English
"This commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, named Aṭṭhasālinī, was made by the Thera named Buddhaghosa, whose name was taken by his teachers." "For the purpose of explaining the meaning, I was requested by him, by the ascetic Buddhaghosa, of firm qualities, of unhesitating progress, and of good wisdom. Which I began to compose, a commentary on very subtle meanings; because it dispels confusion, it is named Sammohavinodanī." "This commentary on the Vibhaṅga, named Sammohavinodanī, was made by the Thera named Buddhaghosa, whose name was taken by his teachers." But among these three, there is no special name for the commentary on the five treatises, and the requester is not declared; it was made by Acariya Buddhaghosa, inspired solely by his own faith. appears. And this is stated in its conclusion: Relying on the distinction of wholesome and other states, With various calculations and methods, The Teacher, expanding the seventh Abhidhamma treatise, Which is called Paṭṭhāna, Declared it with well-established resolve. And this commentary, undertaken by me with faith, is for that. Thus far, The Lord, the God of gods, Taught the seven treatises of Abhidhamma In the world of devas, long ago. This commentary on all of that Is now completed. And this commentary on the entire Abhidhamma Piṭaka Was made by the elder whose name was taken by the revered ones as Buddhaghosa. However, some modern elders say, "One of the elders, Saṅghapāla, Buddhamitta, Jotīpāla, and others, made the Abhidhamma commentaries, being requested by Ācariya Buddhaghosa." And this is their consideration, for in the Aṭṭhasālinī and Sammohavinodanī, it is stated by the author, "He made them, being requested by Buddhaghosa." From this, it is known that "the maker is another, but Ācariya Buddhaghosa is only the requester in those." And in the Āgama commentaries, Ācariya Buddhaghosa says: "Discourses on morality, ascetic practices, And all meditation subjects... Since all this Has been thoroughly clarified by me In the Visuddhimagga, Therefore, I will not discuss it further here." Thus, the fact that discourses on morality and so forth were stated by himself in the Visuddhimagga is declared by the word "by me." But in the Aṭṭhasālinī: "All meditation subjects, Practices, supernormal powers, insight; Since all this Is clarified in the Visuddhimagga." Thus, it is stated without the agent word "by me." From this, too, it is known that "the maker of the Visuddhimagga is another, and the maker of the Abhidhamma commentaries is another." Although in the Abhidhamma commentaries, Buddhaghosa is the requester, and by these words "bhikkhunāti" and "yatināti" And not spoken with the respectful term "Thera" nor with common terms of virtue, yet he, by "one with pure conduct and virtue, with keen, unblemished wisdom," and by "one with unhesitating progress, with good wisdom," having been praised with these superior terms of virtue, it is possible to take him as "Acariya Buddhaghosa, the author of the Visuddhimagga and other works." For he, from the time of his higher ordination, was skilled in texts, endowed with the virtue of proficiency in the Pariyatti (scriptures). And at that time, he might have been less than ten years (ordained). Therefore, it is possible to take it that he was not called "Thera." But that is merely their over-analysis. For Acariya Buddhaghosa Thera cannot be taken as "less than ten years (ordained) at that time," because even in the conclusion of the Visuddhimagga, it is said: "by the Thera, named Buddhaghosa by his teachers." Nor is he well-praised by merely "one with pure conduct and virtue, with keen, unblemished wisdom," or "one with unhesitating progress, with good wisdom," with just these two pairs of virtuous terms. Rather, it is like the praise, "the sun rises, making the firefly dim." Indeed, by the Acariya himself, in the conclusions of his own works – "Adorned with supreme pure faith, growth, and energy, endowed with a collection of virtues such as morality, conduct, uprightness, gentleness, etc., capable of penetrating the depths of one's own doctrine and other doctrines, possessed of skill in wisdom, with an unimpeded light of knowledge in the Teacher's Dispensation, which is the Tipiṭaka Pariyatti including the commentaries, by the great grammarian," and so on – his own fitting terms of virtue are declared. And he, having condensed the ancient Sinhala commentaries, is the pioneer, the first author of the new compendium-commentaries. Other new commentary writers, following him, made one or two remaining commentaries. And in the Abhidhamma commentaries, whatever meaning is stated in the Visuddhimagga, that very meaning is taken from there and stated in the same way in its appropriate place. Especially, in the explanations of the analysis of Dependent Origination, the analysis of aggregates, sense-bases, elements, and truths, and the explanation of the Jhana discourse... And in this, this meaning is exceedingly clear. And whatever little, a few differences in commentary are seen there, which are dissimilar to the Visuddhimagga, even that should be understood as stated in the ancient commentaries, according to the views of the Abhidhammikas. And just as an attribution is seen in the Aṭṭhasālinī to the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary, [DhsA. 1, Akusalakammapathakathā] just so, an attribution is indeed seen in the Samantapāsādikā to the Aṭṭhasālinī. [Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.11;] If the Aṭṭhasālinī were made by another, how would it be possible to make mutual attributions in them? Therefore, the Buddhaghosa who is the petitioner in the Abhidhamma commentaries, who has the same name as the teacher, and is known as Cūḷabuddhaghosa by the lineage of teachers up to the present day, the author of the Sotatthakī text, is someone else, not the Elder, the great teacher Buddhaghosa. For that reason, it is said there, "by a bhikkhu" and "by a recluse." If, however, it would not be concluded by this much, it should be considered thus: Did the elders, such as Saṅghapāla, request the teacher, the Elder Buddhaghosa, to compose the Visuddhimagga and others, believing him to be more capable than themselves, or not believing so? It is clear that they requested him, believing him to be so. And that being the case, why would the teacher, the Elder Buddhaghaghosa, being himself more capable than others, request another? Indeed, it would not be difficult for a teacher endowed with faith, endowed with strength, endowed with youth, to compose a more excellent Abhidhamma commentary. And the statements made in the Abhidhamma commentaries are of the same kind as the commentarial statements made in the Visuddhimagga and the Āgama commentaries. And if another were to compose the Abhidhamma commentary, there would certainly be some dissimilarity in the style of expression from those. And in the conclusion of these, it is clearly stated by the words shown: "made by the Elder whose name was taken by the revered ones as Buddhaghosa," that "it was made by the teacher Buddhaghosa." by him, not by another. Even those who say, "It was made by another," cannot definitively point out, "It was by this elder," nor is there even a trace of supporting evidence to show it thus. Therefore, it must be concluded that the Abhidhamma commentaries were made by the Elder Acariya Mahābuddhaghosa, who is now referred to by teachers as Cūḷabuddhaghosa, and who, being requested by a monk named Buddhaghosa, was the maker of the Visuddhimagga, Vinaya, and Āgama commentaries. However, what is stated in the Mahāvaṃsa, with the intention that "Acariya Buddhaghosa made the Aṭṭhasālinī while residing in Jambudīpa before his arrival in the island of Sihala" — 225. "He made the Aṭṭhasālinī, a commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī" — This does not accord with the Aṭṭhasālinī that is now seen. For in its very beginning, the Visuddhimagga is referred to, and later on, both it and the Samantapāsādikā are referred to in many places. Therefore, it is very clear that the Acariya made it only after arriving in Sihala and composing the Visuddhimagga and the Samantapāsādikā. The making of the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī commentary Acariya Buddhaghosa Thera, being requested by Sona Thera, made the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, a commentary on the Pātimokkha, relying on the method of the Sihala Pātimokkha commentary that followed the recitation tradition of the Mahāvihāra residents, without contradicting a single word of the Pāli or the ancient commentaries of the Mahāvihāra residents. Therefore, it is said in that commentary: "Requested by Sona Thera, who was brave and gentle, of pure and austere conduct, endowed with Vinaya and good manners. For the explanation of this to the monks who had doubts, for the removal of doubts, a complete decision. Relying on the recitation tradition of the Mahāvihāra residents, I shall expound by name the auspicious Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī." [Kaṅkhā Aṭṭha. Ganthārambhakathā] "Which I began, all of it, the method of the Sihala commentary; relying on the recitation tradition of the Mahāvihāra residents. This, relying on that, is" completed, taken up entirely; All the essence of the commentaries, and the meaning of the Pāli alone. There is no word here, that would contradict the Pāli; Or the ancient commentaries, of the Mahāvihāra dwellers. The Making of the Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā There are also three other commentaries: the Khuddakapāṭṭhakathā, the Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā, and the Suttanipātaṭṭhakathā. From the colophons found in them, it is understood that they were made by Acariya Buddhaghosa himself. However, some of the statements in them are not in the manner found in the Āgama commentaries. Therefore, some say, "These are not by Acariya Buddhaghosa." But some say, "They might have been made first by the theras who supported the Acariya, and later finalized by the Acariya through a final revision, or they might have been made by Cūḷabuddhaghosa, who requested the Abhidhamma commentary."