English
” Now, in the South Indian region, in the Guntur district, there are two places, Kotanemalipurī and Gundalapallī, which are about fifty-one miles from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and fifty-eight miles from Amaravatī. Many ancient Buddhist relics have been seen there. And nemalī is the Telugu word for peacock, and gundalu for egg. Therefore, these two places are taken by researchers of ancient sites to be the birthplace of Acariya Buddhaghosa, formerly called Moraṇḍakheṭa. However, since this phrase “moraṇḍakheṭakavattabbenā” is not suitable according to the Pāli idiom, like the phrase “moraṇḍagāmajātenā,” and it stands together with many other qualifying words after the word to be qualified. is not established, and it is not seen in the commentaries on the Agamas, etc. Therefore, it seems to have been inserted by someone at that time who knew the teacher's birthplace. Among these three statements: "Acariya Buddhaghosa was born near Bodhimaṇḍa," "he was from Myanmar," and "he was from South India," the last one is the most authoritative, as it is based on the teacher's own words. Therefore, relying on that, the origin of Acariya Buddhaghosa Thera should be understood thus: The Origin of Acariya Buddhaghosa Thera Acariya Buddhaghosa was born in the tenth century of the Buddha's era (901-1000 CE) in the village of Moraṇḍa in South India, into a Brahmin family. Having mastered the three Vedas and all the texts on knowledge and crafts, he heard the Dhamma of the Buddha's dispensation. Desiring to learn it as well, he took ordination and higher ordination from the bhikkhus led by Revata Thera, who were residents of the Mahavihara, in a Theravadin monastery in that same South India. He then learned the Pāli of the Three Piṭakas. While learning the Pāli of the Three Piṭakas in this way, he realized, "This is the one-way path to the purity of insight and the realization of Nibbana." His teachers and preceptors, knowing his possession of distinguished wisdom and power, and foreseeing, "His fame will spread in the Buddha's dispensation like the Buddha's own voice," named him "Buddhaghosa." As it is said, "named Buddhaghosa by his teachers." Having thus learned the Pāli of the Three Piṭakas, he resided in Mayūradūta Paṭṭana, a place near the city of Madarasa, and in Kañcipura and other places. He became acquainted with the Andhaka commentaries, but being dissatisfied with them, he desired to become acquainted with the Sinhala commentaries as well. Wishing to translate them into Pāli and renew them, he went to the island of Sinhala. At that time, a king named Mahānāma was ruling in Sinhala. This king was devoted to the residents of Abhayagiri and especially favored them. One time But if modern scholars thus say: "The arrival of Acariya Buddhaghosa in Sri Lanka must have been before the time of King Sirimeghavaṇṇa (846 BE)." And this is their reason: In the ninth year of that king (855 BE), the Buddha's Tooth Relic was brought to Sri Lanka from the Kalinga country. From then on, the kings of Sri Lanka annually perform a great festival of relic worship. And if Acariya Buddhaghosa had come to Sri Lanka after that, he would have seen that beautiful great festival and mentioned it in his works, just as the Chinese monk named Fa-Hien, during the time of King Mahānāma (953-975 BE), saw it and mentioned it in his travelogue. But no mention of it is seen in the Acariya's works. Therefore, it is known that "Acariya Buddhaghosa came to Sri Lanka and composed the commentaries before the time of the arrival of the Tooth Relic (855 BE)." But that is not a strong reason. For in the explanation of the meaning of the Tipiṭaka Pāḷi, whatever one has personally seen is not to be mentioned. Nor is an explanation of meaning like a travelogue. Furthermore, in the Vinaya commentary Samantapāsādikā, something is brought and mentioned from the Dīpavaṃsa. And in the Dīpavaṃsa, events up to the time of King Mahāsena (819-845 BE) are mentioned. Therefore, the Dīpavaṃsa would not have been written before the time of King Sirimeghavaṇṇa (845-873 BE). And if the commentaries had been made before that, how could the Dīpavaṃsa be mentioned therein? But Acariya Buddhaghosa, when he arrived in Sri Lanka (965 BE), went to the Mahāvihāra itself and there heard the Sinhala commentaries from the Sinhala Mahātheras. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā – The Great Commentary, And also the Mahāpaccari, And the Kurundi – these three Are the Sinhala commentaries. Having heard from the wise one, Known by the name Buddhamitta, Renowned and glorious, A master of Vinaya, having heard... in the presence of the elders. But by this statement of the commentary, the fact of having heard only three commentaries, the Great Commentary and others, is shown. But in the Samantapāsādikā, the decision regarding the Saṅkhepa and Andhaka commentaries is indeed shown. Why then were they not heard by the teacher in the presence of the Sinhala elders? Indeed, among them, the Andhaka commentary, for its part, was not heard because of its nature as belonging to the Andhaka country, and because of its being well-known— this meaning is indeed clear. But the Saṅkhepa commentary should be understood as not having been heard, because of its being merely an abridgement of the Mahāpaccari commentary. Thus indeed, in the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā, in the explanation of the beginning of the work, the fact of the Cūḷapaccari commentary and the Andhaka commentary being included by the word "etc." is stated. But in the Sāratthadīpanī and Vimativinodanī Ṭīkās, the fact of the Andhaka and Saṅkhepa commentaries being included is stated. And in the Samantapāsādikā, the name "Cūḷapaccarī" is nowhere to be seen. Only these names are seen: Mahāaṭṭhakathā, Mahāpaccarī, Kurundī, Andhaka, Saṅkhepa commentaries. And in many places, by "it is stated in the Saṅkhepa commentary and also in the Mahāpaccari commentary," and so on, a similar decision for both is shown. Therefore, the commentary called Cūḷapaccarī in the Vajirabuddhi, having been extracted from the Mahāpaccari, might be a commentary made in brief. And because it was made in brief, it might have become known as the Saṅkhepa commentary. And this being the case, with the Mahāpaccari having been heard, that too is indeed heard, so it should be understood that it was not heard by the teacher. Thus, while listening to the Sinhala commentaries, of Acariya Buddhaghosa, both the state of being endowed with the special power of sharp, profound, swift knowledge, and the state of being endowed with a collection of qualities such as supremely pure faith, wisdom, energy, adorned conduct, uprightness, gentleness, and so on, and grasping his own doctrine and other doctrines Knowing his being endowed with wisdom and skill capable of penetrating the impenetrable, and his being well-versed in various methods of exposition approved by different teachers, at the time when that listening task was completed, the elders, Sanghapāla and others, individually requested him to compose the Visuddhimagga and other texts. And here, the teacher's being endowed with the aforementioned qualities is evident from his own words. For it is said in the conclusions of his own works – ‘‘Adorned with supremely pure faith, wisdom, and energy, possessing a collection of qualities such as virtue, good conduct, uprightness, and gentleness, capable of penetrating the depths of his own tradition and other traditions, endowed with wisdom and skill,’’ and so on. There, by the phrase 'capable of penetrating the depths of his own tradition and other traditions,' it is shown that the Elder Acariya Buddhaghosa is skilled in his own tradition, which is the method of teaching of the pure Theravādins of the Mahāvihāra, and in the traditions of others, which are other sects, ending with the Mahāyānikas, starting with the Mahāsaṅghikas, in the method of their Pitaka texts. And likewise, he is skilled in the traditions of other ascetics and brahmins of that time, such as the three Vedas. It shows that he is capable of penetrating even the difficult places of those traditions, his own and others', which are hard to penetrate and hard to understand. By the phrase 'endowed with wisdom and skill,' it should be understood that it shows the Elder Acariya Buddhaghosa is capable of both abridging and restoring the ancient commentaries. The Reason for the Request But why did they request him? It is said: For the residents of the Mahāvihāra, right from the beginning, the three Pitakas, as they were recited in Pāli language in the three councils, and as they were committed to books during the time of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇī (455-467 BE), they learn and recite only that ancient Pāli Pitaka, not the Pitaka committed to Sanskrit. And the commentaries were made more than three hundred years ago. For in the commentaries, after the time of King Vasabha (609-653 BE), the accounts of the Sinhalese elders and others are not seen, except for m the story of King Ajātasattu [Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.236-237], even up to the time of Acariya Buddhaghosa, those ancient commentaries existed, they were not made new. Therefore, regarding those Pitakas, most people were not desirous of becoming familiar with them, they were not enthusiastic. And they could not spread their Pitaka in other islands, because the commentaries were composed in the island's language. But the residents of Abhayagiri, from the time of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi onwards, studied and taught the Pitaka of the Dhammaruci sect, which was rendered into Sanskrit, and also the Mahayana Pitaka, always new and new. Therefore, regarding their Pitakas, most people were desirous of becoming familiar with them, they were enthusiastic, for beings always like what is new. From that, they were able to spread their doctrine even in other islands. Therefore, it should be understood that the elders residing in the Mahavihara, desiring to compose their Sinhala commentaries in the Pali language,