Dear Jim: I'm reposting this because I noticed after sending it before that
somehow my send setting was no longer on UTF8. Hopefully there should now
be no problem with the text...
Hello Jim,
thanks for that reference. B. C. Law, in "The Life and Work of
Buddhaghosa", does refer to the (Burmese Pāḷi text) Ganthavaṃsa of
Nandapañña and he too summarises this story. But thanks to your reference,
I've now been able to consult the Pāḷi text as well. But I wonder: if this
were really the case, why were not the "Porāṇaṭṭhakathā" also preserved?
Wouldn't they have been of the utmost importance, being composed by the very
members of the Three Councils?
But I must confess that it is all too hard for me to recognise any reliable
means of discerning the difference between 'legend' and 'historically
accurate record' in these matters.
Therefore, I prefer to be especially interested in the textual material
itself. That is something that either is or is not objectively traceable.
According to C. A. F. Rhys Davids, Buddhghosa quotes 21 times from an
"academic tradition" that he calls the Poraṇā and Porāṇakathā, "the talk or
teaching of the men of old". Rhys Davids refers to them as the 'Fathers' of
the Theravāda Sāsana. If this is correct, then I would think that it would
place them in a different category and period from the Councils as such, and
certainly from earliest strata of the texts of the Vināya and Suttanta
Piṭaka.
Petra, in an earlier post on this topic, pointed out that many of these
quotations in Vism have been traced to the Samantapāsādika commentary to the
Vināya (but I should have asked Petra whether they have been traced there as
source text or merely again as quotations! - if you read this Petra, could
you please answer this question?) and that the words "tenāhu porāṇā" also
occur in the Suttanta Piṭaka aṭṭhakathā. That in itself is important and
interesting. However, since the Suttanta commentaries are in the first
instance traditionally ascribed to the hand of Buddhaghosa himself,
while Hinüber
thnks it "unlikely" that Samantapāsādika is by Buddhaghosa's hand, the
problem of the source of the quotations remains open.
As Petra also said in that post, it is possible that the quotations were
once preserved in the Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā, and that this is where Buddhaghosa
found them.
B. C. Law also entertains the idea, as a pure hypothesis "in the absence of
more definite data", that the quotations may have come from some now lost
Porāṇaṭṭhakathā that were quoted in the Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā in their original
Pāḷi form. I am not in a position to judge how plausible such a hypothesis
might be.
But here again, of course, as well-known 'legend/history' has it,
Buddhaghosa based his commentaries on the Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā. As I understand
it, the Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā themselves no longer exist. (I am guessing
that "Sinhala
Atthakatha Series" described at http://www.buddhistcc.net/Attakatha.asp is a
translation of the Pāḷi aṭṭhakathā into Sinhalese?) I have even seen a
reference to a remarkable legend that Buddhaghosa himself burned them after
completing his commentaries. But personally I can only take these many
wonderful stories "cum grano salis".
I would be interested to know whether there is any hard textual evidence
that would support any particular historical location and period for these
passages quoted by Buddhaghosa in Vism. Has anyone made a careful literary,
stylistic, rhetorical, doctrinal, and metrical analysis of these passages
(they are apparently all metrically composed, but I haven't yet examined
every single one of them)?
And just to throw down a wild card: has anyone ever seriously entertained
and tested the hypothesis that perhaps Buddhaghosa himself composed these
passages? Or else, that they were composed much nearer to Buddhaghosa's
time than 'legend/history' supposes? Perhaps in a form and style
deliberately 'imitating' or at least 'evoking' an ancient tradition?
If you or anyone knows of a good hard-core study of this matter, please do
let me know, it really fascinates me!
With warm best wishes and metta,
Khristos
On 6 December 2010 12:59, Jim Anderson <jimanderson_on@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Khristos,
>
> Perhaps related to the term "porāṇā" (the ancients) an interesting
> definition of the term "porāṇācariyā" can be found at the beginning of the
> second pariccheda of the Cūḷaganthavaṃsa (see CSCD, there is also a JPTS
> version). They are the 2200 particpants of the first three great councils
> with the exception of Mahākaccāyana and are also called aṭṭhakathācariyā.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Khristos Nizamis" <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
> To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Buddhaghosa's citations in Visuddhimagga
>
> Dear Petra,
>
> thank you very much for your helpful information; I am following up some of
> your suggestions. Another Pali Study Group member also responded to me
> offline and directed my attention to the section in B. C. Law's work (1923)
> on Buddhaghosa, where Law discusses the question of the 'Poraa.nas' cited
> in
> Vism, and this basically fits with what you have said here.
>
> Best wishes,
> Khristos
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]