365bet娱乐

The whole of this argument, however, rested on the supposition that Buddhaghosa鈥檚 date in the beginning of the fifth century A. D. was beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. 'His age,' I had ventured to say in the Preface to Buddhaghosha鈥檚 Parables (1870), 'can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India. ' But soon after, one of our most celebrated 笔腻濒颈 scholars, the great Russian traveller, Professor Joh. Minayeff, expressed in the M茅langes Asiatiques (13/25 April, 1871) the gravest doubts as to Buddhaghosa鈥檚 age, and thus threw the whole Buddhist chronology, so far as it had then been accepted by all, or nearly all scholars, back into chaos. He gave as his chief reason that Buddhaghosa was not, as I supposed, the contemporary of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, the

[1. A note is added, stating that several portions of the other two divisions also of the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补 were translated into the Sinhalese language, and that these alone are consulted by the priests, who are unacquainted with 笔腻濒颈. On the other hand, it is stated that the Sinhalese text of the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 exists no longer. See Spence Hardy, Legends, p. xxv, and p. 69. ]

p. xv author of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, but of another 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, the king of Ceylon.

Professor Minayeff is undoubtedly right in this, but I am not aware that I, or anybody else, had ever questioned so palpable a fact. There are two 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补s; one, the king who reigned from 410-432 A. D. ; the other, the supposed author of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, the uncle and protector of King 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, 459-477. '顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补,' I had written, 'was the nephew of the historian 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, and owed the throne to the protection of his uncle. 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补 was in fact the restorer of a national dynasty, and after having defeated the foreign usurpers (the Damilo dynasty) "he restored the religion which had been set aside by the foreigners"' (惭补丑腻v. p. 256). Among his many pious acts it is particularly mentioned that he gave a thousand, and ordered the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 to be promulgated. As 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补 was the uncle of 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, who reigned from 459-477, he may be considered as a trustworthy witness with regard to events that occurred between 410 and 432. Now the literary activity of Buddhaghosa in Ceylon falls in that period^[1]. '

These facts being admitted, it is surely not too great a stretch of probability to suppose, as I did, that a man whose nephew was king in 459-477, might have been alive in 410-432, that is to say, might have been a contemporary of Buddhaghosa. I did not commit myself to any further theories. The question whether 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, the uncle of 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, was really the author of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, the question whether he wrote the second half of the 37th chapter of that work, or broke off his chronicle in the middle of that chapter, I did not discuss, having no new materials to bring forward beyond those on which Turnour and those who followed him had founded their conclusions, and which I had discussed in my History of Sanskrit Literature (1859), p. 267. All I said was, 'It is difficult to determine whether the 38th as well as the (whole of the) 37th chapter came from the pen of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, for

[1. 'Ungef盲hr 50 Jahre 盲lter als 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补 ist Buddhaghosha,' see Westergaard, 脺ber Buddha鈥檚 Todesjahr, p. 99. ]

p. xvi the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 was afterwards continued by different writers, even to the middle of the last century. But, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is most probable that 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补 carried on the history to his own time, to the death of 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, 477 A. D. '

What I meant by 'all the circumstances of the case' might easily be understood by any one who had read Turnour鈥檚 Preface to the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补. Turnour himself thought at first that 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补鈥檚 share in the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 ended with the year 301 A. D. , and that the rest of the work, called the Sulu Wans茅, was composed by subsequent writers^[1]. Dharmakirti is mentioned by name as having continued the work to the reign of Pr膩krama 叠腻丑耻 (A. D. 1266). But Turnour afterwards changed his mind^[2]. Considering that the account of 惭补丑腻蝉别苍补鈥檚 reign, the first of the Seven Kings, terminates in the middle of a chapter, at verse 48, while the whole chapter is called the Sattar膩jiko, 'the chapter of the Seven Kings,' he naturally supposed that the whole of that chapter, extending to the end of the reign of his nephew 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, might be the work of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, unless there were any strong proofs to the contrary. Such proofs, beyond the tradition of writers of the MSS. , have not, as yet, been adduced^[3].

But even if it could be proved that 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补鈥檚 own pen did not go beyond the 48th verse of the 37th chapter, the historical trustworthiness of the concluding portion of that chapter, containing the account of Buddhaghosa鈥檚 literary activity, nay, even of the 38th chapter, would be little affected thereby. We know that both the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 and the somewhat earlier 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 were founded on the Sinhalese 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻s, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the 惭补丑腻惫颈丑腻谤补 at 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补. We also know that that 痴颈丑腻谤补 was demolished by 惭补丑腻蝉别苍补, and deserted by nearly all its inmates for the space of nine years (p. 235), and again for the space of nine months

[1. Introduction, p. ii. The 颁奴濒补惫补峁僺补 is mentioned with the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, both as the works of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of 笔腻濒颈 MSS.

2. Introduction, p. xci.

3. See Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1875, p. 196. ]

p. xvii (p. 237). We can well understand therefore why the older history, the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, should end with the death of 惭补丑腻蝉别苍补 (died 302 A. D. ), and why in the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补鈥檚 life, the 惭补丑腻惫颈丑腻谤补 at 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补 was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, whether it be a general name of any 'chronicle of the island,' or of our 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, or, it may be, even of our 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, was ordered to be published or promulgated (d墨petum) under 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, the nephew and proteg茅 of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补 during 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补鈥檚 reign, and probably under the personal auspices of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the 惭补丑腻惫颈丑腻谤补 and the reign of 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 into the language of Magadha, we may well suppose that they rest on the authority of native chronicles, written not long after the events, and that therefore, 'under all the circumstances of the case,' the age of Buddhaghosa can be fixed with greater accuracy than most dates in the literary history of India.

There is one difficulty still remaining with regard to the date of the historian 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补 which might have perplexed Turnour鈥檚 mind, and has certainly proved a stumbling-block to myself. Turnour thought that the author of the commentary on the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, the 痴补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉颈苍墨, was the same as the author of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, viz. 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补. The date of that commentary, however, as we know now, must be fixed much later, for it speaks of a schism which took place in the year 601 A. D. , during the reign of Agrab艒dhi (also called 顿丑腻迟腻patisso). Turnour^[1] looked

[1. Introduction, p. liii. ]

p. xviii upon that passage as a later interpolation, because he thought the evidence for the identity of the author and the commentator of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 too strong to be set aside. He trusted chiefly to a passage in the commentary, and if that passage had been correctly rendered, the conclusion which be drew from it could hardly be resisted. We read in the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 (p. 254):

'Certain members of the Moriyan dynasty, dreading the power of the (usurper) Subho, the b膩lattho, had settled in various parts of the country, concealing themselves. Among them there was a certain landed proprietor 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补, who had established himself at Nandiv膩pi. His son named 顿丑腻迟腻, who lived at the village Ambiliy膩go, had two sons, 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补 and S墨latissabodhi, of unexceptional descent. Their mother鈥檚 brother (惭补丑腻苍腻尘补), devoted to the cause of religion, continued to reside (at 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补) in his sacerdotal character, at the edifice built by the minister 顿墨驳丑补蝉补苍诲补苍补. The youth 顿丑腻迟耻蝉别苍补 became a priest in his fraternity, and on a certain day, while he was chaunting at the foot of a tree, a shower of rain fell, and a 狈腻驳补, seeing him there, encircled him in his folds, and covered him and his book with his hood. . . . Causing an image of 惭补丑腻 Mahinda to be made, and conveying it to the edifice (Ambam膩laka) in which the thera鈥檚 body had been burnt, in order that be might celebrate a great festival there, and that he might also promulgate the contents of the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补, distributing a thousand pieces, he caused it to be read aloud^[1]. '

If we compare with this extract from the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 a passage from the commentary as translated by Turnour, we can well understand how he arrived at the conclusion that it was written by the same person who wrote the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补.

Turnour translates (p. liv):

'Upon these data by me, the thera, who had, with due p. xix solemnity, been invested with the dignified title of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, resident at the 辫补谤颈惫别峁嘺 founded by the minister 顿墨驳丑补蝉补苍诲补苍补, endowed with the capacity requisite to record the narrative comprised in the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, in due order, rejecting only the dialect in which the Singhalese 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 are written, but retaining their import and following their arrangement, the history, entitled the Palapad艒ruva峁僺a (Padyapad膩nuva峁僺a), is compiled. As even in times when the despotism of the ruler of the land, and the horrors arising from the inclemencies of the seasons, and when panics of epidemics and other visitations prevailed, this work escaped all injury; and moreover, as it serves to perpetuate the fame of the Buddhas, their disciples, and the Pach茅 Buddhas of old, it is also worthy of bearing the title of 痴补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉颈苍墨. '

As the evidence of these two passages in support of the identity of the author and the commentator of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 seemed to me very startling, I requested Mr. Rhys Davids to copy for me the passage of the commentary. The passage runs as follows:

Y膩 ettavat膩 mah膩va峁僺atth膩nus膩rakusalena D墨ghasanda-sen膩patin膩 办腻谤腻辫颈迟补-mah膩辫补谤颈惫别峁嘺v膩sin膩 惭补丑腻n膩mo ti gar奴hi gahitan膩madheyyena there峁嘺 pubba-厂墨丑补濒补-bh膩sit膩ya 厂墨丑补濒补峁�峁環akath膩ya 产丑腻蝉补苍迟补谤补峁� eva vajjiya atthas膩ram eva gahetva tantinay膩nur奴pena katassa imassa Padyapad膩-nuva峁僺assa attha惫补峁囜箛补苍腻 尘补测腻 tam eva sannissitena 膩raddh膩, padesissariya-dubbu峁�峁環ibhaya-rogabhay膩di-vividha-补苍迟补谤腻测补-yuttak膩le pi anantar膩yena ni峁�峁環膩nam 耻辫补驳补迟腻, s膩 buddha-buddhas膩vaka-paccekabuddh膩d墨na峁� por膩峁嚹乶a峁� 办颈肠肠补峁� 辫耻产产补惫补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉补苍补迟辞 补测补峁� 痴补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉颈苍墨 苍腻尘腻 ti dh膩retabb膩. . . . Padyapad膩nuva峁僺a-惫补峁囜箛补苍腻 痴补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉颈苍墨 ni峁�峁環it膩.

Mr. Rhys Davids translates this:

'The commentary on this Padyapad膩nuva峁兣沘, which (latter work) was made (in the same order and arrangement, and retaining the sense, but rejecting the dialect, of the Sinhalese commentary formerly expressed in the Sinhalese tongue) by the elder who bore the name of 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, which he had p. xx received from the venerable, who resided at the 惭补丑腻辫补谤颈惫别峁嘺 built by the minister D墨ghasanda, and who was well able to conform to the sense of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补鈥�(this commentary) which was undertaken by me out of devotion to that (history), and which (though thus undertaken) at a time full of danger of various kinds鈥攕uch as the danger from disease, and the danger from drought, and the danger from the government of the province鈥攈as been safely brought to a conclusion鈥攖his (commentary), since it makes known the meaning of the history of old, the mission of the ancients, of the Buddhas, of their disciples, and of the Pacceka Buddhas, should bear the name 痴补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉颈苍墨. . . .

'End of the 痴补峁僺补迟迟丑补辫辫补办腻蝉颈苍墨, the commentary on the Padyapad膩nuva峁僺a. '

This shows clearly that Turnour made a mistake in translating this exceedingly involved, yet perfectly intelligible, passage, and that so far from proving that the author of the commentary was the same person as the author of the text^[1], it proves the very contrary. Nay, I feel bound to add, that we might now argue that as the commentator must have lived later than 601 A. D. , the fact that he too breaks off at verse 48 of chapter 37, seems to show that at his time also the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 did not extend as yet beyond that verse. But even then, the fact that with the restoration of the 惭补丑腻惫颈丑腻谤补 of 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补 an interest in historical studies revived in Ceylon, would clearly show that we may trust the date of Buddhaghosa, as fixed by the second part of the 37th chapter of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, at all events till stronger evidence is brought forward against such a date.

Now I am not aware of any such evidence^[2]. On the contrary, making allowance for a difference of some ten or twenty years, all the evidence which we can gain from other quarters tends to confirm, the date of

[1. Dr. Oldenberg informs me that the commentator quotes various readings in the text of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补.

2. The passage, quoted by Professor Minayeff from the S膩sanava峁僺a, would assign to Buddhaghosa the date of 930-543 = 387 A. D. , which can easily be reconciled with his accepted date. If he is called the contemporary of Sirip膩la, we ought to know who that Sirip膩la is. ]

p. xxi Buddhaghosa^[1]. I therefore feel no hesitation in here reprinting that story, as we find it in the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, not free from legendary ingredients, it is true, yet resting, I believe, on a sound foundation of historical fact.

'A Br膩hman youth, born in the neighbourhood of the terrace of the great Bo-tree (in Magadha), accomplished in the "惫颈箩箩腻" (knowledge) and "sippa" (art), who had achieved the knowledge of the three Vedas, and possessed great aptitude in attaining acquirements; indefatigable as a schismatic disputant, and himself a schismatic wanderer over 闯补尘产耻诲墨辫补, established himself, in the character of a disputant, in a certain vih膩ra^[2], and was in the habit of rehearsing, by night and by day with clasped hands, a discourse which he had learned, perfect in all its component parts, and sustained throughout in the same lofty strain. A certain 惭补丑腻thera, Revata, becoming acquainted with him there, and (saying to himself), "This individual is a person of profound knowledge, it will be worthy (of me) to convert him;" enquired, "Who is this who is braying like an ass?" The Br膩hman replied to him, "Thou canst define, then, the meaning conveyed in the bray of asses. " On the Thera rejoining, "I can define it;" he (the Br膩hman) exhibited the extent of the knowledge he possessed. The Thera criticised each of his propositions, and pointed out in what respect they were fallacious. He who had been thus refuted, said, "Well, then, descend to thy own creed;" and he propounded to him a passage from the Abhidhamma (of the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补). He (the Br膩hman) could not divine the signification of that passage, and enquired, "Whose manta is this?"鈥�"It is Buddha鈥檚 manta. " On his exclaiming, "Impart it to me;" the Thera replied, "Enter the sacerdotal order. " He who was desirous of acquiring the knowledge of the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补, subsequently coming to this conviction, "This is the sole road" (to salvation), became a convert to that faith. As he was as profound in his eloquence (ghosa) as Buddha himself, they conferred on him the appellation of Buddhaghosa (the

[1. See Bigandet, Life of Gaudama. pp. 351, 381.

2. On this vih膩ra, its foundation and character, see Oldenberg, Vinaya, vol. i. p. liii; Hiouen-thsang, III, p. 487 seq. ]

p. xxii voice of Buddha); and throughout the world he became as renowned as Buddha. Having there (in 闯补尘产耻诲墨辫补) composed an original work called 脩膩nodaya (Rise of Knowledge), he, at the same time, wrote the chapter called A峁�峁環as膩lin墨, on the Dhammasa峁単ani (one of the commentaries on the Abhidhamma).

'Revata Thera then observing that he was desirous of undertaking the compilation of a general commentary on the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补, thus addressed him: "The text alone of the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补 has been preserved in this land, the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 are not extant here, nor is there any version to be found of the schisms (惫腻诲补) complete. The Sinhalese 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 are genuine. They were composed in the Sinhalese language by the inspired and profoundly wise Mahinda, who had previously consulted the discourses (办补迟丑腻尘补驳驳补) of Buddha, authenticated at the three convocations, and the dissertations and arguments of 厂腻谤颈辫耻迟迟补 and others, and they are extant among the Sinhalese. Preparing for this, and studying the same, translate them according to the rules of the grammar of the 惭腻驳补诲丑补蝉. It will be an act conducive to the welfare of the whole world. "

'Having been thus advised, this eminently wise personage rejoicing therein, departed from thence, and visited this island in the reign of this monarch (i. e. 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补, 410-432). On reaching the 惭补丑腻惫颈丑腻谤补 (at 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补), he entered the 惭补丑腻padh膩n膩 hall, the most splendid of the apartments in the vih膩ra, and listened to the Sinhalese 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻, and the Thera惫腻诲补, from the beginning to the end, propounded by the Thera 厂补峁単丑补辫腻濒补; and became thoroughly convinced that they conveyed the true meaning of the doctrines of the Lord of Dhamma. Thereupon paying reverential respect to the priesthood, he thus petitioned: "I am desirous of translating the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻; give me access to all your books. " The priesthood, for the purpose of testing his qualifications, gave only two 驳腻迟丑腻蝉, saying, "Hence prove thy qualification; having satisfied ourselves on this point, we will then let thee have all our books. " From these (taking these 驳腻迟丑腻 for his text), and p. xxiii consulting the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补, together with the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻, and condensing them into an abridged form, he composed the work called the Visuddhimagga. Thereupon, having assembled the priesthood, who had acquired a thorough knowledge of the doctrines of Buddha, at the Bo-tree, he commenced to read out the work he had composed. The 诲别惫补迟腻蝉, in order that they might make his (Buddhaghosa鈥檚) gifts of wisdom celebrated among men, rendered that book invisible. He, however, for a second and third time recomposed it. When he was in the act of producing his book for the third time, for the purpose of propounding it, the 诲别惫补迟腻蝉 restored the other two copies also. The assembled priests then read out the three books simultaneously. In those three versions there was no variation whatever from the orthodox Thera惫腻诲补s in passages, in words, or in syllables. Thereupon, the priesthood rejoicing, again and again ferventIy shouted forth, saying, "Most assuredly this is Metteya (Buddha) himself," and made over to him the books in which the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补 were recorded, together with the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻. Taking up his residence in the secluded Ganth膩kara-vih膩ra (at 础苍耻谤腻诲丑补辫耻谤补), he translated, according to the grammatical rules of the 惭腻驳补诲丑补蝉, which is the root of all languages, the whole of the Sinhalese 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 (into 笔腻濒颈). This proved an achievement of the utmost consequence to all beings, whatever their language.

'All the Theras and 膧肠腻谤颈测补蝉 held this compilation in the same estimation as the text (of the 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补). Thereafter, the objects of his mission having been fulfilled, he returned to 闯补尘产耻诲墨辫补, to worship at the Bo-tree (at Uruvel膩ya, or 鲍谤耻惫颈濒惫腻, in Magadha). '

Here^[1] we have a simple account of Buddhaghosa^[2] and

[1. 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, p. 250, translated by Turnour.

2. The Burmese entertain the highest respect for Buddhaghosa. Bishop Bigandet, in his Life or Legend of Gaudama (Rangoon, 1866), writes: 'It is perhaps as well to mention here an epoch which has been, at all times, famous in the history of Budhism in Burma. I allude to the voyage which a Religious of Thaton, named Budhagosa, made to Ceylon, in the year of religion 943 = 400 A. D. The object of this voyage was to procure a copy of the scriptures. He succeeded in his undertaking. He made use of the Burmese, or rather Talaing characters, in transcribing the manuscripts, which were written with the characters of Magatha. The Burmans lay much stress upon that voyage, and always carefully note down the year it took place. In fact, it is to Budhagosa that the people living on the shores of the Gulf of Martaban owe the possession of the Budhist scriptures. From Thaton, the collection made by Budhagosa was transferred to Pagan, six hundred and fifty years after it had been imported from Ceylon. ' See ibid. p. 392. ]

p. xxiv his literary labours written by a man, himself a priest, and who may well have known Buddhaghosa during his stay in Ceylon. It is true that the statement of his writing the same book three times over without a single various reading, partakes a little of the miraculous; but we find similar legends mixed up with accounts of translations of other sacred books, and we cannot contend that writers who believed in such legends are therefore altogether unworthy to be believed as historical witnesses.

But although the date which we can assign to Buddhaghosa鈥檚 translation of the commentaries on the 笔腻濒颈 罢颈辫颈峁璦办补 proves the existence of that canon, not only for the beginning or the fifth century of our era, but likewise, though it may be, with less stringency, for the first century before our era, the time of Va峁�峁璦g膩mani, the question whether Buddhaghosa was merely a compiler and translator of old commentaries, and more particularly of the commentaries brought to Ceylon by Mahinda (241 B. C. ), or whether he added anything of his own^[1], requires to be more carefully examined. The Buddhists themselves have no difficulty on that point. They consider the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻s or commentaries as old as the canon itself. To us, such a supposition seems improbable, yet it has never been proved to be impossible. The 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 tells us that Mahinda, the son of 础艣辞办补, who had become a priest, learnt the whole of the Buddhist canon, as it then was, in three years (p. 37)^[2]; and that at the end of the Third Council he was despatched to Ceylon, in order to establish there the religion of Buddha (p. 71). The king of Ceylon, Dev膩nampiya Tissa, was converted, and Buddhism soon became the dominant

[1. He had written the 脩膩nodaya, and the A峁�峁環as膩lin墨, a commentary on the 顿丑补尘尘补-蝉补峁単补峁噄, before he went to Ceylon. Cf. 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, p. 251.

2. He learnt the five 狈颈办腻测补蝉, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma); the two 痴颈产丑补峁単补蝉 of the Vinaya, the 笔补谤颈惫腻谤补 and the Khandhaka. See 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 VII, 42. ]

p. xxv religion of the island, The 罢颈辫颈峁璦办补 and the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻, such as they had been collected or settled at the Third Council in 242 B. C. , were brought to Ceylon by Mahinda, who promulgated them orally, the 罢颈辫颈峁璦办补 in 笔腻濒颈, the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 in Sinhalese, together with an additional 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 of his own. It does not follow that Mahinda knew the whole of that enormous literature by heart, for, as he was supported by a number of priests, they may well have divided the different sections among them, following the example of 膧苍补苍诲补 and 鲍辫腻濒颈 at the First Council. The same applies to their disciples also. But the fact of their transmitting the sacred literature by oral tradition^[1] was evidently quite familiar to the author of the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补. For when he comes to describe the reign of Va峁�峁璦g膩mani (88-76 B. C. ) he simply says: 'The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the 笔腻濒颈 笔颈峁璦办补迟迟补测补 and its 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻 (commentaries). At this period these priests, foreseeing the perdition of the people (from the perversions of the true doctrines), assembled; and in order that the religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books. ' No valid objection has yet been advanced to our accepting Buddhaghosa鈥檚 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻s as a translation and new redaction of the 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻s which were reduced to writing under Va峁�峁璦g膩mani^[2], and these again as a translation of the old 础峁�峁�丑补办补迟丑腻s brought to Ceylon by Mahinda^[3]. There is prima facie evidence in favour of the truth of historical events vouched for by such works as the 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 and the 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补 so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before 惭补丑腻苍腻尘补鈥檚 time. Beyond Mahinda we move in legendary history, and must be ready to surrender every name and every date as soon as rebutting evidence has been produced, but not till then.

I cannot, therefore, see any reason why we should not treat the verses of the Dhammapada, if not as the utterances of Buddha, at least as what were believed by the

[1. On the importance of oral tradition in the history of Sanskrit literature see the writer鈥檚 Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, pp. 497-524.

2. 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, p. 207; 顿墨辫补惫补峁僺补 XX, 20.

3. 惭补丑腻惫补峁僺补, p. 251. ]

p. xxvi members of the Council under 础艣辞办补, in 242 B. C. , to have been the utterances of the founder of their religion; nor can I see that Professor Minayeff has shaken the date of Buddhaghosa and the general credibility of the Ceylonese tradition, that he was the translator and editor of commentaries which had existed in the island for many centuries; whether from the time of Va峁�峁璦g膩mani or from the time of Mahinda.