Comment on the works of Ven. BG in accordance with Mahavihara tradition
The PCs were brought by Ven. Mahinda in 3rd century B.C to Sri Lanka
Even though the Vm was not a commentary it is the text in which many references to Pali cannon are found. When BG came to Sri Lanka Vimuttimagga have already been written by the Bhikkhus of Abhayagīri. The Vimuttimagga was translated into Chinese in 5th century AD. The Chinese translation of Vimuttimagga is available, even in English now.
When we compare Vimuttimagga with Vm we can see that the Vm is nothing but the copy of Vimuttimagga. The name of chapters, the quotations taken from the canonical texts and the various topics of both books are the same. Therefore, there is no doubt about that ven. BG wrote Vm by copying the Vimuttimagga of the Abhiyagīri.
In the Vm the term Indariyattha is defined by quoting a grammatical formula from the Panini. As Adikaram pointed out this particular quotation is taken from the Panini grammar word by word. When BG wrote commentary of Ambbttha sutta there are various definitions based on that he gathered from Sanskrit texts. He would have studied Sanskrit before he came to Sri Lanka
The Mahāvihāra used Pāli as the sacred language, but Abayagīri used both Pāli and sankrit languages. Since Sankrit became popular at Abayagīri their knowledge of Pāli was also better than that of Mahāvihāra. But BG would have studied Sanskrit and he had a lot of knowledge of Sankaya Philosophy and Mahayana tradition which flourished in southern India
In his commentaries, we find the phrase 'Ekacce vandanti', which means some say. Dhammapala said that BG used the term 'Ekacce' to indicate the opinions of Abhayagiri. Abhayagiri had its own commentarial literature and historical record like Uttaraviharavamsatthakatha. He used Andaka Atthakatha which existed in Andaka padesa, India
The sources of the Pali commentaries are divided into four categories; sutta, suttanuloma, acariya and attanomati. The former has stronger authority than the latter. So the weakest authority of source is Attanomati. This Attanomati given by BG does not represent Mahavihara Naya. This is made evident from the fact that Mahāvihāra monks did not write any classics book in Pāli before the Ven.BG came to Sri Lanka
The analysis of mediation found in the Vm does not represent Mahavihara tradition and they were quite different from the system of Pāli language. The BG followed the system that employed the Yogadassana of patanjali. BG has copied them from Yogadassana. Therefore the Vm is not based on Mahāvihāra tradition. It is pointed out by the various scholars that the ven.BG was influenced by various systems of Indian philosophy. In this way, we should not come to the conclusion that Ven. BG always followed the Mahāvihāra tradition. (573 words)
Did BG always follow the Mahavihara Tradition in writing the various commentaries?
The PCs were brought by Ven.Mahinda in the 3rd century B.C. to Sri Lanka
(1) At the very beginning of commentxries of 4 Nikayas, BG said that he wrote these commentaries by keeping VS as a sense as center.In the texts he quite often refered to the VS. When he came to SL, the Bhikkhus of Abhayagiriya have already been written a book namely Vimuttimagga (VM). When we compare VM with VS, we can see that VS is nothing but the copy of VM. Both books are nearly the same, because the name of chapters, the quotations taken from the canonical texts and various details given on collected topics are same. Therefore, there is no doubt that BG wrote VS by copying the VM.
(2) With reference to the analysis of meditation found in VS, BG followed the system that employed the Yogadavs'ana of Patanjali. He has copied them from Yogadavs'ana. So, VS is not based on Mahavihara tradition.
(3) The various scholars pointed out that BG was influenced by Indian system of philosophy.
(4) In VS, the term Indariyakatha is defined by quoting a grammatical formula from Panini. Adikaran pointed out that this particular quotation is taken from the Panini grammar word by word.
(5) There are various definitions given by BG. The term Brahmana is defined in various discourses as one who recites Mantra. At one place, he said that Brahmana is one who tries to destroy unwholesome activities, Papa.
(6) In Nanadassanavisuddhi of VS, it is said that Avijja is referred to the very beginning of existence. In this case, it is first cause. Every thing comes out from the Avijja. So, he must have some knowledge of Sankaya philosophy. These are not definitely going to formulate Mahavihara tradition. So, BG and other commentator also deviated on various occasions from Mahavihara tradition.
(7) In the commentaries, there are particular terms: one is Bhanaka and another is Porana. In Adikaram's book, Bhanaka and Porana sometimes contradict to one another.
For example, DN said that a text belongs to the Abhidhammapitaka but MN said that it belongs to the Suttapitaka. These two traditions were contradictory in particular points. Therefore, what we see in the conmemtaries under the Bhanaka and Porana is not Mahaviharanaya.
(8) There are particular phrases which refer to the scholars who lived in Sri Lanka or India.In VS, we find the phrase ''Ekacce vadanti'' which means some say.Dhammapala says that BG used the term ''Ekacce'' to indicate Ven-Upatissa who wrotes VM and lived in Abhayagiriya.
(9) In Samantapasadika, the sources of the Pali commentaries are divided into four categories by BG himself. They are: Sutta, Suttanuloma, Acariyavada and Attanomati. The former has stronger authority than the later. So, the weakest authority of source is Attanomati. This Attanomati does not represent Mahaviharanaya. That is because he wrote commentaries by following other opinions. So, we should not come to the conclusion that BG always follows the Mahavihara tradition. Words -554
The PCs were brought by ven. Mahinda in 3rd century B.C to Sri Lanka
What is found in the commentaries are what the Indian Buddhists believed, not Sri Lanka
Vm is not a commentary. It is independent work written by the Ven. BG. At the very beginning of the commentaries on four Nikāyas, Ven. BG said that keeping Vm as a sense, as center, he wrote these commentaries. In the texts he quite often referred to the Vm. Even though the Vm was not a commentary it is the text which was referred in Pāli cannon. When BG came to Sri Lanka Sri Lanka
It is believed that the Vimuttimagga was translated into Chinese before the Samantapāsādīkā. The Chinese translation of Vimuttimagga is available, even in English now. When we compare Vimuttimagga with Vm we can see that the Vm is nothing but the copy of Vimuttimagga. The subject matter of both books are nearly the same, because the name of chapters, the quotations taken from the canonical texts and the various details given on collected topics are the same.
Therefore, there is no doubt about that ven. BG wrote Vm by copying the Vimuttimagga of the Abhiyagīri. The Mahāvihāra used Pāli as the sacred language, but Abayagīri uses both Pāli and sankrit languages. Since the learning of Sankrit became popular at Abayagīri their knowledge of Pāli was also better than that of Mahāvihāra.
This is made evident from the fact that Mahāvihāra monks did not write any classics book in Pāli before the Ven.BG came to Sri Lanka
The analysis of mediation found in the Vm does not represent Buddhist mediation and they were quite different from the system of Pāli language. The BG followed the system that employed the Yogadasana of patanjali. The ven. BG has copied them from Yogadasana. Therefore the Vm is not based on Mahāvihāra tradition. It is pointed out by the various scholars that the ven.BG was influenced by various Indian system of philosophy. In this way, we should not come the conclusion that ven. BG always follow the Mahāvihāra tradition. (580 words) 2.5.2006
According to Mahavamsa, Ven. BG was a Brahman, born in Buddhagaya. Buddhagosuppti also confirms the opinion of the Mahavamsa. At the end of Vm, it is said that the Ven. BG was born in a place called Morandacetaka.. As a Brahman he would have studied Sanskrit and had a lot of knowledge of Mahayana tradition which flourished in southern India
Even though Ven.BG said that he would follow the Mahavihara tradition to translate the commentaries. In the Vm the term Indariyatha is defined by quoting a grammatical formula from the Panini. As Adikaram pointed out this particular quotation is taken from the Panini grammar word by word. When wrote commentary on the Ambbttha sutta of DN Ven. BG said that all Vedas are silent on this particular point. There are various definitions given by Ven. BG depending on that he gathered from Sanskrit texts.
The term Brahmana is defined in various discourse as one who recites Mantra. At one place he further said Brahmana is one who tries to eradicate unwholesome activities, Papa. He referred to Sankaya Philosophy which comments on Paticcasamuppada. The most longest and scholarly position of the Paticcasamuppada is found in his Vm, which is called Nanadassanavisuddhi. Avijja is referred to the very beginning of existence. In this case, it is the first cause. Every thing comes out from the Avijja. This shows that Ven. BG must have some knowledge of Sankaya philosophy. He gave account of Brahmanic theory of the origin of four casts. The Brahmans used to proclaim that they were originated from the mouth of the Brahman. This theory is first articulated in the ten chapter of Veda.
These are not definitely going to formulate Mahavihara tradition. So, Ven BG and other commentators also deviated on various occasions from the Mahavihara tradition. In the commentaries there are particular terms; one is Bhanaka and the other is Porana. In Adikaram's book, bhanaka and Porana sometimes contradict to one another. For example, DN opinion that a text belongs to the Abhidhamma pitaka but MN said that it belongs to the suttapitaka. These two traditions were contradictory in particular points. Therefore, what we see in the commentaries under the banaka and porana is not Mahaviharanaya. There are particular phrased which refers to the scholars who lived either in SL or in India
Abhayagiri had its own commentarial literature and historical record also like Uttaraviharavamsatthakatha. There is another commentary that was used by Ven. BG is Andaka Atthakatha which existed in Andaka padesa, India
This Attanomati given by BG does not represent Mahavihara Naya. That is because he wrote commentaries by following other opinions. Mahavihara tradition may be the opinion held by Theras of Mahavihara in Anuradapura. Some teachers lived in remote area of Anuradapura. BG might go to Rohana during his stay in SL because it was better than Mahavihara for Buddhist education. Two important places mentioned in commentaries are Sitalapabbata and Tissamahagama. BG also mentioned in his commentaries that two Indian monks, Visapa and Pitimala, who came to SL to study Buddhism and Pali had left Anuradhapura
The Sources of Theravada Tradition (23/4/06)
According to the commentaries, the commentarial tradition goes back to the time of the Buddha. In the discourses the Buddha said that he preached the Dhamma in the form of Sutta, Geya, etc. which is called Navangasatthusāsana. Here we can find two literal styles: Veyakarana and Jātaka which are representative of the commentarial tradition. This is how the Buddha preached the Dhamma.
Veyākarana is the style of analytical exposition. Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta is exposition of Four Noble Truths. Brahmajāla Sutta is the exposition of the views that existed during the time of the Buddha. Therefore, Veyākarana has direct connection to the commentarial Tradition.
Similarly the Jātakas also directly connect to the commentarial tradition. When we examine the Jātaka commentary the Jātaka stanzās are incorporated in it. The two books are consistent. The Jātaka stories are also as old as the Jātaka stanzas. There is no possibility for the Jātaka stanzas to exist alone. The Jātaka stanzas become meaningful due to the stories. Therefore the Jātaka stories go back to the time of the Buddha.
Vinaya pitaka
When we examine the Tipitaka, the characteristic of the commentarial tradition are found. The Vinayapitaka has three sections and five texts. The three sections are (1)Vibanga (2) Kandaka and (3) Parivāra. The five texts are (1)Pārajikapāli (2)Pācittiyapāli (3) Mahāvaggapāli (4)Cūlavaggapāli and (5)Parivārapali. In addition to them, Bhikkupātimokkha and Bhikkunipātimokkha can be found in the majority of Buddhist schools. Therefore, some scholars pointed out the opinion that the Vibanga section first had Bhikkhupatimokkha and and Bhikkunipātimokkha, not Pārajikapāli and Pācittiyapāli. If we examine the Pārajika and Pācittiyapāli we can clearly see that these two texts are nothing but commentaries. Pārajika pāli and pācittiya pāli has various details in addition to the vinaya rules.
According to the Panccasatikakkhandaka of cullavaggaPāli, six factors are added to the Pārajikapāli and pācittiyapāli. Therefore the Pārajika and pācittiya pāli become the commentary on the vinaya rules. There is a very important section which is called Padabājaniya for each of the vinaya rules in the Pārajika and Pācittiyapāli. Here Padabājaniya means analysis of words in traditional commentary. If we take example from Sumingalavilāsinī we can see that ven.BG analysised the words which contains in the discourses. Padabājaniya is nothing but commentary on the vinaya rules. So the Theravada Tradition believes that the Padabājaniya was introduced by the Buddha himself. If so, the first commentator of Theravada tradition is the Buddha himself, not Ven. BG.
There is a separate term in the commentaries called Pakinnaka Desanā, the sermons of the Buddha uttered in various places. In addition to the major sermon the Buddha gave an additional sermon also as appendix. That is how the commentaries came into existence. Kandaka rules support to the main vinaya rules erected by the Buddha for the Bhikkus and Bhikkunis. So, Kandaka also take the form of commentary. The Parivāra has various rules and the conmments of Vibanga and Kandaka. These comments are given in the form of dialouge, questions and answer form. What is discussed in the Vibanga and Kandaka in details is summarized in the Parivāra. The present vinaya Pitaka is a mass of commentaries written on the Vinaya rules.
Ven.BG realized this and he came forward with a new definition of Vinayapitaka in the Sammatapāsadīka, Atthasālinī and Sumangalavilāsinī. According to Theravada Tradition Vinayapitaka have five texts. But the Ven.BG asked what the Vinayapitaka is and then he himself defined it Vinayapitaka is Pātimokkha, two Vibanga, two Kandaka, 16 parivara. But the Theravada tradition does not accept Bhikkupātimokkha and BhikuniPātimokkha as the part of Vinayapitaka. The ven.BG said the Bhikkhupātimokkha and Bhikkhunipātimokkha should be included in the Vinaya Pitaka. He suggested without these texts the Vinayapitaka is not complete with the five texts as accepted in the Theravāda tradition. This problem does not arise in the Vinayapitaka of others tradition because the very first two texts in their tradition are BK and BKN. This is a serious problem in Theravada tradition.
Suttanta pitaka
When we examine the Suttapitaka it is quite obvious there are expositions to the Pāli commentaries. The Buddha begins the Dhammackkapavatana sutta with commentarial view. It is said that at the very beginning the Bhikkhus should avoid the two extremes, self-indulgence and self-mortification, and practice Mijjimapatipadā. Then he explained what middle path is. And he himself answered Middle Path is the Noble Eight folds itself. In this case we can see how commentary was also erected on very first sermon itself. The Buddha came forward with commentarial remark. This type of remark is found in most of the discourses. In the first part of vammika Sutta, Buddha gave an outline for the discourse. In the next part, he explained what they are. Here the text and commentary are combined in the Vammika Sutta.
In the Dhammapada there are Vaggas such as Buddha vagga, Bhikkhu vagga, etc. Vaggas are the particular word defined in various ways. For example, who is the Buddha? The meaning of Buddha is explained in various stanzas of that vagga. Bhikkhu is also defined and analyzed in Bhikkhu vagga. Another example is the Vattaka Sutta found in the Sutta Nipāta also. For example, who is the teacher? The person who teaches us is a teacher. And who is marchant? The person who sales goods is marchant. This definition is nothing but a commentary. There is Udāna uttered by the Buddha. If we don't know this context as reported in section we cannot understand. The Udāna gets its meaning in the context of prose.
Niddesa Pāli has two parts, Mahāniddesa and Cūlaniddesa. Mahāniddesa is a commentary written on Attakavagga of the Suttanipāta. Cūlaniddesa is a commentary written on the Parāyanavagga of Suttanipāta. They are as older as the collections of discourses: DN, SN, AN, etc. The discourse of Attakavagga was known as Attakavagga during the time of the Buddha. Parāyanavagga was also Parāyanavagga.
The first vagga of DN is called Sīlankhandhavagga. It has 13 discourses but during the time of the Buddha no one knew Sīlakkhandavagga. Buddhism has rich conceptual thinking because in Attakavagga there is no mention of Middle Path, Noble Eightfold Path, and Dependent Origination. When the time went on these two sections would not have been properly understood. That is because they became the victim of conceptual Buddhism. Therefore, the elders decided to write commentary on the Attakavagga and Parāyana.
The only difference is that the Niddesa dose not has grammatical terminology. But in the Niddesa the terms are explained in their linguistic concern even though grammar is not known. For example, in Niddesa the word Iti (Itītipadasandi) is used to combine words. This particular sentence cannot be attributed to the Buddha because in the discourse this type of sentence does not occur. The Niddesa says that Evamti Upamā. Here the word Evam is mainly used to bring forward at the assembly. The proper grammar has been used in Niddesa. Therefore Niddesa is commentary like Sumangalavilāsinī.
Abhidhamma pitaka
When we come to the Abhidhamma the Buddha's teachings which are found in the discourses are presented in different way in the Abhidhammapitaka. Therefore the entire Abhidhammapitaka can be considered as commentary on the Buddha teaching recorded in the discourses. The very first book of Abhidhammapitaka is Dhammasinganī which first gives the topic of Abhidhamma. The entire detail topics given in the Dhammasangani are discourses. The topics are called Abhidhamma Mātikā. It is believed that this Mātikā was kept by the Buddha himself. Ven. Moggaliputtatissa wrote Kathāvatthu in 3rd century B.C on the topic which is handed down by the Buddha himself.
There is a section which is called Atthuddāra. So, what is given first as topic is discussed in detail in the Dhammasangani itself. And also this topic is further discussed in other text of Abhidhamma. In this way, Abhidhamma is a commentary in early Buddhism. There are two forms of methodology in the Abhidhammapitaka. First the topic which is enumerated discourses is called Suttantabājaniya. Second they are counted using Abhidhamma methodology is called Abhidhammabājanīya.
This Abhidhamma methodology has two distinctive characters. One is called Nipuggala, not mentioned of any person in the Abhidhammic analysis. The other is called Nipariyāya which explain what is first given in the Suttantabājaniya. Technical terms are used in the discourses to understand for various groups of people according to their knowledge. So, when we take all these into consideration, the entire Abhidhammapitaka played the role of a longest commentary in early Buddhism. That is the commentarial tradition which goes back to the time of the Buddha in Abhidhama.
There are three Pali texts between the Pali canon and commentarial literature. They are Nettipakarana, Petakopadesa and Milindapanha. They are called pre-commentarial and post-pali literature. Both Nettipakarana and Petakopadesa are found in a particular class. In Sri lankan tradition, none of these is considered as canon. But in Burmese tradition, all of these pretexts are Pali canons. According to Burmese tradition, the Kuddaka Nikaya consists of 19 texts. According to the Saddhammaratanakara( one of Sri lankan text), even in the Srilankan tradition, Nettipakarana is a Pali canon.
Both of Nittipakarana and Petakopadesa dealt with the same methodology sometime using even the same word. Which book was written first is not very clear. Some scholars think Nittipakarana was written first but some think it was later. Petakopadesa have been corrected in the Nittipakarana. The citations in the Petkopadesa are full of mistake although these are directly corrected in Nittipakarana. According to Jonward, the theravāda has the problem of interpretation. The purpose of written N and P was to address these problems. Therefore, the N and P was followed a system different from the Pāli commentaries. According to Ven Nānamoli, N and P give guide lines to understand Pāli Tipitaka as a whole not piece by piece as commentaries provided
Both Nettipakarana and Petakopadesa were written by Ven Mahakaccana, one of the 80 great disciples. In Theravada tradition, there are two grammatical schools; the Kaccayana and Moggallãna. The authorship of Kaccayana is said to be Ven Mahakaccãna who lived during the time of Buddha. But at the time of the Buddha, the knowledge of grammar was not developed. So this statement is doubtful. There is a history of pali literature called Ganthavansa written in Pali in Burma
It is an important historical point. There was a system of interpretation and analysis of dhamma which had developed during the time of Buddha. Ven Mahakaccãna lived in a remote area called Avanti which was far from the capital city of Magada
According to 1st chapter of AN, Ven Mahakaccayana is one of the prominent Maximizers.(expander of what is said in short). In MN, we can see Madhupindika sutta, in which the Buddha preached to the monks in short and went back into His room. The monks approached to Ven Mahakaccãna and asked him. He gave a detail account of the discourse. Then the monks went again to the Buddha and inform what Ven Mahakaccayana explained. The Buddha said that it was true. Therefore the Theravada tradition thought that the first grammarian of pali language is Ven Mahakaccayana. Out of these two texts, the Petakopadesa was compiled first.
There are two characteristics are found in Nettipakarana. The first one is that the Netti is the analysis of the meaning of 9 fold division (Navangatthassa vannana). The 9 fold are sutta, geya, veyakarana, etc. The second one is that the Netti is the analysis of the entire teaching of Buddha (Pariyattisasanassa attha vannana). In both Netti and Petako, there is only the analysis of sutta pitaka, not that either of Vinaya or of Abhidhamma.
There are three major topics in these two texts; Panca naya( five ways), Solasahãra(16 hãra), atthãrasa mulapada ( 18 fundamental terms). These 18 fundamental terms deal with wholesome and unwholesome; 9 wholesome and 9 unwholesome. Abhidhamma starts with Katamedhammã kusalã, Katamedhammã Akusalã, Katamedhammã Abyãkatã. . Therefore some scholars think that both Netti and Petako came into existence before the Vinaya and Abhidhamma Pitaka. (600 words)
After the second Buddhist council, there were different interpretations and ways how to practice Dhamma among Buddhist monks. According to historical accounts, the three traditions based on the Buddha’s teachings are Theravada, Puggalavada and Sarvastivada. They all have their own opinions or views of early Buddhism.
When Theravada analyzes the five aggregates into the ultimate things such as 89 types of consciousness (Citta), 52 mental factors (Cetasika), and 28 forms of matter (Rupa), there is no beings that we call ‘I, he, she, or it. All these ultimate things are impermanent (anicca) and perish after arising. There is no soul (Atta). Therefore, Theravada rejects the existence of individual (Puggala).
To respond Theravada, Ven. Vasiputtara put forward with the notion of person, Puggala. The main theory of puggalavada is that there is an entity called Puggala separate from the five aggregates. According to their view, a person (Puggala) is responsible to what he does until the realization of Nibbana.
They said that ‘if there is no person, who takes the responsibilities good or bad and goes to the next life?’ To prove the theory of Kamma, rebirth, memory, the spiritual development, etc, Puggalavada says that there must be an entity. Even though the Buddha said that there are four kinds of persons (Puggala) in AN, it does not refer to the ultimate things. He used the conventional things to explain his teachings. Theravada criticizes that the concept of Puggala favors the Hindu concept of soul. To respond the ideology of Puggala, Kathavatthu was written by Ven. Moggaliputta during the time of King Asoka.
Although Sarvastivada refuses the concept of Puggala, There are some differences betweem Sarvastivada and Theravada concerning the theory of moment which is based on early Buddhism. Sarvastivada says that the absolute phenomena exist at all times- past, present and future. Hence, they are called Sarvastivada.
They put forward the following arguments against Theravada. (1) Due to the actions done in the past, the results exist in the present and will appear in the future. (2) The memory is not possible without the past existence. (3) Even in our experiences, we lived in the past, lives in the present and will live in the future continuously. (4) By the power of Pubbenivasanussatinana, Arahants can see the past and future of beings. (5) There are ordinary people who can recall the past life. Based on these arguments, they say that the Dhamma exists in the past, present and future.
To respond the Sarvastivada, the Theravada says that there is no possibility to exist in the three tenses without any changes. The Theravada points out a particular discourse of SN. In this sutta, the Buddha accepted three tenses but there is no continuation of past, present and future. Therefore, the existence of three tenses is the wrong notion of Sarvastivada. Moreover, they say that it is nominal behind the absolute phenomena. Theravada says that there is no such existence. If there is something behind phenomena, it is nothing but the soul which is rejected by the Theravada.
According to Theravada, all conditioned things undergo the duration of three moments: moment of arising (uppada), moment of existence (thiti) and moment of destruction (bhanga). All conditioned things appear and perish one moment after another. They exist only in the present. Based on these accounts, Theravada totally rejects Puggalavada and Sarvastivada. (557 words)
Historical Beginning of the Theravada Buddhism
The term Theravada is composed of two parts: Thera- elder + Vada- tradition or theory meaning “the tradition of the elder. Early Buddhism means the early collection and classification of the facts and teachings of the 4 Nikayas while the latter collection, classification and interpretation of the Dhamma and Vinaya are called the Theravada Buddhism. It is commonly seen as the same but there is, in fact, a distinction between Theravada and Early Buddhism.
Now the distinctive matter between them can be traced. In the 6th century BC, the discourses were not collected. At that time The Buddha pointed out that the leader for the Buddha Sasana would be just the Dhamma and Vinaya as the Teacher. After the demise of the Buddha, at the 1st Buddhist Council, they started collecting the Buddha’s teachings where the Elders involvement started collecting four Nikayas namely Digha Nikaya– 34 Sutra, Majjhima Nikaya – 150 Sutra, Samyuttanikaya – 7000 Sutra and Anguttara Nikaya – 9000 Sutra. These four Nikayas are commonly called the early Buddhism and agreed by all groups.
Traditionally, at the 1st Buddhist Council, there were 500 Arahants and 700 Arahants at the second. At these two councils, only sutta and vinaya were collected except Abhidhamma. It is believed to be the collection of the Theras. During the 1st Buddhist Council – each Vinaya rule was added with 7 fold details: Vatthu, Nindana, Puggala, Pannatti, Anuppannatti, Apatti and Anapatti. It is sure that the Vinaya of early Buddhism was about 100 pages. Later it became 5 texts totaling 10,000 pages. Some names of King such as Bimbisara, Ajatasattu, Udayibhaddha as well as Asoka in the suttas are added by the Theras.
There is another way of differentiating Theravada and Early Buddhism. Early Buddhism consists of the main rules (vinaya) and 95% of the main discourses (4 nikaya). However, latter the collection and Interpretation of the Dhamma and Vinaya are called the Theravada Buddhism. Hence in between the 2nd and 3rd council there is a differentiation of interpretation of Vinaya and Dhamma by Sangha. As a result the original Sangha split into Theravada and Mahasanghika. In the subsequent period these two schools again spilt into 18 schools: 11 sects from Theravada and 7 sects from Mahasanghika.
The difference in the schools laid in their interpretations of the discourses. According to different individual given to different occasions and in different places the Buddha also talked in different ways in different discourses. In Bahuvedaniya Sutta (Madhyamika) the Buddha gave a statement: Pariyayadesito Kho Maya Ananda dhammo – (this dhamma can be interpreted in different ways according to conditions). Moreover, Abhidhamma existed in the 3rd council due to the contribution of the Theras. Without the Abhidhamma philosophy contribution there will be no proper interpretation of the Sutta and Vinaya. Therefore it is an important contribution of Theras to Theravada Tradition.
The Theravada abstract from the main text and make new discourses called Dharmasutra consists only of the list of doctrines with no place, time, speaker, similes. Then the Theravada using some methodological ways interpreted them systematically for example, Rupa: ruppatiti rupam or vedana – vediyatiti vedana. Early Buddhism could not be interpreted systematically. With the help of the Theravada, these discourses were systematically interpreted. In all, early Buddhism consists of the original teachings of the Buddha while Theravada Buddhism is added new elements to Vinaya and dhamma. Word- 555
Explain the relationship among the early Buddhism, Theravada tradition and Vibhajjavada.
Early Buddhism means the early collection and classification of Buddha’steachings (Four Nikayas). The later collection, classification and interpretation of the Dhamma and Vinaya are called Theravada Buddhism. It is commonly seen as the same but there is a distinction between Theravada and Early Buddhism. The four Nikayas are commonly called as Early Buddhism by all groups. Then the Buddha’s teachings became five Nikayas.
During the 1st Buddhist Council, each Vinaya was added with seven elements- Vatthu, Nidana, Puggala, Pannatti, Anuppannatti, Apatti and Anapatti. Therefore, we can say that Theravada is the expansion of Early Buddhism. Early Buddhism consists of the main rules (vinaya) and 95% of the main discourses (Four Nikayas). However, later collection and Interpretation of the Dhamma and Vinaya are called the Theravada Buddhism. Hence between the 2nd and 3rd council there is a differentiation of interpretation of Vinaya and Dhamma by Sangha. As a result the original Sangha split into Theravada and Mahasanghika.
Moreover, Abhidhamma existed in the 3rd council due to the contribution of the Theras. Without the Abhidhamma philosophy there would be no proper interpretation of the Sutta and Vinaya. Therefore it is an important contribution of the elder to Theravada Tradition.
Then the Theravada using some methodological ways interpreted them systematically for example, Rupa - ruppatiti rupam or vedana – vediyatiti vedana. Early Buddhism could not be interpreted systematically. With the help of the Theravada, these discourses were systematically interpreted. Early Buddhism consists of Buddha’s original teachings while Theravada Buddhism is added new elements to Vinaya and dhamma.
The Vibhajjavada is indentified as Theravada in the analysis of individual being into the five aggregates. Therefore, the canonical evidence comes to the conclusion the words Vibhajjavada and Theravada are the same in early Buddhism. In the Subba sutta of MN, Subha asked the Buddha two questions. To answer him the Buddha said that ‘He could not give him categorical answer and he was Vibhajjavadi, not Ekamsavadi.
In the Catukka Nipata of A.N, there are four kinds of questions to give answers. They express the relationship between Theravada and Vibajjavada. They are: (1) Panho ekamsavyakaraniyo – A question which should be answered categorically; (2) Panho vibhajjavyakaraniyo – A question which should be answered analytically; (3) Panho patipucchavyakaraniyo – A question which should be replied with a counter question: (4) Panho thapaniyavyakaraniyo – A question which should be set aside without giving any answer.
We cannot consider Buddhism as Vibhajjavada because the Buddha replied question in four ways mentioned above. All questions and answers are equally valid. They are not superior to others. In early Buddhism, there are two aspects which are called ‘Analysis and Synthesis’. These two aspects are called in the Abhidhamma as Bheda and Sangaha. The Paticcasamuppada is the major figure of Synthesis. It is more important than Analysis in early Buddhism. The Khanda, Ayatana, Dhatu and Dhamma divisions represent the analytical aspect of Buddhism. In this sense, Theravada may have been identified as Vibhajjavada.
The term V was introduced to the Theravada tradition in the 3rd Buddhist council. In Samantapasadika, Mahavamsa, and Atthasalini it is said that the king Asoka purified the Sasana with the help of Ven. Moggaliputta asking a question such as ‘What was the perfectly Enlightened One(Kim vadi Sammasambuddho).He expelled 6000 heretics who answered that the Buddha was Sassatavadi and accepted those who answered that the Buddha was Vibhajjavadi.
In conclusion, Theravada is derived from Early Buddhism. V is a new term to express the meaning of Theravada. They all are nearly the same. This tradition spread to other countries such as Myanmar , Thailand , Laos , and Cambodia
Traditionally Buddhist literature consists of three baskets: Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma. Of them, Vinaya is the disciplinary code for self training laid down by the Buddha for monks and nuns to observe. It plays a vital role in Theravadins’ monastic way of life. The Vinaya pitaka consists of five texts under three main sections: Suttavibhanga- parajika and pacittitya; Khandaka- Mahavagga and culavagga; Parivara- Parivara which is the appendix to the Vinaya. In suttavibhanga there are 220 rules under the 7 groups of offences: Four parajika, Thirteen sanghadisesa, Two aniyata, Thirty nissaggiya, Ninety two pacittaya, four pātidesaniya and Seventy five sekkiya.
Unless the Vinaya is protected as a whole, the dispensation will disappear. Thus, all monks should accept all the rules formulated by the Buddha in spite of being heavy or light.
According to Dr Oliver, Theravada is nothing but Vinaya carried by the elder. I totally support his statement through Buddhist Councils. The first Buddhist Council was held because Subaddha disparaged the Buddha’s teachings, especially Vinaya on the seventh day after the Buddha’s demise. At that council, the elders have considered Vinaya as a very important aspect of Buddhism. They wanted to make clear division between Dhamma and Vinaya and protect the disciplines promulgated by the Buddha. They, thus, decided to recite first Vinaya as they thought Vinaya is the lifespan of the Buddhist dispensation- Vinayo nama sasanassa āyu.
From the Buddha’s time up to the 2nd Buddhist council, there was no division in Buddhist dispensation. By examining the second Buddhist council we can know that the Theravadins wanted to purify the real Buddhism in accordance with the exact Vinaya rules. There were some monks known as Vajiputtaka who preached and practiced ten unlawful matters not suitable to monks. Theravadins believed that if they allow them Buddhism will not exist for a long time. We can think that the second Buddhist council was nothing but the protection of Buddhist Vinaya. If someone had any doubt or misinterpretation of Vinaya, the Elder expelled him from the Theravadins.
Before the third council, some theravadins did not perform any Kamma with those who entered the Order without observing the rules. Mahavihara monks, Theravadins, did not want to mix with Abhayagiri monks because they had different disciplines to be observed.
Theravadins were able to keep early Buddhism in the pure form. Thus, the tripitakas contain the Buddha’s teachings, with regard to the doctrine and the disciplinary rules formulated for the good behavior of monks. If any one of the four parajikas is violated, at once one becomes layman, expelled from the sañgha. Both parajika and sanghadisesa are considered as garukapatti, heavy offence and the rest are lahukapatti-light offences. Minor changes of Vinaya had taken place from time to time but were not officially recognized among the members of the Theravadins. In fact, Vinaya helps monks to develop greater spirituality.
A monk without Vinaya disciplines is not worthy of receiving any offerings and looks like laypeople. There is no difference between monk and layman. Theravadins believe that no one can achieve any progress of higher knowledge without observing rules. A monk basically has to establish well the disciplinary rules to develop concentration and insight which lead to Nibbana.
One who observes Vinaya well can practice and realize well Dhamma. Vinaya is extremely beneficial to both monks and their donors for their liberation. Theravadins, therefore, give prominence to Vinaya than Dhamma. Word-565
P is discussed in detail in the Mahāpadana sutta and Mahānidana sutta of DN. In the Sammāditthi sutta of MN also the 12 fold factors of P are explained in detail. Ven. Sāriputta addressed to the bhikkhus that one has arrived at the true Dhamma when one understands these factors, their origin, their cessation and the way leading to the cessation.
Similarly, there are many discourse on P in the AN and the KN. The Paccayakāra of the Patthana in Abhidhamma Pitaka,is the 24 relationship between cause and effect. In fact, the real meaning of Paticcasamuppada cannot be understood without knowledge of Abhidhamma. The Pali cannons are very effective as the authorship of the Buddha. Therefore, the Theravada tradition believes that P is the Buddha’ś teaching, not the disciples’.
The teaching of Paticcasamuppada can be seen everywhere in the universe. In the Cakkavatti sutta of DN, the Buddha explained social problems how they happen. In SN, the Buddha discussed how a plant comes from seed. If the three causes cannot come together, the plant cannot arise. How the world comes and end, as its cause and effect, is explained by the Buddha in Sattasūriya sutta of AN.
The Law of Dependent Origination is a profound and realistic way of understanding the universe. The fact that everything is nothing more than a set of relation is consistent with the modern scientific view of the material world. Understanding the law of cause and effect or Kamma and its result, we must avoid from evil deeds, do good deeds and purify the mind.
There are twelve factors in P. They are: Avijjā, Sankhāra, Vinnana, Nāmarūpa, Salāyatana, Phassa, Vedanā, Tanhā, Upadāna, Bhava, Jāti and Jarāmarana. Dependent on the ignorance (Avijja), there arise volitional actions (Sankhara) and so on. In this way, they account for the continuity of existence of beings, birth after birth. This is the arising of aggregate of sufferings. These 12 factors are divided into three tenses. The first two factors belong to the past tense and the last two belong to the future tense. The rest, 8 factors, are involved in the present tense.
There are four layers (Catusankhepa) due to three junctions (Sandhis), among 12 factors. The second junction between Vedanā and Tanhā is more important than the other two. All factors from Avijjā to Vedanā are common to Arahant and all sentient beings.
The past cause gave rise to the present effect; similarly, the present cause will give rise to the future effect. BG described in Vm that the present and future effects are Vinnana, Nāmarāpa, Salāyatana, Phassa and Vedanā. When each effect is analyzed and aggregated, they are the same as five aggregates (Pancakkhandha). Therefore, the two factors, Jati and Jaramarana, are included in P, not out of the circle. The past and present causes have five factors altogether, Avijja, sankhara, tanha, upadana and bhava. In fact, they are the same in member and number.
The Buddha explained the Paticcasamuppada for rejecting permanent soul and Creator or God. According to Paticcasamuppada, everything has its causes. The process can be ceased if the formula is taken in reverse order. Through the complete cessation of Avijjā, Sankhāra cease. Therefore, one can be free from the round of rebirth through the eradication of Avijja. (570 words)
No comments:
Post a Comment