Jiabs: Association of Buddhist Studies
Jiabs: Association of Buddhist Studies
Jiabs: Association of Buddhist Studies
Brandon Dotson
The Remains of the Dharma: Editing, Rejecting, and
Replacing the Buddha’s Words in Officially Commissioned
Sūtras from Dunhuang, 820s to 840s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Seong-Uk Kim
The Zen Theory of Language: Linji Yixuan’s Teaching of
“Three Statements, Three Mysteries, and Three Essentials”
(sanju sanxuan sanyao 三句三玄三要) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Conference
Authors and Editors in the Literary Traditions of Asian Buddhism
Guest editors
Cathy Cantwell, Jowita Kramer, Robert Mayer,
and Stefano Zacchetti
Martin Seeger
‘The (Dis)appearance of an Author:’ Some Observations
and Reflections on Authorship in Modern Thai Buddhism . . . . .499
Péter-Dániel Szántó
Early Works and Persons Related to the So-called
Jñānapāda School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .537
1
It should be noted, however, that some of the Kharoṣṭhī fragments, which
surfaced during the last two decades are in part even older than this date.
Therefore, it seems that the Theravāda Tipiṭaka was not the first to be com-
mitted to writing, if the date given in Dīp and Mhv is taken at face value.
2
Besides the London thesis of 1945 prepared under the supervision of
William Stede (1882–1852) by E. W. Adikaram ([1946] 1953) there are Mori
1989 (a bibliography of Mori’s writing is found in: Buddhist and Indian
Studies in Honour of Professor Sodo Mori 2002, pp. XV–XXII) and Endo
2008 as well as 2012 (with a pertinent bibliography of Endo).
3
For details see v. Hinüber 1998: 51, § II.1.2.1.3.
4
The scanty and mostly fairly late material is collected in Finot 1921 and
Buddhadatta 1944, besides the (unfortunately) better known Law [1923] 1946.
The person of Buddhaghosa is discussed only in passing by Heim (2014).
5
The name of the place is spelled Moraṇḍakheṭaka in the Burmese and
Moraṇḍaceṭaka in the Sinhalese tradition.
6
The 16th century manuscripts of the Visuddhimagga preserved at Vat Lai
Hin both have °vattabbena (v. Hinüber 2013: nos. 131, 132). The discussion
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 355
almost all editions (PTS, Ne, Be, Se, HOS) needs correction. The
obvious emendation for °-vattabbena is °-vatthabbena correspond-
ing to Sanskrit °-vāstavyena, a wording very familiar particularly
from inscriptions. And indeed, the Simon Hewavitarne Bequest
Series (SHB) edition of the Visuddhimagga does preserve (or re-
stored) the correct reading: “a citizen of Moraṇḍaceṭa.”
Although Buddhaghosa is almost completely silent on himself,
he is not so, luckily, on his work. In the introductory verses to his
commentaries he gives an outline of his plans to explain the true
meaning of the Tipiṭaka.
The overall strategy is to create a systematic survey of the ortho
dox teachings not contradicting the interpretation of the learned
monks of the Mahāvihāra:
samayaṃ avilomento therānaṃ theravaṃsadīpānaṃ
Mahāvihārādhivāsīnaṃ, Sv 1,21f.*, verse 9
Not contradicting the understanding of the luminaries of the lineage
of Elders, those residing in the Mahāvihāra.
How does Buddhaghosa want to achieve this? Two points are of im-
portance. He does not, in his own understanding, act out of his own
personal initiative. For, as he states in the nigamanas, he was urged
by various monks to compose commentaries on the four nikāyas:
The Thera Dāṭhānāga of the Sumaṅgalapariveṇa asked Buddha
ghosa to write the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī on the Dīghanikāya, and this
explains the title of this commentary:
āyācito Sumaṅgalapariveṇavāsinā thiragūṇena 7
Dāṭhānāgena saṃghatherena theriyavaṃsena 8
9
Similar compounds occur very rarely in late Theravāda texts, e.g.,
10
A vague memory of these rather intensive connections of Buddhaghosa
to South India seems to have been alive in Ceylon and might be mirrored
in the Buddhaghosa chapter in Dhammakitti’s extension of the Mahāvaṃsa
(Cūḷavaṃsa) XXXVII 215–246 in the 12th century.
11
Sometimes sumatinā is changed to subbatinā (Ce 1922; Ce [SHB] su(ma)-
tinā) to save the metre; read sūmatinā rather (?), cf. °-gūṇena note 7. Reading
therena instead of ṭhitena would make sense and would supply the missing
short syllable, but would also violate the rhythm of the sixth pāda. – The
modern Nidāna to the Visuddhimagga found in the Dhammagiri edition
(CD-ROM 4.0) emphasizes explicitly that Jīvaka was an upāsaka (jīvakenāpi
upāsakena, Vism p. 49).
358 Oskar von Hinüber
12
On Kāñcīpuram as a centre of Buddhist scholarship see Bhattacharya
[1995] 2000.
13
Cf. HPL § 230, 227.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 359
14
Tsukamoto 1996: II. Amar(āvatī) 69: saṃyutakabhanakānaṃ; on later
bhāṇakas cf. also v. Hinüber 2004: 135 ff. Moreover, the discussion of differ-
ent divisions of the Tipiṭaka etc. mentioned below may point to a still living,
perhaps fading bhāṇaka tradition at the time of Buddhaghosa.
15
Language is a long standing issue with the Buddhists starting from the
famous and much debated expression sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanam pari-
yāpuṇitum, Vin II 139,15 (summed up and continued by Ruegg 2000, cf.
Schopen quoted below, surfacing again in the rules concerning a monk leav-
ing the Saṃgha (an ariya not understanding a milakkhuka and vice versa,
Vin III 27,35) or in the discussion of different janapadaniruttis “vernaculars”
using different words for the same object (MN III 234,30–235,17) and still
continuing in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya as shown by Schopen 2009 [2013]
(with some references to sakāya niruttiyā in note 19).
16
Kieffer-Pülz 1993.
17
Indeed, references to India, particularly to the south, are easily found
in the Samantapāsādikā and the nikāya commentaries such as, e.g., the ex-
ample referring to the Vindhya mountains: agāmake araññe ti agāmakaṃ
nāma araññaṃ Viñjhāṭavi-ādisu; Sp 655,11 or tatthāyaṃ upamā: yathā hi
desabhāsākusalo tiṇṇaṃ vedānaṃ atthasaṃvaṇṇanako ācariyo ye damiḷa
bhāsāya vutte atthaṃ jānanti, tesaṃ damiḷabhāsāya ācikkhati. ye andhaka-
bhāsādīsu aññatarāya tesaṃ tāya bhāsāya, Ps I 137,33–138,2 etc., which is
an early reference to Telugu, cf. also v. Hinüber 1977.
360 Oskar von Hinüber
18
Vin I 6,23; cf. CPD s.v. ajjhesana; BHSD s.v. adhyeṣaṇa. The word used
by Buddhaghosa is āyācita.
19
The presence of a Mahīśāsaka monk in Ceylon at the time is not at all
surprising: Faxian acquired a copy of the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya in 410/1 during
his stay on the island (de Jong 1981).
20
Only very few traces of the original old aṭṭhakathā survive, which were
discovered by H. Smith (1950: 177–223, particularly p. 184, § 5). Unnecessary
doubts concerning the translation of the old aṭṭhakathā are raised by Pind
(1992: 138).
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 361
21
On the terminology used to designate different forms of commentaries
see v. Hinüber 2007.
22
The Sanskrit Sandhi°-magga esa, m.c., is remarkable.
23
The definition of a bahussuta at Samantapāsādikā 788,26–790,9 still
shows clear traces of the bhāṇaka tradition, cf. v. Hinüber 1989; cf. also Spk III
38,30–39,2 or samaṇā nāma ekanikāyādivasena bahussutā, Mp III 25,12 and
dīghamajhimapaṃcamātukadesakavācaka … dīghamajhimanikāyadhara,
Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, Tsukamoto 1996, II Nag 14,9 with 6,11 (= Vogel 1929–1930
[1933]: 19 ff. with p. 17).
362 Oskar von Hinüber
24
Cf. HPL § 255.
25
Hayashi 1999.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 363
26
Tin 1920: 2 with note 5; Nyānaponika 2005: 4.
364 Oskar von Hinüber
HPL § 241.
27
29
The method by which this comparison could be worked out is outlined in
HPL § 239–243.
30
The cross references do not give any clue to the chronology of the com-
position of the commentaries (Adikaram [1946] 1953: 4).
31
The only reference to the use of slips, which are called pattrikā in
Sanskrit, traced so far is Jayaratha’s (13th century) commentary on Ruyyaka’s
Alaṃkārasarvasva (Dvivedī 1939: 86, 137). Jayaratha surmises that readers
confused slips with texts excerpted from Ruyyaka’s work, which resulted
in a faulty text (Jacobi [1908] 1969: 165). A second reference to the use of
slips is perhaps found in the Kṣudrakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya
(Schopen [1997] 2004: 402).
366 Oskar von Hinüber
32
Unfortunately, it is not possible to draw much benefit from Endo 2002.
33
There are, e.g., only 46 pāṭhas noted for the Dīghanikāya in the
Sumaṅgalavilāsinī.
E mantvā! At the same time this is one of the frequent variations -ā : -aṃ.
34 e
35
This hesitation is also found in South Indian Buddhist Prakrit, cf.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 367
sense. The remarks by An (2003: 69 f.) are slightly beside the point: “Madam
(bhoti) Ambapālī” is inconsistent with p. 69, note 6, because je is an address
of inferiors and kiñ ce “what if” does not fit the context of the suttanta. On
the use of je as an address see v. Hinüber 1994: 8 f.
37
The text of the Pāyāsisuttanta has gāmapaddhanaṃ with the variants in
manuscripts gāma-: Sd °-paṇḍanaṃ, St °-paccanaṃ, Bm °-paṭṭaṃ, K °-pajjaṃ;
Be reads gāmapaṭṭaṃ (with the variants gāmapattaṃ, Ce; gāmapajjaṃ, Se).
There are other corruptions in the parallel passages in this suttanta.
368 Oskar von Hinüber
This meaning is not recognized in either the PED or the NPED, but
39
cf. Rhys Davids & Oldenberg 1882: 1 note 1 “parish, not village;” for the
Vedic evidence see Rau 1957: 51, § 36; for Pāli, e.g., gāmo corehi vuṭṭhāsi
… gāmo dvedhā bhijjittha … yena bahutarā tena gantuṃ, Vin I 149,18–22
“Because of robbers the group moved … the group split into two … to go,
where the majority is;” or yo pi sattho atirekacatumāsaniviṭṭho so pi gāmo
“a caravan that has settled down for more than four months is also called a
village.” Both instances show that the Vedic meaning and the knowledge of
a moving gāma just persisted in some old wordings found in the Theravāda
canon.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 369
40
A similar case is the explanation giñjaka, see below, and v. Hinüber 2015.
41
Cf. BHSD s.v.
370 Oskar von Hinüber
42
v. Hinüber 2001: § 122.
While vaṅkaghasta prevails, there is only kālaghasa.
43
sees a huge heap of wood or a big fire and takes this at the starting
point of a discourse (SN IV 179,5–181,23; AN IV 127).
The division of a suttanta into paragraphs as it were, is achieved
by recurring to the four anusandhis. These are explained in two
commentaries, in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī and in the Papañcasūdanī
on the Dīgha- and Majjhimanikāya respectively (Sv 122,21–123,22
≠ Ps I 175,25–176, 8) by adducing different examples in both com-
mentaries.
There are three types of anusandhis “connections” or “develop-
ments,” which run parallel to the suttanikkhepas, but mark a turn-
ing point or some progress in a discourse.
This may be achieved by a question, and, consequently, there is a
pucchānusandhi. The only example for this anusandhi is again taken
from the Dārukkhandhūpama in the Saṃyuttanikāya (SN IV 179,5
ff.), where the Buddha talks about orima tīra, pārima tīra etc. and
a monk asks: What does this mean orima tīra etc.? 47 Interestingly,
in his very long commentary on the Dārukkhandhūpama itself,
Buddhaghosa does not come back to the pucchānusandhi, but ex-
plains that the Buddha knew from the very beginning that there
was somebody who was anusandhikusala “well-versed in anu
sandhis,” and, would, therefore put a question at the right point
(Spk III 40,23).
If there is the second anusandhi, the ajjhāsaya-anusandhi, the
discourse develops, because the Buddha notices the right disposition
of a monk as in the corresponding suttanikkhepa and asks “what do
you think monks … ?” thus developing his talk. This anusandhi is
demonstrated by an inexact quotation from Mahāpuṇṇamasuttanta
of the Majjhimanikāya (MN III 19,15 ff.), and again there is no
reference to an anusandhi in the corresponding commentary (Ps
IV 79).
The third and last anusandhi concerns the natural development
from one topic to the next and is called yathānusandhi.
47
In the commentary Nanda the cow-herd (gopālaka, Sv 122,24) asks the
Buddha, which does not concur with aññataro bhikkhu, SN IV 180,4 which
is, as the content of the suttanta shows, correct, cf. SN IV 181,5.
374 Oskar von Hinüber
48
Following Nance (2012: 117 f.), cf. Smith 1949: § 5.3.2.1.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 375
49
Their number is given as 3900 (Ps I 2,27) for the 153 (Ee 152 [!], Ps I
2,17) suttantas of the Majjhimanikāya or no less than an average of 25.49
(25.65) anusandhis in each individual suttanta. However, not too much con-
fidence should be put into this figure, because the length of the text of the
376 Oskar von Hinüber
HPL § 239. This topic involving an investigation into the structure of the
52
old and new aṭṭhakathās cannot be discussed in detail here, cf., however,
HPL § 243.
378 Oskar von Hinüber
53
MN no. 108 Gopakamoggallāna-s, cf. suttantas MN nos. 84 Madhura-s,
94 Ghoṭamukha-s, 124 Bakkula-s.
54
tatiyasaṅgītikārā pi imaṃ padaṃ ṭhapayiṃsu, Sv 615,13 “this sentence
was inserted by the members of the third council.”
55
gāthāyo pana Tambapaṇṇittherehi vuttā, Sv 615,17 “The verses, however,
were spoken by Elders in Ceylon.”
56
Cundassa bhattaṃ …, DN II 128,6*–12* : imā pana dhammasaṅgāha
katherehi ṭhapitā gāthā ti veditabbā, Sv 568,30 f. and: gantvāna buddho …,
DN II 135,3*–16* : imā pi gāthā saṅgītikāle yeva ṭhapitā, Sv 571,17.
57
Cf. the explanation of Senānigama quoted above.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 379
58
The Līnatthappakāsinī includes also the commentary on the
Jātakatthavaṇṇanā.
59
HPL § 85.
60
E.g., the length of the Udāna as 8,5 bhāṇavāras (aḍḍhanavamattā, Ud-a
4,28; Ee w.r. addhunā[!]navamattā) or 67.382 akkharas (68.000) or 2100
ślokas (recte 2125), which is approximately correct.
380 Oskar von Hinüber
pade saṅgītā, Ud-a 3,27 f. As Bernhard (1968: 881) has demonstrated (with-
out, however, referring to Dhammapāla’s much earlier observation) the
Udānavarga originally was a close parallel to the Pāli Udāna and developed
only gradually into a Dhammapada text.
Building the Theravāda Commentaries 381
sometimes “thus have I heard” and so on, sometimes “at that time”
and so on, sometimes they used verses as an introduction, sometimes
they abstained altogether from inserting an introduction, and divided
dhamma and vinaya by means of paragraphs and so on. In this way
they recited this collection (iha, i.e. the Itivuttaka) by establishing
“this was said” as the introduction.
The reason given by Dhammapāla, why the redactors active during
the first council were able and permitted to shape the text was their
unusual status of anubuddhas, as learned monks still very near to
the Buddha himself. This authority could never be reached again
by any later monk.
Even these few observations demonstrate that both commen-
tators reflected on their work and on the texts they were dealing
with in many, often almost modern ways, and that they did have a
critical approach to the texts they were explaining in an encyclo-
paedic manner including grammar and lexicon as well as dogmatic
matters and even ecclesiastic law, at times embracing history and
stories as well. It will be possible only after a detailed study of
the manifold aspects of Buddhaghosa’s and Dhammapāla’s work
to investigate how all this interrelates to the commentaries of other
Buddhist schools.
Appendix
General Abbreviations
The system of abbreviations is based on Smith 1948, supplemented by the
Consolidated List of Abbreviations in CPD III: XV–XXVIII, and v. Hinüber
1996: 250–257.
BHSD Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. See Edgerton 1970.
CDIAL Comparative Dictionary of Indo-Aryan Languages.
See Turner 1966.
CPD Critical Pāli Dictionary. See Trenckner et al. 1924–2011.
HPL A Handbook of Pāli Literature. See von Hinüber 1996.
NPED New Pāli-English Dictionary. See Cone 2010.
PED Pali-English Dictionary. See Rhys Davids & Stede 1959.
SHB Simon Hewavitarne Bequest Series
Bibliography
Adikaram, E. W. [1946] 1953. Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon. Colombo:
Gunasena.
An, Yang-Gyu 2003. The Buddha’s Last Days. Buddhaghosa’s Commentary
on the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta. Oxford: Pali Text Society.
Bapat, P. V. and A. Hirakawa, trans. 1970. Shan-chien-p’i-p’o-sha; A Chinese
version by Saṅghabhadra of Samantapāsādikā, Commentary on Pali
Vinaya. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Bernhard, Franz 1968. Zum Titel des sogenannten “Udānavarga.” In Wolfgang
Voigt, Hg., XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in
Würzburg: Vorträge. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 872–881. (Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplementa I.3.)
Bhattacharya, Gouriswar [1995] 2000. Kānchī Monks at Kukkuṭapāda-
giri-vihāra. In G. Bhattacharya, ed., Essays in Buddhist, Hindu, Jain
Icongraphy & Epigraphy. Dhakka: The International Centre for Study of
Bengal Art, 91–95.
Bloch, Jules 1951. Trois notes. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient
44: 43–50. [= Recueil d’Articles de Jules Bloch 1906–1955. Textes ras-
semblés par Colette Caillat. Paris: Collège de France, Institut de civili-
sation indienne (Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Série
in-8°, Fascicule 52), 1985, 401–408.]
384 Oskar von Hinüber
––– 1989. Der Beginn der Schrift und frühe Schriftlichkeit in Indien. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. (Akademie der Wissenschaften
und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissen-
schaftlichen Klasse, Jg. 1989, Nr. 11.)
––– 1994. Untersuchungen zur Mündlichkeit früher mittelindischer Texte
der Buddhisten. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (Akademie der Wissen
schaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozial-
wissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jg. 1994, Nr. 5.)
––– 1995. The Nigamanas of the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī and the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī.
Journal of the Pāli Text Society 21: 129–133. [= Kleine Schriften.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009, 62–66.]
––– 1996. A Handbook of Pāli Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter. (Indian
Philology and South Asian Studies 2.)
––– 1998. Entstehung und Aufbau der Jātaka-Sammlung. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag. (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz,
Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse Jg. 1998,
Nr. 7.)
––– 2001. Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. 2., erweiterte Auflage.
Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
(Sitzungsberichte, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 467. Band.)
––– 2004. Die Palola Ṣāhis. Ihre Steininschriften, Inschriften auf Bronzen,
Handschriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber. Mainz: von Zabern. (Antiqui
ties of Northern Pakistan 5.)
––– 2007. Buddhistische Kommentare aus dem alten Indien. Die Erklärung
des Theravāda-Kanons. In Peter Walter and Michael Quisinsky, Hgg.,
Kommentarkulturen. Die Auslegung zentraler Texte der Weltreligionen.
Ein vergleichender Überblick. Cologne et al.: Böhlau, 99–115. (Menschen
und Kulturen. Beihefte zum Saeculum 3.)
––– 2013. Die Pali-Handschriften des Klosters Lai Hin bei Lampang in Nord-
Thailand. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. (Veröffentlichungen der Indologischen
Kommission, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz 2.)
––– 2015. The verb *addhabhavati as an artificial formation. Journal of the
Pali Text Society 31: (in press).
Hinüber, Oskar von and Peter Skilling. 2013. Two Inscriptions from Deorkothar
(Dist. Rewa, Madhya Pradesh). Annual Report of The International
Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the
Academic Year 2012 (ARIRIAB) 16: 13–26.
Jacobi, Hermann [1908] 1969. Ruyyakas Alaṃkārasarvasva. In H. Jacobi,
Kleine Schriften zur indischen Poetik und Ästhetik. Darmstadt: Wissen
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 162–209.
Jong, Jan Willem de 1981. Fa-hsien and Buddhist Texts in Ceylon. Journal of
the Pali Text Society 9: 105–115.
386 Oskar von Hinüber