..續本文上一頁 Mahâvamsa and the somewhat earlier Dîpavamsa were founded on the Sinhalese Atthakathâs, the commentaries and chronicles preserved in the Mahâvihâra at Anurâdhapura. We also know that that Vihâra was demolished by Mahâsena, 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 Kûlavamsa is mentioned with the Mahâvamsa, both as the works of Mahânâma, by Professor Forchhammer in his List of Pâli 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 Dîpavamsa, should end with the death of Mahâsena (died 302 A.D.), and why in the Mahâvamsa too there should have been a break at that date. But we must not forget that, during Mahânâma”s life, the Mahâvihâra at Anurâdhapura was restored, that some kind of chronicle, called the Dîpavamsa, whether it be a general name of any ”chronicle of the island,” or of our Dîpavamsa, or, it may be, even of our Mahâvamsa, was ordered to be published or promulgated (dîpetum) under Dhâtusena, the nephew and protegé of Mahânâma. Therefore, even if we do not insist on the personal authorship of Mahânâma, we may certainly maintain that historical entries had been made in the chronicles of Anurâdhapura during Dhâtusena”s reign, and probably under the personal auspices of Mahânâma, so that if we find afterwards, in the second half of the 37th chapter of his Mahâvamsa, an account of events which had happened between the destruction of the Mahâvihâra and the reign of Dhâtusena, and among them an account of so important an event as the arrival of Buddhaghosa from Magadha and his translation of the Sinhalese Atthakathâ 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 Mahânâma which might have perplexed Turnour”s mind, and has certainly proved a stumbling-block to myself. Turnour thought that the author of the commentary on the Mahâvamsa, the Vamsatthappakâsinî, was the same as the author of the Mahâvamsa, viz. Mahânâma. 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 Agrabôdhi (also called Dhâtâpatisso). 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 Mahâvamsa 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 Mahâvamsa (p. 254):

　　 ”Certain members of the Moriyan dynasty, dreading the power of the (usurper) Subho, the bâlattho, had settled in various parts of the country, concealing themselves. Among them there was a certain landed proprietor Dhâtusena, who had established himse…

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