A History of Indian Literature v2.c24: Appendix IV. Time and Life of Buddhaghosa
A History of Indian Literature v2.c24
- Language
- English
Appendix IV. Time and Life of Buddhaghosa
v2.c24.2
Th. *Foulkes* (Ind. Ant. 19, 1890, p. 122) already gave expression to the conjecture that Buddhaghosa never lived at all, but that the existing commentaries were ascribed to the "Voice of Buddha." V. A. *Smith*, too (Ind. Ant. 34, 1905, p. 185) says, "Personally I do not believe in the existence of Buddhaghosa, 'The Voice of Buddha,' as an historical personage." L. *Finot* (La légende de Buddhaghosa, in Cinquantenaire de l'école pratique des hautes études, Paris 1921, p. 101 ff.) goes further, and attempts to prove that there is no historical foundation for Buddhaghosa's journey from Magadha to Ceylon, and that the commentaries are the work of several Singhalese translators, who have been grouped by tradition around the more or less authentic name of Buddhaghosa. We admit that the accounts of Buddhaghosa which have come down to us are 800 years later than he himself, that they are full of legends, that the accounts of Buddhaghosa's journeys to Burma and Pegu have no sort of historical background, and likewise that some commentaries have been ascribed to him erroneously. However, in the case of Śaṅkara, too, there are only quite legendary so-called "biographies," and many works are ascribed to him, which he could not have written, and yet no one doubts that a philosopher Śaṅkara really existed. At all events the name Buddhaghosa is quite trustworthy, as this name already occurs in inscriptions of Mathurā in the first centuries of the Christian era (*Foulkes*, l. c., p. 105ff.). *Cf.* P. *Pelliot* in T'oung Pao 21, 1922, p. 243 f., and *Pe Maung Tin* in JRAS 1923 265 ff. *Pelliot* (l. c. and BEFEO 4, 149, 412) has pointed out that, at the beginning of the fifth century Fa-hien and Tche-mong made the acquaintance of a Brahman Raivata in Pāṭaliputra, who is possibly identical with Buddhaghosa's teacher. The fact that Buddhaghosa knew the Vedas and was versed in Sāṃkhya and Yoga, lends probability to the tradition that he was originally a Brahman; s. *Maung Tin*, l. c.
v2.c24.3
The period of the reign of King Mahānāma of Ceylon was formerly assumed to be 410-432 or 413-435, and the life-time of Buddhaghosa was accordingly set in the first half of the 5th century. This view was still held by *Burlingame* (HOS Vol. 25, p. 58). According to the chronology of W. *Geiger* (The Mahāvaṃsa transl., p. xxxvi ff.), which is based upon the foundation of the date 483 B. C. as the year of Buddha's death, 458-480 A. D. would be the dates of Mahānāma's reign, and thus also Buddhaghosa's time. This chronology, however, given only "provisionally" by *Geiger* himself, seems rather doubtful to me. The account of Chinese annals of an embassy which King Mahānāma of Ceylon sent to the emperor of China in the year 428 A. D. (S. *Lévi*, JA 1900, s. 9, t. XV, p. 412f.)
v2.c24.4
speaks rather in favour of the date 410-432. *Geiger* refers to the fact that, according to his chronology King Meghavaṇṇa of Ceylon reigned from 352 to 379 A. D., and according to a Chinese account (*Lévi*, l. c., p. 316 f.) this king sent an embassy to Samudragupta, who reigned from 326 to 375 A. D. (*Smith*, Early History, in the 4th edit. gives 330-380). However, even the old dating of Meghavaṇṇa, *viz.*, 304-332 A. D. would not contradict the Chinese account, if the embassy had taken place between 330 and 332 A. D. *Smith*, Early History, p. 345, does, it is true (obviously on the basis of *Geiger’s* chronology), give the date of about 360 A. D. for King Meghavaṇṇa’s embassy.