English
^ With respect to the extent to which the Atthasalini itself has been quoted in the following pages, it may be judged that the scholastic teaching of eight centuries later is a very fallacious guide in the interpretation of original doctrines, and that we should but darken counsel ^ I may add that a Tika, or sub-commentary on the Atthasalini, written by a Siamese scholar, Nanakitti, of unknown date, was edited in Sinhalese characters by Kocla- goda Pannasekhara of Kalutara, in Ceylon, and published there in 1890. XXV if we sought light on Aristotle from mediaeval exegesis of the age of Duns Scotus. Without admitting that the course of Buddhist and that of Western culture coincide sufficiently to warrant such a parallel, it may readily be granted that Buddhaghosa must not be accepted en bloc. The distance between the con- structive genius of Gotama and his apostles as compared with the succeeding ages of epigoni needs no depreciatory criticism on the labours of the exegesists to make itself felt forcibly enough. Buddhaghosa's philology is doubtless crude, and he is apt to leave cruces unexplained, concern- ing which an Occidental is most in the dark.^ Nevertheless, to me his work is not only highly suggestive, but also a mine of historic interest. To put it aside is to lose the historical perspective of the course of Buddhist philosophy. It is to regard the age of Gotama and of his early Church as consti- tuting a wondrous ' freak ' in the evolution of human ideas, instead of watching to see how the philosophical tradition implanted in that Church (itself based on earlier culture) had in the lapse of centuries been carefully handed down by the schools of Theras, the while the folklore that did duty for natural science had more or less fossilized, and the study of the conscious processes of the mind had been elaborated. This is, however, a point of view that demands a fuller examination than can here be given it. I will now only maintain that it is even more suggestive to have at hand the best tradition of the Buddhist schools at the fulness of their maturity for the understanding of a work like the Dhamma-Sangani than for the study of the Dialogues. Our manual is itself a book of reference to earlier books, and presents us with many terms and formulae taken out of that setting of occasion and of discourse enshrined in which we meet them in the Nikayas. The great scholar who comments on them had those Nikayas, both as to letter and spirit, well pigeon-holed in memory, and cherished both ^ Cf. Dr. Neumann in *Die Eeden Gotamo Buddhos,' p. XV et seq. XXVI with the most reverent loyalty. That this is so, as well as the fact that we are bred on a culture so different in mould and methods (let alone the circumstances of its develop- ment) from that inherited by him, must lend his interpreta- tions an importance and a suggestiveness far greater than that which the writings of any Christian commentator on the Greek philosophy can possess for us. IV. On the Method and Argument of the Manual. The title given to my translation is not in any way a faithful rendering of the canonical name of the Manual. This is admitted on my title-page. There is nothing very intelligible for us in the expression * Compendium of States,' or ' Compendium of Phenomena.' Whether the Buddhist might find it so or not, there is for him at all events a strong and ancient association of ideas attaching to the title Dhamma-Sangani which for us is entirely non- existent. I have therefore let go the letter, in order to indicate what appears to me the real import of the work. Namely, that it is, in the first place, a manual or text-book, and not a treatise or disquisition, elaborated and rendered attractive and edifying after the manner of most of the Sutta Pitaka. And then, that its subject is ethics, but that the inquiry is conducted from a psychological stand- point, and, indeed, is in great part an analysis of the psycho- logical and psycho-physical data of ethics. I do not mean to assert that the work was compiled solely for academic use. No such specialized function is assigned it in the Commentary. Buddhaghosa only main- tains that, together with the rest of the Abhidhamma,^ it was the ipsissima verba of the Buddha, not attempting to upset the mythical tradition that it was the special mode he adopted in teaching the doctrine to the ' hosts of devas come from all parts of the sixteen world-systems, he having ^ But including the Matika only of the later Katha Vatthu. Cf. * Dialogues of the Buddha,' p. xi ; AsL, p. 1. xxvu placed his mother (re-incarnate as a devi) at their head because of the glory of her wisdom.'^ Whether this myth had grown up to account for the formal, unpicturesque style of the Abhidhamma, on the ground that the devas were above the need of illustration and rhetoric of an earthly kind, I do not know. The Commentary fre- quently refers to the peculiar difference in style from that employed in the Suttanta as consisting in the Abhidhamma being nippariyaya-desan a — teaching which is not accompanied by explanation or disquisition. ^ And the definition it gives, at the outset, of the term Abhidhamma shows that this Pitaka, and a fortiori the Dhamma-Sangani, was considered as a subject of study more advanced than the other Pitakas, and intended to serve as the complement and crown of the learner's earlier courses.^ Acquaintance with the doctrine is, as I have said, taken for granted. The object is not so much to extend knowledge as to ensure mutual consistency in the intension of ethical notions, and to systematize and formulate the theories and practical mechanism of intellectual and moral progress scattered in profusion throughout the Suttantas.^ It is interesting to note the methods adopted to carry out this object. The work was in the first instance incul- cated by way of oral teaching respecting a quantity of matter which had been already learnt in the same way. And the memory, no longer borne along by the interest of 1 AsL, p. 1. 2 E.g., Asl. 403. The meaning of this expression is illustrated by its use on p. 317 of the Cy. : na nippari- yayena digham rupayatanam; i.e., * that which is long (or short) is only infer eMtially a visual object.' ^ AsL, p. 2. Translated by Mr. A. C. Taylor, J. K. A. S., 1894. * Professor Edmond Hardy, in his Introduction to the fifth volume of the Anguttara Nikaya, expresses the belief that the Dhamma-Sangani is 'entirely dependent upon the Anguttara.' For my part, I have found no reason to limit the manual's dependence on the Suttantas to any one book. Buddhaghosa does not specially connect the two works. XXVlll narrative or by the thread of an argument, had to be assisted by other devices. First of these is the catechetical method. Questions, according to Buddhist analysis, are put on five several grounds :^ to throw light on what is not known ; to compare what one knows with the knowledge of others ; to clear up doubts ; to get the premises in an argument granted ;2 to give a starting-point from which to set out the content of a statement. The last is selected as the special motive of the catechiz- ing here resorted to. It is literally the wish to discourse or expound (kathetu kamyata), but the meaning is more clearly brought out by the familiar formula quoted, viz. : * Four in number, brethren, are these Advances in Mindfulness. Now which are the Four?' Thus it was held that the questions in the Manual are analytic or explicative, having the object of unfolding and thereby of delimitating the implications of a mass of notions which a study of the Suttantas, if unaided, might leave insufficiently co-ordinated in the mind. And the memory, helped by the interrogative stimulus, was yet further assisted by the symmetrical form of both question and answer, as well as by the generic uniformity in the matter of the questions. Throughout Book I., in the case of each inquiry which opens up a new subject, the answer is set out on a definite plan called u d d e s a — ex- position— and is rounded off invariably by the a p p a n a, or emphatic summing up : ' all these (whatever they may stand for on other occasions or in other systems) on this occasion = ^.' The uddesa is succeeded by the nid- d e s a — de-position — i.e., analytical question and answer on the details of the expository statement. This is indicated formally by the initial adverb t a 1 1 h a — what here (in this 1 Asl. 55, 56 ; cf. Sum. 68.