Why did Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
This was after he had translated it from Sinhala to Pali.
I suspect there were competing schools with contradicting commentaries, and this was a move to select one school of thought and eliminate the competition. What's the official reason given for the burning?
Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
Good question
idiotic, and want to hide this embarrassing facts? Anyways in the final result embarrassing
contradictions still exist.
Were they burnt, 'cause they looked too similar to what Vasubandu came up with, yogacara,
that was later assimilated into Mahayana? Or by the Muslim invaders?
Who will ever know? We only know rivalries exist among scholars today, as also
then.
Be well!
We will never know, this will remain an eternal mystery. Did he think the native commentaries tooWhy did Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
This was after he had translated it from Sinhala to Pali.
idiotic, and want to hide this embarrassing facts? Anyways in the final result embarrassing
contradictions still exist.
Official reason? Do we have an official reason for burning of all the Sautrantika stuff?I suspect there were competing schools with contradicting commentaries, and this was a move to select one school of thought and eliminate the competition. What's the official reason given for the burning?
Were they burnt, 'cause they looked too similar to what Vasubandu came up with, yogacara,
that was later assimilated into Mahayana? Or by the Muslim invaders?
Who will ever know? We only know rivalries exist among scholars today, as also
then.
Be well!
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
He didn't burn ALL of them. He burned them because they were wrong and would confuse and delude people.
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
I was trying to find the source of this (that he burned the scriptures). It is not stated in Culavamsa (which contains the main account of Buddhaghosa's life). Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Malalasekera ed.) says that it is stayed in the text called Buddhaghosuppatti. It's not clear when was it written, but probably somewhere between 13th and 16th centuries. That is what DPPN says about it:
In any case, Buddhaghosuppatti indeed says that Buddhaghosa set on fire Sinhalese books, but doesn't give the reason for, simply mentions that the heap of books was as high as seven elephants of middle size.
Also, according to Culavamsa, the teacher of Buddhaghosa (Revata) when sending him to Sri Lanka said that the commentaries in Sinhalese language are faultless, so why would Buddhaghosa burn them if he heard this from his teacher?
Encyclopedia of Buddhism also points out that Buddhaghosuppatti mistakenly states that Buddhaghosa went to Sri Lanka to translate tipitaka itself, which is obviously wrong (it was the commentaries what he translated). So the text is not very reliable.DPPN wrote:Buddhaghosuppatti A very late account of the life of Buddhaghosa; it is more a romance than a historical chronicle. For an account of this see Law, Pāli Lit. 558 f. The work has been translated and edited by Gray (London).
In any case, Buddhaghosuppatti indeed says that Buddhaghosa set on fire Sinhalese books, but doesn't give the reason for, simply mentions that the heap of books was as high as seven elephants of middle size.
Also, according to Culavamsa, the teacher of Buddhaghosa (Revata) when sending him to Sri Lanka said that the commentaries in Sinhalese language are faultless, so why would Buddhaghosa burn them if he heard this from his teacher?
- Lucas Oliveira
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
"Living" spoken languages, like Sinhala and English, are in a constant process of change. Were these old Sinhala commentaries, written perhaps hundreds of years earlier, still understandable to the Sinhala speakers of Buddhaghosa's time?
"Dead" languages like Pali, Sanskrit and Latin were/are better for long term preservation purposes?And if thou kanst nat tellen it anon
Yet shal I yeve thee leve for to gon
A twelf-month and a day to seche and leere
An answere suffisant in this mateere.
-The Canterbury Tales, ca 1400 CE
- confusedlayman
- Posts: 6258
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
- Location: Human Realm (as of now)
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
Vism is correct. kasina practice is bit complicated but vism spoke from experience. im sure he sent himself to nibbana or atleast pure abode.JiWe2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:32 pm "Living" spoken languages, like Sinhala and English, are in a constant process of change. Were these old Sinhala commentaries, written perhaps hundreds of years earlier, still understandable to the Sinhala speakers of Buddhaghosa's time?
"Dead" languages like Pali, Sanskrit and Latin were/are better for long term preservation purposes?And if thou kanst nat tellen it anon
Yet shal I yeve thee leve for to gon
A twelf-month and a day to seche and leere
An answere suffisant in this mateere.
-The Canterbury Tales, ca 1400 CE
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
I heard about a famous Dhammapada glossary written in Sinhala by King Kashayapa-V (914–923 CE) called 'Dampiya Atuva Getapadaya' in which a quote/quotes from 'Ancient Sinhala Atthakata' in Sinhala language are said to be included.
This book's written date is clearly some cencuries later than the Acariya Buddhaghosa.
If it is so, then Sinhala Atthakatha was not burnt.
I'll try to get more information about it.
If there are any Sri Lankan people here, please try to give more details on this regard, if you have time.
This book's written date is clearly some cencuries later than the Acariya Buddhaghosa.
If it is so, then Sinhala Atthakatha was not burnt.
I'll try to get more information about it.
If there are any Sri Lankan people here, please try to give more details on this regard, if you have time.
Here Helatuva means Sinhala Atthakatha (Hela-Atuva = Sihala Atthakatha)BCC
This Dhampiya Atuwa Gatapadaya is a commentary on the Pali Dhamma Padatta Katha. Helatuwa, the source of the Dhamma Pada and the Dhammapada story, has been supported.
wikipedia/Anuradhapura_Kingdom
Only three Sinhala books survive from the Anuradhapura period. One of them, Siyabaslakara, was written in the 9th or 10th century on the art of poetry and is based on the Sanskrit Kavyadarsha. Dampiya Atuva Gatapadaya is another, and is a glossary for the Pali Dhammapadatthakatha, providing Sinhala words and synonyms for Pali words. The third book is Mula Sikha Ha Sikhavalanda, a set of disciplinary rules for Buddhist monks. Both these have been written during the last two centuries of the Anuradhapura period.
Libraries in Sri Lanka in theAncient AnuradhapuraPeriod(pdf)
Also some of the veteran kings had written bookson various subjects during theAnurādhapuraperiod.Sararthasangrahayaby KingBuddhadasa(337-365 A.D.),Jaanakiharanaby KingKumaradasa(508-516 A.D.),Siyabaslakaraby KingSena I(835-853A.D.) andDhampiya Atuwa Gatapadayaby KingKashayapa Vwere well-known literary works among them. These books would have been preserved in the libraries attached tomonasteries and royal libraries during theAnurādhapurakingdom (Ranasinghe, 2006,p.118, text in Shinhala).
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
More counter arguments/evidence:Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
Bhikkhu Sujato
Ven. Nanamoli (Visuddhimagga Introduction):The old commentaries in Sinhalese no longer exist. They seem to have gradually fallen into disuse after Buddhaghosa. There might be some traces of them; I believe the Vinaya commentary in Chinese known as Sudassanavinayavibhasa may have been translated into Chinese from old Sinhala. But in general it seems that Buddhaghosa did as he said: he translated the Sinhala faithfully into Pali—bearing in mind that ancient Sinhala and Pali were closely related anyway—and when that was done the Sangha generally had no need to retain the Sinhalese texts.
Wikipedia:The “popular novel” called Buddhaghosuppatti, which was composed in Burma by an elder called Mahámaògala, perhaps as early as the 15th century, is less dependable.
It has already been remarked that the general opinion of European scholars is that where this imaginative tale differs from, or adds to, the Mahávaísa’s account it is in legend rather than history.
The Buddhaghosuppatti, a later biographical text, is generally regarded by Western scholars as being legend rather than history. It adds to the Mahavamsa tale certain details, such as the identity of Buddhaghosa's parents and his village, as well as several dramatic episodes, such as the conversion of Buddhaghosa's father and Buddhaghosa's role in deciding a legal case. It also explains the eventual loss of the Sinhala originals that Buddhaghosa worked from in creating his Pali commentaries by claiming that Buddhaghosa collected and burnt the original manuscripts once his work was completed.
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
If both sinhala and pali related , why need to destroy the sinhalese texts ? If you dont want something doesnt mean you have to annihilate it .
Bhikkhu Sujato :
The old commentaries in Sinhalese no longer exist. They seem to have gradually fallen into disuse after Buddhaghosa. There might be some traces of them; I believe the Vinaya commentary in Chinese known as Sudassanavinayavibhasa may have been translated into Chinese from old Sinhala. But in general it seems that Buddhaghosa did as he said: he translated the Sinhala faithfully into Pali—bearing in mind that ancient Sinhala and Pali were closely related anyway—and when that was done the Sangha generally had no need to retain the Sinhalese texts.
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
The destroying is mentioned only in the above Buddhaghosuppatti book.
Some old books suggest that the case was otherwise.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:33 am I heard about a famous Dhammapada glossary written in Sinhala by King Kashayapa-V (914–923 CE) called 'Dampiya Atuva Getapadaya' in which a quote/quotes from 'Ancient Sinhala Atthakata' in Sinhala language are said to be included.
This book's written date is clearly some cencuries later than the Acariya Buddhaghosa.
If it is so, then Sinhala Atthakatha was not burnt.
Here Helatuva means Sinhala Atthakatha (Hela-Atuva = Sihala Atthakatha)BCC
This Dhampiya Atuwa Gatapadaya is a commentary on the Pali Dhamma Padatta Katha. Helatuwa, the source of the Dhamma Pada and the Dhammapada story, has been supported.
wikipedia/Anuradhapura_Kingdom
Only three Sinhala books survive from the Anuradhapura period. One of them, Siyabaslakara, was written in the 9th or 10th century on the art of poetry and is based on the Sanskrit Kavyadarsha. Dampiya Atuva Gatapadaya is another, and is a glossary for the Pali Dhammapadatthakatha, providing Sinhala words and synonyms for Pali words. The third book is Mula Sikha Ha Sikhavalanda, a set of disciplinary rules for Buddhist monks. Both these have been written during the last two centuries of the Anuradhapura period.Libraries in Sri Lanka in theAncient AnuradhapuraPeriod(pdf)
Also some of the veteran kings had written bookson various subjects during theAnurādhapuraperiod.Sararthasangrahayaby KingBuddhadasa(337-365 A.D.),Jaanakiharanaby KingKumaradasa(508-516 A.D.),Siyabaslakaraby KingSena I(835-853A.D.) andDhampiya Atuwa Gatapadayaby KingKashayapa Vwere well-known literary works among them. These books would have been preserved in the libraries attached tomonasteries and royal libraries during theAnurādhapurakingdom (Ranasinghe, 2006,p.118, text in Shinhala).
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
My personal opinion is that previous commentaries havefrank k wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:40 pm Why did Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
This was after he had translated it from Sinhala to Pali.
I suspect there were competing schools with contradicting commentaries, and this was a move to select one school of thought and eliminate the competition. What's the official reason given for the burning?
been entered into by personal understanding (false verses).
Similar to nontheravado scriptures where there are
Many nonbuddhist teachings in their scriptures (what
Buddho Gotama didn't said); fake Buddha exalted.
Gwi: "There are only-two Sakaṽādins:
Theraṽādå&Ṽibhajjaṽādå, the rest are
nonsakaṽādins!"
Theraṽādå&Ṽibhajjaṽādå, the rest are
nonsakaṽādins!"
-
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
Yes, this is a problem.Gwi II wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 9:12 amMy personal opinion is that previous commentaries havefrank k wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:40 pm Why did Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
This was after he had translated it from Sinhala to Pali.
I suspect there were competing schools with contradicting commentaries, and this was a move to select one school of thought and eliminate the competition. What's the official reason given for the burning?
been entered into by personal understanding (false verses).
Similar to nontheravado scriptures where there are
Many nonbuddhist teachings in their scriptures (what
Buddho Gotama didn't said); fake Buddha exalted.
- confusedlayman
- Posts: 6258
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
- Location: Human Realm (as of now)
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
may be other commentries are written by scholars who have no personal experience and will misguide buddhist?
even if arhants of todays age want, they can write another commentry but we already have vism so dont need
even if arhants of todays age want, they can write another commentry but we already have vism so dont need
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
-
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am
Re: Why did Vism.'s Buddhaghosa burn all of the Sri Lanka commentaries?
Yes, we wouldn't want a scholar with no personal experience writing a guide that might mislead Buddhists.confusedlayman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:33 pm may be other commentries are written by scholars who have no personal experience and will misguide buddhist?
even if arhants of todays age want, they can write another commentry but we already have vism so dont need
Although your second point is strange; you say we have the Visuddhimagga so we don't need any other commentary. Surely, that principle would apply to the Buddha himself... the supreme teacher.