[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》●The Dhammapada
p. ix
INTRODUCTION
TO
THE DHAMMAPADA.
THE DHAMMAPADA, A CANONICAL BOOK.
THE Dhammapada forms part of the Pali Buddhist canon, though its exact place varies according to different authorities, and we have not as yet a sufficient number of complete MSS. of the Tipitaka to help us to decide the question.
Those who divide that canon into three Pitakas or baskets, the Vinaya-pitaka, Sutta-pitaka, and Abhidhamma-pitaka, assign the Dhammapada to the Sutta-pitaka. That Pitaka consists of five Nikayas: the D?gha-nikaya, the Magghima-nikaya, the Samyutta-nikaya, the Anguttara-nikaya, and the Khuddaka-nikaya. The fifth, or Khuddaka-nikaya, comprehends the following works: 1. Khuddaka-patha; 2. DHAMMAPADA; 3. Udana; 4. Itivuttaka; 5. Sutta-nipata; 6. Vimanavatthu; 7. Petavatthu; 8. Theragatha; 9. Ther?gatha; 10. Gataka; 11. Niddesa; 12. Patisambhida; 13. Apadana; 14. Buddhavamsa; 15. Kariya-pitaka.
According to another division, however, the whole Buddhist canon consists of five Nikayas: the D?gha-nikaya, the Magghima-nikaya, the Samyutta-nikaya, the Anguttara-nikaya, and the fifth, the Khuddaka-nikaya, which Khuddaka-n?kaya is then made to comprehend the whole of the Vinaya (discipline) and Abhidhamma (metaphysics), together with the fifteen books beginning with the Khuddaka-patha.
The order of these fifteen books varies, and even, as it would seem, their number. The D?ghabhanaka school
[1. see Feer, Journal Asiatique, 1871, p. 263. There is now at least one complete MS. of the Tipitaka, the Phayre MS., at the India Office, and Professor Forchhammer has just published a most useful List of Pali MSS. collected in Burma, the largest collection hitherto known.
2. See Childers, s. v. Nikaya, and extracts from Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Brahmagala-sutta.]
p. x admits twelve books only, and assigns them all to the Abhidhamma, while the Magghimabhanakas admit fifteen books, and assign them to the Sutta-pitaka. The order of the fifteen books is: 1. Gataka ; 2. Mahaniddesa ; 3. Kullaniddesa ; 4. Patisambhidamagga ; 5. Sutta-nipata ; 6. DHAMMAPADA ; 7. Udana ; 8. Itivuttaka ; 9. Vimanavatthu ; 10. Petavatthu ; 11. Theragatha ; 12. Ther?gatha ; 13. Kariya-pitaka ; 14. Apadana ; 15. Buddhavamsa .
The Khuddaka-patha is left out in the second list, and the number is brought to fifteen by dividing Niddesa into Maha-niddesa and Kulla-niddesa.
There is a commentary on the Dhammapada in Pali, and supposed to be written by Buddhaghosa, in the first half of the fifth century A.D. In explaining the verses of the Dhammapada, the commentator gives for every or nearly every verse a parable to illustrate its meaning, which is likewise believed to have been uttered by Buddha in his intercourse with his disciples, or in preaching to the multitudes that came to hear him.
DATE OF THE DHAMMAPADA.
The only means of fixing the date of the Dhammapada is trying to ascertain the date of the Buddhist canon of which it forms a part, or the date of Buddhaghosa, who wrote a commentary on it. This, however, is by no means easy, and the evidence on which we have to rely is such that we must not be surprised if those who are accustomed to test historical and chronological evidence
[1. The figures within brackets refer to the other list of books in the Khuddaka-nikiya. See also p. xxviii.
2. M. Léon Feer in the Journal Asiatique, 1871, p. 266, mentions another commentary of a more philosophical character, equally ascribed to Buddhaghosa. and having the title Vivara Bra Dhammapada, i.e. L’auguste Dhammapada dévoilé. Professor Forchhammer in his ’List of Manuscripts,’ 1879-80, mentions the following works in connection with the Dhammapada: Dhammapada-Nissayo; Dh. P. Atthakatha by Buddhaghosa; Dh. P. Atthakatha Nissayo. 3 vols., containing a complete translation of the commentary; Dh. P. Vatthu. Of printed books he quotes: Kayanupassanakyam, a work based on the Garavaggo, Mandalay, 1876 (390 pages), and Dhammapada-desanakyam, printed in ’British Burma News.’]
续-《●The Dhammapada》
摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
p. xi in Greece and Rome, decline to be convinced by it. As a general rule, I quite agree that we cannot be too sceptical in assigning a date to ancient books, particularly if we intend to use them as documents for tracing the history of human thought. To the initiated, I mean to those who have themselves worked in the mines of ancient Oriental literature, such extreme scepticism may often seem unscientific and uncalled for. They are more or less aware of hundreds of arguments, each by itself, it may be, of small weight, but all combined proving irresistible. They are conscious, too, of having been constantly on the look out for danger, and, as all has gone on smoothly, they feel sure that, in the main, they are on the right road. Still it is always useful to be as incredulous as possible, particularly against oneself, and to have before our eyes critics who will not yield one inch beyond what they are forced to yield by the strongest pressure of facts.
The age of our MSS. of the canonical books, either in Pali or Sanskrit, is of no help to us. All Indian MSS. are comparatively modern, and one who has probably handled more Indian MSS. than anybody else, Mr. A. Burnell, has lately expressed his conviction that ’no MS. written one thousand years ago is now existent in India, and that it is almost impossible to find one written five hundred years ago, for most MSS. which claim to be of that date are merely copies of old MSS. the dates of which are repeated by the copyists.’
Nor is the language, whether Sanskrit or Pali, a safe guide for fixing dates. Both languages continue to be written to our own time, and though there are some characteristic marks to distinguish more modern from more ancient Buddhist Sanskrit and Pali, this branch of critical scholarship requires to be cultivated far more extensively and accurately before true scholars would venture to fix the date of a Sanskrit or Pali text on the strength of linguistic evidence alone.
[1. Indian Antiquary, 1880, p. 233.
2. See some important remarks on this subject in Fausb?ll’s Introduction to Sutta-nipita, p. xi.]
p. xii
The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty in assigning a date to their sacred canon. They are told in that canon itself that it was settled at the First Council, or immediately after the death of Buddha, and they believe that it was afterwards handed down by means of oral tradition, or actually written down in books by order of Kasyapa, the president of the First Council. Buddhaghosa, a learned and in some respects a critical scholar, living in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., asserts that the canon which he had before him, was the same as that fixed by the First Council.
Several European students have adopted the same opinion, and, so far as I know, no argument has yet been advanced showing the impossibility of the native view, that some collection of Buddha’s doctrines was made immediately after his death at Ragagaha, and that it was finally settled at what is called the Second Council, or the Council of Vesal?. But what is not impossible is not therefore true, nor can anything be gained by appealing to later witnesses, such as, for instance, Hiouen Thsang, who travelled through India in the seventh century, and wrote down anything that he could learn, little concerned whether one statement tallied with the other or not. He says that the Tipitaka was written down on palm leaves by Kasyapa at the end of the First Council. But what can be the weight of such a witness, living more than a thousand years after the event, compared with that, for instance, of the Mahavamsa, which dates from the fifth century of our era, and
[1. Bigandet, Life of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), p. 350; but also p. 120 note.
2. See Childers, s.v. Tipitaka. There is a curious passage in Buddhaghosa’s account of the First Council. ’Now one may ask,’ he says, ’Is there or is there not in this first Paragika anything to be taken away or added?’ I reply, There is nothing in the words of the Blessed Buddha that can be taken away, for the Buddhas speak not even a single syllable in vain, yet in the words of disciples and devatas there are things which may be omitted, and these the elders who made the recension, did omit. On the other hand, additions are everywhere necessary, and accordingly, whenever it was necessary to add anything, they added it. If it be asked, What are the additions referred to? I reply, Only sentences necessary to connect the text, as ’at that time,’ ’again at that time,’ ’and so forth.’
3. Pèlerins Bouddhistes, vol. i. p. 158.]
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
p. xiii tells us in the account of Mahinda’s missionary journey to Ceylon (241/318), that the son of Asoka had to spend three years in learning the Tipitaka by heart from the mouth of a teacher? No mention is then made of any books or MSS., when it would have been most natural to do so. At a later time, during the reign of King Vattagamani (88-76 B.C.), the same chronicle, the Mahavamsa, tells us that ’the profoundly wise priests had theretofore orally (mukhapathena) perpetuated the Pali of the Pitakattaya and its Atthakatha (commentary), but that at this period the priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people assembled, and in order that the religion might endure for ages, recorded the same in books (potthakesu likhapayum).’
No one has yet questioned the dates of the D?pavamsa, about 400 A.D., or of the first part of the Mahavamsa, between 459-477 A.D., and though no doubt there is an interval of nearly 600 years between the composition of the Mahavamsa and the recorded writing down of the Buddhist canon under Vattagamani, yet we must remember that the Ceylonese chronicles were confessedly founded on an older Atthakatha preserved in the monasteries of the island, and representing an unbroken line of local tradition.
My own argument therefore, so long as the question was only whether we could assign a pre-Christian date to the Pali Buddhist canon, has always been this. We have the commentaries on the Pali canon translated from Sinhalese into Pali, or actually composed, it may be, by Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa confessedly consulted various
[1. Mahavamsa, p. 37; D?pavamsa VII, 28-31; Buddhaghosha’s Parables, p. xviii.
2. Bigandet, Life of Gaudama, p. 351.
3. Dr. E. Müller (Indian Antiquary, Nov. 1880, p. 270) has discovered inscriptions in Ceylon, belonging to Devanapiya Maharaga Gamini Tissa, whom he identifes with Vattagamani.
4. The same account is given in the D?pavamsa XX, 20, and in the Sarasangraha, as quoted by Spence Hardy, Legends, p. 192. As throwing light on the completeness of the Buddhist canon at the time of King Vattagamani, it should be mentioned that, according to the commentary on the Mahavamsa (Turnour, p. liii), the sect of the Dhammarukikas established itself at the Abhayavihara, which had been constructed by Vattagamani, and that one of the grounds of their secession was their refusing to acknowledge the Parivara (thus I read instead of Pariwána) as part of the Vinaya-pitaka. According to the D?pavamsa (VII, 42) Mahinda knew the Parivara.]
p. xiv MSS., and gives various readings, just as any modern scholar might do. This was in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., and there is nothing improbable, though I would say no more, in supposing that some of the MSS., consulted by Buddhaghosa, dated from the first century B.C., when Vattagamani ordered the sacred canon to be reduced to writing.
There is one other event with reference to the existence of the sacred canon in Ceylon, recorded in the Mahavamsa, between the time of Buddhaghosa and Vattagamani, viz. the translation of the Suttas from Pali into the language of Ceylon, during the reign of Buddhadasa, 339-368 A.D. If MSS. of that ancient translation still existed, they would, no doubt, be very useful for detrmining the exact state of the Pali originals at that time. But even without them there seems no reason to doubt that Buddhaghosa had before him old MSS. of the Pali canon, and that these were in the main the same as those written down at the time of Vattagamani.
BUDDHAGHOSA’S AGE.
The whole of this argument, however, rested on the supposition that Buddhaghosa’s date in the beginning of the fifth century A.D. was beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. ’His age,’ I had ventured to say in the Preface to Buddhaghosha’s Parables (1870), ’can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.’ But soon after, one of our most celebrated Pali scholars, the great Russian traveller, Professor Joh. Minayeff, expressed in the Mélanges Asiatiques (13/25 April, 1871) the gravest doubts as to Buddhaghosa’s age, and thus threw the whole Buddhist chronology, so far as it had then been accepted by all, or nearly all scholars, back into chaos. He gave as his chief reason that Buddhaghosa was not, as I supposed, the contemporary of Mahanama, the
p. xv author of the Mahavamsa, but of another Mahanama, the king of Ceylon.
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
Professor Minayeff is undoubtedly right in this, but I am not aware that I, or anybody else, had ever questioned so palpable a fact. There are two Mahanamas; one, the king who reigned from 410-432 A.D.; the other, the supposed author of the Mahavamsa, the uncle and protector of King Dhatusena, 459-477. ’Dhatusena,’ I had written, ’was the nephew of the historian Mahanama, and owed the throne to the protection of his uncle. Dhatusena was in fact the restorer of a national dynasty, and after having defeated the foreign usurpers (the Damilo dynasty) "he restored the religion which had been set aside by the foreigners"’ (Mahav. p. 256). Among his many pious acts it is particularly mentioned that he gave a thousand, and ordered the D?pavamsa to be promulgated. As Mahanama was the uncle of Dhatusena, who reigned from 459-477, he may be considered as a trustworthy witness with regard to events that occurred between 410 and 432. Now the literary activity of Buddhaghosa in Ceylon falls in that period.’
These facts being admitted, it is surely not too great a stretch of probability to suppose, as I did, that a man whose nephew was king in 459-477, might have been alive in 410-432, that is to say, might have been a contemporary of Buddhaghosa. I did not commit myself to any further theories. The question whether Mahanama, the uncle of Dhatusena, was really the author of the Mahavamsa, the question whether he wrote the second half of the 37th chapter of that work, or broke off his chronicle in the middle of that chapter, I did not discuss, having no new materials to bring forward beyond those on which Turnour and those who followed him had founded their conclusions, and which I had discussed in my History of Sanskrit Literature (1859), p. 267. All I said was, ’It is difficult to determine whether the 38th as well as the (whole of the) 37th chapter came from the pen of Mahanama, for
p. xvi the Mahavamsa was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that Mahanama carried on the history to his own time, to the death of Dhatusena, 477 A.D.’
What I meant by ’all the circumstances of the case’ might easily be understood by any one who had read Turnour’s Preface to the Mahavamsa. Turnour himself thought at first that Mahanama’s share in the Mahavamsa ended with the year 301 A.D., and that the rest of the work, called the Sulu Wansé, was composed by subsequent writers. Dharmakirti is mentioned by name as having continued the work to the reign of Prakrama Bahu (A.D. 1266). But Turnour afterwards changed his mind. Considering that the account of Mahasena’s reign, the first of the Seven Kings, terminates in the middle of a chapter, at verse 48, while the whole chapter is called the Sattaragiko, ’the chapter of the Seven Kings,’ he naturally supposed that the whole of that chapter, extending to the end of the reign of his nephew Dhatusena, might be the work of Mahanama, unless there were any strong proofs to the contrary. Such proofs, beyond the tradition of writers of the MSS., have not, as yet, been adduced.
But even if it could be proved that Mahanama’s own pen did not go beyond the 48th verse of the 37th chapter, the historical trustworthiness of the concluding portion of that chapter, containing the account of Buddhaghosa’s literary activity, nay, even of the 38th chapter, would be little affected thereby. We know that both the Mahavamsa and the somewhat earlier D?pavamsa were founded on the Sinhalese Atthakathas, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura. We also know that that Vihara was demolished by Mahasena, and deserted by nearly all its inmates for the space of nine years (p. 235), and again for the space of nine months
[1. Introduction, p. ii. The K?lavamsa is mentioned with the Mahavamsa, both as the works of Mahanama, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pali MSS.
2. Introduction, p. xci.
3. See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p. 196.]
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
p. xvii (p. 237). We can well understand therefore why the older history, the D?pavamsa, should end with the death of Mahasena (died 302 A.D.), and why in the Mahavamsa too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during Mahanama’s life, the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the D?pavamsa, whether it be a general name of any ’chronicle of the island,’ or of our D?pavamsa, or, it may be, even of our Mahavamsa, was ordered to be published or promulgated (d?petum) under Dhatusena, the nephew and protegé of Mahanama. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of Mahanama, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of Anuradhapura during Dhatusena’s reign, and probably under the personal auspices of Mahanama, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his Mahavamsa, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the Mahavihara and the reign of Dhatusena, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese Atthakatha into the language of Magadha, we may well suppose that they rest on the authority of native chronicles, written not long after the events, and that therefore, ’under all the circumstances of the case,’ the age of Buddhaghosa can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.
There is one difficulty still remaining with regard to the date of the historian Mahanama which might have perplexed Turnour’s mind, and has certainly proved a stumbling-block to myself. Turnour thought that the author of the commentary on the Mahavamsa, the Vamsatthappakasin?, was the same as the author of the Mahavamsa, viz. Mahanama. The date of that commentary, however, as we know now, must be fixed much later, for it speaks of a schism which took place in the year 601 A.D., during the reign of Agrab?dhi (also called Dhatapatisso). Turnour looked
p. xviii upon that passage as a later interpolation, because he thought the evidence for the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa too strong to be set aside. He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which be drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the Mahavamsa (p. 254):
’Certain members of the Moriyan dynasty, dreading the power of the (usurper) Subho, the balattho, had settled in various parts of the country, concealing themselves. Among them there was a certain landed proprietor Dhatusena, who had established himself at Nandivapi. His son named Dhata, who lived at the village Ambiliyago, had two sons, Dhatusena and S?latissabodhi, of unexceptional descent. Their mother’s brother (Mahanama), devoted to the cause of religion, continued to reside (at Anuradhapura) in his sacerdotal character, at the edifice built by the minister D?ghasandana. The youth Dhatusena became a priest in his fraternity, and on a certain day, while he was chaunting at the foot of a tree, a shower of rain fell, and a Naga, seeing him there, encircled him in his folds, and covered him and his book with his hood. . . . Causing an image of Maha Mahinda to be made, and conveying it to the edifice (Ambamalaka) in which the thera’s body had been burnt, in order that be might celebrate a great festival there, and that he might also promulgate the contents of the D?pavamsa, distributing a thousand pieces, he caused it to be read aloud.’
If we compare with this extract from the Mahavamsa a passage from the commentary as translated by Turnour, we can well understand how he arrived at the conclusion that it was written by the same person who wrote the Mahavamsa.
Turnour translates (p. liv):
’Upon these data by me, the thera, who had, with due
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
p. xix solemnity, been invested with the dignified title of Mahanama, resident at the parivena founded by the minister D?ghasandana, endowed with the capacity requisite to record the narrative comprised in the Mahavamsa, in due order, rejecting only the dialect in which the Singhalese Atthakatha are written, but retaining their import and following their arrangement, the history, entitled the Palapad?ruvamsa (Padyapadanuvamsa), is compiled. As even in times when the despotism of the ruler of the land, and the horrors arising from the inclemencies of the seasons, and when panics of epidemics and other visitations prevailed, this work escaped all injury; and moreover, as it serves to perpetuate the fame of the Buddhas, their disciples, and the Paché Buddhas of old, it is also worthy of bearing the title of Vamsatthappakasin?.’
As the evidence of these two passages in support of the identity of the author and the commentator of the Mahavamsa seemed to me very startling, I requested Mr. Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary. The passage runs as follows:
Ya ettavata mahavamsatthanusarakusalena D?ghasanda-senapatina karapita-mahaparivenavasina Mahanamo ti gar?hi gahitanamadheyyena therena pubba-S?hala-bhasitaya S?halatthakathaya bhasantaram eva vaggiya atthasaram eva gahetva tantinayanur?pena katassa imassa Padyapada-nuvamsassa atthavannana maya tam eva sannissitena araddha, padesissariya-dubbutthibhaya-rogabhayadi-vividha-antaraya-yuttakale pi anantarayena nitthanam upagata, sa buddha-buddhasavaka-pakkekabuddhad?nam porananam kikkam pubbavamsatthappakasanato ayam Vamsatthappakasin? nama ti dharetabba. . . . Padyapadanuvamsa-vannana Vamsatthappakasin? nitthita.
Mr. Rhys Davids translates this:
’The commentary on this Padyapadanuvamsa, which (latter work) was made (in the same order and arrangement, and retaining the sense, but rejecting the dialect, of the Sinhalese commentary formerly expressed in the Sinhalese tongue) by the elder who bore the name of Mahanama, which he had p. xx received from the venerable, who resided at the Mahaparivena built by the minister D?ghasanda, and who was well able to conform to the sense of the Mahavamsa--(this commentary) which was undertaken by me out of devotion to that (history), and which (though thus undertaken) at a time full of danger of various kinds--such as the danger from disease, and the danger from drought, and the danger from the government of the province--has been safely brought to a conclusion--this (commentary), since it makes known the meaning of the history of old, the mission of the ancients, of the Buddhas, of their disciples, and of the Pakkeka Buddhas, should bear the name Vamsatthappakasin?. . . .
’End of the Vamsatthappakasin?, the commentary on the Padyapadanuvamsa.’
This shows clearly that Turnour made a mistake in translating this exceedingly involved, yet perfectly intelligible, passage, and that so far from proving that the author of the commentary was the same person as the author of the text, it proves the very contrary. Nay, I feel bound to add, that we might now argue that as the commentator must have lived later than 601 A.D., the fact that he too breaks off at verse 48 of chapter 37, seems to show that at his time also the Mahavamsa did not extend as yet beyond that verse. But even then, the fact that with the restoration of the Mahavihara of Anuradhapura an interest in historical studies revived in Ceylon, would clearly show that we may trust the date of Buddhaghosa, as fixed by the second part of the 37th chapter of the Mahavamsa, at all events till stronger evidence is brought forward against such a date.
Now I am not aware of any such evidence. On the contrary, making allowance for a difference of some ten or twenty years, all the evidence which we can gain from other quarters tends to confirm, the date of
[1. Dr. Oldenberg informs me that the commentator quotes various readings in the text of the Mahavamsa.
2. The passage, quoted by Professor Minayeff from the Sasanavamsa, would assign to Buddhaghosa the date of 930-543 = 387 A.D., which can easily be reconciled with his accepted date. If he is called the contemporary of Siripala, we ought to know who that Siripala is.]
p. xxi Buddhaghosa. I therefore feel no hesitation in here reprinting that story, as we find it in the Mahavamsa, not free from legendary ingredients, it is true, yet resting, I believe, on a sound foundation of historical fact.
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
’A Brahman youth, born in the neighbourhood of the terrace of the great Bo-tree (in Magadha), accomplished in the "vigga" (knowledge) and "sippa" (art), who had achieved the knowledge of the three Vedas, and possessed great aptitude in attaining acquirements; indefatigable as a schismatic disputant, and himself a schismatic wanderer over Gambud?pa, established himself, in the character of a disputant, in a certain vihara, and was in the habit of rehearsing, by night and by day with clasped hands, a discourse which he had learned, perfect in all its component parts, and sustained throughout in the same lofty strain. A certain Mahathera, Revata, becoming acquainted with him there, and (saying to himself), "This individual is a person of profound knowledge, it will be worthy (of me) to convert him;" enquired, "Who is this who is braying like an ass?" The Brahman replied to him, "Thou canst define, then, the meaning conveyed in the bray of asses." On the Thera rejoining, "I can define it;" he (the Brahman) exhibited the extent of the knowledge he possessed. The Thera criticised each of his propositions, and pointed out in what respect they were fallacious. He who had been thus refuted, said, "Well, then, descend to thy own creed;" and he propounded to him a passage from the Abhidhamma (of the Pitakattaya). He (the Brahman) could not divine the signification of that passage, and enquired, "Whose manta is this?"--"It is Buddha’s manta." On his exclaiming, "Impart it to me;" the Thera replied, "Enter the sacerdotal order." He who was desirous of acquiring the knowledge of the Pitakattaya, subsequently coming to this conviction, "This is the sole road" (to salvation), became a convert to that faith. As he was as profound in his eloquence (ghosa) as Buddha himself, they conferred on him the appellation of Buddhaghosa (the
[1. See Bigandet, Life of Gaudama. pp. 351, 381.
2. On this vihara, its foundation and character, see Oldenberg, Vinaya, vol. i. p. liii; Hiouen-thsang, III, p. 487 seq.]
p. xxii voice of Buddha); and throughout the world he became as renowned as Buddha. Having there (in Gambud?pa) composed an original work called ?anodaya (Rise of Knowledge), he, at the same time, wrote the chapter called Atthasalin?, on the Dhammasangani (one of the commentaries on the Abhidhamma).
’Revata Thera then observing that he was desirous of undertaking the compilation of a general commentary on the Pitakattaya, thus addressed him: "The text alone of the Pitakattaya has been preserved in this land, the Atthakatha are not extant here, nor is there any version to be found of the schisms (vada) complete. The Sinhalese Atthakatha are genuine. They were composed in the Sinhalese language by the inspired and profoundly wise Mahinda, who had previously consulted the discourses (kathamagga) of Buddha, authenticated at the three convocations, and the dissertations and arguments of Sariputta and others, and they are extant among the Sinhalese. Preparing for this, and studying the same, translate them according to the rules of the grammar of the Magadhas. It will be an act conducive to the welfare of the whole world."
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
’Having been thus advised, this eminently wise personage rejoicing therein, departed from thence, and visited this island in the reign of this monarch (i.e. Mahanama, 410-432). On reaching the Mahavihara (at Anuradhapura), he entered the Mahapadhana hall, the most splendid of the apartments in the vihara, and listened to the Sinhalese Atthakatha, and the Theravada, from the beginning to the end, propounded by the Thera Sanghapala; and became thoroughly convinced that they conveyed the true meaning of the doctrines of the Lord of Dhamma. Thereupon paying reverential respect to the priesthood, he thus petitioned: "I am desirous of translating the Atthakatha; give me access to all your books." The priesthood, for the purpose of testing his qualifications, gave only two gathas, saying, "Hence prove thy qualification; having satisfied ourselves on this point, we will then let thee have all our books." From these (taking these gatha for his text), and p. xxiii consulting the Pitakattaya, together with the Atthakatha, and condensing them into an abridged form, he composed the work called the Visuddhimagga. Thereupon, having assembled the priesthood, who had acquired a thorough knowledge of the doctrines of Buddha, at the Bo-tree, he commenced to read out the work he had composed. The devatas, in order that they might make his (Buddhaghosa’s) gifts of wisdom celebrated among men, rendered that book invisible. He, however, for a second and third time recomposed it. When he was in the act of producing his book for the third time, for the purpose of propounding it, the devatas restored the other two copies also. The assembled priests then read out the three books simultaneously. In those three versions there was no variation whatever from the orthodox Theravadas in passages, in words, or in syllables. Thereupon, the priesthood rejoicing, again and again ferventIy shouted forth, saying, "Most assuredly this is Metteya (Buddha) himself," and made over to him the books in which the Pitakattaya were recorded, together with the Atthakatha. Taking up his residence in the secluded Ganthakara-vihara (at Anuradhapura), he translated, according to the grammatical rules of the Magadhas, which is the root of all languages, the whole of the Sinhalese Atthakatha (into Pali). This proved an achievement of the utmost consequence to all beings, whatever their language.
’All the Theras and ?kariyas held this compilation in the same estimation as the text (of the Pitakattaya). Thereafter, the objects of his mission having been fulfilled, he returned to Gambud?pa, to worship at the Bo-tree (at Uruvelaya, or Uruvilva, in Magadha).’
Here we have a simple account of Buddhaghosa and
[1. Mahavamsa, p. 250, translated by Turnour.
2. The Burmese entertain the highest respect for Buddhaghosa. Bishop Bigandet, in his Life or Legend of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), writes: ’It is perhaps as well to mention here an epoch which has been, at all times, famous in the history of Budhism in Burma. I allude to the voyage which a Religious of Thaton, named Budhagosa, made to Ceylon, in the year of religion 943 = 400 A.D. The object of this voyage was to procure a copy of the scriptures. He succeeded in his undertaking. He made use of the Burmese, or rather Talaing characters, in transcribing the manuscripts, which were written with the characters of Magatha. The Burmans lay much stress upon that voyage, and always carefully note down the year it took place. In fact, it is to Budhagosa that the people living on the shores of the Gulf of Martaban owe the possession of the Budhist scriptures. From Thaton, the collection made by Budhagosa was transferred to Pagan, six hundred and fifty years after it had been imported from Ceylon.’ See ibid. p. 392.]
p. xxiv his literary labours written by a man, himself a priest, and who may well have known Buddhaghosa during his stay in Ceylon. It is true that the statement of his writing the same book three times over without a single various reading, partakes a little of the miraculous; but we find similar legends mixed up with accounts of translations of other sacred books, and we cannot contend that writers who believed in such legends are therefore altogether unworthy to be believed as historical witnesses.
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
But although the date which we can assign to Buddhaghosa’s translation of the commentaries on the Pali Tipitaka proves the existence of that canon, not only for the beginning or the fifth century of our era, but likewise, though it may be, with less stringency, for the first century before our era, the time of Vattagamani, the question whether Buddhaghosa was merely a compiler and translator of old commentaries, and more particularly of the commentaries brought to Ceylon by Mahinda (241 B.C.), or whether he added anything of his own, requires to be more carefully examined. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty on that point. They consider the Atthakathas or commentaries as old as the canon itself. To us, such a supposition seems improbable, yet it has never been proved to be impossible. The Mahavamsa tells us that Mahinda, the son of Asoka, who had become a priest, learnt the whole of the Buddhist canon, as it then was, in three years (p. 37); and that at the end of the Third Council he was despatched to Ceylon, in order to establish there the religion of Buddha (p. 71). The king of Ceylon, Devanampiya Tissa, was converted, and Buddhism soon became the dominant
[1. He had written the ?anodaya, and the Atthasalin?, a commentary on the Dhamma-sangani, before he went to Ceylon. Cf. Mahavamsa, p. 251.
2. He learnt the five Nikayas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma); the two Vibhangas of the Vinaya, the Parivara and the Khandhaka. See D?pavamsa VII, 42.]
p. xxv religion of the island, The Tipitaka and the Atthakatha, such as they had been collected or settled at the Third Council in 242 B.C., were brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, who promulgated them orally, the Tipitaka in Pali, the Atthakatha in Sinhalese, together with an additional Atthakatha of his own. It does not follow that Mahinda knew the whole of that enormous literature by heart, for, as he was supported by a number of priests, they may well have divided the different sections among them, following the example of ?nanda and Upali at the First Council. The same applies to their disciples also. But the fact of their transmitting the sacred literature by oral tradition was evidently quite familiar to the author of the Mahavamsa. For when he comes to describe the reign of Vattagamani (88-76 B.C.) he simply says: ’The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the Pali Pitakattaya and its Atthakatha (commentaries). At this period these priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people (from the perversions of the true doctrines), assembled; and in order that the religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books.’ No valid objection has yet been advanced to our accepting Buddhaghosa’s Atthakathas as a translation and new redaction of the Atthakathas which were reduced to writing under Vattagamani, and these again as a translation of the old Atthakathas brought to Ceylon by Mahinda. There is prima facie evidence in favour of the truth of historical events vouched for by such works as the D?pavamsa and the Mahavamsa so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before Mahanama’s time. Beyond Mahinda we move in legendary history, and must be ready to surrender every name and every date as soon as rebutting evidence has been produced, but not till then.
I cannot, therefore, see any reason why we should not treat the verses of the Dhammapada, if not as the utterances of Buddha, at least as what were believed by the
[1. On the importance of oral tradition in the history of Sanskrit literature see the writer’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, pp. 497-524.
2. Mahavamsa, p. 207; D?pavamsa XX, 20.
3. Mahavamsa, p. 251.]
p. xxvi members of the Council under Asoka, in 242 B.C., to have been the utterances of the founder of their religion; nor can I see that Professor Minayeff has shaken the date of Buddhaghosa and the general credibility of the Ceylonese tradition, that he was the translator and editor of commentaries which had existed in the island for many centuries; whether from the time of Vattagamani or from the time of Mahinda.
DATE OF THE BUDDHIST CANON.
[TheDhammapadaandTheSuttaNipata]TheDhammapada
续-《●The Dhammapada》摘自《无量香光网文章集锦》
We now return to the question of the date of the Buddhist canon, which, as yet, we have only traced back to the first century before Christ, when it was reduced to writing in Ceylon under King Vattagamani. The question is, how far beyond that date we may trace its existence in a collected form, or in the form of the three Pitakas or baskets. There may be, and we shall see that there is, some doubt as to the age of certain works, now incorporated in the Tipitaka. We are told, for instance, that some doubt attached to the canonicity of the Kariya-pitaka; the Apadana, and the Buddhavamsa, and there is another book of the Abhidhamma-pitaka, the Kathavatthu, which was reported to be the work of Tissa Moggaliputta, the president of the Third Council. Childers, s.v., stated that it was composed by the apostle Moggaliputtatissa, and delivered by him at the Third Mahasang?ti. The same scholar, however, withdrew this opinion on p. 507 of his valuable Dictionary, where he says: ’It is a source of great regret to me that in my article on Kathavatthuppakaranam I inadvertently followed James D’Alwis in the stupendous blunder of his assertion that the Kathavatthu was added by Moggaliputtatissa at the Third Convocation. The Kathavatthu is one of the Abhidhamma books, mentioned by Buddhaghosa as having been rehearsed at the First Convocation, immediately after Gotama’s death; and the passage in Mahavamsa upon which D’Alwis rests his assertion is as follows, Kathavatthuppakararanam paravadappamaddanam abhasi Tissatthero ka tasmim sang?timandale, which simply means ’in that Convocation-assembly
p. xxvii the Thera Tissa also recited (Buddha’s) heresy-crushing Kathavatthuppakarana.’
This mistake, for I quite agree with Childers that it was a mistake, becomes however less stupendous than at first sight it would appear, when we read the account given in the D?pavamsa. Here the impression is easily conveyed that Moggaliputta was the author of the Kathavatthu, and that he recited it for the first time at the Third Council. ’Wise Moggaliputta,’ we read, ’the destroyer of the schismatic doctrines, firmly established the Theravada, and held the Third Council. Having destroyed the different (heretical) doctrines, and subdued many shameless people, and restored splendour to the (true) faith, he proclaimed (pakasayi) (the treatise called) Kathavatthu.’ And again: ’They all were sectarians, opposed to the Theravada; and in order to annihilate them and to make his own doctrine resplendent, the Thera set forth (desesi) the treatise belonging to the Abhidhamma, which is called Kathavatthu.’
At present, however, we are not concerned with these smaller questions. We treat the canon as a whole, divided into three parts, and containing the books which still exist in MSS., and we want to find out at what time such a collection was made. The following is a short abstract of the Tipitaka, chiefly taken from Childers’ Pali Dictionary:
I. Vinaya-pitaka.
Vibhanga.
Vol. I, beginning with Paragika, or sins involving expulsion.
Vol. II, beginning with Pakittiya, or sins involving penance.
Khandhaka.
Vol. I, Mahavagga, the large section.
Vol. II, Kullavagga, the small section.
Parivarapatha, an appendix and later resumé (25 chapters). See p. xiii, n. 4; p. xxiv, n. 2.
[1. D?pavamsa VII, 40.
2. D?pavamsa VII, 55.
3. Dr. Oldenberg, in his Introduction to the Vinaya-pitaka, p. xxxii.
4. Oldenberg, Vinaya-pitaka I, p. xvi, treats it as an extended reading of Patimokkha.]
p. xxviii
II. Sutta-pitaka.
D?gha-nikaya, collection of long suttas (34 suttas).
Magghima-nikaya, collection of middle suttas (152 suttas).
Samyutta-nikaya, collection of joined suttas.
Anguttara-nikaya, miscellaneous suttas, in divisions the length of which increases by one.
Khuddaka-nikaya, the collection of short suttas, consisting of--
Khuddakapatha, the small texts.
Dhammapada, law verses (423).
Udana, praise (82 suttas).
Itivuttaka, stories referring to sayings of Buddha.
Suttanipata 70 suttas.
Vimanavatthu, stories of Vimanas, celestial palaces.
Petavatthu, stories of Pretas, departed spirits.
Theragatha, stanzas of monks.
Ther?gatha, stanzas of nuns.
Gataka, former births (550 tales).
Niddesa, explanations of certain suttas by Sariputta.
[1. The Mahaparinibbana-sutta, ed. by Childers, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, translated with other Suttas by Rhys Dayids (S.B.E. vol. xi). Sept Suttas Palis, par Grimblot, Paris, l876.
2. The first four are sometimes called the Four Nikayas, the five together the five Nikayas. They represent the Dharma, as settled at the First and Second Councils, described in the Kullavagga (Oldenberg, I, p. xi).