..續本文上一頁f 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 Vattagâmani, 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 Atthakathâs 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 Mahâvamsa tells us that Mahinda, the son of Asoka, 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, Devânampiya Tissa, was converted, and Buddhism soon became the dominant

　　[1. He had written the Ñânodaya, and the Atthasâlinî, a commentary on the Dhamma-sangani, before he went to Ceylon. Cf. Mahâvamsa, p. 251.

　　2. He learnt the five Nikâyas, and the seven sections (of the Abhidhamma); the two Vibhangas of the Vinaya, the Parivâra and the Khandhaka. See Dîpavamsa VII, 42.]

　　p. xxv religion of the island, The Tipitaka and the Atthakathâ, 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 Tipitaka in Pâli, the Atthakathâ in Sinhalese, together with an additional Atthakathâ 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 pided the different sections among them, following the example of Ânanda and Upâli 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 Mahâvamsa. For when he comes to describe the reign of Vattagâmani (88-76 B.C.) he simply says: ”The profoundly wise priests had heretofore orally perpetuated the Pâli Pitakattaya and its Atthakathâ (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”s Atthakathâs as a translation and new redaction of the Atthakathâs which were reduced to writing under Vattagâmani^[2], and these again as a translation of the old Atthakathâs 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 Dîpavamsa and the Mahâvamsa so far back at least as Mahinda, because we know that historical events were recorded in the monasteries of Ceylon long before Mahânâma”s 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 Buddh…

《The Dhammapada - Introduction》全文未完，請進入下頁繼續閱讀…