English
Therefore, the views found in the Bodhisatta Piṭaka, such as the Saddhammapuṇḍarīka Sutta, should also be understood as "Vetulla-vāda." [Abhidhammasamuccaya, p. 79]. The Destruction of the Mahāvihāra But when the residents of the Mahāvihāra, as described, abandoned all monasteries and departed, the wicked monk Saṅghamitta persuaded the king. And having destroyed and uprooted from its foundations 364 monastic residences, including the Lohapāsāda, he had them brought to the Abhayagiri Vihāra. And he had the monastery land plowed and sown with other grains. Thus, at that time, the Mahāvihāra was empty of monks for nine years, and without residents. Then the king, by the words of his minister named Meghavaṇṇābhaya, who was a good friend, preceded by a warning, restored the Mahāvihāra to its former state. And he brought back those departed monks and supported them with the four requisites. [Mahāvaṃsa 37.30-31; Nikāyasaṅgaha, pp. 14-15]. The Origin of the Jetavana-vāsī Sect Again the king, to a deceitful Tissa, resident of Dakkhiṇārāma, with a crooked mind... He, pleased with the elder, began to build the Jetavana Monastery within the Mahāvihāra boundary, in the Jotavana park, for his sake. The bhikkhus residing in the Mahāvihāra, unable to prevent him, again departed from there. Then too, the Mahāvihāra was empty of bhikkhus for nine months. But the king, according to his own intention, built the Jetavana Monastery there and gave it to that deceptive elder Tissa. Bhikkhus from the Sāgaliya sect, from the Dakkhiṇagiri Monastery, came and resided there. Later, during the time of King Ambasāmaṇera Silākāla (1067-1080 BE), they became Vetullavādins [in Mahāvaṃsa 37, verses 32 onwards, and Nikāyasaṅgaha, page 15]. Thus, even before the arrival of the elder Acariya Buddhaghosa in Sri Lanka (965 BE), three sects had arisen, opposed to the pure Theravādins residing in the Mahāvihāra: the Abhayagirivāsins (455 BE), the Sāgaliyas (797-810 BE), and the Jetavanavāsins (829-845 BE). Among these, the Abhayagirivāsins alone were especially prominent and powerful. Indeed, they accepted the pure Theravāda Piṭaka, the Piṭaka of the Dhammaruci sect belonging to the Vajjiputtakas, the Piṭaka of the Mahisāsaka and other sects, and the Mahāyāna Piṭaka. Their acceptance of the Dhammaruci sect's Piṭaka is well-known. Their acceptance of the Mahisāsaka and other sects' Piṭaka should be understood from the travelogue of the Chinese bhikkhu named Fāxian, and from the names of the rejected Vaṇṇapiṭaka and others in the commentaries; similarly, their acceptance of the Mahāyāna Piṭaka. Fāxian's Travelogue Indeed, the Chinese bhikkhu named Fāxian stated in his travelogue that in 956 BE, he brought with him to China the Mahisāsaka Vinaya Piṭaka, the Dīghāgama, the Saṃyuttāgama, and the Sannipāta Piṭaka, translated into Sanskrit from Sri Lanka. And all of this he obtained from the Abhayagiri Monastery itself. because the residents of the Great Monastery did not accept and include those texts. And the commentaries rejected the Vaṇṇapiṭaka and other texts, which would have been there, but were not accepted by the residents of the Great Monastery. Similarly, the Chinese monk also stated: "When Faxian resided in Sri Lanka (954-956 BE), three thousand monks lived in the Great Monastery. They studied only the Theravāda Piṭaka, not the Mahāyāna Piṭaka. Five thousand monks lived in the Abhayagiri Monastery. They, however, studied both Piṭakas, the Mahāyāna Piṭaka and the Theravāda Piṭaka." Since the residents of Abhayagiri also studied the Mahāyāna Piṭaka, the texts composed by Asaṅgha and Nāgārjuna, who were the principal teachers of the Mahāyānists in that monastery, would have been present there. Therefore, Aṭṭhakathācariya Buddhaghosa Thera and other learned Theras of the Great Monastery at that time would have known their doctrines and names. Moreover, in the Guntūr district, near the sea in South India, there is a place called Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, where Nāgārjuna, the principal teacher of the Mahāyānists, resided and established the Buddha's dispensation. And there is evidence of Aṭṭhakathācariya Buddhaghosa's connection to that region, which will be revealed later (on page 33). Therefore, it can be inferred that Aṭṭhakathācariya Buddhaghosa Thera would have known the doctrines and names of Nāgārjuna and Asaṅgha. However, his not publishing their doctrines or names in his commentaries, even though he knew them, was because they belonged to other sects. Thus, among them, Asaṅgha (between 570-670 BE) was included in the Sarvāstivāda sect, one of the eleven groups that diverged from Theravāda. And Nāgārjuna was included in the Mahāyāna sect, which arose from the Mahāsaṅghika and Cetiyavāda groups, and others. The residents of the Great Monastery, from the very beginning, to avoid mixing with the doctrines of other sects, kept their Piṭaka apart. They protect with such reverence, and this Acariya Buddhaghosa is one of them. For it is said in the conclusions of his works, "by one who is an ornament to the lineage of the Mahāvihāra residents." Therefore, it should be understood that Acariya Buddhaghosa, knowing their tradition, did not reveal it in his works so as not to mix it with the tenets of other schools. Thus far, the disparaging remarks about Acariya Buddhaghosa, spoken by Dhammānanda Kosambī, which were made through examining the Mahāvaṃsa statement beginning with "a young brahmin was born near the Bodhimaṇḍa," have been investigated as baseless. Nevertheless, to prove the meaning that "Acariya Buddhaghosa was born near the Bodhimaṇḍa," no strong reason is seen apart from that Mahāvaṃsa statement. And what is said in the account of Buddhaghosa's origin, being a statement based solely on the Mahāvaṃsa, is not a strong reason. Story of his being from the Maramma country Some people from Maramma country say that Acariya Buddhaghosa went from a city named Sathu in Maramma country to the island of Sihala and composed the Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathās. Dhammānanda, having agreed to this, said: "That too is somewhat reasonable. I believe that Buddhaghosa was of Telugu origin in South India. Many people of Telugu origin go and live in Maramma country and Indochina country. Is that so? And the term 'Talhiṅa' arose from the word 'Telaṅga' there." Also, it can be taken that "Buddhaghosa, having composed the Aṭṭhakathās, went from the island of Sihala to Maramma country and lived there in the western part." For his works are better preserved in Maramma country than in Sihala country. Reason for his being from South India Many modern scholars, such as Dhammānanda, say that Acariya Buddhaghosa Thera was from South India. This is the reason here: for the most part, the Theras who composed Aṭṭhakathās and Ṭīkās were from South... He was from South India. Thus, the Elder Acariya Buddhadatta, the author of the Buddhavaṃsa Commentary, the Abhidhammāvatāra Commentary, and the Vinayavinicchaya Commentary, was born in Uraganagara, on the Tambapaṇṇī River in the Coḷa country, and was a contemporary of Acariya Buddhaghosa. The Elder Acariya Anuruddha, the author of the Paramatthavinicchaya, the Nāmarūpapariccheda, and the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, [some, however, say: one author of the Paramatthavinicchaya, and another author of the Nāmarūpapariccheda and the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, thus there were two Elder Anuruddhas] was born in Kāverinagara in the Kañcīvara country. The Elder Acariya Dhammapāla, the author of the Paramatthadīpanī, which is a commentary on the Udāna and other Pāḷis included in the Khuddakanikāya, was also born in Kañcipura in South India. It should be understood that this one too was like that. For it is said in the conclusion of the Aṅguttara Commentary, called Manorathapūraṇī: “Requested by the wise Elder Bhadanta Jotapāla, with whom I formerly dwelt in Kañcipura and other places.” Here, Kañcipura is the city now called Kañjīvara, located about forty-five miles to the south-west of the city of Madras. Similarly, in the conclusion of the Majjhima Commentary, called Papañcasūdanī, it is said: “Requested by the wise Elder Buddhamitta, with whom I formerly dwelt in Mayūradūta Paṭṭana.” Here, Mayūradūta Paṭṭana is the place now called Mylapore, near the city of Madras, as stated by those who investigate ancient traditions. By these concluding verses, it is revealed that he formerly resided in South India, and there is no indication that he formerly resided near the Bodhimaṇḍa or in the Maramma country. Therefore, it cannot be denied that Acariya Buddhaghosa was from South India. Also in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya Commentary (3, 1 3) The teacher said this: “What is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, ‘Regarding an uncircumscribed opening, there is no offense,’ meaning it was spoken concerning an opening on the ground, not on the earth, that was spoken concerning the single-roofed, inner-chambered dwellings, peculiar to the Andhaka country.” By this statement, it becomes clear that “the Andhakaṭṭhakathā was made by the elders of the Andhaka country,” and also that Acariya Buddhaghosa knew well both what was spoken in reference to the Andhakaṭṭhakathā and the nature of the inner-chambered dwellings peculiar to that region. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not from that region. Similarly, at the conclusion of this Visuddhimagga, it is said: “by the one to be called Moraṇḍakheṭaka.” Here, the word kheṭa has three meanings declared in Sanskrit dictionaries: village, dwelling of rural farmers, or small town. And in the South Indian regions, even today, a village is called kheḍa. Therefore, Moraṇḍakheṭaka means one born in the village called Moraṇḍa. Moraṇḍakheṭakavattabba means one to be called Moraṇḍakheṭaka. Taking the meaning of the phrase “by the one to be called Moraṇḍakheṭaka,” the sense should be understood as “by the elder to be called one born in the village of Moraṇḍa.