The Visuddhimagga and its Author

Sources of information about that person fall into three groups. There are firstly the scraps contained in the prologues and epilogues to the works ascribed to him. Then there is the account given in the second part of the Sri Lankan Chronicle, the Mahāvaṃsa (or Cūḷavaṃsa as the part of it is often called), written in about the 13th century, describing occurrences placed by it in the 5th century, and, lastly, the still later Buddhaghosuppatti (15^th cent.?) and other later works.

It seems still uncertain how to evaluate the old Talaing records of Burma, which may not refer to the same person (see below). India herself tells us nothing at all.

It seems worthwhile, therefore, to give a rendering here of the principal passage from the prologues and epilogues of the works ascribed to him by name; for they are few and short, and they have special authentic value as evidence. The Mahāvaṃsa account will be reproduced in full, too, since it is held to have been composed from evidence and records before its author, and to have the ring of truth behind the legends it contains. But the later works (which European scholars hold to be legendary rather than historical in what they add to the accounts already mentioned) can only be dealt with very summarily here.

The books actually ascribed to Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa have each a “postscript” identical in form with that at the end of Chapter XXIII of the present work, mentioning the title and author by name. This can be taken to have been appended, presumably contemporaneously, by the Great Monastery (the Mahāvaṃsa) at Anurādhapura in Sri Lanka as their official seal of approval. Here is a list of the works (also listed in the modern Gandhavaṃsa and Sāsanavaṃsa with one or two discrepancies):^[1]

Commentaries to the Vinaya Piṭaka

Title	Commentary to
Samantapāsādikā	Vinaya
Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī	Pātimokkha

Commentaries to the Sutta Piṭaka

Title	Commentary to
Sumaṅgalavilāsinī	Dīgha Nikāya
Papañcasūdani	Majjhima Nikāya
Sāratthappakāsinī	Saṃyutta Nikāya
Manorathapurāṇī	Aṅguttara Nikāya
Paramatthajotikā	Khuddakapāṭha

Commentary to Suttanipāta

Title	Commentary to
Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā	Dhammapada
Jātakaṭṭhakathā	Jātaka

Commentaries to the Abhidhamma Piṭaka

Title	Commentary to
Atthasālinī	Dhammasaṅgaṇī
Sammohavinodanī	Vibhaṅga
Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā	Remaining 5 books

Beyond the bare hint that he came to Sri Lanka from India his actual works tell nothing about his origins or background. He mentions “The Elder Buddhamitta with whom I formerly lived at Mayūra suttapaṭṭana” (M-a epil.),^[2] and “The well known Elder Jotipāla, with whom I once lived at Kañcipura and elsewhere” (A-a epil.).^[3] Also the “postscript” attached to the Visuddhimagga says, besides mentioning his name, that he “should be called ‘of Moraṇḍacetaka.’” ^[4] And that is all.

On coming to Sri Lanka, he went to Anurādhapura, the royal capital, and set himself to study. He seems to have lived and worked there during the whole of his stay in the island, though we do not know how long that stay lasted.

To render his own words:

“I learned three Sinhalese commentaries—the Mahā-aṭṭha-[kathā], Mahāpaccarī, Kuruṇḍī—from the famed elder known by the name of Buddhamitta, who has expert knowledge of the Vinaya. Set in the grounds of the Mahā Meghavana Park [in Anurādhapura] there is the Great Monastery graced by the [sapling from the] Master’s Enlightenment Tree. A constant supporter of the Community, trusting with unwavering faith in the Three Jewels, belonging to an illustrious family and known by the name of Mahānigamasāmi (Lord of the Great City), had an excellent work-room built there on its southern side accessible to the ever virtuously conducted Community of Bhikkhus. The building was beautifully appointed, agreeably endowed with cool shade and had a lavish water supply. The Vinaya Commentary was begun by me for the sake of the Elder Buddhasiri of pure virtuous behaviour while I was living there in Mahānigamasāmi’s building, and it is now complete. It was begun by me in the twentieth year of the reign of peace of the King Sirinivāsa (Of Glorious Life), the renowned and glorious guardian who has kept the whole of Lanka’s island free from trouble. It was finished in one year without mishap in a world beset by mishaps, so may all beings attain…” (Vin-a Epilogue).

Mostly it is assumed that he wrote and “published” his works one by one as authors do today. The assumption may not be correct. There is an unerring consistency throughout the system of explanation he adopts, and there are crossreferences between works. This suggests that while the Visuddhimagga itself may perhaps have been composed and produced first, the others as they exist now were more likely worked over contemporaneously and all more or less finished before any one of them was given out. They may well have been given out then following the order of the books in the Tipiṭaka which they explain. So in that way it may be taken that the Vinaya Commentary came next to the Visuddhimagga; then the Commentaries on the four Nikāyas (Collections of Suttas), and after them the Abhidhamma Commentaries. Though it is not said that the Vinaya Commentary was given out first of these, still the prologue and epilogue contain the most information. The four Nikāya Commentaries all have the same basic prologue; but the Saṃyutta Nikāya Commentary inserts in its prologue a stanza referring the reader to “the two previous Collections” (i.e. the Dīgha and Majjhima Nikāyas) for explanations of the names of towns and for illustrative stories, while the Aṅguttara

R. Subramaniam and S. P. Nainar, where a certain coincidence of names is mentioned that might suggest a possible identification of Moraṇḍakheṭaka (moraṇḍa being Pali for ‘peacock egg’ and khedaka Skr. for “village”—see Vism Ae ed., p. xv) with adjacent villages, 51 miles from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and 58 miles from Amarāvatī, called Kotanemalipuri and Gundlapalli (nemali and gundla being Telegu respectively for “peacock” and “egg”). However, more specific information will be needed in support before it can be accepted as an indication that the Mahāvaṃsa is wrong about his birthplace. More information about any connection between Sri Lanka and those great South Indian Buddhist centres is badly needed. Nikāya Commentary replaces this stanza with another referring to “the Dīgha and Majjhima” by name for the same purpose. The point may seem laboured and even trivial, but it is not irrelevant; for if it is assumed that these works were written and “published” in some historical order of composition, one expects to find some corresponding development of thought and perhaps discovers what one’s assumption has projected upon them. The more likely assumption, based on consideration of the actual contents, is that their form and content was settled before any one of them was given out.

Sometimes it is argued that the commentaries to the Dhammapada and the Jātaka may not be by the same author because the style is different. But that fact could be accounted for by the difference in the subject matter; for these two commentaries consist mainly of popular stories, which play only a very minor role in the other works. Besides, while this author is quite inexorably consistent throughout his works in his explanations of Dhamma, he by no means always maintains that consistency in different versions of the same story in, say, different Nikāya Commentaries (compare for instance, the version of the story of Elder Tissabhūti given in the commentary to AN 1:2.6, with that at M-a I 66; also the version of the story of the Elder Mahā Tissa in the A-a, same ref., with that at M-a I 185). Perhaps less need for strictness was felt with such story material. And there is also another possibility. It may not unreasonably be supposed that he did not work alone, without help, and that he had competent assistants. If so, he might well have delegated the drafting of the Khuddaka Nikāya commentaries—those of the Khuddakapāṭha and Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, and the Jātaka—or part of them, supervising and completing them himself, after which the official “postscript” was appended. This assumption seems not implausible and involves less difficulties than its alternatives.^[5] These secondary commentaries may well have been composed after the others.

The full early history of the Pali Tipiṭaka and its commentaries in Sinhalese is given in the Sri Lanka Chronicle, the Dīpavaṃsa, and Mahāvaṃsa, and also in the introduction to the Vinaya Commentary.

In the prologue to each of the four Nikāya Commentaries it is conveniently summarized by Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa himself as follows:

“[I shall now take] the commentary, whose object is to clarify the meaning of the subtle and most excellent Long Collection (Dīgha Nikāya) … set forth in detail by the Buddha and by his like [i.e. the Elder Sāriputta and other expounders of discourses in the Sutta Piṭaka]—the commentary that in the beginning was chanted [at the First Council] and later re-chanted [at the Second and Third], and was brought to the Sīhala Island (Sri Lanka) by the Arahant Mahinda the Great and rendered into the Sīhala tongue for the benefit of the islanders—and from that commentary I shall remove the Sīhala tongue, replacing it by the graceful language that conforms with Scripture and is purified and free from flaws. Not diverging from the standpoint of the elders residing in the Great Monastery [in Anurādhapura], who illumine the elders’ heritage and are all well versed in exposition, and rejecting subject matter needlessly repeated, I shall make the meaning clear for the purpose of bringing contentment to good people and contributing to the long endurance of the Dhamma.”

There are references in these works to “the Ancients” (porāṇā) or “Former Teachers” (pubbācariyā) as well as to a number of Sinhalese commentaries additional to the three referred to in the quotation given earlier. The fact is plain enough that a complete body of commentary had been built up during the nine centuries or so that separate Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa from the Buddha. A good proportion of it dated no doubt from the actual time of the Buddha himself, and this core had been added to in India (probably in Pali), and later by learned elders in Sri Lanka (in Sinhalese) as references to their pronouncements show (e.g. XII.105 and 117).

This body of material—one may guess that its volume was enormous—Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa set himself to edit and render into Pali (the Tipiṭaka itself had been left in the original Pali). For this he had approval and express invitation (see, e.g., the epilogue to the present work, which the Elder Saṅghapāla invited him to compose). Modern critics have reproached him with lack of originality: but if we are to judge by his declared aims, originality, or to use his own phrase “advertising his own standpoint” (XVII.25), seems likely to have been one of the things he would have wished to avoid.

He says, for instance, “I shall expound the comforting Path of Purification, pure in expositions, relying on the teaching of the dwellers in the Great Monastery” (I.4; see also epilogue), and again “Now, as to the entire trustworthiness (samantapāsādikatta) of this Samantapāsādika: the wise see nothing untrustworthy here when they look—in the chain of teachers, in the citations of circumstance, instance and category [in each case], in the avoidance of others’ standpoints, in the purity of [our] own standpoint, in the correctness of details, in the word-meanings, in the order of construing the text, in the exposition of the training precepts, in the use of classification by the analytical method—which is why this detailed commentary on the Vinaya … is called Samantapāsādika (Vin-a epilogue).

And then:

“The commentary on the Pātimokkha, which I began at the request of the Elder Soṇa for the purpose of removing doubts in those uncertain of the Vinaya, and which covers the whole Sinhalese commentarial system based upon the arrangement adopted by the dwellers in the Great Monastery, is finished. The whole essence of the commentary and the entire meaning of the text has been extracted and there is no sentence here that might conflict with the text or with the commentaries of the dwellers in the Great Monastery or those of the Ancients” (Pātimokkha Commentary epilogue).

Such examples could be multiplied (see especially also XVII.25).

There is only one instance in the Visuddhimagga where he openly advances an opinion of his own, with the words “our preference here is this” (XIII.123). He does so once in the Majjhima Nikāya Commentary, too, saying “the point is not dealt with by the Ancients, but this is my opinion” (M-a I 28). The rarity of such instances and the caution expressed in them imply that he himself was disinclined to speculate and felt the need to point the fact out when he did. He actually says “one’s own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas” (D-a 567–68). So it is likely that he regarded what we should call original thinking as the province of the Buddha, and his own task as the fortification of that thought by coordinating the explanations of it. However, not every detail that he edited can claim direct support in the Suttas.

The following considerations lend some support to the assumptions just made. It has been pointed out^[6] that in describing in the Vinaya Commentary how the tradition had been “maintained up to the present day by the chain of teachers and pupils” (Vin-a 61–62) the list of teachers’ names that follows contains names only traceable down to about the middle of the 2^nd century CE, but not later. Again, there appear in his works numbers of illustrative stories, all of which are set either in India or Sri Lanka. However, no single one of them can be pointed to as contemporary. Stories about India in every case where a date can be assigned are not later than Asoka (3^rd cent. BCE). Many stories about Sri Lanka cannot be dated, but of those that can none seems later than the 2^nd century CE. This suggests that the material which he had before him to edit and translate had been already completed and fixed more than two centuries earlier in Sri Lanka, and that the words “present day” were not used by him to refer to his own time, but were already in the material he was coordinating. This final fixing, if it is a fact, might have been the aftermath of the decision taken in Sri Lanka in the first century BCE to commit the Pali Tipiṭaka to writing.

Something now needs to be said about the relation of the Visuddhimagga to the other books. This author’s work is characterized by relentless accuracy, consistency, and fluency of erudition, and much dominated by formalism. Not only is this formalism evident in the elaborate pattern of the Visuddhimagga but also that work’s relationship to the others is governed by it. The Visuddhimagga itself extracts from the Tipiṭaka all the central doctrines that pivot upon the Four Noble Truths, presenting them as a coherent systematic whole by way of quotation and explanation interspersed with treatises on subjects of more or less relative importance, all being welded into an intricate edifice. The work can thus stand alone. But the aim of the commentaries to the four main Nikāyas or Collections of Suttas is to explain the subject matter of individual discourses and, as well, certain topics and special doctrines not dealt with in the Visuddhimagga (many passages commenting on identical material in the Suttas in different Nikāyas are reproduced verbatim in each commentary, and elsewhere, e.g., MN 10, cf. DN 22, Satipaṭṭhāna Vibhaṅga, etc., etc., and respective commentaries). But these commentaries always refer the reader to the Visuddhimagga for explanations of the central doctrines. And though the Vinaya and Abhidhamma (commentaries are less closely bound to the Visuddhimagga, still they too either refer the reader to it or reproduce large blocks of it.

The author himself says:

“The treatises on virtue and on the ascetic’s rules, all the meditation subjects, the details of the attainments of the jhānas, together with the directions for each temperament, all the various kinds of direct-knowledge, the exposition of the definition of understanding, the aggregates, elements, bases, and faculties, the Four Noble Truths, the explanation of the structure of conditions (dependent origination), and lastly the development of insight, by methods that are purified and sure and not divergent from Scripture—since these things have already been quite clearly stated in the Visuddhimagga I shall no more dwell upon them here; for the Visuddhimagga stands between and in the midst of all four Collections (Nikāyas) and will clarify the meaning of such things stated therein. It was made in that way: take it therefore along with this same commentary and know the meaning of the Long Collection (Dīgha Nikāya)” (prologue to the four Nikāyas).

This is all that can, without unsafe inferences, be gleaned of Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa himself from his own works (but see below). Now, there is the Mahāvaṃsa account. The composition of the second part (often called Cūḷavaṃsa) of that historical poem is attributed to an Elder Dhammakitti, who lived in or about the thirteenth century. Here is a translation of the relevant passage:

“There was a Brahman student who was born near the site of the Enlightenment Tree. He was acquainted with the arts and accomplishments of the sciences and was qualified in the Vedas. He was well versed in what he knew and unhesitant over any phrase. Being interested in doctrines, he wandered over Jambudīpa (India) engaging in disputation.

“He came to a certain monastery, and there in the night he recited Pātañjali’s system with each phrase complete and well rounded. The senior elder there, Revata by name, recognized, ‘This is a being of great understanding who ought to be tamed.’ He said, ‘Who is that braying the ass’s bray?’ The other asked, ‘What, then, do you know the meaning of the ass’s bray?’ The elder answered, ‘I know it,’ and he then not only expounded it himself, but explained each statement in the proper way and also pointed out contradictions. The other then urged him, ‘Now expound your own doctrine,’ and the elder repeated a text from the Abhidhamma, but the visitor could not solve its meaning. He asked, ‘Whose system is this?’ and the elder replied, ‘It is the Enlightened One’s system.’ ‘Give it to me,’ he said, but the elder answered, ‘You will have to take the going forth into homelessness.’ So he took the going forth, since he was interested in the system, and he learned the three Piṭakas, after which he believed, ‘This is the only way’ (M I 55). Because his speech (ghosa) was profound (voice was deep) like that of the Enlightened One (Buddha) they called him Buddhaghosa, so that like the Enlightened One he might be voiced over the surface of the earth.

“He prepared a treatise there called Ñāṇodaya, and then the Atthasālinī, a commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī. Next he began work on a commentary to the Paritta.^[7] When the Elder Revata saw that, he said, ‘Here only the text has been preserved. There is no commentary here, and likewise no Teachers’ Doctrine; for that has been allowed to go to pieces and is no longer known. However, a Sinhalese commentary still exists, which is pure. It was rendered into the Sinhalese tongue by the learned Mahinda with proper regard for the way of commenting that was handed down by the three Councils as taught by the Enlightened One and inculcated by Sāriputta and others. Go there, and after you have learnt it translate it into the language of the Magadhans. That will bring benefit to the whole world.’ As soon as this was said, he made up his mind to set out.

“He came from there to this island in the reign of this king (Mahānāma). He came to the (Great Monastery, the monastery of all true men. There he stayed in a large workroom, and he learnt the whole Sinhalese Commentary of the Elders’ Doctrine (theravāda) under Saṅghapāla.^[8] He decided, ‘This alone is the intention of the Dhamma’s Lord.’ So he assembled the Community there and asked, ‘Give me all the books to make a commentary.’ Then in order to test him the Community gave him two stanzas, saying ‘Show your ability with these; when we have seen that you have it, we will give you all the books.’ On that text alone he summarized the three Piṭakas together with the Commentary as an epitome, which was named the Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). Then, in the precincts of the (sapling of the) Enlightenment Tree (in Anurādhapura), he assembled the Community expert in the Fully Enlightened One’s system, and he began to read it out. In order to demonstrate his skill to the multitude deities hid the book, and he was obliged to prepare it a second time, and again a third time. When the book was brought for the third time to be read out, the gods replaced the other two copies with it. Then the bhikkhus read out the three copies together, and it was found that there was no difference between the three in either the chapters or the meaning or the order of the material or the phrases and syllables of the Theravāda texts. With that the Community applauded in high delight and again and again it was said, ‘Surely this is (the Bodhisatta) Metteyya.’ “They gave him the books of the three Piṭakas together with the Commentary. Then, while staying undisturbed in the Library Monastery, he translated the Sinhalese Commentary into the Magadhan language, the root-speech of all, by which he brought benefit to beings of all tongues. The teachers of the Elders’ Tradition accepted it as equal in authority with the texts themselves. Then, when the tasks to be done were finished, he went back to Jambudīpa to pay homage to the Great Enlightenment Tree.

“And when Mahānāma had enjoyed twenty-two years’ reign upon earth and had performed a variety of meritorious works, he passed on according to his deeds”—(Mhv XXXVII.215–47).

King Mahānāma is identified with the “King Sirinivāsa” and the “King Sirikuḍḍa” mentioned respectively in the epilogues to the Vinaya and Dhammapada Commentaries. There is no trace, and no other mention anywhere, of the Ñāṇodaya. The Atthasālinī described as composed in India could not be the version extant today, which cites the Sri Lankan Commentaries and refers to the Visuddhimagga; it will have been revised later.

The prologues and epilogues of this author’s works are the only instances in which we can be sure that he is speaking of his own experience and not only simply editing; and while they point only to his residence in South India, they neither confute nor confirm the Mahāvaṃsa statement than he was born in Magadha (see note 8). The Sri Lankan Chronicles survived the historical criticism to which they were subjected in the last hundred years. The independent evidence that could be brought to bear supported them, and Western scholars ended by pronouncing them reliable in essentials. The account just quoted is considered to be based on historical fact even if it contains legendary matter.

It is not possible to make use of the body of Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa’s works to test the Mahāvaṃsa’s claim that he was a learned Brahman from central India, and so on. It has been shown already how the presumption is always, where the contrary is not explicitly stated, that he is editing and translating material placed before him rather than displaying his own private knowledge, experience and opinions. And so it would be a critical mistake to use any such passage in his work for assessing his personal traits; for in them it is, pretty certainly, not him we are dealing with at all but people who lived three or more centuries earlier. Those passages probably tell us merely that he was a scrupulously accurate and conscientious editor. His geographical descriptions are translations, not eyewitness accounts. Then such a sutta passage as that commented on in Chapter I, 86–97 of the present work, which is a part of a sutta used by bhikkhus for daily reflection on the four requisites of the life of a bhikkhu, is certain to have been fully commented on from the earliest times, so that it would be just such a critical mistake to infer from this comment anything about his abilities as an original commentator, or anything else of a personal nature about him or his own past experience.^[9] And again, the controversial subject of the origin of the Brahman caste (see M-a II 418) must have been fully explained from the Buddhist standpoint from the very start. If then that account disagrees with Brahmanical lore—and it would be odd, all things considered, if it did not—there is no justification for concluding on those grounds that the author of the Visuddhimagga was not of Brahman origin and that the Mahāvaṃsa is wrong. What does indeed seem improbable is that the authorities of the Great Monastery, resolutely committed to oppose unorthodoxy, would have given him a free hand to “correct” their traditions to accord with Brahmanical texts or with other alien sources, even if he had so wished. Again, the fact that there are allusions to extraneous, non-Buddhist literature (e.g. VII.58; XVI.4 n.2; XVI.85, etc.) hardly affects this issue because they too can have been already in the material he was editing or supplied to him by the elders with whom he was working. What might repay careful study are perhaps those things, such as certain Mahayana teachings and names, as well as much Brahmanical philosophy, which he ignores though he must have known about them. This ignoring cannot safely be ascribed to ignorance unless we are sure it was not dictated by policy; and we are not sure at all. His silences (in contrast to the author of the Paramatthamañjūsā) are sometimes notable in this respect.

The “popular novel” called Buddhaghosuppatti, which was composed in Burma by an elder called Mahāmaṅgala, perhaps as early as the 15th century, is less dependable. But a survey without some account of it would be incomplete. So here is a précis:

Near the Bodhi Tree at Gayā there was a town called Ghosa. Its ruler had a Brahman chaplain called Kesi married to a wife called Kesinī. An elder bhikkhu, who was a friend of Kesi, used to wonder, when the Buddha’s teaching was recited in Sinhalese, and people did not therefore understand it, who would be able to translate it into Magadhan (Pāḷi). He saw that there was the son of a deity living in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, whose name was Ghosa and who was capable of doing it. This deity was persuaded to be reborn in the human world as the son of the Brahman Kesi. He learnt the Vedas. One day he sat down in a place sacred to Vishnu and ate peas. Brahmans angrily rebuked him, but he uttered a stanza, “The pea itself is Vishnu; who is there called Vishnu? And how shall I know which is Vishnu?” and no one could answer him. Then one day while Kesi was instructing the town’s ruler in the Vedas a certain passage puzzled him, but Ghosa wrote down the explanations on a palm leaf, which was found later by his father—(Chapter I).

Once when the elder bhikkhu was invited to Kesi’s house for a meal Ghosa’s mat was given to him to sit on. Ghosa was furious and abused the elder. Then he asked him if he knew the Vedas and any other system. The elder gave a recitation from the Vedas. Then Ghosa asked him for his own system, whereupon the elder expounded the first triad of the Abhidhamma schedule, on profitable, unprofitable, and indeterminate thought-arisings. Ghosa asked whose the system was. He was told that it was the Buddha’s and that it could only be learnt after becoming a bhikkhu. He accordingly went forth into homelessness as a bhikkhu, and in one month he learned the three Piṭakas. After receiving the full admission he acquired the four discriminations. The name given to him was Buddhaghosa—(Chapter II).

One day the question arose in his mind: “Who has more understanding of the Buddha-word, I or my preceptor?” His preceptor, whose cankers were exhausted, read the thought in his mind and rebuked him, telling him to ask his forgiveness. The pupil was then very afraid, and after asking for forgiveness, he was told that in order to make amends he must go to Sri Lanka and translate the Buddha-word (sic) from Sinhalese into Magadhan. He agreed, but asked that he might first be allowed to convert his father from the Brahman religion to the Buddha’s teaching. In order to achieve this he had a brick apartment fitted with locks and furnished with food and water. He set a contrivance so that when his father went inside he was trapped. He then preached to his father on the virtues of the Buddha, and on the pains of hell resulting from wrong belief. After three days his father was converted, and he took the Three Refuges. The son then opened the door and made opened the door and made amends to his father with flowers and such things for the offence done to him. Kesi became a stream-enterer—(Chapter III).

This done, he set sail in a ship for Sri Lanka. The Mahāthera Buddhadatta^[10] had set sail that day from Sri Lanka for India. The two ships met by the intervention of Sakka Ruler of Gods.

When the two elders saw each other, the Elder Buddhaghosa told the other:

“The Buddha’s Dispensation has been put into Sinhalese; I shall go and translate it and put it into Magadhan.”

The other said,

“I was sent to go and translate the Buddha-word and write it in Magadhan. I have only done the Jinālaṅkāra, the Dantavaṃsa, the Dhātuvaṃsa and the Bodhivaṃsa, not the commentaries and the sub-commentaries (ṭīkā). If you, sir, are translating the Dispensation from Sinhalese into Magadhan, do the commentaries to the Three Piṭakas.”

Then praising the Elder Buddhaghosa, he gave him the gall-nut, the iron stylus, and the stone given him by Sakka Ruler of Gods, adding,

“If you have eye trouble or backache, rub the gall-nut on the stone and wet the place that hurts; then your ailment will vanish.”

Then he recited a stanza from his Jinālaṅkāra. The other said,

“Venerable sir, your book is written in very ornate style. Future clansmen will not be able to follow its meaning. It is hard for simple people to understand it.”

—“Friend Buddhaghosa, I went to Sri Lanka before you to work on the Blessed One’s Dispensation. But I have little time before me and shall not live long. So I cannot do it. Do it therefore yourself, and do it well.”

Then the two ships separated. Soon after they had completed their voyages the Elder Buddhadatta died and was reborn in the Tusita heaven—(Chapter IV).

The Elder Buddhaghosa stayed near the port of Dvijaṭhāna in Sri Lanka. While there he saw one woman water-carrier accidentally break another’s jar, which led to a violent quarrel between them with foul abuse. Knowing that he might be called as a witness, he wrote down what they said in a book. When the case came before the king, the elder was cited as a witness. He sent his notebook, which decided the case. The king then asked to see him—(Chapter V).

After this the elder went to pay homage to the Saṅgharāja,^[11] the senior elder of Sri Lanka. One day while the senior elder was teaching bhikkhus he came upon a difficult point of Abhidhamma that he could not explain. The Elder Buddhaghosa knew its meaning and wrote it on a board after the senior elder had left. Next day it was discovered and then the senior elder suggested that he should teach the Order of Bhikkhus.

The reply was:

“I have come to translate the Buddha’s Dispensation into Magadhan.”

The senior elder told him,

“If so, then construe the Three Piṭakas upon the text beginning, ‘When a wise man, established well in virtue…’”

He began the work that day, the stars being favourable, and wrote very quickly. When finished, he put it aside and went to sleep. Meanwhile Sakka, Ruler of Gods, abstracted the book. The elder awoke, and missing it, he wrote another copy very fast by lamplight then he put it aside and slept. Sakka abstracted that too. The elder awoke, and not seeing his book, he wrote a third copy very fast by lamplight and wrapped it in his robe. Then he slept again. While he was asleep Sakka put the other two books beside him, and when he awoke he found all three copies. He took them to the senior elder and told him what had happened. When they were read over there was no difference even in a single letter. Thereupon the senior elder gave permission for the translating of the Buddha’s Dispensation. From then on the elder was known to the people of Sri Lanka by the name of Buddhaghosa—(Chapter VI).

He was given apartments in the Brazen Palace, of whose seven floors he occupied the lowest. He observed the ascetic practices and was expert in all the scriptures. It was during his stay there that he translated the Buddha’s Dispensation. When on his alms round he saw fallen palm leaves he would pick them up; this was a duty undertaken by him. One day a man who had climbed a palm tree saw him. He left some palm leaves on the ground, watched him pick them up, and then followed him. Afterwards he brought him a gift of food. The elder concluded his writing of the Dispensation in three months. When the rainy season was over and he had completed the Pavāraṇā ceremony, he consigned the books to the senior elder, the Saṅgharāja. Then the Elder Buddhaghosa had the books written by Elder Mahinda piled up and burnt near the Great Shrine; the pile was as high as seven elephants. Now that this work was done, and wanting to see his parents, he took his leave before going back to India. Before he left, however, his knowledge of Sanskrit was queried by bhikkhus; but he silenced this by delivering a sermon in the language by the Great Shrine. Then he departed—(Chapter VIII).

On his return he went to his preceptor and cleared himself of his penance. His parents too forgave him his offences;and when they died they were reborn in the Tusita heaven. He himself, knowing that he would not live much longer, paid homage to his preceptor and went to the Great Enlightenment Tree.

Foreseeing his approaching death, he considered thus:

“There are three kinds of death: death as cutting off, momentary death, and conventional death. Death as cutting off belongs to those whose cankers are exhausted (and are Arahants). Momentary death is that of each consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with life-continuum consciousness, which arise each immediately on the cessation of the one preceding. Conventional death is that of all (so-called) living beings.^[12] Mine will be conventional death.”

After his death he was reborn in the Tusita heaven in a golden mansion seven leagues broad surrounded with divine nymphs. When the Bodhisatta Metteyya comes to this human world, he will be his disciple. After his cremation his relics were deposited near the Enlightenment Tree and shrines erected over them—(Chapter VIII).

It has already been remarked that the general opinion of European scholars is that where this imaginative tale differs from, or adds to, the Mahāvaṃsa’s account it is in legend rather than history.

Finally there is the question of the Talaing Chronicles of Burma, which mention an elder named Buddhaghosa, of brahman stock, who went from Thatōn (the (the ancient Buddhist stronghold in the Rāmaññadesa of Burma) to Sri Lanka (perhaps via India) to translate the Buddha-word into Talaing and bring it back. It is hard to evaluate this tradition on the evidence available; but according to the opinion of the more reliable Western scholars another elder of the same name is involved here.^[13]

What can be said of the Visuddhimagga’s author without venturing into unfounded speculation is now exhausted, at least in so far as the restricted scope of this introduction permits. The facts are tantalizingly few. Indeed this, like many scenes in Indian history, has something of the enigmatic transparencies and uncommunicative shadows of a moonlit landscape—at the same time inescapable and ungraspable.

Some answer has, however, been furnished to the two questions: why did he come to Sri Lanka? And why did his work become famous beyond its shores? Trends such as have been outlined, working not quite parallel on the Theravāda of India and Sri Lanka, had evolved a situation favouring a rehabilitation of Pali, and consequently the question was already one of interest not only to Sri Lanka, where the old material was preserved. Again the author possessed outstandingly just those personal qualities most fitted to the need—accuracy, an indefatigable mental orderliness, and insight able to crystallize the vast, unwieldy, accumulated exegesis of the Tipiṭaka into a coherent workable whole with a dignified vigorous style, respect for authenticity and dislike of speculation, and (in the circumstances not at all paradoxically) preference for self-effacement. The impetus given by him to Pali scholarship left an indelible mark on the centuries that followed, enabling it to survive from then on the Sanskrit siege as well as the continuing schism and the political difficulties and disasters that harassed Sri Lanka before the “Second Renascence.” A long epoch of culture stems from him. His successors in the Great Monastery tradition continued to write in various centres in South India till the 12^th century or so, while his own works spread to Burma and beyond. Today in Sri Lanka and South East Asia his authority is as weighty as it ever was and his name is venerated as before.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The Gandhavaṃsa also gives the Apadāna Commentary as by him.

[2]:

Other readings are: Mayūrarūpaṭṭana, Mayūradūtapaṭṭana. Identified with Mylapore near Chennai (J.O.R., Madras, Vol. XIX, p. 281).

[3]:

Identified with Conjevaram near Chennai: PLC, p. 113. Ācariya Ānanda, author of the sub-commentary to the Abhidhamma Pitaka (Mūla Ṭīkā), also lived there, perhaps any time after the middle of the 5th century. The Elder Dhammapāla sometimes refers to the old Sinhalese commentaries as if they were still available to him.

[4]:

Other readings are: Moraṇḍakheṭaka, Mudantakhedaka, Muraṇḍakheṭaka, etc.; not yet identified. Refers more probably to his birthplace than to his place of pabbajjā. See also J.O.R., Madras, Vol. XIX, p. 282, article “Buddhaghosa—His Place of Birth” by

[5]:

A definite statement that the Dhp-a was written later by someone else can hardly avoid the inference that the “postscript” was a fraud, or at least misleading.

[6]:

Adikaram, Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon, pp. 3 and 86.

[7]:

Paritta or “protection”: a name for certain suttas recited for that purpose. See M-a IV 114. xxxviii

[8]:

See Vism epilogue.

[9]:

For instance, Prof. Kosambi, in his preface to the Visuddhimagga, Harvard ed., overlooks these considerations when he says:

“More positive evidence (that he was not a North-Indian Brahman) is in the passage ’Uṇhassa ti aggisantāpassa. Tassa vanadāhādisu sambhavo veditabbo’ (I.86).’Heat: the heat of fire, such as occurs at the time of forest fires, etc.’”

This is a comment upon protection against heat given by a cīvara. His explanation is obviously ridiculous:

“It is not known to Indian southerners that a bare skin is sure to be sunburnt in the northern summer” (p. xii).

And Professor Kosambi has not only overlooked the fact that it is almost certainly translated material that he is criticizing as original composition, but he appears not to have even read the whole passage. The sutta sentence (M I 10) commented on in the Visuddhimagga (I.86-87) contains two words uṇha and ātapa. If, before condemning the explanation as “ridiculous,” he had read on, he would have found, a line or two below, the words Ātapo ti suriyātapo (“‘Burning’ is burning of the sun”—I.87). xl

[10]:

The allusion is to the author of various Pali works including the Abhidhammāvatāra;see n. 4.

[11]:

Saṅgharāja (“Ruler of the Community”—a title existing in Thailand today): possibly a mistake for Saṅghapāla here (see Vis. epil.).

[12]:

A learned allusion to VIII.1.

[13]:

Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion, article “Buddhaghosa” by T. W. Rhys Davids. Note also that another elder of the same name invited the writing of the Sammohavinodanī. The problem is discussed at some length by Prof. Niharranjan Ray, Theravada Buddhism in Burma, pp. 24ff.