English
But that too should be understood as merely a change of language from the ancient commentaries, for such an explanation of meaning must have been spoken from the time of the Great Mahinda Thera onwards. [Ga) Again, by him, " 'Heat' means the heat of fire, its occurrence in forest fires, etc., should be understood," having presented the explanation given in the Visuddhimagga (p. 1, 30), and having scorned it by saying, "its ridiculousness is evident," he then presented a third reason more strongly: "But in the Indian country, in the northern regions, during the hot season, the skin of humans, without clothing, is certainly burnt by the heat of the sun; the people of the southern Indian regions do not know this." If, however, "is certainly burnt by the heat of the sun" were to be understood as directly referring to being burnt by the sun's rays, then it would not be appropriate, as it would be synonymous with the word "heat" in the phrase "the touch of gnats, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and creeping things." But if it were to be understood as referring to being burnt by the hot season produced by the sun's heat, then this meaning is not inappropriate: that in the northern Indian regions and other such extremely hot places, robes and dwellings are used to counteract the hot season produced by the sun's heat. Thus it is said in the Vinaya Commentary (3, 58): " 'Cold, heat' is said in terms of the disagreeable nature of the seasons." That explanation of the word in the Visuddhimagga might have come from the ancient Suttanta commentaries. Thus it is said in the Papañcasūdanī, the Majjhima Nikāya Commentary, in the explanation of the Sabbāsava Sutta (1, 58): "Here, 'heat' should be understood as the heat of fire, but this matter is spoken of in terms of the heat of the sun." And here, if this meaning were spoken by the teacher according to his own view, then in the ancient commentary on that matter And he should make known the fact that it was said, and his own opinion, and the suitability of the explanation of its meaning. For wherever the teacher, distinguishing, shows a meaning not stated in the ancient commentaries, there he also makes known such a declarative statement. For example, in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (1, 72), the statement: "Here, usages like 'āṇattiya', 'nissaggiya', 'thāvara' are appropriate, but since they are not found in the commentaries, they should be taken after investigation." And for example, in the Papañcasūdanī (1, 30), the statement: "This was not considered by the ancients, but this is my own opinion." But here, no declarative statement whatsoever was made known. Therefore, it should be understood that: "This statement, 'uṇhassā' means 'of the heat of fire', and 'here, 'uṇhanti' should be understood as the heat of fire', this is a statement from the ancient Suttanta commentaries." (D) Again, by him, the fourth reason was shown: "In the Papañcasūdanī, the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, when explaining the Gopālaka Sutta [M.N.A. 1.350], Buddhaghosa, I believe, holds that 'between the kingdoms of Magadha and Videha, in the middle of the river Gaṅgā, there are sandbank islands.' But it is evident that the Gaṅgā seen by Buddhaghosa was only the Mahāveligaṅgā in the island of Sihaḷa, and not the Mahāgaṅgā considered supreme by the people of India." But that is merely a statement made by him, having not seen such an island in the middle of the Mahāgaṅgā at that place now, and having taken it as certain that "it must have been the same in the past." But it is evident that rivers do not always remain in the same form, so it cannot be taken as such. Therefore, just as in the past, during the time of that cowherd, such islands existed in the middle of the Gaṅgā at that place, so too, this meaning was explained in the ancient commentaries. And that very statement was made known by the teacher by performing a language transformation. It should be understood in this way. Therefore, that too is not a valid reason. Examination of the Brāhmaṇa Lineage 2. Then, the word "brāhmaṇa-māṇava" also by him... a thus it was considered – (Ka) ‘‘Buddhaghosa cannot be taken as ‘born of a brahmin family’. Why, from the time of the Vedas up to today, all brahmins ‘The brahmin was his mouth, the kshatriya his arms; His thighs were the vaishya, from his feet the shudra was born’ [Rigveda, 10th Mandala, 90; also Atharvaveda 19, 6, 6]. It is believed that they know this mantra called Purusha Sukta. And its meaning is this – ‘the brahmin was his (Brahma’s) mouth. The kshatriya was made his arms, meaning the kshatriyas were his arms. Whoever is a vaishya, he was his thighs. The shudra was born from his feet.’ But Buddhaghosa, though known as a ‘learned brahmin’, did not know that verse. Thus, in his explanation of the meaning of the word ‘bandhupādāpacca’, he described a meaning that is not consistent with that Vedic verse: ‘Indeed, this was their doctrine – brahmins originated from Brahma’s mouth, kshatriyas from his chest, vaishyas from his navel, shudras from his knees, and ascetics from his back and feet’ [Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.263; Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.508].’’ This is the further consideration here – if the doctrine of the brahmins of that time were indeed as stated in this verse, then that explanation of meaning would be merely the teacher’s opinion. In that case, that consideration would be valid. However, in this verse, the meaning ‘‘brahmins are born from Brahma’s mouth’’ is not directly obtained from the first line ‘‘brāhmaṇosya mukhamāsīdi’’. But in the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of the brahmins was indeed ‘‘brahmins are born from Brahma’s mouth’’, and this meaning is evident. Thus, in the Aggañña Sutta (3, 67) of the Pathika Vagga in the Dīgha Nikāya – ‘‘Indeed, Vāseṭṭha, brahmin women are seen menstruating, pregnant, giving birth, and suckling. And those brahmins, though born from a womb, say this: ‘Brahmins are the highest caste, other castes are inferior. Brahmins are the fair caste, other castes are dark. Brahmins alone are purified, not non-brahmins...’’ Indeed. Brahmins are the children of Brahmā, born from his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā. They accuse Brahmā, speak falsely, and produce much demerit.” This was spoken by the Exalted One, the Greatly Compassionate, to the Brahmin youths Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja, and they rejoiced in it. Those two youths were, by birth, pure Brahmins and masters of the three Vedas. Therefore, it is clear that the statement “Brahmins are born from Brahmā’s mouth” was spoken according to the belief of the Brahmins of that time. Just as this is so, so too the statement “Khattiyas from the chest, Vessas from the navel, Suddas from the knees, ascetics from the back of the feet” should be understood as “spoken by the ancient Aṭṭhakathā teachers who knew the beliefs of the Brahmins of that time,” and it seems that Acariya Buddhaghosa, believing this, merely transformed that entire ancient Aṭṭhakathā into a different language and published it. Therefore, even by that Vedic verse, the proof of the Acariya’s non-Brahmin status is untenable. (Kha) Again, a second reason was brought forth to prove the non-Brahmin status of the Elder Acariya Buddhaghosa, as follows: “In Brahmin texts, the word ‘bhrūnahā,’ meaning ‘destroyer of a fetus,’ appears as ‘bhūnahu (bhūnahano)’ in Pāli. In the Māgaṇḍiya Sutta, referring to the destruction of a fetus that could have arisen due to the absence of sexual intercourse with his wife, the wanderer Māgaṇḍiya called the Exalted One ‘bhūnahu (bhūnahano) Samaṇa Gotama’ [M.N. 2.207 ff.]. It is clear that Buddhaghosa did not know this, based on his commentary on its meaning. For there, he explained the word ‘bhūnahuno (bhūnahanassā)’ as ‘of one whose growth is destroyed, of one who makes boundaries’ [M.N. Aṭṭha. 2.207].” This too is incorrect. For Māgaṇḍiya did not speak of the state of being a bhūnahu merely by referring to the non-enjoyment of tactile objects, but rather by referring to the non-enjoyment of all six objects of worldly attachment. For in that s uttered: “The eye, Māgaṇḍiya, delights in forms, rejoices in forms, is overjoyed by forms. That is tamed, guarded, protected, restrained by the Tathāgata. And for its restraint, he teaches the Dhamma. Is it this, Māgaṇḍiya, that you had in mind when you said, ‘The recluse Gotama is a destroyer of growth’? Indeed, venerable Gotama, it is this I had in mind when I said, ‘The recluse Gotama is a destroyer of growth.’ For what reason? Because it is thus that it occurs to us in our tradition… …The mind, Māgaṇḍiya, delights in mental objects, rejoices in mental objects, is overjoyed by mental objects. That is tamed, guarded, protected, restrained by the Tathāgata. And for its restraint, he teaches the Dhamma. Is it this, Māgaṇḍiya, that you had in mind when you said, ‘The recluse Gotama is a destroyer of growth’? Indeed, venerable Gotama, it is this I had in mind when I said, ‘The recluse Gotama is a destroyer of growth.’ For what reason? Because it is thus that it occurs to us in our tradition.” Thus, the Buddha’s questioning and Māgaṇḍiya’s admission have been presented. Here, the establishment of a fetus occurs only due to the enjoyment of tangible objects through sexual intercourse. Therefore, it is appropriate to say “destroyer of growth” with reference to the non-enjoyment of that. However, for the other five sense objects, such as forms, and especially for mental objects, there is no establishment of a fetus due to their enjoyment by pure mind-consciousness. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say “destroyer of growth” with reference to the non-enjoyment of these. But Māgaṇḍiya admitted that he had all of them in mind when he spoke. And his reason was given: “Because it is thus that it occurs to us in our tradition.” Therefore, although the word “bhūnahu” (bhrūṇahā) in Brahmanical texts means “destroyer of a fetus,” this meaning is not suitable