Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pali Literature and Language c6.s2.t2: II Period: From the 8th to the 11th Century

Pāli Literature and Language c6.s2.t2

Language
English

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⁶ Unpublished.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.

Cites (46)