2.t2.24

² The Jātaka together with its Commentary...ed. by V. Fausböll, 6 vols., London 1877-96 (7th vol. contains the indices by D. Andersen). Preliminary to this edition the author published the following three studies: (a) Five Jātakas, Copenhagen 1861, (b) The Dasaratha-Jātaka, Copenhagen 1871, (c) Ten Jātakas, Copenhagen 1872.—Translations: Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth Stories or Jātaka Tales I, London 1880; The Jātaka, transl. by various scholars under the editorship of E. B. Cowell, 7 vols., Cambridge 1895-1913; Dutoit, Jātakam, das Buch der Erzählungen aus früheren Existenzen Buddhas, übers., Leipzig 1908 ff.

c6.s2.t2.25

³ See L. Feer, JAS., sér. 7, t. V, 357 ff. and VI. 243 ff. (1875); sér. 9, t. V. 31 ff., 189 ff. and t. IX. 288 ff. (1895, 1897). See von Oldenburg, JRAS. 1893, p. 301 ff.; L. Feer, Proceedings of the XI Oriental Congress, Paris 1899, Sect. 1, p. 151 ff; R. O. Franke, BB 22. 289 ff. (1897). as well as WZKM. 20. 317 ff. (1906); T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, pp. 189 ff. (1903); H. Oldenberg, Lit. des a. Ind., p. 103 ff. (1903); Charpentier, ZDMG. 66.38 ff., particularly p. 41, f.-n 2 (1912). An excellent treatment of the subject is given by Winternitz, Buddh. Lit., pp. 113-56 (1933). I am inclined to attach more importance to the Jātakas as a source of knowledge about Indian culture about Buddha's time than Winternitz is prepared to do. I agree with the judgment given by Bühler, Indian Studies III (Sitzungsber. d. Wiener A. d. W., phil.-hist. Cl., Vol. CXXXII), p. 18 ff.

c6.s2.t2.26

⁴ The various portions are not as sharply divided as may be suggested by the typographical contrivances in Fausböll's edition. The hand of the redactor may be perceived often and again in the relations between them. Thus, e.g., in II. 295¹³, as Franke has pointed out, the phrase *tam eva udapānam* of the Atītavatthu belongs to the Paccuppannavatthu.

c6.s2.t2.27

In external form the Jātaka-commentary is in my opinion the work of a priest of Ceylon,¹ be he Buddhaghosa ² or some other scholar not far from him in time. But the author has taken his material from the old Aṭṭhakathā.³ The Aṭṭhakathā again is based on oral tradition. There is no doubt that from the very beginning the Gāthās were handed down together with the stories—without the latter the former often give no sense at all. But the two portions have been handed down in different manners. The verse portion was fixed and unchangeable; but the prose portion containing the story was left more or less to the discretion of the rhapsodists. This also explains the contradictions which are sometimes found between the verses and the prose, and which was certainly present already in the Aṭṭhakathā.⁴ In short, the Jātakas are of the type of Ākhyānas,⁵ but it is far from the truth that all the Jātakas are of this type. Also stories without any verse were incorporated into the collection. Such are, for instance, the Jātakas with the Abhisambuddhagāthās,⁶ in which the Gāthās are not placed in the story itself but are fathered on Buddha at the end in the samodhana. On the other hand, particularly in the Jātakas of the last books, in which the connecting prose shrinks almost into nothing in comparison with the verses, we see how the epic poetry is being gradually developed out of the older Ākhyānas. The Jātakas were utilised at a very early time for the purpose of didactic sermons. This explains their extraordinary popularity from the early days of the Buddhist church ⁷ to the present day. The contents of the Jātakas are not however specifically Buddhistic, but the common property of the Indian people as is proved, inter alia, by the numerous points of similarity and agreement between the Jātakas and the epics.¹ But the Buddhists have adapted these folk-tales and drawn them into their own sphere. Examples are not wanting which show how such folk-tales became Jātakas.² The process of incorporation takes place in the Paccuppannavatthūni. They are therefore later elements than the Atītavatthūni, although I believe that they too belonged to the Aṭṭhakathā. The differences between the scenes of action is very striking.³ The "stories of the past" are mostly referred to Western and Northern India (Gandhāraṭṭha, etc.), but the "stories of the present" to the East (Kosalaṭṭha, Magadharaṭṭha, etc.).

c6.s2.t2.28

¹ Cf. JāCo. IV. 490²⁰, V. 254 ¹.

c6.s2.t2.29

² According to E. Müller, Gurupūjākaumudī, p. 54 ff., Buddhaghosa himself was the author.

c6.s2.t2.30

³ The Aṭṭhakathā is often mentioned also in the Jātaka Thesaurus, and that in contradistinction from Pāli, the canonical text consisting of the Gāthās, JāCo. II. 294⁹, ⁹; 299⁴, ⁵; VI. 279²⁹ etc.

c6.s2.t2.31

⁴ Cf. H. Lüders, NGGW. 1897, p. 40 ff.; Hertel, ZDMG. 60. 399 ff. (also 68. 64 ff.); Charpentier, ZDMG. 62. 725 ff.; Winternitz, Ibid, p. 119, f -n. 2

c6.s2.t2.32

⁵ Oldenberg, JPTS. 1912, p. 19 ff. against A. B. Keith, JRAS , 1911, p. 985.

c6.s2.t2.33

⁶ Senart, JAs., sér. 9, t. XVII. 385 ff.

c6.s2.t2.34

⁷ Hence pictures of scenes out of the Jātakas already in the Indian art of the 3rd century B.C.; Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 198 ff. See, von Oldenberg, JAm-Or. Soc. XVIII. 1897, p. 183 ff.; Hultzsch, JRAS. 1912, p. 406; A. Foucher, L'art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra, I. 1905, p. 270 ff.

c6.s2.t2.35

¹ Cf. Winternitz, Buddh. Lit., p. 122, f.-n. 3.

c6.s2.t2.36

² Thus, for instance, the story of the quail in S. V. 146 ff. had become the Jātaka II. 59 f., the story of Dīghāvu in Vin. I. 342 ff. has become Jāt. III 211 ff.; Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 194; Winternitz, Ibid. p. 115. On the other hand the Sutta in M. II. 45 ff. is a true Jātaka although it is not contained in our collection; Rhys Davids, p. 196.

c6.s2.t2.37

³ Fausböll, Jāt. VII, postscript, p. VI ff.

c6.s2.t2.38

24. The Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā⁴ is later than the Jātaka-Commentary. According to the introductory verses, which are however quite stereotyped, it is the Pāli translation of an original Singhalese Aṭṭhakathā. In my opinion it is quite improbable that Buddhaghosa⁵ himself was the author of this commentary. But it is quite probable that this later work was greatly influenced by older prototypes. The Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā gives to every Gāthā or every group of Gāthās of the Dh. a particular story supposed to be a sermon (Dhammadesanā) of Buddha himself, at the end of which he recites the respective verses. These stories are more specifically Buddhistic than the Jātakas. Buddhistic priests and saints are the main characters in them. Not infrequently even Jātakas proper, the Atītavatthūni, are introduced: legends of a previous birth of one of the characters in the main story. Several of these interpolated stories may be traced in the Jātaka-Commentary,⁶ and, on the other hand, many of its main stories correspond to the Paccuppannavatthūni of the Jātakas.¹ The literary style is largely influenced by the numerous quotations from the Jātakas, the Nikāyas, from Vimāna- and Peta-vatthu, and from Suttanipāta and Vinaya.² The numerous cases of agreement in contents between the DhCo. and other works³ can naturally be explained also on the hypothesis of common borrowing from a third source.

c6.s2.t2.39

⁴ The Commentary of the Dhammapada, ed. H. C. Norman, London, PTS., 4 vols. 1906-14; Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā, ed. Nāṇissara, Colombo 1891-1906.

c6.s2.t2.40

⁵ Gnvb., p. 59^27, 38^37.

c6.s2.t2.41

⁶ Cf., e.g., DhCo.I. 265 ff. with JāCo. I. 199 ff.; DhCo. III. 124 ff. with JāCo. II. 165 ff.; DhCo. III. 141 ff. with JāCo. III. 383 ff.

c6.s2.t2.42

¹ Compare, e.g., DhCo. I 239 ff. with Jāco. I. 114 ff.; DhCo. III. 178 ff. with Jāco. IV. 167 ff.

c6.s2.t2.43

² Cf. the indices in Norman's edition.

c6.s2.t2.44

³ Thus the stories DhCo. III. 104 ff. and 290 ff. = VvCo. 75 ff. and 220 ff; the story II. 112 ff. occurs in Buddhaghosa's Manorathapūraṇī; the motif of the story I. 129 ff. reappears in Mhvs 32.63 ff.

c6.s2.t2.45

25. Along with Buddhaghosa should be mentioned:—1. Buddhadatta, who was his contemporary according to tradition.⁴ He is reputed to be the author of the *Madhuratthavilāsinī* (or *Madhuratthapakāsanī*), a commentary on the Buddhavamsa, as well as of the *Vinayavinicchaya*, a compendium of the Vinaya in Pāli verse, the *Uttaravinicchaya* of similar contents,⁵ the *Abhidhammāvatāra*,⁶ a handbook of Buddhist metaphysics, as well as a *Jinālaṃkāra*, which is certainly not the work of the same name which will be described below (34.8). With the possible exception of the first named work, everything is problematic about them. There might have been a scholar named Buddhadatta at the time of Buddhaghosa, but it appears to me that the tradition has ascribed to him also the work of a namesake of his who lived at a later age.—2. Ānanda, of continental India,⁷ is the author of the *Mūlaṭīkā* or *Abhidhamma-Mūlaṭīkā*,⁸ the oldest sub-commentary to the Aṭṭhakathās of Abhidhamma. He is said to have composed it at the instance of Buddhamitta, who moved also Buddhaghosa to write his *Papañcasūdanī*.⁹ If that is true, then Ananda and Buddhaghosa were contemporaries.—3. Dhammapāla of Padaratittha¹ composed a commentary called *Paramatthadīpanī*² on those parts of the Khuddaka-Nikāya, which had not been commented upon by Buddhaghosa: Udāna, Itivuttaka, Vimāna- and Petavatthu, Thera- and Therīgāthā and Cariyāpiṭaka. Moreover he is supposed to be the author of a commentary on the Visuddhimagga called *Mahāṭīkā* or *Paramatthamañjūsā* as well as a commentary on the Netti, the *Nettippakaraṇassa Atthasaṃvaṇṇanā*, a Ṭīkā to this his own work, called *Līnatthavaṇṇanā*, and also a Ṭīkā *Līnatthapakāsanī* on the Aṭṭhakathās of the first four Nikāyas, a Ṭīkā on the Jātakaṭṭhakathā as well as on Buddhadatta's *Madhuratthavilāsinī*, and finally an Aṇuṭīkā on the Ṭīkā of Abhidhammaṭṭhakathā.³ The four last named works seem to be lost to-day. It seems that in this case too the tradition has fathered on Dhammapāla, who might have been a younger contemporary of Buddhaghosa,⁴ the works of various Theras⁵ of the same name, as he had made it his life's task to supplement the commentaries of Buddhaghosa. Dhammapāla's date would be one century later if he is identical with the Dhammapāla of the Nālandā-Monastery who was Hiuen-thsang's teacher's teacher.⁶ Yet however, like E. Hardy,⁷ I consider this identity to be yet unproved.

c6.s2.t2.46

⁴ Sāsvs. 2928, 7331; Gnvs. 6627. Of the works attributed to Buddhadatta there have now been edited Abhidhammāvatāra, Rūpārūpavibhāga, Vinayavinicchaya, and Uttaravinicchaya by A. P. Buddhadatta, PTS. 1915 and 1927.

c6.s2.t2.47

⁵ Gnvs. 5931, 695 ff.; de Zoysa, Catal., p. 2; Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 18. Nr. 31. For the last two works, see below, p. 40, f.-n. 1.

c6.s2.t2.48

⁶ Sdhs. IX. 13 (JPTS. 1890, p. 62); de Zoysa, p. 5; Fausböll, p. 35; S. Z. Aung, JPTS. 1910-12, p. 123.

c6.s2.t2.49

⁷ Gnvs. 6627.

c6.s2.t2.50

⁸ De Zoysa, p. 3; S.Z. Aung, p. 120 f.; Gnvs. 603; Sāsvs. 3814.

c6.s2.t2.51

⁹ Gnvs. 6813, 39, 6918; Sāsvs. 3316.

c6.s2.t2.52

¹ Sāsvs. 331.

c6.s2.t2.53

² De Zoysa, p. 2; Fausböll, p. 29 f., Nr. 87, 88. The commentary on the Therīgāthās has been edited by E. Müller and that on Peta- and Vimānavatthu by E. Hardy, London, PTS., 1893, 1894, 1901.

c6.s2.t2.54

³ Gnvs. 60. On the Netti-commentary and its Ṭīkā, cf. Fausböll, p. 41f., Nr. 132, 133.

c6.s2.t2.55

⁴ The (Singhalese) Nikāyasaṃgraha (ed. Wickremasinghe), p. 24 mentions one after another Buddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, Dhammapāla. Similarly Gnvs. 60, Sāsvs. 33.

c6.s2.t2.56

⁵ The Gnvs. knows four different Dhammapālas. See E. Hardy, Netti, Introd., p. XII.

c6.s2.t2.57

⁶ Thus according to Steinthal, Udāna, pref. p. VII; Rhys Davids and Carpenter, DCo I, pref. p. VIII. On the traditions about Dhammapāla recorded by Hiuen-thsang in Si-yu-ki, see St. Julien, Mém. sur les Contrées Occidentales I. 287 ff., 452 ff., II, 119 f; see further Schiefner, Tāranātha, p. 160 ff.; Takakusu, I-tsing, p. LVII, 179, 181; B. Nanjio, Catal of the Chinese Tripiṭaka, App. I, p. 347, Nr. 16.

c6.s2.t2.58

⁷ ZDMG. 51. 108 ff.

c6.s2.t2.59

26. The number of the old commentators may be completed by adding the following names: 1. Culla-Dhammapāla, a pupil of Ānanda, author of *Saccasaṃkhepa* "Elements of Truth";⁸ 2. Upasena, author of a commentary on the Niddesa¹ called the *Saddhammappajotikā* or *Saddhammaṭṭhitikā*; 3. Mahānāma, author of the *Saddhammappakāsinī*, a commentary on the *Paṭisambhidāmagga*²; 4. Kassapa, author of *Mohavicchedanī* and *Vimaticchedanī*³; 5. Vajirabuddhi, author of the *Vajirabuddhi*, a Ṭīkā on the *Samantapāsādikā*.⁴ In Gnvs. a Mahā- and a Culla-Vajirabuddhi are distinguished, both from Jambudīpa, the continental India. The former is reputed to have written a work called *Vinayagaṇdhi*. 6. Khema, author of the *Khemappakaraṇa*,⁵ who is mentioned with Culla Dhammapāla, as well as with 7. Anuruddha, the author of the *Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha*, the most read handbook on Abhidhamma,⁶ on which the greatest theras of the 12th century have written Ṭīkās. Anuruddha is also the author of two other works in the field of Abhidhamma, namely, *Paramatthavinicchaya* and *Nāmarūpapariccheda*. There are two Ṭīkās on each of them.⁷

c6.s2.t2.60

⁸ Gnvs 60; Sāsvs. 34; Sdhs. IX. 16. De Zoysa, Catal., p. 11; Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 35, Nr. 120; S.Z. Aung, ibid., 1910-12, p. 128.

c6.s2.t2.61

¹ Gnvs. 61¹¹, 70²³; Sāsvs. 33¹⁵. De Zoysa, p. 2, Nr. 11.

c6.s2.t2.62

² Gnvs. 61³, 70¹⁶, Sāsvs. 33¹⁴. De Zoysa, p. 2, Nr. 12. Wickremasinghe (Catal. of Singh. MSS., p. XII) would identify Mahānāma with the author of the Mahāvaṃsa. In Gnvs. both are however clearly distinguished and in 61⁹ the latter is called Nava-Mahānāma.

c6.s2.t2.63

³ Gnvs. 60-61, Sāsvs. 33³⁴. The first work is mentioned in S.Z. Aung, JPTS. 1910-12, p. 124, and the second work is perhaps identical with the *Vimativinodanī*, a Ṭīkā on Smps., de Zoysa, p.3; Fausböll, p. 13, Nr. 17.

c6.s2.t2.64

⁴ Gnvs. 60²¹, 25, 66²⁸, 29. Fausböll, p. 19, Nr. 35.

c6.s2.t2.65

⁵ Gnvs. 61²⁸; Sāsvs. 34³; Sdhs. IX. 17; Nikāyasaṃgraha 24¹⁷. De Zoysa, pp. 7-8 (where Vācissara has been mentioned as author); Fausböll, p. 36, Nr. 120.

c6.s2.t2.66

⁶ Abhidhammattha-Saṅgaha (ed. Rhys Davids), JPTS. 1884, p. 1 ff. On Ceylon editions, see de Silva, JPTS. 1912, p. 136; Compendium of Philosophy, being a translation of the Abhidhammattha-Saṅgaha by S.Z. Aung, ed by Mrs. Rhys Davids, London, PTS., 1910.

c6.s2.t2.67

⁷ Gnvs. 61²⁴; Sāsvs. 34¹, Sdhs. IX. 14. De Zoysa. pp. 9, 10; Fausböll, p. 36. Nr. 120; M. Bode, Pali Lit. in Burma, p. 104 with foot-notes 5, 6; S. Z. Aung, JPTS. 1910-12, p. 123.

c6.s2.t2.68

27. Two other short but important texts have still to be mentioned, which belong to the Vinaya: the *Khuddasikkhā* of Dhammasiri and the *Mūlasikkhā* of Mahāsāmin.⁸ They are short compendiums on monastic discipline, for the most part in verse and evidently meant to be learnt by heart. There are various commentaries on them, as well as Singhalese translations. Judging by their language, they can be hardly placed before the 11th century. A lower limit is furnished by their mention in the Galvihāra-inscription of king Parakkamabāhu I (second half of the 12th century) in Polonnaruwa.¹ These texts were held in high esteem already at that time.

c6.s2.t2.69

⁸ Khuddasikkhā and Mūlasikkhā, ed. E. Müller, JPTS. 1883, p. 36 ff. De Zoysa, Catal., pp. 8, 9; Sāsvs. 33 ³⁸, Sdhs. IX. 12. On their use in Burma, see M. Bode, PLB., p. 6.

c6.s2.t2.70

¹ E. Müller, AIC., pp. 88, 122.

c6.s2.t2.71

28. The chronicle-literature of Ceylon owes to the second period its most important work, the *Mahāvaṃsa* of Mahānāma.² It covers the same period of history as the *Dīpavaṃsa* in almost the same order. The dry Chronicle has been here made into an artificial epic poem by drawing much new material from the Aṭṭhakathā. The kings Devānaṃpiyatissa (247-207 B.C.) and Duṭṭhagāmaṇi (101-77 B.C.) are the central figures of the first and the second parts respectively of the *Mahāvaṃsa*.³ According to Indian notions the *Mahāvaṃsa* is a commentary on *Dīpavaṃsa*. For this reason the commentary of the former is called Ṭīkā. I think Fleet⁴ was right when he connected the passage Mhvs. 38.59 with the origin of our poem. In that case the date of its composition would fall in the beginning of the 6th century A.D. (under king Dhātusena). The original *Mahāvaṃsa* ends abruptly in 37.50 with the words *Mahāvaṃso niṭṭhito*. The later continuers have evidently destroyed the final portion in order to be able to impose their additions.

c6.s2.t2.72

² The *Mahāvaṃso* in Roman characters with the trans. subjoined... Vol. I, by G. Turnour, Ceylon 1837; The *Mahāvaṃsa*...rev. and ed. by H. Sumangala and DADS Batuwantudawa, Colombo 1883; The *Mahāvaṃsa*, ed. by W. Geiger, London, PTS., 1908.—Translation: The *Mahāvaṃsa*, or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon, transl. by W. Geiger, assist. by M. Bode, London, PTS., 1912.

c6.s2.t2.73

³ For details, see Geiger, *Dīpavaṃsa und Mahāvaṃsa*. Cf. above, 21.

c6.s2.t2.74

29. To the Buddha-legend belong—1. the *Anāgatavaṃsa* of Kassapa,⁵ a prophecy on the future Buddha Metteyya in metrical form fathered on Gotama Buddha. According to tradition⁶ the author is identical with Thera mentioned in 26.⁴.—2. the *Boddhivaṃsa* or *Mahābodhivaṃsa* of Upatissa,⁷ a story of the sacred tree in Anurādhapura with a long introduction reaching back to the Buddha Dīpaṃkara. The work is composed in prose and presents, with the exception of a few independent notices, a compilation out of older sources such as Nidānakathā, Mahāvaṃsa, etc. As I have tried to prove,¹ it was composed probably in the first half of the 11th century.

c6.s2.t2.75

⁴ JRAS. 1909, p. 5, f.-n. 1.

c6.s2.t2.76

⁵ *Anāgata-vaṃsa*, ed. Minayeff, JPTS. 1886, p. 33 ff.

c6.s2.t2.77

⁶ Gnvs. 60-61.

c6.s2.t2.78

⁷ The *Mahābodhivaṃsa*, ed. S. A. Strong, London, PTS., 1891; *Mahābodhivaṃsa* by Upatissa......rev. by Sarananda, Colombo 1891.

c6.s2.t2.79

¹ Dipavaṃsa und Mahāvaṃsa, p. 84 ff.; Wickremasinghe, Catal. of Sinh. MSS., p. XIV. The view of Strong, that Upatissa was a contemporary of Buddhaghosa, is of course untenable.

c6.s2.t2.80

30. The grammarian Kaccāyana belongs to the age posterior to Buddhaghosa. His work Kaccāyanavyākaraṇa or Kaccāyanagandha² is considered to be the oldest Pāli grammar. R. O. Franke³ has, however, shown that even before Buddhaghosa and Dhammapāla there must have been a fixed grammatical system, which was different from that of Kaccāyana and was perhaps based on the grammar of Bodhisatta.⁴ The chief weakness of Kaccāyana's system lies in the fact that it ignores the historical relation of Pāli with Sanskrit. He gives an exposition of Pāli wholly out of itself. Moreover it does not at all give an exhaustive treatment of the linguistic material. Kaccāyana has naturally nothing to do with Mahākaccāyana, the disciple of Buddha.⁵ He is also different from the Kātyāyana who in the 3rd century B.C. wrote the Vārttikas on Pāṇini's grammar. He is moreover to be distinguished from the author of the Netti and the Peṭaka. Without doubt he is later than Buddhaghosa, for otherwise the latter would have followed him in his grammatical terminology as the author of the classical Pāli grammar. A higher limit for the date of Kaccāyana may be obtained from the fact that he utilised, besides the Kātantra of Sarvavarman and Pāṇini along with his commentators, also the Kāśikā (7th century).⁶ Besides this magnum opus two other grammatical works, *Mahāniruttigandha* and *Cullaniruttigandha*, are ascribed to him.¹ Out of the numerous commentaries on Kaccāyana I mention here only the *Nyāsa* of Vimalabuddhi, which is also called *Mukhamattadīpanī*.² He seems to belong to the period we are dealing with because already towards the end of the 12th century Chapada wrote a commentary on it called *Nyāsapradīpa*.³

c6.s2.t2.81

² d' Alwis, An Introduction to Kachchāyana's Grammar of the Pāli Language, Colombo 1863; d' Alwis, Catal., p. 39 ff.; Kachchāyano's Pali Grammar...by Fr. Mason, Toungoo, 1868-70; Kaccāyanappakaraṇam...par E. Senart, JAs., sér. 6, t. XVII, 1871, p. 193-244; Kaccāyana, ed...and transl. by Vidyabhusana, Calcutta 1891; E. Kuhn, Kaccāyanappakaraṇae Specimen, Halle, 1869, and Specimen alterum, 1871. On the whole problem of Kaccāyana's grammar, see R. O. Franke, Gesch. und Krit. der einheim. Pāli-Grammatik und-Lexikographie, Strassburg 1902; Subhūti, Nāmamālā, p. V ff.

c6.s2.t2.82

³ FGr., p. 3. Cf. d' Alwis, Catal., p. 67 ff.

c6.s2.t2.83

⁴ Franke, FGr., p. 2.

c6.s2.t2.84

⁵ It is doubted also in Ceylon. See de Zoysa, Catal., p. 23; Subhūti, Nām., p. VI.

c6.s2.t2.85

⁶ Franke, FGr., p. 18. Already Windisch, Ber. d. K. Sächs. Ges. d. W. 1893, p. 244 f. pointed out that K.'s Grammar must at all events be later than the 4th century.

c6.s2.t2.86

¹ Gnvs. 59¹². De Zoysa, p. 22 mentions a Cullanirutti, said to be one of the oldest Pāli-grammars, Subhūti, Nām., p. XXVIII calls their author Yamaka.

c6.s2.t2.87

² Gnvs. 60¹³; Subhūti, p. IX; de Zoysa, p. 25; Franke, p. 22 f. Cf. Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 47 Nr. 149. The Porāṇa-Kārikā is said to be still older. It has nothing to do with the Kārikā of Dhammasenāpati (Gnvs. 69 ³⁴, 73²¹). Cf. Fausböll, p. 47, Nr. 148. 13; de Zoysa, p. 24; Subhūti, p. LXIX.

c6.s2.t2.88

³ A very late commentary on the Nyāsa is the *Niruttisāramañjūsā* of the Burmese monk Dāṭhānāga (middle of the 17th century). Cf. Subhūti, p. X; de Zoysa, p. 25; Franke, p. 23; M. Bode, PLB., p. 55.

III Period: From the 12th Century to the Modern Age

c6.s2.t3.2

31. There was a great upward swing in the of literary activity of Ceylon during the glorious reign of Parakkamabāhu I (1153-1186). Under his auspices the Thera Mahākassapa is said to have held a council⁴ with the purpose of providing Ṭīkās in the Magadha-language to the Aṭṭhakathās, particularly of Buddhaghosa. The following is the list of the Ṭīkās:

c6.s2.t3.3

⁴ Sdhs. VIII (JPTS. 1890. p. 58 ff). That the council had been actually convened is epigraphically attested, E. Müller, AIC., pp. 87, 120 ff. Cf. Mhvs. 78, 34.

c6.s2.t3.4

| 1. | Sāratthadīpanī | Ṭī | on Samantapāsādikā (Vin.) |
| 2. | Paṭhama-Sāratthamañjūsā | ,, | ,, Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (D.) |
| 3. | Dutiya-Sāratthamañjūsā | ,, | ,, Papañcasūdanī (M.) |
| 4. | Tatiya-Sāratthamañjūsā | ,, | ,, Sāratthappakāsinī (S.) |
| 5. | Catuttha Sāratthamañjūsā | ,, | ,, Manorathapūraṇī (A.) |
| 6. | Paṭhama-Paramatthappakāsinī | ,, | ,, Atthasālinī (Dhs.) |
| 7. | Dutiya-Paramatthappakāsinī | ,, | ,, Sammohavinodanī (Vbh.) |
| 8. | Tatiya Paramatthappakāsinī | ,, | ,, Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā (Dhk., etc ). |

c6.s2.t3.5

Of these Ṭīkās the *Sāratthadīpanī* by Sāriputta⁵ has been preserved. The same Thera is the author of another Ṭīkā on Papañcasūdanī, named *Līnatthapakāsanā*.⁶

c6.s2.t3.6

⁵ De Zoysa, Catal., p. 3; Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 12, Nr. 14, 15, 16.

c6.s2.t3.7

⁶ Fausböll, p. 28 f., Nr. 83, 84.

c6.s2.t3.8

The account of the council of Mahākassapa closely follows the stories of older councils. It is probable that the council gave the impetus for the composition of such Ṭīkās and therewith initiated an era of remarkable literary activity, carried on mainly by Sāriputta and his pupils. As a work of Sāriputta is mentioned, beside the two already referred to above, the *Vinayasaṃgaha* “Compendium of the Vinaya.”¹ According to the Gnvs. he is said to have composed also the *Sāratthamañjūsā* on the *Manorathapūraṇī*.²

c6.s2.t3.9

¹ Fausböll, p. 17, Nr. 30; Subhūti, Nām., p. 7 f. The work was also called *Pālimuttakavinayasaṃgaha* or *Mahāvinayasaṃgahappakaraṇa*. Cf. the works mentioned in de Zoysa, pp. 11 and 15. Cf. 43. 1.

c6.s2.t3.10

² Gnvs. 61 30-34, 71 10-14. A grammatical work of Sāriputta will be mentioned below.

c6.s2.t3.11

32. Of Sāriputta’s pupils are to be mentioned: 1. Saṃgharakkhita as the author of a *Khuddasikkhā-Ṭīkā* (see 27). It is called “new Ṭīkā,” and was therefore probably later than the *Porāṇa-Ṭīkā* attributed to Mahāyasa. Both the Ṭīkās have been preserved in MSS.³ 2. Buddhanāga, the author of a Ṭīkā on the *Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī* (22, Nr. 2) called *Vinayatthamañjūsā*⁴ which likewise exists only in manuscript.—3. The Gnvs. (62, 66) mentions 18 works of Vācissara. The following commentary-works of this author still exist in manuscript: (a) *Mūlasikkhā-Abhinava-Ṭīkā* (see 27), which is evidently later than the *Porāṇa-Ṭīkā* of Vimalasāra.⁵ (b) *Sīmālaṅkārasaṃgaḥ*, belonging to the sphere of Vinaya, on the boundaries of sacred districts,—the monks living in them had to jointly perform the ecclesiastical duties.⁶ (c) *Khemappakaraṇa-Ṭīkā* on the work mentioned in 26.6.⁷ (d) *Nāmarūpapariccheda-Ṭīkā* on the work of Anuruddha⁸ mentioned in 26.7. (e) *Saccasaṃkhepa-Ṭīkā* (26.1), older than Sumaṅgala’s Ṭīkā on the same work.⁹ (f) *Abhidhammāvatāra-Ṭīkā*¹⁰ on the well-known work of Buddhadatta (25.1). (g) *Rūpārūpavibhāga*,¹¹ like the works from c to f, belonging to the Abhidhamma. There are mentioned, besides, *Vinayavinicchaya-Ṭīkā* and an *Uttaravinicchaya-Ṭīkā* (25.1)¹; a Ṭīkā called *Sumaṅgalappasādanī* on the *Khuddasikkhā*; a *Yogavinicchaya*, a *Paccayasamgaha* etc. It is quite possible that these works were composed by different Theras of the same name. There were at all events several Vācissaras²—⁴. Sumaṅgala composed a Ṭīkā on Anuruddha's *Abhidhammatthasamgaha* (26.⁷) which was titled *Abhidhammatthavibhāvanī*³ and another Ṭīkā on the *Abhidhammāvatāra* (25.1) called the *Abhidhammatthavikāsanī*,⁴ as well as a *Saccasamkhepa-Ṭīkā*,⁵ which is also called the *Abhinavaṭīkā* (cf. above 3 e). All the three works exist in MSS.

c6.s2.t3.12

³ De Zoysa, Catal., p. 8; Wickremasinghe, Catal., p. XVI. Cf. also 46.2, 53.1.

c6.s2.t3.13

⁴ Gnvs. 61-62; Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 17, Nr. 28. Cf. de Zoysa, p. 15, where however no author is mentioned.

c6.s2.t3.14

⁵ De Zoysa, p. 9.

c6.s2.t3.15

⁶ De Zoysa, p. 13. Also other works on the same subject are mentioned here.

c6.s2.t3.16

⁷ De Zoysa, p. 8.

c6.s2.t3.17

⁸ De Zoysa, p. 9.

c6.s2.t3.18

⁹ De Zoysa, p. 12; Fausböll, p. 37, Nr. 121.

c6.s2.t3.19

¹⁰ De Zoysa, p. 5.

c6.s2.t3.20

¹¹ De Zoysa, p. 11 (without mentioning the author); Fausböll, p. 36, Nr. 120.

c6.s2.t3.21

¹ The Ṭīkās mentioned by de Zoysa, p. 15, 14 probably belong hereto. As author of the first work he mentions Revata, but he does not mention the name of the author of the second. In Fausböll, p. 19, Nr. 32 and 33 an anonymous Ṭīkā on the Vinayavinicchaya, called the *Līnatthappakāsinī*, has been mentioned, which however should not be confounded with the work of the same name referred to in 25.8.

c6.s2.t3.22

² Should not the Vācissara mentioned in Mhvs. 81.17 ff. have been the pupil of Sāriputta?

c6.s2.t3.23

⁴ De Zoysa, p. 5.

c6.s2.t3.24

⁵ De Zoysa, p. 12.

c6.s2.t3.25

33. Saddhammajotipāla or Chapada⁶ belongs to the circle of Sāriputta's disciples. He was a native of Burma, but he received his education in Ceylon, where he stayed from 1170 to 1180 according to tradition. Of his works (cf. also 30) the following belong to the sphere of Vinaya: (a) *Vinayasamuṭṭhānadīpanī*, (b) *Pātimokkhavisodhani*,⁷ (c) *Vinayagūḷhatthadīpanī*,⁸ in which the difficult passages of the Vinaya have been discussed, as well as (d) *Sīmālaṅkārasamgaha-Ṭīkā*⁹ on 32.³ b. To the Abhidhamma belong (e) *Mātikatthadīpanī*, (f) *Paṭṭhānagaṇanānaya*, (g) *Nāmacāradīpa*,¹⁰ as well as his best-known work (h) *Abhidhammatthasamgahasamkhepa-Ṭīkā*,¹¹ a commentary on the work of Anuruddha mentioned in 26.7. Finally there is still to mention (i) the *Gandhasāra*, apparently an anthology of sacred texts.—In connection with Chapada let us also mention the Burmese monk Sāriputta or Dhammavilāsa, who died in the year 1246. He received his ordination from Ānanda, one of the four Theras who accompanied Chapada on his journey back to Burma from Ceylon. Dhammavilāsa is the author of the oldest Burmese law-book *Dhammavilāsa-Dhammasattha*, which is the basis of the later legal literature of the Burmese.¹

c6.s2.t3.26

³ De Zoysa, p. 5; Oldenberg, Catal., p. 84, Nr. 53; Fausböll, p. 38 f., Nr. 123; cf. also 42.1.

c6.s2.t3.27

⁶ Gnvs. 64¹⁹, Sāsvs. 39, 40, 65, 74. Cf. M. Bode, PLB., p. 17 ff. ; S. Z. Aung, JPTS. 1912, p. 124 f. Cf. also 46.1.

c6.s2.t3.28

⁷ De Zoysa, Catal., p. 11.

c6.s2.t3.29

⁸ Ibid., p. 15.

c6.s2.t3.30

⁹ Ibid., p. 13.

c6.s2.t3.31

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 9; S. Z. Aung, p. 124.

c6.s2.t3.32

¹¹ De Zoysa, p. 12; Oldenberg, Catal., p. 85, Nr. 54; Fausböll, JPTS, 1896, p. 89, Nr. 123; S. Z. Aung, p 125. According to the introductory verses the work was composed at the instance of King Vijayabāhu (1186-87). Not so in Gnvs. 74¹⁴.

c6.s2.t3.33

¹ M. Bode, PLB., p. 31 ff.

c6.s2.t3.34

34. The pupils of Sāriputta displayed their activity also in the field of Buddhistic legends and ecclesiastical history. In this connection are to be mentioned 1. The *Dāṭhāvamsa* of Dhammakitti,² who in the concluding verses declares himself to be a pupil of Sāritanuja. It is clear from the introductory verses that the poem was composed at the beginning of the 13th century.³ It deals with the story of Buddha’s tooth-relic and adds to the tradition recorded in the Mahāvamsa a few notices which were very probably culled from the local tradition of Ceylon.—2. The *Thūpavamsa* of Vācissara,⁴ who was probably Sāriputta’s pupil. It is written in prose and is merely a compilation of pieces from Nidānakathā, Samantapāsādikā and Mahāvamsa with its Ṭīkā. It was composed in the first half of the 13th century. The later Singhalese version may be ascertained to have been composed between 1250 and 1260.—3. The *Jinālaṃkāra* of Buddharakkhita,⁵ a poem composed in a very ornate language and in very artificial metres, which already bears all the signs of the artificial poetry of India.⁶ It describes the life of Buddha till the Sambodhi. In the concluding verses (271 ff.) the author gives his own name and mentions the year 1700 (after Buddha=1156 A.D.) as the time of its composition.¹ With the Jinālaṃkāra ascribed to Buddhadatta (25.1) our poem has therefore nothing to do, even if any real value attaches to this datum.—4. The Jinacarita of Medhaṃkara² is likewise a highly artificial poem which in conventional form deals with a subject similar to that of the Jinālaṃkāra. The Gnvs. 62⁴, 72⁷ mentions this author immediately after Vācissara,³ Sumaṅgala and Dhammakitti, and thus evidently takes him to be the pupil of Sāriputta. The author says in the concluding verses that he had composed his work in a Pariveṇa erected by King Vijayabāhu. This seems to be a calculated and intentional homage, which however could have a point in it only if the prince was still living. It is therefore permissible to think that Vijayabāhu III (1225-29) is here referred to by the author, and Medhaṃkara would thus be a contemporary of Vācissara.

c6.s2.t3.35

² Dāṭhāvanso ..by Dhammakirti...ed. Asabha Tissa, Kelaniya 1883. The Dāṭhāvamsa (ed. Rhys Davids), JPTS. 1884, p. 108 ff. A Ṭīkā on Dāṭhāvs. is mentioned by Fausböll, JPTS. 1896, p. 45, Nr. 142.

c6.s2.t3.36

³ Geiger, Dipavamsa und Mahāvamsa, p. 88 ff. According to Wickremasinghe, JRAS. 1896, p. 200 ff., there were five different Dhammakittis. The first of them is the author of Dāṭhāvs.

c6.s2.t3.37

⁴ Pāli Thūpavamsaya ed. Dhammaratana, Ceylon 1896. Cf. Geiger, ibid., p. 92. The Gnvs. 70^18 of course mentions the Thūpavs., but not among the works of Vācissara and without giving the name of the author.

c6.s2.t3.38

⁵ Jinālaṃkāra...by Buddharakkhita, ed. Gray, London 1894. The Jinālaṃkāra by Buddharakkhita, transl. into Sinh. and ed. by W. Dipaṅkara and B. Dhammapāla Galle 1900.

c6.s2.t3.39

⁶ The author is said to have himself composed a Ṭīkā on his work. Cf. also Gray, Introd., p. 8 f.

c6.s2.t3.40

¹ See also Gnvs. 72[^9]; Sdhs. IX.21.

c6.s2.t3.41

³ Rouse has evidently misunderstood the construction : kārite in 469 belongs to pariveṇavare in 470.

c6.s2.t3.42

35. The Ṭīkā on the Mahāvaṃsa⁴ is of great importance for information about the Ceylonese tradition. It is called Vamsatthappakāsinī.⁵ Its author is unknown. As for its date, an upper limit is furnished by the reference to Dāṭhopatissa II (ab. ut 670 A.D.), and a lower limit by the fact that the Pāli-Thūpavaṃsa (34.²) quotes it profusely. If the Mahābodhivaṃsakathā quoted in it is identical with our Bodhivaṃsa (29.2), then we get a still closer upper limit for it. The MhvsṬī. is certainly older than the first supplement to the Mahāvaṃsa by Dhammakitti (38), because it breaks off at the same place where the original Mahāvaṃsa (28) ends. It is probable therefore that the MhvsṬī. was composed in the 12th century. Its importance lies in the fact that it offers a mass of supplementary notices to the Mahāvaṃsa culled from the Aṭṭhakathā. In this way it reveals to us the richness of the contents of the Aṭṭhakathā, which was still available at the time.⁶ The MuvsṬī. is therefore a fruitful source of information about the indigenous tradition, the historicity of which however has naturally to be tested separately in each case.

c6.s2.t3.43

² Jinacarita, ed. Rouse, JPTS. 1904-05, p. 1 ff. Jinacarita ..ed and transl. by Ch. Duroiselle, Rangoon 1906. On the various Medhaṃkaras, see Rouse, p. 2; Wickremasinghe, Catal., p. 21a, 35b, 119a

c6.s2.t3.44

⁴ Mahāvaṃsa Ṭīkā or Vaṃsatthappakāsinī, rev. and ed. by Baṭuwantuḍāwe and Ñāṇissara Bhikkhu, Colombo 1895; Vaṃsatthappakāsinī ed. by G. P. Malalasekera, 2 vols, PTS. 1935.

c6.s2.t3.45

⁵ On what follows, cf. Geiger, Dipavaṃsa und Mahāvaṃsa, p. 34 ff.

c6.s2.t3.46

⁶ Cf. above, p. 25, f-n. 1.

c6.s2.t3.47

36. Vedehathera belongs to the 13th century, as has been proved by the researches of d'Alwis and Sten Konow.¹ According to the notices in his works, he belonged to the Brahmin family of Vippagāma. He was a "forest-dweller" and a pupil of Thera Ānanda also called araññāyatana. His works are: (a) The Samantakūṭavaṇṇanā "description of the Adam's Peak."² The poem deals with the story of Buddha's life and particularly the legends of his three visits to the island of Ceylon. On the occasion of his third visit he left on the summit of the Samantakūṭa his śrīpada, the print of his left foot. The verses 722-46 give a description of the sacred hill, which has given the name to the whole poem consisting of 796 strophes.—(b) The Rasavāhinī,³ a collection of prose stories, which, according to the introductory words, are based on a Ceylonese original. This original was translated into Pāli by Raṭṭhapāla in the Mahāvihāra, and the translation was revised by Vedehathera. Altogether the Rasav. contains 103 stories, of which 40 are derived from the Jambudīpa, the continent of India, and 63 from Laṅkādīpa, Ceylon. These are fables, legends, sagas and religious tales. The original work had very probably drawn the material from the Aṭṭhakathā. Hence the frequent quotations with tenāhu porāṇā. In the present Pāli version the Mahāvaṃsa has been drawn upon profusely; some of the stories are based on the Apadānas and the Jātaka-book. The Sahassavatthuppakaraṇa "the book of thousand stories" was probably in contents connected with the Rasav. and it is said to have been reintroduced into Ceylon from Burma.⁴ 87. A contemporary of Vedehathera was Buddhappiya, the author of the *Pajjamadhu*,¹ a poem which in 104 artistic stanzas glorifies the external beauty of Buddha and also his wisdom. In the last stanza but one, the author gives his own name and says that he is a pupil of Ānanda, who is doubtless the same person as Vedehathera's teacher.—The *Attanagaluvihāravamsa* ² was composed probably about the same time as the *Pajjamadhu*,—in the second half of the 13th century. It is written in a mixture of prose and verse and gives the story of the death of Sirisamghabodhi (Mhvs. 36.91 ff.) and his wife, as well as of the founding of the Attanagalu monastery on the spot where they died. As the anonymous author (v. 3) himself admits, he was induced to compose this poem by the priest Anomadassin, who is probably the person to whom, according to Mhvs. 86.37 f., in the reign of Parakkamabāhu II (1229-1246), was entrusted the Attanagalu monastery, furnished with new buildings by the minister Paṭirāja.

c6.s2.t3.48

¹ D'Alwis, Catal., pp. 221-25; Sten Konow, Vedehathera, Skrifter udgiven of Videnskabsselskabet i Christiania, hist.-filos. Kl. 1895, Nr. 4.

c6.s2.t3.49

² Samanta Kūṭa Waṇṇanā... transl. into Sinh. and ed. by W. Dhammānanda and M. Ñāṇissara, Colombo 1890.

c6.s2.t3.50

³ Rasavahini... by Vedeha Maha Thera, ed. Saraṇatissa, 2 parts, Colombo 1901 and 1899. Selected pieces have been edited and translated by Spiegel, Anecdota Palica, Leipzig 1845, p. 15 ff.; Sten Konow, ZDMG. 43, 1889, p 297 ff.; D. Andersen, Studier fra Sprog- og Oldtidsforskning, Nr. 6, Kopenhagen 1891 (not availuble to me); Pavolini, Giornale Soc. As. Ital. VIII, 179 ff., XI, 175 ff. An analysis of the work has been given by Pavolini, La Materia e la Forma della Rasavāhinī, ibid., XI, 35 ff

c6.s2.t3.51

⁴ De Zoysa, Catal., p. 20 On a Sahassavatthuṭṭhakathā four times mentioned in the MhvsṬi., see Geiger, Dīpavaṃsa und Mahāvaṃsa, p. 52.

c6.s2.t3.52

¹ Edited by Gooneratne, JPTS. 1887, pp. 1-16. Also The Pajja Madhu...by Buddhapria, ed. Devamitta, Colombo 1887. Cf. 46.4.

c6.s2.t3.53

² The Pali Text of the Attanagaluwansa and its ancient translation...by d'Alwis, Colombo 1887. Cf. d'Alwis, Catal., p. 11 ff., particularly 32 f.; de Zoysa, Catal., p 17.

c6.s2.t3.54

38. The *Mahāvaṃsa* of Mahānāma (28) was continued under the special title *Cūḷavaṃsa* "Short Chronicle" and made into a narrative covering the whole history of Ceylon.³ According to tradition the first author to continue the work was Thera Dhammakitti, who according to Mhvs. 84.12 ff. came to Ceylon from Burma in the reign of Parakkamabāhu II (first half of the 13th century). An evident supplement to the later Mhvs. begins with Chap. 90.104 after the close of the reign of Parakkamabāhu IV which began in the year 1284. The second part of the Mhvs. (Chaps. 37-90) which ends here describes above all the glorious age of Parakkamabāhu I (1153-1186).⁴ In order to round off the concluding portion of the Mhvs., let us mention here that in the second half of the 18th century, according to Mhvs. 99.78 ff., the king Kittisiri had the chronicle extended up to his own time. This third part is made up of the Chapters 90 (from verse 105) to 100. In Chapter 101 are then given notices up to the arrival of the English in Ceylon.

First 167 of 271 passages. Read on

Linked texts (87)