A statement has spread, sometimes presented as a general claim and other times posed as a question with a derisive tone, attempting to disparage Buddhaghosa Thera by fabricating accusations against him. This statement is: Why did Buddhaghosa burn the ancient Sinhala aṭṭhakathās after translating them?
Such a suspicion originates from a later Burmese text called “Buddhaghosuppatti” (dating back to the 15th century), a biographical text that introduces unreliable material into what we already know about Buddhaghosa Thera from the Mahāvaṃsa and the scraps contained in the prologues and epilogues of his works, which are consistent in form and content.
This work adds numerous elements to the narrative found primarily in the Mahāvaṃsa by including additional material, such as the names of Buddhaghosa’s parents and his village of origin, along with several dramatic events, like the conversion of his father and his involvement in resolving a legal dispute. Furthermore, it attributes the loss of the original Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathās, which served as the foundation for Buddhaghosa’s Pāli commentaries, to his act of gathering and burning the manuscripts.
This latter claim, presented in Chapter VII, is as follows:
Buddhaghosa concluded the writing of the Scriptures in three months. After keeping Lent and celebrating pavaraṇā, he made them over to the archbishop.
The archbishop said, “Good! good!” in commendation of Buddhaghosa and recited two stanzas setting forth his excellence—
"The religion, the word of the most excellent Buddha, is difficult of acquirement; by virtue of your translation we discern it easily.
“Even as a blind man sees not equalities and inequalities on the ground, so we see not the religion as declared by Buddha.”
Buddhaghosa, after that, had the works written by the thera Mahinda put into a heap in a sacred place near the Great Pagoda and set on fire. It is said that all the books written by the thera in the Sinhalese language were equal in height to seven elephants of middle size. The ancients say so, and it has been heard by us as their declaration.
After setting fire to all the works compiled in Sinhalese, Buddhaghosa took leave of the assembly of priests with the object of seeing his parents, and saying, “I, reverend sirs, wish to go to Jambudīpa,” prepared to embark along with the merchants.Gray, J. (Ed. & Trans.). (2001). Buddhaghosuppatti, or, The historical romance of the rise and career of Buddhaghosa (from the aspect of transl. pp. 28-29). The Pali Text Society.
This subsequent work exhibits inconsistencies in content, with its Burmese manuscript copies containing differences in wording as well as variations in sentence constructions. Moreover, several interpolations are present (although described as non-essential) as noted by Gray, J.
The “popular novel” called Buddhaghosuppatti, which was composed in Burma by an elder called Mahāmaṇgala, perhaps as early as the 15th century, is less dependable. […] It has already been remarked that the general opinion of European scholars is that where this imaginative tale differs from, or adds to, the Mahāvaṃsa’s account it is in legend rather than history.
Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli’s Trans. Vism, (4th ed., p. xli-xliii).
Besides these comparatively, authentic accounts of the life of the great commentator, there is a mass oflegendary accounts of his life. Such legends are found in the Buddhaghosuppatti, also known as the Mahābuddhaghosassa Nidānavatthu by the priest Mahāmaṅgala who lived in Ceylon evidently after the time when the Mahāvaṃsa account was written. Other late works of the Southern school such as the Gandhavaṃsa, the Sāsanavaṃsa, and the Saddhammasangaha furnish some additional details. But the accounts of all these works are of the nature of legends in which fact and fiction are often hopelessly blended together.
Law, B.C., A History of Pāli Literature (p. 392).
The Buddhaghosuppatti is the longest account of his life and is, in its entirety, a work highly diverting as well as instructive. But its author had evidently little authentic knowledge of the subject of his study, and his collection of legends is mostly valueless from the historical point of view. It reads too much like a romance and does not help us much in elucidating Buddhaghosa’s history.
Malalasekera, G.P. (1st pub. 1928, p. 79).
Buddhaghosuppatti, — A very late account of the life of Buddhaghosa; it is more a romance than a historical chronicle.
Malalasekera, G.P., Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names, Vol. II (p. 307).
The superstructure as raised in the Buddhaghosuppatti rests on an unreliable foundation. With a tissue of truth and a great deal of fiction, a story is recounted which, however attractive as a legend, is untrustworthy as a historical document.
Gray, J. Buddhaghosuppatti, (p. 25).
The main claim previously mentioned regarding the burning of the commentaries (with additional interpolations as well) does not appear in the Mahāvaṃsa account. The composition of the second part (often referred to as Cūḷavaṃsa) of that historical poem is attributed to an Elder Dhammakitti, which is considered in relation to the account of Buddhaghosa Thera:
Besides the meagre references that Buddhaghosa himself has made to the details of his life in his great commentaries, the earliest connected account of his life is that contained in the second part of Chapter XXXVII of the great Ceylonese chronicle, the Mahāvaṃsa.
Law, B.C., A History of Pāli Literature (p. 390).
The most important commentator is Buddhaghosa […] The only sources are the nigamanas “explicits” of the commentaries and Mhv XXXVII 215-246, for the anonymous Buddhaghosuppatti (Bu-up: 4.2.4) or other sources discussed by Finot appear to provide still less reliable information.
(von Hinüber, O. (1996). A Handbook of Pāli Literature).
The original primary source of the biography (Mahāvaṃsa) enjoys significant support and acceptance among scholars.
The Sri Lankan Chronicles survived the historical criticism to which they were subjected in the last hundred years. The independent evidence that could be brought to bear supported them, and Western scholars ended by pronouncing them reliable in essentials. The account just quoted is considered to be based on historical fact even if it contains legendary matter.
Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli’s Trans. Vism, (4th ed., p. xl).
The last verse regarding Buddhaghosa in Mhv XXXVII indicates that after the teachers of the Elders’ Tradition accepted his (translation of the Sinhalese Commentary into the Magadhan language) as equal in authority with the texts themselves, he returned to Jambudīpa to pay homage to the Great Bodhi Tree After the tasks that had been assigned to him were finished.
¹ See Geiger, W. (Trans.), & Rickmers, C. M. (Trans.). (1953). Cūlavamsa-Mahāvamsa, (pp. 22-26).
² See Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli’s Trans. Vism, (4th ed., p. xxxviii).
Building on what has been mentioned above, I offer a broader and more comprehensive analysis:
A critical study of the Buddhaghosuppatti (q.v.) does not help us much in elucidating the history of Buddhaghosa. The author had very little authentic knowledge at his command. He simply collected the legends which centred round Buddhaghosa. From a historical standpoint those legends are mostly valueless. The accounts contained in the Buddhaghosuppatti about the birth, early life, conversion etc., of Buddhaghosa, bear a striking similarity with those of Milinda and Moggaliputta Tissa. In the interview that took place between Buddhaghosa and Buddhadatta, the latter is said to have told Buddhaghosa thus: “I went before you to Ceylon to compile the Buddha’s word, I am old, I have not long to live and shall not there- fore be able to accomplish the task. You carry out the work satisfactorily.”
In the sixth chapter of the Buddhaghosuppatti, we find that Buddhaghosa rendered the Buddhist scriptures into Māgadhi, and in the seventh chapter it is written that when after three months he oompleted his task the works of Mahinda were piled up and burnt. The author has made a mistake in the sixth chapter. Buddhaghosa translated the Sinhalese commentaries into Magadhi and not the texts themselves. Had it been so, there would not have been any occasion for burning the works of Mahinda. It is distinctly stated in the Cūḷavaṃsa that only the Pali canonical texts existed in Jambudīpa and Buddhaghosa was sent to Ceylon to translate the Sinhalese commentaries into Pali.
Both Buddhaghosa and Nāgasena(q.v.) showed wonderful signs of intelligence in their boyhood. Both of them mastered the Vedas within a very short time. Both were converted at an early age. After conversion, the incidents connected with the lives of both these celebrities are similar. After ordination Nāgasena thought that his teacher must be a fool inasmuch as he instructed him first in the Abhidhamma excluding the other teachings of the Buddha. His teacher came to know what was passing in his mind and rebuked him. Nāgasena spologised. Buddhaghosa also thought thus, “Am I or my preceptor more advanced in the words of the Buddha?” His teacher knowing his mind, rebuked him. Thereupon, he apologised.
The account of the conversion of Buddhaghosa also tallies with that of Moggaliputta Tissa as recorded in the Mahāvaṃsa (Chapter v). The seat of Tissa was offered to a thera who used to pay his daily visit to his father’s house. Tissa grow angry, seeing the thera sitting on his own seat. Tissa asked the thera to explain soine knotty points in the Vedas which the thera explained. He was asked a question from the Cittayamaka which bewildered him. He asked the thera what that mantra was. When he came to know that it was Buddhamantra, he requested the thera to impart it to him. The thera said, “I impart it only to one who wears our robe.” According to the Buddhaghosuppatti, Buddhaghosa became angry, when he saw a brahmin on his seat in the house of his father, Kesī. When the thera finished his meal, he asked him, “Do you know the Vedas or are you acquainted with any other mantra?” The thera replied, “I know not only the Vedas but another mantra.” And then he rehearsed the three Vedas. Buddhaghosa requested him to repeat his mantra. The thera recited some portions of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. When Buddhaghosa came to know from the thera that it was Buddhamantra, he desired to have a knowledge of it. He then had his head shaven with the permission of his parents and became a monk.
Buddhaghosa, after finishing all his duties in Ceylon, returned to Jambudīpa to worship the great Bo-tree. The last days of his life he spent in retirement from his literary activity, observing the precepts. He spent the remaining days of his life at Bodh-Gayā where he breathed his last. He passed away peacefully and was reborn in heaven.
The exact time of his death was known to him and he thought thus, “Death is of three kinds, samuccheda, khaṇika and sammuti. Of these the first one is the death of a taintless person, the second is the momentary cessation of thought-production, and the last is the ordinary death of all beings. Of these am I to die the common death?” Even at the last moment of his life he was in the habit of philosophising. Bearing in mind the precepts to be observed he expired and was reborn in the Tusita heaven. His commentaries are silent as to the place where he breathed his last. The inhabi- tants of Cambodia think that Buddhaghosa died in their country in a great monastery called Buddha- ghosavihara. After his dead body was cremated, brahmins and other persons took the relics, buried them in sacred spots near the Bodhi-tree and erected stūpas over them.
Law, B.C., Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. III, ed. G.P. Malalasekera, pp. 408-409. Ceylon: Government Press, 1971. Reprint, 1999.
BUDDHAGHOSUPPATTI, also known as the Mahābuddhaghosassa Nidānavatthu, is a short work in Pali. It is written in prose and is divided into eight chapters. The author has given his name at the end of the work as Mahāmaṇgala thera. The book has been edited with a lengthy introduction, notes and a translation by James Gray (London, 1892). The Pali text runs into 30 pages.
As the title suggests, it is a biography of Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, and it is the longest account of Buddhaghosa that has come down to us. But the work is not of much value from a historical point of view as the author has been more interested in recording the legends that had grown round the pre-eminent scholiast, rather than the authentic facts about him. What he has given us is an interesting legend about Buddhaghosa. The editor has aptly remarked that the work reads like ‘an Arthurian romance.’
It is written in easy language and simple style. At the beginning of the work is a short introduction in verse. Of its eight chapters, the first deals with Buddhaghosa’s boyhood, the second with his conversion to the teachings of the Buddha and his ordination, the third with the conversion of his father, and the fourth with his arrival in Ceylon. The fifth chapter describes him as being a witness to a quarrel between two slave women, the sixth narrates the account of his getting permission to translate the scriptures, the seventh deals with his achievements in Ceylon, and the last chapter describes his return to India and passing away there. The work ends with the author’s aspiration, by reason of the merit of his work, to be born in the world of men endowed with wisdom, in the time of the future Buddha Metteyya, and to become one of his disciples.
This work is later than the Cūḷavaṃsa account of Buddhaghosa, which is much more reliable. Mahāmaṇgala appears to have borrowed incidents in the life stories of Nagasena and Moggaliputtatissa from the Milinda pañha and Mahāvaṃsa respectively, and incorporated them in his account of the life of Buddhaghosa. Thus, the description of Buddhaghosa’s previous life as a deva in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven and his being reborn in the human world at the request of an arahant thera, for the purpose of translating the scriptures into Pali, recalls to mind the story of the birth of Nāgasena who, in his previous life, was a deva in Tāvatiṃsa and sought rebirth as Nāgasena at the request of certain arahant theras, in order to refute the heretical views of Milinda. Nor does the similarity end here. The accounts of their childhood, conversion and ordination are very much alike. We are told that Buddhaghosa once thought that he was more learned in the Buddha’s doctrine than his preceptor and when Buddhaghosa asked for pardon for his unbecoming thought, his teacher agreed to forgive him only if Buddhaghosa translated the scriptures that were in Sinhala into Pali. This is an echo of the incident in the Milinda pañha, where Nāgasena hurts the feelings of his teacher who refuses to pardon him until he defeats Milinda in religious debates (Miln. pp. 6-14). Similarly, the account of his conversion by the thera with whom he had first been annoyed for having sat on his (Buddhaghosa’s) seat when the thera visited Buddhaghosa’s father’s house for alms, runs parallel to the account of the conversion of Moggaliputtatissa in the Mahāvaṃsa (Chap. v, vv. 137-53).
The Buddhaghosuppatti relates several incidents which are fanciful and incredible, e.g., the conversion of his father by locking him up in a room and opening the door only after he agreed to be a follower of the Buddha; his picking dried palm leaves which had fallen under the trees, for his work of translating which he completed in three months; and the writing of the Visuddhimagga in a single day. Although the Sinhalese commentaries are not extant today, it is impossible to believe that Buddhaghosa caused a bonfire to be made of them on the completion of his translation, as described in this work.
There is an error in the Buddhaghosuppatti. One is made to understand that Buddhaghosa translated the canonical works from Sinhala into Pali whereas it was the commentaries that he thus translated.
The Buddhaghosuppatti is a late work and evidently written at a time when a number of legends had grown round the celebrated figure of Buddhaghosa. However, the book is to be dated before the sixteenth century as it is referred to in the Jinakāla-māli written in 1517 A.C. It is also quoted in the Sāsanavaṃsa (pp. 30, 31).
Very little is known about the author apart from his name. Gray is of opinion that Mahāmaṇgala might have been a Ceylonese and B. С. Law is inclined to the same view. A.P. Buddhadatta, however, prefers to think that he might have hailed from Thailand or Burma as the error that Buddhaghosa translated the canonical works is not to be expected of a person from Ceylon, where the tradition of the translation of the commentaries was well known (A. P. Buddhadatta, Pāli Sāhityaya, I, Ambalangoda (Ceylon), 1960, pp. 158, 164-7; II, pp. 396-7; B. C. Law, Buddhaghosa, Calcutta, 1923, pp. 2, 13-5; A History of Pali Literature, London, 1933, II, pp. 558-60).
Gunasekere, L.R., Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. III, ed. G.P. Malalasekera, pp. 417-418. Ceylon: Government Press, 1971. Reprint, 1999.
In addition, regarding the origins of the author of this work, A. P. Buddhadatta adds, saying that this work, in terms of language and style, is of poor quality, which places its authorship outside the scope of Sri Lanka. He also notes, saying:
Evidence is also not wanting for the fact that the author was not conversant with the customs and conditions prevailing in Ceylon. An anecdote about Buddhaghosa relates how he used to collect the dry palm leaves which had fallen from the talipot palm trees in order to write his books. A Sinhalese monk, who would have known that in Ceylon only young talipot leaves are used for writing after being boiled and polished, would not have committed this blunder. On the other hand, it is the custom in Burma to use mature leaves. Such evidence leads us to believe that it is the work of a Burmese or Siamese monk. The fact that up to thirty or forty years ago there was no tradition current in Ceylon about the very existence of such a work strengthens our conjecture.
(A. P. Buddhadatta, University of Ceylon Review, pp. 77-78).
Regarding the Sinhalese commentaries, commonly known as Mahā-aṭṭhakathā or alternatively as Sīhala-aṭṭhakathā, which were brought to Sri Lanka by Mahinda and subsequently translated into Sinhalese, the Buddhaghosauppatti text asserts that after these commentaries were translated by Buddhaghosa Thera into Pāli, he compiled and then allegedly burned them before his departure.
This false claim is entirely unfounded, these commentaries remained in existence for a long time after this alleged event.
The Sinhala commentaries, which may be regarded as the earliest literary works in Ceylon, have been lost and no trace of them now exists. It has not been ascertained when exactly they disappeared. In the Buddhaghosuppatti it is stated that when Buddhaghosa completed his task of translating the commentaries into Pali, the Saṅgharāja caused the works of Mahinda to be piled up and burnt. But there is evidence for the existence of these commentaries long after this date and this episode may be considered as one more of the legends in the Buddhaghosuppatti. The references in the Mahāvaṃsa to the recitation of the canon together with the commentaries would not prove the existence of the Sinhala commentaries at these periods, as aṭṭhakathā could equally refer to the Pali commentaries. However, quotations from the Sinhala aṭṭhakathā in the works of later authors would prove their existence at the time these book Dīgha-aṭṭhakathā were written, and they would appear to have been available till about the thirteenth century ⁸⁵. It is not known how or when they finally disappeared. Just as Pali replaced Sinhala as the literary language at this time, so the Sinhala commentaries were superseded by the Pali commentaries which in addition were used more extensively. Buddhaghosa himself says, in the introduction to the Samantapāsādikā, that the commentary written in Sinhala was of no benefit to the bhikkhus outside Ceylon and therefore he was rendering it into Pali.
Goonesekere, L. R. (1967). Buddhist Commentarial Literature. The Wheel Publication No. 113/114, pp. 12-13.
85. The Dhampiyā-aṭuvāgāṭäpadaya, a work dated in the tenth century A. C., contains quotations from these commentaries in the original Sinhalese (pp. 136, 148, 149). In the Sahassavatthuppakaraṇa, a work assigned to a period before the eleventh century A. C., the author says in the introduction that he is following the method of the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā. There is evidence that the Sinhalese commentaries were available also to the author of the Vaṃsatthappakāsinī which has been dated by Malalasekera in the eighth century or ninth century A. C. (Mhv-a Intr. p. cix) and by Geiger between 1000 and 1250 A.C. (Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa 34). The author of the Vaṃsatthappakāsinī has quoted from the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā, Sīhalaṭṭhakathāmahāvaṃsa and Aṭṭhakathā, Uttaravihāra-aṭṭhakathā, Uttaravihāramahāvaṃsa, Porāṇaṭṭhakathā, Vinayaṭṭhakathā, Mahāvaṃsaṭṭhakathā and Dīpavaṃsaṭṭhakathā. These were all commentaries in Sinhalese. Vinayaṭṭhakathā, too, may be taken as referring to the Sinhalese commentary on the Vinaya, as the Samantapāsādikā has been separately quoted. The Pālimuttaka-Vinayavinicchaya-Saṅgaha dated in the twelfth century A.C. contains quotations from the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, the Mahāpaccari and the Kurundī (pp. 2, 4, Sinhalese edition, B. E. 2450). The Sārasaṅgaha which was probably written in the thirteenth century refers to a statement found in the Vinayaṭṭhakathā (p. 32, Sinhalese edition, 1898) which cannot be traced in the Samantapāsādikā. This would indicate that the statement was taken from the Sinhalese Vinayaṭṭhakathā, unless it was contained in the Samantapāsādikā of the author’s time.Goonesekere, L. R. (1967). Buddhist Commentarial Literature. The Wheel Publication No. 113/114, p. 40.
In addition to this:
Dhampiyā-Aṭuvā-Gäṭpadaya (DhpAGp) is a glossarial commentary in Sinhalese on the Pali Dhammapadaaṭṭhakathā (DhpA) of Buddhaghosa, the great Buddhist Commentator. It is considered to be the oldest Sinhalese prose book extant. The work was composed by King Kāśyapa V who ruled over Ceylon for ten years from 908 to 918 A.C. The Mahāvaṃsa (ch. 52) speaks in the highest terms of the profound learning of this King and also of other great qualities that distinguished him.
Hettiaratchi, D. E. (1933). A short study of the Dhampiya-Atuvā-Gätapadaya. The Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 32 (No 86), p. 359.
As well as:
Hettiaratchi, D. E. (1933). A short study of the Dhampiya-Atuvā-Gätapadaya. The Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 32 (No 86), p. 370.
