English
such teachers are also called ancients. The Composition of the Vinaya Commentary The teacher, having composed this Visuddhimagga treatise in the manner described, also successively composed other commentaries on the Tipiṭaka. How? He composed the Vinaya commentary called Samantapāsādikā, being requested by the elder Buddhasiri, while residing in the palace of the lord of Mahānigama, in the Padhānaghara monastery on the southern side of the Mahāvihāra. This was begun in the twentieth year of King Mahānāma, also named Siripāla (973 BE), and completed in the twenty-first year (974 BE). In composing it, he took the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, which was brought by the elder Mahāmahinda and compiled in the Sinhala language. Making its body that great commentary, and taking what should be taken from the Mahāpaccarī, Kurundī, Saṅkhepa, and Andhaka commentaries, and including the Theravāda, which was the decision of the ancient great Theras, masters of Vinaya, who were famous in the island of Sri Lanka up to the time of King Vasabha, he made it. This is also stated in the Samantapāsādikā: ‘‘And beginning that commentary, making its body the great commentary; And likewise from the Mahāpaccarī, and the famous Kurundī and others. The decision stated in the commentaries, not abandoning what is suitable meaning; And from that, including the Theravāda, I shall rightly begin the commentary.’’ ‘‘In the Mahāmeghavana park, established on the ground; The Mahāvihāra of the Teacher, adorned with the Mahābodhi. That which is in its southern part, the excellent meditation house; By bhikkhus of pure conduct and virtue, served by the Saṅgha. Born of a noble family, always a supporter of the Saṅgha; With unwavering faith, devoted to the Triple Gem. Known as Mahānigamasāmī, he had built there; A beautiful wall-enclosed, delightful palace. Endowed with dense shade trees, and abundant water reservoirs; While residing in that palace, of Mahānigamasāmī. The Thera of pure virtue and conduct, named Buddhasiri; Having been dedicated, this was begun, the mighty Vinaya commentary. While protecting the entire, island of Laṅkā, free from danger; Of King Sirinivāsa, the glorious protector of wealth. In the twentieth year, the year of victory, this; Was begun, and in the twenty-first, it was completed. In a world full of dangers, this, free from dangers; In just one year, was brought to completion.’’ And this Samantapāsādikā Vinaya commentary, according to the currently printed Sixth Council text, is of the measure of one thousand three hundred and fifty-eight pages (1358), and its completion in one year... It is possible to know that even the Visuddhimagga, which is about 724 pages in length, would have been completed in at least five or six months. Therefore, the eulogistic statement made in the Mahāvaṃsa concerning the origin of Buddhaghosa, relying on which it is said that "the Visuddhimagga was completed by Acariya Buddhaghosa, having been written three times in a single night," should be understood as merely a eulogy by its maker. But surely, in this commentary, references to the Āgama commentaries are seen by specific names such as "Sumaṅgalavilāsinī" [Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.15]; how then is it to be known that this one was made earlier than those? Because of mutual references among the Acariya's commentaries, because the Vinaya Piṭaka is to be held in greater esteem, because it was especially esteemed by the residents of the Mahāvihāra, because it conforms to the order of the Councils, because the complete introductory narrative is expounded here, and because at the conclusion it is declared that it was made after first hearing the Sinhala commentaries, it should be known that this one was made first, excluding the Visuddhimagga. But in the Visuddhimagga, references are seen only by such general names as "in the Vinaya commentary," or "in the Vinaya commentaries," or "in the Majjhima commentaries," not by specific names like "Samantapāsādikā" and so on. Therefore, its being made first of all is evident. However, such mutual referencing— the reference to the Āgama commentaries here [Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.15] and to this one there [Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.8]— could be due to the Acariya's mind being well-arranged, or due to the completion of earlier and later works. How? For the Acariya, having completely finished the Visuddhimagga, and while making each commentary like the Samantapāsādikā and so on, wherever an explanation of the meaning had to be expounded in detail in other commentaries, there, having mentally arranged and determined: "I will explain it in this particular place," and having referred to it, when the time came to the place as arranged, he expounded it in detail. or they were made by him at that time. Or, at the time when each one was nearing completion, setting that aside, he made another and another in that way, and all of them were completed without any being before or after. Thus, it should be understood that in the commentaries of the teacher, there is a mutual cross-reference in one of these two ways. The making of the Āgama Commentaries The teacher made the commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya, named Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, being requested by the elder Dāṭhānāga, who resided in Sumaṅgala Pariveṇa. Indeed, this is stated in its conclusion: “Requested by the elder Dāṭhānāga, of firm virtue, a member of the lineage of elders, who resided in Sumaṅgala Pariveṇa. The commentary on the Dīgha Āgama, which illuminates the many virtues of the Ten-Powered One, which I began, named Sumaṅgalavilāsinī. Indeed, this was completed by taking the essence from the Great Commentary.” He made the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, named Papañcasūdanī, being requested by the venerable elder Buddhamitta, who previously resided with him in Mayūradūta Paṭṭana. Indeed, this is stated in its conclusion: “Requested by the elder Buddhamitta, of good wisdom, who previously resided with me in Mayūradūta Paṭṭana. The commentary on the excellent Majjhima Nikāya, which destroys the doctrines of others, which I began to make, the Papañcasūdanī. Indeed, this was completed by taking the essence from the Great Commentary.” He made the commentary on the Saṃyutta Nikāya, named Sāratthappakāsinī, being requested by the venerable elder Jotīpāla. Indeed, this is stated in its conclusion: “For the purpose of making this, by the venerable elder Jotīpāla, of pure virtue, whose knowledge illuminates the well-spoken word. Wishing for the prosperity of the Sāsana, requesting me with good qualities. Whatever merit has been acquired, may people be happy through that too.” The commentary on the Aṅguttara Nikāya, named Manorathapūraṇī, by the venerable elder Jotīpāla Not in the South Indian country, in Kanchipuram and other places, nor in the Great Monastery on the island of Sri Lanka, was he requested by one living with him. But by the lay follower Jīvaka, who had gone to the far shore of the three Piṭakas, like a tree unmoving even when struck by wind, by Sumati, who stood in the unmoving True Dhamma, whose livelihood was pure, he was urged to do it. This is stated in its conclusion: Requested by Sumati, by the Elder, the Venerable Jotipaḷa; in Kanchipuram and other places, by me, who lived with him previously. In the excellent Tambapaṇṇi island, even while residing in the Great Monastery; like a tree struck by wind, unmoving in the True Dhamma. By Sumati, who had gone to the far shore of the ocean of the three Piṭakas, whose livelihood was pure, urged also by Jīvaka. By those skilled in the method of Dhamma-talks, by countless Dhamma-preachers; of the varied teachings of one's own time, that were played with and practiced. I began to make the commentary on the Aṅguttara Mahānikāya; desiring the long-lastingness of the excellent Teaching. Indeed, this was completed by taking the essence of the Great Commentary; with ninety-four recitations of the Pāḷi. And since my wish to comment on all the Āgamas was fulfilled; therefore, its name is "Fulfiller of Wishes." And indeed, making these four Āgama commentaries, Acariya Buddhaghosa took the Great Commentary, known as the Root Commentary, which was brought by the Elder Mahā Mahinda, and made it by way of language change, and by shortening the repeatedly occurring lengthy narrative path. This is stated at the beginning of the book: Indeed, to the island of Sri Lanka, it was brought by the master Mahā Mahinda; and established in the Sinhala language, for the benefit of the island dwellers. Removing from there, I, the delightful Sinhala language, making it suitable for the Pāḷi tradition, and free from faults, I shall present it... abandoning the repeatedly occurring meaning, I shall explain the meaning. And also in the conclusion: "Indeed, this was completed by taking the essence of the Great Commentary." Having taken the essence of the Mūla-aṭṭhakathā, by me while making this. And in the main texts of these, like in the Samantapāsādikā, the exposition of different interpretations and commentaries, beginning with "in the Mahāpaccari, in the Kurundi," is not seen; likewise in the Abhidhamma-aṭṭhakathās. Therefore it is known that concerning the Suttantas and Abhidhamma, other than the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, there are no ancient Sinhala Aṭṭhakathās named Mahāpaccari and so on, nor an Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā. But up to the time of King Vasabha (609-653), the decisions, doctrines, and stories of the well-known Sinhala Theras are indeed seen in these (aṭṭhakathās) too. The making of the Abhidhamma Aṭṭhakathās. But the Aṭṭhasālinī, the Sammohavinodanī, and the commentary on the five treatises beginning with the Dhātukathā— these three Abhidhamma Aṭṭhakathās— he made, being requested by the monk Buddhaghosa, whose name was similar to his own, and who was the author of the Sotatthakī text. For it is said in them: "By the monk Buddhaghosa, whose conduct and virtue are pure, whose subtle and stainless wisdom, having been earnestly requested."