Re: email attachments

Thank you so much for your detailed analysis, Petra. I also got some feedback from Ven Anandajoti as follows:

>> I think one thing is that although these have been Marasinghe's themes in earlier works (on Devas and Merit, etc., which I'm sorry to say I never read), still we must see it against a resurgence of Sinhala nationalism since the defeat of the Tigers (nearly every other film made in Lanka these days is an epic about their national heroes).

>> Given that, what is the overarching storyline here? The Sinhalese were in reception of a ‘pure’ Dhamma approved at the 3rd council and carried down faithfully by the Sinhalese until along comes Mr Wicked from S. India (in the form of the great commentator) who immediately manages to overthrow the work of generations, and pervert the Dhamma, and destroy the evidence of it at the same time.

>> Of course, that is nonsense. There is every reason to believe the Ven Buddhaghosa was quite modest and honest in his writings and really was passing on the traditions that had come down mainly in the Mahāvihāra, and there is evidence that the Sinhalese comms were still available until the Tamil invasions at the end of the first millenium.

>> However, if we leave aside the personifications, it is true that Sri Lankan Buddhism was influenced by Indian practices and by the Mahāyāna; this was almost codified with the merger of the three traditions at the time of King Parakramabāhu in the 12th century, and it is this form of the teaching which spread throughout S E Asia, and is what we now know as Theravada.

>> Of course it is no more true to the original teaching that we might expect of a tradition that ultimately goes back two and a half thousand years, but that is another story.

Dhammagãravena
Esako

Dear Saccassa Esako,

sorry for the delay in answering, and also sorry for only having stated 
that I thought this article to be of poor quality. I was travelling, and did
not have the time to answer your question more detailed. On the other hand
this article, which was pointed out to me as a source documenting the 
unreliability of the commentarial literature, has so many flaws  that I thought 
it necessary to make clear that it is not a scientific approach to the topic. 

1. Marasinghe writes that it is not known why the Sinhalese  commentaries had to be translated into Pāli, but he impures  that the Buddhist monks of that time had wanted to keep the knowledge to themselves. Many of the commentators give the reasons. They wanted the texts to be accessible to a wider circle, including also those living in South India who did not necessarily read and speak Sinhalese.

2.  Marasinghe draws the conclusion that the wish of the monks to keep their knowledge to themselves  is the reason why the original Sinhalese commentaries were burnt immediately after the Pali commentaries were completed.

We do not have any proof that the early commentaries ever were burnt or deliberately destroyed one way or other. As I have shown for at least one of the early sources, namely the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it was in use at least till to the tenth century AD. Regarding the other early commentaries (Kurundī, Mahapaccarī, Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, etc.) they are not only quoted by the authors of the aṭṭhakathā layer (among them Buddhaghosa), but also by still younger subcommentators (10th to 13th centuries). Whether these had direct access to the texts or quoted them via the aṭṭhakathās has to be checked for each of them by examining the several hundreds of quotations preserved in the commentaries and subcommentaries, before any such statement as Marasinghe's can be made.

3. Texts fell into oblivion not because they were destroyed, but because they were no longer copied which in a climate as the one in Sri Lanka means that the palm leaves get eaten by insects, etc. Furthermore, it is a natural process that earlier commentaries are buried in oblivion when an authoritative commentary has been written which seems to cover the topic. The same we have with the large convolut of gaṇṭhipada commentaries written between the aṭṭhakathās and the subcommentaries. Most of them were no longer copied when the ṭīkās came into being.

4. Marasinghe accuses Buddhaghosa of having introduced new elements into Buddhism in his commentary to the Jātakas. This commentary is ascribed to Buddhaghosa by tradition, but there are serious doubts that this commentary stems from his pen, which you can read in von Hinüber's Handbook of Pāli Literature.

5. Marasinghe writes that Buddhaghosa in his commentary to the Ratanasutta introduced new elements into Buddhism. Here the same holds true. The commentary to the Suttanipāta where the Ratanasutta is transmitted  is ascribed to Buddhaghosa by tradition, but it certainly is not by Buddhaghosa, but  by a younger author.

I do not want to say that no new elements were introduced into Buddhism in the commentaries  (it would be a miracle if not), but it needs thorough examination of each single topic, and each commentary before one can make such general statements.

Kind regards,
Petra

Am 16.06.2014 um 03:58 schrieb Saccassa Esako bhutavadi@... [palistudy]:

>  
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Can you please elaborate why you think this article is of a very poor quality with many wrong assumptions?
>
> Dhammagãravena
> Esako

Dear Saccassa Esako,

sorry for the delay in answering, and also sorry for only having stated 
that I thought this article to be of poor quality. I was travelling, and did
not have the time to answer your question more detailed. On the other hand
this article, which was pointed out to me as a source documenting the 
unreliability of the commentarial literature, has so many flaws  that I thought 
it necessary to make clear that it is not a scientific approach to the topic. 

1. Marasinghe writes that it is not known why the Sinhalese  commentaries had to be translated into Pāli, but he impures  that the Buddhist monks of that time had wanted to keep the knowledge to themselves. Many of the commentators give the reasons. They wanted the texts to be accessible to a wider circle, including also those living in South India who did not necessarily read and speak Sinhalese.

2.  Marasinghe draws the conclusion that the wish of the monks to keep their knowledge to themselves  is the reason why the original Sinhalese commentaries were burnt immediately after the Pali commentaries were completed.

We do not have any proof that the early commentaries ever were burnt or deliberately destroyed one way or other. As I have shown for at least one of the early sources, namely the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it was in use at least till to the tenth century AD. Regarding the other early commentaries (Kurundī, Mahapaccarī, Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, etc.) they are not only quoted by the authors of the aṭṭhakathā layer (among them Buddhaghosa), but also by still younger subcommentators (10th to 13th centuries). Whether these had direct access to the texts or quoted them via the aṭṭhakathās has to be checked for each of them by examining the several hundreds of quotations preserved in the commentaries and subcommentaries, before any such statement as Marasinghe's can be made.

3. Texts fell into oblivion not because they were destroyed, but because they were no longer copied which in a climate as the one in Sri Lanka means that the palm leaves get eaten by insects, etc. Furthermore, it is a natural process that earlier commentaries are buried in oblivion when an authoritative commentary has been written which seems to cover the topic. The same we have with the large convolut of gaṇṭhipada commentaries written between the aṭṭhakathās and the subcommentaries. Most of them were no longer copied when the ṭīkās came into being.

4. Marasinghe accuses Buddhaghosa of having introduced new elements into Buddhism in his commentary to the Jātakas. This commentary is ascribed to Buddhaghosa by tradition, but there are serious doubts that this commentary stems from his pen, which you can read in von Hinüber's Handbook of Pāli Literature.

5. Marasinghe writes that Buddhaghosa in his commentary to the Ratanasutta introduced new elements into Buddhism. Here the same holds true. The commentary to the Suttanipāta where the Ratanasutta is transmitted  is ascribed to Buddhaghosa by tradition, but it certainly is not by Buddhaghosa, but  by a younger author.

I do not want to say that no new elements were introduced into Buddhism in the commentaries  (it would be a miracle if not), but it needs thorough examination of each single topic, and each commentary before one can make such general statements.

Kind regards,
Petra

Am 16.06.2014 um 03:58 schrieb Saccassa Esako bhutavadi@... [palistudy]:

>  
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Can you please elaborate why you think this article is of a very poor quality with many wrong assumptions?
>
> Dhammagãravena
> Esako