This is a journal article written by a Sri Lankan Liberal Buddhist in 1871. Although he seems to have some interesting ideas, I took one of his end-notes into the beginning as a warning for the reader, in order to give a pinch of salt before reading.
NOTES.(BY THE AUTHOR.)
Note A.—It is my opinion, although contrary to that of orthodox Buddhists, that the Buddhistic philosophy, in so far as regards its asceticism and self-purification, is derived from the Hindu system of Patanjali.
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás,
Cambridge University Press Stable (1871)
R. C. Childers:
“The commentary, I say, upon this Scripture was at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders, and in later times rehearsed again and yet again.”
…
We find here a distinct statement …At the very outset I met with a difficulty, in the shape of an historical statement in Buddhaghosa’s introductory verses which seemed in the highest degree improbable and untrustworthy.
After vainly endeavouring to solve the problem, I wrote to my friend …
After a long delay I received …, a paper on this subject by a Simhalese native gentleman which seemed to me so able and scholar-like, …A singular interest attaches to this essay from the circumstance that it is the work of a liberal Buddhist.
L. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court, Ceylon.:
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha’s discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
…
The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, “meaning,” and katha, “a statement, explanation, or narrative,” the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation. The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply “an explanation of meaning.” Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms (-chiefly those that appear to have been borrowed from the Hindu system of ascetic philosophy-) were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence of the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself.
…
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been conducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, …
…
Buddhaghosa’s account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakatha’s, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries.
…
The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded. Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have discussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy?
and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikaya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders " ?—for the original words may admit of such a construction. Nor will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruIn his introduction to the Samanta Pasadika, …
…
Buddhaghosa uses the following words: " The Dhamma as well as the
Vinaya was declared by Buddha, his sacerdotal sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered; and, inasmuch as in former times they (i.e. the Simhalese commentators) made the commentaries without rejecting their (i.e. Buddha’s
immediate disciples’) opinions, therefore, etc." This passage will, I think, explain the sense in which he uses the word Atthakatha in his preface to the Sumangala Vilasini. se the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in
his Samanta Pasadika.
…
For two things are clearly deducible from the passage, viz., that when Buddhaghosa speaks of the Atthakatha that existed in the earliest days of Buddhism, and almost contemporaneously with Buddha, he only refers to the method of explaining and
interpreting the Buddhist Scriptures adopted by Buddha’s immediate disciples
…
One of the glossarists in expounding this passage takes a very sensible view of the
matter. His words are :—" The Dhamma as well as the Vinaya was declared by Buddha ; that is, it was declared by the blessed Buddha in words as in sense, for there is not one scriptural term which has not been defined by the Blessed
One: the sense of all words has been truly expounded. Therefore it should be borne in mind that it is by the all perfect Buddha himself that even the method of interpreting
the three Pitakas has been propounded. In fact, the desultory discourses made by the Blessed One here and there, are what is meant by the word Atthakatha." My view of this subject therefore receives additional weight from the exposition grven of Buddhaghosa’s meaning by his glossarist.Nor will this view receive less support from collateral facts connected with the life and ministry of the " Great Sage,“… During this long period of uninterrupted labour, he not only preached and argued and conversed and travelled, but also legislated, and gave to his disciples a code of monastic discipline surpassed by no other system of monachism either in the East or West. Can it be imagined then that the Tipitaka contains all the words of Buddha? Undoubtedly not. To the followers of that faith it may contain " all that is necessary to salvation,” but it assuredly does not record all and everything done and spoken by this almost superhuman intellect.
…
