21 T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M : T H E S R I L A N K A N C O N T R I B U T I O N T O I T S P R O G R E S S K a p i l a A b h a y a w a n s a Theravāda Buddhist scholars accept that the most authentic teach- ings of the Buddha were preserved in the Theravāda Buddhist School as it descended from the immediate disciples of the Buddha. Though some adherents of the tradition from time to time deviated from it for one reason or another, it managed to remain in India, securing its identity up to the time of the Third Buddhist Council and then, as a result of Asoka’s missionary work, it became thoroughly rooted in Sri Lanka. Presently, it prevails mainly in countries like Sri Lanka, Myan- mar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos, and has attained popularity in Singapore, Malaysia and some Western countries, including Australia and the United States of America. According to the Theravāda commentarial tradition, the Buddha preached his teaching to the people during his lifetime in India through the medium of Māgadhī1 (the language of Magadha), which was later popularly known as Pāḷi2. The teachings which were presented by the Buddha in the Pāḷi language were collected in the Tipiṭaka. The clas- sification of the teachings of the Master into Dhamma and Vinaya, and the compilation respectively into Nikāya-s and Vibhaṅga-s (Bhikkhu- vibhaṅga and Bhikkhunī- vibhaṅga), took place at the First Buddhist Council presided over by Venerable Mahā Kassapa and attended by five 1 Sā māgadhī mūlabhāsā – narāyāyādikappikā Brahmṇācassutālāpā – sambuddhācāpi bhāsare – VinA. 1214. 2 The word Pāḷi as a name of language came into existence after the 13th century AD in Sri Lanka. https://doi.org/10.35469/poligrafi.2022.334 Poligrafi, no. 105/106, vol. 27, 2022, pp. 21–43 P o L I g r A F I 22 hundred elders (Thera-s) who were the pioneers of the Theravāda teach- ings3. However, the commentarial tradition of Theravāda believes that the compilation of the teachings of the Buddha into the Tipiṭaka (three baskets) namely Sutta, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma had taken place at the First Council itself4. According to canonical tradition, the Second Buddhist Council, which was held one hundred years after the death of the Master, endorsed what had been rehearsed at the First Coun- cil5. According to the available Theravāda sources, with the addition of Kathāvatthu-pakaraṇa into the Abhidhamma-piṭaka, the compilation of the canon of the Theravādins into Tipiṭaka was finalized at the Third Buddhist Council, which took place at the time of Asoka about two hundred and thirty-five years after the Buddha’s Parinibbāna. It seems that the Theravāda enriched and secured its unique posi- tion not only from the canonical tradition but also from its exegetical tradition. It possesses commentaries as well as sub-commentaries and post- commentarial exegesis. The commentaries, which amount to 24 in number, have been made on nearly all the Canonical books, and they provide a vast exegetical literature alone. When we examine the wide range of Theravāda Buddhist literature, we can identify two layers of thought in respect of the doctrinal aspect of Theravāda, as Prof. Y. Karunadasa suggests in his monumental work on Theravāda Abhid- hamma6. According to Prof. Karunadasa, “one is Early Buddhism, which is presented in the Sutta Piṭaka and to a lesser extent in the Vi- naya Piṭaka. The other is distinctly Theravāda Buddhism which makes use of both the literary sources of Early Buddhism and the texts of the Pāḷi Abhidhamma to evolve a very comprehensive system of thought7.” We can understand, therefore, that the Theravāda tradition is repre- sented by the Sutta and Vinaya, Abhidhamma Piṭaka-s together with the Pāḷi commentarial sources. 3 Cullavaggapāli, Pañcsatikkhandhaka (Vinaya Pitaka, vol. 11 (London: Pali Text Society, 1995), 286. 4 T. W. rhys Davids, J. Estlin Carpenter, eds., Sumaṅgala vilāsinī: Buddhaghosa’s Commen- tary on the Dīghanikāya (London: Pali Text Society 1886). pt. 1, 15. 5 Cūḷavaggapāli– Sattasatikkhandhaka. 6 Y. Karunadasa, The Theravāda Abhidhamma: An Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality (Hong Kong: The Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong, 2010), 3 7 Ibid. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 23 Although the Theravāda tradition emerged on Indian soil, we can- not find a long history of its existence there. Literary sources confirm that it originated with the First Buddhist Council and gradually de- clined after its culmination at the Third Buddhist Council. However, it should be mentioned here that the Third Buddhist Council played a crucial role in the propagation and establishment of Theravāda Bud- dhism both within and outside of India. With the conclusion of the Third Council, Thera Moggaliputta Tis- sa, who was the president of the Council, took an extremely valuable step for the propagation of the message of the Buddha even outside its birthplace8. After having both purified the Saṅgha and established the pure teaching of the Buddha, Venerable Tissa thought of dispatching missionaries to establish Buddhism in different countries and selected capable monks for this purpose9. There is no doubt that Asoka gave his full support to elder Tissa in this respect. It is quite evident from the thirteen-rock edict of Asoka which shows that the King tried to spread the Dhamma not only in his own territories or among the people of the borderland but also in kingdoms far off10. However, according to Venerable Buddhaghosa, Venerable Tissa sent off missionaries to nine different countries11. Each Thera was sent to the relevant country together with at least four other monks in order to establish Buddhism there. It is believed that Buddhism is rooted in a country where a higher ordination is of- fered to a person who is born in that country. In a place where there is a lack of monks, the higher ordination can be granted by an assembly of four monks12. That was the reason why at least four monks were sent along with each leading monk. It is a historical fact that the arrival of Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka took place as the result of the missions undertaken fol- 8 J. Takakusu, M. Nagai, ed., Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Vinaya piṭka (London: The oxford University Press, Pali Text Society, 1924) Vol.1, 63. 9 Ibid. 10 romila Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline of The Mauryas (Delhi: oxford University Press, 1997), 255-57. 11 See. Appendix I. 12 See Cūḷavagga. Kammakkhandhaka I.9 P o L I g r A F I 24 lowing the Third Buddhist Council patronized by Asoka. The term Tambapaṇṇi mentioned in the list of countries to where missionaries were dispatched refers to Sri Lanka. Mahāvaṃsa, one of the chronicles that recorded the arrival of missionaries in Sri Lanka, directly men- tioned the name Laṅkādīpa, which denotes modern Sri Lanka instead of Tambapaṇṇi as follows: “Laṅkādīpe manuññamhi manuññaṁ Jinasāsanaṁ patiṭṭhāpetha tumhe, ti pañca There apesayi”13. According to the Sri Lankan chronicles, the group of missionaries headed by Ven. Mahinda, who is said to be the son of Asoka, landed in Sri Lanka with the message of the Buddha. The year of the arrival of Ven. Mahinda is supposed to be 236 BCE. The King of Sri Lanka, who was known as Devānampiya Tissa, cordially welcomed Ven. Mahinda and his group, and provided all the facilities for them to establish and popularize Bud- dhism throughout the country. It is said that Ven. Mahinda took all necessary steps for the firm establishment of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, comprised of all the four assemblies, Bhikkhu, Bhikkhunī, Upāsaka, and Upāsikā, within a very short period. Commentaries in the Sinhala Language (Sīhalaṭṭhakathā) The centre of Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka was the Mahāvihāra monastery founded in Anurādhapura by the King Devānampiya Tissa under the instruction of Ven. Mahinda. It is clear that was the Sri Lan- kan monks who lived in the Mahāvihāra emphasized the Theravāda tra- dition through their literary activities. The development of Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka can mainly be attributed to the different literary activities and exegetical literature based on the Pāḷi canon which was brought to Sri Lanka by the missionary group headed by Ven. Mahi- nda. When we examine the Sri Lankan contribution to Theravāda Bud- dhism, it is first necessary to pay attention to the exegetical literature, which was extensively developed by the Sri Lankan monks. Sri Lankan chronicles and Pāli commentaries suggest that both the Pāḷi canon and commentaries were brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda when he 13 W. geiger, ed., Mahāvaṃsa (London: Pali Text Society 1958) X. 9. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 25 came to Sri Lanka with other members of the group. Further, it is stated that the commentaries which aimed at the exposition of the meaning of the canonical teachings were composed at the First Council, and also rehearsed at the following two councils, and were brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda who translated them into the Sinhala Language for the benefit of the local population14. Analyzing Buddhaghosa’s statement g. P. Malalasekera observes: It must be borne in mind that these commentaries were not compiled in the modern sense of the word, nor did any commentaries, such as Buddhag- hosa himself wrote later, exist in the Buddha’s lifetime or immediately after his death. So that when, in the opening stanzas of the Sumaṅgalavilasinī, Bud- dhaghosa mentions that the commentary to the Digha-Nikāya was rehearsed at the first council by 500 holy Elders, we may assume that he means that at this meeting the meanings he attached to the various terms – particularly to those that appear to have been borrowed from Hindu philosophy – were discussed and properly defined. This removes the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence of the commentaries and the Piṭkas from the very earliest times. Such definitions and fixations of meaning formed the nucleus of the later commentaries. The Elders had discussed the important terms at the First Council, and had decided on the method of interpreting and teach- ing the more recondite doctrines.15 According to Ven. Buddhaghosa’s statement mentioned above, the origin of the composition of the commentarial literature can be traced back to the First Buddhist Council. But the earliest reference to the First Council, the 11th chapter of Cullavagga Pāḷi, Pañcasatikkhandha- ka, does not report that the monastics made such a composition of the commentaries. It is certain that the commentaries are very important for the understanding of canonical teachings. If the monastics com- posed such commentaries on the canon, it would be recorded in the Cullavagga report, because the composition of commentaries is a sepa- 14 Atthappakāsanatthaṁ, aṭṭhakathā ādito vasisatehi; Pañcahi yā saṅgītā, anusaṅgītā ca pacchāpi. Sīhaḷadīpaṁ pana ābhatātha, vasinā mahāmahindena; Ṭhapitā sīhaḷabhāsāya, dīpavāsīnamatthāya. - rhys Davids, Estlin Carpenter, Sumaṅgala vilāsinī: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dīghanikāya I. 1. 15 g. P. Malalasekara, The Pāli Literature of Ceylon (Colombo: M. D. gunasena & Co. Ltd. reprinted 1958), 90. P o L I g r A F I 26 rate project from the recognition of the canon at the Council. The Cul- lavagga also records some other activities that took place even after the Council. If there were commentaries composed at the Council, there is no reason for the Cullavagga to neglect to mention it. The records of the Second16 and the Third17 Councils also do not confirm the rehearsal of the commentaries at those councils. This suggests that the statement of Ven. Buddhaghosa about the origins of the Aṭṭhakathā cannot be af- firmed with the evidence at hand. Further, there is no evidence to show that there was any commentary completed in India before the arrival of Ven. Mahinda in Sri Lanka. The Mahāvaṁsa, one of the Sri Lankan chronicles, states that in the fifth century when Ven. Buddhaghosa ar- rived in Sri Lanka, there were no commentaries available in India. The Mahāvaṁsa explaining the reason for Ven. Buddhaghosa coming to Sri Lanka says the following: Pāḷimattaṁ idhānītaṁ natthi Aṭṭhakathā idha – Tathācāriyavādañca bhinnarūpā na vijjare Sīhalaṭṭhakathā suddhā Mahindena matīmatā – Saṅgītattayam ārūlhaṁ Sammāsambuddhadesitaṁ Sāriputtādigītañca kathāmaggaṁ samekkhiya – Kata Sīhalabhāsāya Sīhalesu pavattati.18 (The text alone has been handed down here [in Jambudīpa], there is no commentary here. Nor are the broken systems of the teachers found. The commentary in the Sinhala tongue is faultless. The wise Mahinda considered the tradition laid before the three Councils as it was taught by the Perfectly Enlightened one and as recited by Sāriputta and the others and wrote it in the Sinhala language and it is spread among the Sinhalese).19 There is no doubt that there was already a practice of providing explanatory details to the deep, profound, and sometimes ambigu- ous teachings of the Buddha during the time of the Buddha. They were done either by the Buddha himself or by some other lead- 16 See. Cūḷavagga, 12th chapter. 17 Takakusu, Nagai, Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Vinaya piṭka (intro- duction). 18 Mahāvaṁsa. xxxvi 227-29. 19 The translation has been quoted from goonesekere L. r., Buddhist Commentarial Litera- ture, (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 2008), 55-6. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 27 ing disciples of the Buddha. The Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgasutta20, Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhāyasutta21, Sammādiṭṭhisutta22, and Cullavedallasutta23 are some of the examples that show that there were some discourses which bear the commentarial characteristic within the canon itself. And further, we can find Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Niddesa-s, two different treatises included in the Khuddakanikāya, which were com- posed with the intention of providing commentaries respectively to the Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyaṇavagga of the Suttanipāta. In addition to that, the present Pāḷi commentaries themselves point to some factors which are instrumental in providing fully-fledged commentaries to sep- arate books of the canon, such as Ācariyavāda (traditional teachings), Porāṇakā (those who knew the ancient legends), Bhāṇakā (reciters), Aṭṭhakathā-naya (commentarial method) and so on. For the above-mentioned reasons, we may presuppose that although Ven. Mahinda did not have a readymade complete set of commentaries that covered the whole range of canonical literature when he arrived in Sri Lanka, he would have had all the necessary component factors be- forehand for him to start a project of the composition of commentaries after his arrival in Sri Lanka. According to the commentarial tradition, both the canon and the commentaries brought to Sri Lanka were in the Magadha language and Ven. Mahinda translated only the commentaries into the Sinhala language for the benefit of the Sri Lankan people24. This traditional view also seems to be rather unplausible because one may ask what the purpose of translating commentaries into Sinhala is when the canon is in the Magadha language. on the other hand, commentaries do not provide word-by-word explanations of the canonical teachings. Even without the slightest knowledge of the canonical teachings, it is not easy to properly, grasp what is explained in the commentaries. 20 S. iii. 2. 21 M. i. 256. 22 M. i. 46. 23 M. i. 299. 24 Sīhaladīpaṁ pana ābhatāttha vasinā mahā mahindena ṭhapitā sīhalabhāsāya dīpavāsīnaṁ atthāya - rhys Davids, Estlin Carpenter, Sumaṅgala vilāsinī: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dīghanikāya, I, Introductory verses. 9. P o L I g r A F I 28 There is no evidence to show that the Pāḷi commentaries said to be brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda existed at least up to the time that the Pāḷi canon was written in the books at the time of the 1st century AD during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi. If there were Pāḷi commentaries brought to Sri Lanka, why did they completely disappear within the three hundred years before the 1st century AD? It is possible that the foregoing inquiry leads to the fact that Ven. Mahinda brought the Pāḷi canon and the necessary component factors together with the commentarial method (Aṭṭhakathā-naya) and handed them over to his disciples, who were the Sri Lankan monks, and they composed the commentaries in the Sinhala language, which then be- came known as the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā on the basis of the methods and other necessary factors provided by Ven. Mahinda. In any case, it is accepted that the present Pāḷi commentaries were based on the Sīhala aṭṭhakathā (Sinhalese commentaries) that existed be- fore the 5th century AD, after which Ven. Buddhaghosa and other com- mentators composed the present commentaries. The Sīhalaṭṭhakathā, which were the primary sources of the present Pāḷi commentaries, are believed to have been composed during the period starting from the 3rd century BC and ending in the 5th century AD. regarding the Sinhalese commentaries, Lakshmi r. goonesekere is of the view: Mahinda would have introduced the traditional commentaries, but during the centuries that followed his arrival other commentaries had developed, and at the time Buddhaghosa arrived on the island, i.e. in the early fifth century, there were commentaries belonging to different schools25. We have no evidence to show that those original Sinhala commen- taries existed for a very long time after the composition of the present Pāḷi commentaries. They were probably lost following the exit from Polonnaruwa in the 11th–12th centuries. However, we are fortunate enough to have collected some of the names of those commentaries as they were quoted in the present Pāḷi commentaries26. 25 Ibid. p. 17. 26 See. Appendix II. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 29 Most scholars who have researched the origin of Pāḷi Buddhist com- mentarial literature are of the view that the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā or Mūla- aṭṭḥakathā can be the main commentary out of all the other commen- taries which are reckoned to be Sinhalese commentaries27. It is quite evident that Ven. Buddhaghosa highly respected the Mahā aṭṭhakathā and he placed a great reliance on its accuracy. That is why he mentioned that he compiled the commentary to Vinaya pitaka (Samantapāsādikā) taking the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā as the basis of it28. Though the Theravāda tradition claims that Ven. Mahinda brought the commentaries to Sri Lanka and translated them into the Sinhala language, it does not men- tion the commentaries by their names. Even though we accept Mahā- aṭṭhkathā as the commentary brought to Sri Lanka, respecting the tra- dition, there is no doubt that some of the commentaries listed above are the works of Sri Lankan monks who were inspired by the commentarial method brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda. The Mahā-aṭṭhakathā is believed to be a commentary made for the entire canonical literature. The commentaries which are referred to as Uttaravihāra-aṭṭhakathā, Mahā-paccariya-aṭṭhakathā, and Kurundī-aṭṭhakathā can be regard- ed as separate and independent commentaries distinct from Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, for their names themselves clearly imply that they were composed by monks who lived outside of the Mahāvihāra. The Uttara- vihāraṭṭhakathā mentioned in the Vaṁsatthappakāsani29 is supposed to be a commentary made by the monks who resided at the Uttara-vihāra or Abhayagiri-vihāra which was established in the 1st century BC; the Mahāpaccarī is said to be a commentary composed on a raft by Sri Lankan monks; and the Kurundi-aṭṭhakathā received its name after the Kurundavelu-vihāra, the place in Sri Lanka where it was composed. 27 Bimala Churn Law, A History of Buddhist Literature (New Delhi: rekha Printers Pvt. Ltd. 2000), 379. 28 Saṃvaṇṇanam tanca samārabhanto; Tassā mahāaṭṭhakatham sarīram; Katvā mahāpaccariyam tatheva; Kurundinamādisu vissutāsu. Takakusu, Nagai, Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s Com- mentary on the Vinaya piṭka, (introduction). 29 g. P. Malalasekera, ed., Mahāvaṃsa-ṭīkā: Vaṁsatthappakāsinī (London: Pali Text Society, 1935), I. 25; 55. P o L I g r A F I 30 It is believed that the Andhakaṭṭhakathā and Saṅkhepaṭṭhakathā were not the Sinhala commentaries, though they were consulted by the Pāli commentators. In this regard, L. r. goonesekere is of the view: The Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā was very likely written in the Andhaka (Andhra) language. It may have belonged to the Andhaka school of south India asven. Buddhaghosa more often than not rejects its views. The Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā or ‘Short Commentary’ quoted in the Samantapāsādikā, if it is to be accepted as written in south India, was probably also the product of a south Indian school30 It is not clearly known whether the commentaries coming un- der the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā, such as Vinayaṭṭhakathā, Suttantaṭṭhakathā, Abhidhammaṭṭhakathā, Sīhalamātikaṭṭhakathā, Dīghaṭṭhakathā, Majjhimaṭṭhakathā, Saṃyuttaṭṭhakathā, Aṅguttaraṭṭhakathā, Jātakaṭṭhakathā, and Vibhaṅgappakaraṇassa Sīhalaṭṭhakathā, were the component parts of the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā or independent commentar- ies belonging to the sections of the canon that their names implied. The names Uttaravihāra-aṭṭhakathā, Mahā-paccarī-aṭṭhakathā, and Kurundī-aṭṭhakathā clearly imply that they were composed by monks who lived outside of the Mahāvihāra. There is no doubt that the various commentaries that were com- posed by the Sri Lankan monks during the time between the arrival of Ven. Mahinda and the composition of the present Pāḷi commentaries in the fifth century have made a great contribution to the development of Theravāda Buddhism. The commentaries provide not only clarifications of the meanings of the terms that appeared in the canon but also plenty of expositions of the deep and profound doctrinal concepts included in the canon. It should be mentioned here that the commentarial expositions of the teachings of the Buddha were extremely constructive for the Theravādins to es- tablish their identity among the other schools of Buddhism. Ven. Buddhaghosa commenting on Sīhala Aṭṭhakathā acknowledges the contribution made by the monks who resided at the Mahāvihāra for the enhancement of the identity of Theravāda. According to him, 30 goonesekere, Buddhist Commentarial Literature,” 18. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 31 the Therā-s of the Mahāvihāra had a system of explaining the Dham- ma peculiar to them (Therānaṁ samayaṁ)31 with the expert decisions (sunipuṇavinicchayānaṁ)32. Ven. Buddhaghosa says that he tried to translate Sīhalaṭṭhakathā without distorting the commentarial tradition descending from the elders of the Mahāvihāra33. Apart from the Aṭṭhakathācariya, who made the Sinhalese com- mentaries, another factor contributing to the progress of Theravāda Buddhism can be found among the Sri Lankan monks who were ex- perts in the teachings of the Buddha, who were endowed with pro- found knowledge of certain sections of Buddhist teachings and capable enough to express their own decisions on some dubious matters of the Dhamma. Their opinions were accepted and included in some of the present Pāḷi commentaries by Ven. Buddhaghosa. According to Mrs L. r. goonesekere, the views and opinions of the following were quoted in the Pāḷi commentaries: Dīghabhāṇaka Tipiṭaka Mahāsiva34, Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya35, Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāga36, Tipiṭaka Mahā Dhammarakkhita37, and Moravāpīvāsī Mahādatta.38 The First Writing Down of the Theravāda Canon Another massive contribution made by the Sri Lankans to Theravāda Buddhism was the event of writing down the Theravāda canon in the 1st century BC in Sri Lanka for the first time in the history of Buddhism. From the origin of the Theravāda canon until the 1st century BC, it continued to be transmitted orally from generation to generation for nearly five hundred years among the Theravādins. It is said that a thou- sand monks who were Arahants and well-versed in the canon and com- 31 rhys Davids, Estlin Carpenter, Sumaṅgala vilāsinī: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dīghanikāya, I, Introductory verses. 9. 32 Ibid. 33 Samayaṁ avilomento, therānaṁ theravaṁsapadīpānaṁ; Sunipuṇavinicchayānaṁ, Mahāvihārādhivāsīnaṁ. – Ibid. 34 SA III 281. 35 SA III 277, PugA 190. 36 SA III 277; PugA 190. 37 PugA 190; DhsA 267, 278, 286. 38 DhsA 230, 267, 284, 286; Ps-a 405; VibhA 81. P o L I g r A F I 32 mentaries gathered at the place called Āloka Vihāra (Aluvihāra), Mātale, Sri Lanka, and undertook the project of writing down not only the canon but also the commentaries during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmani (29–17 BC)39. The event of writing down the Pāḷi canon marks a very important juncture in the history of Buddhism. It was a very praiseworthy and in- telligent step taken by the Sri Lankan Theravāda monastic community for the purity and the protection of the words of the Buddha. Before its writing down, the canon was in the collective memory of the members of the monastic order who were entrusted to preserve it. It was orally transmitted from generation to generation. In such a situation there would have been the possibility of the distortion of the message of the Buddha. on the other hand, when the canon depends on the hand of a few people, there is no certainty of its survival for the benefit of the generations to come. When taken into a fixed form by means of writing down in books, those possibilities would not arise. We are fortunate that the writing down of the Pāḷi canon in books in the first century secured its originality with regards to its contents, though there may be writing errors due to it being copied from gen- eration to generation until was printed. If the Sri Lankan monks had not taken this step, there is no doubt that today we would not have the opportunity to talk about the original teachings of the Buddha (as the Theravādins believe) as recorded in the Pāḷi canon. It is an honour to the Sri Lankans that the Theravāda canon, which was protected by the Sri Lankans orally at first, was put into book form and has been recognized and accepted by all the Theravāda Buddhist countries ex- isting today. Pāḷi Commentaries As we have already seen according to Sri Lankan sources, the original Theravāda commentaries that were brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda were translated into the Sinhala language and some other new commentaries were composed in Sinhala by the Sri Lan- 39 Mhv. XXXIII, 100. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 33 kan monks. As they were in the Sinhala language, only those who were well versed in the Sinhala language were able to benefit from them. This might be the reason why the Mahāvihāra fraternity, which was the guardian of Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka, permitted Ven. Buddhaghosa to translate the Sinhalese commentaries into Pāḷi which was recognized as the common religious language of Theravāda Buddhism, not only in Sri Lanka but also elsewhere. Also, when the canon was written in Pāḷi, the Mahāvihāra community of monks may have felt that it was not compatible to have the commentaries in the Sinhala language. It is recorded that the Sinhalese commentaries, which were written down together with the Pāḷi canon in the 1st century, were translated into the Pāḷi language by Ven. Buddhaghosa and others starting in the fifth century in Sri Lanka40. When we examine the present Pāḷi com- mentaries, it is quite evident that they are not merely the direct transla- tions of the corresponding earlier Sinhala commentaries. The system of the presentation of the contents of the present Pāḷi commentaries by the commentators itself provides us with quite enough evidence to show that the translations were made with revisions and other editorial changes. The great commentator Ven. Buddhaghosa himself records how he made the translation of Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathā (Sumaṅgalavilāsini) as given below: Hitvā punappunāgataṃ atthaṃ pakāsayissāmi Sujanassaca tuṭṭhatthaṃ ciraṭṭhitatthañca dhamassa41 (Having removed the repetitive meaning (of the Sinhala commentaries), I will reveal the meaning for the happiness of the good people and for the long life of the dispensation). This fact is further attested by expressions such as Mahā- aṭṭhakathāyaṁ sāraṁ ādāya (having taken the essence of the Mahā aṭṭhakathā), Mūla-aṭṭhakathāyaṁ sāraṁ ādāya (having taken the es- 40 According to Mahāvaṁsa, the chronicle of Sri Lanka, the great commentator Ven. Bud- dhaghosa came to Sri Lanka during the reign of the King Mahānāma (406: 28 A.D). See Mahāvaṁsa ch. xxxvii. 41 rhys Davids, Carpenter Estlin, Sumaṅgalavilāsinī: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dīghanikāya, I. Introductory verses, 10. P o L I g r A F I 34 sence of Mūlaṭṭhakathā), and Porāṇaṭṭhakathānaṁ sāraṁ ādāya (hav- ing taken the essence of the Poraṇaṭṭhakathā) which appear in the pre- sent Pāḷi commentaries. These expressions clearly show that when they translated a Sinhala commentary, the Pāḷi commentators re-edited it without translating the entire text. As the result of the translation project which took place during the 5th century AD in Sri Lanka, we now have commentaries in the Pāḷi language relating to nearly all the canonical texts. Those commentaries provide the necessary details supportive to understanding the contents of the canonical texts and also give explanatory notes on the meaning of the important words of the canon42. Taken as a whole, these commentaries are a source of encyclopae- dic knowledge that covers not only all the theoretical and practical as- pects of Theravāda Buddhism but also the social, political, economic, religious, philosophical and historical aspects of India and Sri Lanka where Theravāda Buddhism came into existence and where it was firm- ly established. L. r. goonesekere summarizing the contents of the Pāḷi commentaries observes: “Most commentaries have, in the course of their explanations, incorporat- ed various episodes, narratives, fables, and legends, whereby the commenta- tors have unknowingly given us much information on the social, philosophi- cal, and religious history of ancient India and Ceylon. Much geographical data and glimpses of political history are also contained in them. While some commentaries such as the Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā, Jātakaṭṭhakathā, and Dhammapāla’s Paramatthadīpanī are rich in material on the social and eco- nomic history of Buddhist India, most of Buddhaghosa’s commentaries and the later ones, while containing material relating to India, throw a flood of light on the religious and secular history of Ceylon for centuries after Bud- dhism was introduced into the island. The history of Buddhism in Ceylon, the development of the monastery, the growth of worship and ritual, and the history of the Saṅgha can all be traced from the information furnished in them”43. It is not an exaggeration to say that Theravāda establishes its identity distinct from other Buddhist sects mainly on the basis of the Pāḷi com- 42 See. Appendix III. 43 goonesekere, Buddhist Commentarial Literature, 43-44. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 35 mentarial literature. Specifically, the Pāḷi Abhidhamma commentaries shed much light on this identity as they provide the necessary inter- pretations for the Dhamma theory of Theravāda which distinguishes it from other Abhidharma traditions. Visuddhimagga The Visuddhimagga, written by the great commentator Ven. Bud- dhaghosa, is a compendious work on Theravāda Buddhism which in- cludes a wide range of theoretical and practical teachings. It pays much attention to presenting a detailed account of the Theravāda meditative system in order to explain the path of purification leading to Nibbāna. Moreover, the most valuable contribution made by Ven. Buddhagho- sa through the Visuddhimagga to the academic world can be recognized when we examine his exposition of the doctrine of Paticcasamuppāda in the chapter called Paññābhūminiddesa. Buddhaghosa was able to give a comprehensive exposition to the doctrine of Paticcasamuppāda for the first time in the history of Theravāda, with the attestation of the teachings of the Buddha. Although the Buddha presented the teaching of Paticcasamuppāda consisting of twelve factors in order to explain the emergence and cessation of suffering, there was no decision among Buddhist scholars before Buddhaghosa whether those 12 factors belong to one singular lifetime of a being, or to the whole of saṁsāric existence. Buddhaghosa was the first scholar of the scholastic period to point out that the 12 links are to be applied in the saṁsāric context and not just in the one singular life span. Visuddhimagga is recognized by the Theravāda Buddhist world as a comprehensive manual of the Theravāda system of path of purification which represents the entire Brahmacariya life in a systematic way by collecting relevant materials from the discourses of the Buddha. Ṭīkā-Sub-Commentaries Another aspect of the exegetical literature of Theravāda tradition comes under the name of Ṭīkā (sub-commentaries), which are the commentaries on the commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā). Sub-commentaries P o L I g r A F I 36 were composed in Sri Lanka sometimes after the compilation of the Pāḷi commentaries in order to clarify the ambiguities and any points that were vague in the commentaries. There is no doubt that the sub- -commentaries shed much light on the commentaries and explain some matters that are not very clear. When the commentaries and the sub- -commentaries are taken together, they provide all the necessary expla- nations for the Theravāda canonical teachings. It should be emphasi- zed here that most of the sub-commentaries were composed by the Sri Lankan monks who were well versed in the Mahāvihāra tradition of interpretation44. Manuals (Saṅgaha)45 When we consider the factors contributing to the enhancement of Theravāda Buddhism, we cannot ignore the service rendered not only by the Pāḷi commentarial literature but also by different types of manu- als (Saṅgaha) provided by the Sri Lankan monks who were well versed in the particular subjects of Buddhism that they were dealing with. It seems that the aim of the manuals is to collect and present their subject matters in a concise form for educational purposes. Bimala Churn Law in his A History of Pāli Literature introducing manual literature in Pāḷi observes: “Although the subject matters of these manuals vary, one predominant feature of each of them is this that it presents its theme systematically in a somewhat terse and concise form, purporting to be used as a handbook of constant reference46” Conclusion The Pāḷi canon that was written down by the Sri Lankan monastics and the exegetical literature that includes commentaries, sub-commen- 44 See. Appendix IV 45 See. Appendix V. 46 Bimala Churn Law, A History of Buddhist Literature (New Delhi: rekha Printers Pvt. Ltd. 2000), 585. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 37 taries, and manuals that were composed by the Sri Lankans were all accepted by the other Theravāda Buddhist countries such as Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos as their sources of Theravāda Buddhi- sm. It is evident that the Theravāda monks of the Mahāvihāra fraternity in Sri Lanka contributed immensely to the establishment and nouris- hment of Theravāda Buddhism, both at home and in other countries. There is historical evidence to confirm that Myanmar is one of the co- untries where Buddhism was reformed several times with the assistance of the Sri Lankan Theravāda monks from a time as early as the 11th cen- tury. It is said that King Anawrahta (1044–1077) took steps to reform Buddhism in Myanmar with the assistance of the Sri Lankan Theravāda scholars. During the reigns of Narathu (1167–1171), Naratheinkha (1171–1174), and Narapatisithu (1174–1211) Shin Uttarajīva who re- ceived higher ordination from the Sri Lankan Mahāvihāra monks was able to establish an order in Myanmar in the form of the Mahāvihāra school in Sri Lanka (Sinhala Saṅgha). King Dhammazedi (1471–1492) is reported to have sent thousands of Burmese monks to obtain higher ordination from Sri Lama with the training of the Mahāvihāra school.47 Not only Myanmar but other Theravāda Buddhist countries, name- ly, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, have also been immensely influenced by Sri Lankan Theravāda Buddhism. With the effort of Parākramabāhu the great (1153–1186), Theravāda Buddhism was consolidated in Sri Lanka. It is reported that receiving information about this Theravāda reform taking place in Sri Lanka, many monks from Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos came to Sri Lanka and obtained the higher ordi- nation from Sinhalese monks. regarding Buddhism in Thailand, Ka- runa Kusalasaya records in his Buddhism in Thailand –Its Past and its Present: “Thailand also sent her Bhikkhus to Ceylon and thereby obtained the Upa- sampada vidhi (ordination rule) from Ceylon, which later became known in Thailand as Lankavaṁsa. This was about 1257 A.D. (B.E. 1800). Apparently, the early batches of bhikkhus who returned from Ceylon after studies, often 47 Jacques P. Leider, “Text, Linage, and Tradition in Burma: The Struggle for Norms and religious Legitimacy under King Bodawphaya (1782–1819),” The Journal of Burma Studies, 9 (2004): 82-129, https://doi.org/10.1353/jbs.2004.0000. P o L I g r A F I 38 accompanied by Ceylonese monks, established themselves first in Nakhon Sri Thammarat (south Thailand), for many of the Buddhist relics bearing defi- nitely Ceylonese influence, such as Stupas and Buddha images, were found there. Some of these relics are still in existence today.”48 We may conclude by saying in no uncertain terms that Sri Lanka has made an invaluable contribution to Theravāda Buddhism from its arri- val to Sri Lanka up to the present for its establishment and flourishing, not only throughout the island but also outside of it, and to keep it as a distinct tradition of Buddhism in the history of Buddhist thought. Abbreviations DhsA Dhammasaṅi Aṭṭhakathā Mhv Mahāvaṁsa M Majjhima-nikāya PugA Puggala-paññatti Aṭṭhakathā S. Saṁyutta-nikāya SA Saṁyutta-nikāya Aṭṭhakathā VibhA Vibhaṅga Aṭṭhakathā VinA Vinaya Aṭṭhakathā B i b l i o g r a p h y goonesekere, L. r. Buddhist Commentarial Literature. Sri Lanka, Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 2008. Karunadasa, Y. The Theravāda Abhidhamma: An Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality. Hong Kong: The Centre of Buddhist Studies, The Univer- sity of Hong Kong, 2010. Karuna, Kusalasaya. Buddhism in Thailand: Its Past and its Present. Sri Lanka, Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983. 48 Karuna Kusalasaya, Buddhism in Thailand: Its Past and its Present (Sri Lanka, Kandy: Bud- dhist Publication Society, Second reprint 1983), 19. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 39 Leider, Jacques P. “Text, Linage, and Tradition in Burma: The Struggle for Norms and religious Legitimacy under King Bodawphaya (1782-1819).” The Jour- nal of Burma Studies 9 (2004): 82–129. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbs.2004.0000. Malalasekara, g. P. The Pāli Literature of Ceylon. Colombo: M. D. gunasena & Co. Ltd. reprinted 1958. Malalasekara, g. P., eds. Mahāvaṃsa-ṭīkā:Vaṃsatthappakāsinī. London: Pali Text Society, 1935. rhys Davids, T. W., and J. Estlin Carpenter, ed. Sumaṅgala vilāsinī: Bud- dhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dīghanikāya. London: Pali Text Society, 1886. Takakusu, Junjiro, and Makoto Nagai, eds. Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Vinaya piṭka. London: The oxford University Press, Pali Text Society, 1924. Thapar, romila. Aśoka and the Decline of The Mauryas. Delhi: oxford Uni- versity Press, 1997. Appendix I Names of the missionaries and the relevant countries. Names of the Missionary Country Thera Majjhantika Kasmīra and Gandhāra Thera Mahādeva Mahisamaṇḍala Thera Rakkhita Vanavāsī Thera Yonaka Dhammarakkhita Aparantikā Thera Mahā Dhammarakkhita Mahāraṭṭha Thera Mahā Rakkhita Yonaloka Thera Majjhima Himavantadesa Thera Soṇa and Thera Uttara Suvaṇṇabhūmi Thera Mahinda together with the Thera-s Iṭṭhiya, Uttiya, Sambala, and Bhaddasāla, and the novice Sumana and upāsaka Bhaṇḍuka Tambapaṇṇi (Sri Lanka). Appendix II The following names of Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā are found in the Pali com- mentaries: P o L I g r A F I 40 1) Mahā-aṭṭhakathā or Mūla-aṭṭhakathā, also known as Aṭṭhakathā, 2) Uttaravihāra-aṭṭhakathā, 3) Mahā-paccariya-aṭṭhakathā, 4) Kurundī aṭṭhakathā, 5) Andhakaṭṭhakathā, 6) Saṅkhepaṭṭhakathā, 7) Āgamaṭṭhakathā, 8) Porāṇaṭṭhakathā, 9) Pubbopadesaṭṭhakathā, or Pubbaṭṭhakathā, 10) Vinayaṭṭhakathā, 11) Suttantaṭṭhakathā, 12) Abhidhammaṭṭhakathā, 13) Sīhalamātikaṭṭhakathā, 14) Dīghaṭṭhakathā, 15) Majjhimaṭṭhakathā, 16) Saṁyuttaṭṭhakathā, 17) Aṅguttaraṭṭhakathā, 18) Jātakaṭṭhakathā and 19) Vibhaṅgappakaraṇassa Sīhalaṭṭhakathā. Appendix III The following is the list of Pāḷi commentaries which include the names of the canonical texts, names of the Pāḷi commentaries, and the names of the commentators in the format: Mūla; commentary; com- mentator. Vinayapiṭaka Vinayapiṭaka (Pārājika, Pācittiya, Mahāvagga, Cullāvagga and Parivāra) Samantapāsādikā Buddhaghosa Pātimokkha Kaṅkhāvitaraṇi Buddhaghosa Suttapiṭaka Dīghanikāya Sumaṅgalavilāsini Buddhaghosa Majjhimanikāya Papañcasūdani Buddhaghosa T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 41 Samyuttanikāya Sāratthappakāsini Buddhaghosa Aṇguttaranikāya Manorathapūrani Buddhaghosa Khuddakanikāya (i) Khuddakapāṭha Paramatthajotikā Buddhaghosa*49 (ii) Dhammapada Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā Buddhaghosa* (iii) Udāna Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla (iv) Itivuttaka Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla (v) Suttanipāta Paramatthajotikā Buddhaghosa* (vi) Vimānavatthu Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla (vii) Petavatthu Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla (viii) Theragāthā Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla (ix) Therīgāthā Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla (x) Jātaka Jātakaṭṭhakathā Buddhaghosa* (xi) Niddesa Saddhammapajjotikā Upasena (xii) Paṭisambhidāmagga Saddhammapakāsinī Mahānāma (xiii) Apadāna Visuddhajanavilāsinī Unknown (ixv) Buddhavaṁsa Madhuratthavilāsinī Buddhadatta (xv) Cariyāpiṭaka Paramatthadīpanī Dhammapāla Abhidhammapiṭaka Dhammasaṅganī Atthasālinī Buddhaghosa Vibhaṅga Sammohavinodanī Buddhaghosa The remaining five books: Dhātukathā, Puggalapaññatti, Kathāvatthu, Yamaka, and Paṭṭhāna Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā Buddhaghosa 49 The commentaries marked with an asterisk (*) are attributed to Ven. Buddhaghosa, but the attribution is contested. P o L I g r A F I 42 Appendix IV Among the sub-commentaries written in Sri Lanka, the following have been recognized as the most important. Sub-commentaries on Vinaya commentaries (Samantapāsādikā) Vajirabuddhiṭīkā Sāriputta (12th century) Sāratthadīpanī Sāriputta (do) Vimativinodani-ṭīkā Mahā Kassapa (13th century) Sub-commentaries on Sutta-piṭaka Commentaries Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā (sub-comm. on Sumaṅgalavilasinī ) Dhammapāla Majjhimanikāyaṭṭhakathā-ṭikā, (sub-comm. on Papañcasūdani) Dhammapāla Saṁyuttanikāyaṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā, (sub-comm. on Sāratthappakāsinī) Dhammapāla Aṅguttaranikāyaṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā, Sāratthamañjusā, (sub-comm. on Manorathapūranī) Sāriputta The first three sub-commentaries were attributed to Ven. Dhammapāla (who is considered to be different from the commentator Dhammapāla) while the last is at- tributed to Ven. Sāriputta. Sub-commentaries on the Abhidhamma commentaries Atthasālinīmūlaṭīkā Ānanda Vibhaṅgamūlaṭīkā Ānanda Pancappakaraṇamūlaṭīkā Ānanda These three sub-commentaries are considered to be Abhidhamma mūlaṭīk. Some- times, they are also known as Mūlaṭūkā. Authority of the Mūlaṭīkā is ascribed to a Sri Lankan monk called Ānanda. T H E R A V Ā D A B U D D H I S M 43 Sub-commentary on Visuddhimagga Paramatthamañjusā (Visuddhimaggamahāṭīkā) Dhammapala Appendix V The manuals composed in Sri Lanka by the erudite monks can be listed as follows: Manuals relating to the subject of Vinaya Vinayavinicchaya Buddhadatta Uttaravinicchaya Buddhadatta Khuddakasikkhā Dhammasiri Mūlasikkhā Mahā sāmi Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha Sāriputta Manuals relating to the subject of Abhidhamma Abhidhammaṭṭha-saṅgaha, Ācariya Anuruddha Paramatthavinicchaya Ācariya Anuruddha Abhidhammāvatāra Buddhadatta Rūpārūpavibhāga Buddhadatta Saccasaṅkhepa Ananda50 Mohavicchedanī Kassapa Khemappakaraṇa Khema Nāmarūpapariccheda Ācariya Anuruddha 50 Ven. Ananda who is considered to be the teacher of Ven. Dhammapāla