English
in the Māgaṇḍiya Sutta. Thus, the teacher has explained that the meaning “one who has destroyed growth, one who makes a boundary” is revealed by the ancient commentary through a change of language. (Ga) Again by him, “This is the final reason proving Buddhaghosa’s non-Brahmanical nature. For in the Visuddhimagga, in the section on morality, (1, 31) making fun of brahmins, he said, ‘Thus by partaking of this almsfood, I will counteract the old feeling of hunger, and I will not produce a new feeling, like one of those brahmins who are gluttonous, with hands full of food, with robes stained, who are always eating, who are like crows, who have eaten and vomited.’ This, however, could be the saying of even a single brahmin who has broken with tradition. Therefore, taking that as a strong reason, it is not possible to say ‘Buddhaghosa is not a brahmin’,” the third reason was stated. But that is indeed a very moving statement. For this was not said by the teacher with the intention of making fun of brahmins, nor is it a place to be connected with a statement of ridicule. Rather, it is a place to be spoken in the way of advice and instruction to fellow celibates, by showing the true meaning, and it was said by the teacher in that very way. For indeed, those in the world who live on what is given by others, whether monastics or brahmins, or any other individuals, if they are without the knowledge of reflection, and are in a state of non-restraint, they might sometimes eat an unlimited amount if they receive very exquisite and abundant flavors. Especially brahmins, both in terms of worldly things, and in terms of things related to the teachings such as Jātaka stories, were known to be like that. For in this world, in an immeasurable duration of hundreds of thousands of years or tens of millions of years, who can say “such people have never existed before”? Therefore, it was said in the way of advice and instruction, that one should not be like those who eat unlimited food. Thus, even though it was beneficial, to one who does not reflect properly, it became harmful, just as the verses taught to the brahmin Māgaṇḍiya with his wife, even for the sake of the path and fruit of non-return, resulted in harm for their daughter. Thus, only a sense of urgency should be cultivated here. Consideration of the Patañjali Argument 3. Then, the statement “he twists Patañjali’s view” was also considered thus. (a) “Buddhaghosa, whether of Patañjali or of other northern Indian He knew only a little of the doctrine of the logicians. For in the doctrines of Patañjali, he showed only these two: animā and laghimā. Not knowing the Yoga Sūtra beyond that, and a detailed exposition of Patañjali's doctrine, we do not find in his texts. Nor is there even the name Patañjali or the work composed by Patañjali mentioned there. However, in the Visuddhimagga, in the section on the Stages of Wisdom, the mere name of Pakativāda (Sāṅkhya doctrine) is revealed as 'like the prakṛti of the Pakativādins'. And in the same place, it is cited: 'In the world, a part of a statement like 'proposition, reason' and so on, is called a reason.' From this, it is known that 'Buddhaghosa knew only some incomplete fundamental part of the Nyāya text, which expounds the method of sense-perception and reasoning.' But all of that is merely an accusation against the Master. For one who is explaining the meaning of the very profound, very venerable, and very pure Tipiṭaka, only such meanings should be revealed as are purely in accordance with the Pāḷi tradition, the Aṭṭhakathā tradition, and the traditions of the ancient Theras. Or, if there is any worldly text related to grammatical analysis that is helpful for the explanation of meaning, only that should be revealed as appropriate. But not the unhelpful names of various texts and logicians, nor their many statements. Nor should it be said, because these are not revealed, "The Aṭṭhakathā Master did not know them." For if he were to bring in and reveal every worldly text he knew, even if unhelpful, into his Aṭṭhakathā, it would become excessively long, impure, and not respected by the wise of the Dispensation. Thus, it should be understood that the Master did not expound the doctrines of Patañjali and others in detail. On the contrary, those texts from which the Master brought forth and revealed something or other, and other similar texts, should be understood by the wise as having been known by the Master, just as by seeing a part of the ocean, one knows the entire ocean. This is understood. But the teacher, wherever there were words related to the Vedas, there he brought something from the Vedic texts and explained it. Thus, in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya, the teacher said: “‘Of the three Vedas’ means of the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, and Sāmaveda.” And, “‘Having the Itihāsa as the fifth’ means, making the Atharvaṇa Veda the fourth, those for whom the Itihāsa, which is a collection of ancient stories connected with such phrases as ‘thus it was, thus it was,’ is the fifth—these are ‘itihāsapañcamā,’ of those Vedas having the Itihāsa as the fifth.” And, “‘Yiṭṭha’ is called a great sacrifice.” And, “‘Aggihoma’ is offering into the fire, saying, ‘when offered with such wood, this occurs.’ Dabbihoma and others are also aggihomas, but they are mentioned separately in the sense that ‘when offered with such a ladle, with such grains, this occurs.’” And, “Placing mustard seeds and the like into the fire with the mouth, or offering while muttering a spell, is ‘mukhahoma.’” In this way, words related to the Vedas were explained in accordance with the Vedic texts. These might have been stated as a language translation from the ancient commentaries, but for one not skilled in Vedic texts, it is not easy to make an accurate language translation. Therefore, the teacher’s skill in Vedic texts is also evident. Thus, it should be understood that the non-elaboration of these by one so skilled in Vedic texts and other worldly texts is due to the reason stated above. Moreover, the teacher himself, at the beginning of his work, said: “And having abandoned only the change of language, and having condensed the extensive path, and having left nothing of the decision… …because this will be an explanation.” And, “Having removed from there the delightful Sinhalese language…” laughter; Having removed faults, and made it suitable for the lineage of the Teaching. Without delaying the time, of the elders, the lamps of the lineage of elders; of those with very skillful discernment, who dwell in the Great Monastery; I shall explain the meaning, having abandoned the meaning that has repeatedly come up. And thus, having made the promise, "I shall make new commentaries, distinguishing them by way of merely changing the language and abbreviating the ancient commentaries," he did exactly as he promised. It should be understood that he did not distinguish them by the power of his own knowledge. Therefore, the statement that "Buddhaghosa did not fully know Patañjali's views, etc.," regarding the non-extensive explanation of Patañjali's views, etc., in the commentaries, is merely an accusation against the teacher. Consideration of Poetic Literature 4. Again, he said this: "Although Buddhaghosa does not appear to be skilled in the great poetic literatures known as the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, he nevertheless showed them. How? 'Akkhāna' (narrative) refers to the battle of Bhārata, etc. It is not proper even to go to the place where it is narrated." And, "Its (frivolous talk's) two components are: the precedence of meaningless stories like the Bhārata war and the abduction of Sītā, and the telling of such stories." Thus he showed. But that is even more groundless than the previous statement, merely a matter of disrespect. For what purpose would there be in extensively explaining poetic literature, which is a collection of meaningless frivolous talk, in the explanation of the meaning of the Tipiṭaka, which has a very profound meaning and is to be highly esteemed? On the contrary, that itself would be disrespected and disregarded by the wise. Slandering the Quality of Erudition 5. Again, Dhammānanda, wishing to slander the quality of the teacher's erudition, said this: "His (Buddhaghosa's) erudition, known as 'skilled in other systems,' is not superior to that of modern Sinhalese monks who are skilled in other texts." or of the monks Anuruddha, Dhammapāla and others, who were South Indians, born in the eleventh century CE (1001-1100). But that is in every way an improper statement. For if modern or Sinhala monks, or ancient teachers like Theras Anuruddha and Dhammapāla, were equal to or superior to Acariya Buddhaghosa in terms of their knowledge of different traditions, they would, being dissatisfied with Acariya Buddhaghosa Thera's commentaries, make new commentaries that were more beautiful and more complete than his. But they do not do so. Not only do they not do so, but not one of them says, "I am equal to or superior to Buddhaghosa in terms of knowledge." Rather, they explain and support the Acariya's commentaries, and hold him in the position of a teacher. Therefore, it is known that this is in every way an improper statement. Consideration of the Mahāyāna Doctrine 6. Again, not content with that, disparaging the Acariya, he says this: "Buddhaghosa, I think, does not know the doctrine or even the name of Asvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, who were the principal teachers of the Mahāyāna school." But that is merely an extremely unrighteous and meaningless criticism. For it cannot be said that he does not know the doctrines of other schools just because he does not reveal them in his own commentaries. Did not the Acariya, at the very beginning of the books in the commentaries on the Āgamas, say: "Not violating the tradition, of the Elders, the lamps of the lineage of Elders, who made very subtle decisions,