What teachings were introduced by Mahinda? And how did Buddhaghosa's teachings conflict with them?

[zan]

What teachings were introduced by Mahinda immediately after Moggalliputtatissa's refutation of heretical views? And specifically how did Buddhaghosa's teachings conflict with them?

In the commentary on the Dhammasangaṇī, Buddhaghosa makes a very important remark regarding the theory of moments (khaṇa-vāda). He says, “herein, the flowing present (santatipacuppanna) finds mention in the commentaries (atthakathā), the enduring present (addhā-paccuppanna) in the discourses (sutta). Some say (keci vadanti) that the thought existing in the momentary present (khaṇa-paccuppanna) becomes the object of telepathic insight.” This account leaves the upholders of the theory of moments unidentified. The identification was made only by Ānanda, who compiled subcommentaries on Buddhaghosa’s commentaries a few centuries later. The theory, even according to Buddhaghosa, was found neither in the discourses nor in the commentaries preserved at the Mahāvihāra, which Buddhaghosa was using for his own commentaries in Pali. Yet this momentary telepathic insight (khaṇika-samādhi) appears as an extremely important theory in his Visuddhimagga.

Furthermore, Buddhaghosa utilized the theory of moments rather profusely in this and other works, especially in his explanation of the functioning of the mind and of the experience of material phenomena. It is important to note that the application of the theory of moments in explaining insight or intuition was popular in the Mahāyāna schools before and after Buddhaghosa, while its use in the explanation of empirical phenomena was common among the Sarvāstivādins and Sautrāntikas. It is not possible to say whether the monks of the Mahāvihāra were aware of the far-reaching consequences of Buddhaghosa’s adoption of the theory of moments. There is no question that it did change the character of the original teachings introduced by Mahinda immediately after Moggallīputtatissa’s refutation of the heretical views during the third century B.C.
-Kalipuhana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy

[Ontheway]

You can post this topic in General Theravada Discussion Board, there you will find a variety of answers and rejection of both Arahant Mahinda Thera and Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera.

In my understanding, Arahant Mahinda was the student of Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa. After Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa purified the Sangha and preserve the Scriptures, He allowed Arahant Mahinda Thera to bring the Scriptures to Sri Lanka. Arahant Mahinda Thera established Mahavihara, a stronghold of Theravada Buddhism.

Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera was a translator of Atthakatha, from Sri Lanka Sinhalese ancient commentaries preserved in Mahavihara into Pali text.
But from what I see, the way of Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera taught in Visuddhi Magga doesn't in contradiction with Theravada (Vibhajjavada) at all. In fact, having written Visuddhi Magga (using Abhidhammabhajaniya method), he fortified the orthodoxy of Theravada, align with Pali Tipitaka.

[zan]

You can post this topic in General Theravada Discussion Board, there you will find a variety of answers and rejection of both Arahant Mahinda Thera and Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera.

That's the last thing I want. I posted it here because I didn't want to deal with people "answering" it by bashing the abhidhamma, commentary, and essentially trying to discredit everything that is Theravada. I'm nonetheless interested in figuring out what Kalipuhana was talking about, without the conversation going totally off track into the usual attempts to disprove the entire abhidhamma and commentary tradition. Noticing differences between classical teachings is interesting to me, trying to bash and discredit them is not, I think, appropriate. Hence, this is the only subforum for this question, I feel.

In my understanding, Arahant Mahinda was the student of Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa. After Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa purified the Sangha and preserve the Scriptures, He allowed Arahant Mahinda Thera to bring the Scriptures to Sri Lanka. Arahant Mahinda Thera established Mahavihara, a stronghold of Theravada Buddhism.

Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera was a translator of Atthakatha, from Sri Lanka Sinhalese ancient commentaries preserved in Mahavihara into Pali text.
But from what I see, the way of Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera taught in Visuddhi Magga doesn't in contradiction with Theravada (Vibhajjavada) at all. In fact, having written Visuddhi Magga (using Abhidhammabhajaniya method), he fortified the orthodoxy of Theravada, align with Pali Tipitaka.

Thank you! That gives a good framework to the question and was more than I knew. So your opinion would be opposed to Kalipuhana, in that you feel there is no conflict between Mahinda and Buddhaghosa's understanding of the dhamma? Are you familiar with what the supposed conflict is?

[Ontheway]

You can post this topic in General Theravada Discussion Board, there you will find a variety of answers and rejection of both Arahant Mahinda Thera and Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera.

That's the last thing I want. I posted it here because I didn't want to deal with people "answering" it by bashing the abhidhamma, commentary, and essentially trying to discredit everything that is Theravada. I'm nonetheless interested in figuring out what Kalipuhana was talking about, without the conversation going totally off track into the usual attempts to disprove the entire abhidhamma and commentary tradition. Noticing differences between classical teachings is interesting to me, trying to bash and discredit them is not, I think, appropriate. Hence, this is the only subforum for this question, I feel.

In my understanding, Arahant Mahinda was the student of Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa. After Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa purified the Sangha and preserve the Scriptures, He allowed Arahant Mahinda Thera to bring the Scriptures to Sri Lanka. Arahant Mahinda Thera established Mahavihara, a stronghold of Theravada Buddhism.

Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera was a translator of Atthakatha, from Sri Lanka Sinhalese ancient commentaries preserved in Mahavihara into Pali text.
But from what I see, the way of Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera taught in Visuddhi Magga doesn't in contradiction with Theravada (Vibhajjavada) at all. In fact, having written Visuddhi Magga (using Abhidhammabhajaniya method), he fortified the orthodoxy of Theravada, align with Pali Tipitaka.

Thank you! That gives a good framework to the question and was more than I knew. So your opinion would be opposed to Kalipuhana, in that you feel there is no conflict between Mahinda and Buddhaghosa's understanding of the dhamma? Are you familiar with what the supposed conflict is?

To be honest, I am neither familiar with the comments of Kalipuhana on Buddhism, nor his books on Theravada.

But seeing your post about his comment, it seems Kalipuhana argued that Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera introduced the concept of momentariness. But imo, the concept of momentariness was a wordplay. From what I read from Visuddhi Magga, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera explained the Vithi process, or, how consciousness arise, persist, then ceasing in quick sequence within a single moment (can read Khandha Niddesa of Visuddhi Magga, section of Consciousness). And this teaching is well established in Abhidhamma Pitaka (which later also well expounded in Abhidhamattha Sangaha).

I never got a chance to read Atthakatha (very difficult to find a valid translation), but one thing I know is this:

In the Visuddhimagga, phrase such as "Some said" or "Keci Vadanti" was used quite frequently by Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera. But when he said "Keci Vadanti", it means either Abhayagiri sect or non-Mahaviharavasin. So, whenever he uses the phrase "Some said", often Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera immediately comes up with a refutation using either Suttanta or Abhidhamma. You can find one example in Khandha Niddesa of Visuddhi Magga (section of Rupa aggregate). That seems to be his style of writing books on Dhamma.

And in certain section, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera will start with "some said" explaining quite details, but then close up with a notion that the above said shall be taken as a reference (because it was taught by ancient Theravada Mahatheras from one generation to another) but no authority (since was not found in Pali Tipitaka). One example can be found in Visuddhimagga, Chapter 2 - section 96). In this sense, I think Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera was a sincere Dhamma book author, yet stay faithful to Buddha's teachings by all means.

So, I reserve my judgement towards Kalipuhana's argument until I read the Atthakatha in full details.

[zan]

You can post this topic in General Theravada Discussion Board, there you will find a variety of answers and rejection of both Arahant Mahinda Thera and Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera.

That's the last thing I want. I posted it here because I didn't want to deal with people "answering" it by bashing the abhidhamma, commentary, and essentially trying to discredit everything that is Theravada. I'm nonetheless interested in figuring out what Kalipuhana was talking about, without the conversation going totally off track into the usual attempts to disprove the entire abhidhamma and commentary tradition. Noticing differences between classical teachings is interesting to me, trying to bash and discredit them is not, I think, appropriate. Hence, this is the only subforum for this question, I feel.

In my understanding, Arahant Mahinda was the student of Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa. After Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa purified the Sangha and preserve the Scriptures, He allowed Arahant Mahinda Thera to bring the Scriptures to Sri Lanka. Arahant Mahinda Thera established Mahavihara, a stronghold of Theravada Buddhism.

Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera was a translator of Atthakatha, from Sri Lanka Sinhalese ancient commentaries preserved in Mahavihara into Pali text.
But from what I see, the way of Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera taught in Visuddhi Magga doesn't in contradiction with Theravada (Vibhajjavada) at all. In fact, having written Visuddhi Magga (using Abhidhammabhajaniya method), he fortified the orthodoxy of Theravada, align with Pali Tipitaka.

Thank you! That gives a good framework to the question and was more than I knew. So your opinion would be opposed to Kalipuhana, in that you feel there is no conflict between Mahinda and Buddhaghosa's understanding of the dhamma? Are you familiar with what the supposed conflict is?

To be honest, I am neither familiar with the comments of Kalipuhana on Buddhism, nor his books on Theravada.

But seeing your post about his comment, it seems Kalipuhana argued that Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera introduced the concept of momentariness. But imo, the concept of momentariness was a wordplay. From what I read from Visuddhi Magga, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera explained the Vithi process, or, how consciousness arise, persist, then ceasing in quick sequence within a single moment (can read Khandha Niddesa of Visuddhi Magga, section of Consciousness). And this teaching is well established in Abhidhamma Pitaka (which later also well expounded in Abhidhamattha Sangaha).

I never got a chance to read Atthakatha (very difficult to find a valid translation), but one thing I know is this:

In the Visuddhimagga, phrase such as "Some said" or "Keci Vadanti" was used quite frequently by Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera. But when he said "Keci Vadanti", it means either Abhayagiri sect or non-Mahaviharavasin. So, whenever he uses the phrase "Some said", often Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera immediately comes up with a refutation using either Suttanta or Abhidhamma. You can find one example in Khandha Niddesa of Visuddhi Magga (section of Rupa aggregate). That seems to be his style of writing books on Dhamma.

And in certain section, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera will start with "some said" explaining quite details, but then close up with a notion that the above said shall be taken as a reference (because it was taught by ancient Theravada Mahatheras from one generation to another) but no authority (since was not found in Pali Tipitaka). One example can be found in Visuddhimagga, Chapter 2 - section 96). In this sense, I think Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera was a sincere Dhamma book author, yet stay faithful to Buddha's teachings by all means.

So, I reserve my judgement towards Kalipuhana's argument until I read the Atthakatha in full details.

Thanks for your reply. This is where so many of my inquiries die: the commentaries are not easily available.

[Ceisiwr]

The Pāli Text Society has some English translations of commentarial material that you can buy. That’s where I got all of mine from. Not sure if they deliver outside of the U.K., but if you email them they can let you know. They are very helpful.

[zan]

The Pāli Text Society has some English translations of commentarial material that you can buy. That’s where I got all of mine from. Not sure if they deliver outside of the U.K., but if you email them they can let you know. They are very helpful.

Thanks. Is there a text sold by them that specifically covers what Mahinda introduced and how it conflicted with Buddhaghosa?

[Ceisiwr]

The Pāli Text Society has some English translations of commentarial material that you can buy. That’s where I got all of mine from. Not sure if they deliver outside of the U.K., but if you email them they can let you know. They are very helpful.

Thanks. Is there a text sold by them that specifically covers what Mahinda introduced and how it conflicted with Buddhaghosa?

Probably not.

[zan]

The Pāli Text Society has some English translations of commentarial material that you can buy. That’s where I got all of mine from. Not sure if they deliver outside of the U.K., but if you email them they can let you know. They are very helpful.

Thanks. Is there a text sold by them that specifically covers what Mahinda introduced and how it conflicted with Buddhaghosa?

Probably not.

Actually, apologies, I think I misunderstood your post. Are you meaning that you've acquired English translations of the commentaries? If so, which ones?

[Ontheway]

So far, I found Atthasalini and Dhammapada-atthakatha only.

But there are other important books such as Sammohavinodani and Pañcappakaranatthakatha, which is not readily available online.

All Atthakatha books were written by Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera, based on ancient commentaries preserved in Mahavihara such as Maha Atthakatha, Maha Paccari, and Kurundi commentaries.

[zan]

So far, I found Atthasalini and Dhammapada-atthakatha only.

But there are other important books such as Sammohavinodani and Pañcappakaranatthakatha, which is not readily available online.

All Atthakatha books were written by Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera, based on ancient commentaries preserved in Mahavihara such as Maha Atthakatha, Maha Paccari, and Kurundi commentaries.

Thanks!

[mikenz66]

I'd recommend reading Ven Nanamoli's introduction to the Visuddhimagga, which covers a lot of the history of Buddhghosa's organisation of the Commentaries, and also listening to Bhikkhu Sujato's recent talks on the Visuddhimagga: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... hosa/21520. The first talk is only about history and background and of course is not in so much detail as Ven Nanamoli's Introduction.

Of course, there are much more detailed expositions, such as the work by Kalipuhana referenced in the OP. But if you're interested in going to that depth you really need to read the conplete books by Kalipuhana and others, not just look at sound bites. A key question is how much of the Commentaries and Visuddhimagga are Buddhaghosa's opinion, and how much is from the Sinhala commentaries that he was working with. On the face of what he says in the texts, Buddhaghosa mostly organised, rather than created, ideas. It was an amazing achievement to read the Sinhala palm leaves, translate them into Pali, organise the Commentaries, and summarise the key ideas in the Visuddhimagga. Presumably he had quite a lot of clerical assistance, otherwise it would simply not be possible.


Mike

[zan]

I'd recommend reading Ven Nanamoli's introduction to the Visuddhimagga, which covers a lot of the history of Buddhghosa's organisation of the Commentaries, and also listening to Bhikkhu Sujato's recent talks on the Visuddhimagga: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... hosa/21520. The first talk is only about history and background and of course is not in so much detail as Ven Nanamoli's Introduction.

Of course, there are much more detailed expositions, such as the work by Kalipuhana referenced in the OP. But if you're interested in going to that depth you really need to read the conplete books by Kalipuhana and others, not just look at sound bites. A key question is how much of the Commentaries and Visuddhimagga are Buddhaghosa's opinion, and how much is from the Sinhala commentaries that he was working with. On the face of what he says in the texts, Buddhaghosa mostly organised, rather than created, ideas. It was an amazing achievement to read the Sinhala palm leaves, translate them into Pali, organise the Commentaries, and summarise the key ideas in the Visuddhimagga. Presumably he had quite a lot of clerical assistance, otherwise it would simply not be possible.


Mike

Lol! I was just reading a conversation between you and I on another thread where I admitted I need to read the Vism and Abhidhammatta Sangaha intros more often as they answer a lot of questions. It's still true.

Thanks as always for giving me info.

[Ontheway]

Bhante Anandajoti talks about how Sri Lankan Buddhism comes to be.