Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa.

Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Visuddhimagga nidānakathā

The Path of Purification: Introductory Account

Visuddhimaggo [Pg.1] nāmāyaṃ gantho piṭakattayasārabhūto sakalaloke paṭipattidīpakaganthānaṃ aggo hoti seṭṭho pamukho pāmokkho uttamo pavaro cāti viññūhi pasattho. Tattha hi saṅgītittayārūḷhassa tepiṭakabuddhavacanassa atthaṃ saṃkhipitvā sikkhattayasaṅgahitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ pakāsitaṃ suvisadañca. Evaṃ pasatthassetassa visuddhimaggassa nidānakathāyapi bhavitabbameva. Tasmādāni tampakāsanatthamidaṃ pañhakammaṃ vuccati –

This treatise called the Visuddhimagga is the essence of the three baskets, the foremost, the best, the chief, the principal, the highest, and the most excellent among the texts that illuminate the path of practice in the entire world, praised by the wise. For here, the meaning of the Buddha’s words established in the threefold recitation of the Tipiṭaka is summarized, and the holy life comprised of the threefold training is fully and very clearly explained. Thus, there must also be an introductory account to this praised Visuddhimagga. Therefore, now for the sake of explaining that, this work of questioning is stated:

‘‘So panesa visuddhimaggo kena kato, kadā kato, kattha kato, kasmā kato, kimatthaṃ kato, kiṃ nissāya kato, kena pakārena kato, kissa sakalaloke patthaṭo’’ti.

“Now, this Path of Purification—by whom was it made, when was it made, where was it made, why was it made, for what purpose was it made, relying on what was it made, in what manner was it made, and for what is it spread throughout the entire world?”

Tattha kena katoti ācariyabuddhaghosattheravarena tepiṭakasaṅgahaṭṭhakathākārena kato.

There, by whom was it made? It was made by the Venerable Ācariya Buddhaghosa, the commentator on the Tipiṭaka.

Kadā katoti amhākaṃ bhagavato sammāsambuddhassa sakalalokanāthassa parinibbutikālato pacchā dasame vassasatake (973 -buddhavasse) kato.

When was it made? It was made in the tenth century after the Parinibbāna of our Blessed One, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, the Lord of the entire world (in the year 973 of the Buddhist Era).

Kattha katoti sīhaḷadīpe anurādhapure mahāvihāre kato.

Where was it made? It was made in the Mahāvihāra at Anurādhapura, on the island of Sri Lanka.

Kasmā katoti visuddhikāmānaṃ sādhujanānaṃ tadadhigamupāyaṃ sammāpaṭipattinayaṃ ñāpetukāmatāsaṅkhātena attano ajjhāsayena sañcoditattā, saṅghapālattherena ca ajjhesitattā kato.

Why was it made? It was made because he was urged by the elder Saṅghapāla and motivated by his own intention, which was the desire to explain the way of right practice—the means to attain purity—to good people who desire purity.

Ettha pana ṭhatvā ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa uppatti kathetabbā, sā ca mahāvaṃse (cūḷavaṃsotipi voharite dutiyabhāge) sattatiṃsamaparicchede pannarasādhikadvisatagāthāto (37, 215) paṭṭhāya bāttiṃsāya gāthāhi pakāsitāyeva. Kathaṃ? –

Here, however, having paused, the origin of the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa should be told, and that is indeed revealed in the Mahāvaṃsa (also known as the Cūḷavaṃsa, in the second part), from the two hundred and fifteenth verse (37, 215) of the thirty-seventh chapter onwards, in thirty-two verses. How? –

Mahāvaṃsa-buddhaghosakathā

The Mahāvaṃsa: The Account of Buddhaghosa

215.

215.

Bodhimaṇḍasamīpamhi, [Pg.2] jāto brāhmaṇamāṇavo;

Vijjā-sippa-kalā-vedī, tīsu vedesu pāragū.

Near the Bodhi-seat, a brahmin youth was born; skilled in knowledge, crafts, and arts, a master of the three Vedas.

216.

216.

Sammā viññātasamayo, sabbavādavisārado;

Vādatthī jambudīpamhi, āhiṇḍanto pavādiko.

Well-versed in the doctrines and expert in all teachings, eager for debate, he wandered Jambudīpa as a disputant.

217.

217.

Vihārameka’māgamma, rattiṃ pātañjalīmataṃ;

Parivatteti sampuṇṇa-padaṃ suparimaṇḍalaṃ.

Having come to a certain monastery, at night he recited the doctrine of Patañjali, complete in its text and perfectly formed.

218.

218.

Tattheko revato nāma, mahāthero vijāniya;

‘‘Mahāpañño ayaṃ satto, dametuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti, so.

There, a great elder named Revata, perceiving, thought: “This being has great wisdom; it is fitting to tame him.”

219.

219.

‘‘Ko nu gadrabharāvena, viravanto’’ti abravi;

‘‘Gadrabhānaṃ rave atthaṃ, kiṃ jānāsī’’ti āha taṃ.

“Who is it that cries out with the braying of a donkey?” he said. “What do you know of the meaning of a donkey’s braying?” he replied to him.

220.

220.

‘‘Ahaṃ jāne’’ti vutto so, otāresi sakaṃ mataṃ;

Puṭṭhaṃ puṭṭhaṃ viyākāsi, viraddhampi ca dassayi.

When he replied, “I know,” the elder set forth his own doctrine. The youth answered every question and also pointed out the errors.

221.

221.

‘‘Tena hi tvaṃ sakaṃ vāda-motārehī’’ti codito;

Pāḷi’māhā’bhidhammassa, attha’massa na so’dhigā.

Urged with, “Then you set forth your own doctrine,” he recited the Pāli of the Abhidhamma, but he did not grasp its meaning.

222.

222.

Āha‘‘kasse’sa manto’’ti,‘‘buddhamanto’’ti so’bravi;

‘‘Dehi metaṃ’’ti vutte hi, ‘‘gaṇha pabbajja taṃ’’iti.

He asked, “Whose mantra is this?” and he was told, “It is the Buddha’s mantra.” When he said, “Give it to me,” he was told, “Take ordination and you shall receive it.”

223.

223.

Mantatthī pabbajitvā so, uggaṇhi piṭakattayaṃ;

Ekāyano ayaṃ maggo, iti pacchā ta’maggahi.

Desiring the mantra, he went forth and mastered the three Piṭakas. “This is the one-way path,” he later understood.

224.

224.

Buddhassa viya gambhīra-ghosattā naṃ viyākaruṃ;

Buddhaghosoti ghoso hi, buddho viya mahītale.

Because his voice was profound like the Buddha’s, they named him Buddhaghosa, for indeed his voice was like the Buddha’s on earth.

225.

225.

Tattha ñāṇodayaṃ nāma, katvā pakaraṇaṃ tadā;

Dhammasaṅgaṇiyākāsi, kacchaṃ so aṭṭhasāliniṃ.

There, having at that time composed a treatise named Ñāṇodaya, he then composed the Aṭṭhasālinī, a commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī.

226.

226.

Parittaṭṭhakathañceva [Pg.3], kātuṃ ārabhi buddhimā;

Taṃ disvā revato thero, idaṃ vacanamabravi.

The wise one also began to compose the Paritta Commentary. Seeing this, the elder Revata spoke these words:

227.

227.

‘‘Pāḷimattaṃ idhānītaṃ, natthi aṭṭhakathā idha ;

Tathācariyavādā ca, bhinnarūpā na vijjare.

“Only the Pāli has been brought here; there are no commentaries here. Nor are the various traditions of the teachers to be found.

228.

228.

Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā suddhā, mahindena matīmatā;

Saṅgītittayamārūḷhaṃ, sammāsambuddhadesitaṃ.

The pure Sinhala commentaries, by the wise Mahinda, are based on the teachings of the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, established in the three Councils.

229.

229.

Sāriputtādigītañca, kathāmaggaṃ samekkhiya;

Katā sīhaḷabhāsāya, sīhaḷesu pavattati.

Having examined the path of discourse taught by Sāriputta and others, they were composed in the Sinhala language and circulate among the Sinhalese.

230.

230.

Taṃ tattha gantvā sutvā tvaṃ, māgadhānaṃ niruttiyā;

Parivattehi, sā hoti, sabbalokahitāvahā’’.

“Go there, and having heard it, translate it into the language of Māgadha. That will be for the welfare of the whole world.”

231.

231.

Evaṃ vutte pasanno so, nikkhamitvā tato imaṃ;

Dīpaṃ āgā imasseva, rañño kāle mahāmati.

When this was said, the wise one, being pleased, left that place and came to this island during the time of this very king.

232.

232.

Mahāvihāraṃ sampatto, vihāraṃ sabbasādhunaṃ;

Mahāpadhānagharaṃ gantvā, saṅghapālassa santikā.

Having reached the Mahāvihāra, the monastery of all good people, he went to the Great Hall of Striving, to the presence of Saṅghapāla.

233.

233.

Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathaṃ sutvā, theravādañca sabbaso;

‘‘Dhammassāmissa esova, adhippāyo’’ti nicchiya.

After hearing the Sinhala commentaries and the entire Theravāda tradition, he ascertained: “This is indeed the intention of the Lord of the Dhamma.”

234.

234.

Tattha saṅghaṃ samānetvā, ‘‘kātuṃ aṭṭhakathaṃ mama;

Potthake detha sabbe’’ti, āha, vīmaṃsituṃ sa taṃ.

Gathering the Saṅgha there, he said, “Give me all the books, that I may compose the commentaries.” The Saṅgha, in order to test him, then replied.

235.

235.

Saṅgho [Pg.4] gāthādvayaṃ tassā’dāsi ‘‘sāmatthiyaṃ tava;

Ettha dassehi, taṃ disvā, sabbe demāti potthake’’.

The Saṅgha gave him two verses, saying: “Show your skill here; having seen that, we will all give you the books.”

236.

236.

Piṭakattaya’mettheva, saddhiṃ aṭṭhakathāya so;

Visuddhimaggaṃ nāmā’kā, saṅgahetvā samāsato.

Here, having concisely summarized the three Piṭakas along with the commentaries, he composed the Visuddhimagga.

237.

237.

Tato saṅghaṃ samūhetvā, sambuddhamatakovidaṃ;

Mahābodhisamīpamhi, so taṃ vācetu mārabhi.

Then, having assembled the Saṅgha, skilled in the Buddha’s teachings, he began to recite it near the Great Bodhi Tree.

238.

238.

Devatā tassa nepuññaṃ, pakāsetuṃ mahājane;

Chādesuṃ potthakaṃ sopi, dvattikkhattumpi taṃ akā.

The deities, in order to reveal his skill to the great multitude, hid the book; and he, too, composed it a second and a third time.

239.

239.

Vācetuṃ tatiye vāre, potthake samudāhaṭe;

Potthakadvaya’maññampi, saṇṭhapesuṃ tahiṃ marū.

When the book was brought forth to be recited for the third time, the deities placed two other books there as well.

240.

240.

Vācayiṃsu tadā bhikkhū, potthakattaya’mekato;

Ganthato atthato vāpi, pubbāparavasena vā.

Then the monks recited the three texts together, whether in wording or meaning, or according to sequence.

241.

241.

Theravādehi pāḷīhi, padehi byañjanehi vā;

Aññathattamahū neva, potthakesupi tīsupi.

There was no difference at all from the Theravāda Pāḷi texts, whether in words or in syllables, even among the three books.

242.

242.

Atha [Pg.5] ugghosayī saṅgho, tuṭṭhahaṭṭho visesato;

Nissaṃsayaṃ’sa metteyyo, iti vatvā punappunaṃ.

Then the Saṅgha, especially delighted and joyful, proclaimed, saying again and again: “Without a doubt, this is Metteyya.”

243.

243.

Saddhiṃ aṭṭhakathāyā’dā, potthake piṭakattaye;

Ganthākare vasanto so, vihāre dūrasaṅkare.

The Saṅgha gave him the books of the three Piṭakas along with the commentaries; he was dwelling in the scriptorium of a remote and inaccessible monastery.

244.

244.

Parivattesi sabbāpi, sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā tadā;

Sabbesaṃ mūlabhāsāya, māgadhāya niruttiyā.

He translated all the Sinhala commentaries at that time into the root language of all, the Magadhan tongue.

245.

245.

Sattānaṃ sabbabhāsānaṃ, sā ahosi hitāvahā;

Theriyācariyā sabbe, pāḷiṃ viya ta’maggahuṃ.

It was beneficial for beings of all languages; all the elder teachers accepted it as if it were the Pāli Canon.

246.

246.

Atha kattabbakiccesu, gatesu pariniṭṭhitiṃ;

Vandituṃ so mahābodhiṃ, jambudīpaṃ upāgamī’’ti.

Then, his necessary duties having been completed, he went to Jambudīpa to venerate the Great Bodhi Tree.”

Ayañca pana mahāvaṃsakathā 1950 - kharistavasse hābadamahāvijjālayamuddaṇayante romakkharena mudditassa visuddhimaggapotthakassa purecārikakathāyaṃ ‘‘anekānettha atthi vicāretabbānī’’ti vatvā dhammānandakosambīnāmakena vicakkhaṇena vicāritā. Tamettha yuttāyuttavicinanāya dassetvā anuvicāraṇampissa karissāma.

And this Mahāvaṃsa account, in the foreword to the Visuddhimagga book printed in Roman script by Harvard University Press in the year 1950 of the Christian era, was examined by the wise Dhammānanda Kosambī, who stated: “There are many points to be examined here.” Here, having shown the appropriateness or inappropriateness of his examination, we will also make a further analysis of it.

Jātidesavicāraṇā

An Investigation of Birth and Country

1. Tattha hi tena dhammānandena ‘‘buddhaghoso bodhimaṇḍasamīpe (buddhagayāyaṃ) jātoti na yuttameta’’nti vatvā taṃsādhanatthāya cattāri byatirekakāraṇāni dassitāni. Kathaṃ?

1. Therein, that Dhammānanda, saying, “It is not fitting that Buddhaghosa was born near the Bodhimaṇḍa (at Buddhagayā),” presented four contrary reasons to prove this. How so?

(Ka) ‘‘buddhaghosena pakāsitesu taṃkālikavatthūsu ekampi taṃ natthi, yaṃ magadhesu uppanna’’nti paṭhamaṃ kāraṇaṃ dassitaṃ. Tadakāraṇameva. Ācariyabuddhaghosatthero hi saṅgahaṭṭhakathāyo karonto porāṇaṭṭhakathāyoyeva [Pg.6] saṃkhipitvā, bhāsāparivattanamattena ca visesetvā akāsi, na pana yaṃ vā taṃ vā attano diṭṭhasutaṃ dassetvā. Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyena –

(A) “Among the contemporary matters explained by Buddhaghosa, there is not even one that originated in Magadha”—this was presented as the first reason. But that reason is unfounded. For the Venerable Teacher Buddhaghosa, while composing the commentaries, did so by merely condensing the ancient commentaries and distinguishing them merely by a change of language, not by presenting whatever he himself had seen or heard. Indeed, this was stated by the Teacher:

‘‘Saṃvaṇṇanaṃ tañca samārabhanto,Tassā mahāaṭṭhakathaṃ sarīraṃ;

Katvā mahāpaccariyaṃ tatheva,Kurundināmādisu vissutāsu.

“Beginning that exposition, having made the Great Commentary its body, and likewise the Mahāpaccariya and the other well-known commentaries such as the Kurundī,

Vinicchayo aṭṭhakathāsu vutto,Yo yuttamatthaṃ apariccajanto;

Athopi antogadhatheravādaṃ,Saṃvaṇṇanaṃ samma samārabhissa’’nti ca.

and the decision stated in the commentaries, not abandoning the appropriate meaning, and also the Theravāda contained therein—I shall properly begin the exposition.”

‘‘Tato ca bhāsantarameva hitvā,Vitthāramaggañca samāsayitvā;

Vinicchayaṃ sabbamasesayitvā,Tantikkamaṃ kiñci avokkamitvā.

“Then, having abandoned only the other language, and having abbreviated the extensive method; having left no decision incomplete, and without overstepping any canonical principle,

Suttantikānaṃ vacanānamatthaṃ,Suttānurūpaṃ paridīpayantī;

Yasmā ayaṃ hessati vaṇṇanāpi,Sakkacca tasmā anusikkhitabbā’’ti ca.

illuminating the meaning of the statements of the Suttas in a manner that conforms to the Suttas; since this will also be such an exposition, therefore it should be carefully studied.”

Yatheva ca ācariyabuddhaghosena attano aṭṭhakathāsu taṃkālikāni māgadhikāni vatthūni na pakāsitāni, tatheva sīhaḷikānipi dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhikānipi. Na hi tattha vasabharājakālato (609-653 -buddhavassa) pacchā uppannavatthūni diṭṭhāni ṭhapetvā mahāsenarājavatthuṃ, ācariyo ca tato tisatamattavassehi pacchātare mahānāmarañño kāle (953-975-bu-va) sīhaḷadīpamupāgato. Tasmā aṭṭhakathāsu taṃkālikamāgadhikavatthūnaṃ appakāsanamattena na sakkā takkattā na māgadhikoti ñātunti.

Just as the Teacher Buddhaghosa did not reveal contemporary Magadhan matters in his own commentaries, so too were matters of the Sinhalese and of the South Indian country not revealed. Indeed, no events that arose after the time of King Vasabha (609–653 of the Buddhist Era) are seen therein, except for the account of King Mahāsena. Moreover, the Teacher arrived on the island of Sīhaḷa about three hundred years later, during the reign of King Mahānāma (953–975 of the Buddhist Era). Therefore, merely from the non-revelation of contemporary Magadhan matters in the commentaries, it cannot be concluded that the author was not a Magadhan.

[Kha) punapi [Pg.7] tena ‘‘sabbesupi buddhaghosaganthesu uttaraindiyadesāyattaṃ paccakkhato diṭṭhassa viya pakāsanaṃ natthī’’ti dutiyaṃ kāraṇaṃ dassitaṃ. Tassapi akāraṇabhāvo purimavacaneneva veditabbo. Apica sāratthappakāsiniyā nāma saṃyuttaṭṭhakathāyaṃ, sumaṅgalavilāsiniyā nāma dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyañca vuttasaṃvaṇṇanāyapi veditabbo. Tattha hi –

(B) Furthermore, he presented a second reason: ‘In all of Buddhaghosa’s texts, there is no exposition like that of something seen directly which pertains to the northern Indian region.’ The baselessness of this too should be understood from the preceding statement. Moreover, it should also be understood from the exposition given in the Sāratthappakāsinī, the commentary on the Saṃyutta Nikāya, and in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya. For therein it is stated:

‘‘Yatheva hi kalambanadītīrato rājamātuvihāradvārena thūpārāmaṃ gantabbaṃ hoti, evaṃ hiraññavatikāya nāma nadiyā pārimatīrato sālavanaṃ uyyānaṃ. Yathā anurādhapurassa thūpārāmo, evaṃ taṃ kusinārāya hoti. Thūpārāmato dakkhiṇadvārena nagaraṃ pavisanamaggo pācīnamukho gantvā uttarena nivattati, evaṃ uyyānato sālapanti pācīnamukhā gantvā uttarena nivattā. Tasmā taṃ upavattananti vuccatī’’ti –

“For just as one must go from the bank of the Kalamba river to the Thūpārāma through the gate of the Rājamātuvihāra, so too from the far bank of the river named Hiraññavatī to the Sāla Grove. As the Thūpārāma is to Anurādhapura, so is that to Kusinārā. The path from the Thūpārāma, entering the city through the southern gate, goes eastward and then turns north; just so from the grove, the row of Sāla trees goes eastward and then turns north. Therefore, it is called Upavattana.”

Paccakkhato diṭṭhassa viya pakāsanampi dissateva. Tampi pana porāṇaṭṭhakathāhi bhāsāparivattanamattamevāti gahetabbaṃ, tādisāya atthasaṃvaṇṇanāya mahāmahindattherakālatoyeva pabhuti vuttāya eva bhavitabbattāti.

An exposition as if of something seen directly is indeed seen. However, that too should be understood as merely a change of language from the ancient commentaries, since such an exposition of meaning must have been spoken from the time of the Great Elder Mahinda onwards.

[Ga) punapi tena ‘‘uṇhassāti aggisantāpassa, tassa vanadāhādīsu sambhavo veditabbo’’ti visuddhimagge (1, 30-piṭṭhe) vuttasaṃvaṇṇanaṃ pakāsetvā ‘‘tassā panassa avahasanīyabhāvo pākaṭoyevā’’ti ca hīḷetvā ‘‘indiyaraṭṭhe pana uttaradesesu gimhakāle vatthacchādanarahitā mānusakāyacchavi sūriyasantāpena ekaṃsato dayhati, taṃ na jānanti dakkhiṇaindiyadesikā’’ti tatiyaṃ kāraṇaṃ daḷhatarabhāvena dassitaṃ. Tattha pana yadi ‘‘sūriyasantāpena ekaṃsato dayhatī’’ti etaṃ ujukato sūriyarasmisantāpeneva daḍḍhabhāvaṃ sandhāya vucceyya, evaṃ sati ḍaṃsamakasavātātapasarīsapasamphassānanti pade ātapasaddena samānatthattā na yuttameva. Yadi pana sūriyasantāpasañjātena uṇhautunā daḍḍhabhāvaṃ sandhāya vucceyya, evaṃ sati uttaraindiyadesesu, aññattha ca tādisesu atiuṇhaṭṭhānesu sūriyasantāpasañjātassa uṇhautuno paṭighātāya [Pg.8] cīvaraṃ senāsanañca paṭisevīyatīti ayamattho na na yutto. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vinayaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (3, 58)

(C) Furthermore, after presenting the exposition stated in the Visuddhimagga (p. 1, 30), “‘Uṇhassa’ means the heat of fire, and its occurrence should be understood in contexts like forest fires,” and ridiculing it as, “But its laughable nature is quite evident,” he presented the third reason with a stronger basis, stating: “In the northern regions of the Indian country, during the hot season, the skin of a human body without the covering of clothes is entirely scorched by the sun’s heat—this is unknown to those from the southern Indian regions.” Now, if “scorched entirely by the sun’s heat” were stated with direct reference to being burned by the heat of the sun’s rays themselves, then it would not be appropriate, as it would have the same meaning as the word ‘ātapa’ in the phrase ‘the touch of gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, sun’s heat, and creeping things.’ But if it were stated with reference to being burned by the hot climate generated by the sun’s heat, then this meaning is not inappropriate, for in the northern Indian regions and in other such excessively hot places, robes and lodgings are used to counteract the hot climate produced by the sun’s heat. Indeed, it is stated thus in the Vinaya commentary (3, 58):

‘‘Sītaṃ uṇhanti utuvisabhāgavasena vutta’’nti.

“‘Cold’ and ‘heat’ are spoken of in terms of seasonal dissimilarity.”

Sā pana visuddhimagge padatthasaṃvaṇṇanā porāṇasuttantaṭṭhakathāhi āgatā bhaveyya. Tathā hi vuttaṃ papañcasūdaniyā nāma majjhimanikāyaṭṭhakathāya sabbāsavasuttavaṇṇanāyaṃ (1, 58) ‘‘uṇhanti cettha aggisantāpova veditabbo, sūriyasantāpavasena panetaṃ vatthu vutta’’nti. Ettha ca sacāyamattho ācariyena attano mativasena vutto assa, tassa vatthussa porāṇaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttabhāvañca tassā atthasaṃvaṇṇanāya attano matibhāvañca yuttabhāvañca pakāseyya. Ācariyo hi yattha yattha porāṇaṭṭhakathāsu avuttatthaṃ visesetvā dasseti, tattha tattha tādisaṃ ñāpakavacanampi pakāsetiyeva, yathā sumaṅgalavilāsiniyaṃ (1, 72) ‘‘ettha āṇattiyanissaggiyathāvarāpi payogā yujjanti, aṭṭhakathāsu pana anāgatattā vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbā’’ti vacanaṃ, yathā ca papañcasūdaniyaṃ (1, 30) ‘‘avicāritametaṃ porāṇehi, ayaṃ pana attano matī’’ti vacanaṃ. Na cettha kiñcipi ñāpakavacanaṃ pakāsitaṃ. Tasmā ‘‘yadetaṃ ‘uṇhassāti aggisantāpassā’ti ca, ‘uṇhanti cettha aggisantāpova veditabbo’ti ca vacanaṃ, etaṃ porāṇasuttantaṭṭhakathāvacana’’nti veditabbanti.

However, that explanation of the term in the Visuddhimagga might have come from the ancient Suttanta commentaries. For it is stated in the Papañcasūdanī, the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, in the explanation of the Sabbāsava Sutta (1, 58): 'Here, 'uṇha' should be understood as the heat of fire, but this matter is stated in terms of the heat of the sun.' And here, if this meaning had been stated by the Teacher as his own opinion, he would have made clear the fact that this matter was stated in the ancient commentary, that this explanation of its meaning was his own opinion, and its justification. For wherever the Teacher elaborates on a meaning not found in the ancient commentaries, he also provides some indicative statement. For example, in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (1, 72), it is said: 'Here, applications by way of command, forfeiture, and permanent [offenses] are also suitable, but since they are not found in the commentaries, they should be accepted after investigation.' Similarly, in the Papañcasūdanī (1, 30), it is stated: 'This was not considered by the ancients, but this is my own opinion.' Here, however, no such indicative statement is provided. Therefore, it should be understood that the statements, 'uṇhassa means the heat of fire' and 'here, uṇha should be understood as the heat of fire,' are from the ancient Suttanta commentaries.

(Gha) punapi tena ‘‘papañcasūdaniyā nāma majjhimanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ gopālakasuttaṃ saṃvaṇṇento buddhaghoso ‘magadhavideharaṭṭhānaṃ antare gaṅgāya nadiyā majjhe vālukatthaladīpakā atthī’ti saddahati maññe. Buddhaghosena pana diṭṭhagaṅgā sīhaḷadīpe mahāveligaṅgāyeva, na pana indiyaraṭṭhikānaṃ seṭṭhasammatā mahāgaṅgāti pākaṭoyevāyamattho’’ti catutthaṃ kāraṇaṃ dassitaṃ. Taṃ pana idāni mahāgaṅgāya majjhe tasmiṃ ṭhāne tādisaṃ dīpakaṃ adisvā ‘‘pubbepi evameva bhaveyyā’’ti ekaṃsato gahetvā vuttavacanamattameva. Nadiyo pana sabbadāpi tenevākārena tiṭṭhantīti na sakkā gahetunti pākaṭoyevāyamattho. Tasmā yathā pubbe tassa gopālassa kāle tasmiṃ ṭhāne majjhe gaṅgāya tādisā dīpakā saṃvijjamānā ahesuṃ, tatheva porāṇaṭṭhakathāsu esa attho saṃvaṇṇito, [Pg.9] tadeva ca vacanaṃ ācariyena bhāsāparivattanaṃ katvā pakāsitanti evameva gahetabbaṃ. Tasmā tampi akāraṇamevāti.

(D) Furthermore, he presented the fourth reason: 'While explaining the Gopālaka Sutta in the Papañcasūdanī, the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, Buddhaghosa, I think, believes that 'in the region between Magadha and Videha, in the middle of the Ganges River, there are sandbanks and islands.' However, the Ganges seen by Buddhaghosa was merely the Mahāveli Ganga in Sri Lanka, not the great Ganges considered foremost by the people of India—this meaning is indeed obvious.' But that is merely a statement made by taking it as certain—from not seeing such an island in that place in the middle of the great Ganges at present—that 'it might have been so even in the past.' For it is indeed obvious that one cannot assume that rivers always remain in the same condition. Therefore, it should be understood thus: just as in the past, during that cowherd's time, such islands existed in the middle of the Ganges at that place, so too was this meaning explained in the ancient commentaries, and that very statement was made known by the Teacher, having rendered it into another language. Therefore, that too is without reason.

Brāhmaṇakulavicāraṇā

An Investigation of the Brahmin Lineage

2. Atha ‘‘brāhmaṇamāṇavo’’ti padampi tena evaṃ vicāritaṃ –

2. Then, the term 'brahmin youth' was also investigated by him thus:

(Ka) ‘‘buddhaghoso ‘brāhmaṇakulajāto’ti na sakkā gahetuṃ. Kasmā vedakālato paṭṭhāya yāvajjatanā sabbepi brāhmaṇā

(A) "It is not possible to assume that Buddhaghosa was born into a brahmin family. Why? Because from the time of the Vedas up to the present day, all brahmins..."

Brāhmaṇosya mukhamāsīdi, bāhū rājanya? Kata?;

Ūrū tadasya yada vagya?, Padbhyāṃ gūdro ajāyatā’’ti.

The Brahmin was his mouth, his arms were made the Rājanya; his thighs were the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was born.

Imaṃ purisasuttaṃ nāma mantaṃ jānantīti saddahiyā.

It is to be believed that they know this mantra called the Puruṣa Sutta.

Ayaṃ panassā attho – ‘brāhmaṇo assa (brahmuno) mukhaṃ āsi. Bāhū rājañño kato, khattiyā assa bāhūti vuttaṃ hoti. Yo vesso, so assa ūrū. Suddo assa pādehi ajāyī’ti.

This is its meaning: 'The brahmin was his (Brahmā's) mouth. The Rājañña was made his arms; that is, the khattiyas were his arms. The one who was a vessa, he was his thighs. The sudda was born from his feet.'

Buddhaghoso pana ‘paṇḍitabrāhmaṇo’ti ñātopi taṃ gāthaṃ na aññāsi. Tathā hi tena bandhupādāpaccāti padassa atthavaṇṇanāyaṃ ‘tesaṃ kira ayaṃ laddhi – brāhmaṇā brahmuno mukhato nikkhantā, khattiyā urato, vessā nābhito, suddā jāṇuto, samaṇā piṭṭhipādato’ti tissā vedagāthāya asamānattho vaṇṇito’’ti.

But Buddhaghosa, though known as a 'learned brahmin,' did not know that verse. For in his explanation of the meaning of the word 'bandhupādāpaccā,' he described what was, it seems, their doctrine—that brahmins issued from Brahmā's mouth, khattiyas from his chest, vessas from his navel, suddas from his knees, and ascetics from the soles of his feet—which is a meaning dissimilar to that of that Vedic verse.

Ayaṃ panettha anuvicāraṇā – yadi ca taṃkālikānampi brāhmaṇānaṃ laddhi tatheva bhaveyya yathā etissaṃ gāthāyaṃ vuttā, sā catthavaṇṇanā ācariyassa matimattā. Evaṃ sati sā vicāraṇā yuttā bhaveyya. Etissaṃ pana gāthāyaṃ ‘‘brāhmaṇosya mukhamāsīdi’’ti paṭhamapādena ‘‘brāhmaṇā brahmuno mukhato jātā’’ti attho ujukato na labbhati. Buddhakāle pana brāhmaṇānaṃ laddhi ‘‘brāhmaṇā brahmuno mukhato jātā’’ti evameva ahosīti pākaṭoyevāyamattho. Tathā hi dīghanikāye pāthikavagge aggaññasutte (3, 67) –

Herein is the investigation: If the doctrine of the brahmins of that time were indeed as stated in this verse, and if that explanation were merely the Teacher's own opinion, then, that being so, this investigation would be justified. But in this verse, the first line, 'The brahmin was his mouth,' does not straightforwardly yield the meaning 'Brahmins were born from Brahmā's mouth.' However, it is quite evident that during the Buddha's time, the doctrine among brahmins was indeed that 'Brahmins were born from Brahmā's mouth.' For so it is in the Dīghanikāya, Pāthikavagga, in the Aggañña Sutta (3, 67):

‘‘Dissanti kho pana vāseṭṭha brāhmaṇānaṃ brāhmaṇiyo utuniyopi gabbhiniyopi vijāyamānāpi pāyamānāpi. Te ca brāhmaṇā [Pg.1]0 yonijāva samānā evamāhaṃsu – brāhmaṇova seṭṭho vaṇṇo, hīnā aññe vaṇṇā. Brāhmaṇova sukko vaṇṇo, kaṇhā aññe vaṇṇā. Brāhmaṇāva sujjhanti, no abrāhmaṇā. Brāhmaṇāva brahmuno puttā orasā mukhato jātā brahmajā brahmanimmitā brahmadāyādāti. Te brahmānañceva abbhācikkhanti, musā ca bhāsanti, bahuñca apuññaṃ pasavantī’’ti –

"Vāseṭṭha, it is seen that brahmin women menstruate, become pregnant, give birth, and nurse. Yet those brahmins, though born from a womb, say thus: 'The brahmin caste is the best caste; other castes are inferior. The brahmin caste is the fair caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins. Brahmins alone are the sons of Brahmā, his legitimate offspring, born from his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.' In this, they misrepresent Brahmā, speak falsely, and generate much demerit."

Bhagavatā mahākāruṇikena vāseṭṭhabhāradvājānaṃ brāhmaṇamāṇavakānaṃ bhāsitaṃ, tehi ca taṃ abhinanditaṃ. Te pana dvepi māṇavakā jātivasena parisuddhabrāhmaṇā ceva honti tiṇṇampi vedānaṃ pāraguno ca. Tasmā ‘‘brāhmaṇā brahmuno mukhato nikkhantā’’ti vacanassa taṃkālikānaṃ brāhmaṇānaṃ laddhivasena vuttabhāvo pākaṭoyeva. Yathā cetaṃ, evaṃ ‘‘khattiyā urato, vessā nābhito, suddā jāṇuto, samaṇā piṭṭhipādato’’ti vacanampi ‘‘taṃkālikabrāhmaṇānaṃ laddhiññūhi porāṇaṭṭhakathācariyehi vutta’’nti saddahitvā ācariyabuddhaghosena taṃ sabbaṃ porāṇaṭṭhakathāto bhāsāparivattanamattena visesetvā pakāsitaṃ bhaveyya. Tasmā tāyapi vedagāthāya ācariyassa abrāhmaṇabhāvasādhanaṃ anupapannamevāti.

This was spoken by the Blessed One, the greatly compassionate one, to the brahmin youths Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja, and they rejoiced in it. These two youths were both pure brahmins by birth and masters of the three Vedas. Therefore, it is quite clear that the statement 'Brahmins issued from Brahmā’s mouth' was said in accordance with the doctrine of the brahmins of that time. Similarly, the statement 'Khattiyas from the chest, Vessas from the navel, Suddas from the knees, and ascetics from the soles of the feet' was also spoken by the ancient commentary teachers who knew the doctrine of the brahmins of that time. Believing this, Teacher Buddhaghosa might have set it all forth, having presented it from the ancient commentaries with merely a change of language. Therefore, the attempt to prove the Teacher's non-brahmin status by means of that Vedic verse is also indeed unfounded.

(Kha) punapi tena ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa abrāhmaṇabhāvasādhanatthaṃ dutiyampi kāraṇaṃ evamāhaṭaṃ –

(B) Again, for the purpose of proving Teacher Buddhaghosa Thera's non-brahmin status, a second reason was brought forward by him thus:

‘‘Brāhmaṇaganthesu gabbhaghātavācakaṃ bhrūnahāti padaṃ pāḷiyaṃ bhūnahu (bhūnahano) iti dissati. Māgaṇḍiyasutte bhariyāya methunasaṃvāsābhāvena uppajjanārahagabbhassa nāsakattaṃ sandhāya māgaṇḍiyo paribbājako bhagavantaṃ ‘bhūnahu (bhūnahano) samaṇo gotamo’ti āha. Taṃ buddhaghoso na jānātīti pākaṭoyeva tadatthasaṃvaṇṇanāya. Tattha hi tena bhūnahunoti (bhūnahanassā) padaṃ ‘hatavaḍḍhino mariyādakārakassā’ti vaṇṇita’’nti.

"In the Brāhmaṇa texts, the word 'bhrūṇahā', which signifies an embryo-killer, is seen in Pāli as 'bhūnahu' (or 'bhūnahano'). In the Māgaṇḍiya Sutta, the wandering ascetic Māgaṇḍiya called the Blessed One 'bhūnahu' (or 'bhūnahano') with reference to the destruction of a potential embryo due to the absence of sexual intercourse with his wife. It is evident from his commentary on its meaning that Buddhaghosa did not know this, for there he explained the word 'bhūnahu' (or 'bhūnahanassa') as 'one who destroys growth, a maker of boundaries.'"

Tampi ayuttameva. Na hi māgaṇḍiyena phoṭṭhabbārammaṇāparibhogamattameva sandhāya bhūnahubhāvo vutto, atha kho channampi lokāmisārammaṇānaṃ aparibhogaṃ sandhāya vutto. Tasmiñhi sutte –

That too is incorrect. For Māgaṇḍiya did not speak of the state of being a 'bhūnahu' merely in reference to the non-enjoyment of tactile objects, but rather in reference to the non-enjoyment of all six kinds of worldly sensual objects. In that sutta:

‘‘Cakkhuṃ [Pg.11] kho māgaṇḍiya rūpārāmaṃ rūparataṃ rūpasammuditaṃ, taṃ tathāgatassa dantaṃ guttaṃ rakkhitaṃ saṃvutaṃ, tassa ca saṃvarāya dhammaṃ deseti, idaṃ nu te etaṃ māgaṇḍiya sandhāya bhāsitaṃ ‘bhūnahu samaṇo gotamo’ti. Etadeva kho pana me bho gotama sandhāya bhāsitaṃ ‘bhūnahu samaṇo gotamo’ti. Taṃ kissa hetu, evañhi no sutte ocaratīti…pe… mano kho māgaṇḍiya dhammārāmo dhammarato dhammasammudito, so tathāgatassa danto gutto rakkhito saṃvuto, tassa ca saṃvarāya dhammaṃ deseti, idaṃ nu te etaṃ māgaṇḍiya sandhāya bhāsitaṃ ‘bhūnahu samaṇo gotamo’ti. Etadeva kho pana me bho gotama sandhāya bhāsitaṃ ‘bhūnahu samaṇo gotamo’ti. Taṃ kissa hetu, evañhi no sutte ocaratī’’ti.

"Māgaṇḍiya, the eye delights in forms, is fond of forms, rejoices in forms. That, in the Tathāgata, is tamed, guarded, protected, and restrained. And he teaches the Dhamma for its restraint. Was it with reference to this that you said, 'The ascetic Gotama is a destroyer of growth'?" 'Indeed, Master Gotama, it was with reference to this that I said, 'The ascetic Gotama is a destroyer of growth.' For what reason? Because this is how it is found in our scriptures.' … 'Māgaṇḍiya, the mind delights in mental phenomena, is fond of mental phenomena, rejoices in mental phenomena. That, in the Tathāgata, is tamed, guarded, protected, and restrained. And he teaches the Dhamma for its restraint. Was it with reference to this that you said, 'The ascetic Gotama is a destroyer of growth'?" 'Indeed, Master Gotama, it was with reference to this that I said, 'The ascetic Gotama is a destroyer of growth.' For what reason? Because this is how it is found in our scriptures.'"

Evaṃ bhagavato ca anuyogo māgaṇḍiyassa ca paṭiññā āgatā.

Thus, the Blessed One's inquiry and Māgaṇḍiya’s admission were established.

Ettha hi methunappaṭisevanavasena phoṭṭhabbārammaṇaparibhogahetu eva gabbhapatiṭṭhānaṃ sambhavatīti tadaparibhogameva sandhāya ‘‘bhūnahū’’ti vattuṃ arahati, tadaññesaṃ pana pañcannaṃ rūpādiārammaṇānaṃ, tatthāpi visesato dhammārammaṇassa suddhamanoviññāṇena paribhogahetu natthi kiñci gabbhapatiṭṭhānanti tesaṃ aparibhogaṃ sandhāya bhūnahūti vattuṃ na arahatiyeva, māgaṇḍiyena pana sabbānipi tāni sandhāya vuttabhāvo paṭiññāto, kāraṇañcassa dassitaṃ ‘‘evañhi no sutte ocaratī’’ti. Tasmā kiñcāpi dāni brāhmaṇaganthesu bhūnahu- (bhrūnahā) saddo gabbhaghātanatthe dissati, māgaṇḍiyasutte paneso attho na yujjatīti ācariyena ‘‘hatavaḍḍhi mariyādakārako’’ti ayamevattho porāṇaṭṭhakathāya bhāsāparivattanavasena pakāsitoti veditabbo.

Here, indeed, the establishment of an embryo occurs solely due to the enjoyment of the tactile object through sexual intercourse. Therefore, it is appropriate to say 'bhūnahū' only in reference to that non-enjoyment. However, for the other five objects—forms and so on—and especially for the mental object, there is no cause for the establishment of an embryo through enjoyment by pure mind-consciousness. Thus, it is not at all appropriate to say 'bhūnahū' in reference to their non-enjoyment. Yet, Māgaṇḍiya acknowledged that it was said with reference to all of them, and he presented his reason: 'For thus it is found in our scriptures.' Therefore, although the term 'bhūnahū' (or 'bhrūnahā') is found in Brahmanical texts with the meaning of destroying an embryo, this meaning does not apply in the Māgaṇḍiya Sutta. Thus, it should be understood that the teacher revealed this very meaning, 'one who has destroyed growth, a maker of boundaries,' by way of changing the language of the ancient commentary.

(Ga) punapi tena ‘‘idampana buddhaghosassa abrāhmaṇabhāvasādhakaṃ pacchimakāraṇaṃ, so hi visuddhimagge sīlaniddese (1, 31) brāhmaṇānaṃ parihāsaṃ karonto ‘evaṃ iminā piṇḍapātapaṭisevanena purāṇañca jighacchāvedanaṃ paṭihaṅkhāmi, navañca vedanaṃ aparimitabhojanapaccayaṃ āharahatthaka alaṃsāṭaka tatravaṭṭaka kākamāsaka bhuttavamitakabrāhmaṇānaṃ aññataro [Pg.12] viya na uppādessāmīti paṭisevatī’ti āha. Idaṃ pana ekassa bhinnabrāhmaṇaladdhikassāpi vacanaṃ siyāti tadeva daḷhakāraṇaṃ katvā na sakkā ‘buddhaghoso abrāhmaṇo’ti vattu’’nti tatiyaṃ kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ. Taṃ pana atisaṃvejanīyavacanameva. Na hetaṃ ācariyena brāhmaṇānaṃ parihāsaṃ kātukāmena vuttaṃ, na ca taṃ parihāsavacanena saṃyojetabbaṭṭhānaṃ, aññadatthu yathābhūtamatthaṃ dassetvā sabrahmacārīnaṃ ovādānusāsanidānavasena vattabbaṭṭhānaṃ, tathāyeva ca ācariyena vuttaṃ. Tathā hi ye loke paradattūpajīvino samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā aññe vāpi ca puggalā, te paccavekkhaṇañāṇarahitā asaṃvare ṭhitā kadāci atipaṇītaṃ rasaṃ pahūtaṃ laddhā aparimitampi bhuñjeyyuṃ, visesato pana brāhmaṇā lokikavatthuvasena ca, jātakādisāsanikavatthuvasena ca tādisā ahesunti pākaṭā. Imasmiñhi loke vassasatasahassehi vā vassakoṭīhi vā aparicchinnaddhāne ko sakkā vattuṃ ‘‘nedisā bhūtapubbā’’ti. Tasmā tādisehi viya na aparimitabhojanehi bhavitabbanti ovādānusāsanidānavaseneva vuttaṃ. Tadevaṃ atthasaṃhitampi samānaṃ ayonisomanasikaroto anatthameva jātaṃ, yathā sabhariyassa māgaṇḍiyabrāhmaṇassa anāgāmimaggaphalatthāyapi desitā gāthā tesaṃ dhītuyā anatthāya saṃvattatīti saṃvegoyevettha brūhetabboti.

Again, it was said by him: "This is the final reason proving Buddhaghosa's non-Brahmin status. For in the Visuddhimagga, in the section on virtue (1, 31), mocking Brahmins, he says: 'Thus, by partaking of almsfood in this way, I shall ward off the old feeling of hunger and shall not produce a new feeling—that which is conditioned by unlimited eating—like one of those Brahmins with their begging bowls, ample robes, round pots, crow’s portions, and vomited food.' However, this could be the statement even of one who has broken with Brahmin doctrines; therefore, taking this as strong evidence, it is not possible to say, 'Buddhaghosa was not a Brahmin.'" Thus, the third reason was stated. However, that is indeed a statement inspiring great urgency. For that was not spoken by the teacher with the intention of mocking Brahmins, nor is it a place to be associated with words of mockery; rather, it is a place for him to speak, revealing the truth as it is, by way of instruction and admonition to his fellow practitioners of the holy life, and it was indeed spoken by the teacher in that manner. For indeed, in this world, whatever ascetics or Brahmins or other individuals live on what is given by others, if they are devoid of the knowledge of reflection and are established in lack of restraint, they might sometimes eat excessively when they obtain very excellent and abundant food—especially Brahmins, who are well-known to have been such, both in terms of worldly matters and in terms of matters related to the Dispensation, such as the Jātakas. Who in this world, in an immeasurable span of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, can say, 'Such persons have never existed before'? Therefore, it was spoken solely by way of instruction and admonition, that one should not be like those who indulge in limitless eating. Thus, though it was meaningful, for one who attends unwisely, it leads only to harm, just as the verses taught to the Brahmin Māgaṇḍiya and his wife, though meant for the path and fruit of non-return, resulted in harm for their daughter. Therefore, here too, a sense of urgency should be cultivated.

Patañjalivādavicāraṇā

An Examination of the Doctrine of Patañjali

3. Atha tena ‘‘pātañjalīmataṃ parivattetī’’ti vacanampi evaṃ vicāritaṃ.

3. Then that statement, 'He refutes the doctrine of Patañjali,' was also examined in this way.

(Ka) ‘‘buddhaghoso patañjalissa vā aññesaṃ vā uttaraindiyaraṭṭhikānaṃ vādaṃ appakameva aññāsi. Patañjalivādesu hi aṇimā laghimāti idameva dvayaṃ dassesi tatuttari yogasuttaṃ ajānanto, patañjalivādassa ca tuletvā dīpanā tassa ganthesu na dissati, patañjalinā katapakaraṇañca patañjalīti nāmamattampi ca tattha dīpitaṃ natthi. Visuddhimagge pana paññābhūminiddese ‘pakativādīnaṃ pakati viyā’ti pakativāda (saṃkhyāvāda) nāmamattaṃ pakāsitaṃ, tattheva ca ‘paṭiññā hetūtiādīsu hi loke vacanāvayavo [Pg.13] hetūti vuccatī’ti udāharitaṃ, tena ñāyati ‘buddhaghoso indiyatakkanayadīpake ñāyaganthasmiṃ kiñci mūlabhāgamattaṃ aparipuṇṇaṃ jānātī’ti’’.

(Ka) "Buddhaghosa knew very little of the doctrine of Patañjali or of others from the northern Indian region. For in the doctrines of Patañjali, he presented only these two—aṇimā and laghimā—without knowing the Yoga Sūtras that go beyond that. Moreover, no explanation weighing the doctrine of Patañjali is found in his works, and not even the mere name 'Patañjali' or the treatises composed by Patañjali are mentioned there. However, in the Visuddhimagga, in the exposition on the ground of wisdom, the mere name of the doctrine of nature (Sāṅkhya doctrine) is revealed with the phrase 'like the nature of the proponents of nature.' And there, he also cited the example: 'Indeed, in the world, in statements such as "proposition, reason," the term "reason" is called a part of a statement.' From this, it is known that Buddhaghosa knew only a certain incomplete, foundational portion of the Nyāya texts, such as the Indiyatakkanayadīpaka."

Taṃ pana sabbampi kevalaṃ ācariyassa abbhācikkhaṇamattameva. Atigambhīrassa hi atigarukātabbassa suparisuddhassa piṭakattayassa atthasaṃvaṇṇanaṃ karontena suparisuddhoyeva pāḷinayo ca aṭṭhakathānayo ca porāṇatheravādā cāti īdisāyeva atthā pakāsetabbā, yaṃ vā pana atthasaṃvaṇṇanāya upakārakaṃ saddavinicchayapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ lokiyaganthavacanaṃ, tadeva ca yathārahaṃ pakāsetabbaṃ, na pana anupakārānipi taṃtaṃganthatakkattunāmāni ca, tehi vuttavacanāni ca bahūni, na ca tesaṃ appakāsanena ‘‘na te aṭṭhakathācariyo jānātī’’ti vattabbo. Yadi hi yaṃ yaṃ lokiyaganthaṃ attanā jānāti, taṃ sabbaṃ anupakārampi attano aṭṭhakathāyamānetvā pakāseyya, ativitthārā ca sā bhaveyya aparisuddhā ca asammānitā ca sāsanikaviññūhīti ācariyena patañjalivādādayo na vitthārena pakāsitāti ñātabbaṃ, aññadatthu yehi yehi lokiyaganthehi kiñci kiñci ācariyena ānetvā pakāsitaṃ, te te ca ganthā, aññepi ca tādisā ācariyena ñātātveva jānitabbā viññūhi, yathā samuddassa ekadesaṃ disvā sabbopi samuddo edisoti ñāyati. Ācariyo pana yattha yattha vedapaṭisaṃyuttavacanāni āgatāni, tattha tattha vedaganthehipi kiñci kiñci ānetvā pakāsesiyeva. Tathā hi ācariyena sumaṅgalavilāsiniyaṃ nāma dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ –

However, all that is merely an accusation against the teacher. For one who explains the meaning of the exceedingly profound, highly revered, and supremely pure Tipiṭaka, only such meanings should be expounded as are in accordance with the supremely pure Pāli method, the commentary method, and the ancient Theravāda traditions. Or, whatever text from worldly literature connected with linguistic analysis may be helpful in explaining the meaning, that alone should be appropriately presented; but not those that are unhelpful, nor the names of various treatises and their authors, nor their many statements. Nor, on account of their not being mentioned, should it be said, 'The commentary teacher does not know them.' For if one were to present every worldly text one knows—even if unhelpful—by bringing it into one’s own commentary, it would become excessively lengthy, impure, and unesteemed by the wise in the Dispensation. Thus, it should be understood that the teacher did not elaborate on the doctrines of Patañjali and others. Rather, whatever worldly texts the teacher has drawn upon to explain certain points, those texts—and others like them—should be recognized by the wise as known to the teacher, just as upon seeing one part of the ocean, it is known that the entire ocean is of such a nature. Moreover, wherever statements connected with the Vedas appear, the teacher has indeed drawn upon and explained things from the Vedic texts. For example, in the Dīghanikāya commentary called the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the teacher states:

‘‘Tiṇṇaṃ vedānanti iruvedayajuvedasāmavedāna’’nti ca,

And, '"Of the three Vedas" means of the Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Sāmaveda.'

‘‘Itihāsapañcamānanti athabbaṇavedaṃ catutthaṃ katvā itiha āsa itiha āsāti īdisavacanapaṭisaṃyutto purāṇakathāsaṅkhāto itihāso pañcamo etesanti itihāsapañcamā, tesaṃ itihāsapañcamānaṃ vedāna’’nti ca,

‘Those with the Itihāsa as fifth’ means that, taking the Atharvaveda as the fourth, the Itihāsa—which is reckoned as ancient lore connected with such statements as ‘thus it was, thus it was’—is the fifth of these; hence they are called ‘those with the Itihāsa as fifth,’ of those Vedas.

‘‘Yiṭṭhaṃ vuccati mahāyāgo’’ti ca,

And, ‘Yiṭṭhaṃ is said to be a great sacrifice.’

‘‘Aggihomanti [Pg.14] evarūpena dārunā evaṃ hute idaṃ nāma hotīti aggijuhanaṃ. Dabbihomādīnipi aggihomāneva, evarūpāya dabbiyā īdisehi kaṇādīhi hute idaṃ nāma hotīti evaṃ pavattivasena pana visuṃ vuttānī’’ti ca,

‘Aggihoma’ is the offering into fire, with the thought, ‘When an offering is made in this way with such-and-such wood, such-and-such a result occurs.’ Dabbihoma and the like are also fire offerings; however, they are mentioned separately on account of the manner of their performance, with the thought, ‘When an offering is made with such-and-such a ladle and with such-and-such grains, such-and-such a result occurs.’

‘‘Sāsapādīni pana mukhena gahetvā aggimhi pakkhipanaṃ, vijjaṃ parijappitvā juhanaṃ vā mukhahoma’’nti ca –

And, ‘Taking mustard seeds and the like in the mouth and casting them into the fire, or muttering a spell and making an offering, is called mukhahoma.’

Evamādinā vedapaṭisaṃyuttavacanāni vedaganthānurūpato vaṇṇitāni. Tāni ca porāṇaṭṭhakathāto bhāsāparivattanavasena vuttānipi bhaveyyuṃ, vedaganthesu pana akovidena yāthāvato bhāsāparivattanaṃ kātumpi na sukarameva, tasmā ācariyassa vedaganthesu kovidabhāvopi pākaṭoyeva. Evaṃ vedaganthesu ca tadaññalokiyaganthesu ca sukovidasseva samānassa tesaṃ vitthārato appakāsanaṃ yathāvuttakāraṇenevāti veditabbaṃ.

In this way, statements connected with the Vedas have been explained in accordance with the Vedic texts. And these might also have been stated by way of translation from the ancient commentaries; however, for one unskilled in the Vedic texts, it is indeed not easy to make a translation that is true to the original. Therefore, the teacher's expertise in the Vedic texts is clearly evident. Thus, it should be understood that the non-exposition in detail of these, as well as other worldly texts, by one who was so skilled in them, is for the very reason stated above.

Api ca ācariyo attano ganthārambheyeva –

Moreover, the teacher, at the very beginning of his work, stated:

‘‘Tato ca bhāsantarameva hitvā,Vitthāramaggañca samāsayitvā;

Vinicchayaṃ sabbamasesayitvā…pe…Yasmā ayaṃ hessati vaṇṇanāpī’’ti ca.

And, ‘Having abandoned that other language, and having condensed the extensive path; having completed the entire analysis… for this too shall be an exposition.’

‘‘Apanetvāna tatohaṃ, sīhaḷabhāsaṃ manoramaṃ bhāsaṃ;

Tantinayānucchavikaṃ, āropetvā vigatadosaṃ.

‘Having removed from it the Sinhalese language, I shall adopt the pleasing language that is faultless and in keeping with the textual method.

Samayaṃ avilomento, therānaṃ theravaṃsapadīpānaṃ;

Sunipuṇavinicchayānaṃ, mahāvihāre nivāsinaṃ;

Hitvā punappunāgata-matthaṃ atthaṃ pakāsayissāmī’’ti ca–

Not violating the doctrine of the elders—the lamps of the elders’ lineage, of subtle judgment, dwelling in the Mahāvihāra—and omitting repetitive matter, I shall explain the meaning.’

Evaṃ porāṇaṭṭhakathānaṃ bhāsāparivattanasaṃkhipanavaseneva visesetvā abhinavaṭṭhakathāyo karissāmīti paṭiññaṃ katvā yathāpaṭiññātameva akāsi, na attano ñāṇappabhāvena visesetvātipi veditabbaṃ. Tasmā aṭṭhakathāsu [Pg.15] patañjalivādādīnaṃ vitthārato appakāsanamārabbha ‘‘buddhaghoso patañjalivādādīni paripuṇṇaṃ na jānātī’’ti vacanaṃ kevalaṃ ācariyassa abbhācikkhaṇamattamevāti.

Thus, having made the promise, ‘I will compose new commentaries, distinguishing them specifically by way of translating and condensing the ancient commentaries,’ he acted exactly as he had promised; and it should be understood that he did not distinguish them through the power of his own knowledge. Therefore, concerning the non-exposition in detail of the doctrines of Patañjali and so forth in the commentaries, the statement, ‘Buddhaghosa does not fully know the doctrines of Patañjali and so forth,’ is merely a slander against the teacher.

Kabbasatthavicāraṇā

An Examination of the Poetic Treatises

4. Punapi so evamāha ‘‘kiñcāpi buddhaghoso rāmāyaṇamahābhāratasaṅkhātānaṃ mahākabbasatthānaṃ sukusalo viya na dissati, tathāpi tāni dassesi. Kathaṃ? Akkhānanti bhāratayujjhanādikaṃ, taṃ yasmiṃ ṭhāne kathīyati, tattha gantumpi na vaṭṭatīti ca, tassa (samphapalāpassa) dve sambhārā bhāratayuddhasītāharaṇādiniratthakakathāpurekkhāratā tathārūpikathākathanañcāti ca dassesī’’ti.

4. Again, he said thus: “Although Buddhaghosa does not appear to be very skilled in the great poetic treatises known as the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, he nevertheless mentioned them. How? By stating, ‘It is not proper even to go to a place where an Ākhyāna, such as the Bhārata war, is recited,’ and by showing that the two components of that frivolous talk are giving precedence to useless tales such as the Bhārata war and the abduction of Sītā, and the telling of such tales.”

Taṃ pana purimavacanatopi ahetukataraṃ kevalaṃ anādarīkaraṇamattameva. Atigambhīratthassa hi atigarukaraṇīyassa piṭakattayassa atthasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ niratthakassa samphapalāpasamudāyabhūtassa kabbasatthassa vitthārato pakāsanena kiṃ siyā payojanaṃ, aññadatthu sāyevassa asammānitā, anādariyā ca viññūhīti.

But that statement is even more groundless than the previous one; it is merely an act of disrespect. For, in an explanation of the meaning of the Tipiṭaka, which has an exceedingly profound meaning and is worthy of great respect, what purpose would be served by an extensive exposition of poetic treatises, which are useless and a collection of frivolous talk? On the contrary, that very act would be disrespectful and disregarded by the wise.

Bāhusaccaguṇamakkhanaṃ

The Disparagement of the Virtue of Great Learning

5. Punapi dhammānando ācariyassa bāhusaccaguṇaṃ makkhetukāmo evamāha – ‘‘tassa (buddhaghosassa) samayantarakovidasaṅkhātaṃ bāhusaccaṃ na tato uttaritaraṃ hoti, yaṃ ādhunikānaṃ ganthantarakovidānaṃ sīhaḷikabhikkhūnaṃ yaṃ vā ekādasame kharistavassasatake (1001-1100) uppannānaṃ dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhikānaṃ anuruddha-dhammapālādīnaṃ bhikkhūna’’nti.

5. Again, Dhammānanda, wishing to disparage the teacher’s virtue of great learning, said thus: “His (Buddhaghosa’s) great learning, known as expertise in other systems, is not superior to that of modern Sinhalese monks who are experts in other texts, nor to that of monks such as Anuruddha and Dhammapāla from the South Indian region, who arose in the eleventh Christian century (1001-1100).”

Taṃ pana sabbathāpi ayuttavacanameva. Yadi hi ādhunikā vā sīhaḷikabhikkhū, porāṇā vā ācariyaanuruddha-dhammapālattherādayo samayantarabāhusaccavasena ācariyabuddhaghosena samānā vā uttaritarā vā bhaveyyuṃ, te ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa aṭṭhakathāhi anāraddhacittā hutvā tato sundaratarā paripuṇṇatarā ca abhinavaṭṭhakathāyo kareyyuṃ, na pana te tathā karonti, na kevalaṃ na karontiyeva, atha [Pg.16] kho tesaṃ ekopi na evaṃ vadati ‘‘ahaṃ buddhaghosena bāhusaccavasena samasamoti vā uttaritaro’’ti vā, aññadatthu te ācariyassa aṭṭhakathāyoyeva saṃvaṇṇenti ca upatthambhenti ca, ācariyaṭṭhāne ca ṭhapenti. Tenetaṃ ñāyati sabbathāpi ayuttavacananti.

But that is in every way an inappropriate statement. For if modern Sinhalese monks, or the ancient teachers, the elders Anuruddha, Dhammapāla, and others, were equal or superior to the teacher Buddhaghosa by way of great learning in other systems, they, being dissatisfied with the Elder Buddhaghosa’s commentaries, would have composed new commentaries that were more beautiful and more complete. But they do not do so. Not only do they not do so, but not a single one of them says, “I am equal to or superior to Buddhaghosa by way of great learning.” On the contrary, they only praise and support the teacher’s commentaries and place him in the position of a teacher. By this it is known that it is in every way an inappropriate statement.

Mahāyānikanayavicāraṇā

An Examination of the Mahāyāna System

6. Puna so tāvattakenāpi asantuṭṭho ācariyaṃ avamaññanto evamāha – ‘‘mahāyānanikāyassa padhānācariyabhūtānaṃ assa ghosa-nāgajjunānaṃ nayaṃ vā, nāmamattampi vā tesaṃ na jānāti maññe buddhaghoso’’ti. Taṃ pana ativiya adhammikaṃ niratthakañca niggahavacanamattameva. Na hi nikāyantarikānaṃ vādanayānaṃ attano aṭṭhakathāyaṃ appakāsanena so te na jānātīti sakkā vattuṃ. Nanu ācariyena āgamaṭṭhakathāsu ganthārambheyeva –

6. Again, not satisfied even with that, he, disrespecting the teacher, said thus: “I think Buddhaghosa does not know the system or even the mere names of Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, who were the chief teachers of the Mahāyāna school.” But that is an extremely unjust and meaningless statement, merely a word of censure. For it cannot be said that he does not know them simply because he does not expound upon the doctrinal systems of other schools in his own commentaries. Indeed, did not the teacher, at the very beginning of the commentaries on the Āgamas, state:

‘‘Samayaṃ avilomento, therānaṃ theravaṃsapadīpānaṃ;

Sunipuṇavinicchayānaṃ, mahāvihāre nivāsina’’nti ca,

‘Not violating the doctrine of the elders, the lamps of the elders’ lineage, of subtle judgment, dwelling in the Mahāvihāra…’

Idhāpi visuddhimagge –

Here also, in the Visuddhimagga:

‘‘Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, desanānayanissitaṃ;

Visuddhimaggaṃ bhāsissa’’nti ca,

‘Relying on the method of teaching of the residents of the Mahāvihāra, I shall expound the Visuddhimagga.’

‘‘Tassā atthasaṃvaṇṇanaṃ karontena vibhajjavādimaṇḍalaṃ otaritvā ācariye anabbhācikkhantena sakasamayaṃ avokkamantena parasamayaṃ anāyūhantena suttaṃ appaṭibāhantena vinayaṃ anulomentena mahāpadese olokentena dhammaṃ dīpentena atthaṃ saṅgāhentena tamevatthaṃ punarāvattetvā aparehipi pariyāyantarehi niddisantena ca yasmā atthasaṃvaṇṇanā kātabbā hotī’’ti ca,

‘Because an explanation of its meaning is to be made, it should be made by one who, having entered the circle of the Vibhajjavādins, does not slander the teachers, does not deviate from his own doctrine, does not mix in the doctrine of others, does not reject the Suttas, conforms to the Vinaya, consults the Great References, illuminates the Dhamma, summarizes the meaning, and, repeating that very meaning, points it out through other alternative methods.’

‘‘Sāsanaṃ panidaṃ nānā-desanānayamaṇḍitaṃ;

Pubbācariyamaggo ca, abbocchinno pavattati;

Yasmā tasmā tadubhayaṃ, sannissāyatthavaṇṇanaṃ;

Ārabhissāmi etassā’’ti ca,

‘Since this Dispensation is adorned with various methods of teaching, and the path of the ancient teachers continues unbroken; therefore, relying on both, I shall begin the explanation of its meaning.’

Paṭiññaṃ [Pg.17] katvā yathāpaṭiññātappakāreneva aṭṭhakathāyo katā. Evametāsaṃ karaṇe kāraṇampettha pakāsetabbaṃ, tasmā dāni tampakāsanatthaṃ sammāsambuddhassa parinibbutikālato paṭṭhāya yāva ācariyabuddhaghosassa kālo, tāva sāsanappavattikkamampi vakkhāma.

Having made a promise, the commentaries were composed in the very manner that was promised. Thus, the reason for their composition should be explained here. Therefore, now, for the purpose of explaining that, we shall also speak of the course of the Dispensation from the time of the Parinibbāna of the Perfectly Enlightened One up to the time of the teacher Buddhaghosa.

Sāsanappavattikkamo

The Course of the Dispensation

Bhagavato hi parinibbutikālato pacchā vassasatabbhantare buddhasāsane kocipi vādabhedo nāma natthi. Vassasatakāle pana dutiyasaṅgītikārehi therehi nikkaḍḍhitā vajjiputtakā bhikkhū pakkhaṃ labhitvā dhammañca vinayañca aññathā katvā mahāsaṅgītināmena visuṃ saṅgītimakaṃsu. Tadā saṅgītidvayārūḷhapurāṇadhammavinayameva sampaṭicchantānaṃ therānaṃ gaṇo theravādoti ca tadaññesaṃ mahāsaṅghikoti ca voharīyanti.

Indeed, after the Blessed One's Parinibbāna, within a hundred years, there was no division of views in the Buddha's Dispensation. However, at the time of the hundredth year, the Vajjiputtaka monks, who had been expelled by the elders who held the Second Council, gained a faction and, having altered the Dhamma and Vinaya, conducted a separate council under the name 'Mahāsaṅgīti.' At that time, the group of elders who accepted only the ancient Dhamma and Vinaya established in the two councils came to be known as 'Theravāda,' while the others were called 'Mahāsaṅghika.'

Puna mahāsaṅghikato (1) gokuliko (2) ekabyohārikoti dve ācariyagaṇā uppannā. Puna gokulikato (3) paññattivādo (4) bāhuliko (bahussutiko)ti dve uppannā. Puna bāhulikatopi (5) cetiyavādigaṇo uppannoti ete pañca mūlabhūtena mahāsaṅghikena saha cha pāṭiyekkā ācariyagaṇā ahesuṃ.

Again, from the Mahāsaṅghikas arose two groups of teachers: (1) the Gokulikas and (2) the Ekabyohārikas. Again, from the Gokulikas arose two groups: (3) the Paññattivādins and (4) the Bāhulikas (or Bahussutikas). Again, from the Bāhulikas arose (5) the Cetiyavādin group. Thus, these five, together with the original Mahāsaṅghikas, were six distinct groups of teachers.

Visuddhattheravādatopi (1) mahisāsako (2) vajjiputtakoti dve ācariyagaṇā uppannā. Puna mahisāsakato (3) sabbatthivādo (4) dhammaguttikoti dve uppannā. Puna sabbatthivādatopi (5) kassapiyo, tatopi (6) saṅkantiko, tatopi (7) suttavādīti tayo uppannā. Vajjiputtakatopi (8) dhammottariyo (9) bhaddayāniko (10) channāgāriko (11) sammitiyoti cattāro uppannāti te ekādasa mūlabhūtena visuddhattheravādena saha dvādasa ācariyagaṇā ahesuṃ. Iti ime ca dvādasa purimā ca chāti aṭṭhārasa ācariyagaṇā dutiyatatiyasaṅgītīnaṃ antare jātā ahesuṃ.

From the pure Theravāda, two groups of teachers arose: (1) the Mahisāsakas and (2) the Vajjiputtakas. Again, from the Mahisāsakas, two arose: (3) the Sabbatthivādins and (4) the Dhammaguttikas. Again, from the Sabbatthivādins, three arose: (5) the Kassapiyas, from them (6) the Saṅkantikas, and from them (7) the Suttavādins. From the Vajjiputtakas, four arose: (8) the Dhammottariyas, (9) the Bhaddayānikas, (10) the Channāgārikas, and (11) the Sammitiyas. Thus, these eleven, together with the root pure Theravāda, were twelve groups of teachers. So these twelve and the previous six were eighteen groups of teachers that arose between the second and third councils.

Tesu mūlabhūto theravādagaṇoyeva porāṇadhammavinayagaruko hutvā anūnamanadhikaṃ kevalaparipuṇṇaṃ parisuddhaṃ porāṇikaṃ dhammavinayaṃ dhāresi. Itare pana sattarasa bhinnagaṇā porāṇikaṃ dhammavinayaṃ aññathā [Pg.18] akaṃsu. Tena tesaṃ dhammavinayo katthaci ūno katthaci adhiko hutvā aparipuṇṇo ceva ahosi aparisuddho ca. Tena vuttaṃ dīpavaṃse pañcamaparicchede –

Among them, the root Theravāda group, revering the ancient Dhamma and Vinaya, preserved the ancient Dhamma and Vinaya as entirely complete and pure, without deficiency or excess. But the other seventeen differing groups altered the ancient Dhamma and Vinaya. Therefore, their Dhamma and Vinaya became deficient in some places and excessive in others, and was thus both incomplete and impure. Therefore, it is said in the fifth chapter of the Dīpavaṃsa—

30.

30.

‘‘Nikkaḍḍhitā pāpabhikkhū, therehi vajjiputtakā;

Aññaṃ pakkhaṃ labhitvāna, adhammavādī bahū janā.

"The wicked Vajjiputtaka monks were expelled by the elders; having gained another faction, many people became speakers of non-Dhamma.

31.

31.

Dasasahassā samāgantvā, akaṃsu dhammasaṅgahaṃ;

Tasmāyaṃ dhammasaṅgīti, mahāsaṅgītīti vuccati.

Ten thousand came together and made a compilation of the Dhamma; therefore this Dhamma council is called the Mahāsaṅgīti.

32.

32.

Mahāsaṅgītikā bhikkhū, vilomaṃ akaṃsu sāsane;

Bhinditvā mūlasaṅgahaṃ, aññaṃ akaṃsu saṅgahaṃ.

The monks of the Mahāsaṅgīti acted contrary to the Dispensation; having broken up the original compilation, they made another compilation.

33.

33.

Aññatra saṅgahitaṃ suttaṃ, aññatra akariṃsu te;

Atthaṃ dhammañca bhindiṃsu, vinaye nikāyesu ca pañcasu…pe…

They took suttas compiled in one way and rendered them otherwise; they corrupted the meaning and the Dhamma, in the Vinaya and in the five Nikāyas…pe…

49.

49.

Atthaṃ dhammañca bhindiṃsu, ekadesañca saṅgahaṃ;

Ganthañca ekadesañhi, chaḍḍetvā aññaṃ akaṃsu te.

They corrupted the meaning and the Dhamma, and part of the collection; and having discarded part of the texts, they made others.

50.

50.

Nāmaṃ liṅgaṃ parikkhāraṃ, ākappakaraṇīyāni ca;

Pakatibhāvaṃ jahitvā, tañca aññaṃ akaṃsu te.

Having abandoned the original form, they made these otherwise: name, characteristic, requisites, and proper conduct.

51.

51.

Sattarasa bhinnavādā, ekavādo abhinnako;

Sabbevaṭṭhārasa honti, bhinnavādena te saha.

There are seventeen divergent doctrines, and one non-divergent doctrine; altogether they are eighteen, together with those divergent doctrines.

52.

52.

Nigrodhova mahārukkho, thera vādānamuttamo;

Anūnaṃ anadhikañca, kevalaṃ jinasāsanaṃ;

Kaṇṭakā viya rukkhamhi, nibbattā vādasesakā.

The Theravāda, supreme among doctrines, is like a great banyan tree; the entire teaching of the Conqueror, neither deficient nor excessive. Like thorns on a tree, the remaining doctrines have arisen.

53.

53.

Paṭhame vassasate natthi, dutiye vassasatantare;

Bhinnā sattarasa vādā, uppannā jinasāsane’’ti.

In the first century, there were none; within the second century, seventeen divergent doctrines arose in the Dispensation of the Conqueror."

Asokarañño ca kāle parihīnalābhasakkārā aññatitthiyā lābhasakkāraṃ patthayamānā bhikkhūsu pabbajitvā sakāni sakāni diṭṭhigatāni dīpenti ‘‘ayaṃ dhammo, ayaṃ vinayo, idaṃ satthusāsana’’nti. Bhikkhūnaṃ santike pabbajjaṃ alabhamānāpi sayameva kese chinditvā kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā vihāresu vicarantā uposathakammādikaraṇakāle saṅghamajjhaṃ [Pg.19] pavisanti, te bhikkhusaṅghena dhammena vinayena satthusāsanena niggayhamānāpi dhammavinayānulomāya paṭipattiyā asaṇṭhahantā anekarūpaṃ sāsanassa abbudañca malañca kaṇṭakañca samuṭṭhāpenti. Keci aggiṃ paricaranti, keci pañcātape tapanti, keci ādiccaṃ anuparivattanti, keci dhammañca vinayañca vobhindissāmāti tathā tathā paggaṇhanti. Tadā bhikkhusaṅgho na tehi saddhiṃ uposathaṃ vā pavāraṇaṃ vā akāsi, asokārāme satta vassāni uposatho upacchijji.

And during the time of King Asoka, those of other sects, deprived of gain and honor, desiring gain and honor, went forth among the monks and proclaimed their own views, saying, "This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's Dispensation." Even without obtaining ordination from the monks, they cut their own hair, put on ochre robes, and, wandering about the monasteries, entered the midst of the Sangha at the time of performing the Uposatha ceremony and other acts. Though they were restrained by the community of monks in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher's Dispensation, they did not stand firm in conduct conforming to the Dhamma and Vinaya, and they caused much corruption, blemish, and thorns to arise in the Dispensation. Some tended the fire, some practiced the fivefold austerity, some revolved around the sun, and some strove in various ways, thinking, "We will split the Dhamma and Vinaya." At that time, the community of monks did not perform Uposatha or Pavāraṇa with them, and for seven years, the Uposatha was interrupted in the Asokārāma.

Imañca pana pavattiṃ upādāya evampi sakkā gahetuṃ ‘‘sattarasannaṃ bhinnavādagaṇānaṃ dhammavinayassa pacchimakālesu aparisuddhatarabhāvo īdisenapi kāraṇena ahosī’’ti. Kiñcāpi hi buddhasāsanabhūte parisuddhadhammavinaye ‘‘kocipi nicco dhuvo sassato nāma natthi aññatra nibbānadhātuyā, paramatthato attāpi natthi, sabbepi saṅkhārā aniccā addhuvā asassatā anattāyevā’’ti attho ativiya pākaṭo hoti, tathāpi dāni atheravādikānaṃ ganthesu ca pubbe vetullavādādīsu ca ‘‘buddho nicco dhuvo sassato attā’’ti ca, ‘‘sabbepi sattā niccā dhuvā sassatā attā’’ti ca attho dissati.

And taking this event as a basis, one can also understand it thus: "The greater impurity of the Dhamma and Vinaya of the seventeen sects with divergent doctrines in later times was also due to such a reason." For although in the pure Dhamma and Vinaya that is the Buddha's Dispensation, the meaning is very clear—"There is nothing permanent, stable, or eternal except the Nibbāna element; ultimately, there is no self; all conditioned things are impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, and not-self"—yet now, in the texts of the non-Theravādins and previously among the Vetullavādins and others, such meanings as "The Buddha is permanent, stable, eternal, self" and "All beings are permanent, stable, eternal, self" are seen.

Atha asoko dhammarājā sāsanaṃ visodhetukāmo moggaliputtatissattherassa santike paṭhamameva samayaṃ uggaṇhitvā ekaladdhike ekaladdhike bhikkhū ekato kāretvā ekamekaṃ bhikkhusamūhaṃ pakkosāpetvā pucchi ‘‘kiṃ vādī bhante sammāsambuddho’’ti. Tato ye ye ‘‘sammāsambuddho sassatavādī’’ti vā, ‘‘ekaccasassatavādī’’ti vā evamādinā attano attano vādānurūpaṃ micchāvādaṃ āhaṃsu, te te ‘‘nayime bhikkhū, aññatitthiyā ime’’ti tathato ñatvā tesaṃ setakāni vatthāni datvā uppabbājesi. Te sabbepi saṭṭhisahassamattā ahesuṃ.

Then King Asoka, the Dhamma-King, desiring to purify the Dispensation, first having learned the doctrine from the Elder Moggaliputtatissa, had the monks of each respective view gathered together. Having summoned each group of monks, he asked, "Venerable sirs, what is the doctrine of the Perfectly Enlightened One?" Then those who, according to their own views, spoke a wrong view, such as, "The Perfectly Enlightened One is an eternalist," or "a partial-eternalist," and so forth—having recognized them for what they were, that "These are not monks, these are adherents of other sects," he gave them white garments and expelled them from the order. All of them amounted to sixty thousand.

Athaññe bhikkhū pucchitvā tehi ‘‘vibhajjavādī mahārāja sammāsambuddho’’ti vutte ‘‘suddhaṃ dāni bhante sāsanaṃ, karotu bhikkhusaṅgho uposatha’’nti vatvā ārakkhañca datvā nagaraṃ pāvisi. Samaggo saṅgho sannipatitvā uposathaṃ akāsi. Tasmiṃ samāgame moggaliputtatissatthero yāni ca [Pg.20] tadā uppannāni vatthūni yāni ca āyatiṃ uppajjissanti, sabbesampi tesaṃ paṭibāhanatthaṃ satthārā dinnanayavaseneva tathāgatena ṭhapitamātikaṃ vibhajanto parappavādamaddanaṃ kathāvatthuṃ nāma abhidhammapiṭake pañcamaṃ pakaraṇaṃ abhāsi. Tato moggaliputtatissattherappamukhā tipiṭakapariyattidharā pabhinnapaṭisambhidāpattā sahassaṃ bhikkhū theravādino saṅgītidvayārūḷhaṃ parisuddhaṃ porāṇadhammavinayaṃ puna saṅgāyitvā surakkhitaṃ rakkhiṃsu.

Then, having asked other monks, and when they replied, 'Mahārāja, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One is a Vibhajjavādin (an analyst),' he said, "Now, Venerable Sirs, the Dispensation is pure. Let the Sangha of monks perform the Uposatha." Having spoken thus and provided protection, he entered the city. The united Sangha assembled and performed the Uposatha. At that gathering, the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, in order to refute all those points that had arisen then and those that would arise in the future, expounded the Kathāvatthu—the fifth book in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka—which crushes opposing views, by analyzing the Mātikā established by the Tathāgata in accordance with the method given by the Teacher. Thereafter, a thousand monks who were Theravādins, led by the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa—bearers of the Three Piṭakas and attainers of the fourfold analytical knowledge—again recited the pure, ancient Dhamma and Vinaya established in the two Councils, and kept it well-guarded.

Atha moggaliputtatissatthero navasu paccantaṭṭhānesu sāsanapatiṭṭhāpanatthaṃ nava nāyakatthere uccinitvā pesesi. Tesu aṭṭhahi therehi attano attano pattaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā buddhasāsane patiṭṭhāpite mahāmahindatthero chattiṃsādhikadvisate (236) buddhavasse jambudīpato sīhaḷadīpaṃ gantvā devānaṃpiyatissarājappamukhaṃ dīpakajanasamūhaṃ pasādetvā buddhasāsanaṃ sampatiṭṭhāpesi, tena ca raññā dinnaṃ mahāmeghavanuyyānaṃ paṭiggahetvā tattha mahāvihāraṃ nāma saṅghārāmaṃ patiṭṭhāpesi. Tato pabhuti sīhaḷadīpe buddhasāsanaṃ yāva vaṭṭagāmaṇirājakālā nikāyantaravādākularahitaṃ nimmalaṃ suparisuddhaṃ hutvā samujjalittha. Vaṭṭagāmaṇirājakālato pana paṭṭhāya nikāyantaravādāpi sīhaḷadīpamupāgamiṃsu. Tadā visuddhattheravādino yathā purāṇadhammavinayo tehi nikāyantaravādehi asammisso amalīno pakatiparisuddho hutvā tiṭṭheyya, tathā taṃ mahussāhena surakkhitaṃ rakkhiṃsu. Kathaṃ?

Then the Elder Moggaliputtatissa, in order to establish the Dispensation in nine border regions, selected nine leading elders and sent them forth. While the Buddha's Dispensation was being established by eight of those elders, having gone to their respective assigned places, the great Elder Mahinda, in the 236th year of the Buddha era, went from Jambudīpa to the island of Sri Lanka. He inspired faith in the multitude of islanders, headed by King Devānampiyatissa, and firmly established the Buddha's Dispensation. Accepting the great Meghavana Park given by that king, he founded a monastery there called the Mahāvihāra. From that time onward, the Buddha’s Dispensation in Sri Lanka, free from the turmoil of other sects, utterly pure and well-purified, remained radiant until the time of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi. But from the time of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi onward, followers of other sects also reached the island of Sri Lanka. Then, the followers of the pure Theravāda, so that the ancient Dhamma and Vinaya might remain unmixed with, unstained by, and naturally pure from those other sects, guarded it with great effort. How?

Abhayagirinikāyuppatti

The Origin of the Abhayagiri Nikāya

Vaṭṭagāmaṇirājā hi (425-buddhavasse) rajjaṃ patvā pañcamāsamattakāle brāhmaṇatissadāmarikena sattahi ca damiḷayodhehi upadduto saṅgāme ca parājito palāyitvā sādhikāni cuddasavassāni nilīyitvā aññataravesena vasati. Tadā laṅkādīpe manussā corabhayena dubbhikkhabhayena ca upaddutā bhikkhūnaṃ catūhi paccayehi upaṭṭhātuṃ na sakkonti, tena bhikkhū yebhuyyena tato jambudīpaṃ gantvā dhammavinayaṃ dhārentā viharanti. Laṅkādīpeyeva ohīnāpi therā yathāladdhehi kandamūlapaṇṇehi yāpentā kāye vahante nisīditvā pariyattidhammaṃ sajjhāyaṃ karonti, avahante [Pg.21] vālukaṃ ussāpetvā taṃ parivāretvā sīsāni ekaṭṭhāne katvā pariyattiṃ sammasanti. Evaṃ dvādasa saṃvaccharāni sāṭṭhakathaṃ tepiṭakaṃ ahāpetvā dhārayiṃsu. Yadā pana vaṭṭagāmaṇirājā damiḷarājānaṃ hantvā (455-466 buddhavassabbhantare) punapi rajjaṃ kāresi. Tadā te therā jambudīpato paccāgatattherehi saddhiṃ tepiṭakaṃ sodhentā ekakkharampi asamentaṃ nāma na passiṃsu. Yopi ca mahāniddeso tasmiṃ kāle ekasseva dussīlabhikkhuno paguṇo ahosi, sopi mahātipiṭakattherena mahārakkhitattheraṃ tassa santikā uggaṇhāpetvā rakkhito ahosi. Evaṃ dubbhikkharaṭṭhakkhobhupaddavehi pīḷitattā duddharasamayepi dhammavinayaṃ sakkaccaṃ dhārayiṃsu.

King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi (in the 425th year of the Buddha era), having attained the throne, was harassed after five months by the Brahmin Tissa Dāmarika, along with seven Damiḷa warriors. Defeated in battle, he fled and lived in disguise for over fourteen years. At that time, the people of Laṅkādīpa were oppressed by the fear of thieves and famine, and were unable to provide the four requisites to the monks. Consequently, most of the monks went to Jambudīpa, where they dwelt upholding the Dhamma and Vinaya. Even the elders who remained in Laṅkādīpa sustained themselves with whatever roots, tubers, and leaves they could find. When their bodies were able, they sat and recited the scriptures; when they were unable, they piled up sand, surrounded it, and placed their heads together to review the teachings. Thus, for twelve years, they preserved the three Piṭakas along with their commentaries without loss. Later, when King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi slew the Damiḷa kings (between the 455th and 466th years of the Buddha era) and ruled the kingdom again, those elders, together with the elders who had returned from Jambudīpa, collated the three Piṭakas and did not find even a single syllable that did not match. Even the Mahāniddesa, which at that time was familiar to only a single immoral monk, was also preserved when the great Tipiṭaka elder had the Elder Mahārakkhita learn it from him. In this way, though afflicted by the calamities of famine and state upheaval, they diligently preserved the Dhamma and Vinaya even in such a difficult time.

Rājā abhayagiriṃ nāma vihāraṃ kāretvā attano katūpakārapubbassa mahātissattherassa adāsi. So pana thero kulasaṃsaggabahulattā mahāvihāravāsīhi bhikkhūhi pabbājanīyakammaṃ katvā nīhaṭo. Tadāssa sisso bahalamassutissanāmako thero taṃ kammaṃ paṭibāhi, tenassa saṅgho ukkhepanīyakammaṃ akāsi. So mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ kujjhitvā abhayagirivihārameva gantvā tena mahātissattherena ekato hutvā visuṃ gaṇaṃ vahanto vasi. Te ca dve therā na mahāvihāraṃ punāgamiṃsu. Tato paṭṭhāya sīhaḷadīpe mahāvihāravāsī, abhayagirivāsīti dve nikāyājātā. Idaṃ tāva sīhaḷadīpe sāsanaparihāniyā paṭhamaṃ kāraṇaṃ.

The king, having had a monastery named Abhayagiri built, gave it to the Elder Mahātissa, who had previously rendered him service. However, because that elder associated excessively with families, the monks residing at the Mahāvihāra performed an act of expulsion against him and expelled him. At that time, his pupil, an elder named Bahalamassutissa, opposed that act, and for this the Saṅgha performed an act of suspension against him. Angered by the monks residing at the Mahāvihāra, he went to the Abhayagiri Monastery and, joining with that Elder Mahātissa, lived there leading a separate faction. And those two elders never returned to the Mahāvihāra. From then on, in Sri Lanka, two Nikāyas arose: the Mahāvihāra dwellers and the Abhayagiri dwellers. This was the first cause of the decline of the Dispensation in Sri Lanka.

Dhammarucinikāyuppatti

The Origin of the Dhammaruci Nikāya

Tadā ca rājā abhayagirivāsīsuyeva bhikkhūsu visesato pasanno hutvā teyeva catūhi paccayehi pavāretvā paggaṇhāti, rājamahāmattādayopi abhiññātā abhiññātā bahū janā tasmiñca ārāme aññattha ca bahū āvāse katvā tesaṃ denti. Evaṃ abhayagirivāsino bhikkhū bahūnaṃ abhiññātajanānaṃ sakkatā ceva honti pūjitā ca mānitā ca. Puna ca abhayagirivāsino bahalamassutissattherādayoindiyaraṭṭhato āgataṃ vajjiputtakagaṇapariyāpannassa dhammarucinikāyassa dhammavinayabhūtaṃ sakkatabhāsāropitaṃ [Pg.22] abhinavampi piṭakaṃ sampaṭicchanti, tena tepi dhammarucinikāyikā nāma ahesuṃ. Idaṃ sīhaḷadīpe sāsanaparihāniyā dutiyaṃ kāraṇaṃ.

At that time, the king, being especially pleased with the monks dwelling at Abhayagiri, patronized them by inviting them to accept the four requisites. Likewise, royal ministers and other prominent people built many residences in that monastery and elsewhere and gave them to them. Thus, the monks of Abhayagiri were respected, honored, and esteemed by many renowned people. Moreover, the Abhayagiri monks, led by the Elder Bahalamassutissa and others, also accepted a new Piṭaka that had come from India—the Dhamma and Vinaya of the Dhammaruci Nikāya, which belonged to the Vajjiputtaka group, rendered into the Sanskrit language. Thereby, they too became known as Dhammarucikas. This was the second cause of the decline of the Dispensation in Sri Lanka.

Piṭakattayassa potthakāropanaṃ

The Inscription of the Tipiṭaka

Mahāvihāravāsino pana porāṇikaṃ pāḷibhāsāya saṇṭhitaṃ parisuddhapiṭakameva paṭiggaṇhanti, tañca mukhapāṭheneva dhārenti. Tadā pana therā pacchimajanānaṃ satipaññāhāniṃ disvā buddhakālato paṭṭhāya yāva taṃkālā mukhapāṭhenābhataṃ sāṭṭhakathaṃ piṭakattayaṃ potthake āropetuṃ samārabhiṃsu. Samārabhamānā ca te anurādharājadhānipurato aṭṭhasaṭṭhimilappamāṇe malayajanapade mātula nagare ālokaleṇe vasantā ekassa tandesikassa janapadādhipatino ārakkhaṃ gahetvā taṃ potthakāropanakammamakaṃsu. Tenidaṃ ñāyati ‘‘tadā mahāvihāravāsino therā rājarājamahāmattehi aladdhūpakārā hutvā attano baleneva piṭakattayassa potthakāropanakammamakaṃsū’’ti ca, ‘‘tañca yatheva pacchimajanānaṃ satipaññāhāniṃ disvā kataṃ, tatheva dubbhikkharaṭṭhakkhobhādibhayupaddutakālesu duddharabhāvampi disvā’’ti ca, tathā ‘‘abhayagirivāsīnaṃ sampaṭicchitasamayantaravādehi anākulanatthampi kata’’nti ca. Evaṃ mahāvihāravāsino therā parisuddhattheravādapiṭakaṃ samayantarehi asammissanatthāya yathā pure, tathā pāḷibhāsāya eva potthake āropetvāpi surakkhitaṃ rakkhiṃsu. Yadi hi tadā tepiṭakaṃ potthakesu anāropitamassa, pacchākālesu samayantarato āgatasuttāni ‘‘netāni amhāka’’nti paṭikkhipituṃ na sukarāni bhaveyyuṃ. Yato ca kho tadā sāṭṭhakathaṃ tepiṭakaṃ potthakesu āropitaṃ, tatoyeva anāgatakālesu samayantarāgatasuttāni tehi potthakehi saṃsandetvā paṭikkhipituṃ sukarāni honti.

The monks of the Mahāvihāra, however, accepted only the ancient and pure Tipiṭaka, established in the Pāli language, which they maintained through oral recitation. Observing the decline in mindfulness and wisdom of later generations, the elders then began the task of committing to writing the Tipiṭaka along with its commentaries, which had been transmitted orally from the Buddha’s time up to that time. While undertaking this task, they resided in the Aloka Cave in Mātula town in the Malay country, located about sixty-eight miles from the royal capital of Anurādhapura. There, under the protection of a local provincial chief, they carried out the work of inscribing the Tipiṭaka into books. From this, it is evident that the Mahāvihāra elders, without receiving support from kings or royal ministers, accomplished the inscription of the Tipiṭaka through their own efforts. Moreover, they did this not only foreseeing the decline in mindfulness and wisdom of later generations, but also seeing its difficult preservation in times afflicted by famine, state upheaval, and other dangers. Additionally, they acted to prevent it from being confused with differing sectarian views accepted by the Abhayagiri monks. Thus, the Mahāvihāra elders preserved the pure Theravāda Tipiṭaka by committing it to writing in the Pāli language, just as before, ensuring it remained unadulterated by other sectarian views. Had the Tipiṭaka not been inscribed into books at that time, it would have been difficult in later ages to reject newly introduced texts by claiming, "These are not ours." But because the Tipiṭaka, along with its commentaries, was written down then, in future times any later additions could easily be compared with those texts and rejected.

Tathā hi bhātiyarājakāle (524-552-bu-va) mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ abhayagirivāsīhi vinaye vivādo uppajji. Tadā rājā dīghakārāyanaṃ nāma brāhmaṇajātikaṃ amaccaṃ therānaṃ santikaṃ pesesi. So ubhinnaṃ suttaṃ [Pg.23] sutvā vinicchayaṃ adāsi. Tathā vohārakatissarājakāle ca (758-780 bu-va) goṭhābhayarājakāle ca (797-810 bu-va) theravādikā potthakārūḷhena dhammavinayena saṃsandetvā adhammavādaṃ paṭikkhipiṃsu.

For during the reign of King Bhātiya (524-552 B.E.), a dispute regarding the Vinaya arose between the residents of the Mahāvihāra and the Abhayagiri. Then the king sent a minister named Dīghakārāyana, who was of Brahmin birth, to the elders. Having heard both sides, he rendered a judgment. And during the reign of King Vohārakatissa (758-780 B.E.) and King Goṭhābhaya (797-810 B.E.), the Theravādins, by comparing with the Dhamma and Vinaya committed to books, rejected the false doctrines.

Adhammavāduppatti

The Origin of False Doctrine

Ayaṃ pana ādito paṭṭhāya sāsanamalabhūtānaṃ adhammavādānaṃ uppatti. Asokarañño hi kāle uppabbājetvā nikkaḍḍhitā aññatitthiyā buddhasāsane aladdhapatiṭṭhā kodhābhibhūtā pāṭaliputtato nikkhamitvā rājagahasamīpe nālandāyaṃ sannipatitvā evaṃ sammantayiṃsu ‘‘mahājanassa buddhasāsane anavagāhatthāya sakyānaṃ dhammavinayo nāsetabbo, tañca kho tesaṃ samayaṃ ajānantehi na sakkā kātuṃ, tasmā yena kenaci upāyena punapi tattha pabbajitabbamevā’’ti. Te evaṃ sammantayitvā puna āgantvā visuddhattheravādīnamantaraṃ pavisituṃ asakkontā tadaññesaṃ sattarasannaṃ mahāsaṅghikādinikāyānaṃ santikaṃ upasaṅkamitvā attano aññatitthiyabhāvaṃ ajānāpetvā pabbajitvā piṭakattayamuggaṇhitvā tañca viparivattetvā tato kosambiṃ gantvā dhammavinayanāsanāya upāyaṃ mantayitvā 253-buddhavasse chasu ṭhānesu vasantā (1) hemavatiko (2) rājagiriko (3) siddhatthiko (4) pubbaseliyo (5) aparaseliyo (6) vājiriyo (7) vetullo (8) andhako (9) aññamahāsaṅghikoti nava abhinave nikāye uppādesuṃ. Tesaṃ nāmāni ca laddhiyo ca kathāvatthuaṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatāyeva.

Now, this is the origin, from the very beginning, of the false doctrines which became stains upon the Dispensation. During the time of King Asoka, certain sectarians, having been expelled from the Saṅgha and cast out, unable to gain a foothold in the Buddha’s Dispensation, were overcome by anger. They left Pāṭaliputta and gathered near Rājagaha at Nālandā. There, they deliberated thus: "To prevent the masses from deeply engaging with the Buddha’s Dispensation, the Dhamma-Vinaya of the Sakyans must be destroyed. But it is not possible to do that by those who do not know their doctrine and discipline. Therefore, by whatever means necessary, we must re-ordain there." Having thus deliberated, they returned but could not infiltrate among the pure Theravādins. Instead, they approached seventeen other sects, such as the Mahāsaṅghikas, without making known their sectarian identity. After ordaining, they learned the Three Piṭakas and distorted them. Then, going to Kosambī, they devised a plan to destroy the Dhamma-Vinaya. In the 253rd year after the Buddha’s passing, dwelling in six places, they gave rise to nine new sects: (1) Hemavatika, (2) Rājagirika, (3) Siddhatthika, (4) Pubbaseliya, (5) Aparaseliya, (6) Vājiriya, (7) Vetulla, (8) Andhaka, and (9) another Mahāsaṅghika. Their names and doctrines are recorded in the Kathāvatthu Commentary.

Tesu hemavatikā saddhammapatirūpakaṃ buddhabhāsitabhāvena dassetvā

Among them, the Hemavatikas, presenting a counterfeit of the true Dhamma as the word of the Buddha,

(1) Vaṇṇapiṭakaṃ nāma ganthaṃ akaṃsu.

(1) composed a book called the Vaṇṇapiṭaka.

Rājagirikā (2) aṅgulimālapiṭakaṃ,

The Rājagirikā (2) composed the Aṅgulimālapiṭaka,

Siddhatthikā (3) gūḷhavessantaraṃ,

The Siddhatthikā (3) composed the Gūḷhavessantara,

Pubbaseliyā (4) raṭṭhapālagajjitaṃ,

The Pubbaseliyā (4) composed the Raṭṭhapālagajjita,

Aparaseliyā (5) āḷavakagajjitaṃ,

The Aparaseliyā (5) composed the Āḷavakagajjita,

Vajirapabbatavāsino [Pg.24] vājiriyā (6) gūḷhavinayaṃ nāma ganthaṃ akaṃsu.

The Vājiriyas, residents of Vajira Mountain, (6) composed a text called the Gūḷhavinaya.

Teyeva sabbe māyājālatanta-samājatantādike aneke tantaganthe ca, marīcikappa-herambhakappādike aneke kappaganthe ca akaṃsu.

All of them also composed many tantra texts such as the Māyājālatanta and the Samājatanta, and many kappa texts such as the Marīcikappa and the Herambhakappa.

Vetullavādino pana (7) vetullapiṭakamakaṃsu.

The Vetullavādins, however, (7) composed the Vetullapiṭaka.

Andhakā ca (8) ratanakūṭādike ganthe,

And the Andhakas (8) composed texts such as the Ratanakūṭa,

Aññamahāsaṅghikā ca (9) akkharasāriyādisuttante akaṃsu.

And the other Mahāsaṅghikas (9) composed suttas such as the Akkharasāriyādi.

Tesu pana saddhammapatirūpakesu vetullavādo, vājiriyavādo, ratanakūṭasatthanti imāniyeva tīṇi laṅkādīpamupāgatāni, aññāni pana vaṇṇapiṭakādīni jambudīpeyeva nivattantīti nikāyasaṅgahe vuttaṃ. Vaṇṇapiṭakādīnampi pana laṅkādīpamupāgatacchāyā dissateva. Tathā hi samantapāsādikāya vinayaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (3, 9-piṭṭhe)

Among these counterfeits of the true Dhamma, only the Vetullavāda, Vājiriyavāda, and Ratanakūṭa scriptures reached the island of Laṅkā, while the others, such as the Vaṇṇapiṭaka, remained in Jambudīpa itself. This is stated in the Nikāyasaṅgaha. However, even traces of the Vaṇṇapiṭaka and others having reached the island of Laṅkā are seen. For instance, in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya Commentary (3, p. 9):

‘‘Vaṇṇapiṭaka aṅgulimālapiṭakaraṭṭhapālagajjitaāḷavakagajjitagūḷhamaggagūḷhavessantara gūḷhavinaya vedallapiṭakāni pana abuddhavacanāniyevāti vutta’’nti ca.

"The Vaṇṇapiṭaka, Aṅgulimālapiṭaka, Raṭṭhapālagajjita, Āḷavakagajjita, Gūḷhamagga, Gūḷhavessantara, Gūḷhavinaya, and Vedallapiṭakas are indeed said to be not the words of the Buddha."

Sāratthappakāsiniyā saṃyuttaṭṭhakathāyampi (2, 186-piṭṭhe)

Also in the Sāratthappakāsinī, the Saṃyutta Commentary (2, p. 186):

‘‘Gūḷhavinayaṃ gūḷhavessantaraṃ gūḷhamahosadhaṃ vaṇṇapiṭakaṃ aṅgulimālapiṭakaṃ raṭṭhapālagajjitaṃ āḷavakagajjitaṃ vedallapiṭakanti abuddhavacanaṃ saddhammapatirūpakaṃ nāmā’’ti ca–

"The Gūḷhavinaya, Gūḷhavessantara, Gūḷhamahosadha, Vaṇṇapiṭaka, Aṅgulimālapiṭaka, Raṭṭhapālagajjita, Āḷavakagajjita, and Vedallapiṭaka are called not the word of the Buddha, counterfeits of the true Dhamma."

Tesaṃ paṭikkhepo dissati. Na hi tāni asutvā, tesañca atthaṃ ajānitvā sīhaḷaṭṭhakathācariyehi tāni paṭikkhipituṃ sakkā, nāpi taṃ paṭikkhepavacanaṃ jambudīpikaṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ vacanaṃ bhavituṃ, mahāmahindattherassa sīhaḷadīpaṃ [Pg.25] gamanasamaye tesaṃyeva abhāvato. Tasmā tāni ca tadaññāni ca mahāyānikapiṭakāni taṃkālikāni yebhuyyena sīhaḷadīpamupāgatānīti gahetabbāni. Tesu ca vajjiputtakagaṇapariyāpannassa dhammarucinikāyassa piṭakānaṃ tadupāgamanaṃ pubbeva vuttaṃ. Tadaññesaṃ pana tadupāgamanaṃ evaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Their rejection is evident. For it was not possible for the Sinhalese commentary teachers to reject them without hearing them or understanding their meaning, nor could such a rejection be the words of the mainland commentary teachers, since those texts were not present at the time of the great elder Mahāmahinda’s journey to the island of Laṅkā. Therefore, these and other Mahāyāna Piṭakas of that time must be understood to have mostly reached the island of Laṅkā. And the arrival of the scriptures of the Dhammarucinikāya, belonging to the Vajjiputtaka group, has already been mentioned. However, the arrival of the others should be understood as follows.

Vetullavādassa paṭhamaniggaho

The First Suppression of the Vetulla Doctrine

Vohārakatissarañño kāle (758-780-bu-va) abhayagirivāsino dhammarucinikāyikā pubbe vuttappakārena sāsanavināsanatthāya bhikkhuvesadhārīhi vetullavādibrāhmaṇehi racitaṃ vetullapiṭakaṃ sampaṭiggahetvā ‘‘idaṃ buddhabhāsita’’nti dassenti. Taṃ mahāvihāravāsino theravādikā dhammavinayena saṃsandetvā adhammavādoti paṭikkhipiṃsu. Taṃ sutvā rājā sabbasatthapāraguṃ kapilaṃ nāma amaccaṃ pesetvā vinicchayaṃ kārāpetvā abuddhabhāsitabhāvaṃ ñatvā sabbaṃ vetullapotthakaṃ jhāpetvā talladdhike ca pāpabhikkhū niggahetvā buddhasāsanaṃ jotesi. Vuttañhetaṃ mahāvaṃse –

During the reign of King Vohārakatissa (758–780 B.E.), the Dhammarucinikāya adherents residing in Abhayagiri, in the manner previously stated, accepted the Vetulla Piṭaka, which was composed by Vetullavāda brahmins disguised as monks with the intention of destroying the Dispensation, and presented it as "the word of the Buddha." The Theravādins of the Mahāvihāra, comparing it with the Dhamma and Vinaya, rejected it as false doctrine. Hearing this, the king sent his minister Kapila, who was well-versed in all the scriptures, to investigate and decide the matter. Upon determining that it was not the Buddha’s word, he had all the Vetulla books burned and suppressed the wicked monks who adhered to it, thus illuminating the Buddha’s Dispensation. As stated in the Mahāvaṃsa:

36-41.

36-41.

‘‘Vetullavādaṃ madditvā, kāretvā pāpaniggahaṃ;

Kapilena amaccena, sāsanaṃ jotayī ca so’’ti.

"Having suppressed the Vetullavāda and carried out the suppression of evil, through the minister Kapila, he illuminated the Dispensation."

Sāgaliyanikāyuppatti

The Origin of the Sāgaliya Sect

Punapi te abhayagirivāsino goṭhābhayarañño kāle (797-810-bu-va) vetullavādaṃ tatheva dassenti. Tadā pana tesu ussiliyātisso nāma mahāthero vohārakatissarājakāle vetullavādīnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kataniggahaṃ sutvā ‘‘vicāraṇasampannassa rañño samaye tatheva bhaveyya, na bhaddakameta’’nti cintetvā ‘‘na mayaṃ tehi ekato homā’’ti tisatamatte bhikkhū gahetvā dakkhiṇagirivihāraṃ gantvā dhammarucinikāyato visuṃ hutvā vasi. Tesu sāgalo nāma mahāthero tattheva dakkhiṇagirimhi vasanto āgamabyākhyānamakāsi. Tato paṭṭhāya taṃ theramārabbha tassantevāsino sāgaliyā nāma ahesuṃ. Tesampi [Pg.26] vādo pacchā mahāsenarājakāle jetavanavihāre patthari.

Moreover, during the reign of King Goṭhābhaya (797–810 B.E.), the residents of Abhayagiri Monastery continued to promote the Vetulla doctrine just as before. At that time, a great elder named Ussiliyātissa, hearing about the suppression of the Vetulla-adherent monks during King Vohārakatissa’s reign, thought: "If such a thing could happen even under a king endowed with discernment, this is not good." Resolving, "We shall not associate with them," he took about three hundred monks and went to Dakkhiṇagiri Monastery, separating from the Dhammaruci school and dwelling there. Among them was a great elder named Sāgala, who remained at Dakkhiṇagiri Monastery and composed a commentary on the Āgamas. From then on, his disciples became known as the Sāgaliyas, named after that elder. Their doctrine later spread at Jetavana Monastery during the reign of King Mahāsena.

Vetullavādassa dutiyaniggaho

The Second Suppression of the Vetulla Doctrine

Goṭhābhayo pana rājā pañcasu vihāresu mahābhikkhusaṅghaṃ ekato sannipātetvā taṃ pavattiṃ pucchitvā vetullavādassa abuddhabhāsitabhāvaṃ ñatvā taṃvādino saṭṭhi pāpabhikkhū lakkhaṇāhate katvā raṭṭhato pabbājesi, vetullapotthakāni ca jhāpetvā buddhasāsanaṃ jotesi.

King Goṭhābhaya, having assembled the great Saṅgha of monks from five monasteries, inquired into this matter. Realizing that the Vetulla doctrine was not the Buddha’s teaching, he had sixty wicked monks who held this view branded and banished from the kingdom. He also had the Vetulla books burned and thus illuminated the Buddha's Dispensation.

Tadā raṭṭhato pabbājitesu tesu bhikkhūsu keci kāvīrapaṭṭanaṃ gantvā tattha vasanti. Tasmiñca samaye eko aññatitthiyamāṇavako desantarato kāvīramāgantvā paṭṭanagāmikehi tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ katūpahāraṃ disvā lābhasakkāraṃ nissāya tesaṃ santike pabbajitvā saṅghamittoti nāmena pākaṭo ahosi. So mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ dhammavinicchayaṃ nissāya goṭhābhayaraññā vetullavādahetu tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ raṭṭhā pabbājitabhāvaṃ ñatvā mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ kuddho hutvā ‘‘vetullavādaṃ vā ne gāhāpessāmi, vihāre vā nesaṃ ummūletvā vināsessāmī’’ti sīhaḷadīpaṃ gantvā rājānaṃ pasādetvā tassa dve putte sippaṃ sikkhāpessāmīti ārabhi. Tathāpi attano vādassa jānanasamatthaṃ jeṭṭhatissaṃ ohāya anāgate attano vacanaṃ kārāpetuṃ sakkuṇeyyaṃ kaniṭṭhaṃ mahāsenakumārameva saṅgaṇhitvā sippaṃ sikkhāpesi. Vituno accayena jeṭṭhatissakumāre rajjaṃ patte (810-819-bu-va) so tassa rañño bhīto kāvīrapaṭṭanameva gato.

Among those monks expelled from the kingdom, some went to Kāvīrapaṭṭana and settled there. At that time, a young ascetic of another persuasion arrived at Kāvīra from a distant region. Seeing the offerings made by the townspeople to those monks, he, motivated by gain and honor, ordained under them and became known as Saṅghamitta. Learning that King Goṭhābhaya had banished those monks for advocating the Vetulla doctrine based on a legal decision of the Mahāvihāra residents, he grew furious with the Mahāvihāra residents, vowing: "I will either make them accept the Vetulla doctrine, or I will uproot and destroy their monastery." He then went to the island of Sri Lanka, won the king’s favor, and undertook to teach his two sons. However, leaving aside the elder prince, Jeṭṭhatissa, who was capable of understanding his doctrine, he associated only with the younger prince, Mahāsena, and taught him, hoping to make him carry out his wishes in the future. When Prince Jeṭṭhatissa ascended the throne after his father's death (810–819 B.E.), Saṅghamitta, fearing that king, went back to Kāvīrapaṭṭana.

Mahāsenarañño pana kāle (819-845-bu-va) so puna sīhaḷadīpamāgantvā abhayagirivihāre vasanto mahāvihāravāsīhi vetullavādaṃ gāhāpetuṃ nānāpakārehi vāyāmamakāsi. Tathāpi tehi taṃ gāhāpetuṃ asakkonto rājānaṃ upasaṅkamitvā nānākāraṇehi saññāpetvā [Pg.27] ‘‘yo koci ekassapi bhikkhussa mahāvihāravāsino āhāraṃ dadeyya, tassa sataṃ daṇḍo’’ti rañño āṇāya nagare bheriṃ carāpesi. Tadā mahāvihāravāsino nagare piṇḍāya carantā tayo divase bhikkhamaladdhā mahāpāsāde sannipatitvā ‘‘sace mayaṃ khudāhetu adhammaṃ dhammoti gaṇheyyāma, bahū janā taṃ gahetvā apāyagāmino bhavissanti, mayañca sabbe sāvajjā bhavissāma, tasmā na mayaṃ jīvitahetupi vetullavādaṃ paṭiggaṇhissāmā’’ti sammantayitvā mahāvihārādike sabbavihāre chaḍḍetvā rohaṇajanapadañca malayapadesañca agamiṃsu.

During the time of King Mahāsena (819–845 B.E.), he returned to the island of Sri Lanka and stayed at the Abhayagiri Monastery. There, he made various efforts to persuade the residents of the Mahāvihāra to accept the Vetulla doctrine. However, being unable to convince them, he approached the king and, presenting various reasons, persuaded him to issue an order: "Whoever gives almsfood to even a single monk from the Mahāvihāra shall be fined one hundred [coins]." The king then had this proclamation announced by drum throughout the city. At that time, the monks of the Mahāvihāra, wandering for alms in the city, received no food for three days. Gathering in the Great Hall, they deliberated: "If, on account of hunger, we were to accept what is not the Dhamma as the Dhamma, many people, following our example, would go to the plane of misery, and we ourselves would all be blameworthy. Therefore, even for the sake of our lives, we shall not accept the Vetulla doctrine." Having resolved thus, they abandoned all the monasteries, including the Mahāvihāra, and departed for the Rohaṇa district and the Malaya region.

Vetullavādo

The Vetulla Doctrine

Kīdiso vetullavādo nāma, yato mahāvihāravāsino ativiya jigucchiṃsūti? Idāni vetullavādassa sarūpaṃ sabbākārena pakāsetuṃ na sakkā, vetullanāmena potthakānaṃ vā nikāyassa vā etarahi apākaṭabhāvato. Abhidhammapiṭake pana kathāvatthuaṭṭhakathāyaṃ katipayā vetullavādā āgatā. Kathaṃ? –

What sort of thing is this Vetulla doctrine that the residents of the Mahāvihāra so greatly despised? It is not possible now to explain the nature of the Vetulla doctrine in all its aspects, because books or a collection of texts by the name of 'Vetulla' are not currently known. However, in the Commentary to the Kathāvatthu of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, a number of Vetulla doctrines are mentioned. How so?

‘‘Paramatthato maggaphalāneva saṅgho, maggaphalehi añño saṅgho nāma natthi, maggaphalāni ca na kiñci paṭiggaṇhanti, tasmā na vattabbaṃ saṅgho dakkhiṇaṃ paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti ca (1).

"In the ultimate sense, the Saṅgha is only the paths and fruits; there is no Saṅgha apart from the paths and fruits. And the paths and fruits do not receive anything; therefore, it should not be said that the Saṅgha receives a worthy gift." (1)

‘‘Maggaphalāneva saṅgho nāma, na ca tāni dakkhiṇaṃ visodhetuṃ sakkonti, tasmā na vattabbaṃ saṅgho dakkhiṇaṃ visodhetī’’ti ca (2).

"The Saṅgha is only the paths and fruits, and these are not able to purify a worthy gift. Therefore, it should not be said that the Saṅgha purifies a worthy gift." (2)

‘‘Maggaphalāneva saṅgho nāma, na ca tāni kiñci bhuñjanti, tasmā na vattabbaṃ saṅgho bhuñjati pivati khādati sāyatī’’ti ca (3).

"The Saṅgha is merely the paths and fruits, and these do not consume anything. Therefore, it should not be said: 'The Saṅgha eats, drinks, chews, or savors.'" (3)

Maggaphalāneva saṅgho nāma, na ca sakkā tesaṃ kiñci dātuṃ, na ca tehi paṭiggaṇhituṃ, nāpi tesaṃ dānena koci upakāro ijjhati, tasmā na vattabbaṃ saṅghassa dinnaṃ mahapphala’’nti ca (4).

"The Saṅgha is merely the paths and fruits; it is not possible to give anything to them, nor can they receive anything, nor is any benefit accomplished by giving to them. Therefore, it should not be said that what is given to the Saṅgha is of great fruit." (4)

‘‘Buddho bhagavā na kiñci paribhuñjati, lokānuvattanatthaṃ pana paribhuñjamānaṃ viya attānaṃ dasseti, tasmā nirupakārattā na vattabbaṃ tasmiṃ dinnaṃ mahapphala’’nti ca (5).

"The Buddha, the Blessed One, consumes nothing, but for the purpose of conforming to the world, he shows himself as if consuming. Therefore, because no benefit is derived from him, it should not be said that what is given to him is of great fruit." (5)

‘‘Bhagavā [Pg.28] tusitabhavane nibbatto tattheva vasati, na manussalokaṃ āgacchati, nimmitarūpamattakaṃ panettha dassetī’’ti ca (6).

"The Blessed One was reborn in the Tusita heaven and dwells there; he does not come to the human world but only shows a created form here." (6)

‘‘Tusitapure ṭhito bhagavā dhammadesanatthāya abhinimmitaṃ pesesi, tena ceva, tassa ca desanaṃ sampaṭicchitvā āyasmatā ānandena dhammo desito, na buddhena bhagavatā’’ti ca (7).

"The Blessed One, while dwelling in the Tusita celestial realm, sent forth a created image for the purpose of teaching the Dhamma. It was by that created image, and by the Venerable Ānanda who had received the teaching from him, that the Dhamma was taught, not by the Buddha, the Blessed One." (7)

‘‘Ekādhippāyena methuno dhammo paṭisevitabbo. Ayaṃ panettha attho – kāruññena vā ekena adhippāyena ekādhippāyo, saṃsāre vā ekato bhavissāmāti itthiyā saddhiṃ buddhapūjādīni katvā paṇidhivasena eko adhippāyo assāti ekādhippāyo, evarūpo dvinnampi janānaṃ ekādhippāyo methuno dhammo paṭisevitabbo’’ti ca (8) evaṃ vetullavādīnaṃ laddhiyo āgatā, ettakāyeva nesaṃ vādā theravādaganthavasena dāni paññāyanti.

"Sexual intercourse should be engaged in with a single intention. Here the meaning is this: 'single intention' (ekādhippāya) might be an intention of compassion. Or, it might be the single intention that arises from making an aspiration together with a woman—after performing such acts as venerating the Buddha—with the thought, 'May we be together in saṃsāra.' Sexual intercourse based on such a single intention on the part of both persons is to be engaged in." (8) Such are the tenets of the Vetullavādins that have come down, and only this many of their doctrines are now known from the Theravāda texts.

Ettha ca ādito catūhi vādehi suttantāgatasaṅgho ca micchā gahito, vinayāgatasaṅgho ca sabbathā paṭikkhitto. Tadanantaraṃ tayo vādā issaranimmānavādānuvattakā. Antimassa pana asaddhammavādabhāvo ativiya pākaṭoti.

Here, by the first four theses, the concept of the Saṅgha found in the Suttas is wrongly grasped, and the concept of the Saṅgha found in the Vinaya is completely rejected. The next three theses are followers of a doctrine of creation by a supreme lord. As for the last thesis, its nature as a false doctrine is exceedingly evident.

Abhidhammasamuccaye pana vetullapiṭakassa bodhisattapiṭakabhāvo pakāsito, tasmā saddhammapuṇḍarikasuttādike bodhisattapiṭake āgatavādopi ‘‘vetullavādo’’ti veditabbo.

In the Abhidhammasamuccaya, however, it is declared that the Vetullapiṭaka is the Bodhisattapiṭaka. Therefore, the doctrines found in the Bodhisattapiṭaka, such as in the Saddhammapuṇḍarika Sutta and others, should also be understood as 'Vetullavāda'.

Mahāvihāranāsanaṃ

The Destruction of the Mahāvihāra

Mahāvihāravāsīsu pana vuttappakārena sabbavihāre chaḍḍetvā gatesu saṅghamitto pāpabhikkhu rājānaṃ saññāpetvā lohapāsādādike catusaṭṭhyādhike tisatamatte pariveṇapāsāde nāsetvā samūlaṃ uddharāpetvā abhayagirivihāraṃ ānayāpesi. Vihārabhūmiyañca kasāpetvā aparaṇṇe vapāpesi. Evaṃ tadā mahāvihāro nava vassāni bhikkhūhi suñño ahosi āvāsavirahito ca. Atha rājā meghavaṇṇābhayassa nāma kalyāṇamittabhūtassa amaccassa santajjanapubbaṅgamena vacanena [Pg.29] mahāvihāraṃ puna pākatikaṃ katvā te cāpi apakkante bhikkhū ānetvā catūhi paccayehi upaṭṭhahi.

Now, when the residents of the Mahāvihāra had abandoned all the monasteries in the manner described and departed, the evil monk Saṅghamitta, having persuaded the king, had the three hundred and sixty-four monastic residences, including the Lohapāsāda, destroyed. Having had them completely uprooted, he had the materials brought to the Abhayagiri Monastery. He also had the monastery grounds plowed and sown with beans. Thus, for nine years the Mahāvihāra was empty of monks and devoid of dwellings. Then the king, on the advice—preceded by a threat—of his minister and good friend named Meghavaṇṇābhaya, restored the Mahāvihāra to its original condition. He also brought back those monks who had departed and supported them with the four requisites.

Jetavanavāsinikāyuppatti

The Origin of the Jetavanavāsin Nikāya

Punapi rājā dakkhiṇārāmavāsimhi jimhamānase kuhakatissatthere pasanno hutvā tassatthāya mahāvihārasīmabbhantare jotivanuyyāne jetavanavihāraṃ kāretumārabhi. Mahāvihāravāsino bhikkhū taṃ nivāretuṃ asakkontā punapi tato apakkamiṃsu. Tadāpi mahāvihāro nava māsāni bhikkhūhi suñño ahosi. Rājā pana attano ajjhāsayavaseneva tattha jetavanavihāraṃ kāretvā tassa kuhakatissattherassa adāsiyeva. Tattha dakkhiṇagirivihārato sāgaliyā bhikkhū āgantvā vasiṃsu. Pacchā ca te ambasāmaṇerasilākālarañño kāle (1067-1080-bu-va) vetullavādino ahesuṃ.

Again the king, pleased with the fraudulent, crooked-minded Elder Tissa, a resident of the Dakkhiṇārāma, began to have the Jetavana Monastery built for him in the Jotivana park, within the boundary of the Mahāvihāra. The monks of the Mahāvihāra, unable to prevent this, again departed from there. At that time too, the Mahāvihāra was empty of monks for nine months. The king, however, following his own inclination, had the Jetavana Monastery built there and gave it to that fraudulent Elder Tissa. Monks of the Sāgaliya school from the Dakkhiṇagiri Monastery came and resided there. Later, during the time of King Ambasāmaṇera Silākāla (1067–1080 B.E.), they became adherents of the Vetullavāda.

Evaṃ ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa sīhaḷadīpamāgamanakālato (965-bu-va) pubbeyeva visuddhattheravādīhi mahāvihāravāsīhi viruddhasamayā abhayagirivāsino (455-bu-va) sāgaliyā (797-810-bu-va) jetavanavāsino (829-845-bu-va) cāti tayo nikāyā uppannā ahesuṃ. Tesu pana abhayagirivāsinoyeva visesato pākaṭā ceva honti balavanto ca. Tathā hi te visuddhattheravādapiṭakañca vajjiputtakapariyāpannadhammarucinikāyapiṭakañca mahisāsakādinikāyapiṭakañca mahāyānapiṭakañca sampaṭicchanti. Tesu dhammarucinikāyapiṭakassa sampaṭicchitabhāvo pākaṭoyeva. Mahisāsakādinikāyapiṭakassa sampaṭicchitabhāvo pana phāhiyannāmassa cinabhikkhuno addhānakkamasallakkhaṇakathāya ceva aṭṭhakathāsu paṭikkhittavaṇṇapiṭakādināmavasena ca veditabbo, tathā mahāyānapiṭakassa sampaṭicchitabhāvopi.

Thus, even before the arrival of the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa on the island of Sīhaḷa (965 B.E.), three nikāyas had arisen with doctrines opposed to the pure Theravādins of the Mahāvihāra: the Abhayagirivāsins (455 B.E.), the Sāgaliyas (797–810 B.E.), and the Jetavanavāsins (829–845 B.E.). Among them, the Abhayagirivāsins were especially prominent and powerful. For they accepted the pure Theravāda Piṭaka, the Piṭaka of the Dhammarucika Nikāya which is included among the Vajjiputtakas, the Piṭakas of the Mahīśāsaka and other nikāyas, and the Mahāyāna Piṭaka. Among these, their acceptance of the Dhammarucika Nikāya Piṭaka is quite evident. Their acceptance of the Piṭakas of the Mahīśāsaka and other nikāyas, however, is to be understood from the travel account of the Chinese monk named Faxian, and from the names of such works as the Vaṇṇa Piṭaka, which are rejected in the commentaries; likewise their acceptance of the Mahāyāna Piṭaka.

Phāhiyamaddhānakkamakathā

The Travel Account of Faxian

Phāhiyannāmena hi cinabhikkhunā 956-buddhavasse sīhaḷadīpato sakkatabhāsāropitaṃ mahisāsakavinayapiṭakañca dīghāgamo ca saṃyuttāgamo ca sannipātapiṭakañca attanā saha cinaraṭṭhamānītanti tassa addhānakkamakathāyaṃ [Pg.30] dassitaṃ. Tañca sabbaṃ abhayagirivihāratoyeva laddhamassa, mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ sakkatāropitapiṭakābhāvato. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ paṭikkhittavaṇṇapiṭakādīni ca tattheva bhaveyyuṃ, mahāvihāravāsīhi tesaṃ appaṭiggahitabhāvato. Tathā ‘‘phāhiyambhikkhussa sīhaḷadīpe paṭivasanakāle (954-956-bu-va) mahāvihāre tisahassamattā bhikkhū vasanti, te theravādapiṭakameva uggaṇhanti, na mahāyānapiṭakaṃ. Abhayagirivihāre pañcasahassamattā bhikkhū vasanti, te pana dvepi piṭakāni uggaṇhanti mahāyānapiṭakañceva theravādapiṭakañcā’’ti ca teneva cinabhikkhunā dassitaṃ.

For it is shown in his travel account that the Chinese monk named Faxian, in the Buddhist year 956, brought with him to China from the island of Sīhaḷa the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya Piṭaka, the Dīrgha Āgama, the Saṃyukta Āgama, and the Saṃnipāta Piṭaka, which had been rendered into the Sanskrit language. All this must have been obtained by him from the Abhayagiri Monastery, as the residents of the Mahāvihāra did not possess Piṭakas rendered into Sanskrit. The Vaṇṇa Piṭaka and other works rejected in the commentaries would also have been there, since they were not accepted by the residents of the Mahāvihāra. Similarly, it was reported by that same Chinese monk: 'During the monk Faxian's residence on the island of Sīhaḷa (954–956 B.E.), about three thousand monks reside in the Mahāvihāra; they study only the Theravāda Piṭaka, not the Mahāyāna Piṭaka. In the Abhayagiri Monastery about five thousand monks reside; they, however, study both Piṭakas, the Mahāyāna Piṭaka and the Theravāda Piṭaka.'

Yasmā pana abhayagirivāsino mahāyānapiṭakampi uggaṇhanti, tasmā tasmiṃ vihāre mahāyānikānaṃ padhānācariyabhūtehi assaghosanāgajjunehi kataganthāpi saṃvijjamānāyeva bhaveyyuṃ, tatoyeva tesaṃ nayañca nāmañca ācariyabuddhaghosattheropi aññepi taṃkālikā mahāvihāravāsino sutasampannā therā jāneyyuṃyeva. Apica dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe samuddasamīpe guntājanapade nāgārajunakoṇḍaṃ nāma ṭhānamatthi, yattha nāgajjuno mahāyānikānaṃ padhānācariyabhūto vasanto buddhasāsanaṃ patiṭṭhāpesi. Ācariyabuddhaghosassa ca tandesikabhāvanimittaṃ dissati, taṃ pacchato (33-piṭṭhe) āvibhavissati. Tasmāpi ācariyabuddhaghosatthero nāgajjunassa ca assaghosassa ca nayañca nāmañca jāneyyayevāti sakkā anuminituṃ.

And since the residents of Abhayagiri also study the Mahāyāna Piṭaka, it is likely that texts composed by Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, the principal teachers of the Mahāyānists, were available in that monastery. For that very reason, the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa and other learned elders of that time residing at the Mahāvihāra would surely have known their doctrines and their names. Moreover, in South India, near the sea, in the Guntur district, there is a place called Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, where Nāgārjuna, the principal teacher of the Mahāyānists, lived and established the Buddha's Dispensation. A sign is seen indicating that Ācariya Buddhaghosa was from that country, which will become clear later (on page 33). Therefore, it can be inferred that the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa would have known both the doctrines and the names of Nāgārjuna and Aśvaghoṣa.

Jānatoyeva pana tesaṃ nayassa vā nāmassa vā attano aṭṭhakathāyamappakāsanaṃ tesaṃ nikāyantarabhāvatoyevassa. Tathā hi tesaṃ assaghosanāgajjunānaṃ assaghoso theravādato bhinnesu ekādasasu gaṇesu sabbatthivādagaṇe pariyāpanno, nāgajjuno ca mahāsaṅghika-cetiyavādigaṇādīhi jāte mahāyānanikāye pariyāpanno, [Pg.31] mahāvihāravāsino ca āditoyeva paṭṭhāya nikāyantarasamayehi asammissanatthaṃ attano piṭakaṃ atīva ādaraṃ katvā rakkhanti, ayañca ācariyabuddhaghoso tesamaññataro. Vuttañhi tassa ganthanigamanesu ‘‘mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ vaṃsālaṅkārabhūtenā’’ti. Tasmā ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghoso tesaṃ nayaṃ jānantoyeva attano ganthesu nikāyantarasamayehi asammissanatthaṃ nappakāsesī’’ti veditabbaṃ.

However, his not mentioning their doctrine or name in his own commentaries, though he knew them, must have been because they belonged to other nikāyas. For of Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, Aśvaghoṣa was included in the Sarvāstivāda school, one of the eleven schools that split from the Theravāda, while Nāgārjuna was included in the Mahāyāna nikāya, which arose from the Mahāsaṅghika, Cetiyavāda, and other schools. The residents of the Mahāvihāra, from the very beginning, guarded their own Piṭaka with great care so as not to mix it with the doctrines of other nikāyas, and this Ācariya Buddhaghosa was one of them. For it is stated in the colophons of his works: 'by him who was an ornament to the lineage of the Mahāvihāra residents.' Therefore, it should be understood that Ācariya Buddhaghosa, though knowing their doctrine, did not mention it in his own works in order not to mix them with the doctrines of other nikāyas.

Ettāvatā ca yāni ‘‘bodhimaṇḍasamīpamhi, jāto brāhmaṇamāṇavo’’tiādinā vuttassa mahāvaṃsavacanassa vicāraṇamukhena ācariyabuddhaghosassa vambhanavacanāni dhammānandakosambinā vuttāni, tāni amūlakabhāvena anuvicāritāni. Tathāpi ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghoso bodhimaṇḍasamīpe jāto’’ti etaṃ pana atthaṃ sādhetuṃ daḷhakāraṇaṃ na dissateva ṭhapetvā taṃ mahāvaṃsavacanaṃ, yampi buddhaghosuppattiyaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi mahāvaṃsameva nissāya vuttavacanattā na daḷhakāraṇaṃ hotīti.

Thus far, the disparaging words about Ācariya Buddhaghosa spoken by Dhammānanda Kosambi, by way of an investigation into the Mahāvaṃsa statement beginning, 'A brahmin youth born near the Bodhimaṇḍa,' have been examined and found to be baseless. Nevertheless, to establish the point that 'Ācariya Buddhaghosa was born near the Bodhimaṇḍa,' no strong reason is seen apart from that Mahāvaṃsa statement. And what is said in the Buddhaghosuppatti, since it is a statement made in reliance on the Mahāvaṃsa itself, does not constitute a strong reason.

Marammaraṭṭhikabhāvakathā

The Account of His Being a Native of the Maramma Country

Ekacce pana marammaraṭṭhikā ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghoso marammaraṭṭhe sathuṃ nāma nagarato sīhaḷadīpaṃ gantvā saṅgahaṭṭhakathāyo akāsī’’ti vadanti. Taṃ dhammānandena anujānitvā ‘‘tampi thokaṃ yuttisampannaṃ, ahaṃ evaṃ saddahāmi ‘buddhaghoso dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe telaṅgajātiko’ti, telaṅgajātikā ca bahū janā marammaraṭṭhe ca indocina raṭṭhe ca gantvā vasanti, talhiṅa? Iti vohāro ca tatoyeva telaṅgapadato uppanno. Tathā ‘buddhaghoso aṭṭhakathāyo katvā sīhaḷadīpato marammaraṭṭhaṃ gantvā pacchimabhāge tattheva vasī’tipi gahetuṃ sakkā, tassa hi ganthā marammaraṭṭhe sīhaḷaraṭṭhatopi surakkhitatarā hontī’’ti ca vatvā patiṭṭhāpitaṃ.

However, some natives of the Maramma country say: ‘The Teacher Buddhaghosa went from the city named Sathuṃ in the Maramma country to the island of Sīhaḷa and composed the Saṅgaha commentaries.’ Conceding this, Dhammānanda stated: ‘That too is somewhat reasonable. I believe thus: “Buddhaghosa was of Telugu origin in the South Indian country.” And many people of Telugu origin go and settle in the Maramma country and in the Indochina country. Has not the term “Talhiṅa” arisen from that very word “Telaṅga”? Similarly, it can also be accepted that “Buddhaghosa, after composing the commentaries, went from the island of Sīhaḷa to the Maramma country and dwelt there in the latter part of his life.” For his books are even better preserved in the Maramma country than in the country of Sīhaḷa.’ Thus it was established.

Dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhikabhāvayutti

The Argument for His Being a Native of South India

Bahū pana ādhunikā vicakkhaṇā dhammānandādayo ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghosatthero dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhiko’’ti vadanti. Ayaṃ panettha yutti, yebhuyyena hi aṭṭhakathāṭīkākārā therā dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhikāyeva. Tathā [Pg.32] hi buddhavaṃsaṭṭhakathāya ca abhidhammāvatāraṭṭhakathāya ca vinayavinicchayaṭṭhakathāya ca kārako ācariyabuddhadattatthero coḷaraṭṭhe tambapaṇṇinadiyaṃ uraganagare jāto ācariyabuddhaghosena ekakāliko ca. Paramatthavinicchaya-nāmarūpapariccheda-abhidhammatthasaṅgahānaṃ kārako ācariyaanuruddhatthero kañcivararaṭṭhe kāverinagarajātiko. Khuddakanikāyapariyāpannaudānādipāḷiyā saṃvaṇṇanābhūtāya paramatthadīpaniyā kārako ācariyadhammapālattheropi dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe kañcipurajātiko. Tathevāyampīti veditabbo. Vuttañhi manorathapūraṇiyā nāma aṅguttaraṭṭhakathāya nigamane –

However, many modern discerning scholars such as Dhammānanda say: ‘The Venerable Teacher Buddhaghosa was from South India.’ This is the reasoning here: for the most part, the elder-authors of commentaries and subcommentaries were indeed from South India. For instance, the author of the commentary on the Buddhavaṃsa, the commentary on the Abhidhammāvatāra, and the commentary on the Vinayavinicchaya, the Venerable Teacher Buddhadatta, was born in the city of Uraga on the Tambapaṇṇi River in the Coḷa country and was a contemporary of the Teacher Buddhaghosa. The author of the Paramatthavinicchaya, the Nāmarūpapariccheda, and the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, the Venerable Teacher Anuruddha, was a native of the city of Kāverī in the Kañcivara country. The Venerable Teacher Dhammapāla, author of the Paramatthadīpanī, which is a commentary on the Pāli of the Udāna and other texts included in the Khuddaka Nikāya, was also a native of the city of Kañcipura in South India. In the same way, this one too should be understood. For it is stated in the conclusion of the commentary on the Aṅguttara Nikāya named the Manorathapūraṇī:

‘‘Āyācito sumatinā, therena bhadantajotipālena;

Kañcipurādīsu mayā, pubbe saddhiṃ vasantenā’’ti.

“Requested by the wise elder, the venerable Jotipāla, with whom I formerly dwelt in Kañcipura and other places.”

Ettha ca kañcipuraṃ nāma madarasanagarassa īsakaṃ pacchimanissite dakkhiṇadisābhāge pañcacattālīsamilappamāṇe padese idāni kañjīvara iti voharitanagarameva.

Here, the city named Kañcipura, in a place about forty-five miles away, situated slightly to the west of the city of Madarasa in the southern direction, is the very city now known as Kañjīvara.

Tathā papañcasūdaniyā nāma majjhimaṭṭhakathāya nigamanepi –

Similarly, also in the conclusion of the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, the Papañcasūdanī:

‘‘Āyācito sumatinā, therena buddhamittena;

Pubbe mayūradūta paṭṭanamhi saddhiṃ vasantenā’’ti – vuttaṃ.

“Requested by the wise elder Buddhamitta, with whom I formerly dwelt together in the port-town of Mayūradūtapaṭṭana”—so it is said.

Ettha ca mayūradūtapaṭṭanaṃ nāma idāni madarasanagarasamīpe milapora iti voharitaṭṭhānanti porāṇappavattigavesīhi vuttaṃ.

Here, it is said by investigators of ancient traditions that the port-town named Mayūradūtapaṭṭana is the place near the city of Madarasa now called Milapora.

Imāhi pana nigamanagāthāhi dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭheyeva nivutthapubbataṃ pakāseti, bodhimaṇḍasamīpe vā, marammaraṭṭhe vā nivutthapubbatāya pakāsanañca na dissati. Tena ācariyabuddhaghoso dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhiko na hotīti na sakkā paṭikkhipituṃ.

These concluding verses, however, reveal that he had previously resided only in the South Indian country, and no disclosure of a previous residence near the Bodhimaṇḍa or in the Maramma country is seen. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the Teacher Buddhaghosa was from the South Indian country.

Samantapāsādikāyampi vinayaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (3, 13) ācariyena evaṃ vuttaṃ –

Also in the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya (3, 13), it has been said thus by the Teacher:

‘‘Yaṃ [Pg.33] pana andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘aparikkhitte pamukhe anāpattīti bhūmiyaṃ vinā jagatiyā pamukhaṃ sandhāya kathita’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ andhakaraṭṭhe pāṭekkasannivesā ekacchadanā gabbhapāḷiyo sandhāya vutta’’nti.

“But what is stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, namely, ‘There is no offense in an unenclosed frontage,’ was said with reference to the frontage of a terrace, not including the ground. That was said with reference to the rows of inner chambers that are single-roofed and have separate arrangements in the Andhaka country.”

Iminā pana vacanena ‘‘andhakaṭṭhakathā andhakaraṭṭhikehi therehi katā’’ti pākaṭā hoti, ācariyabuddhaghosopi ca andhakaṭṭhakathāya sandhāyabhāsitampi tandesikagabbhapāḷisannivesākārampi suṭṭhu jānāti, tasmā tandesiko na hotīti na sakkā vattunti.

By this statement, however, it becomes clear that ‘the Andhakaṭṭhakathā was composed by the elders of the Andhaka country.’ And the Teacher Buddhaghosa also knows well both the intended meaning of the Andhakaṭṭhakathā and the manner of arrangement of the rows of inner chambers of that country. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not a native of that country.

Tathā imassapi visuddhimaggassa nigamane – ‘‘moraṇḍakheṭakavattabbenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha ca kheṭoti padassa gāmoti vā, jānapadānaṃ kassakānaṃ nivāsoti vā, khuddakanagaranti vā tayo atthā sakkatābhidhāne pakāsitā, dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhesu ca yāvajjatanāpi gāmo kheḍāti voharīyati. Tasmā moraṇḍavhaye kheṭe jāto moraṇḍakheṭako, moraṇḍakheṭako iti vattabbo moraṇḍakheṭakavattabbo, tena moraṇḍakheṭakavattabbenāti vacanatthaṃ katvā ‘‘moraṇḍagāme jātoti vattabbena therenā’’ti attho gahetabbo. Idāni pana dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe guntājanapade nāgārajunakoṇḍato ekapaṇṇāsamilamatte (51) amaravatito ca aṭṭhapaṇṇāsamilamatte (58) padese kotanemalipurīti ca gundalapallīti ca voharitaṃ ṭhānadvayamatthi, tattha ca bahūni buddhasāsanikaporāṇasantakāni diṭṭhāni, nemalīti telaguvohāro ca morassa, gundalu iti ca aṇḍassa, tasmā taṃ ṭhānadvayameva pubbe moraṇḍakheṭoti voharito ācariyabuddhaghosassa jātigāmo bhaveyyāti porāṇaṭṭhānagavesīhi gahito. Yasmā panetaṃ ‘‘moraṇḍakheṭakavattabbenā’’ti padaṃ ‘‘moraṇḍagāmajātenā’’ti padaṃ viya pāḷinayānucchavikaṃ na hoti, aññehi ca bahūhi visesanapadehi ekato aṭṭhatvā visesyapadassa pacchato visuṃ ṭhitaṃ, āgamaṭṭhakathādīsu ca na dissati, tasmā etaṃ kenaci taṃkālikena ācariyassa jātiṭṭhānaṃ sañjānantena pakkhittaṃ viya dissatīti.

Similarly, in the conclusion of this Visuddhimagga too, it is said: ‘by one who should be called a Moraṇḍakheṭaka.’ Here, three meanings of the word ‘kheṭa’ have been declared in Sanskrit dictionaries: a village, a dwelling of country farmers, or a small town. Moreover, in the South Indian countries, even today a village is called ‘kheḍā.’ Therefore, one born in a kheṭa named Moraṇḍa is a Moraṇḍakheṭaka; one who should be called a Moraṇḍakheṭaka is a Moraṇḍakheṭakavattabba. Thus, having construed the meaning of the expression ‘by one who should be called a Moraṇḍakheṭaka,’ the meaning should be understood as ‘by the elder who should be said to be born in the village of Moraṇḍa.’ Now, in the South Indian country, in the Guntā district, at a distance of about 51 miles from Nāgārajunakoṇḍa and about 58 miles from Amarāvatī, there are two places known as Kotanemalipuri and Gundalapalli. There, many ancient possessions of the Buddhist Dispensation have been seen. ‘Nemalī’ is the Telugu term for peacock, and ‘gundalu’ for egg. Therefore, it is held by investigators of ancient sites that these two places were formerly called Moraṇḍakheṭa and might have been the native village of the Teacher Buddhaghosa. However, since this term ‘moraṇḍakheṭakavattabbenā’ is not in conformity with Pāli style like the term ‘moraṇḍagāmajātenā’; and since, not standing together with many other adjectival words, it stands separately after the noun it qualifies; and since it is not found in the Āgamas, commentaries, etc., it therefore appears as if it was inserted by some contemporary who knew the Teacher's birthplace.

Imesu pana tīsu ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghoso bodhimaṇḍasamīpe jātoti ca marammaraṭṭhikoti ca dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhiko’’ti ca vuttavacanesu pacchimameva balavataraṃ hoti ācariyasseva vacananissitattā, tasmā [Pg.34] tadeva nissāya ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa uppatti evaṃ veditabbā.

However, among these three statements—that ‘the Teacher Buddhaghosa was born near the Bodhimaṇḍa,’ that ‘he was a native of the Maramma country,’ and that ‘he was a native of the South Indian country’—the last one is the strongest because it is based on the Teacher's own words. Therefore, relying on that very one, the origin of the Venerable Teacher Buddhaghosa should be understood thus:

Ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa aṭṭhuppatti

The Account of the Origin of the Teacher, the Elder Buddhaghosa

Ācariyabuddhaghoso dasame buddhavassasatake (901-1000-bu-va) dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe moraṇḍagāme brāhmaṇakule jāto, so tīsu vedesu ceva sabbavijjāsippaganthesu ca pāraṅgato hutvā buddhasāsanadhammaṃ sutvā tampi uggaṇhitukāmo tasmiṃyeva dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe ekasmiṃ theravādikavihāre mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ revatattherappamukhānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ santike pabbajjañceva upasampadañca gaṇhitvā piṭakattayapāḷimuggaṇhi. So evaṃ piṭakattayapāḷimuggaṇhantoyeva aññāsi ‘‘ayamekāyanamaggo dassanavisuddhiyā nibbānasacchikiriyāyā’’ti. Ācariyupajjhāyā ca tassa visiṭṭhañāṇappabhāvasampannabhāvaṃ ñatvā ‘‘imassa buddhasāsane kittighoso buddhassa viya pavattissatī’’ti sampassamānā ‘‘buddhaghoso’’ti nāmamakaṃsu. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyenā’’ti.

The Teacher Buddhaghosa was born in the tenth century of the Buddha era (901–1000 B.E.) in a brahmin family in the village of Moraṇḍa in South India. Having mastered the three Vedas and all treatises on knowledge and crafts, he heard the Dhamma of the Buddha's Dispensation. Desiring to learn this as well, he went to a Theravāda monastery in that same land of South India and received the going forth and the higher ordination from a community of monks headed by the Elder Revata, who were residents of the Mahāvihāra. There, he learned the Pāli Tipiṭaka. While learning the Tipiṭaka, he realized, “This is the direct path for the purification of view and the realization of Nibbāna.” His teachers and preceptors, recognizing that he was endowed with the power of exceptional wisdom and foreseeing that “in the Buddha's Dispensation, this one’s fame will spread like that of the Buddha,” gave him the name “Buddhaghosa.” Therefore it is said that he was the one “named Buddhaghosa by his revered teachers.”

So evaṃ piṭakattayapāḷimuggaṇhitvā madarasa nagarasamīpaṭṭhānabhūte mayūradūtapaṭṭanamhi ca kañcipurādīsu ca vasanto andhakaṭṭhakathāya paricayaṃ katvā tāya asantuṭṭhacitto sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāsupi paricayaṃ kātukāmo tā ca pāḷibhāsamāropetvā abhinavīkātumāsīsanto sīhaḷadīpamagamāsi. Tasmiñca kāle sīhaḷadīpe mahānāmo nāma rājā rajjaṃ kāreti, so ca rājā abhayagirivāsīsu pasanno teyeva visesato paggaṇhāti.

Thus, having learned the Pāli Tipiṭaka, he dwelt in Mayūradūtapaṭṭana near the city of Madarasa, and in Kañcipura and other places. There he became familiar with the Andhaka commentary, but was dissatisfied with it. Desiring to become familiar with the Sinhala commentaries as well, and wishing to revise them by rendering them into the Pāli language, he went to the island of Sīhaḷa. At that time, a king named Mahānāma was ruling on the island of Sīhaḷa, and this king was pleased with the residents of Abhayagiri and gave them special support.

Ekacce pana ādhunikā vicakkhaṇā evaṃ vadanti ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghosassa sīhaḷadīpāgamanena sirimeghavaṇṇarājakālato (846-bu-va) puretaraṃyeva bhavitabba’’nti. Idañca nesaṃ kāraṇaṃ, tassa rañño navavassakāle (855-bu-va) buddhassa dāṭhādhātukaliṅgaraṭṭhato sīhaḷadīpamānītā, tato paṭṭhāya sīhaḷarājāno anusaṃvaccharaṃ mahantaṃ dhātupūjāussavaṃ karonti. Yadi ca ācariyabuddhaghoso tato pacchā sīhaḷadīpamāgaccheyya, tampi pāsādikaṃ mahussavaṃ disvā attano ganthesu pakāseyya yathā phāhiyaṃ nāma cinabhikkhu mahānāmarājakāle (953-975-bu-va) taṃ disvā attano addhānakkamakathāyaṃ pakāsesi, na pana ācariyassa ganthesu [Pg.35] taṃpakāsanā dissati, tenetaṃ ñāyati ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghoso dāṭhādhātusampattakālato (855-bu-va) puretaraṃyeva sīhaḷadīpamāgantvā aṭṭhakathāyo akāsī’’ti. Taṃ pana na daḷhakāraṇaṃ hoti, tipiṭakapāḷiyā hi atthasaṃvaṇṇanāya yaṃ vā taṃ vā attano paccakkhadiṭṭhaṃ pakāsetabbaṃ na hoti, na ca atthasaṃvaṇṇanā addhānakkamakathāsadisā. Kiñca bhiyyo, samantapāsādikāya vinayaṭṭhakathāyaṃ dīpavaṃsatopi kiñci ānetvā pakāsitaṃ, dīpavaṃse ca yāva mahāsenarājakālā (819-845-bu-va) pavatti pakāsitāti sirimeghavaṇṇarājakālato (845-873-bu-va) pubbe dīpavaṃsoyeva likhito na bhaveyya. Yadi ca aṭṭhakathāyo tato pubbeyeva katā bhaveyyuṃ, kathaṃ tattha dīpavaṃso sakkā pakāsetunti.

However, some modern discerning scholars say: “The Teacher Buddhaghosa must have arrived on the island of Sīhaḷa even before the time of King Sirimeghavaṇṇa (846 B.E.).” And this is their reason: In the ninth year of that king’s reign (855 B.E.), the Buddha’s tooth relic was brought from the country of Kaliṅga to the island of Sīhaḷa, and from then on, the kings of Sīhaḷa have held a great annual festival in honor of the relic. If the Teacher Buddhaghosa had come to the island of Sīhaḷa after that, having seen that splendid great festival, he would have mentioned it in his books, just as the Chinese monk named Faxian, having seen it in the time of King Mahānāma (953–975 B.E.), mentioned it in his travel account. But since no such mention is seen in the Teacher’s books, it is inferred that “the Teacher Buddhaghosa arrived on the island of Sīhaḷa and wrote the commentaries even before the arrival of the tooth relic (855 B.E.).” But this is not a strong reason. For in a commentary explaining the meaning of the Pāli Tipiṭaka, it is not necessary to mention whatever one has personally seen, nor is a commentary like a travelogue. Furthermore, in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary, something is brought from the Dīpavaṃsa and explained. Since the history in the Dīpavaṃsa is recorded up to the time of King Mahāsena (819–845 B.E.), the Dīpavaṃsa itself could not have been written before the time of King Sirimeghavaṇṇa (845–873 B.E.). And if the commentaries were written before that time, how could the Dīpavaṃsa be cited in them?

Ācariyabuddhaghoso pana sīhaḷadīpaṃ pattakāle (965-bu-va) mahāvihārameva gantvā tattha sīhaḷamahātherānaṃ santike sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo suṇi. Vuttañhi samantapāsādikāyaṃ –

When the Teacher Buddhaghosa arrived on the island of Sīhaḷa (c. 965 B.E.), he went directly to the Mahāvihāra, and there, from the great elders of Sīhaḷa, he listened to the Sinhala commentaries. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā:

‘‘Mahāaṭṭhakathañceva, mahāpaccarimeva ca;

Kurundiñcāti tissopi, sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā imā.

“The Great Commentary, the Mahāpaccari, and also the Kurundī—these three are the Sinhala commentaries.

Buddhamittoti nāmena, vissutassa yasassino;

Vinayaññussa dhīrassa, sutvā therassa santike’’ti.

…having heard them from the elder named Buddhamitta, who was renowned and famous, wise, and an expert in the Vinaya.”

Iminā pana aṭṭhakathāvacanena mahāaṭṭhakathādīnaṃ tissannaṃyeva aṭṭhakathānaṃ sutabhāvo dassito. Samantapāsādikāyaṃ pana saṅkhepaandhakaṭṭhakathānampi vinicchayo dassitoyeva, kasmā pana tā ācariyena sīhaḷattherānaṃ santike na sutāti? Tāsu hi andhakaṭṭhakathā tāva andhakaraṭṭhikabhāvato, kataparicayabhāvato ca na sutāti pākaṭoyevāyamattho. Saṅkhepaṭṭhakathā pana mahāpaccariṭṭhakathāya saṃkhittamattabhāvato na sutāti veditabbā. Tathā hi vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ ganthārambhasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ cūḷapaccariṭṭhakathāandhakaṭṭhakathānampi ādi-saddena saṅgahitabhāvo vutto, sāratthadīpanī-vimativinodanīṭīkāsu pana andhakasaṅkhepaṭṭhakathānaṃ saṅgahitabhāvo vutto, samantapāsādikāyañca cūḷapaccarīti nāmaṃ kuhiñcipi na dissati, mahāṭṭhakathā mahāpaccarī kurundī andhakasaṅkhepaṭṭhakathāti [Pg.36] imāniyeva nāmāni dissanti, bahūsu ca ṭhānesu ‘‘saṅkhepaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana mahāpaccariyañca vutta’’ntiādinā dvinnampi samānavinicchayo dassito. Tasmā vajirabuddhiyaṃ cūḷapaccarīti vuttaṭṭhakathā mahāpaccarito uddharitvā saṅkhepena kataṭṭhakathā bhaveyya, sā ca saṅkhepena katattā saṅkhepaṭṭhakathā nāma jātā bhaveyya. Evañca sati mahāpaccariyā sutāya sāpi sutāyeva hotīti na sā ācariyena sutāti veditabbā.

By this statement from the commentary, it is shown that only the three commentaries, the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā and the others, were heard. However, in the Samantapāsādikā, a decision regarding the Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā and the Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā is also presented. So why were these not heard by the Teacher from the Sinhala elders? Regarding these, it is clear that the Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā was not heard because it was from the Andhaka country and he was already familiar with it. As for the Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā, it should be understood that it was not heard separately because it is merely an abridgement of the Mahāpaccari-aṭṭhakathā. Indeed, in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā, in the eulogy at the start of the text, it is said that the Cūḷapaccari-aṭṭhakathā and the Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā are included by the word “etc.” (ādi). In the Sāratthadīpanī and Vimativinodanī-ṭīkās, however, it is said that the Andhaka- and Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathās are included. Moreover, in the Samantapāsādikā, the name “Cūḷapaccarī” is not found anywhere; only the names Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, Mahāpaccari, Kurundī, Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, and Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā are seen. And in many places, a similar decision is shown for both, as in the statement: “But in the Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā and in the Mahāpaccari it is said….” Therefore, the commentary called “Cūḷapaccarī” in the Vajirabuddhi must be a commentary made in brief by extracting from the Mahāpaccari, and because it was made in brief, it came to be known as the Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā. This being so, since the Mahāpaccari was heard, the Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā is also considered as having been heard; thus it should be understood that it was not heard separately by the Teacher.

Evaṃ sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo suṇantasseva ācariyabuddhaghosassa tikkhagambhīrajavanañāṇappabhāvavisesasampannabhāvañca paramavisuddhasaddhābuddhivīriyapaṭimaṇḍitasīlācārajjavamaddavādiguṇasamudaya- samuditabhāvañca sakasamayasamayantaragahanajjhogāhaṇasamatthapaññāveyyatti- yasamannāgatabhāvañca anekasatthantarocitasaṃvaṇṇanānayasukovidabhāvañca ñatvā taṃsavanakiccapariniṭṭhitakāle saṅghapālādayo therā taṃ visuddhimaggādiganthānaṃ karaṇatthāya visuṃ visuṃ āyāciṃsu. Ettha ca ācariyassa yathāvuttaguṇehi sampannabhāvo attano vacaneneva pākaṭo. Vuttañhi attano ganthanigamanesu –

Thus, recognizing that the Teacher Buddhaghosa, while he was listening to the Sinhala commentaries, was endowed with the special power of keen, profound, and swift knowledge; was possessed of a collection of virtues such as supremely pure faith, wisdom, and energy, and was adorned with good conduct, uprightness, and gentleness; was possessed of the distinction of wisdom capable of plumbing the depths of his own and other systems of thought; and was highly skilled in the methods of exposition suitable for various other teachings—recognizing this, when the task of listening was completed, the elders headed by Saṅghapāla individually requested him to compose the Visuddhimagga and other works. Here, the Teacher’s possession of the aforementioned qualities is made clear by his own words. For it is said in the colophons of his own books:

‘‘Paramavisuddhasaddhābuddhivīriyapaṭimaṇḍitena sīlācārajjavamaddavādiguṇasamudayasamuditena sakasamayasamayantaragahanajjhogāhaṇasamatthena paññāveyyattiyasamannāgatenā’’tiādi.

“...by one adorned with supremely pure faith, wisdom, and energy; endowed with a collection of virtues such as moral conduct, good behavior, uprightness, and gentleness; capable of plumbing the depths of his own and other systems of thought; possessed of the distinction of wisdom…,” and so on.

Tattha sakasamayasamayantaragahanajjhogāhaṇasamatthenāti padena ācariyabuddhaghosatthero mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ visuddhattheravādīnaṃ desanānayasaṅkhāte sakasamaye ca mahāsaṅghikādimahāyānikapariyosānānaṃ nikāyantarabhūtānaṃ paresaṃ piṭakaganthantaravādanayasaṅkhāte parasamaye ca tathā taṃkālikaaññatitthiyasamaṇabrāhmaṇānaṃ vedattayādisaṅkhāte parasamaye ca kovido, tesaṃ sakasamayaparasamayānaṃ durogāhadubbodhatthasaṅkhāte gahanaṭṭhānepi ca ogāhituṃ samatthoti dīpeti. Paññāveyyattiyasamannāgatoti padena ācariyabuddhaghosatthero porāṇaṭṭhakathāyo saṅkhipituñca paṭisaṅkharituñca samatthoti dīpetīti veditabbo.

Here, by the phrase “capable of plumbing the depths of his own and other systems of thought,” it is shown that the Elder Buddhaghosa was an expert in his own system—namely, the teaching method of the pure Theravādins, residents of the Mahāvihāra—and also in other systems, namely the doctrinal methods of other schools found in their different Piṭaka texts, such as those of other Nikāyas from the Mahāsaṅghikas to the Mahāyānists, as well as the systems of contemporary ascetics and brahmins of other faiths, such as the three Vedas. It is also shown that he was capable of plumbing even the profound points of these systems, which are defined as being difficult to penetrate and difficult to understand. By the phrase “possessed of the distinction of wisdom,” it should be understood that it is shown that the Teacher Buddhaghosa was capable of both abridging and revising the ancient commentaries.

Āyācanakāraṇaṃ

The Reason for the Request

Kasmā [Pg.37] pana te taṃ āyāciṃsūti? Vuccate, mahāvihāravāsino hi āditoyeva paṭṭhāya piṭakattayaṃ yathā tīsu saṅgītīsu pāḷibhāsāya saṅgītaṃ, yathā ca vaṭṭagāmaṇirājakāle (455-467-bu-va) potthakesu āropitaṃ, tathā porāṇaṃ pāḷipiṭakameva uggaṇhanti ceva vācenti ca, na sakkatāropitapiṭakaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyo ca tivassasatamattato pure katā. Tathā hi aṭṭhakathāsu vasabharājakālato (609-653-bu-0) pacchā sīhaḷikattherānañceva aññesañca vatthu na dissati ṭhapetvā mahāsenarājavatthuṃ, yāva ācariyabuddhaghosakālāpi ca tā eva porāṇaṭṭhakathāyo atthi na abhinavīkatā. Tena tesaṃ piṭakesu yebhuyyena janā paricayaṃ kātuṃ asañjātābhilāsā honti asañjātussāhā. Dīpantaresu ca attano piṭakaṃ pattharāpetuṃ na sakkonti aṭṭhakathānaṃ dīpabhāsāya abhisaṅkhatattā. Abhayagirivāsino pana vaṭṭagāmaṇirājakālato paṭṭhāya sakkatabhāsāropitaṃ dhammarucinikāyādipiṭakampi mahāyānapiṭakampi navaṃ navaṃ pariyāpuṇanti ceva vācenti ca, tena tesaṃ piṭakesu yebhuyyena janā paricayaṃ kātuṃ sañjātābhilāsā honti sañjātussāhā, navaṃ navameva hi sattā piyāyanti. Tatoyeva te dīpantaresupi attano vādaṃ pattharāpetuṃ sakkonti. Tasmā te mahāvihāravāsino therā attano sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo pāḷibhāsāya abhisaṅkharitukāmā tathā kātuṃ samatthaṃ ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa ñāṇappabhāvavisesaṃ yathāvuttaguṇasampannabhāvañca ñatvā āyāciṃsūti veditabbaṃ.

But why did they request this of him? It is said: The residents of the Mahāvihāra, from the very beginning, learned and recited the ancient Pāli Canon just as it was compiled in the three Councils in the Pāli language and as it was written down in books during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi, not the canon rendered into Sanskrit. The commentaries, too, had been composed about three hundred years earlier. Indeed, in the commentaries, no accounts concerning the Sinhalese elders or others after the time of King Vasabha are found, except for the story of King Mahāsena. And even up to the time of Ācariya Buddhaghosa, those same ancient commentaries existed and had not been revised. For this reason, most people had no desire or enthusiasm to become familiar with their texts. Moreover, they were unable to propagate their canon in other lands because the commentaries were composed in the island's language. The residents of the Abhayagiri, however, from the time of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi onward, continually learned and recited both the canon of the Dhammarucika Nikāya rendered into Sanskrit and the new Mahāyāna canon. Therefore, most people had a strong desire and enthusiasm to become familiar with their texts, for beings are always fond of what is new. For this very reason, they were also able to propagate their doctrines in other lands. Therefore, it should be understood that the elders residing in the Mahāvihāra, wishing to have their Sinhala commentaries recomposed in the Pāli language, and knowing that the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa was capable of doing so, possessing an exceptional power of knowledge and the aforementioned virtues, made this request of him.

Visuddhimaggassa karaṇaṃ

The Composition of the Path of Purification

Tesu tāva visuddhimaggaṃ ācariyabuddhaghoso saṅghapālattherena ajjhesito mahāvihārassa dakkhiṇabhāge padhānaghare mahānigamassāmino pāsāde vasanto akāsi. Ettāvatā ca ‘‘so panesa visuddhimaggo kena kato, kadā kato, kattha kato, kasmā kato’’ti imesaṃ pañhānamattho vitthārena vibhāvito hoti.

At the request of the Elder Saṅghapāla, Ācariya Buddhaghosa composed the Visuddhimagga while residing in the mansion of the lord of Mahānigama, in the meditation hall in the southern part of the Mahāvihāra. Thus far, the meaning of these questions—‘By whom was this Visuddhimagga made? When was it made? Where was it made? And why was it made?’—has been explained in detail.

Idāni [Pg.38] kimatthaṃ katotiādīnaṃ pañhānamatthaṃ pakāsayissāma. Tattha kimatthaṃ katoti etassa pana pañhassa attho ācariyeneva pakāsito. Kathaṃ?

Now we will clarify the meaning of the questions beginning with, ‘For what purpose was it made?’ Therein, the meaning of the question, ‘For what purpose was it made?’ has been clarified by the Ācariya himself. How so?

‘‘Sudullabhaṃ labhitvāna, pabbajjaṃ jinasāsane;

Sīlādisaṅgahaṃ khemaṃ, ujuṃ maggaṃ visuddhiyā.

Having obtained the going forth, so difficult to gain, in the Dispensation of the Conqueror; the secure and straight path to purity, the collection of virtue and so on.

Yathābhūtaṃ ajānantā, suddhikāmāpi ye idha;

Visuddhiṃ nādhigacchanti, vāyamantāpi yogino.

Not knowing this path as it truly is, those here who desire purity, even while striving as yogis, do not attain purification.

Tesaṃ pāmojjakaraṇaṃ, suvisuddhavinicchayaṃ;

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, desanānayanissitaṃ.

Bringing them gladness, with its exceedingly pure analysis, and relying on the teaching method of the residents of the Mahāvihāra,

Visuddhimaggaṃ bhāsissaṃ, taṃ me sakkacca bhāsato;

Visuddhikāmā sabbepi, nisāmayatha sādhavo’’ti.

I shall expound the Path of Purity; therefore, all you good people who desire purity, listen attentively to me as I speak.

Tasmā esa visuddhimaggo visuddhisaṅkhātanibbānakāmānaṃ sādhujanānaṃ sīlasamādhipaññāsaṅkhātassa visuddhimaggassa yāthāvato jānanatthāya katoti padhānappayojanavasena veditabbo. Appadhānappayojanavasena pana catūsu āgamaṭṭhakathāsu ganthasallahukabhāvatthāyapi katoti veditabbo. Tathā hi vuttaṃ āgamaṭṭhakathāsu –

Therefore, it should be understood that the principal purpose for which this Path of Purification was composed was so that good people who desire Nibbāna, which is called purification, might come to know accurately the Path of Purification designated as virtue, concentration, and wisdom. It should be understood, however, that its secondary purpose was to lighten the textual load of the commentaries to the four Āgamas. For so it is said in the commentaries to the Āgamas:

‘‘Majjhe visuddhimaggo, esa catunnampi āgamānañhi;

Ṭhatvā pakāsayissati, tattha yathābhāsitamatthaṃ;

Icceva me kato’’ti.

This Path of Purification stands in the midst of all four Āgamas; standing there, it will illuminate the meaning as it was spoken. For this very reason it was composed by me.

Tannissayo

Its Basis

Kiṃ nissāya katoti etassapi pañhassa attho ācariyeneva pakāsito. Vuttañhi ettha ganthārambhe –

The meaning of this question too—‘On what is it based?’—has been clarified by the Ācariya himself. For it is said here at the beginning of the treatise:

‘‘Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, desanānayanissita’’nti.

‘Relying on the teaching method of the residents of the Mahāvihāra.’

Tathā nigamanepi –

So too in the conclusion:

‘‘Tesaṃ sīlādibhedānaṃ, atthānaṃ yo vinicchayo;

Pañcannampi nikāyānaṃ, vutto aṭṭhakathānaye.

The analysis of the meanings of those things classified as virtue and so on has been stated in the commentarial method for all five Nikāyas.

Samāharitvā taṃ sabbaṃ, yebhuyyena sanicchayo;

Sabbasaṅkaradosehi, mutto yasmā pakāsito’’ti.

Having collected all that, mostly with its analysis, it is explained as being free from all faults of confusion.

Iminā [Pg.39] pana vacanena ayamattho pākaṭo hoti – ‘‘visuddhimaggaṃ kurumāno ācariyo mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ desanānayasaṅkhātā pañcannampi nikāyānaṃ porāṇaṭṭhakathāyo nissāya tāsu vuttaṃ gahetabbaṃ sabbaṃ vinicchayaṃ samāharitvā akāsī’’ti. Tasmā yā yā ettha padavaṇṇanā vā vinicchayo vā sādhakavatthu vā dassīyati, taṃ sabbaṃ tassa tassa niddhāritapāḷipadassanikāyasaṃvaṇṇanābhūtāya porāṇasīhaḷaṭṭhakathāto ānetvā bhāsāparivattanavaseneva dassitanti veditabbaṃ. Ayampi hi visuddhimaggo na kevalaṃ attano ñāṇappabhāvena kato, visuṃ pakaraṇabhāvena ca, atha kho catunnampi āgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ avayavabhāveneva kato. Vuttañhi tāsaṃ nigamane –

By this statement, the following meaning becomes clear: ‘The Ācariya, in composing the Visuddhimagga, did so by relying on the ancient commentaries to the five Nikāyas, which are considered the teaching method of the residents of the Mahāvihāra, and by collecting and compiling all the pertinent analyses stated in them.’ Therefore, it should be understood that whatever word-explanations, analyses, or illustrative stories are shown here, all have been taken from the ancient Sinhala commentaries, which serve to explain the Nikāyas by citing the specified Pāli passages, and have been presented simply by means of a change of language. For this Visuddhimagga was not composed solely by the power of his own knowledge, nor as a separate treatise, but rather as an integral part of the commentaries to the four Āgamas. For it is said in their conclusion:

‘‘Ekūnasaṭṭhimatto, visuddhimaggopi bhāṇavārehi;

Atthappakāsanatthāya, āgamānaṃ kato yasmā.

Since the Visuddhimagga, which has about fifty-nine recitation sections, was also composed to illuminate the meaning of the Āgamas,

Tasmā tena sahāyaṃ, aṭṭhakathā bhāṇavāragaṇanāya;

Suparimitaparicchinnaṃ, cattālīsasataṃ hotī’’tiādi.

Therefore this commentary, together with it, by the count of recitation sections, becomes a well-measured and defined four thousand, and so on.

Yā pana visuddhimagge maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhiniddese ‘‘ayaṃ tāva visuddhikathāyaṃ nayo. Ariyavaṃsakathāyaṃ panā’’tiādinā dve kathā vuttā, tāpi mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ desanānaye antogadhā imassa visuddhimaggassa nissayāyevāti veditabbāti.

Furthermore, the two discourses mentioned in the Visuddhimagga, in the Exposition of the Purification by Knowledge and Vision of Path and Not-Path, beginning with the words, ‘This is the method in the discourse on purification. But in the discourse on the noble lineages…,’ and so on—these should be understood as also being included within the teaching method of the residents of the Mahāvihāra and as forming a basis for this Visuddhimagga.

Takkaraṇappakāro

The Manner of Its Composition

Kena pakārena katoti ettha anantarapañhe vuttappakāreneva kato. Tathā hi ācariyo saṃyuttanikāyato

By what manner was it composed? Here, it was composed in the very manner stated in the immediately preceding question. For the Teacher, from the Saṃyutta Nikāya...

‘‘Sīle patiṭṭhāya naro sapañño, cittaṃ paññañca bhāvayaṃ;

Ātāpī nipako bhikkhu, so imaṃ vijaṭaye jaṭa’’nti –

“Established in virtue, a wise person, developing concentration and wisdom; an ardent, prudent bhikkhu, he disentangles this tangle.”

Imaṃ gāthaṃ paṭhamaṃ dassetvā tattha padhānavasena vuttā sīlasamādhipaññāyo visuṃ visuṃ vitthārato vibhajitvā akāsi. Evaṃ kurumāno ca pañcahipi nikāyehi sīlasamādhipaññāpaṭisaṃyuttāni suttapadāni uddharitvā tesaṃ atthañca sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāhi bhāsāparivattanavasena dassetvā tāsu vuttāni sīhaḷikavatthūni ca vinicchaye ca pakāsesi. Visesato pana tasmiṃ [Pg.40] kāle pākaṭā sakasamayaviruddhā samayantarā ca bahūsu ṭhānesu dassetvā sahetukaṃ paṭikkhittā. Kathaṃ?

Having first presented this verse, he then composed his work by analyzing, separately and in detail, the virtue, concentration, and wisdom mentioned therein as the main subjects. In doing so, he extracted passages connected with virtue, concentration, and wisdom from all five Nikāyas and showed their meaning by way of a change of language from the Sinhala commentaries. He also clarified the Sinhala stories and decisions stated in them. Moreover, in many places he pointed out other doctrines, prevalent at that time and contrary to his own, and refuted them with reasons. How?

Tattha hi cariyāvaṇṇanāyaṃ ‘‘tatra purimā tāva tisso cariyā pubbāciṇṇanidānā dhātudosanidānā cāti ekacce vadanti. Pubbe kira iṭṭhappayogasubhakammabahulo rāgacarito hoti, saggā vā cavitvā idhūpapanno. Pubbe chedanavadhabandhanaverakammabahulo dosacarito hoti, nirayanāgayonīhi vā cavitvā idhūpapanno. Pubbe majjapānabahulo sutaparipucchāvihīno ca mohacarito hoti, tiracchānayoniyā vā cavitvā idhūpapannoti evaṃ pubbāciṇṇanidānāti vadanti. Dvinnaṃ pana dhātūnaṃ ussannattā puggalo mohacarito hoti pathavīdhātuyā ca āpodhātuyā ca. Itarāsaṃ dvinnaṃ ussannattā dosacarito. Sabbāsaṃ samattā pana rāgacaritoti. Dosesu ca semhādhiko rāgacarito hoti. Vātādhiko mohacarito. Semhādhiko vā mohacarito. Vātādhiko rāgacaritoti evaṃ dhātudosanidānāti vadantī’’ti ekaccevādaṃ dassetvā so ‘‘tattha yasmā pubbe iṭṭhappayogasubhakammabahulāpi saggā cavitvā idhūpapannāpi ca na sabbe rāgacaritāneva honti, na itare vā dosamohacaritā. Evaṃ dhātūnañca yathāvutteneva nayena ussadaniyamo nāma natthi. Dosaniyame ca rāgamohadvayameva vuttaṃ, tampi ca pubbāparaviruddhameva. Tasmā sabbametaṃ aparicchinnavacana’’nti paṭikkhitto. Taṃ paramatthamañjūsāya nāma visuddhimaggamahāṭīkāyaṃ ‘‘ekacceti upatissattheraṃ sandhāyāha, tena hi vimuttimagge tathā vutta’’ntiādinā vaṇṇitaṃ.

For there, in the explanation of conduct, it is said: “Here, some say that the three types of conduct are caused by past practice and by an imbalance of the bodily constituents. They say that one who was previously much given to pleasant application and good deeds becomes a lustful type, having passed away from a heavenly world and been reborn here. One who was previously much given to acts of cutting, killing, binding, and enmity becomes a hateful type, having passed away from the hells or the nāga-womb and been reborn here. One who was previously much given to drinking intoxicants and was deficient in listening and inquiry becomes a deluded type, having passed away from the animal womb and been reborn here. Thus they say it is caused by past practice. Further, they say that a person becomes a deluded type due to the predominance of two elements—the earth and water elements. Due to the predominance of the other two, one becomes a hateful type. When all are in equilibrium, one becomes a lustful type. And among the humors, one with a predominance of phlegm is a lustful type; one with a predominance of wind is a deluded type. Or one with a predominance of phlegm is a deluded type, and one with a predominance of wind is a lustful type. Thus they say it is caused by an imbalance of the bodily constituents.” Having presented this view of “some,” it is refuted: “But since not all who were previously much given to pleasant application and good deeds, having passed away from a heavenly world and been reborn here, are necessarily lustful types—nor are the others necessarily hateful or deluded types—and since there is no fixed rule for the predominance of elements as described, and since in the rule of humors only lust and delusion are mentioned, which is itself internally contradictory, therefore all this is an unanalyzed statement.” This is explained in the Paramatthamañjūsā, the Great Subcommentary to the Visuddhimagga, as follows: “The phrase ‘some say’ refers to the Elder Upatissa, for it is stated thus in the Vimuttimagga,” and so on.

Vimuttimaggapakaraṇaṃ

The Treatise on the Path of Liberation

Ko so vimuttimaggo nāma? Visuddhimaggo viya sīlasamādhipaññānaṃ visuṃ visuṃ vibhajitvā dīpako eko paṭipattigantho. Tattha hi –

What is this so-called Vimuttimagga? Like the Visuddhimagga, it is a single treatise on practice that illuminates by analyzing separately virtue, concentration, and wisdom. For therein—

‘‘Sīlaṃ samādhi paññā ca, vimutti ca anuttarā;

Anubuddhā ime dhammā, gotamena yasassinā’’ti –

“Virtue, concentration, and wisdom, and unsurpassed liberation: these principles were realized by the glorious Gotama.”

Imaṃ [Pg.41] gāthaṃ paṭhamaṃ dassetvā tadatthavaṇṇanāvasena sīlasamādhipaññāvimuttiyo visuṃ visuṃ vibhajitvā dīpitā. So pana gantho idāni cinaraṭṭheyeva diṭṭho, cinabhāsāya ca parivattito (1048-bu-va) saṅghapālena nāma bhikkhunā. Kena pana so kuto ca tattha ānītoti na pākaṭametaṃ. Tassa pana saṅghapālassa ācariyo guṇabhadro nāma mahāyāniko bhikkhu majjhimaindiyadesiko, so indiyaraṭṭhato cinaraṭṭhaṃ gacchanto paṭhamaṃ sīhaḷadīpaṃ gantvā tato (978-bu-va) cinaraṭṭhaṃ gato. Tadā so tena ānīto bhaveyya.

Having first presented this verse, virtue, concentration, wisdom, and liberation are illuminated by analyzing them separately by way of an explanation of its meaning. That book, however, is now seen only in China, and it was translated into the Chinese language by a bhikkhu named Saṅghapāla (in B.E. 1048). But by whom and from where it was brought there is not clear. Saṅghapāla's teacher, however, was a Mahāyāna bhikkhu named Guṇabhadra, a native of Central India. While traveling from India to China, he first went to the island of Sri Lanka and from there went to China (in B.E. 978). It might have been brought by him at that time.

Tasmiñhi vimuttimagge pubbāciṇṇanidānadassanaṃ dhātunidānadassanañca yatheva visuddhimagge ekaccevādo, tathevāgataṃ. Dosanidānadassane pana ‘‘semhādhiko rāgacarito, pittādhiko dosacarito, vātādhiko mohacarito. Semhādhiko vā mohacarito, vātādhiko rāgacarito’’ti tiṇṇampi rāgadosamohānaṃ dosaniyamo vutto. Ācariyabuddhaghosena diṭṭhavimuttimaggapotthake pana ‘‘pittādhiko dosacarito’’ti pāṭho ūno bhaveyya.

For in that Vimuttimagga, the account of causation by past practice and the account of causation by the elements are presented just as in the view of 'some' in the Visuddhimagga. In the account of causation by the humors, however, it is said: “One with a predominance of phlegm is a lustful type; one with a predominance of bile is a hateful type; one with a predominance of wind is a deluded type. Or, one with a predominance of phlegm is a deluded type; one with a predominance of wind is a lustful type.” Thus the rule of the humors is stated for all three—lust, hatred, and delusion. However, in the copy of the Vimuttimagga seen by the Teacher Buddhaghosa, the reading “one with a predominance of bile is a hateful type” may have been missing.

Aññānipi bahūni visuddhimagge paṭikkhittāni tattha vimuttimagge gahetabbabhāvena dissanti. Kathaṃ?

Many other things rejected in the Visuddhimagga are seen in the Vimuttimagga as acceptable. How?

Sīlaniddese (1, 8-piṭṭhe) ‘‘aññe pana siraṭṭho sīlattho, sītalattho sīlatthoti evamādināpi nayenettha atthaṃ vaṇṇayantī’’ti paṭikkhitto atthopi tattha gahetabbabhāvena dissati.

In the Exposition of Virtue (vol. 1, p. 8), the meaning that was rejected with the words, “But others explain the meaning here by such methods as: the meaning of sīla is ‘being a head’; the meaning of sīla is ‘being cool,’” is also seen there as acceptable.

Tathā dhutaṅganiddese (1, 78-piṭṭhe) ‘‘yesampi kusalattikavinimuttaṃ dhutaṅgaṃ, tesaṃ atthato dhutaṅgameva natthi, asantaṃ kassa dhunanato dhutaṅgaṃ nāma bhavissati, dhutaguṇe samādāya vattatīti vacanavirodhopi ca nesaṃ āpajjati, tasmā taṃ na gahetabba’’nti paṭikkhittaṃ paññattidhutaṅgampi tattha dissati. Mahāṭīkāyaṃ (1-104) pana ‘‘yesanti abhayagirivāsike sandhāyāha, te hi dhutaṅgaṃ nāma paññattīti vadantī’’ti vaṇṇitaṃ.

Likewise, in the Exposition of the Ascetic Practices (vol. 1, p. 78), the dhutaṅga as a mere concept, which was rejected with the words, “For those for whom the dhutaṅga is dissociated from the triad of wholesome states, for them there is in reality no dhutaṅga at all. Since it is non-existent, by the shaking off of what will it be a dhutaṅga? Moreover, for them this entails a contradiction with the statement, ‘One lives having undertaken the quality of shaking off.’ Therefore that should not be accepted,” is also seen there. But in the Great Subcommentary (1-104) it is explained: “By ‘for those’ he refers to the Abhayagirivāsins, for they say that a dhutaṅga is a concept.”

Tathā pathavīkasiṇaniddese (1, 144) ‘‘paṭipadāvisuddhi nāma sasambhāriko upacāro, upekkhānubrūhanā nāma appanā, sampahaṃsanā nāma [Pg.42] paccavekkhaṇāti evameke vaṇṇayantī’’tiādinā paṭikkhittaekevādopi tattha dissati. Mahāṭīkāyaṃ (1, 172) pana ‘‘eketi abhayagirivāsino’’ti vaṇṇitaṃ.

Likewise, in the Exposition of the Earth Kasiṇa (vol. 1, p. 144), the view of 'some,' which was rejected with such words as, “Some explain it thus: ‘Purity of the path is access concentration with its preliminaries; development of equanimity is absorption; gladdening is reviewing,’” is also seen there. But in the Great Subcommentary (1, 172) it is explained: “By ‘some’ is meant the Abhayagirivāsins.”

Tathā khandhaniddese (2, 80-piṭṭhe) ‘‘balarūpaṃ sambhavarūpaṃ jātirūpaṃ rogarūpaṃ ekaccānaṃ matena middharūpa’’nti evaṃ aññānipi rūpāni āharitvā porāṇaṭṭhakathāyaṃ tesaṃ paṭikkhittabhāvo pakāsito. Mahāṭīkāyaṃ ‘‘ekaccānanti abhayagirivāsīna’’nti vaṇṇitaṃ. Tesu jātirūpaṃ middharūpañca vimuttimagge dassitaṃ. Na kevalaṃ dassanamattameva, atha kho middharūpassa atthibhāvopi ‘‘middhaṃ nāma tividhaṃ āhārajaṃ utujaṃ cittajañcāti. Tesu cittajameva nīvaraṇaṃ hoti, sesā pana dve arahatopi bhaveyyu’’ntiādinā sādhito.

Likewise, in the Exposition of the Aggregates (vol. 2, p. 80), having adduced other material forms thus: “strength-form, continuance-form, birth-form, disease-form, and, in the opinion of some, torpor-form,” their rejection in the ancient commentaries is clarified. In the Great Subcommentary it is explained: “By ‘some’ is meant the Abhayagirivāsins.” Of these, birth-form and torpor-form are shown in the Vimuttimagga. It is not a mere mention; rather, the existence of torpor-form is established with such words as: “Torpor is of three kinds: that born of food, that born of climate, and that born of consciousness. Of these, only that born of consciousness is a hindrance; the other two can occur even in an arahant.”

Ettāvatā ca vimuttimagge visuddhimaggena asamānatthānaṃ vuttabhāvo ca abhayagirivāsīhi tassa ganthassa paṭiggahitabhāvo ca sakkā ñātuṃ. Aññānipi pana īdisāni asamānavacanāni bahūni tattha saṃvijjantiyeva, tāni pana sabbāni na sakkā idha dassetuṃ.

By this much it can be known that points dissimilar to the Visuddhimagga have been stated in the Vimuttimagga and that this book was accepted by the Abhayagirivāsins. Moreover, many other such dissimilar statements are indeed found there, but it is not possible to show all of them here.

Yebhuyyena panassa karaṇappakāro visuddhimaggassa viya hoti. Yā yā hi pāḷi abhidhammavibhaṅgato vā paṭisambhidāmaggato vā aññasuttantehi vā ānetvā sādhakabhāvena visuddhimagge dassiyati, tatthapi sā sā pāḷi yebhuyyena dissateva. Tāsu kañcimattaṃ uddharitvā anuminanatthāya dassayissāma.

For the most part, however, its manner of composition is like that of the Visuddhimagga. For whatever Pāli texts are brought from the Vibhaṅga of the Abhidhamma, the Paṭisambhidāmagga, or other suttas and shown in the Visuddhimagga as proof, those same Pāli texts are for the most part seen there as well. We will extract a small number of them and present them for the purpose of inference.

Yā visuddhimagge (1, 47-piṭṭhe) ‘‘pañca sīlāni pāṇātipātassa pahānaṃ sīla’’ntiādikā paṭisambhidāmaggapāḷi dassitā, sā vimuttimaggepi dissateva.

The Pāli text from the Paṭisambhidāmagga shown in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 1, p. 47), beginning, “The five kinds of virtue: the abandoning of the destruction of life is virtue…,” is also seen in the Vimuttimagga.

Yañca visuddhimagge (1, 137-piṭṭhe) ‘‘samādhi kāmacchandassa paṭipakkho…pe… vicāro vicikicchāyā’’ti vacanaṃ peṭake vuttanti dassitaṃ, tañca tatthapi tatheva dassetvā ‘‘tipeṭake vutta’’nti niddiṭṭhaṃ. Tipeṭaketi nāmañca peṭakopadesameva sandhāya vuttaṃ bhaveyya. Tattha hi vivicceva kāmehīti pāṭhasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ ‘‘alobhassa pāripūriyā kāmehi viveko sampajjati, adosassa. Amohassa pāripūriyā akusalehi dhammehi viveko [Pg.43] sampajjatī’’ti pāṭhassa tipeṭake vuttabhāvo dassito. So ca pāṭho peṭakopadese (262-piṭṭhe) ‘‘tattha alobhassa pāripūriyā vivitto hoti kāmehī’’tiādinā dissati.

And the statement in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 1, p. 137), “Concentration is the opponent of sensual desire … sustained thought is the opponent of doubt,” which is shown as being stated in the Peṭaka, is also shown in that text in the same way and is designated as “stated in the Tipiṭaka.” The name “Tipiṭaka” may have been stated with reference to the Peṭakopadesa itself. For there, in the explanation of the text “quite secluded from sensual pleasures,” it is shown that the passage, “Through the fulfillment of non-greed, seclusion from sensual pleasures is accomplished; through the fulfillment of non-hatred and non-delusion, seclusion from unwholesome states is accomplished,” is stated in the Tipiṭaka. And that passage is seen in the Peṭakopadesa (p. 262) as, “There, through the fulfillment of non-greed, one becomes secluded from sensual pleasures,” and so on.

Yathā ca visuddhimagge (1, 258-piṭṭhe) ‘‘ayampi kho bhikkhave ānāpānassatisamādhi bhāvito’’tiādikā pāḷi mahāvaggasaṃyuttakato ānetvā dassitā, tatheva tatthapi.

And just as in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 1, p. 258) the Pāli text beginning, “This concentration by mindfulness of breathing, bhikkhus, when developed…” is brought from the Mahāvagga Saṃyutta and shown, so too is it in that text.

Yathā ca visuddhimagge (1, 272-piṭṭhe) ‘‘assāsādimajjhapariyosānaṃ satiyā anugacchato’’tiādi pāḷi ca (1, 273-piṭṭhe) kakacūpamapāḷi ca paṭisambhidāmaggato ānetvā dassitā, tatheva tatthapi.

And just as in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 1, p. 272) the Pāli text beginning, “following with mindfulness the beginning, middle, and end of the in-breath,” etc., and (on p. 273) the Pāli text on the Simile of the Saw are shown, having been brought from the Paṭisambhidāmagga, so too it is in that text.

Yathā ca visuddhimagge (2, 69-piṭṭhe) ‘‘katamā cintāmayā paññā’’tiādikā ca pāḷi ‘‘tattha katamaṃ āyakosalla’’ntiādikā ca pāḷi (2, 71-piṭṭhe) ‘‘dukkhe ñāṇaṃ atthapaṭisambhidā’’tiādikā ca pāḷi abhidhammavibhaṅgato ānetvā dassitā, tatheva tatthapi. Sabbāpi ca tattha vuttā ekavidhaduvidhādipaññāpabhedakathā visuddhimagge vuttakathāya yebhuyyena samānāyeva.

Similarly, in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 2, p. 69), the Pāli text beginning, “What is wisdom born of reflection?” etc., the Pāli text beginning, “Therein, what is skill in progress?” etc., and (vol. 2, p. 71) the Pāli text beginning, “Knowledge of suffering is the analytical knowledge of meaning,” etc., are shown, having been brought from the Abhidhammavibhaṅga; so too it is in that text. Moreover, all the discussions stated there on the classifications of wisdom into onefold, twofold, etc., are for the most part the same as the discussions found in the Visuddhimagga.

‘‘Yena cakkhupasādena, rūpāni manupassati;

Parittaṃ sukhumaṃ etaṃ, ūkāsirasamūpama’’nti –

“With the eye's sensitive faculty, one perceives forms; this is tiny and subtle, like the head of a louse.”

Ayampi gāthā vimuttimaggepi āyasmatā sāriputtattherena bhāsitabhāveneva dassitā. Ūkāsirasamūpamanti padaṃ pana ūkāsamūpamanti tattha dissati, tañca paramparalekhakānaṃ pamādalekhamattameva siyā.

This verse is also shown in the Vimuttimagga as having been spoken by the Venerable Elder Sāriputta. However, the phrase “like the head of a louse” appears there as “like a louse,” which may simply be a scribal error in the transmission.

Catūsu saccesu visuddhimagge viya vacanatthato lakkhaṇato anūnādhikato kamato antogadhānaṃ pabhedato upamāto ca vinicchayo dassito, so ca yebhuyyena visuddhimaggena samānoyeva.

Regarding the four truths, an analysis is presented, as in the Visuddhimagga, in terms of the meaning of words, characteristics, non-deficiency and non-excess, sequence, inclusion, divisions, and similes; and this is largely the same as in the Visuddhimagga.

Yathā ca visuddhimagge (2, 242-245) sammasanañāṇakathāyaṃ pañcannaṃ khandhānaṃ atītādiekādasavidhena ca aniccādilakkhaṇattayena ca visuṃ visuṃ sammasananayo dassito, tatheva tatthapi. Cakkhādijarāmaraṇapariyosānesu pana dhammesu dhammavicārapariyosānānaṃ saṭṭhiyā eva dhammānaṃ aniccādilakkhaṇattayena sammasananayo tattha dassito.

Just as in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 2, pp. 242–245), in the discussion on the knowledge of comprehension, the method of comprehending the five aggregates individually through the eleven aspects such as the past, and through the three characteristics such as impermanence, is shown, so too it is in that text. However, regarding the phenomena ending in aging and death, beginning with the eye, the method of comprehending the sixty phenomena that end with the investigation of phenomena through the three characteristics such as impermanence is shown there.

Visuddhimagge [Pg.44] pana diṭṭhivisuddhiniddese (2, 230-232-piṭṭhesu) vuttā ‘‘yamakaṃ nāmarūpañca…pe… ubho bhijjanti paccayā’’ti gāthā ca, ‘‘na cakkhuto jāyare’’tiādikā cha gāthāyo ca, ‘‘na sakena balena jāyare’’tiādikā cha gāthāyo ca vimuttimagge bhaṅgānupassanāñāṇakathāyaṃ dassitā. Tāsu appamattakoyeva pāṭhabhedo dissati.

The verse “Name-and-form is a pair … both are broken up by their conditions,” and the six verses beginning “They are not born from the eye,” and the six verses beginning “They are not born by their own power”—which are stated in the Visuddhimagga in the exposition of the purification of view (vol. 2, pp. 230–232)—are shown in the Vimuttimagga in the discussion on the knowledge of contemplation of dissolution. Only slight textual variations are seen among them.

Visuddhimagge (2, 261-2-piṭṭhesu) arūpasattakesu ariyavaṃsakathānayena vutto kalāpato ca yamakato ca sammasananayo vimuttimagge ettheva bhaṅgānupassanāñāṇakathāyaṃ dassito.

The method of comprehension by groups and by pairs—stated in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 2, pp. 261–62) with regard to the seven kinds of formless beings in the manner of the discourse on the Noble Lineages—is shown right here in the Vimuttimagga in the discussion on the knowledge of contemplation of dissolution.

Vimuttimagge buddhānussatikathāyaṃ lokavidūti padassa atthavaṇṇanāyaṃ sattalokasaṅkhāralokavasena dveyeva lokā dassitā, na pana okāsaloko yathā visuddhimagge (1, 199-200-piṭṭhesu).

In the Vimuttimagga, in the discussion on the recollection of the Buddha, in the explanation of the meaning of the term “Knower of Worlds,” only two worlds are shown, namely, the world of beings and the world of formations, but not the world of space as in the Visuddhimagga (vol. 1, pp. 199–200).

Ettāvatā ca vimuttimaggo nāma gantho kīdisoti sakkā anuminituṃ. So pana yathā na mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ gantho hoti, evaṃ mahāyānikānampi na hotiyeva theravādapiṭakameva nissāya katabhāvato. Yasmā pana tattha na kiñcipi sīhaḷadīpikaṃ nāmaṃ vā theravādo vā dissati, tasmā so sīhaḷadīpe kataganthopi na hoti. Indiyaraṭṭhikaṃ pana nāmañca vohāro ca tattha bahūsu ṭhānesu dissati, tasmā indiyaraṭṭhe kataganthova bhaveyya. Yasmā cassa peṭakopadesaṃ nissitabhāvo bahūsu ṭhānesu dissati, visesato pana middharūpassa atthibhāvo ca, arahatopi tassa atthibhāvo ca tameva nissāya dassīyati, paṭisambhidāmaggagaṇṭhipade ca peṭaketi padassa atthavaṇṇanāyaṃ ‘‘suttantapiṭakatthāya aṭṭhakathā peṭakaṃ mahisāsakānaṃ gantho’’ti vaṇṇito. Tasmā eso vimuttimaggo mahisāsakanikāyikena kato bhaveyyāti amhākaṃ mati.

From this, it can be inferred what kind of text this Vimuttimagga is. Just as it is not a text belonging to the residents of the Mahāvihāra, so too it is certainly not one of the Mahāyānists, since it was composed relying only on the Theravāda Piṭaka. However, because no name such as 'Sīhaḷadīpika' or 'Theravāda' is found in it, it is not a text composed on the island of Sri Lanka. On the other hand, an Indian name and usage are seen in many places in it; therefore, it must be a text composed in the country of India. Furthermore, its reliance on the Peṭakopadesa is seen in many places; especially, the existence of torpor-as-form, and its existence even for an arahant, are shown in reliance upon that very text. And in the glossary to the Paṭisambhidāmagga, in the explanation of the meaning of the word 'peṭaka,' it is explained: 'The Peṭaka, the commentary for the meaning of the Suttanta Piṭaka, is a text of the Mahīśāsakas.' Therefore, it is our opinion that this Vimuttimagga must have been composed by a member of the Mahīśāsaka school.

Nissayaṭṭhakathāvibhāvanā

An Explanation of the Source Commentaries

Visuddhimaggo pana na kevalaṃ pubbe vuttappakāreneva kato, atha kho vuccamānappakārenāpi. Tathā hi ācariyabuddhaghosatthero porāṇaṭṭhakathāhi samāharitvā bhāsāparivattanavasena dassentopi yā yā atthavaṇṇanā [Pg.45] vā vinicchayo vā saṃsayitabbo hoti, tattha tattha vinayaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanti vā (1, 263), vinayaṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ, majjhimaṭṭhakathāsu panāti vā (1, 70), aṅguttarabhāṇakāti vā (1, 72), aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ matānusārena vinicchayoti vā (1, 99), vuttampi cetaṃ aṭṭhakathāsūti vā (1, 118), taṃ aṭṭhakathāsu paṭikkhittanti vā (1, 134), dīghabhāṇakasaṃyuttabhāṇakānaṃ matanti vā, majjhimabhāṇakā icchantīti vā (1, 267), aṭṭhakathāsu vinicchayoti vā, evaṃ tāva dīghabhāṇakā, majjhimabhāṇakā panāhūti vā (1, 277), aṅguttaraṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana…pe… ayaṃ kamo vutto, so pāḷiyā na sametīti vā (1, 309), evaṃ tāva majjhimabhāṇakā, saṃyuttabhāṇakā panāti vā (2, 62), saṃyuttaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanti vā (2, 63), aṭṭhakathāyaṃ panāti vā (2, 80) evaṃ taṃtaṃatthavaṇṇanāvinicchayānaṃ nissayampi vibhāvetvā pacchimajanānaṃ uppajjamānasaṃsayaṃ vinodentoyeva te dassesi.

The Visuddhimagga, however, was composed not only in the manner previously described, but also in the manner now being explained. For the Teacher, the Venerable Buddhaghosa, while compiling from the ancient commentaries and presenting them by way of a change of language, whenever there was any explanation of meaning or analysis about which doubt might arise, he would present them while dispelling the doubts that might arise for later generations by making clear the source for those various explanations and analyses, indicating in each case: “as stated in the Vinaya commentary” (1:263), or “as stated in the Vinaya commentaries, but in the Majjhima commentaries…” (1:70), or “the Aṅguttara reciters” (1:72), or “the analysis is according to the opinion of the commentary teachers” (1:99), or “this also is stated in the commentaries” (1:118), or “that is rejected in the commentaries” (1:134), or “the opinion of the Dīgha reciters and Saṃyutta reciters,” or “the Majjhima reciters hold…” (1:267), or “the analysis in the commentaries,” or “thus far the Dīgha reciters, but the Majjhima reciters say…” (1:277), or “in the Aṅguttara commentary, however… this order is stated, but it does not accord with the Pāli” (1:309), or “thus far the Majjhima reciters, but the Saṃyutta reciters say…” (2:62), or “as stated in the Saṃyutta commentary” (2:63), or “but in the commentary…” (2:80).

Tenimassa visuddhimaggassa karaṇakāle sabbāpi sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo ācariyassa santike santīti ca, pubbeyeva tā ācariyena sīhaḷattherānaṃ santike sutāti ca, tāhi gahetabbaṃ sabbaṃ gahetvā ayaṃ visuddhimaggo ācariyena likhitoti ca ayamattho ativiya pākaṭo hoti. Tasmā yaṃ mahāvaṃse –

By this it becomes exceedingly clear that at the time of the composition of this Visuddhimagga, all the Sinhala commentaries were in the Teacher’s presence; that they had been heard by the Teacher beforehand from the Sinhala elders; and that this Visuddhimagga was written by the Teacher after he had extracted from them everything that was to be extracted.

‘‘Saṅgho gāthādvayaṃ tassā’dāsi sāmatthiyaṃ tavā’’tiādinā ‘‘gāthādvayameva oloketvā kiñcipi aññaṃ potthakaṃ anoloketvā ācariyabuddhaghoso visuddhimaggaṃ akāsī’’ti adhippāyena abhitthutivacanaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ abhitthutimattamevāti veditabbaṃ.

Therefore, the statement of praise in the Mahāvaṃsa, beginning, “The Saṅgha gave him two verses, having seen his ability,” which was said with the intention that “the Teacher Buddhaghosa composed the Visuddhimagga having looked only at two verses and not at any other book,” should be understood as being merely a statement of praise.

Porāṇavacanadassanaṃ

Citing the Sayings of the Ancients

Na kevalaṃ ācariyo aṭṭhakathāyoyeva nissayabhāvena dassesi, atha kho ‘‘porāṇā panāhū’’tiādinā porāṇānaṃ vacanampi dassesiyeva. Tadettha dvāvīsatiyā ṭhānesu diṭṭhaṃ. Ke panete porāṇā nāma? Yāva catutthasaṅgītikālā saṅgītikāresu pariyāpannā vā [Pg.46] tādisā vā mahātherāti veditabbā. Tathā hi paṭisambhidāmagge (292-3-piṭṭhesu).

The Teacher did not only cite the commentaries as his authority, but he also cited the sayings of the ancients, with such phrases as, 'But the ancients say….' This is seen in twenty-two places. Who, now, are these ancients? They should be understood as the great elders who were included among the reciters at the councils up to the time of the Fourth Council, or others like them. For so it is in the Paṭisambhidāmagga (pages 292-3):

‘‘Obhāse ceva ñāṇe ca, pītiyā ca vikampati…pe…Dhammuddhaccakusalo hoti, na ca vikkhepaṃ gacchatī’’ti –

‘He wavers amidst light and knowledge, and amidst rapture… (and so on) … He is skilled in spiritual excitement about the Dhamma and does not become distracted.’

Evamāgatā gāthāyo idha (273-4-piṭṭhesu) porāṇānaṃ vacanabhāvena dassitā. Yadi cimā gāthāyo saṅgītikārehi pakkhittā bhaveyyuṃ yathā parivārapāḷiyaṃ (3-piṭṭhe) āgatā ācariyaparamparādīpikā gāthāyo, tā hi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (1, 46-piṭṭhe) porāṇavacanabhāvena dassitā, evaṃ sati teyeva saṅgītikārā porāṇāti veditabbā. Atha paṭisambhidāmaggadesakeneva bhāsitā bhaveyyuṃ, te viya garukaraṇīyā paccayikā saddhāyitabbakā mahātherā porāṇāti veditabbā. Samantapāsādikāsumaṅgalavilāsinīādīsu ‘‘porāṇā pana evaṃ vaṇṇayantī’’tiādinā vuttaṭṭhānesupi tādisāva ācariyā porāṇāti vuttā.

The verses that have come down in this way are presented here (on pages 273-4) as the sayings of the ancients. If these verses were inserted by the reciters of the canon—just as the verses clarifying the succession of teachers found in the Parivārapāḷi (on page 3) are presented in the Samantapāsādikā (on pages 1, 46) as the sayings of the ancients—then those very reciters of the canon should be understood as 'the ancients.' Alternatively, if they were spoken by the expounder of the Paṭisambhidāmagga himself, then great elders like him—worthy of respect, reliable, and trustworthy—should be understood as 'the ancients.' In the Samantapāsādikā, Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, and other commentaries, in passages where it is said, 'But the ancients explain it thus,' and so on, it is such teachers who are called 'the ancients.'

Vinayaṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Vinaya Commentary

Ācariyo pana imaṃ visuddhimaggapakaraṇaṃ yathāvuttappakārena katvā aññāpi tipiṭakaṭṭhakathāyo anukkamena akāsi. Kathaṃ? Samantapāsādikaṃ nāma vinayaṭṭhakathaṃ buddhasirittherena ajjhesito mahāvihārassa dakkhiṇabhāge padhānagharapariveṇe mahānigamassāmino pāsāde vasanto akāsi. Sā panesā siripāloti nāmantarassa mahānāmarañño vīsatimavasse (973-bu-va) āraddhā ekavīsatimavasse (974-bu-va) niṭṭhānappattā ahosi. Tañca pana karonto mahāmahindattherenābhataṃ sīhaḷabhāsāya saṅkhataṃ mahāaṭṭhakathaṃ tassā sarīraṃ katvā mahāpaccarīkurundīsaṅkhepaandhakaṭṭhakathāhi ca gahetabbaṃ gahetvā sīhaḷadīpe yāva vasabharājakālā pākaṭānaṃ porāṇa vinayadharamahātherānaṃ vinicchayabhūtaṃ theravādampi pakkhipitvā akāsi. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ –

The Teacher, having composed this treatise, the Visuddhimagga, in the manner described, then composed the other Tipiṭaka commentaries in succession. How so? At the request of the Elder Buddhasiri, he composed the Vinaya commentary named the Samantapāsādikā while dwelling in the mansion of the lord of Mahānigama, located in the Padhānaghara Pariveṇa in the southern part of the Mahāvihāra. This work was begun in the twentieth year of King Mahānāma, who had the other name Siripāla (973 B.E.), and was completed in his twenty-first year (974 B.E.). In composing it, he took as its 'body' the Great Commentary (Mahā-aṭṭhakathā), which was brought by the Elder Mahāmahinda and composed in the Sinhala language. He extracted what was to be taken from the Mahāpaccarī, the Kurundī, the Saṅkhepa, and the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, and also included the Theravāda tradition, which was the definitive judgment of the ancient great elders, masters of the Vinaya, who were renowned in the island of Sri Lanka up to the time of King Vasabha. For this is stated in the Samantapāsādikā:

‘‘Saṃvaṇṇanaṃ tañca samārabhanto, tassā mahāaṭṭhakathaṃ sarīraṃ;

Katvā mahāpaccariyaṃ tatheva, kurundināmādisu vissutāsu.

‘Undertaking this commentary, having made the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā its body, and likewise from the renowned commentaries such as the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī,

Vinicchayo [Pg.47] aṭṭhakathāsu vutto, yo yuttamatthaṃ apariccajanto;

Tatopi antogadhatheravādaṃ, saṃvaṇṇanaṃ samma samārabhissa’’nti ca.

[I shall take] the decision stated in those commentaries, which does not abandon the proper meaning, and also the Theravāda view contained therein. Thus I shall properly commence this commentary.’

‘‘Mahāmeghavanuyyāne, bhūmibhāge patiṭṭhito;

Mahāvihāro yo satthu, mahābodhivibhūsito.

‘The Great Monastery of the Teacher, adorned by the Great Bodhi tree, which is established on a tract of land in the Mahāmeghavana Park;

Yaṃ tassa dakkhiṇe bhāge, padhānagharamuttamaṃ;

Sucicārittasīlena, bhikkhusaṅghena sevitaṃ.

In the southern part of which is an excellent meditation hall, frequented by the Sangha of bhikkhus pure in conduct and virtue;

Uḷārakulasambhūto, saṅghupaṭṭhāyako sadā;

Anākulāya saddhāya, pasanno ratanattaye.

One born of a noble family, a constant supporter of the Sangha, with untroubled faith, devoted to the Three Jewels,

Mahānigamasāmīti, vissuto tattha kārayi;

Cārupākārasañcitaṃ, yaṃ pāsādaṃ manoramaṃ.

Renowned as the lord of Mahānigama, had built there a delightful mansion enclosed by a beautiful wall;

Sandacchāyatarūpetaṃ, sampannasalilāsayaṃ;

Vasatā tatra pāsāde, mahānigamasāmino.

Endowed with dense, shady trees and possessing a reservoir of water—while I was dwelling in that mansion of the lord of Mahānigama,

Sucisīlasamācāraṃ, theraṃ buddhasirivhayaṃ;

Yā uddisitvā āraddhā, iddhā vinayavaṇṇanā.

At the request of the Elder named Buddhasiri, a man of pure virtue and conduct, this splendid commentary on the Vinaya was begun;

Pālayantassa sakalaṃ, laṅkādīpaṃ nirabbudaṃ;

Rañño sirinivāsassa, siripālayasassino.

While the glorious King Siripāla, the Abode of Fortune, was ruling the entire island of Laṅkā, keeping it free from affliction;

Samavīsatime vasse, jayasaṃvacchare ayaṃ;

Āraddhā ekavīsamhi, sampatte pariniṭṭhitā.

This work was begun in his twentieth year, the Victory Year, and was fully completed upon the arrival of the twenty-first.

Upaddavākule loke, nirupaddavato ayaṃ;

Ekasaṃvacchareneva, yathā niṭṭhaṃ upāgatā’’ti ca.

In a world beset by troubles, this work is free from trouble; thus it has reached completion in just a single year.’

Ayañca samantapāsādikā vinayaṭṭhakathā adhunā mudditachaṭṭhasaṅgītipotthakavasena sahassato upari aṭṭhapaṇṇāsādhikatisatamattapiṭṭhaparimāṇā (1358) hoti, tassā ca ekasaṃvaccharena niṭṭhāpitattaṃ upanidhāya catuvīsādhikasattasatamattapiṭṭhaparimāṇo (724) visuddhimaggopi antamaso chappañcamāsehi niṭṭhāpito bhaveyyāti sakkā ñātuṃ. Tasmā yaṃ buddhaghosuppattiyaṃ mahāvaṃsavacanaṃ nissāya ‘‘visuddhimaggo ācariyabuddhaghosena [Pg.48] ekaratteneva tikkhattuṃ likhitvā niṭṭhāpito’’ti abhitthutivacanaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ takkārakassa abhitthutimattamevāti veditabbaṃ.

This Vinaya commentary, the Samantapāsādikā, in the current printed Sixth Council edition, has a length of 1358 pages. Considering that it was completed within a single year, one can infer that the Visuddhimagga, which is 724 pages long, could have been completed in at least five or six months. Therefore, the laudatory statement in the Buddhaghosuppatti, which relies on a saying from the Mahāvaṃsa, that 'the Visuddhimagga was written out three times in a single night by the Teacher Buddhaghosa and thus completed,' should be understood as being merely praise for its author.

Nanu ca imissaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sumaṅgalavilāsiniya’’ntiādinā visesanāmavasena āgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ atideso dissati, kathamimissā tāhi paṭhamataraṃ katabhāvo veditabboti? Ācariyassa aṭṭhakathāsu aññamaññātidesato, vinayapiṭakassa garukātabbatarabhāvato, mahāvihāravāsīhi visesena garukatabhāvato, saṅgītikkamānurūpabhāvato, idheva paripuṇṇanidānakathāpakāsanato, nigamane ca paṭhamaṃ sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo sutvā karaṇappakāsanato ṭhapetvā visuddhimaggaṃ ayameva paṭhamaṃ katāti veditabbā. Visuddhimagge pana vinayaṭṭhakathāyanti vā vinayaṭṭhakathāsūti vā majjhimaṭṭhakathāsūti vā evaṃ sāmaññanāmavaseneva atideso dissati, na samantapāsādikādivisesanāmavasena. Tasmāssa sabbapaṭhamaṃ katabhāvo pākaṭoyeva. Āgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ idhātideso imissāpi tatthāti evaṃ aññamaññātideso pana ācariyassa manasā suvavatthitavasena vā sakkā bhavituṃ, apubbācarimapariniṭṭhāpanena vā. Kathaṃ? Ācariyena hi visuddhimaggaṃ sabbaso niṭṭhāpetvā samantapāsādikādiṃ ekekamaṭṭhakathaṃ karonteneva yattha yattha atthavaṇṇanā vitthārato aññaṭṭhakathāsu pakāsetabbā hoti, tattha tattha ‘‘imasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne kathessāmī’’ti manasā suvavatthitaṃ vavatthapetvā tañca atidisitvā yathāvavatthitaṭhānappattakāle taṃ vitthārato kathentena tā katā vā bhaveyyuṃ. Ekekissāya vā niṭṭhānāsannappattakāle taṃ ṭhapetvā aññañca aññañca tathā katvā sabbāpi apubbācarimaṃ pariniṭṭhāpitā bhaveyyunti evaṃ dvinnaṃ pakārānamaññataravasena ācariyassāṭṭhakathāsu aññamaññātideso hotīti veditabbanti.

But is it not so that in this commentary a cross-reference to the Āgama commentaries is seen by way of specific names, such as 'Sumaṅgalavilāsinī'? How then can it be known that this work was composed before them? It should be known that, apart from the Visuddhimagga, this was indeed the first one composed for the following reasons: the Teacher's mutual cross-referencing in his commentaries; the greater reverence accorded to the Vinaya Piṭaka; the special reverence given to it by the residents of the Mahāvihāra; its conformity with the order of the councils; the fact that the full introductory story is set forth right here; and the statement in the colophon that he composed it after first hearing the Sinhala commentaries. In the Visuddhimagga, however, cross-references are seen only by way of general names, such as 'the Vinaya commentary' or 'in the Majjhima commentary,' not by specific names like 'Samantapāsādikā.' Therefore, it is perfectly clear that it was composed first of all. As for the mutual cross-referencing—that is, the cross-reference here to the Āgama commentaries and of this one in those—this could be possible either due to the Teacher's well-established mental plan or due to completing them in a non-sequential order. How so? It might be that the Teacher, having completed the Visuddhimagga in its entirety, then, while composing each commentary such as the Samantapāsādikā, whenever an explanation had to be set forth in detail in another commentary, he would establish a firm mental resolve, 'I will discuss this at such-and-such a place.' Then, having made the cross-reference, when he reached the pre-determined place he would explain it in detail, and in this way they were composed. Or, as each one neared completion, he might have set it aside and worked on another and another in the same way, and thus all of them were completed non-sequentially. Thus, it should be understood that the mutual cross-referencing in the Teacher's commentaries occurs in one of these two ways.

Āgamaṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Commentaries on the Āgamas

Sumaṅgalavilāsiniṃ nāma dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathaṃ pana ācariyo sumaṅgalapariveṇavāsinā dāṭhānāgattherena āyācito akāsi. Vuttaṃ hetametissā nigamane –

The Teacher composed the commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya, the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, at the request of the Elder Dāṭhānāga, a resident of the Sumaṅgala Pariveṇa. It is stated thus at its conclusion:

‘‘Āyācito [Pg.49] sumaṅgala-pariveṇanivāsinā thiraguṇena;

Dāṭhānāga saṅgha, ttherena theravaṃsanvayena.

Requested by the Elder Dāṭhānāga, of steadfast virtue, a resident of the Sumaṅgala Pariveṇa, belonging to the lineage of elders;

Dīghāgamassa dasabala-guṇagaṇaparidīpanassa aṭṭhakathaṃ;

Yaṃ ārabhiṃ sumaṅgala-vilāsiniṃ nāma nāmena.

I began the commentary on the Dīgha Āgama, which elucidates the host of qualities of the Ten-Powered One, the work named Sumaṅgalavilāsinī.

Sā hi mahāaṭṭhakathāya, sāramādāya niṭṭhitā esā’’ti.

For this is now completed, having extracted the essence from the Great Commentary.

Papañcasūdaniṃ nāma majjhimanikāyaṭṭhakathaṃ bhadantabuddhamittattherena pubbe mayūradūtapaṭṭane attanā saddhiṃ vasantena āyācito akāsi. Vuttaṃ hetametissā nigamane –

He composed the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, the Papañcasūdanī, at the request of the venerable Elder Buddhamitta, who was formerly dwelling with him at Mayūradūtapaṭṭana. It is stated thus at its conclusion:

‘‘Āyācito sumatinā, therena bhadantabuddhamittena;

Pubbe mayūradūtapa,ṭṭanamhi saddhiṃ vasantena.

Requested by the wise and venerable Elder Buddhamitta, who was formerly dwelling with me at Mayūradūtapaṭṭana;

Paravādavidhaṃsanassa, majjhimanikāyaseṭṭhassa;

Yamahaṃ papañcasūdani-maṭṭhakathaṃ kātumārabhiṃ.

I began to compose the commentary, the Papañcasūdanī, for the excellent Majjhima Nikāya, the destroyer of rival doctrines.

Sā hi mahāaṭṭhakathāya, sāramādāya niṭṭhitā esā’’ti.

For this commentary is now completed, having extracted the essence from the Great Commentary.

Sāratthappakāsiniṃ nāma saṃyuttanikāyaṭṭhakathaṃ bhadantajotipālattherena āyācito akāsi. Vuttaṃ hetametissā nigamane –

He composed the commentary on the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Sāratthappakāsinī, at the request of the venerable Elder Jotipāla. It is stated thus at its conclusion:

‘‘Etissā karaṇatthaṃ, therena bhadantajotipālena;

Sucisīlena subhāsitassa pakāsayantañāṇena.

For the purpose of composing this, by the venerable Elder Jotipāla, of pure virtue, with wisdom that illuminates the well-spoken;

Sāsanavibhūtikāmena, yācamānena maṃ subhaguṇena;

Yaṃ samadhigataṃ puññaṃ, tenāpi jano sukhī bhavatū’’ti.

by him of excellent virtue, desiring the flourishing of the Dispensation, I was requested. Whatever merit has been acquired by this, may the people also be happy.

Manorathapūraṇiṃ nāma aṅguttaranikāyaṭṭhakathaṃ bhadantajotipālattherena dakkhiṇaindiyaraṭṭhe kañcipurādīsu ca sīhaḷadīpe mahāvihāramhi ca attanā saddhiṃ vasantena āyācito, tathā jīvakenāpi upāsakena piṭakattayapāragubhūtena vātāhatepi aniñjamānasabhāve dume viya aniñjamānasaddhamme ṭhitena sumatinā parisuddhājīvenābhiyācito akāsi. Vuttaṃ hetametissā nigamane –

He composed the commentary on the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the Manorathapūraṇī, having been requested by the venerable Elder Jotipāla—who was dwelling with him in the Mahāvihāra on the island of Sri Lanka and in places such as Kañcipura in the country of Southern India—and also having been earnestly requested by the lay follower Jīvaka, a wise man of pure livelihood who had mastered the three Piṭakas and stood firm in the unshakable True Dhamma like a tree unshaken though struck by the wind. It is stated thus at its conclusion:

‘‘Āyācito sumatinā, therena bhadantajotipālena;

Kañcipurādīsu mayā, pubbe saddhiṃ vasantena.

Requested by the wise, venerable Elder Jotipāla, who was formerly dwelling with me in Kañcipura and other places,

Varatambapaṇṇidīpe, [Pg.50] mahāvihāramhi vasanakālepi;

Vātāhate viya dume, aniñjamānamhi saddhamme.

and also during the time of dwelling in the Mahāvihāra on the excellent island of Tambapaṇṇi, while the True Dhamma stood unshaken like a tree battered by the wind,

Pāraṃ piṭakattayasā,garassa gantvā ṭhitena sumatinā;

Parisuddhājīvenā,bhiyācito jīvakenāpi.

and also earnestly requested by the wise Jīvaka, of perfectly pure livelihood, who had reached the far shore of the ocean of the three Piṭakas and stood firm.

Dhammakathānayanipuṇehi, dhammakathikehi aparimāṇehi;

Parikīḷitassa paṭipa,jjitassa sakasamayacitrassa.

Of that which is studied and practiced by countless Dhamma speakers skilled in the methods of Dhamma exposition, that which is beautifully adorned with its own teachings;

Aṭṭhakathaṃ aṅguttara,mahānikāyassa kātumāraddho;

Yamahaṃ cirakālaṭṭhiti-micchanto sāsanavarassa.

the commentary on the great Aṅguttara Nikāya I began to compose, desiring the long-lasting stability of the excellent Dispensation.

Sā hi mahāaṭṭhakathāya, sāramādāya niṭṭhitā esā;

Catunnavutiparimāṇāya, pāḷiyā bhāṇavārehi.

For this commentary on the Pāli text of ninety-four recitation sections is now completed, having extracted its essence from the Great Commentary.

Sabbāgamasaṃvaṇṇana, manoratho pūrito ca me yasmā;

Etāya manoratha pūraṇīti nāmaṃ tato assā’’ti.

And since my wish to comment upon all the Āgamas has been fulfilled by this work, its name shall therefore be Manorathapūraṇī, the Fulfiller of Wishes.

Imā ca pana catasso āgamaṭṭhakathāyo kurumāno ācariyabuddhaghoso mahāmahindattherenābhataṃ mūlaṭṭhakathāsaṅkhātaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathaṃyeva bhāsāparivattanavasena ceva punappunāgatavitthārakathāmaggassa saṃkhipanavasena ca akāsi. Vuttañhetaṃ ganthārambhe –

Now, in composing these four commentaries on the Āgamas, the Teacher Buddhaghosa worked from the Great Commentary itself—the one known as the Root Commentary, which had been brought by the great Elder Mahinda—rendering it by changing the language and by condensing its diffuse and repetitive passages. For this was said at the beginning of the work:

‘‘Sīhaḷadīpaṃ pana ābha,tātha vasinā mahāmahindena;

Ṭhapitā sīhaḷabhāsāya, dīpavāsīnamatthāya.

It was brought to the island of Sri Lanka by the master, the great Mahinda, and established in the Sinhala language for the benefit of the inhabitants of the island.

Apanetvāna tatohaṃ, sīhaḷabhāsaṃ manoramaṃ bhāsaṃ;

Tantinayānucchavikaṃ, āropento vigatadosaṃ…pe…Hitvā punappunāgata-matthaṃ atthaṃ pakāsayissāmī’’ti.

Having removed from it the Sinhala language, I will render it into the beautiful language that accords with the scriptural method, free from faults... Omitting repetitive material, I will illuminate the meaning.

Tathā nigamanepi –

Similarly, also in the conclusion:

‘‘Sā hi mahāaṭṭhakathāya, sāramādāya niṭṭhitā esā’’ti ca;

‘‘Mūlaṭṭhakathāsāraṃ, ādāya mayā imaṃ karontenā’’ti ca.

'For this is now completed, having extracted the essence from the Great Commentary,' and, 'This was made by me by drawing on the essence of the Root Commentary.'

Imāsaṃ sarīrabhūtapāṭhesu ca samantapāsādikāyaṃ viya ‘‘mahāpaccariyaṃ, kurundiya’’ntiādinā vinicchayasaṃvaṇṇanābhedappakāsanaṃ na dissati, tathā abhidhammaṭṭhakathāsupi. [Pg.51] Tenetaṃ ñāyati ‘‘suttantābhidhammesu mahāaṭṭhakathāto aññā mahāpaccariādināmikā porāṇikā sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo ceva andhakaṭṭhakathā ca natthī’’ti. Yāva vasabharājakālā (609-653) pana pākaṭānaṃ sīhaḷikattherānaṃ vinicchayo ca vādā ca vatthūni ca etāsupi dissantiyevāti.

In the main body of these texts, unlike in the Samantapāsādikā, an indication of differing explanations of legal points by citing the Mahāpaccarī, the Kurundī, and so on, is not seen; and similarly in the Abhidhamma commentaries. From this it is known that for the Suttanta and Abhidhamma, apart from the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, there were no other ancient Sinhala commentaries with names like Mahāpaccarī, etc., nor an Andhakaṭṭhakathā. However, up to the time of King Vasabha (c. 67–111 CE), the legal decisions, doctrines, and stories of the well-known Sinhala elders are indeed seen even in these commentaries.

Abhidhammaṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Abhidhamma Commentaries

Aṭṭhasāliniṃ pana sammohavinodaniñca dhātukathādipañcapakaraṇassa aṭṭhakathañcāti tisso abhidhammaṭṭhakathāyo attanā sadisanāmena sotatthakīganthakārakena buddhaghosabhikkhunā āyācito akāsi. Vuttañhetaṃ tāsu –

Now, he made the three Abhidhamma commentaries—the Aṭṭhasālinī, the Sammohavinodanī, and the commentary on the five treatises beginning with the Dhātukathā—having been requested by the bhikkhu Buddhaghosa, who had a name similar to his own and was the author of the Sotatthakī. For it is said in them:

‘‘Visuddhācārasīlena, nipuṇāmalabuddhinā;

Bhikkhunā buddhaghosena, sakkaccaṃ abhiyācito’’ti ca.

‘Having been respectfully requested by the bhikkhu Buddhaghosa, of pure conduct and virtue, of subtle and stainless intellect.’

‘‘Buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therena katāAyaṃ aṭṭhasālinī nāma dhammasaṅgahaṭṭhakathā’’ti ca.

‘This commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, named the Aṭṭhasālinī, was made by the elder whose name, Buddhaghosa, was conferred by his teachers.’

‘‘Atthappakāsanatthaṃ, tassāhaṃ yācito ṭhitaguṇena;

Yatinā adandhagatinā, subuddhinā buddhaghosena.

‘For the purpose of explaining its meaning, I was requested by the ascetic Buddhaghosa, one of steadfast virtue, of unhurried gait, and of good wisdom.

Yaṃ ārabhiṃ racayituṃ, aṭṭhakathaṃ sunipuṇesu atthesu;

Sammohavinodanato, sammohavinodaniṃ nāmā’’ti ca.

The commentary on very subtle meanings which I began to compose, because it dispels delusion, is named the Sammohavinodanī.’

‘‘Buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therena katāAyaṃ sammohavinodanī nāma vibhaṅgaṭṭhakathā’’ti ca.

‘This commentary on the Vibhaṅga, named the Sammohavinodanī, was made by the elder whose name, Buddhaghosa, was conferred by his teachers.’

Imāsu pana tīsu pañcapakaraṇaṭṭhakathāya nāmaviseso natthi āyācako ca na pakāsito, kevalaṃ attano saddhāya eva sañcoditena ācariyabuddhaghosena sā katā viya dissati. Vuttañhetaṃ tassā nigamane –

However, among these three, the commentary on the five treatises has no specific name, and the requester is not revealed. It appears as if it was made by Ācariya Buddhaghosa, prompted solely by his own faith. For this is stated in its conclusion:

‘‘Kusalādidhammabhedaṃ, [Pg.52] nissāya nayehi vividhagaṇanehi;

Vitthārento sattama-mabhidhammappakaraṇaṃ satthā.

‘The Teacher, expounding the seventh Abhidhamma treatise, the classification of dhammas beginning with the wholesome, relied on various methods and enumerations.

Suvihitasanniṭṭhāno, paṭṭhānaṃ nāma yaṃ pakāsesi;

Saddhāya samāraddhā, yā aṭṭhakathā mayā tassāti ca.

That which he proclaimed by the name of Paṭṭhāna, well-established in its arrangement—the commentary on it was undertaken by me with faith.’

‘‘Ettāvatā

‘Thus far,

Sattappakaraṇaṃ nātho, abhidhammamadesayi;

Devātidevo devānaṃ, devalokamhi yaṃ pure;

Tassa aṭṭhakathā esā, sakalassāpi niṭṭhitā’’ti ca.

The Lord, the god beyond gods, taught the Abhidhamma of seven treatises long ago in the world of the devas. This commentary on all of it is now completed.’

‘‘Buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therena katāAyaṃ sakalassapi abhidhammapiṭakassa aṭṭhakathā’’ti ca.

‘This commentary on the entire Abhidhamma Piṭaka was made by the elder whose name, Buddhaghosa, was conferred by his teachers.’

Ekacce pana ādhunikā therā ‘‘abhidhammaṭṭhakathāyo ācariyabuddhaghosena yācito saṅghapālabuddhamittajotipālādīnaṃ aññataro thero akāsī’’ti vadanti. Ayañca nesaṃ vicāraṇā, aṭṭhasālinīsammohavinodanīsu ‘‘tā buddhaghosena yācito akāsī’’ti ganthakārena vuttaṃ. Tena ñāyati ‘‘takkārako añño, ācariyabuddhaghoso pana tāsu yācakapuggaloyevā’’ti. Āgamaṭṭhakathāsu ca ācariyabuddhaghosena –

However, some modern elders say: ‘The Abhidhamma commentaries were made by one of the elders—Saṅghapāla, Buddhamitta, or Jotipāla—having been requested by Ācariya Buddhaghosa.’ And this is their reasoning: in the Aṭṭhasālinī and the Sammohavinodanī it is said by the author that ‘he made them, having been requested by Buddhaghosa.’ From this it is understood that ‘the author was another, while Ācariya Buddhaghosa was merely the person who made the request.’ And in the commentaries on the Āgamas, Ācariya Buddhaghosa says:

‘‘Sīlakathā dhutadhammā, kammaṭṭhānāni ceva sabbāni…pe…Iti pana sabbaṃ yasmā, visuddhimagge mayā suparisuddhaṃ;

Vuttaṃ tasmā bhiyyo, na taṃ idha vicārayissāmī’’ti –

‘The discourse on virtue, the ascetic practices, and all the meditation subjects…pe… Since all this has been stated by me in a thoroughly purified manner in the Visuddhimagga, I will not discuss it further here.’

Evaṃ sīlakathādīnaṃ attanā eva visuddhimagge vuttabhāvo mayātipadena pakāsito. Aṭṭhasāliniyaṃ pana –

Thus, the fact that the discourse on virtue and so on was stated by himself in the Visuddhimagga is revealed by the word ‘mayā’ (by me). But in the Aṭṭhasālinī:

‘‘Kammaṭṭhānāni sabbāni, cariyābhiññā vipassanā;

Visuddhimagge panidaṃ, yasmā sabbaṃ pakāsita’’nti –

‘All meditation subjects, conduct, direct knowledges, and insight; since all this has been explained in the Visuddhimagga.’

Evaṃ mayāti kattupadena vinā vuttaṃ. Tenāpi ñāyati ‘‘visuddhimaggakārako añño, abhidhammaṭṭhakathākārako añño’’ti. Kiñcāpi abhidhammaṭṭhakathāsu abhiyācako buddhaghoso bhikkhunāti ca yatināti ca [Pg.53] imeheva sāmaññaguṇapadehi vutto na therenāti sagāravaguṇapadena, tathāpi so ‘‘visuddhācārasīlena nipuṇāmalabuddhinā’’ti ca, ‘‘adandhagatinā subuddhinā’’ti ca imehi adhikaguṇapadehi thomitattā ‘‘visuddhimaggādikārako ācariyabuddhaghosoyevā’’ti sakkā gahetuṃ. So hi upasampannakālatoyeva paṭṭhāya ganthakovido pariyattivisāradaguṇasampanno, tasmiñca kāle ūnadasavasso bhaveyya, tasmā therenāti na vuttoti sakkā gahetunti.

Thus, it is stated without the agentive word ‘mayā.’ By that, too, it is known that ‘the author of the Visuddhimagga is one, and the author of the Abhidhamma commentaries is another.’ Although in the Abhidhamma commentaries the requester Buddhaghosa is spoken of with the common terms of quality ‘bhikkhu’ and ‘yati,’ and not with the respectful term of quality ‘thera,’ still, because he is praised with such superior terms of quality as ‘of pure conduct and virtue, of subtle and stainless intellect’ and ‘of unhurried gait and good wisdom,’ it can be accepted that ‘Ācariya Buddhaghosa himself is the author of the Visuddhimagga and other works.’ For from the time of his higher ordination he was skilled in the scriptures and endowed with the quality of expertise in the textual tradition, and at that time he would have been of less than ten years’ standing. Therefore, it can be accepted that he was not called ‘thera.’

Taṃ pana tesaṃ ativicāraṇamattameva. Na hi ācariyabuddhaghosatthero ‘‘tasmiṃ kāle ūnadasavasso’’ti sakkā gahetuṃ, visuddhimagganigamanepi ‘‘buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therenā’’ti vacanato, na ca ‘‘visuddhācārasīlena, nipuṇāmalabuddhinā’’ti vā, ‘‘adandhagatinā subuddhinā’’ti vā ettakeheva dvīhi dvīhi guṇapadehi thomanena suthomito hoti, aññadatthu ‘‘nippabhīkatakhajjoto samudeti divākaro’’ti thomanaṃ viya hoti. Nanu ācariyena attano ganthanigamanesu –

But that is merely their excessive speculation. For the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa cannot be taken as being ‘of less than ten years’ standing at that time,’ since in the conclusion of the Visuddhimagga it says, ‘by the elder whose name, Buddhaghosa, was conferred by his teachers.’ And he is not well-praised merely by these two pairs of qualitative terms, ‘of pure conduct and virtue, of subtle and stainless intellect’ or ‘of unhurried gait and good wisdom.’ On the contrary, it is like praising the sun by saying, ‘the sun rises, having eclipsed the firefly.’ Indeed, in the conclusions of his own books, the Ācariya says:

‘‘Paramavisuddhasaddhābaddhivīriyapaṭimaṇḍitena sīlācārajjavamaddavādiguṇasamudayasamuditena sakasamayasamayantaragahanajjhogāhaṇasamatthena paññāveyyattiyasamannāgatena tipiṭakapariyattibhede sāṭṭhakathe satthusāsane appaṭihatañāṇappabhāvena mahāveyyākaraṇenā’’tiādinā –

‘…by the great expounder, adorned with supremely pure faith and firm energy, endowed with a collection of qualities such as virtue, good conduct, uprightness, and gentleness, capable of plunging into the thickets of his own doctrine and other doctrines, possessed of intelligence and discernment, having the radiance of unimpeded knowledge in the Teacher’s Dispensation with its commentaries, in its divisions of the Tipiṭaka,’ and so on.

Attano anucchavikāni guṇapadāni pakāsitāni, soyeva ca porāṇasīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo saṅkhipitvā abhinavasaṅgahaṭṭhakathānaṃ ādikattā pubbaṅgamo, aññe pana abhinavaṭṭhakathākārā tasseva anuvattitvā avasesamekaṃ vā dve vā aṭṭhakathāyo akaṃsu. Abhidhammaṭṭhakathāsu ca yo yo attho visuddhimagge vutto, so so yathānuppattaṭṭhāne tato gahetvā tatheva vutto. Visesato pana paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgakhandhāyatanadhātusaccavibhaṅgavaṇṇanāsu jhānakathāvaṇṇanāsu ca ayamattho ativiya pākaṭo, yopi ca tattha appako katipayamatto visuddhimaggena visadiso saṃvaṇṇanābhedo dissati, sopi ābhidhammikānaṃ matānusārena yathā porāṇaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutto, tatheva vuttoti veditabbo. Yathā ca aṭṭhasāliniyaṃ samantapāsādikāya vinayaṭṭhakathāya atideso [Pg.54] dissati, tatheva samantapāsādikāyampi aṭṭhasāliniyā atideso dissateva. Yadi ca aṭṭhasālinī aññena katā bhaveyya, kathaṃ tāsu aññamaññātideso sakkā kātuṃ. Tasmā abhidhammaṭṭhakathāsu abhiyācako buddhaghoso ācariyena samānanāmo cūḷabuddhaghosoti yāvajjatanā ācariyaparamparāya gahito sotatthakīganthakārako aññoyeva, na ācariyamahābuddhaghosatthero. Teneva tattha vuttaṃ ‘‘bhikkhunā’’ti ca ‘‘yatinā’’ti ca.

He has proclaimed terms of quality befitting himself. And he himself, having abridged the old Sinhala commentaries, was the forerunner as the first author of the new collected commentaries. Other authors of new commentaries, following him, made the remaining one or two commentaries. In the Abhidhamma commentaries, whatever meaning is stated in the Visuddhimagga, that same meaning is stated just so, having been taken from there from its proper place. This point is especially evident in the explanations of the analysis of dependent origination, aggregates, sense bases, elements, and truths, and in the explanations of the discourse on the jhānas. And even the few slight differences in explanation that are seen there, dissimilar to the Visuddhimagga, should be understood as stated just as it was stated in the old commentary, in accordance with the view of the Abhidhamma specialists. Just as a cross-reference to the Vinaya commentary, the Samantapāsādikā, is seen in the Aṭṭhasālinī, so too a cross-reference to the Aṭṭhasālinī is seen in the Samantapāsādikā. If the Aṭṭhasālinī had been made by another, how could mutual cross-referencing in them be possible? Therefore, the requester in the Abhidhamma commentaries, Buddhaghosa, who had the same name as the Ācariya, is taken by the succession of teachers down to the present day to be Cūḷabuddhaghosa, the author of the Sotatthakī, someone else, not the Elder Ācariya Mahābuddhaghosa. For that reason it is said there ‘by a bhikkhu’ and ‘by an ascetic.’

Yadi pana ettakena niṭṭhaṃ na gaccheyya, evampi vicāretabbaṃ – kinnu kho saṅghapālādayo therā visuddhimaggādīnaṃ karaṇatthāya ācariyabuddhaghosattheraṃ āyācamānā attanā samatthataroti saddahantā āyācanti udāhu asaddahantāti? Saddahantāyeva āyācantīti pākaṭoyevāyamattho. Tathā ca sati ācariyabuddhaghosatthero sayaṃ aññehi samatthatarova samāno kasmā aññaṃ āyāceyya. Na hi saddhāsampannassa thāmasampannassa yobbanasampannassa ācariyassa sundarataraṃ abhidhammaṭṭhakathaṃ kātuṃ bhāriyaṃ bhavissati. Abhidhammaṭṭhakathāsu ca vuttavacanāni visuddhimaggaāgamaṭṭhakathāsu vuttasaṃvaṇṇanāvacanehi ekākārāneva honti. Yadi ca abhidhammaṭṭhakathaṃ añño kareyya, kathamapi tāhi vacanākārassa visadisatā bhaveyya eva. Etāsaṃ nigamane ca dassitena ‘‘buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therena katā’’ti vacanena ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghosena katā’’tveva pākaṭā honti, na aññenāti. Yepi ‘‘aññena katā’’ti vadanti, tepi ‘‘iminā nāma therenā’’ti ekaṃsato dassetuṃ na sakkonti, tathā dassetuñca lesamattampi sādhakavacanaṃ na dissati. Tasmā abhidhammaṭṭhakathāyopi idāni ācariyehi cūḷabuddhaghosoti voharitena buddhaghosena nāma bhikkhunāyācito visuddhimaggavinayāgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ kārako ācariyamahābuddhaghosattheroyeva akāsīti niṭṭhamettha gantabbanti.

If one is not satisfied by this much, it should be considered thus: when the elders like Saṅghapāla requested the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa to compose the Visuddhimagga and other works, did they request him believing he was more capable than themselves, or not believing so? It is quite clear that they requested him because they did believe so. That being the case, why would the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa, being himself more capable than others, request another? For it would not be a heavy task for a teacher endowed with faith, strength, and youth to compose a more beautiful Abhidhamma commentary. And the statements in the Abhidhamma commentaries are of the very same form as the explanatory statements in the Visuddhimagga and the commentaries on the Āgamas. If another had composed the Abhidhamma commentary, there would surely be some dissimilarity in the form of the statements. And by the statement shown in their conclusions, ‘made by the elder whose name, Buddhaghosa, was conferred by his teachers,’ it becomes clear that they were made by Ācariya Buddhaghosa, not by another. Even those who say ‘they were made by another’ are unable to point definitively to ‘an elder by this name,’ and not even the slightest supporting statement to show this is seen. Therefore, it should be concluded that the Elder Ācariya Mahābuddhaghosa himself, the author of the Visuddhimagga and the commentaries on the Vinaya and the Āgamas, also composed the Abhidhamma commentaries, having been requested by the bhikkhu named Buddhaghosa, who is now referred to as Ācariya Cūḷabuddhaghosa. Thus the matter should be settled.

Yaṃ pana mahāvaṃse ‘‘ācariyabuddhaghoso sīhaḷadīpāgamanato pubbe jambudīpe vasanakāleyeva aṭṭhasāliniṃ akāsī’’ti adhippāyena –

But as to the view in the Mahāvaṃsa that ‘Ācariya Buddhaghosa composed the Aṭṭhasālinī while he was living in Jambudīpa, before his arrival on the island of the Sinhalese’—

225. ‘‘Dhammasaṅgaṇiyākāsi, kacchaṃ so aṭṭhasālini’’nti –

225. “He composed the commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Aṭṭhasālinī.”

Vuttaṃ, [Pg.55] taṃ idāni dissamānāya aṭṭhasāliniyā na sameti. Tattha hi ganthārambheyeva visuddhimaggaṃ atidisitvā pacchāpi so ca, samantapāsādikā ca bahūsu ṭhānesu atidisīyanti. Tasmā tassā ācariyena sīhaḷadīpaṃ patvā visuddhimaggañceva samantapāsādikañca katvā pacchāyeva katabhāvo ativiya pākaṭoti.

This has been said, but it does not agree with the Aṭṭhasālinī as it is now available. For in that work, at the very beginning, the Visuddhimagga is referred to, and later both it and the Samantapāsādikā are referred to in many places. Therefore, it is very evident that it was composed by its author only after he had arrived on the island of the Sinhalese and had composed both the Visuddhimagga and the Samantapāsādikā.

Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīaṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Commentary

Kaṅkhāvitaraṇiṃ nāma pātimokkhaṭṭhakathaṃ ācariyabuddhaghosatthero soṇattherena yācito mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ vācanāmagganissitaṃ sīhaḷapātimokkhaṭṭhakathānayaṃ nissāya ekampi padaṃ pāḷiyā vā mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ porāṇaṭṭhakathāhi vā avirodhetvā akāsi. Tena vuttaṃ tissaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ –

The Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa, at the request of the Elder Soṇa, composed the commentary on the Pātimokkha named Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī. He did so by relying on the method of the Sinhalese commentary on the Pātimokkha, which was based on the oral tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra, and without contradicting even a single word of the Pāli or of the ancient commentaries of the residents of the Mahāvihāra. Thus it is said in that commentary:

‘‘Sūratena nivātena, sucisallekhavuttinā;

Vinayācārayuttena, soṇattherena yācito.

“Requested by the Elder Soṇa, who is gentle, humble, of pure and austere conduct, and endowed with the practice of the Vinaya,

Tattha sañjātakaṅkhānaṃ, bhikkhūnaṃ tassa vaṇṇanaṃ;

Kaṅkhāvitaraṇatthāya, paripuṇṇavinicchayaṃ.

for those monks in whom doubt has arisen, its explanation, a complete analysis for the purpose of dispelling doubt,

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, vācanāmagganissitaṃ;

Vattayissāmi nāmena, kaṅkhāvitaraṇiṃ subha’’nti ca.

relying on the oral tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra, I will set forth the beautiful Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī by name.”

‘‘Ārabhiṃ yamahaṃ sabbaṃ, sīhaḷaṭṭhakathānayaṃ;

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, vācanāmagganissitaṃ.

“The entire method of the Sinhalese commentary that I undertook, based on the oral tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra,

Nissāya sā ayaṃ niṭṭhaṃ, gatā ādāya sabbaso;

Sabbaṃ aṭṭhakathāsāraṃ, pāḷiyatthañca kevalaṃ.

has now reached completion, having extracted in its entirety the essence of all the commentaries and only the meaning of the Pāli.

Na hettha taṃ padaṃ atthi, yaṃ virujjheyya pāḷiyā;

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, porāṇaṭṭhakathāhi vā’’ti ca.

Herein there is no word that would contradict the Pāli or the ancient commentaries of the residents of the Mahāvihāra.”

Dhammapadaṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Dhammapada Commentary

Aparāpi tisso aṭṭhakathāyo santi khuddakapāṭhaṭṭhakathā dhammapadaṭṭhakathā suttanipātaṭṭhakathā cāti, yā tāsu dissamānanigamanavasena ācariyabuddhaghoseneva katāti paññāyanti. Tattha pana vuttavacanāni kānici [Pg.56] kānici āgamaṭṭhakathāsu vuttākārena na honti. Tasmā eke vadanti ‘‘netā ācariyabuddhaghosassā’’ti. Ekacce pana ‘‘ācariyassa upathambhakattherehi paṭhamaṃ katā, pacchā ācariyena osānasodhanavasena pariyosāpitā vā bhaveyyuṃ, abhidhammaṭṭhakathaṃ āyācantena cūḷabuddhaghosena vā katā bhaveyyu’’nti vadanti.

There are also three other commentaries: the commentary on the Khuddakapāṭha, the commentary on the Dhammapada, and the commentary on the Suttanipāta, which are understood to have been composed by Ācariya Buddhaghosa himself, on the basis of the colophons seen in them. However, some of the statements made therein are not in the same style as what is said in the commentaries on the Āgamas. Therefore, some say, “These are not by Ācariya Buddhaghosa.” But others say, “They may have been first composed by elders who supported the Teacher, and later finalized by the Teacher himself by way of a concluding revision; or they may have been composed by Cūḷabuddhaghosa when he was requesting the Abhidhamma commentary.”

Taṃ tathā vā hotu aññathā vā, idāni ekantato vinicchinituṃ na sukarameva. Tasmā tāsaṃ nigamanavacanavaseneva ettha pakāsayissāma. Tāsu hi dhammapadaṭṭhakathaṃ kumārakassapattherena āyācito sirikūṭassa (sirikuḍḍassa) rañño pāsāde viharanto paramparābhataṃ sīhaḷabhāsāya saṇṭhitaṃ porāṇaṭṭhakathaṃ pāḷibhāsāya āropetvā vitthāragatañca vacanakkamaṃ samāsetvā gāthāsu asaṃvaṇṇitapadabyañjanāni saṃvaṇṇetvā akāsi. Vuttañhi tattha ganthārambhe –

Whether it was so or otherwise, it is indeed not easy to determine conclusively now. Therefore, we will present it here only on the basis of the words of their colophons. Among these, at the request of the Elder Kumārakassapa, he composed the Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā while dwelling in the palace of King Sirikūṭa (or Sirikuḍḍa). He rendered into the Pāli language the ancient commentary transmitted through tradition and established in the Sinhalese language, condensed the extensive sequence of words, and elaborated on the words and syllables in the verses that had not been explained. For it is stated there at the beginning of the text:

‘‘Paramparābhatā tassa, nipuṇā atthavaṇṇanā;

Yā tambapaṇṇidīpamhi, dīpabhāsāya saṇṭhitā…pe…

“His subtle explanation of the meaning, transmitted through tradition, which in the island of Tambapaṇṇi is established in the language of the island…pe…

Kumārakassapenāhaṃ, therena thiracetasā;

Saddhammaṭṭhitikāmena, sakkaccaṃ abhiyācito…pe…

By the Elder Kumārakassapa, of steadfast mind, desiring the stability of the good Dhamma, I was earnestly requested…pe…

Taṃ bhāsaṃ ativitthāra, gatañca vacanakkamaṃ;

Pahāyāropayitvāna, tantibhāsaṃ manoramaṃ.

Having set aside that language and its very extensive word order, and having rendered it into the pleasing canonical language,

Gāthānaṃ byañjanapadaṃ, yaṃ tattha na vibhāvitaṃ;

Kevalaṃ taṃ vibhāvetvā, sesaṃ tameva atthato.

and explaining only those words and phrases of the verses that were not made clear therein—the meaning of the rest remaining the same—

Bhāsantarena bhāsissa’’nti –

I will now speak in this other language.”

Nigamane ca vuttaṃ –

And in the colophon it is said:

‘‘Vihāre adhirājena, kāritamhi kataññunā;

Pāsāde sirikūṭassa, rañño viharatā mayā’’ti.

“[This was composed] by me while dwelling in the palace of King Sirikūṭa, in the monastery that was caused to be built by the grateful sovereign king.”

Ettha ca sirikūṭo nāma samantapāsādikānigamane siripāloti vutto mahānāmoyeva rājāti vadanti. Evaṃ sati mahesiyā ānayanaṃ samādāpanamārabbha tena raññā dinne dhūmarakkhapabbatavihāre vasantena sā katāti veditabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ mahāvaṃse –

Here, they say that the one named Sirikūṭa is the very same King Mahānāma who is called Siripāla in the colophon of the Samantapāsādikā. This being so, it should be understood that the commentary was composed by him while he was residing in the Dhūmarakkhapabbata monastery, which had been given by that king on the occasion of the bringing and persuading of the chief queen. For this is said in the Mahāvaṃsa:

37-212.

37-212.

‘‘Lohadvāra-ralaggāma-koṭipassāvanavhaye;

Tayo [Pg.57] vihāre kāretvā, bhikkhūnaṃ abhayuttare.

“Having had three monasteries built, named Lohadvāra, Ralaggāma, and Koṭipassāvana, for the monks of the Abhayuttara,

213.

213.

Vihāraṃ kārayitvāna, dhūmarakkhamhi pabbate;

Mahesiyā’nayenā’dā, bhikkhūnaṃ theravādina’’nti.

Having had a monastery built on the Dhūmarakkha mountain, he gave it to the Theravādin monks on the occasion of the bringing of the chief queen.”

Tassa pana rañño kāle sā niṭṭhāpitāti na sakkā gahetuṃ. Tassa hi rañño ekavīsatimavasse samantapāsādikaṃ niṭṭhāpesi. So ca rājā dvāvīsatimavasse divaṅgato. Etthantare sādhikaekavassena ‘‘catasso ca āgamaṭṭhakathāyo tisso ca abhidhammaṭṭhakathāyo ayañca dhammapadaṭṭhakathā’’ti sabbā etā na sakkā niṭṭhāpetunti.

However, it cannot be assumed that it was completed during that king's reign. For he completed the Samantapāsādikā in that king's twenty-first year, and that king passed away in his twenty-second year. In that interval of a little more than one year, it is impossible that all these—the four Āgama commentaries, the three Abhidhamma commentaries, and this Dhammapada commentary—could have been completed.

Paramatthajotikāṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Paramatthajotikā Commentary

Paramatthajotikaṃ nāma khuddakapāṭhassa ceva suttanipātassa ca aṭṭhakathaṃ kenacipi anāyācito attano icchāvaseneva akāsi. Vuttañhetaṃ khuddakapāṭhaṭṭhakathāya ganthārambhe –

He composed the Paramatthajotikā, the commentary on both the Khuddakapāṭha and the Suttanipāta, unsolicited by anyone and solely according to his own wish. For this is stated at the beginning of the commentary on the Khuddakapāṭha:

‘‘Uttamaṃ vandaneyyānaṃ, vanditvā ratanattayaṃ;

Khuddakānaṃ karissāmi, kesañci atthavaṇṇanaṃ.

“Having venerated the Triple Gem, supreme among the venerable, I will compose an explanation of the meaning of some of the Khuddaka texts.

Khuddakānaṃ gambhīrattā, kiñcāpi atidukkarā;

Vaṇṇanā mādisenesā, abodhantena sāsanaṃ.

Though, because of the profundity of the Khuddaka texts, an explanation is exceedingly difficult for one like me, who does not understand the Dispensation,

Ajjāpi tu abbhocchinno, pubbācariyanicchayo;

Tatheva ca ṭhitaṃ yasmā, navaṅgaṃ satthusāsanaṃ.

Still, even today the tradition of the former teachers is uninterrupted, and because the nine-fold Teaching of the Master stands firm,

Tasmāhaṃ kātumicchāmi, atthasaṃvaṇṇanaṃ imaṃ;

Sāsanañceva nissāya, porāṇañca vinicchayaṃ.

Therefore I wish to compose this explanation of the meaning, relying on the Dispensation and the ancient tradition.

Saddhammabahumānena, nāttukkaṃsanakamyatā;

Nāññesaṃ vambhanatthāya, taṃ suṇātha samāhitā’’ti.

Out of great respect for the good Dhamma, not from a desire for self-exaltation nor for the purpose of disparaging others; therefore, listen to it with collected minds.”

Bahū pana vicakkhaṇā imā ārambhagāthāyo vicinitvā ‘‘netaṃ ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa viya vacanaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti. Ayañca nesaṃ vicinanākāro, ācariyabuddhaghoso hi yaṃ kañci ganthaṃ sīlādiguṇasampannena aññena āyācitova karoti, idha pana kocipi āyācako [Pg.58] natthi. Punapi ācariyo ‘‘porāṇasīhaḷaṭṭhakathaṃ bhāsāparivattanavasena karissāmī’’ti ca ‘‘mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ vācanāmaggaṃ nissāya karissāmī’’ti ca evaṃ paṭiññaṃ katvāva karoti, idha pana tādisīpi paṭiññā natthi. Punapi ācariyo atigambhīratthānaṃ catunnañcāgamānaṃ abhidhammassa ca saṃvaṇṇanārambhepi dukkarabhāvaṃ na katheti, idha pana ‘‘sāsanaṃ abodhantena mādisenā’’ti attanā sāsanassa abuddhabhāvaṃ pakāsetvā ‘‘atidukkarā’’ti ca katheti. Tasmā ‘‘netaṃ ācariyabuddhaghosassa viya vacana’’nti vadanti. Taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati, ācariyo hi attano ganthanigamanesu ‘‘tipiṭakapariyattippabhede sāṭṭhakathe satthusāsane appaṭihatañāṇappabhāvenā’’ti attano ñāṇappabhāvaṃ pakāsesi, so ‘‘sāsanaṃ abodhantena mādisena atidukkarā’’ti īdisaṃ vacanaṃ na katheyyayevāti.

However, many discerning people, having examined these introductory verses, say: ‘This is not like the speech of the Elder Buddhaghosa.’ And this is their manner of examination: The Teacher Buddhaghosa composes any book only when requested by another who is endowed with virtues such as morality, but here there is no one who has made a request. Again, the Teacher composes a work only after making a declaration such as: ‘I will compose this by translating it from the Sinhala language of the ancient commentaries,’ and ‘I will compose this relying on the recitation tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra’; but here there is no such declaration. Again, even when beginning the exposition of the Abhidhamma and the four Āgamas with their extremely profound meaning, the Teacher does not speak of the difficulty of the task. Here, however, having declared his own lack of understanding of the Dispensation by saying, ‘by one like me, who does not understand the Dispensation,’ he also says, ‘it is exceedingly difficult.’ Therefore, they say: ‘This is not like the speech of the Teacher Buddhaghosa.’ This seems plausible, for in the conclusions to his books the Teacher proclaimed the brilliance of his own knowledge, saying: ‘…by the power of unimpeded knowledge in the Teacher’s Dispensation with its divisions of the Tipiṭaka together with its commentaries.’ He would surely never utter such words as: ‘exceedingly difficult for one like me, who does not understand the Dispensation.’”

Jātakaṭṭhakathākaraṇaṃ

The Composition of the Jātaka Commentary

Jātakaṭṭhakathāpi ca ācariyabuddhaghosatthereneva katāti vadanti, kāraṇaṃ panettha na dissati. Sā pana atthadassittherena ca buddhamittattherena ca mahisāsakanikāyikena ca buddhadevattherenāti tīhi therehi abhiyācito mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ vācanāmaggaṃ nissāya katā. Imissāpi nāmaviseso natthi. Vuttaṃ himissā ārambhe –

They say that the Jātaka Commentary was also composed by the Teacher, the Elder Buddhaghosa, but no reason for this is apparent here. It was, however, composed at the request of three elders—the Elder Atthadassi, the Elder Buddhamitta, and the Elder Buddhadeva of the Mahīśāsaka school—relying on the recitation tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra. This work, too, has no special name. For at its beginning it is said:

‘‘Buddhavaṃsassa etassa, icchantena ciraṭṭhitiṃ;

Yācito abhigantvāna, therena atthadassinā.

“Wishing for the long endurance of this lineage of the Buddhas, I was approached and requested by the Elder Atthadassi,

Asaṃsaṭṭhavihārena, sadā suddhavihārinā;

Tatheva buddhamittena, santacittena viññunā.

who dwells aloof and is ever pure in his abiding; and likewise by the wise Buddhamitta of tranquil mind,

Mahisāsakavaṃsamhi, sambhūtena nayaññunā;

Buddhadevena ca tathā, bhikkhunā suddhabuddhinā.

and also by the bhikkhu Buddhadeva, of pure intelligence, who is skilled in method and arose in the Mahīśāsaka lineage,

Mahāpurisacariyānaṃ, ānubhāvaṃ acintiyaṃ;

Tassa vijjotayantassa, jātakassatthavaṇṇanaṃ.

to compose an explanation of the meaning of the Jātaka, which illuminates the inconceivable power of the conduct of the Great Being.

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, vācanāmagganissitaṃ;

Bhāsissaṃ bhāsato taṃ me, sādhu gaṇhantu sādhavo’’ti.

I shall explain it, relying on the recitation tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra. As I explain it, may the virtuous accept it well.”

Ettāvatā [Pg.59] ca ācariyabuddhaghosattherassa ganthabhāvena pākaṭāhi sabbaṭṭhakathāhi saha visuddhimaggassa karaṇappakāro vitthārena vibhāvito hoti.

Thus far, the manner of composing the Visuddhimagga has been explained in detail, together with all the commentaries that are renowned as the works of the Teacher, the Elder Buddhaghosa.

Sakalalokapatthārakāraṇaṃ

The Reason for Its Spread Throughout the World

Kissesa visuddhimaggo sakalaloke patthaṭoti? Parisuddhapiṭakapāḷinissayabhāvato, sikkhattayasaṅgahabhāvato, porāṇaṭṭhakathānaṃ bhāsāparivattanabhāvato, parasamayavivajjanato, sakasamayavisuddhito, sīladhutaṅgasamathaabhiññāpaññāpabhedādīnaṃ paripuṇṇavibhāgato, yāva arahattā paṭipattinayaparidīpanato, uttānānākulapadabyañjanasaṅkhatabhāvato, suviññeyyatthabhāvato, pasādanīyānaṃ diṭṭhānugatāpādanasamatthānaṃ vatthūnañca dīpanatoti evamādīhi anekasatehi guṇehi esa sakalaloke patthaṭo jāto.

Why has this Visuddhimagga spread throughout the entire world? It has become spread throughout the entire world because of these and hundreds of other such qualities: its reliance on the purified Pāḷi of the Tipiṭaka; its inclusion of the threefold training; its being a translation of the ancient commentaries; its avoidance of other doctrines; the purity of its own doctrine; its complete analysis of the divisions of virtue, the ascetic practices, serenity, the direct knowledges, wisdom, and so on; its clarification of the method of practice up to arahantship; its composition with clear and unconfused words and phrases; its easily intelligible meaning; and its exposition of inspiring stories capable of adducing visible examples.

Ayañhi visuddhimaggo saṅgītittayārūḷhaparisuddhapāḷipiṭakameva nissāya pavatto, na mahāsaṅghikādīnaṃ sattarasannaṃ nikāyānaṃ piṭakaṃ, napi mahāyānikānaṃ piṭakaṃ. Saparivāraṃ sikkhattayañca ettha paripuṇṇameva saṅgahetvā dassitaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyena āgamaṭṭhakathāsu ganthārambhe –

For this Visuddhimagga proceeds relying only on the pure Pāḷi Tipiṭaka established at the three Councils, not on the Tipiṭaka of the seventeen schools such as the Mahāsaṅghikas, nor on the Tipiṭaka of the Mahāyānists. Here, the threefold training with its accessory parts has been fully included and explained. For this was said by the Teacher at the beginning of the commentaries on the Āgamas:

‘‘Sīlakatā dhutadhammā, kammaṭṭhānāni ceva sabbāni;

Cariyāvidhānasahito, jhānasamāpattivitthāro.

“Matters of virtue, the ascetic practices, and all the meditation subjects; the detailed exposition of the jhānas and attainments, together with the method of conduct;

Sabbā ca abhiññāyo, paññāsaṅkalananicchayo ceva;

Khandhādhātāyatani,ndriyāni ariyāni ceva cattāri.

all the direct knowledges, and the analysis of the accumulation of wisdom; the aggregates, elements, sense bases, and faculties; and the four noble truths;

Saccāni paccayākāra,desanā suparisuddhanipuṇanayā;

Avimuttatantimaggā, vipassanābhāvanā ceva.

the truths, the teaching on the structure of conditionality, with its utterly pure and subtle method; the path of the unbroken tradition, and the development of insight.

Iti pana sabbaṃ yasmā, visuddhimagge mayā suparisuddhaṃ;

Vuttaṃ tasmā bhiyyo, na taṃ idha vicārayissāmī’’ti.

Since all this has been explained by me in a thoroughly purified manner in the Visuddhimagga, I will not examine it further here.”

Yasmā pana visuddhimaggo catunnaṃ āgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ avayavabhāvena kato, tasmā tā viya porāṇasīhaḷaṭṭhakathānaṃ bhāsāparivattanavasena ceva punappunāgatamatthānaṃ saṃkhipanavasena ca parasamayavivajjanavasena ca mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ parisuddhavinicchayasaṅkhātassa sakasamayassa dīpanavasena ca kato. Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyena –

Since the Visuddhimagga was composed as a component of the commentaries on the four Āgamas, it was therefore made in the same way as them: by way of translating the language of the ancient Sinhala commentaries, by way of condensing repeatedly occurring material, by way of avoiding other doctrines, and by way of clarifying its own doctrine, known as the pure decision of the residents of the Mahāvihāra. For this was said by the Teacher:

‘‘Apanetvāna [Pg.60] tatohaṃ, sīhaḷabhāsaṃ manoramaṃ bhāsaṃ;

Tantinayānucchavikaṃ, āropento vigatadosaṃ.

“Having removed from it the Sinhala tongue, I am rendering it into the delightful language that accords with the textual tradition, free from faults.

Samayaṃ avilomento, therānaṃ theravaṃsapadīpānaṃ;

Sunipuṇavinicchayānaṃ, mahāvihāre nivāsīnaṃ;

Hitvā punappunāgata-matthaṃ atthaṃ pakāsayissāmī’’ti ca.

Not opposing the doctrine of the elders who reside in the Mahāvihāra, the lamps of the Elders’ lineage, who are skilled in subtle decisions, and omitting repetitive material, I will clarify the meaning.”

‘‘Majjhe visuddhimaggo, esa catunnampi āgamānañhi;

Ṭhatvā pakāsayissati, tattha yathābhāsitamatthaṃ.

“This Visuddhimagga, standing in the midst of all four Āgamas, will clarify the meaning therein just as it was spoken.

Icceva kato tasmā, tampi gahetvāna saddhimetāya;

Aṭṭhakathāya vijānatha, dīghāgamanissitaṃ attha’’nti ca.

Thus was it composed. Therefore, taking this up along with this Commentary, you should understand the meaning that is based on the Long Āgama.”

‘‘Sā hi mahāaṭṭhakathāya, sāramādāya niṭṭhitā esā;

Ekāsītipamāṇāya, pāḷiyā bhāṇavārehi.

“For this commentary is completed by extracting the essence from the Great Commentary on the Pāḷi, which is eighty-one recitation sections in length.

Ekūnasaṭṭhimatto, visuddhimaggopi bhāṇavārehi;

Atthappakāsanatthāya, āgamānaṃ kato yasmā.

Since the Visuddhimagga, too, which is about fifty-nine recitation sections long, was composed to clarify the meaning of the Āgamas,

Tasmā tena sahāyaṃ, aṭṭhakathā bhāṇavāragaṇanāya;

Suparimitaparicchinnaṃ, cattālīsaṃ sataṃ hotī’’ti ca.

therefore this commentary, together with that, by the count of recitation sections, becomes a well-measured and defined one hundred and forty.”

Yadi cāyaṃ visuddhimaggo ācariyena āgamaṭṭhakathāyo viya akatvā porāṇasīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyo ca anoloketvā kevalaṃ attano ñāṇappabhāveneva kato assa, nāyaṃ āgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ avayavoti gahetabbo assa, aññadatthu ‘‘āgamaṭṭhakathāyo mahāṭṭhakathāya sārabhūtā, visuddhimaggo pana na tassā sārabhūto, kevalaṃ ācariyassa matiyāva kato’’ti evameva vattabbo assa. Yasmā pana tathā akatvā pubbe vuttappakāreneva kato, tasmā ayampi visuddhimaggo tāsaṃ āgamaṭṭhakathānaṃ karaṇākāreneva katoti ca, tatoyeva mahāṭṭhakathāya sārabhūtoti ca daṭṭhabbo.

If this Visuddhimagga had been composed by the Teacher solely through the power of his own knowledge—without making it like the Āgama commentaries and without examining the ancient Sinhala commentaries—then it should not be regarded as a component of the Āgama commentaries. Instead, it would have to be said: ‘The Āgama commentaries are the essence of the Great Commentary, but the Visuddhimagga is not its essence; it was composed merely by the Teacher’s own opinion.’ But since it was not composed in that way, but rather in the manner described above, this Visuddhimagga, too, should be seen as having been composed according to the same method as those Āgama commentaries, and for that very reason as being the essence of the Great Commentary.

Ekacce pana vicakkhaṇā ācariyabuddhaghosassa ganthesu uttarapakkhasāsanikānaṃ assaghosanāgajjunavasubandhuādīnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ viya porāṇaganthe anissāya attano ñāṇeneva takketvā dassitaṃ dhammakathāvisesaṃ adisvā asantuṭṭhacittā evaṃ vadanti ‘‘buddhaghosassa aññaṃ anissāya attano ñāṇappabhāveneva abhinavaganthuppādanaṃ na passāmā’’ti. [Pg.61] Taṃ tesaṃ garahāvacanampi samānaṃ theravādīnaṃ pasaṃsāvacanameva sampajjati. Theravādino hi evaṃ jānanti ‘‘buddheneva bhagavatā sammāsambuddhena desetabbo ceva dhammo paññāpetabbo ca vinayo anavasesena desito ceva paññatto ca, soyeva dhammavinayo saddhāsampannehi bhikkhūhi ceva gahaṭṭhehi ca yathārahaṃ paṭipajjitabbo, na tato añño dhammavinayo takketvā gavesetabbo. Yadi pana añño dhammavinayo kenaci takketvā kathito assa, taṃ tasseva takkino sāsanaṃ hoti na satthu sāsanaṃ. Yaṃ yaṃ pana bhagavato dhammavinaye padabyañjanaṃ atthato apākaṭaṃ hoti, tattha tattha porāṇakehi paṭisambhidāchaḷabhiññādiguṇasampannehi bhagavato adhippāyaṃ jānantehi aṭṭhakathācariyehi saṃvaṇṇitanayena attho gahetabbo, na attanomativasenā’’ti. Ācariyabuddhaghoso ca tesaṃ theravādīnaṃ aññataro, sopi tatheva jānāti. Vuttañcetaṃ ācariyena –

However, some discerning teachers, not seeing in Ācariya Buddhaghosa’s works a special exposition of the Dhamma presented through reasoning based on his own knowledge without reliance on the ancient texts—like the monks of the northern school such as Asvaghosa, Nāgārjuna, and Vasubandhu—became dissatisfied and said: “We do not see Buddhaghosa producing any new work solely by the power of his own knowledge without relying on another.” Though this is a statement of censure from them, it actually amounts to a statement of praise for the Theravādins. For the Theravādins know this: “The Dhamma to be taught and the Vinaya to be laid down were, without remainder, taught and laid down by the Blessed One, the Perfectly Enlightened One, himself. That same Dhamma and Vinaya should be practiced as is fitting by faithful monastics and householders; no other Dhamma and Vinaya should be sought for through speculation. If another Dhamma and Vinaya were to be declared by someone through speculation, that would be the teaching of that speculator, not the teaching of the Master. Moreover, wherever a word or phrase in the Blessed One’s Dhamma and Vinaya is not manifest in meaning, the meaning should be taken there in accordance with the way it has been explained by the ancient commentary teachers who knew the Blessed One’s intention, those endowed with the analytical knowledges, the six supernormal powers, and other virtues, not according to one’s own opinion.” Ācariya Buddhaghosa was one of those Theravādins, and he too knew this. And this was stated by the Ācariya:

‘‘Buddhena dhammo vinayo ca vutto,Yo tassa puttehi tatheva ñāto;

So yehi tesaṃ matimaccajantā,Yasmā pure aṭṭhakathā akaṃsu.

“The Dhamma and the Vinaya were taught by the Buddha, And were known in just that way by his sons; Since they, not overstepping their own opinion, Composed the ancient commentaries of old.

Tasmā hi yaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ,Taṃ vajjayitvāna pamādalekhaṃ;

Sabbampi sikkhāsu sagāravānaṃ,Yasmā pamāṇaṃ idha paṇḍitānaṃ.

Therefore, what is stated in the commentaries— Setting aside any scribal error— Is entirely the standard here for the wise Who have reverence for the training.

Tato ca bhāsantarameva hitvā,Vitthāramaggañca samāsayitvā…pe…Yasmā ayaṃ hessati vaṇṇanāpi,Sakkacca tasmā anusikkhitabbā’’ti.

And then, having abandoned the other language, And having condensed the extensive path… …Since this explanation will be, Therefore it should be carefully studied.”

Teneva ācariyo bhagavato dhammavinayaṃ vā porāṇaṭṭhakathaṃ vā anissāya attano ñāṇena takketvā vā attanā paricitalokiyaganthehi gahetvā vā na kañci ganthaṃ akāsi. Yadi pana tādisaṃ kareyya, [Pg.62] taṃ theravādino mahāpadesasutte vuttanayena ‘‘addhā idaṃ na ceva tassa bhagavato vacanaṃ, buddhaghosassa ca therassa duggahita’’nti chaḍḍeyyuṃyeva. Yato ca kho ayaṃ visuddhimaggo porāṇaṭṭhakathānaṃ bhāsāparivattanādivaseneva ācariyena kato, tatoyeva theravādino taṃ mahāpadesasutte vuttanayena ‘‘addhā idaṃ tassa bhagavato vacanaṃ, ācariyabuddhaghosassa ca therassa suggahita’’nti sampaṭicchanti. Tenāpāyaṃ sakalaloke patthaṭo hoti.

For that very reason, the Ācariya did not compose any work by speculating with his own knowledge or by drawing from worldly texts familiar to him, independent of the Blessed One’s Dhamma and Vinaya or the ancient commentaries. If he were to do such a thing, the Theravādins, following the method stated in the Mahāpadesa Sutta, would surely reject it, saying: “Surely, this is not the word of the Blessed One, and it has been badly grasped by the elder Buddhaghosa.” But since this Visuddhimagga was made by the Ācariya simply by way of changing the language of the ancient commentaries and so on, the Theravādins accept it, following the method stated in the Mahāpadesa Sutta, saying: “Surely, this is the word of the Blessed One, and it has been well grasped by the elder, Ācariya Buddhaghosa.” For this reason, it has become famous throughout the entire world.

Sīladhutaṅgādīnaṃ vibhāgo ca paṭipattinayaparidīpanañca pākaṭameva. Tathāyaṃ visuddhimaggo suviññeyyapadavākyehi ceva anākulapadavākyehi ca tantinayānurūpāya pāḷigatiyā suṭṭhu saṅkhato, tatoyeva cassa atthopi suviññeyyo hoti. Tasmā taṃ olokentā viññuno visuddhajjhāsayā khaṇe khaṇe atthapaṭisaṃvedino ceva dhammapaṭisaṃvedino ca hutvā anappakaṃ pītisomanassaṃ paṭisaṃvedenti.

The analysis of virtue, the ascetic practices, and so on, and the elucidation of the method of practice are quite manifest. Likewise, this Visuddhimagga is well-composed with easily intelligible words and sentences, with unconfused words and sentences, and with a Pāli style that accords with the textual method. For that very reason its meaning is also easily understood. Therefore, when intelligent people of pure intention examine it, becoming at every moment experiencers of the meaning and experiencers of the Dhamma, they experience no little joy and mental gladness.

Anekāni cettha pasādāvahāni mahātissattheravatthuādīni sīhaḷavatthūni ca dhammasenāpatisāriputtattheravatthuādīni jambudīpavatthūni ca dīpitāni. Tāni passitvā anussarantānaṃ sappurisānaṃ balavapasādo ca uppajjati, ‘‘kadā nu kho mayampi īdisā bhavissāmā’’ti diṭṭhānugatiṃ āpajjitukāmatā ca uppajjati.

Here, too, many inspiring stories are illuminated, such as the Sinhalese stories of the great elder Tissa and others, and the stories from Jambudīpa of the General of the Dhamma, the Elder Sāriputta, and others. When good persons see and recollect them, strong confidence arises in them, and the desire to follow their example arises, with the thought: “When, indeed, will we too become like this?”

Evaṃ parisuddhapiṭakapāḷinissayatādīhi anekasatehi guṇehi ayaṃ visuddhimaggo sakalaloke patthaṭo jātoti veditabbo. Yathā cāyaṃ visuddhimaggo, evaṃ aññāpi ācariyena katā tipiṭakasaṅgahaṭṭhakathāyo porāṇaṭṭhakathānaṃ bhāsāparivattanabhāvādīhi guṇehi sakalaloke patthaṭāyeva honti.

Thus it should be understood that this Visuddhimagga has become famous throughout the entire world because of its hundreds of virtues, such as its reliance on the pure Pāli of the Piṭaka. And just as this Visuddhimagga, so too the other commentaries on the Tipiṭaka collection composed by the Ācariya have become famous throughout the entire world because of their virtues, such as their being a change of language from the ancient commentaries.

Ettāvatā ca pana kimatthaṃ katotiādīnampi pañhānamattho vitthārena vibhāvitova hotīti.

And by this much, the meaning of the questions beginning with “For what purpose was it made?” has been explained in detail.

Tatthetaṃ vuccati –

Herein, this is said:

1.

1.

Sambhāvanīyassa [Pg.63] sudhīvarāna-Mādattadhīriṭṭhapadassa yassa;

Paññādijātā lalitā guṇābhā,Bhāteva lokamhi sataṃ mudāya.

He who is to be honored by the very wise, Who has attained the state desired by the resolute; The lovely splendor of his virtues, born of wisdom, Shines in the world for the joy of the good.

2.

2.

Sa buddhaghosāvhathiraggadhīmā,Vidūna’maccantasamādarā’dā;

Sabhāvajaṃ byattisasattiladdhaṃ,Siriṃ dadhāteva subuddhaghoso.

That elder called Buddhaghosa, of supreme intelligence, Receiving the utmost respect of the wise, Possesses a glory obtained with natural skill and power, That good Buddhaghosa.

3.

3.

‘‘Sambuddhaseṭṭhe parinibbutasmiṃ,Saṃvaccharānaṃ dasame satamhi;

Jāto’’ti ñāto vibudhehi buddha-Ghosaṅkuro pattasamattamānī.

When the best of Buddhas had passed into Parinibbāna, In the tenth century of years, The sprout Buddhaghosa was known by the wise to be born, One who considered he had reached completion.

4.

4.

Viññū vidū’massa pumaggajāte,Sañjātataṃ dakkhiṇadesabhāge;

Ramme’ndiyasmiṃ sujanākarasmiṃ,Tattatthamesīna’mayaṃ patīti.

The wise know of his birth as a foremost man In the southern region, In delightful India, a mine of good people; This is the conviction of those who seek the true meaning.

5.

5.

Moraṇḍagāmamhi sa tattha jāto,Puññānito vippakulamhi sammā;

Sūrassa lokatthasamāvahatthaṃ,Uppajjanāyā’dyaruṇova raṃsi.

He was born there in the village of Moraṇḍa, Rightly led by his merit into a brahmin family; Like a ray of the rising sun, for the hero To bring about the welfare of the world.

6.

6.

Saṃvaddhabuddhī sa pavuddhipatto,Ārādhayaṃ ñātigaṇaṃ sadeva;

Vedesu vijjāsu tadaññasippa-Ganthesvanāyāsapavīṇatā’gā.

He of developed intelligence, having attained growth, Pleased his host of relatives along with the devas; In the Vedas, the sciences, and the texts of other arts, He attained proficiency without trouble.

7.

7.

Suddhādhimuttīna vivecanena,Sārānu’sāroti viviñcamāno;

Vedesva’sāratta’mabujjhi yasmā,Tuṭṭhiṃ sa nāpajji sutena sena.

By means of discernment, with his pure resolve, Distinguishing the essential from the unessential, Because he understood the essencelessness of the Vedas, He found no satisfaction in his own learning.

8.

8.

Anvesato [Pg.64] tassa pasatthasāraṃ,Saddhammasāro savanena laddho;

Ninnova buddhassa sa sāsanamhi,Ussāhajāto’pagamāya tattha.

As he was seeking the praised essence, The essence of the good Dhamma was obtained by hearing; Humble, he had zeal to enter Into the Dispensation of the Buddha.

9.

9.

Dhammābhilāsī sa viroci tattha,Saṃladdhapabbajjupasampadova;

There’pasaṅkamma visuddhathera-Vādīnikāyamhi patītapaññe.

Desirous of the Dhamma, he shone there, Having obtained the going-forth and higher ordination; Approaching the elders of renowned wisdom In the school of the pure Theravāda.

10.

10.

Tadā hi’suṃ dakkhiṇaindiyamhi,Nivāsino theriyavaṃsajātā;

Tadaññavādī ca munī muninda-Mataṃ yathāladdhi pakāsayantā.

For at that time in Southern India dwelt those born in the lineage of the Elders, and also other sages holding different views, proclaiming the doctrine of the Lord of Sages according to their own tenets.

11.

11.

Saddhammasārādhigamāya bhiyyo,Pāḷiṃ samuggaṇhi jineritaṃ, sā;

Jivhaggalīlā manasā’sitā’ssa,Lakkhīva puññe nivasaṃ babhāsa.

For the further attainment of the good Dhamma’s essence, he thoroughly learned the Pāli spoken by the Conqueror; consumed by his mind, it played on the tip of his tongue, and shone like Lakkhī dwelling in a man of merit.

12.

12.

Evaṃ tamuggaṇha’mabodhi sammā,‘‘Ekāyanoyaṃ suvisuddhiyāti;

Maggo vivaṭṭādhigamāya’’ tattho-Yyogaṃ samāpajji paraṃ parattī.

Having thus learned it, he understood rightly: “This is the sole path for perfect purification, the way for the attainment of the Unbinding.” Desiring the welfare of others, he undertook the supreme application to it.

13.

13.

Sabhāvapaññā mahatī ca sattha-Ntaropaladdhā vipulāva vijjā;

Tenassa buddhottisamuddatiṇṇe,Akicchasādhittapabhāva’maññā.

His natural wisdom was great, and vast the knowledge he had obtained from other treatises; thus they knew the power of him who had crossed the ocean of scriptures, his ability to achieve without difficulty.

14.

14.

Buddhassa kittīva sukittighoso,Vattissate’ccassa garū viyattā;

Atthānvitaṃ nāmamakaṃsu buddha-Ghosoti sambuddhamataṅgatassa.

His learned preceptors said of him: “His voice will be as renowned as the Buddha’s fame”; They gave the meaningful name “Buddhaghosa” to him who had accepted the Enlightened One’s view.

15.

15.

Mayūradūtavhayapaṭṭanasmiṃ,Nivassa [Pg.65] kañjīvhapurādike ca;

Sa andhakākhyātasadesiyaṭṭha-Kathaṃ samuggaṇhi samāhitatto.

Residing in the city called Mayūradūta, and in Kañcīpura and other places, with concentrated mind he thoroughly learned the commentary of his own country, known as the Andhaka.

16.

16.

Tāvattakenassa sumedhasassā-Santuṭṭhacittassa tatuttarimpi;

Sambuddhavāṇīsu samattamatthaṃ,Aññātumicchā mahatī ajāyi.

Though his mind was content with just that much, in that wise one a great desire arose to know the complete meaning still further in the words of the Fully Enlightened One.

17.

17.

Mahāmahindādivasīvarebhi,Samābhatā yāṭṭhakathā sasārā;

Satheravādā suvinicchayā ca,Tadā vibhātā vata laṅkayā’suṃ.

The essential commentary that was brought by the great seers, Mahinda and the others, and the well-determined Theravāda teachings, indeed at that time shone forth in Laṅkā.

18.

18.

Pavattimetaṃ vidiya’ssa meta-Dahosi ‘‘yaṃ nūna’bhirāmalaṅkaṃ;

Alaṅkarontiṃ ratanākaraṃva,Upecca sikkhe’ṭṭhakathā mahantī.

Knowing this situation, this thought occurred to him: “Let me go to delightful Laṅkā and learn the great commentary, which adorns it like a mine of jewels.

19.

19.

Tā bhāsayā sīhaḷikāya raccā,Tantiṃ samāropya navaṃ kareyyaṃ;

Evañhi desantariyāna buddha-Mānīnamatthaṃ khalu sādhaye’’ti.

Those commentaries composed in the Sinhalese language, I will render into the canonical language; thus I will surely accomplish the purpose of those in other lands who honor the Buddha.”

20.

20.

Pure ca laṅkāgatasāsanaṃ yaṃ,Sunimmalindūva himādimutto;

Pabhāsi, kismiñci tadāññavāda-Manākulaṃ tā’kulataṃ jagāma.

And in the past, the Dispensation that came to Laṅkā shone like the spotless moon freed from frost; though then unagitated by any other doctrine, it later fell into a state of agitation.

21.

21.

Jinamhi nibbānagate hi vassa-Satantare sāsanikā samaggā;

Samānavādā jinasāsanamhi,Na koci bhedopi tadā ahosi.

For within a century after the Conqueror went to Nibbāna, the followers of the Dispensation were in harmony; they held the same view in the Conqueror’s Dispensation, and at that time there was no division at all.

22.

22.

Pacchā [Pg.66] ca saddhammadumāhatebhya-Dhammehi vātehi paṭicca pāpe;

Jātehi saṃviggamanā samāya,There’sa’muyyogamakaṃsu daḷhaṃ.

And afterwards, because of the evil winds of false doctrines that had arisen and struck the tree of the good Dhamma, the elders, with agitated minds, all together made a firm and solid effort.

23.

23.

Saṅgītiyo kacca supesalehi,Niggayhamānāpi thirehi daḷhaṃ;

Chinnāpi rukkhā’ssu punoruhāvā-Kāsuṃva dhammaṃ vinayā’ññathā te.

Though firmly suppressed by the steadfast elders at the councils held by the skillful ones, like trees that, though cut, sprout up again, they made the Dhamma and Vinaya otherwise.

24.

24.

Nānāgaṇā te ca anekavādā,Saṃsaggakārā jinasāsane’suṃ;

Vādebhi aññehi jineritebhya-Suddhāyamānā vinayañca dhammaṃ.

Various groups, holding diverse views, were associated with the Victor’s Dispensation, claiming to purify the Discipline and the Dhamma with arguments other than those proclaimed by the Conqueror.

25.

25.

Vādā ca vādī piṭakāni tesaṃ,Laṅkaṃ malaṅkaṃva karaṃ’payātā;

Paṭiggahesuṃ pyabhayādivāsī,Nāññe mahākhyātavihāravāsī.

The doctrines and the doctrinaires, their Piṭakas, having gone, made Laṅkā as if stained; the residents of Abhayagiri and others received them, not others, the dwellers of the greatly renowned monasteries.

26.

26.

Yathā ca buddhābhihitāva pāḷi,Tadatthasārā ca vasībhi ñātā;

Na ‘‘tedha vokkamma visuddhathera-Vādī vivādī’’ti pavatti kāci.

As the Pāḷi was spoken by the Buddha, and its essential meaning was known by the masters, no report exists that "here, disregarding it, the pure Theravādins are quarrelsome."

27.

27.

Jīvaṃva rakkhiṃsu satheravādaṃ,Tantiṃ tadatthañca saniṇṇayaṃ te;

Tasmā na sakkāva tadaññavādi-Vādebhi hantuṃ cu’pagantumaddhā.

They guarded the Theravāda as if it were alive, its tradition, its meaning, and its determinations; therefore, it is assuredly impossible for those of other doctrines to harm or approach it through debates.

28.

28.

Taṃvādasaṃbhedabhayañca maññayā,‘‘Duddhāravelāpi bhayehi tantinaṃ;

Sammohatādīhi bhave’’ti potthakaṃ,Āropya sammā paripālayiṃsu te.

And fearing the danger of the breaking of that doctrine, thinking, "Even in times of difficulty, dangers to the tradition may arise from delusion and the like," they inscribed it in books and carefully preserved it.

29.

29.

Tadā [Pg.67] hi tesaṃ paṭibāhane raṇa-Vidaṃva sikkhaṃ jinasāsanaddharo;

Sa buddhaghoso muni buddhipāṭavo,Gato’si dīpaṃ varatambapaṇṇikaṃ.

Then, to ward them off, that sage Buddhaghosa, bearer of the Victor's teaching, skilled in battle and with keen intellect, went to the excellent island of Tambapaṇṇi.

30.

30.

Laṅkaṃ upecca sa mahāṭṭhakathāṇṇavassa,Pāraṃ paraṃ vitaraṇe thiraniṇṇayova;

Saṃsuddhavaṃsajanivāsamahāvihāra-Māgā’mbaraṃva udayindu’pasobhayanto.

Having reached Laṅkā, with firm resolve to cross to the other shore of that great ocean of commentaries, he approached the Mahāvihāra, the dwelling place of people of pure lineage, adorning it like the rising moon adorns the sky.

31.

31.

Tasmiñca dakkhiṇadisāya vasī sa tattha,Sobhaṃ padhānagharasaññitapāriveṇaṃ;

Pāsāda’muttama’makā sujanebhi sebyaṃ,Santo mahānigamasāmi suciṇṇadhammo.

And there in its southern part he dwelt, in the splendid monastery known as Padhānaghara, a supreme edifice frequented by good people, which a peaceful, well-practiced master of the great city had made.

32.

32.

Sammā ca yogamakarī budhabuddhamitta-Therādi’manta’mupayāta’manūnatante;

Saṃsevito vividhañāyapabuddhiyā so,Suttābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsva’nūnaṃ.

And he rightly applied himself, approached by the wise Elder Buddhamitta and others, who were without deficiency in the tradition; he was attended by diverse knowledge and understanding, faultless in the Sutta, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya Commentaries.

33.

33.

Veyyattiyaṃ’sa samaye samayantare ca,Paññāya disva vivaṭaṃva nihītamatthaṃ;

Therā samaggajinamaggamatā’matāsī,Maññiṃsu naggharatanaṃva sudullabhanti.

Seeing his skill at proper times and in between, and how by his wisdom he saw the hidden meaning as if it were laid bare, the elders, united in the Victor’s path, having attained the Deathless, deemed him a priceless jewel, so very rare.

34.

34.

Viññāya dhammavinayatthayathicchadāne,Cintāmaṇīti sunirūpitabuddhirūpaṃ;

Yasse’ttha nicchitamano kavisaṅghapāla-Ttheruttamo janahitāya niyojayī taṃ.

Recognizing him—who understood the meaning of the Dhamma and Vinaya, giving it as desired, whose well-established wisdom was like a wish-fulfilling jewel—the supreme Elder, the poet Saṅghapāla, his own mind resolved on this, appointed him for the welfare of the people.

35.

35.

‘‘Kiñcāpi santi vividhā paṭipattiganthā,Kesañci kiñci tu na buddhamatānusāraṃ;

Saṃsuddhatherasamayehi ca te viruddhā,Tasmā karotu vimalaṃ paṭipattiganthaṃ’’.

"Although diverse treatises on practice exist, some of them are not in accordance with the Buddha's teaching; and they are opposed to the tradition of the pure elders, therefore, compose a flawless treatise on practice."

36.

36.

Mettādayambudavanaṃ [Pg.68] janabhūmiyaṃ’sa,Saṃvassate ca’riyamaggagamagga’maggaṃ;

Saṃsodhanattha’miti ‘‘patthitatheraāsaṃ,Pūressa’meta’’miti kāsi visuddhimaggaṃ.

He was a raincloud of loving-kindness and compassion over the human world, and he rained down the foremost path leading to the Noble Path; for the sake of purification, thinking, "I shall fulfill this aspiration of the elders," thus he composed the Visuddhimagga.

37.

37.

Vīrānukampasatiyojitabuddhimā saṃ,Oggayha, gayha ca’ khilaṭṭhakathā satantī;

Sāraṃ sakheda’manapekkhiya sādhukaṃ sa,Yaṃ’kāsi, kaṃ nu’dha na rocayate budhaṃ so.

He, endowed with wisdom joined with heroic compassion and mindfulness, having plunged into and grasped all the commentaries with their traditions, and having well extracted their essence without regard for his own fatigue—what he accomplished, what wise person here would it not please?

38.

38.

Vutte’ttha bhāvaparamāva sabhāvadhammā,Vatthū ca pītisukhavedaniyā’nitāva;

Puṇṇova sabbapaṭipattinayehi ceso,Pupphābhiphullapavanaṃva virājate’yaṃ.

Herein are taught intrinsic phenomena, foremost in their nature, and objects to be experienced with joy and bliss, though impermanent; and this work, full of all modes of practice, shines like a grove fully blooming with flowers.

39.

39.

Yaṃ passiyāna parikappiya ratnasāra-Gabbhaṃ visuddhi’mabhiyātu’mapekkhamānā;

Taṃ sāra’mādiyitu’māsu payuttayuttā,Disvā hi naggharatanaṃ nanu vajjaye na.

Seeing it and conceiving it as a core of essential jewels, those hoping to attain purity quickly and rightly apply themselves to seize that essence. For having seen a priceless jewel, surely one would not shun it.

40.

40.

Kantā padāvali’ha tantinayānusārā,Sārātisāranayapanti pasiddhasiddhā;

Atthā ca santinugamāya tulāyamāno-Yyogena mettha hi vinā paṭipatti kā’ññā.

Here the lines of words are lovely, following the method of the tradition; a series of most essential methods, perfectly established. And the meanings are to be weighed with application for the attainment of peace—for indeed, what other practice is there here without this?

41.

41.

Ābhāti satthu caturāgamamajjhago’yaṃ-Atthe pakāsayiha bhāṇuva nekadabbe;

Medhāvipītijananaṃ’sa vidhāna’metaṃ-Tītañhi yāva kavigocara’massa ñāṇaṃ.

This Teacher shines, being in the midst of the four collections, illuminating the meaning here like the sun on many gems; this composition of his generates joy for the wise; indeed, his knowledge extends as far as a poet's range.

42.

42.

Diṭṭhāva tikkhamati’massa visuddhimagga-Sampādanena samupāttasudhīpadebhi;

Tenassa buddhavacanatthavibhāvanāya,Pabyattasatti viditā viditāgamehi.

Clearly seen, his intellect is sharp through the accomplishment of the Visuddhimagga by those wise ones who have attained a state of knowledge; thus, his manifest ability in expounding the meaning of the Buddha's word is known by those who know the teachings.

43.

43.

Khyātaṃ [Pg.69] kavībhi’dhigataṃ yasa’māvahena,Therassa suddhamatibuddhasirīvhayassa;

Lokattha’māvikatapatthana’mādiyāna,Sāmañca ninnahadayena janāna’matthe.

Renowned by poets, bringing glory, is the fame of the Elder named Suddhamati-Buddhasiri, who, having undertaken a manifest aspiration for the world's welfare, acts for the sake of beings with a humble heart.

44.

44.

Sambuddhabhāvaviditeni’minā samanta-Pāsādikāvhavinayaṭṭhakathā paṇītā;

Sūro’dite viya tayā vinayatthamūḷhā-Mūḷhī bhavanti jinanītipathā’dhigantvā.

By this one, known for his state of perfect enlightenment, this Vinaya commentary called 'Samantapāsādikā' was composed; by it, just as when the sun has risen, those confused about the meaning of the Vinaya become unconfused, having attained the path of the Victor's teaching.

45.

45.

Laṅkā alaṅkatikatāva mahāmahinda-Ttherena yā ca vinayaṭṭhakathā’bhatā, taṃ;

Kantāya sīhaḷagirāya girāyamānā,Accantakantabahulā munayo purā’suṃ.

Lanka was indeed adorned by the great Elder Mahinda, and that Vinaya commentary which was brought, resounding in the delightful Sinhala language, was in the past extremely beloved by the sages.

46.

46.

Aññā ca paccari-kurundisamaññitādī,Dīpaṃ padīpakaraṇī vinayamhi yā’suṃ;

Saṅgayha tāsa’makhilatthanaye ca thera-Vāde ca muttaratanāniva mekasutte.

And others, known as Paccari, Kurundi, and so on, which illuminated the Island in the Vinaya; having gathered all their principles without exception, and those of the Theravāda, like excellent jewels on a single thread.

47.

47.

Tāheva sīhaḷaniruttiyutañca tantiṃ,Āropiyāna ruciraṃ atha vitthatañca;

Maggaṃ samāsanavasena yathā samatta-Lokena yā garukatā katamānanā’kā.

And having rendered that tradition, which was in the Sinhala language, into a charming and extensive form, the path, by way of brevity, was made honored and revered by the entire world.

48.

48.

Suddhanvayāgathavirā ca visuddhathera-Vādī visuddhavinayāgamapujjadhammā;

Suddhaṃ kariṃsu na yathe’nti tadaññavādā,Iccādi’māvikariyā’si nidānamettha.

Pure in lineage, unshaken elders, and pure Theravādins, pure in Vinaya, with the revered Dhamma of the Āgamas, they purified, not as other doctrines do; thus was this manifestation the introduction here.

49.

49.

Yasmiṃ manuññapadapanti subhā subodhā,Atthā ca pītisama’vimhayatādibhāvī;

Citrā vicitramatijā kavicittahaṃsā,Tasmā rasāyati tadatthanusārinaṃ yaṃ.

In which lovely lines of words are beautiful and easily understood, and meanings cause joy, tranquility, wonder, and so on; varied, born of a diverse mind, a swan for the poet's mind; therefore, it delights those who follow its meaning.

50.

50.

Accantasāgaranibhā [Pg.70] vividhā nayatthā,Sante’ttha yā’su vinayaṭṭhakathā purāṇā;

Tāsaṃ yathābhimatapanti sutantikattaṃ,Kiñhi’ssa kiñci balavīra’paṭicca kātuṃ.

Like the boundless ocean, varied are the meanings of the principles; herein are the ancient Vinaya commentaries. Having made their desired lines conform to the Suttas, what indeed can one not do, relying on strength and vigor?

51.

51.

Uyyoga’massa karuṇāpahitaṃ paṭicca,Paññāsahāyasahitaṃ balavañca daḷhaṃ;

Laddhāva yā nikhilalokamanuññabhūtā,Medhāvinaṃ’nusabhagāva virājate sā.

Relying on his effort, imbued with compassion, accompanied by wisdom, strong and firm, having obtained that which is pleasing to the entire world, it shines, following the wise like a constant attendant.

52.

52.

Viññūbhi yā ‘‘vinayasāgarapāratiṇṇe’’,Sambhāvitā ‘‘sutaraṇāyati sīghavāhā’’;

Iccābhimānitaguṇā’jja rarāja yāva,Kiṃ yaṃ thiraṃ lahu vinassati duppasayhaṃ.

By the wise, it is considered 'having crossed the ocean of Vinaya,' esteemed as 'a swift vehicle for easy crossing'; thus, proud of its virtues, it has shone until today. What is firm, yet quickly perishes, hard to restrain?

53.

53.

‘‘Yā byāpinī’khilanayassa subodhinī ca,Sotūbhi sevitasadātanadhammaraṅgaṃ;

Katvāna lokapahite saguṇe dadhantī,Ṭhātū’’ti naṭṭha’mupagā’ṭṭhakathā purāṇā.

The ancient commentaries—pervasive of all principles and easily understood, a stage for the eternal Dhamma constantly resorted to by hearers, bearing good qualities for the benefit of the world—went to destruction.

54.

54.

Janābhisattāya dayāya codito,Vichejja khedaṃ vinayamhi sādhunaṃ;

Athāgamāna’ṭṭhakathāvidhānane,Dhuraṃ dadhātuṃ’bhimukhā’si so sudhī.

Urged by compassion for the welfare of beings, dispelling the weariness of the virtuous in the Vinaya, that wise one then faced the task of arranging the Āgamas and commentaries.

55.

55.

Padmaṃva phullābhinataṃ subhāṇubhaṃ,Laddhāna phullaṃ’tisayā’si cetanā;

Dāṭhādināgena thiraggadhīmatā,Yā patthitā’rabbha tadatthasijjhane.

Like a lotus fully opened, bending down, beautifully radiant, his consciousness, having attained fullness, was exceedingly glad; that which was longed for by Dāṭhānāga, of steadfast, lofty mind, he undertook for the fulfillment of that aim.

56.

56.

Dīghāgamatthesu sabuddhivikkama-Māgamma sārādhigamā sumaṅgala-Nāmānugantāva vilāsinīti yā,Saṃvaṇṇanā lokahitāya sambhavī.

In the meanings of the Dīgha Āgama, having attained the essence through his wisdom and vigor, this commentary, which is lovely, following the auspicious name, arose for the welfare of the world.

57.

57.

Gambhīramedhāvisayāgamamhipi,[Pg.71] Ārabbha buddhiṃ’sa sunimmalīkatā;

Viññātabuddhābhimatā bahū janā,Aññatthasādhā mahatañhi buddhiyo.

Even in the Āgama, the domain of the profoundly wise, having applied his intellect, it was made very pure and was known by many people to be in accord with the Buddha's intent; for indeed, great intellects accomplish other aims as well.

58.

58.

Sā’nītavidvākkhimanā manāyitā,Kantāgame dhammasabhāyate sadā;

Teneva maññe’ha tirokatā tayā,Kiṃ sīghaga’ññatra pathaññagāmikā.

She, with a mind like the eye of a wise guide, esteemed, always acts as a Dhamma assembly in the delightful Āgama; therefore, I think she is hidden by you. Why does she, a traveler on another path, go swiftly?

59.

59.

Patvā mahantā’mbara’mambudo yathā,Lokatthasādhīpi mahāsayaṃ mati;

Tasmā’ssa siddhā’ṭṭhakathāparamparā,Buddhippadānāya’ huvuṃ navā navā.

Just as a great cloud reaches the vast sky, so too a mind with great purpose accomplishes the welfare of the world; therefore, his accomplished lineage of commentaries came into being, ever new, to bestow understanding.

60.

60.

Buddhādimittaṃ thiraseṭṭha’muddisaṃ,Saṃvaṇṇanā cāsi papañcasūdanī;

‘‘Sabbatthasāre jinamajjhimāgame,Laddhāna pītiṃ sujanā samentu’’ti.

Indicating the supreme and firm characteristic of the Buddha, this commentary was the Papañcasūdanī, [composed with the thought]: ‘Having found joy in the essence of all meanings, in the Majjhima Āgama of the Victor, may good people be pacified.’

61.

61.

Uppajji ‘‘sāratthapakāsinī’’ti yā,Sā jotipālassa yathābhilāsitaṃ;

Lokaṃ yathānāmikasāradīpanā,Bhātā’si sammāpaṭipannapanthadā.

She who arose as 'Sāratthapakāsinī,' that was according to Jotipāla's aspiration; illuminating the essence for the world according to her name, she shone, giving the path for those who practice rightly.

62.

62.

Sampūri kātuṃ’sa manoratho yayā,Aṅguttarantāgamamatthavaṇṇanā;

Tannāmadheyyaṃ sujanañca jīvakaṃ,So jotipālañca pasatthadhītimaṃ.

By which his aspiration to compose the commentary on the meaning of the Aṅguttara Āgama was fulfilled, its name praises the good person Jīvaka and that Jotipāla of esteemed wisdom.

63.

63.

Uddissa yaṃ’kāsi pavīṇataṃ karaṃ,Buddhādisaṃsebyasumaggadassane;

Saddhammapupphāna’ vanāyitā’si sā,Vidvālisaṅghassa sadāvagāhaṇā.

Dedicated to the skilled work she did in showing the good path to be resorted to by the Buddha and others, she became a grove of Dhamma flowers, a constant resort for the assembly of the wise.

64.

64.

Yena’ttaladdhiṃ [Pg.72] pajahantu sādhavo,Dubbodhadhamme ca sabhāvadīpane;

Bujjhantu, iccāsi’bhidhammasāgaro,Tatthā’vatāraṃ sukarena sādhinī.

By which the virtuous may abandon the view of self, and in the Dhamma, difficult to understand, revealing its own nature, may they awaken—thus, for the ocean of Abhidhamma, she skillfully makes entry therein easy.

65.

65.

Medhāvilāsā’ssa’huvu’ṭṭhasālinī,Kantā ca sammohavinodanīti yā;

Tā buddhaghosoti satulyanāmika-Māgamma jātā sujanatthasādhinī.

His splendor of wisdom was rich and excellent, and she who is lovely and dispels delusion, having attained a name equal to that, 'Buddhaghosa', arose, accomplishing the good of the virtuous.

66.

66.

Aññā ca pañcaṭṭhakathā’bhidhammaje,Bhāve nidhāye’ttha yathā’ssu suttarā;

Gambhīramatthesu paviddhabuddhitaṃ,Sampādanī satthu’tulattadīpanī.

And other five commentaries on the Abhidhamma, having placed the states here as they are in the excellent Suttas, with intelligence piercing into profound meanings, accomplish the unequalled illumination of the Teacher.

67.

67.

Soṇāvhatherassa paṭicca yācanaṃ,Tā yāya kaṅkhā vitaranti bhikkhavo;

Yā pātimokkhamhi, tadanvayāvhayaṃ,Saṃvaṇṇanaṃ’kāsi sa dhīmataṃ varo.

At the request of the Elder Soṇa, that best of the wise composed the commentary, named in accordance with its function, by which bhikkhus overcome their doubts regarding the Pātimokkha.

68.

68.

Samattalokaṭṭhavibhāvirañjanā,Kate’minā dhammapadassa vaṇṇanā;

Thiraṃ samuddissa kumārakassapaṃ,Sataṃ manaṃ pītipaphullitaṃ yayā.

The commentary on the Dhammapada made by him illuminates the welfare of the entire world and is a delight. Firmly dedicated to Kumārakassapa, by it the minds of the virtuous are made to blossom with joy.

69.

69.

Aññā’ssa yā suttanipāta-khuddaka-Pāṭhatthadātā paramatthajotikā;

Saṃvaṇṇanā jātakatanti maṇḍanā,Tā honti lokassa hitappadīpinī.

His other commentaries—the Paramatthajotikā, which gives the meaning of the Suttanipāta and the Khuddakapāṭha, and the commentary that adorns the Jātaka collection—these are lamps that illuminate the welfare of the world.

70.

70.

Nissesalokamhi pacāraṇicchā,Laṅkāgatāna’ṭṭhakathāna’maddhā;

Yā theravādīna’mapūri buddha-Ghosaggatherassa pabhāvaladdhā.

The desire to circulate in the entire world the authentic commentaries that had come to Laṅkā, a desire of the Theravādins, was fulfilled, having been achieved through the power of the great Elder Buddhaghosa.

71.

71.

Bhaddaṃ’sa [Pg.73] nāmañca, guṇā manuññā,Samaggagāmī’nukaronti tesaṃ;

Sasaṅkasūrā hi sadātanā ye,Lokaṃ pamodañca karaṃ caranti.

Auspicious is his name and pleasing are his virtues. Those who proceed in harmony emulate them. Indeed, those who are ever fearless heroes wander about bringing joy to the world.

72.

72.

Subuddhaghosassa vibhāvisatti-Pabyatti’mārabbha thirāsabhassa;

Samaggaloko hi sutheravāde,Mānaṃ pavaḍḍhesi anaññajātaṃ.

Indeed, on account of the proclamation of the brilliant ability of the steadfast and noble Subuddhaghosa, the entire world has developed unparalleled respect for the good Theravāda.

73.

73.

Buddhoti nāmaṃ bhuvanamhi yāva,Subuddhaghosassa siyā na kiñhi;

Laddhā hi sādhūbhi mahopakārā,Mahagghavittāniva taṃsakāsā.

As long as the name 'Buddha' exists in the world, how could anything of Subuddhaghosa be wanting? For great benefits have been obtained from him by the virtuous, like treasures of great value.

74.

74.

Khīyetha vaṇṇo na samuddhaṭopi,Nanva’ssa nekā hi guṇā anantā;

Ko nu’ddhareyyā’ khilasāgarode,Tathāpi maññantu sudhī sadā teti.

His praise would not be exhausted even if extolled, for surely his many virtues are endless. Who, indeed, could empty the entire ocean? Nevertheless, may the wise always think of him thus.

Chaṭṭhasaṅgītibhāranitthārakasaṅghasamitiyā pakāsitāyaṃ

This was published by the Sangha Committee that discharged the burden of the Sixth Council.

Visuddhimagganidānakathā niṭṭhitā.

Here ends the Introductory Discourse to the Visuddhimagga.